| Subject: Well duh |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/26/05 9:11pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Like philosophical preferences" on 04/26/05 5:10pm
>
>That's not the case. A closer analogy would be
>painting a copy of the Mona Lisa. Scientists can
>indeed make DNA from scratch, as I pointed out before.
Actually, that's not the case either. The problem is that there ISN'T an adequate analogy when it comes to life, but that when we "make" life it isn't the same as "making" other things.
>You’re missing the point. The new theory (ID) will
>have a known means, possible...
But having a known means in this case just sets all the questions back one notch.
>
>On what grounds? The new theory predicts the
>existence of such problems, and the existence of the
>unresolved problems is hardly beneficial to the old
>theory (if anything, their existence is problematic).
I don't think it PREDICTS squat. I think it POSTDICTS what is observable at this particular point in time and then tries to pass them off as predictions.
>So in other words, you just don't like it
>philosophically (the philosophical requirement being
>what you consider to be a "neat way").
No, I don't like it philosophically, but that's beside the point. A theory should help explain data preferably as simplistically as possible. ID doesn't do this. It adds a dimension of complication that is unecessary.
>
>To recap, in this scenario we have one theory
>(artificial creation) that has a known cause and
>mechanisms, whereas the other theory does not
>have a known cause (naturalistic formation) and still
>has many unresolved problems that the other theory
>accounts for and explains.
Except your "known" cause simply sets back all those other questions by a notch. I don't see that as progress.
>
>But we reject the new theory on the basis of it not
>being a "neat" explanation (whatever that means).
Among other things, yes.
>
>On what grounds do you say that? Designing life
>doesn't require the supernatural, it requires a lot of
>intelligence.
Would a designer designing life be a natural process?
Remember, in this scenario we humans
>who have artificially created life without using the
>supernatural.
Kind of begs the question. We have to use whatever started life to begin with be it supernatural or no each time we make life because we didn't exactly develop the blueprints for life.
>
>Modern ID does, else it wouldn't have made the
>falsifiable predictions it makes to begin with.
Really? Then you won't mind telling me who or what or at least what the designer in question is like.
>
>I worded it wrongly. It fits into the chance node
>because of the combination of chance and law makes it
>an intermediate probability, as I explained earlier.
Alright, so the filter says that it is chance, right? That's not correct. It's a combination of chance and law. That is what the filter has to spit out in order to address QM; if it doesn't, it fails.
>
>
>
>
>I've already disproved your counterexample and
>explained why it doesn't work.
Heh. You attempted to. It doesn't hold water though.
>
>Thus your claim has been proven false.
No it hasn't. By definition an inference is NOT rational or irrational. It is NEITHER or BOTH and sometimes ONE or the other.
>
>No, that were not my reasons.
Then perhaps you ought to refresh my memory.
>
>Upon close examination it usually isn't that hard.
>Note the example of the arrowhead and the boot.
Usually isn't always. Life doesn't seem to be a usually, does it?
>
>Big deal. Note the example of robots on Pluto. We
>know humans didn't design it, nonetheless that fact
>becomes irrelevant.
We only know that because you defined it to be true.
The specification and LP
>criterion are still met. Let’s not forget that design
>inferences aren’t limited to humanly created things
>(contrary to what your claims seem to be). You are
>aware of the SETI program, correct?
Yeah. I'm not aware of any aliens designing anything though.
And even if they did, we are only looking for aliens to design things in such a way that we could recognize it as designed by HUMAN standards, and that MAY not be a reasonable expectation.
>
>But it does (in this scenario) mean that ID has a
>known means, whereas the other theory does not
>have a known means and still has many unresolved
>problems that the other theory accounts for and
>explains.
But your known means only set the questions back one step. It doesn't really help explain things better, it just delays the question.
>
>And apart from philosophical preference, there's
>apparently no reason not to accept ID.
If you say it enough times, maybe it'll come true.
Suppose the predictions of the new
>paradigm (ID) continue to be confirmed, and the old
>paradigm still has its unresolved problems that the
>new paradigm accounts for and explains. How long
>should we put up with the current paradigm’s
>unresolved problems before we switch to the new
>paradigm that solves (and even predicts) those kinds
>of problems?
How long should we take aspirin before we switch to willow bark?
How many more decades of fruitless
>research in resolving the problems with the current
>paradigm should continue before accepting ID?
>Thirty years? A century? Never?
I'll buy it when willow bark goes over the counter. (I'd rather have it fresh from the tree)
>
>For you, it’s beginning to look a lot like “never.”
No, as I've clearly stated above, when willow bark goes over the counter, I'll be more than happy to accept ID. Now your statement stands disproven.
>
>So I take it then that no matter how long ID's
>predictions are confirmed, no matter how long the
>problems remain unresolved, the new paradigm should
>never be accepted? It will never be "better"?
First, let's make something clear. ID is not a NEW paradigm. It's an old paradigm with some new paint. Furthermore, ID is not in the same league with other theories because it makes things more complicated than necessary. (a creator, a reason to create, expectations of that creation, why it created in the first place etc.)
>Even if the new paradigm has a known cause and
>mechanisms, whereas the other theory does not
>have a known cause (naturalistic formation) and will
>still have many unresolved problems that the other
>theory accounts for and explains, it should not be
>accepted? No matter how long this goes on?
It'd be different if ID explained the data in some better way other than "Oops, a designer did it that way."
>
>Why wouldn't be "better"? Because you just don't like
>it philosophically?
No, because its ability to explain sucks quite frankly.
>
>The new paradigm (ID) doesn't appeal to
>supernatural causes. Let's get that straight right
>now.
So the creation of life is just a regular normal occurence?
>
>Perhaps not, but the theory does predict that such
>problems would exist nonetheless, like it or not.
It postdicts them, like it or not.
>>No, there isn't, but when that theory picks and
>>chooses certain initial conditions, it becomes awfully
>>suspect.
>
>In that case, all theories are suspect.
Nah, not all theories fine tune the initial conditions in just such and such a way so that outcome A emerges as the most likely candidate. That's strictly an ID thing.
T
>
>Nice accusation, but it doesn't address the point I
>made. Abiogenesis does not appear to be falsifiable.
Sure it is. If the designer of life comes down, it'd be pretty hard to still adhere to abiogenesis.
>
>Problems with the theory? That's okay, because there
>are solutions to those problems and we just haven't
>discovered them yet.
Could be the case, but I don't think that's the attitude held by scientists much as you would like to think.
That is the general attitude
>towards abiogenesis, a perfect example of tenacity.
General according to who? Chick tracts?
>>
>
>Apart from that--and time travel observations etc.
>What reasonable scientific observation with
>life itself and natural processes be made to
>falsify it? What non-fantastical observation could be
>made?
I think that's a pretty reasonable scientific observation. The designer of life comes down, has a chat, verifies he/she designed the thing...that's pretty compelling.
>
>And so long as the designer doesn't come down, we can
>stick with the old paradigm no matter how long the
>unresolved problems exist, no matter if there is a new
>paradigm that predicts the existence of such problems
>etc.?
If it's the best we can do and adding a designer doesn't HELP explain the data...
>
>And even then it isn't clear that this
>observation would falsify the theory. All one would
>have to do is say, "That's not the designer, he's
>lying!"
That's true even of the predictions ID makes. Any one of them can ALWAYS be explained away. That's a given. This really isn't a valid objection.
>
>As opposed to rejecting organic evolution. Now please
>answer my question.
Rejecting it for WHAT?
>
>I didn't think you could point to another. You do
>remember the game of inference to the best
>explanation, right?
Oh, but you are playing the game of pandering to ignorance.
Which do you like better beating your wife with a stick or beating her with a hose?
>
>You can make that claim all you like, but it isn't a
>valid reason to reject the theory.
Sure it is. I reject salesmen all the time because I know their motives are to sell me something. ID isn't any different in that regard.
The stated motive
>for Newton in his theories was to promote belief in
>God.
True, but Newton lived in an era where that was how science WAS practiced globally. It wasn't reduced to a situation where hard sells were the norm. The times they are a changin.
But that didn't make the theories themselves
>religious or illegitimate.
No, but then again the situation is different these days, and ID is hardly half the theory gravity is.
>
>Additionally, we must assess the theory itself,
>not its adherents. The content of the theory itself
>is not religious. It makes no appeals to a deity or
>the supernatural.
No, you are right. Those things have been stripped out, but it's little suprise to learn that all the promulgators are themselves religious.
It's like having someone telling you all about the benefits of a brand new telephone and them not confessing that that are salesmen/women. Sooner or later you wonder "Why are they telling me all about this phone" and the motives for doing that throw into doubt the legitimacy of everything they've said. ID'ers have lost legitimacy.
>>
>>And why would any designer besides a human have cause
>>to use the same pieces over and over?
>
>I have explained this before, e.g. convenience.
Ah, so NOW you are talking about qualities of the designer. We learn from this example that he's lazy or at the very least doesn't want to have to redo what he's done. Now why would that be? He doesn't have to design like we do at all. He COULD in theory design any way he pleases.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 