News and Politics Forum

Qwinn wrote:

I would agree.  Sad that you have so effortlessly mastered both.

Qwinn

Still avoiding those questions I see.


Thank you for continuing to support my contention that you are incapable of thinking for yourself.

MC Escher wrote:

I've made the point repeatedly that philosophy and science are not separable in the manner you urge, and your link on demarcation touches on some of the problems with your distinction.

That is precisely the problem. They ARE separate.

Is this where I write "ARE NOT!"?

Did you read your own link on demarcation?  Have you looked into anything by Kuhn or Feyerabend?

Kuhn's historical narrative puts to rest the notion and widely believed error that science is an accumulation of knowledge reaped by the scientific method.

MC Escher wrote:

I think an examination of any metaphysical or political material...

This issue is about science and what IS or IS NOT science.
Metaphysics and Politics are different subjects.

Which does not prevent them from being taught by science instructors with metaphysical or political agendas.  Exercises in critical thinking should help students understand what they are being taught.

MC Escher wrote:

So it is built on philosophy and cosmology?  So is lots of theology.

Math equals Philosophy? Cosmology equals Astrology?
Do you even BELIEVE this bullshit?
There is a point beyond which playing advocate becomes destructive.

Actually, I think cosmology equals cosmology, and that math, as opposed to arithmetic, is essentially a symbolic system of formal logic, which is a branch of philosophy.

MC Escher wrote:

MC Escher wrote:

Can you point me towards the mathematical foundation of Intelligent Design? Is there a body of work underlying Intelligent Design OTHER than the Bible or the need for Benevolent Aliens that are so advanced and Godlike that they were already "here" before the Big Bang?

Yes. 

Then do so.

I would be happy to look for the CSPAN spot later.  Does you request for a mathematical foundation for ID mean that you doubt its existence, are unfamiliar with it, or would just prefer that I perform the google search rather than you?

That question is not rhetorical.

Neither was this one:

As I understand your statement, you define faith as the only way to believe things you "cannot in any way "get your hands on"..., metaphorically speaking".

Is there a different way we come to believe things we can get our hands on?

It goes to the issue of how we come to believe and know.

Matt -

I'm sorry, but there is a line between Good Faith Devil's Advocacy and Bad Faith Devil's Advocacy; and I believe that you have crossed it.


Given that we both know the reaction that statement will produce from the Peanut Gallery, I'm sure you understand that I don't say it lightly; much less do so publicly.


You are trying to make the case that a purely philosophical subject belongs in a science; essentially by arguing that it is not purely philosophical and that even if it were it would belong there anyway because it contributes to the discussion.

So I think you need to explain:

a) The scientific underpinnings of ID that render it not purely philosophical, or failing that;
b) Explain how a purely philosophical subject contributes to a process that is based entirely on the concrete.

MC Escher wrote:

Matt -

I'm sorry, but there is a line between Good Faith Devil's Advocacy and Bad Faith Devil's Advocacy; and I believe that you have crossed it.

Is your assertion that I've argued something I believe to be untrue?  Could you be specific?

OK, after reading the papers referenced I worry that perhaps my question wasn't clear enough.



So again...

How do you propose to prove the existence of the "Designer" that Intelligent Design postulates?



If you believe that you have answered the question, then please explain how those papers accomplish that.

==========================================================

glfredrick wrote:

Try these on for size...

http://www.designinference.com/document … mation.pdf

http://www.designinference.com/document … bility.pdf

http://www.designinference.com/document … Spaces.pdf

Below is the most promising line of sub-responses in this thread.  It seemed to pause, resume, and pause again.  I'd encourage its pursuit.

zukiphile wrote:

Since every scientific theory rests on a foundation of premises never beyond question, and the act of understanding a theory requires a qualified belief in its premises, it cannot be that belief is inimical to genuine science.

zukiphile wrote:

MC Escher wrote:

If you cannot in any way "get your hands on it", metaphorically speaking; then the only way to believe in it is to CHOOSE to believe in it. And THAT my friend, is the definition of Faith.

And how is it that we come to believe in the things we can get our hands on?

I'm not sure the purpose of Zuk's question was apparent.  If I understand this line of sub-responses, I'd rephrase Zuk's question to press whether or not the scientific method requires faith in empiricism.

MC Escher wrote:

Slap -


I sliced out a single line from your quoted posts:

Since every scientific theory rests on a foundation of premises never beyond question...

That premise is untrue. Worse, the person making the statement is entirely too smart to think that it is. I suppose I can choose to believe that he didn't intend to phrase his statement so poorly as to create a false meaning.

I would not encourage that.  I meant precisely what I wrote above.

If you would like to explore it further, you could answer the questions Slap reproduced, or you could provide a scientific theory that has none of its premises beyond question, or you could even ask what I mean.

I believe your frustration arises not from my position being a moving target (a movement you assert but do not specify), but that your guess as to my position has changed.

The legislation is, on its face not excluively about ID.  ID seems to be the overriding matter of interest to you.  In discussing this, you've asserted differences in science that I hold are illusory.  I've referenced your authorities and tried to discuss issues of how we come to know and believe which are necessary to sort out if your assertions about science are to be anything more than that.

I am content to discuss those, but doing so is far from misuse of rhetoric, or playing tag.  If you believe the words you use have meaning, there isn't anything odd about discussing their meaning.

MC Escher wrote:

Since every scientific theory rests on a foundation of premises never beyond question...

That premise is untrue.

So Kant was wrong?  Specifically when he wrote...

There are many laws of nature, which we can only know by
means of experience; but conformity to law in the connection of
appearances, i.e., in nature in general, we cannot discover by
any experience, because experience itself requires laws which are
a priori at the basis of its possibility.

     The possibility of experience in general is therefore at the
same time the universal law of nature, and the principles of the
experience are the very laws of nature. For we do not know nature
but as the totality of appearances, i.e., of representations in
us, and hence we can only derive the laws of its connection from
the principles of their connection in us, that is, from the
conditions of their necessary union in consciousness, which
constitutes the possibility of experience.

http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant-prolegomena.txt

The premises of empiricism aren't beyond question.  Philosophy didn't end with Locke, Newton and Hume.  Zuk isn't arguing for the inclusion of ID in science class.  He's defending a policy that appears to me designed to address the limits of methodological materialism.  That strikes me as appropriate, whether it happens in a class labeled "science" (pursuant to understanding the limits of that subject when narrowly defined) or in a class labeled "philosophy" (pursuant to a review of the history of philosophy.)

Apologies if I've hijacked or misunderstood the direction of this thread.

Slap wrote:

MC Escher wrote:

Since every scientific theory rests on a foundation of premises never beyond question...

That premise is untrue.

So Kant was wrong?  Specifically when he wrote...

One quick point...

Kant is just as capable of being wrong as anyone else is.


Second; I fail to see the point you were trying to make.


Third; There is NO scientific theory that  that is beyond question, either foundationally or in whole.


Fourth, and this is anticipatory; Math is not a theory. It is a mechanism for description. And it has Axioms for the same reason that a tape measure has markings.


Fifth, dismissing creation science and it's prettied up cousin as an answer to evolution does NOT mean that evolution is beyond question. It's simply that CS/ID is a stupid question. The fundamental flaw is that the central premise requires faith and it does it for the most basic of reasons; that the proponents CANNOT produce either direct or indirect evidence of the creator/designer.

They THINK they're doing that and they THINK that CS/ID's central premise doesn't require faith but they forget they aren't simply raising questions; THEY ARE TRYING TO PROVIDE AN ANSWER. Worse than that, they are fundamentally mistaken when they wrongly assume that unanswered questions within evolution theory are, IN AND OF THEMSELVES; indirect evidence of a creator/designer.

Finally, and this is a distinction that seems to go right over the CS/ID proponents heads; what's being taught in science class isn't a religious doctrine that requires equal time for another religious doctrine. What IS being taught in science class is:
a) What we have learned so far about what HAS happened,
b) What we have learned so far about what IS happening, and;
a) What we have learned so far about the PROCESS.

Then how is the premise untrue?

I realize this is was an error in my reading that led me to believe that the statement had the opposite meaning.



It was whether he was actually wrong.

No, it was whether what he said was relevant.




What do imaginary numbers describe? 
Has anyone ever drawn a perfect circle, or for that matter a line?

Now THAT'S funny. And I really don't care if you understand why.
At this particular point I honestly don't care whether you meant it to be funny or whether you have the slightest idea what an imaginary number, a point or a line actually are. Given that your questions suggests that you think that an imaginary number is, in fact imaginary; I'm guessing that you don't.
I'm fed up with the rhetorical games you've been playing that only serve to mask the unavoidable fact that accepting the central tenet of CS/ID is an act of faith; not a discovery of science.




If ANYONE here is ready to explain how the Creator/Designer that is central to CS/ID is NOT an object of faith, I'll listen.

But otherwise, cut the bullshit.

MC Escher wrote:

Then how is the premise untrue?

I realize this is was an error in my reading that led me to believe that the statement had the opposite meaning.

I can try to write more directly, but it doesn't come naturally.

MC Escher wrote:

It was whether he was actually wrong.

No, it was whether what he said was relevant.

If you believe that words have meaning, I don't think you can insist that "So Kant was wrong?  Specifically when he wrote..." is actually asking whether what he wrote was relevant.

MC Escher wrote:

What do imaginary numbers describe? 
Has anyone ever drawn a perfect circle, or for that matter a line?

Now THAT'S funny. And I really don't care if you understand why.
At this particular point I honestly don't care whether you meant it to be funny or whether you have the slightest idea what an imaginary number, a point or a line actually are. Given that your questions suggests that you think that an imaginary number is, in fact imaginary; I'm guessing that you don't.

Noting the hilarity you find in the question doesn't address the question.

The idea that math is merely a descriptive apparatus can't explain why it also describes imaginary numbers, negative numbers, lines or perfect circles.

Each concept is real, just as love, hatred and jealousy are real, but you would be hard pressed to provide a picture of any of them.

MC Escher wrote:

I'm fed up with the rhetorical games you've been playing that only serve to mask the unavoidable fact that accepting the central tenet of CS/ID is an act of faith; not a discovery of science.

You assert that belief in a scientific premise differs from a belief in any other premise, but decline the opportunity to explore why you think believe that or whether the assumptions on which that belief rests are correct.  Exploring that is not a rhetorical game, but a development of the position.

If your position is that scientific belief differs from other beliefs because it pertains to science, then your premise and conclusion seem exactly the same.

Qwinn wrote:

As I've pointed out many times before, and Crash6 alluded to my doing so:

ID is not a stand alone theory.  ID is a -critique- of evolutionary theory.  A designer is not the -premise-... a designer is the -conclusion-, because if enough holes are poked in macroevolution (and proponents of ID feel that the major whopping holes in it -are- sufficient to discredit the theory), and the notion that biogenesis, speciation and all the other wonders evolution pretends to address could -not- have come about from successive random mutations (which is precisely what ID spends all of it's time addressing), then what the hell else could explain the world we live in?

I've asked it before... if it's not macroevolution brought about by successive random mutations, and it's not ID, what the hell else could it be?  I've never gotten a good answer.

ID doesn't start with God as a premise.  There's no faith involved at all, which is why many agnostics and atheists also find it persuasive.  The premise isn't that there had to be a designer.  The premise is to show scientific evidence that macroevolution is bunk.  The whole idea of "intelligent design" is merely what's left as the only other rational possibility, be it from God or little green aliens, to explain reality once evolution is taken away.  That I've heard proposed anyway.

I find ID's critique of evolution serious, and the questions raised require a better response than shrill harpy screeches of "u just want to mak us all bibl thmpers!", which is the best that certain types of idiots are able to come up with.  I find that reaction to be more indicative of religious zealotry than anything the IDers are putting forward.

You don't "teach" a critique. Don't delude yourself, you know damn well that isn't the intention of people shoving ID into school curricula. You know as well as I do that it's Creationist in nature, and you're aware of its religious undertones. If ID were a legitimate critique of evolution -- and only that -- there would be no problem. But it's much more than that.

axe wrote:

You don't "teach" a critique. Don't delude yourself, you know damn well that isn't the intention of people shoving ID into school curricula. You know as well as I do that it's Creationist in nature, and you're aware of its religious undertones. If ID were a legitimate critique of evolution -- and only that -- there would be no problem. But it's much more than that.

That strikes me as a frank statement of the basis for many of opposing questions about evolution in the classroom.

Significantly, it rests on an assessment of the intent behind the questions and an apprehension not that the questions themselves are objectionable, but that they are the camel's nose under the tent of biology classroom's nationwide being read bits of the Genesis.