| Subject: Hooked on semantics |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 06/15/05 6:38pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "ID is at least based on evidence; as for abiogenesis..." on 06/15/05 11:17am
But I do say that we can have
>rational reason for our beliefs in the
>limitations of nature, even though we cannot
>absolutely prove it.
If you mean to say that we can extrapolate inferences about what nature can and cannot do based upon our rather limited experience of nature, alright.
Extrapolating is dangerous territory though, and anytime that it's done at least in professional academic fields something is said along the lines of "We realize that the data we have extrapolated could well be erroneous." As far as I can tell, you don't seem to be maintaining that sort of intellectual integrity.
>
>Yes, life is far more complex and has an even more
>massive digital language encoded within it.
I don't think life is accurately described as a "langauge". It is convenient that "language" is something that is a commonly known to be of human design.
You claimed
>that we weren't in a position to know what nature can
>and cannot reasonably do.
And we aren't except with regards to what we make.
That is simply false, and I
>have provided counterexamples.
No, you pointed to things that we "know" are made by people.
My principle of
>detecting design ("nature is not reasonably capable of
>producing X") is sound and applied all the time.
It may be applied all the time, but that doesn't make it sound. An absence of knowledge concerning what nature is capable of doesn't a sound argument make.
>
>Again, we look to see if ID's falsifiable predictions
>match up with the data.
A prediction based on an absence of evidence isn't much of a prediction.
>
>As opposed to abiogenesis, where the leaps are made
>from non-existent evidence?
No, that's quite like ID actually. Saying we'll NEVER find a mechanism for the formulation of life is simply standing on the lack of a mechanism; and as I said, standing on a lack of evidence for a prediction isn't much of a prediction at all.
>The "assumption" of ID is that artificial intervention
>is necessary; that the currents of nature are not
>reasonably sufficient.
Right, ID bases it's arguments on an ABSENCE of a known mechanism. Saying things like "I predict we will NEVER see lawn gnomes paint the galaxy" is not a good prediction for obvious reasons.
How would you show that belief
>is wrong? An experimental demonstration showing a
>known possible means life could have been created
>without artificial intervention would do the trick.
And exactly what would constitute "non-artificial intervention"?
>But as predicted, we have found no such means and
>instead a number of nasty barriers of popped up over
>the many years of origin-of-life research.
Yeah, you are harping on a "no known means" and then you turn it around and say ID argues based upon actual evidence when in reality it argues from an absence thereof.
>
>Basing your abiogenesis beliefs on "unknown things"
>doesn't really help your argument, especially when
>you're extrapolating this into extraordinary
>circumstances where they likely don't belong.
The difference between us though is that I don't claim to limit reality with my theory. You apparently do.
>
>I asked exactly what kind of experiment would show
>that it wasn't possible.
The same kind that'll show that a mechanism "will never be found".
>
>And why is this the case? Why are significant
>barriers to the undirected chemical formation of
>functional proteins, RNA and DNA a problem for
>all theories?
Not the specific issues. The general ones about proofs for scientific theories.
>
>Now perhaps you can see why I invoked counterexamples,
>instances in which we have good reason to believe that
>nature isn't reasonably capable of producing certain
>things (Rosetta Stones, automobiles, etc.).
Which are all examples in which we know that people can make. We haven't really ascertained whether or not life is something that only we can uniquely make.
>
>Extraordinary or not, you didn't answer my questions.
>Was it rational to infer design in the 17th century?
>Would it be rational to accept design in the late 20th
>century?
Your hypothetical question is rather meaningless in this instance because of its inherent impossibility...
>
>And therefore we can throw out known chemistry if it
>coincides with a competing theory we don't like?
Throw it out? Nah. Use it only tentatively? Yes.
>
>Well, yes.
So do you suppose that MAYBE out of those possiblities nature MIGHT be able to make proteins?
>
>So...extrapolating non-existent data into
>extraordinary circumstances is better? When it comes
>to inference to the best explanation, I think
>theories based on evidence are better.
But you don't really have one based on evidence. You have one based on an ignorance of a known mechanism.
>
>Call it an unwarranted extrapolation if you like, but
>at least ID is based on evidence, as opposed to
>e.g. unknown, undiscovered laws.
It bases itself on ignorance of a known mechanism. I don't see how that's any better.
>
>So the fact that ID's known mechanism includes a
>designer makes the mechanism unlikely? That's a bit
>of question begging.
It carries with it a bunch of metaphysical baggage and unecessarily mental gymnastics when generally means that a theory isn't worth much further consideration.
>
>But if that thing (let's call it Y) actually happened,
>then X is no longer highly probably true. We
>have new evidence that Y is highly probably true.
Once something occurs, its probability is irrelevant. It's simply certain. Probabilities are only useful BEFORE an event happens because once they happen it's done.
>
>Let's call X not winning the lottery, and Y winning
>the lottery. It is highly probably true that I will
>not win the lottery. But suppose Y happens. Then X
>is no longer highly probably true, because it
>is now highly probably true that I have won the
>lottery (i.e. it is now highly probable that Y is
>true).
No, it isn't highly probably true, it's just what happen. No probability needed.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 