|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4798 days) Posts: 360 From: Phoenix Arizona USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: too intelligent to actually be intelligent? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hi, anastasia.
Oldtimers will know who I am talking about. Karl Crawford was (and is...he's recently popped up again at NAiG as "Curious George") an especially dimwitted creationist poster on evolution/creationism debate forums. He doesn't even understand basic scientific principles and is very unamenable to explanation on even these basic matters -- which is what makes him amusing. Karl's favorite phrase is "evo-babbler" and ending messages with
NEXT which is why IC reminded me of him. Now, I don't actually think IC is Karl. For one thing, Karl mostly cuts'n'pastes the exact same messages again and again. Also, Karl's messages are full of caustic insults, far more risible than IC's. (Of course, when Curious George first showed up on NAiG, he was extremely polite -- but the old instincts couldn't be suppressed for long, and good ol' Karl finally manifested himself.) Anyway, this is all off-topic -- just wanted to explain the "in-joke". Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Ringo writes: That's just the point: Nothing impacts on what's beyond our horizon. If there is "existence outside of the physical universe", it could be anything, any speculation, any hallucination. We have nothing to go on. Your "God" is no more valid than my Tooth Fairy. Your "Intelligent Designer" is no more valid than my Tinker-Toy Kid. Maybe my Intelligent Designer doesn't exist, but on the other hand there have been billions of people over the centuries that would agree with me that He does. Can you name me anyone over the age of 5 who believes the tooth fairy exists? From a scientific point of view that of course proves nothing but from a philosophical point of view it gives the position credibility.
Ringo writes: What's woo-woo is what hasn't been discovered (yet). Radio was woo-woo a hundred-odd years ago. Steam power was woo-woo in the Middle Ages. Intelligent Design will be woo-woo until you find something to unwoo-woo it. Radio is physical. It can be scientifically tested and verified. I don't think anybody including myself is suggesting that the IDer is physical, therefore by your criteria an IDer can never be un-woo-wooed.
Ringo writes: Sure. And we might learn something about unicorns or hobbits too. But the first step in learning about something is not conceding that it "might" exist. The first step is deciding where to look for it. Any suggestions? To be honest I do but that isn't the subject of this thread and in addition I do have a life outside of EvC and I've already dialoguing with 4 of you guys just on ID. I must be on to something as I seem to have attracted a swarm of you heathens. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5953 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Chiroptera writes: Karl's favorite phrase is "evo-babbler" and ending messages with NEXT which is why IC reminded me of him. Now, I don't actually think IC is Karl. Well, thanks for 'in'-cluding me! I wonder why the quotations around IC's post anyway? And I didn't actually think it was Rob.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes: ... there have been billions of people over the centuries that would agree with me that He does. What's that fallacy again about appeal to popularity?
From a scientific point of view that of course proves nothing but from a philosophical point of view it gives the position credibility. How can a philosophical point of view have any credibility unless it relates to the real world?
Radio is physical. We didn't know that until we could detect it. Before it was detected, how was it different from your "supernatural"?
I don't think anybody including myself is suggesting that the IDer is physical.... If you don't know what it is, how can you know if it's physical or detectable? It seems to me that your "supernatural" is just a galloping goalpost designed to never be detectable. (And by the way, I think IDers do grudgingly admit that their Intelligent Designer could be a physical super-alien. They shy away from "supernatural" causes to avoid being labeled a religion.)
I must be on to something as I seem to have attracted a swarm of you heathens. And there's that I-must-be-right-because-you-disagree-with-me fallacy. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
crashfrog writes: Why wouldn't the origins of our existence, being something that happened here in the physical universe, be a matter for scientific inquiry? I agree. If science can find the solutions to these questions all the more power to the scientists who can do it. It hasn't happened yet and until and if they do the question remains open. We can go for "God of the Gaps', or Science of the Gaps". We can all take our pick as to which is most reasonable.
crashfrog writes: Did Plato ever test his conjectures against reality? No. That was, in fact, the specific reasoning that he rejected. It still doesn't mean he is wrong, only that it can't be verified scientifically. I recently read "The God Particle", (Higg's boson, nothing theological about it), by Leon Lederman. He talks a lot about the ancient philosopher Democritus who forecast the basis of QM hundreds of years ago.
crashfrog writes: So clearly somebody's wrong. The problem with philosophy and theology is that they have no idea who it is. In science, we eventually find out. There are lots of grey areas in the world. I agree that science and math is attractive for the reasons you give. I like the certainty that 2+2=4. You can count on it so to speak. Unfortunately life isn't always like that.
crashfrog writes: Won't your actions prove it? Not necessarily. Maybe I'm really nice to her because she's loaded. There is no scientific test for or measurement of love. It's another one of those grey areas like philosophy. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Ringo writes: What's that fallacy again about appeal to popularity? I don't offer it as any kind of conclusive evidence. All it means is that it has a degree of credibility that the tooth fairy doesn't.
Ringo writes: How can a philosophical point of view have any credibility unless it relates to the real world? On the assumption my beliefs are correct it very much relates to the real world.
Ringo writes: We didn't know that until we could detect it. Before it was detected, how was it different from your "supernatural"? There was never any question about the fact that radio was a natural phenomena.
Ringo writes: If you don't know what it is, how can you know if it's physical or detectable? It seems to me that your "supernatural" is just a galloping goalpost designed to never be detectable. Maybe it is detectable but I'm inclined to think not. As I've said I'm just trying to sort out what I believe is truth like everybody else. Like they say; "It Ain't Science".
Ringo writes: And there's that I-must-be-right-because-you-disagree-with-me fallacy. Sounds like a rock-solid argument to me. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes: All it means is that it has a degree of credibility that the tooth fairy doesn't. No, it's based on exactly the same logic as the tooth fairy. Hence, equivalent credibility.
On the assumption my beliefs are correct it very much relates to the real world. You can't just assume your beliefs are correct. That's the antithesis of a real-world connection.
There was never any question about the fact that radio was a natural phenomena. Of course there was. Lightning was once thought to be supernatural. Fire was once thought to be supernatural. The god of the gaps keeps shrinking as we learn more about the gaps. Edited by Ringo, : Reconjugation. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Ringo writes: No, it's based on exactly the same logic as the tooth fairy. Hence, equivalent credibility. OK If you say so.
Ringo writes: You can't just assume your beliefs are correct. That's the antithesis of a real-world connection. It was an assumption to make a point. Let's assume your views are correct then. Now I would agree that it doesn't relate to the realworld. Ringo writes: The god of the gaps keeps shrinking as we learn more about the gaps. Gaps may keep shrinking but it seems the more we learn the more we realize that we don't know. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: If it is an ancient red dragon, my money's on her.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: That's not what I believe. My position is that there is no evidence that there is anything beyond the physical. There very well might be something beyond the physical, but as there's no way to test for it, we can't know. People who say they know are, literally, making it up. Personally, I'd rather not know something than believe in something that isn't knowable just because I want or need to believe it.
quote: Not all of the philosophers, since not all philosophers base their philosophy exclusively on non-science. Daniel Dennett, Thomas Kuhn, and Michael Ruse are all Philosophers that I have read and not dismissed (in fact, they are all authors you should read, in my opinion).
quote: That's great. There's no rational or logical basis to those beliefs, but you are welcome to them.
quote: If by "at an impasse", you mean that you have been unable to support any of the substantive claims that you've made in this thread, then I guess we are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes: Let's assume your views are correct then. Now I would agree that it doesn't relate to the real world. Huh?
Gaps may keep shrinking but it seems the more we learn the more we realize that we don't know. On the other hand, we do know a lot that we thought we would never know. The more we close the gaps, the less excuse there is for thinking there is something we cannot know. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If science can find the solutions to these questions all the more power to the scientists who can do it. I thought you said it wasn't a scientific question?
We can go for "God of the Gaps', or Science of the Gaps". We can all take our pick as to which is most reasonable. To argue from this basis would be an argument from ignorance, which I won't engage in, but it's clear that science has a track record of disproving explanations of natural phenomena by divine providence. But, hey. I guess the God guys can't be wrong all the time, right? (Or maybe they can...)
It still doesn't mean he is wrong, only that it can't be verified scientifically. It means he's worse than wrong - he's unfalsifiable. Look, anybody can make up an infinite number of statements that can't be disproven, by definition. I could sit here all day and imagine traits about Invisible Ninjas from Beyond the Universe, and there would be no empirical evidence you could bring that would prove me wrong. But who on Earth would confuse that with a process of truth-gathering? Making stuff up? The predominant characteristic of things that are made up is that they usually don't turn out to be true. It's only when you restrict yourself to the evidence that you stand a chance of getting it right.
There are lots of grey areas in the world... These are just platitudes. Life's uncertainty isn't an open license to make up whatever you want and act like you've just discovered a truth.
There is no scientific test for or measurement of love. It's another one of those grey areas like philosophy. I disagree. Love, like anything else, is detectable by its effects. Gravity makes me fall. Love makes me rise again. The dilation of my pupil and the rise in heart rate give the lie to your position that love is something we can't detect. And that's not even getting into love's observable biochemical effects on the brain. The existence of love in humans can't be denied, and it's certainly not something that's a great mystery to science. It's a common platitude to assert that something or another is "beyond the reach of science." Thankfully scientists don't usually listen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Excuse me, but you've got things wrong here. Math, and religion actually, are "certain". Math is, like religion, a bunch of axioms that one adheres to to participate in the activity. Science, on the other hand, is totally Gray Area Land. It is never completely certain of anything as a fundamental operational tenet. If you were truly comfortable with "gray areas" in life, you would stick with methodological naturalism to tell you what is rational, instead of hanging your certainty of faith on the idea of an Intelligent Designer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
dupe post
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
nator writes: My position is that there is no evidence that there is anything beyond the physical. nator writes: If by "at an impasse", you mean that you have been unable to support any of the substantive claims that you've made in this thread, then I guess we are. The thing is I have supported my position but then nothing of what I have provided is verifiable scientifically so you don't accept it as evidence. Let me know though when you find scientific proof of love or hate, beauty or ugilness, joy or sorrow, pride or shame etc. Edited by GDR, : sp Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024