The Dixie Challenge....

[AnyOldIron]

An invalid argument is an argument where the conclusion cannot be reached from the premises.

So ET is an invalid argument? Nothing has been concluded from the premise, and can't be, really. We can conclude that things change over time, that things do 'evolve' through various process, but we can't conclude this explains origin, or discount any other possible explanation. That would be illogical.

You really aren't understanding this are you?

In philosophy, when presented with an argument, you boil it down to a conclusion (what the argument is saying) based on a series of premises (supporting evidence or argument).

For example You could present the argument: 'Look around you at the complex things in the office. Could any of those be there without a designer? Is the natural world any less complex? Could the natural world be there without a designer?'

A philosopher would look at this argument and break it down into a conclusion and supporting premises.

P. All complex things in the human world are designed.
P. The natural world is infinitely more complex than items in the human world.
Ergo, the natural world is designed.

We would then analyse this syllogism...

The two premises are undoubtably supported a posteriori, so we can say that they are sound. However the argument is logically invalid, simply because the conclusion cannot be drawn from the premises. It is making the assumption by drawing a comparison between human created items and the natural world. In short, it is non-sequiter.

As for ET, the predictions made by the hypotheses that make up the theory are tested constantly against evidence, and are found to be far more reliable than notions of ID, which don't make predictions to test and are based on logical fallacies.

It is not that people claim ET is absolute knowledge, just that it is knowledge that has overwhelming evidence to support it, and the prospective alternatives are based on, well, nothing...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

See Arnold, you've painted yourself into a corner here. You have argued that we can never "know" anything, yet you claim you "know" there is no God and we weren't products of an Intelligent Designer. How can this be? You also claim to "know" we evolved from single cells, and not Intelligent Design, again... How is this possible to "know" if we can't "know"?

Of course, you will point to "the evidence" which supports you theory, but if we can't "know" anything, and we can only make predictions, this evidence is irrelevant. It doesn't confirm anything or support any concept, it is just random things that happened over time.

I happen to believe that we do know some things, and by no stretch do we know everything. Some of the things we know, indicate that evolution happened, but to what extent we are still unsure. We know there are serious problems with the timeline of supposed Darwinian evolution, and there has never been any evidence to truly support human evolution. Some of the things we know, indicate the work of a designer, from irreducible complexity and DNA, to the tiny propulsion motors recently found in microbial life. We know that mankind is the only species with a profound and distinct connection with spirituality, and has been this way since as far back as we have a record. We know that, even in this day of science and information, 95% of the human species still demonstrates a profound connection to spirituality.

Now, I realize you have stripped yourself of the constraints of common sense, and I can appreciate that, but you have to realize that you really have no argument left here. You've demonstrated clearly, the only way to refute intelligent design, is to construct a premise which also destroys evolution theory, and scientific principle in general. And the only way to believe in evolution theory as fact while refuting intelligent design, is to abandon common sense, and science as well.

 

[AnyOldIron]

An invalid argument is an argument where the conclusion cannot be reached from the premises.

So ET is an invalid argument? Nothing has been concluded from the premise, and can't be, really. We can conclude that things change over time, that things do 'evolve' through various process, but we can't conclude this explains origin, or discount any other possible explanation. That would be illogical.

You really aren't understanding this are you?

In philosophy, when presented with an argument, you boil it down to a conclusion (what the argument is saying) based on a series of premises (supporting evidence or argument).

For example You could present the argument: 'Look around you at the complex things in the office. Could any of those be there without a designer? Is the natural world any less complex? Could the natural world be there without a designer?'

A philosopher would look at this argument and break it down into a conclusion and supporting premises.

P. All complex things in the human world are designed.
P. The natural world is infinitely more complex than items in the human world.
Ergo, the natural world is designed.

We would then analyse this syllogism...

The two premises are undoubtably supported a posteriori, so we can say that they are sound. However the argument is logically invalid, simply because the conclusion cannot be drawn from the premises. It is making the assumption by drawing a comparison between human created items and the natural world. In short, it is non-sequiter.

As for ET, the predictions made by the hypotheses that make up the theory are tested constantly against evidence, and are found to be far more reliable than notions of ID, which don't make predictions to test and are based on logical fallacies.

It is not that people claim ET is absolute knowledge, just that it is knowledge that has overwhelming evidence to support it, and the prospective alternatives are based on, well, nothing...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

P. All complex things in the human world are designed.
P. The natural world is infinitely more complex than items in the human world.
Ergo, the natural world is designed.

This is an oversimplified presentation, and intentionally constructed in an abstract to make your absurd point. It's cute, it's clever, but it's not based in fact or reality. You can repeat it over and over, and claim that someone is making this imbecilic argument, and that you are so intelligent you are able to shoot it down in refutation without even using a big word, but that doesn't make it so. You've really not even begun to address my points, or offer any explanation for the evidence I raised. Of course, the lack of common sense might be your problem, but I don't know, since I can't have absolute knowledge.... it's my theory for now.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You really aren't understanding this are you?

Oh yes, I've been understanding it! You want to argue that science explains everything about evolution, and that is a fact, but then when it comes to intelligent design, science takes a back seat to philosophy, and is not allowed to speak. We can know everything empirically about evolution, but when it comes to intelligent design, there is no absolute knowledge or common sense.

I understand, you are an atheist who knows a lot of fancy scientific words, and you think if you throw them out a lot, it will intimidate people into not questioning you when you say really stupid things. I understand you have to take this approach, because people who have abandoned common sense, say really stupid things a lot.

In the end, I understand the same thing I understood when this thread began, that evolution probably did happen, and it was probably one of the tools used by the intelligent designer. I can't prove this is so, and you can't prove it isn't, and trying to spin and manipulate language is not going to ever prove anything.

 

[AnyOldIron]

See Arnold, you've painted yourself into a corner here. You have argued that we can never "know" anything, yet you claim you "know" there is no God and we weren't products of an Intelligent Designer. How can this be? You also claim to "know" we evolved from single cells, and not Intelligent Design, again... How is this possible to "know" if we can't "know"?

I haven't painted myself into a corner, on the contrary, I am explaining, in as simple terms as I can, how it is still possible to assess and analyse the strengths of an idea despite the impossibility of absolute knowledge. That absolute knowledge is impossible doesn't mean that all ideas are equal.

We analyse the strengths of an argument based on its logical validity and by comparing its predictions with a posteriori evidence.

When a philosopher looks at the idea of ID, the first and most glaring point noticed is that it is based on a non-sequiter logical fallacy (see my above explanation of this). We then look at the evidence proposed to support it. The first is Irreducible Complexity, the notion created by Harry Behe. This states that the component parts of an organism are essentially useless without each other and thus it must have some form of design. This is again a logical fallacy, assuming that apparently irreducible parts equates to design, and it also ignores the possibility of evolutionary functional change. The second 'area' of evidence used to support ID is the notion that apparent patterns equate to design (again, logical fallacy based on assumption).

When analysed, the idea of ID is found to be unsupported, weak and feeble.

According to your above argument, the lack of the possibility of absolute knowledge makes all ideas valid, would you approve of phrenology being given equal status as forensics in criminology?

 

[AnyOldIron]

P. All complex things in the human world are designed.
P. The natural world is infinitely more complex than items in the human world.
Ergo, the natural world is designed.

This is an oversimplified presentation, and intentionally constructed in an abstract to make your absurd point. It's cute, it's clever, but it's not based in fact or reality. You can repeat it over and over, and claim that someone is making this imbecilic argument, and that you are so intelligent you are able to shoot it down in refutation without even using a big word, but that doesn't make it so. You've really not even begun to address my points, or offer any explanation for the evidence I raised. Of course, the lack of common sense might be your problem, but I don't know, since I can't have absolute knowledge.... it's my theory for now.

Dixie, do you realise that you have said precisely nothing in this above paragraph?

All you have done is stick your fingers in your ears and said 'Just because you say its so doesn't mean it is so'.

You claim the above syllogism is an oversimplification... present your own syllogism...

 

[AnyOldIron]

Oh yes, I've been understanding it! You want to argue that science explains everything about evolution, and that is a fact, but then when it comes to intelligent design, science takes a back seat to philosophy, and is not allowed to speak. We can know everything empirically about evolution, but when it comes to intelligent design, there is no absolute knowledge or common sense.

I have explained how, in the face of the reality that absolute knowledge is unattainable, it is possible to study the strengths of ideas. Science has epistemologically demonstrated itself to be a far more reliable method of analysing ideas than sheer faith. I have explained how the ideas of ID are based on logical fallacy and not supported a posteriori and as such is weak as an idea. You don't like this, simple as that, yet you fail to present any arguments to support your argument.

Yah booing doesn't work.

I understand, you are an atheist who knows a lot of fancy scientific words, and you think if you throw them out a lot, it will intimidate people into not questioning you when you say really stupid things. I understand you have to take this approach, because people who have abandoned common sense, say really stupid things a lot.

Don't be intimidated, Dixie. If there is a term (most are philosophical, not scientific) that you don't understand, ask.

All you are doign here is playing the man, not the ball...

In the end, I understand the same thing I understood when this thread began, that evolution probably did happen, and it was probably one of the tools used by the intelligent designer. I can't prove this is so, and you can't prove it isn't, and trying to spin and manipulate language is not going to ever prove anything.

So what you are saying is that despite any argument, anything that is said, you have your fixed ideas.

You are a dogmatist. If you aren't willing to challenge your preconceived notions then you offer no more philosophical insight than a mindless drone...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I haven't painted myself into a corner, on the contrary, I am explaining, in as simple terms as I can, how it is still possible to assess and analyse the strengths of an idea despite the impossibility of absolute knowledge. That absolute knowledge is impossible doesn't mean that all ideas are equal.

All ideas are equally irrelevant, as is thought. There is no purpose to think if you can't know. I love philosophical platitudes!

We analyse the strengths of an argument based on its logical validity and by comparing its predictions with a posteriori evidence.

Except in the case of intelligent design, where common sense and this scientific principle go out the window, and we wax philosophical again. I get it! I don't understand why you don't think I do!

When a philosopher looks at the idea of ID, the first and most glaring point noticed is that it is based on a non-sequiter logical fallacy (see my above explanation of this). We then look at the evidence proposed to support it.

"non-sequiter logical fallacy" is a concluded condition, and when you first look at something with an already concluded condition, they have a word for that... I'm sure you know that word, and a few $2 synonyms for it as well. And Why is it, we are letting the philosopher look at intelligent design instead of the scientist? We've already determined the philosophical question to both ET and ID, it says that we can't 'know' anything absolutely, therefore neither theory is valid, nor is the evidence to support them, in fact it isn't even evidence because we can't know with absolution. I think we need to keep the philosopher from looking at either of these theories, if we are to have a fair debate.

The first is Irreducible Complexity, the notion created by Harry Behe. This states that the component parts of an organism are essentially useless without each other and thus it must have some form of design. This is again a logical fallacy, assuming that apparently irreducible parts equates to design, and it also ignores the possibility of evolutionary functional change. The second 'area' of evidence used to support ID is the notion that apparent patterns equate to design (again, logical fallacy based on assumption).

This is a complete misinterpretation of what Dr. Behe wrote, as well as the theory of Intelligent Design. Perhaps it is because you started with a prejudiced and closed mind, and with a philosopher rather than a scientist?

Irreducible Complexity is too complex to fully discuss here, but it goes much deeper than the simplistic tribute you gave. Here is a good link to explain Irreducible Complexity.

In The Origin of Species Darwin stated:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

A system which meets Darwin's criterion is one which exhibits irreducible complexity. By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional. Since natural selection requires a function to select, an irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would have to arise as an integrated unit for natural selection to have anything to act on. It is almost universally conceded that such a sudden event would be irreconcilable with the gradualism Darwin envisioned. At this point, however, 'irreducibly complex' is just a term, whose power resides mostly in its definition. We must now ask if any real thing is in fact irreducibly complex, and, if so, then are any irreducibly complex things also biological systems.

Animation of a Cilium

Cilia are hairlike organelles on the surfaces of many animal and lower plant cells that serve to move fluid over the cell's surface or to "row" single cells through a fluid. In humans, for example, epithelial cells lining the respiratory tract each have about 200 cilia that beat in synchrony to sweep mucus towards the throat for elimination. A cilium consists of a membrane-coated bundle of fibers called an axoneme. An axoneme contains a ring of 9 double microtubules surrounding two central single microtubules. Each outer doublet consists of a ring of 13 filaments (subfiber A) fused to an assembly of 10 filaments (subfiber B). The filaments of the microtubules are composed of two proteins called alpha and beta tubulin. The 11 microtubules forming an axoneme are held together by three types of connectors: subfibers A are joined to the central microtubules by radial spokes; adjacent outer doublets are joined by linkers that consist of a highly elastic protein called nexin; and the central microtubules are joined by a connecting bridge. Finally, every subfiber A bears two arms, an inner arm and an outer arm, both containing the protein dynein.

But how does a cilium work? Experiments have indicated that ciliary motion results from the chemically-powered "walking" of the dynein arms on one microtubule up the neighboring subfiber B of a second microtubule so that the two microtubules slide past each other (Figure 2a and b). However, the protein cross-links between microtubules in an intact cilium prevent neighboring microtubules from sliding past each other by more than a short distance. These cross-links, therefore, convert the dynein-induced sliding motion to a bending motion of the entire axoneme.

Now, let us sit back, review the workings of the cilium, and consider what it implies. Cilia are composed of at least a half dozen proteins: alpha-tubulin, beta-tubulin, dynein, nexin, spoke protein, and a central bridge protein. These combine to perform one task, ciliary motion, and all of these proteins must be present for the cilium to function. If the tubulins are absent, then there are no filaments to slide; if the dynein is missing, then the cilium remains rigid and motionless; if nexin or the other connecting proteins are missing, then the axoneme falls apart when the filaments slide.

What we see in the cilium, then, is not just profound complexity, but also irreducible complexity on the molecular scale. Recall that by "irreducible complexity" we mean an apparatus that requires several distinct components for the whole to work. My mousetrap must have a base, hammer, spring, catch, and holding bar, all working together, in order to function. Similarly, the cilium, as it is constituted, must have the sliding filaments, connecting proteins, and motor proteins for function to occur. In the absence of any one of those components, the apparatus is useless.

The components of cilia are single molecules. This means that there are no more black boxes to invoke; the complexity of the cilium is final, fundamental. And just as scientists, when they began to learn the complexities of the cell, realized how silly it was to think that life arose spontaneously in a single step or a few steps from ocean mud, so too we now realize that the complex cilium can not be reached in a single step or a few steps. But since the complexity of the cilium is irreducible, then it can not have functional precursors. Since the irreducibly complex cilium can not have functional precursors it can not be produced by natural selection, which requires a continuum of function to work. Natural selection is powerless when there is no function to select. We can go further and say that, if the cilium can not be produced by natural selection, then the cilium was designed.



It is not that people claim ET is absolute knowledge, just that it is knowledge that has overwhelming evidence to support it.

This is not the case. It would be great for you if it were! But, sorry, this just isn't factually accurate at all. You have no evidence to support the theory that we evolved from another species or a single cell, or that this is how all life originated. In fact, some of your previous predictions made by Darwin theory, have proven to be false. In the name of Science, I let you slide on that one, because according to you, that should have invalidated ET altogether, but I think it still has some merit for consideration.

 

[AnyOldIron]

All ideas are equally irrelevant, as is thought. There is no purpose to think if you can't know. I love philosophical platitudes!

That isn't a philosophical platitude, it is merely an unsupported statement. If you were reading, and comprehending what I have written, you would recognise that I am saying that whilst absolute knowledge is unattainable, all ideas are not equally irrelevant, they vary in strengths and support.

You are clearly massively out of your depth if you are coming up with mickey-mouse strawmen like above..

Except in the case of intelligent design, where common sense and this scientific principle go out the window, and we wax philosophical again. I get it! I don't understand why you don't think I do!

What has common sense got to do with anything?

As for scientific principle, with ID this does indeed go out of the window. They present no testable hypothesis, provide no evidence to support their claims, don't submit their claims to scientific scrutiny and base their hypothesis on a 200 year old logical fallacy. ID doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny because it is merely a notion, not a scientific theory.

"non-sequiter logical fallacy" is a concluded condition, and when you first look at something with an already concluded condition, they have a word for that... I'm sure you know that word, and a few $2 synonyms for it as well. And Why is it, we are letting the philosopher look at intelligent design instead of the scientist? We've already determined the philosophical question to both ET and ID, it says that we can't 'know' anything absolutely, therefore neither theory is valid, nor is the evidence to support them, in fact it isn't even evidence because we can't know with absolution. I think we need to keep the philosopher from looking at either of these theories, if we are to have a fair debate.


You are presenting strawman arguments, because of your lack of ability.

I haven't claimed that because absolute knowledge is unattainable all theories and supporting evidence is invalid.

I stated that even with the unattainability of absolute knowledge, it is still possible to evaluate the strengths of an argument and assess its worth.

The rest of your waffle about philosophers not addressing origins shows your severe lack of philosophical ability, philosophers have addressed origins questions since philosophy began.


This is a complete misinterpretation of what Dr. Behe wrote, as well as the theory of Intelligent Design. Perhaps it is because you started with a prejudiced and closed mind, and with a philosopher rather than a scientist?

Rather than cut and paste the notion of ID, why not explain HOW it is a misinterpretation of Behe's notion of irreducible Complexity.... If you can...

Behe states that because it appears that the component parts of an organism cannot operate without the other component parts, this is a manifestation of design. Do you deny this, and if so, in what way... (not copy and paste - explain in your own words.)

This is not the case. It would be great for you if it were! But, sorry, this just isn't factually accurate at all. You have no evidence to support the theory that we evolved from another species or a single cell, or that this is how all life originated. In fact, some of your previous predictions made by Darwin theory, have proven to be false. In the name of Science, I let you slide on that one, because according to you, that should have invalidated ET altogether, but I think it still has some merit for consideration.

You claim that there is no evidence of speciation through evolutionary processes?

Here's a simplified demonstration of the evidence from Berkeley U...

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_45

What you are claiming is that there is no evidence because you percieve speciation through evolutionary processes as not being directly observable. Not only is this a criteria you fail to put to your own concepts but a failing to understand how time affects species. You are also incorrect that speciation through evolutionary processes isn't directly observable....

"Observed instances
Polyploidy is observed in many species of both plant and animal:

wheat
Salsify or goatsbeard
Cichlids of Lake Victoria, Lake Tanganyika and Lake Malawi
Xenopus laevis, an African toad "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Observed_instances

 

[AnyOldIron]

Hey, just because you want to continue to misconstrue what Einstein was saying about making assumptions, and refuse to have common sense, doesn't mean we all have to be devoid of common sense. Common sense generally always follows logic. It's too bad you have refuted common sense, you might actually have been a smart human being, what with all the big words you know. It's a shame you've abandoned common sense, and have some warped idea in opposition to it, but I would really recommend you stop misusing that line, you come off as a complete and utter moron who has no common sense, and you are perfectly fine with that.

You bandy the term 'common sense' about, but what is common sense to you?

Are you denying the Einstein quote that 'common sense is the accumulation of prejudices acquired by age 18'? In what way have I misconstrued it?

Don't just make statements, Dixie, back them up....

 

[AnyOldIron]

My mousetrap must have a base, hammer, spring, catch, and holding bar, all working together, in order to function.

Not Behe's tired old mousetrap chestnut...

Excuse the copy and paste... but..

Reducibility of "irreducible" systems
Potentially viable evolutionary pathways have been proposed for allegedly irreducibly complex systems such as blood clotting, the immune system[37] and the flagellum,[38][39] which were the three examples Behe used. Even his example of a mousetrap was shown to be reducible by John H. McDonald.[5] If irreducible complexity is an insurmountable obstacle to evolution, it should not be possible to conceive of such pathways—Behe has remarked that such plausible pathways would defeat his argument.

Niall Shanks and Karl H. Joplin, both of East Tennessee State University, have shown that systems satisfying Behe's characterization of irreducible biochemical complexity can arise naturally and spontaneously as the result of self-organizing chemical processes.[40][41] They also assert that what evolved biochemical and molecular systems actually exhibit is "redundant complexity"—a kind of complexity that is the product of an evolved biochemical process. They claim that Behe overestimated the significance of irreducible complexity because of his simple, linear view of biochemical reactions, resulting in his taking snapshots of selective features of biological systems, structures and processes, while ignoring the redundant complexity of the context in which those features are naturally embedded. They also criticized his over-reliance of overly simplistic metaphors, such as his mousetrap. In addition, it has been claimed that computer simulations of evolution demonstrate that it is possible for irreducible complexity to evolve naturally.[42]

It is illustrative to compare a mousetrap with a cat, in this context. Both normally function so as to control the mouse population. The cat has many parts that can be removed leaving it still functional; for example, its tail can be bobbed or it can be spayed. Comparing the cat and the mousetrap, then, one sees that the mousetrap (which is not alive) offers better evidence, in terms of irreducible complexity, for intelligent design than the cat. Even looking at the mousetrap analogy, several critics have described ways in which the parts of the mousetrap could have independent uses or could develop in stages, demonstrating that it is not irreducibly complex.[5]

Moreover, even cases where removing a certain component in an organic system will cause the system to fail do not demonstrate that the system couldn't have been formed in a step-by-step, evolutionary process. By analogy, stone arches are irreducibly complex—if you remove any stone the arch will collapse—yet we build them easily enough, one stone at a time, by building over scaffolding that is removed afterward. Similarly, naturally occurring arches of stone are formed by weathering away bits of stone from a large concretion that has formed previously.

Evolution can act to simplify as well as to complicate. This raises the possibility that seemingly irreducibly complex biological features may have been achieved with a period of increasing complexity, followed by a period of simplification.

It may be that irreducible complexity does not actually exist in nature, that the examples given by Behe and others are not in fact irreducibly complex, but can be explained in terms of simpler precursors. There has also been a theory that challenges irreducible complexity called facilitated variation. The theory has been presented in 2005 by Marc W. Kirschner, a professor and chair of Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, and John C. Gerhart, a professor in Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley. In their theory, they describe how certain mutation and changes can cause apparent irreducible complexity. Thus, seemingly irreducibly complex structures are merely "very complex", or they are simply misunderstood or misrepresented.

This doesn't even take into consideration the possibility of functional evolution....

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

...you would recognise that I am saying that whilst absolute knowledge is unattainable, all ideas are not equally irrelevant, they vary in strengths and support.

Again, my ability to recognize what you are saying is not in doubt. I clearly understand you want to establish a double standard to judge ID and ET, and evaluate accordingly. You have no intention of being intellectually honest about it, and have basically already admitted your bias and prejudice has tainted your judgement.

Ideas can not vary in strengths and support without absolute knowledge, it is impossible. I am not arguing that ideas can not vary in strength and support, but I think that proves absolute knowledge exists, otherwise there would be no variance in strength and support other than personal perceptions.

You are clearly massively out of your depth if you are coming up with mickey-mouse strawmen like above..

Excuse me, but you were the one who diverted the debate from science into philosophy, I was perfectly happy to leave it confined to science. I was only addressing your mickey mouse strawman.

What has common sense got to do with anything?

This one might make it into the DPQM. Common sense is what keeps us from wandering around in the yard like chickens. It keeps us from making stupid decisions, or saying stupid things. It's what tells us that 10 gallons of water will not fit in a 1 gallon jug. It essentially keeps us from accepting and believing things that aren't practical or logical. I know this flies in the face of what you believe, but I think a lot of people give great deference to common sense reasoning. In this debate, and every debate.

As for scientific principle, with ID this does indeed go out of the window. They present no testable hypothesis, provide no evidence to support their claims, don't submit their claims to scientific scrutiny and base their hypothesis on a 200 year old logical fallacy. ID doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny because it is merely a notion, not a scientific theory.

No, it doesn't go out the window unless you refute common sense and prejudice your mind from the outset. When you make up your mind that something is invalid before you even begin to examine it, you've not applied the scientific method at all, you've simply discarded something on the basis of your personal perceptions. Yes, the same testable hypothesis exists for ID as for ET. There is no logical fallacy or mere notion, except the one you created when you immediately prejudiced yourself against ID, and the ID concept has been around since the origins of man, as best we can tell.

You are presenting strawman arguments, because of your lack of ability.

No, I'm really not, I didn't interject the philosophical argument that we can never have absolute knowledge, that was your strawman. I think the sight of me ripping your strawman to pieces in front of your face just made you think it was mine.

I haven't claimed that because absolute knowledge is unattainable all theories and supporting evidence is invalid. I stated that even with the unattainability of absolute knowledge, it is still possible to evaluate the strengths of an argument and assess its worth.

You don't have to claim it, this becomes a logical fact, and to deny a logical fact, becomes logical fallacy. If you state that absolute knowledge is impossible, then any theory or obtainable evidence is invalid because we can not rely on it being absolute. You can't have it both ways. Either we DO have some absolution in knowledge, by which we make determinations about the evidence and give weight and support to various ideas, or we DON'T have absolution, and all these things become invalid and irrelevant.

The rest of your waffle about philosophers not addressing origins shows your severe lack of philosophical ability, philosophers have addressed origins questions since philosophy began.

Again, I wasn't the one who introduced philosophy.

Behe states that because it appears that the component parts of an organism cannot operate without the other component parts, this is a manifestation of design.

That's not what I read. My take is, he is saying that the complexity or number of complexities involved in living things, are irreducibly complex. In the days of Darwin, we didn't understand how things worked, we could imagine an eye being the product of an evolution process over time, for example. We could theorize this because we observed lesser life forms with photo-sensitive spots which acted as 'eyes', and assumed that this might explain how the eye evolved. Yet, in the 21st century, we know and understand how the eye works, and this previous concept is not valid. Photo-sensitive spots do not operate or function in the same manner as an eye, and could have never 'evolved' into what we know to be a human eye. In fact, there is no explanation of how a system dependent on several other systems to work, could have ever evolved, because it is irreducible. In other words, take it back an evolutionary step, and it simply doesn't function. A group of cells and chemicals in a membrane can't think or rationalize, so they would be unable to know what parts to develop to be able to do a particular function. A photo-sensitive spot is not going to rationalize that it needs a pupil, cornea and retina, if it's ever going to be able to see properly. To "believe" this so, you have to abandon common sense, which you have done.


You claim that there is no evidence of speciation through evolutionary processes?

No, I understand there is some speciation through evolution, wolves and dogs would be a good example. I am stating that you have no evidence to support speciation in humans.

*<cough>*

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Are you denying the Einstein quote that 'common sense is the accumulation of prejudices acquired by age 18'? In what way have I misconstrued it?

You have misconstrued it by taking what he said to the literal extreme. He is not refuting common sense, he is making a commentary on people who remain ignorant by claiming 'common sense' as their only justifying logic for belief. Much as you do with ID. To simply make the assumption that ID doesn't meet your criteria for validation, thus it is invalid, is the kind of ignorance and stubbornness Einstein was addressing.

Of course, I have no problem with you misconstruing Einstein, or refuting common sense, in fact, I think it makes it easier for me to debate you, if I can just keep you on the topic, and away from the philosophical platitudes.

 

[uscitizen]

give it up Dix , you are way out of Anyolds league....

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

give it up Dix , you are way out of Anyolds league....

I agree, but I only think that is because he has abandoned common sense. Arnold seems to have a little intelligence and knowledge, even if he doesn't realize some of it is absolute. I admit, it is kind of pointless to argue with someone who isn't confined by common sense, it reminds me of something my grandfather once said; If you win an argument with an idiot, what have you really won?

I actually place Arnold slightly above you, he will at least post more than a sentence or two, and he doesn't seem to mind articulating a point, even though it's completely invalid. You seem to avoid deep conversation at all costs, probably because you are not very smart or don't have the mental capacity to articulate your points. Which is fine, we always need people like you to chime in and chortle some meaningless jab, it breaks the monotony here.

 

[AnyOldIron]

...you would recognise that I am saying that whilst absolute knowledge is unattainable, all ideas are not equally irrelevant, they vary in strengths and support.

Again, my ability to recognize what you are saying is not in doubt. I clearly understand you want to establish a double standard to judge ID and ET, and evaluate accordingly. You have no intention of being intellectually honest about it, and have basically already admitted your bias and prejudice has tainted your judgement.

Ideas can not vary in strengths and support without absolute knowledge, it is impossible. I am not arguing that ideas can not vary in strength and support, but I think that proves absolute knowledge exists, otherwise there would be no variance in strength and support other than personal perceptions.

I am not attempting to create a double standard for ID and ET, that is my point. They are both judged by the same criteria. But put ET and ID aside, and address the point of whether ideas (or knowledge) can vary in strength and support without absolute knowledge.

Let's transpose it to a different scenerio. A detective is investigating a murder. He has many methods open to him which can provide evidence to help him, though none can give him absolute knowledge of the murderer (even forensics only can be correct in the high 90%ile). He looks at the methods available and compares two ideas, say phrenology and forensics. Looking at the two methods, he can judge the quality of the knowledge they can provide. Forensics provides substantial evidence that is highly reliable, whilst phrenology provides evidence that is based on little more than myth.

So, even with the knowledge of the impossibility of the existence of absolute knowledge, it is still possible to judge the quality of knowledge. This is the philosophical pursuit known as epistemology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

Excuse me, but you were the one who diverted the debate from science into philosophy, I was perfectly happy to leave it confined to science. I was only addressing your mickey mouse strawman.

Science is an integral part of philosophy, as is sociology, theology, psychology, politics and mathematics. Philosophy has no limits to its juristiction.

What has common sense got to do with anything?

This one might make it into the DPQM. Common sense is what keeps us from wandering around in the yard like chickens. It keeps us from making stupid decisions, or saying stupid things. It's what tells us that 10 gallons of water will not fit in a 1 gallon jug. It essentially keeps us from accepting and believing things that aren't practical or logical. I know this flies in the face of what you believe, but I think a lot of people give great deference to common sense reasoning. In this debate, and every debate.

You attributing the actions of reason to this thing called common sense. It is reason and memory that keeps us from wandering around in the yard like chickens or from thinking that 10 gallons of water will fit in a 1 gallon jug.

Common sense is merely 'what the herd believes', independent of reason. In medieval times, it was 'common sense' that the Earth was flat, the majority of people believed it. It just didn't seem practical that the Earth could be a globe.

As for scientific principle, with ID this does indeed go out of the window. They present no testable hypothesis, provide no evidence to support their claims, don't submit their claims to scientific scrutiny and base their hypothesis on a 200 year old logical fallacy. ID doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny because it is merely a notion, not a scientific theory.

No, it doesn't go out the window unless you refute common sense and prejudice your mind from the outset. When you make up your mind that something is invalid before you even begin to examine it, you've not applied the scientific method at all, you've simply discarded something on the basis of your personal perceptions. Yes, the same testable hypothesis exists for ID as for ET. There is no logical fallacy or mere notion, except the one you created when you immediately prejudiced yourself against ID, and the ID concept has been around since the origins of man, as best we can tell.

Again, you are hiding your concept of ID behind accusations that it is written off out of hand, but this is really just throwing up chaff.

It is simply a non-sequiter argument to state that because complex things in the human world are designed, all complex things are designed. The conclusion isn't reached from the premises. If you think you can make it fit, instead of hiding behind accusations of prejudice, present a syllogism that demonstrates the validity of the argument.

The same testable hypothesis do not exist for both ET and ID. A hypothesis is the prediction made by the notion itself, ID and ET are seperate notions and should create their own hypothesis to test against evidence. Because this 'designer' is supernatural, it is impossible for ID to create a testable hypothesis.

I haven't claimed that because absolute knowledge is unattainable all theories and supporting evidence is invalid. I stated that even with the unattainability of absolute knowledge, it is still possible to evaluate the strengths of an argument and assess its worth.

You don't have to claim it, this becomes a logical fact, and to deny a logical fact, becomes logical fallacy. If you state that absolute knowledge is impossible, then any theory or obtainable evidence is invalid because we can not rely on it being absolute. You can't have it both ways. Either we DO have some absolution in knowledge, by which we make determinations about the evidence and give weight and support to various ideas, or we DON'T have absolution, and all these things become invalid and irrelevant.

You are making up terminology as you go along. A 'logical fact'? Ha ha ha!

Your argument basically summises to 'if we can't have absolute knowledge, all knowledge is invalid. I'll leave the misuse of terminology (invalid means logical fallacy not something that is wrong, absolution means to absolve of sins).

Imagine you have a friend at the local stables, who gives you a tip on a horse race. You also are given a tip for the same race from your five year old son, who picks the horse from the paper because of his name. You cannot know absolutely who will win the race but when you are considering who to back at the bookies, the tip given by the stablehand is knowledge that is far stronger and more substantial than the tip from your son.

Behe states that because it appears that the component parts of an organism cannot operate without the other component parts, this is a manifestation of design.

That's not what I read. My take is, he is saying that the complexity or number of complexities involved in living things, are irreducibly complex. In the days of Darwin, we didn't understand how things worked, we could imagine an eye being the product of an evolution process over time, for example. We could theorize this because we observed lesser life forms with photo-sensitive spots which acted as 'eyes', and assumed that this might explain how the eye evolved. Yet, in the 21st century, we know and understand how the eye works, and this previous concept is not valid. Photo-sensitive spots do not operate or function in the same manner as an eye, and could have never 'evolved' into what we know to be a human eye. In fact, there is no explanation of how a system dependent on several other systems to work, could have ever evolved, because it is irreducible. In other words, take it back an evolutionary step, and it simply doesn't function. A group of cells and chemicals in a membrane can't think or rationalize, so they would be unable to know what parts to develop to be able to do a particular function. A photo-sensitive spot is not going to rationalize that it needs a pupil, cornea and retina, if it's ever going to be able to see properly. To "believe" this so, you have to abandon common sense, which you have done.

You have essentially replicated what I said, that Behe claims that because it appears that the component parts of an organism cannot operate without the other component parts, this is a manifestation of design.

Behe's argument falls down because he ignores functional evolution, that the function of the component part changes with genetic mutation. Behe usually reels out the mousetrap analogy in support of his idea, although I could point you to McDonald's refutation of this (research chance for you).

As for functional evolution, check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

The eye itself presents a significant knock to the idea of an intelligent designer. The eye is in fact, extremely inefficient, the photocells being the wrong way round. If the eye is evidence of design, it is the equivilent of design by a drunken Albanian welder.

You claim that there is no evidence of speciation through evolutionary processes?

No, I understand there is some speciation through evolution, wolves and dogs would be a good example. I am stating that you have no evidence to support speciation in humans.

Why do you believe that wolves and dogs shared a common ancestor, and not humans and other great apes? It can't be a genetic comparison, the genetic comparison between humans and Chimps is a close as that between wolves and dogs? It can't be physiological. Nor can it be ethological.

So what, aside from sentiment for your own species, makes you differentiate between humans and other species?

Are you denying the Einstein quote that 'common sense is the accumulation of prejudices acquired by age 18'? In what way have I misconstrued it?

You have misconstrued it by taking what he said to the literal extreme. He is not refuting common sense, he is making a commentary on people who remain ignorant by claiming 'common sense' as their only justifying logic for belief. Much as you do with ID. To simply make the assumption that ID doesn't meet your criteria for validation, thus it is invalid, is the kind of ignorance and stubbornness Einstein was addressing.

Of course, I have no problem with you misconstruing Einstein, or refuting common sense, in fact, I think it makes it easier for me to debate you, if I can just keep you on the topic, and away from the philosophical platitudes.

You are putting words into Einstein's mouth. Are you denying that Einstein is capable of speaking for himself? If Einstein meant to address those who 'remain ignorant by claiming 'common sense' as their only justifying logic for belief' (something you have done with ID), why did he not say so?

Why did he say that 'common sense' is an accumulation of prejudices, not those who 'remain ignorant by claiming 'common sense' as their only justifying logic for belief' are an accumulation of prejudices etc etc?

As for your comments on ID, I am not setting the criteria for judging the quality of knowledge, epistemology does. I don't make the rules of logic, or the criteria for scientific approval.

You cannot present an argument, and when it is compared to standard criteria, whine that people are picking on you just because the argument is found wanting...

 

[AnyOldIron]

I agree, but I only think that is because he has abandoned common sense. Arnold seems to have a little intelligence and knowledge, even if he doesn't realize some of it is absolute. I admit, it is kind of pointless to argue with someone who isn't confined by common sense, it reminds me of something my grandfather once said; If you win an argument with an idiot, what have you really won?

I actually place Arnold slightly above you, he will at least post more than a sentence or two, and he doesn't seem to mind articulating a point, even though it's completely invalid. You seem to avoid deep conversation at all costs, probably because you are not very smart or don't have the mental capacity to articulate your points. Which is fine, we always need people like you to chime in and chortle some meaningless jab, it breaks the monotony here.

I find that you are articulate Dixie, but the substance in your argument just isn't there. You hide behind pathos-laden rhetoric, strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks and chaff throwing. With many people, this bluster is enough to make them think that the debate isn't worth having, but seeing through this isn't hard, and if someone is patient enough (or pedantic enough in my case) to wade through this, it is easy to argue against.

I only wish I didn't have to work at the same time as arguing with you, with sufficient time to respond, this would become a bloodbath. As it is, I have to keep my replies concise. Count yourself lucky....

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I am not attempting to create a double standard for ID and ET, that is my point. They are both judged by the same criteria. But put ET and ID aside, and address the point of whether ideas (or knowledge) can vary in strength and support without absolute knowledge.

Oh, I know you are judging them both by the same criteria, your tainted and biased opinion. You believe in Science, therefore, scientific theories become fact to you. Subsequently, you don't believe in God, so anything related to God is tossed out on its face, and never considered. You are absolutely correct, you use the same standard, your biased and tainted opinion.

Let's transpose it to a different scenerio.

Okay, I'll play... but just to prove a point...

A detective is investigating a murder. He has many methods open to him which can provide evidence to help him, though none can give him absolute knowledge of the murderer (even forensics only can be correct in the high 90%ile). He looks at the methods available and compares two ideas, say phrenology and forensics. Looking at the two methods, he can judge the quality of the knowledge they can provide. Forensics provides substantial evidence that is highly reliable, whilst phrenology provides evidence that is based on little more than myth.

You simply can't argue that we "know" this or that is most likely, has more weight, is more valid, than something else, without proving we do have some absolute knowledge. If we didn't, we couldn't "know" anything! What would give something "more weight" or validity, if you have no absolute knowledge of something? Isn't it simply an assumption or perception of "more weight" then?

How can the detective make any determination if the knowledge he possesses is not absolute? How can forensics provide evidence if the knowledge is not absolute? How can he compare methods without making an absolute determination about which is best or worst, and how can he do this without any absolute knowledge? At some point, he has determined that forensics have validity, and phrenology has less, but he can't make this determination if knowledge is not absolute, it's impossible. If that were the case, there would be no difference in the two, one would be as predictable as the other in theory, because nothing is absolute. In fact, without absolute knowledge, the law of odds would dictate the most likely answer to any problem, would be the one which comes up the least. You can only flip a coin twice and get heads, before the odds of the next flip being tails is greatest, and with each flip of heads, those odds go up substantially more. So, without absolute knowledge, the odds would dictate any solution to be the one least realized.

Believe it or not, I understand what you have said in the context of a science lab. As a scientist studying something in the lab, it is important to keep an open mind, and assume that knowledge is not absolute. Which is why I think you are not being very scientific in your approach to ID, you've assumed your knowledge to be absolute. You've also decided that knowledge which is not absolute, only theory, is indeed 'close enough' to absolute that you can make it a fact, regarding ET. This is not very scientific either.

Of course, we all know you aren't really a scientist, you're just an atheist who wants to sound like a scientist to others, that's why you use the big scientific words and go out of your way to explain the scientific method. You've gone out on a limb and proclaimed that knowledge is never absolute, and in scientific evaluation and experimentation, this may be true, but it is not a fact of reality outside of a science lab. Many things we know, are absolute, they simply can't be described any other way. Science itself, would be pointless without some absolute knowledge.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You are putting words into Einstein's mouth.

No, I was giving you the proper interpretation of his words.

Are you denying that Einstein is capable of speaking for himself?

Yes, Einstein is dead, therefore he is not capable of speaking at this time.

If Einstein meant to address those who 'remain ignorant by claiming 'common sense' as their only justifying logic for belief' (something you have done with ID), why did he not say so?

He did, you construed it to mean something else.

Why did he say that 'common sense' is an accumulation of prejudices, not those who 'remain ignorant by claiming 'common sense' as their only justifying logic for belief' are an accumulation of prejudices etc etc?

Maybe because he didn't want to sound offensive? Maybe because he was trying to sound 'philosophical' and maybe he was speaking in metaphoric context? I can't attest to why Einstein said it the way he said it, and he is not here to explain it. You believe he was telling us to never use common sense, that it was a form of prejudice. I think that is ridiculous and foolish, but if that is what you want to believe, you are completely entitled to be ridiculous and foolish. I also think Einstein makes a valid point about assumption, the kind of assumption you make regarding intelligent design. Einstein is speaking to you, as well as those who say things like... "It's just common sense that men are smarter than women!" ...."It's just common sense that whites are smarter than blacks!" He is making a poignant statement about our judgements, attitudes, and prejudices, based on our presumed "common sense" reasoning. When you boil that down, you get Einstein's statement, and I think that is what he meant.