Science Programs on Radio, TV and Internet

Thanks for the links, P.Bertrand Russell seems to have been influenced by James to the extent that he no longer thought that a “relation” could be ultimate given the ramifications that James’ presented. Russell in the end did not think that knowing could influence what is known. Who is Livy now?It seems to me the whole problem is one of “order”. Quine insisted on Russell’s types being not so useful because they relied on one order. Dawkins and Attenbourough’s objection to ID seems to be a possible extension of Russell’s paradox solution IF HIGHER LEVEL LOGICAL STUCTRUES were typed. Then ID might be able to explain itself and become “science”. This ?might? be possible if my attempt to link as univocal dyadic relation and a dyad underlying a perversion is true.

quote:

---

Set Theory and its Logic by Quine and THE MAGIC FLUTE

---

I do not know. The double barbed hook however does have this pictured line above in my opinion. While the positive proposition may not be science the propositional function may be thus possible.I did see how your perspective on DI was presented. Miller’s solution about the US public deciding however seems off the mark to me. The issue of public and private *data* will continue, if I am correct and Russell not, that knowing does influence what is known. That difference separates what is universal (ultimate) from images public or private from phantoms due to bad grammar or wrong biology. The problem is that a general proposition where an apparent variable then has constituents needs to have a form and we are not seeing this made explicitly by IDers but I DO NOT THINK THAT EVOS HAVE DONE THE LOGIC on ONE ORDER of creatures changing. There are as many ”arragnements’ as there are taxonomic specialists. This is like how Russell thought about multiple physics theories. That is why I argue for ONE LINE through my AVATAR not one for icythologists, one for mammalologists one for herpetologists and one for ornithologists.As for evolution he only said a ”dog’ gives him the “image” of a SPECIES.Edited by Brad McFall, : No reason given.Edited by Brad McFall, : No reason given.

Kinda recall that we are not supposed to post comments on the links here?If not sorry, not to do again.I did see most of it today. Thanks.Scott said that “pattern”, “process” and common descent(ancestry) are empirics derived from three different types”” of data. Pattern and process were twins that were being discussed in contradistinction to pattern, process and behavior and appeared as “buzz” sounds, evolution just was, in the 80s. Scott had submerged “descent from a common ancestor” under behavior within Kant’s difference of knowledge ex datis or ex principiis.How else could it be that Dembski wanted ID to be an alternative to Kirsher and Gerhart who wrote from the book Dembski got on the way to the debate,

quote:

---

“Though modern scientists may have questioned the completeness of the theory of evolution, few believed that the fundamentalprinciples(bold added) of variation and selection would not in the end explain the diversity of life. Certain groups, however, particularly active in the United States, have exaggerated and fabricated weaknesses . (The Plausibility of Life page 264)”

---

Dembski invoked the difference of private and public (data) instead. This is divided by Kant in “The Metaphysical Elements of Justice”. No one has updated the legislative angle of Kant’s individualistic work given Russell’s discussions of when and when not an object can be in one or more places at the same time (relevant to “explain the diversity of life” (“a distinction which divides entities into three classes (a) those which are not in any place, (b) those which are in one place at one time, but never in more than one, (c) those which are in many places at once. “ “Logic and Knowledge page 106).So Scott by allowing each biologist to pronate a different view of pattern or process and possess by specialty different collected/collectable data (levels) have the same public datum of descent with modification but were supposed to be privy to different private data where instead of the existence of the different types of data there had to be a KNOWLEDGE from the principle.That is the only way she can sustain that there is no contention over the existence of form-making and translation in space as ONE whole. There can be but there need not be in principle. Dembski was mistaken to invert the principle and data if he did so ( I did not listen to is whole approach) because it is the pattern(empirical) and process(rational or a posteriori or simply remembered) that speaks for the form of the descent but whether it is common or not(multiple origins vs separate orgins of life vs separate special creations, finite or infinite) no current analysis of the data can ensure. He may have remained wholly rational but then pattern may falsify his claim.We all shape our own personal horizons. There may be different series of data to divide discussion of evolutionary concepts but this is not what Scott said. Will Provine for instance thought in the 71 that population genetics theory was intriguing with potential but by 2001( in his new preface to his book on the History of Population Genetics) felt it an impediment to learning. If data series had been developed he would have had no reason to feel this. By 87 Levin and Kaufmann wrote it all off to “numerical methods”. I could not find anyone even thinking it by then.Symbolic Logic unfortunately has become less subtle rather than more and talking heads rule the day.