| Subject: Windows Happens |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 06/ 9/05 7:22pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "I know where." on 05/31/05 10:19pm
>Sorry for the delay. My computer has been out of
>commission.
I've been increasingly busy myself.
>
>Ah, so that implies that ID is untestable because we
>don't know anything about the designer?
Yes, that's quite right.
Not so, for a
>number of reasons. One, even though we know little
>about the designer, modern ID can still make
>empirically testable and falsifiable predictions, as I
>explained earlier.
Not really. It can make some inferences, but the sorts of things you qualify as "falsifiable predictions" build from a host of assumptions about the designer.
Think of the robots on Pluto
>example. Does the fact that we don't have a clue
>about the designer means we should pretend that ID
>isn't the most rational explanation? Obviously not.
Answering your own questions is certainly handy, but the simple answer to this question is YES. If we don't know anything about the designers, then we don't know anything about the sorts of design patterns they might be able to implement. We'd simply be using design patterns with which we are familiar and as a result we'd only be looking for anthropomorphic sorts of design which is fine and dandy, but it's probably safe to say whatever built robots on Pluto is not human, and something that isn't human isn't required to fit into human standards by definition of design or otherwise.
>Why is it applicable for abiogenesis -> designer? ID
>bases its arguments on what we do know about the kind
>of life we see on Earth.
Actually, it bases its arguments on interpreted humanistic criteria of desgin which are subjective and shaky at best.
We know what life is made
>of, and we can examine the problems and barriers
>thereof (e.g. getting functional proteins, RNA, and
>DNA via undirected chemical reactions) or (should ID
>be empirically falsified) ways to get life via
>undirected chemical reactions. This sort of thing
>allows ID to make testable and falsifiable empirical
>predictions.
We know we can emulate however life got here. That's not really all that reassuring that it was designed. After all, we can emulate the way rocks are eroded in sculpture, but that doesn't mean that a scuplter eroded the rocks in the start.
>
>And of course, none of what you said even addresses
>the problems of abiogenesis (an example of which you
>seemed to have ignored)
I don't ignore the problems of abiogenesis, I simply acknowledge that there is a dearth of knowledge concerning many pieces of abiogenesis. Speaking metaphysically about areas where much is unknown does little to increase the actual quantity of knowledge.
>My claim, “It is rational to believe belief X if it is
>highly probable that belief X is true.” Why is this
>statement false? You haven’t, for instance, given a
>counterexample or possible scenario in which the
>antecedent is true but the consequent is false.
No, but I did show that rationality and probability are not necessarily one in the same because the outcome no matter what the probability determines rationality.
Formal logic is a tool, not a shackle.
>
>Nor does what you said refute my criticisms of your
>(purely, it seems) philosophical objections against
>ID. For instance,
ID is categorically in a philosophical position, therefore my arguments are philosophical in nature.
>
>Nor of course does what you said refute my claims
>about ID being empirically falsifiable etc. (whereas
>abiogenesis does not seem anywhere near as
>falsifiable). Nor does it address what I said about
>your imaginary law:
Science does not progress based on how falsifiable a theory is. It's easy enough to make a MORE outrageous claim that is more falsifiable, but that doesn't therefore make it a better theory.
>
>Note again that ID argues from what we do know
>about mathematical probability and observed chemistry,
>whereas abiogenesis here is arguing from laws we
>don't know about and haven't observed.
I don't really see where this is an advantage quite honestly. Just because something argues from what is known doesn't therefore make it better either, particularly if what is ultimately true is unknown.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 