|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 04/14/2011 : 09:16:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Baxter
I don't know of any other explanation for the ontological mystery that doesn't violate PSR. |
The requirement that it have an explanation is itself unreasonable. For some questions, the best answer we can currently have is "don't know."| Yet it produced rational beings. The universe itself has designed beings who design. |
You're using the word "design" in two different ways, there. Semantic shuffling doesn't make an argument logical.| Right, we have to work with what we know, so we're stuck with inductive and abductive reasoning. Which means we can't be certain and that's where the inference comes in. I think the inference to God is mainly based on our ability to recognize human design and see similar products of nature... |
Then the proper logical inference is that humans designed the universe. Extrapolating from human design to goddidit is no more warranted than extrapolating from human speech to Martian telepathy.| ...and the belief that there must be something that transcends matter in order to explain the existence of matter. |
The word "transcends" is illogical. We can witness processes that create subatomic particles, and there's nothing transcendent about them. People may want to believe otherwise, but if wishes were horses then beggars would ride.| Regarding the anthropic principle, I still fail to grasp how it argues for anything. |
It only argues that the universe cannot have properties that are fatal to the existence of humans. |
This causes a stack overflow in my brain. |
Sorry to hear that. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Baxter
Skeptic Friend
USA
131 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2011 : 11:53:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
| Yet it produced rational beings. The universe itself has designed beings who design. |
You're using the word "design" in two different ways, there. Semantic shuffling doesn't make an argument logical. |
Are you referring to my anthropomorphization of the universe? That's because the "end products" are very similar regardless. Humans create tools and nature creates tools (and created the ultimate tool--mind). Our mind is what allows us to design, so the inference is a mind behind the universe.
Positing transcendence is not useful to scientific endeavor, but science can only be concerned with material reality. Is it possible for material reality to explain material reality? If not, perhaps there is a reality outside perception of human senses.
What I'm trying to figure out is under what criteria does it make sense to infer vs. saying "I don't know"? Science says we don't know until we have some solid empirical evidence, but is that always the best modus operandi? Sometimes it makes sense to make inferences based on experience. |
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me." ~from Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey
"We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know." ~Robert G. Ingersoll
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2011 : 12:11:55 [Permalink]
|
| Baxter, you aren't making an inference, you are falling victim to magical thinking by assigning conscious agency to unconscious, undirected physical processes. Nature does not "create" with intention. Furthermore, every mind we know of requires a biological brain. Therefore, it is illogical to postulate that there can be such a thing as "non-material" minds. We have no reason to believe such things exist or even can exist, so postulating their existence explains nothing. It's a classic argument from ignorance. |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2011 : 12:27:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Baxter
Are you referring to my anthropomorphization of the universe? That's because the "end products" are very similar regardless. Humans create tools and nature creates tools (and created the ultimate tool--mind). |
The end products may be similar, but the methods used to make them are completely different. Beyond that, if the universe has designed anything like humans design things, then where is the evidence of the blueprints or other plans? There's a difference between design and implementation, and the universe seems to be entirely implementation.| Our mind is what allows us to design, so the inference is a mind behind the universe. |
No, the inference would have to be that a human mind is behind the universe, which is obviously absurd and thus why nobody positing ID ever takes that necessary step in the argument.
Also:| Is it possible for material reality to explain material reality? |
It's been doing a pretty good job of it so far. We know the paradigm has limits (especially the limits of human evidence-gathering capabilities), but within those constraints, material reality has been wildly successful.| Sometimes it makes sense to make inferences based on experience. |
When? We've got lots of history behind us, now, so surely you can find an example of an inference made in spite of, or without waiting for, the empirical evidence that has worked out for the best? I'm sure we can all think of lots of counter-examples (Salem witch trials, etc.), but let's focus on the positive case, here. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2011 : 22:49:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Baxter
Given the apparent design of the universe... |
That the universe appears designed doesn't mean that it was. |
Not sure this is a valid complaint if you're granting that it "appears designed." I judge lots of scientific matters on what appears to happen -- appears in the sense that I can see it or use an instrument to see it. Is there a big qualitative difference?
I would prefer to argue "appears designed" is wrong because it imposes some arbitrary characterization of "order." Maybe an ordered universe would have life on every planet, and our universe is a very bad approximation of that. Or maybe an "ordered" universe would be one with no life at all (and ours appears pretty close to that). Any sort of arbitrary uniformity we may impose on a hypothetical universe could be considered order.
In any case, the uniformity we do perceive in our universe comes from the uniformity of natural forces. And, to agree with Humbert, I see no reason to speculate that some anthropomorphic being set these natural forces into motion.
Originally posted by Baxter
Positing transcendence is not useful to scientific endeavor, but science can only be concerned with material reality. Is it possible for material reality to explain material reality? If not, perhaps there is a reality outside perception of human senses.
What I'm trying to figure out is under what criteria does it make sense to infer vs. saying "I don't know"? Science says we don't know until we have some solid empirical evidence, but is that always the best modus operandi? Sometimes it makes sense to make inferences based on experience. |
Firstly, why should we think there is something beyond material reality? There are things we haven't figured out about this universe, but I would think it would be much more sensible to think I just don't know than to postulate that some other realm or being or what have you is responsible.
And secondly, if there is something beyond material reality, I don't know of any way to confirm or deny any speculation about anything in any such realm because I've never come into contact with it. In order to come up with this, I would have to make up some rules about this other realm, which is something I certainly don't know how to do.
You're right, empirical evidence cannot really tell us what to hypothesize next, but I don't see how hypothesizing in this other realm with no way to verify or reject the claims can be fruitful. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2011 : 23:32:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Not sure this is a valid complaint if you're granting that it "appears designed." I judge lots of scientific matters on what appears to happen -- appears in the sense that I can see it or use an instrument to see it. Is there a big qualitative difference? |
There's a huge difference between "this snake appears to be designed" and "this snake appears to be 3.7 meters long" or even "this snake appears to be male." Especially when you consider that the works of both Pollock and Mondrian were designed.| I would prefer to argue "appears designed" is wrong because it imposes some arbitrary characterization of "order." Maybe an ordered universe would have life on every planet, and our universe is a very bad approximation of that. Or maybe an "ordered" universe would be one with no life at all (and ours appears pretty close to that). Any sort of arbitrary uniformity we may impose on a hypothetical universe could be considered order. |
No, the problem is that human design implies neither order nor chaos, neither diversity nor uniformity. Anything can "appear" designed simply because the sheer volume of human designs guarantees that whatever the item in question, someone will have seen something similar that was designed. So apparent design is easy to come by, but IDists claim that we can jump from that to a conclusion of actual design. It's the worst sort of argument-by-analogy, simply because everything can be analogous.
Granting apparent design is a no-brainer under such circumstances. The next step in the argument is to ask for evidence of actual design, like blueprints or plans or even just toolmarks. To get away from the analogies and find verification. Nobody has put forth anything sensible yet for that, though.| In any case, the uniformity we do perceive in our universe comes from the uniformity of natural forces. And, to agree with Humbert, I see no reason to speculate that some anthropomorphic being set these natural forces into motion. |
Sure, but design advocates don't think it's speculation. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2011 : 00:15:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
There's a huge difference between "this snake appears to be designed" and "this snake appears to be 3.7 meters long" or even "this snake appears to be male." |
True, I assumed wrongly about the reasoning for your criticism.
| No, the problem is that human design implies neither order nor chaos, neither diversity nor uniformity. Anything can "appear" designed simply because the sheer volume of human designs guarantees that whatever the item in question, someone will have seen something similar that was designed. So apparent design is easy to come by, but IDists claim that we can jump from that to a conclusion of actual design. It's the worst sort of argument-by-analogy, simply because everything can be analogous. |
The analogy I take them to be making is that this world seems designed with the goal of the current world in mind because all the forces of nature seem directed at this goal. They say things like "randomness couldn't create all of this, so it must have been guided by god."
The idea that this world is (or even people are) the goal is self-aggrandizing, and the conception of randomness is usually a big mess, but this guidance that I think they perceive seems to me to be the forces of nature -- what I'm calling order consists of these forces because they are (usually) consistent and unchanging, or uniform. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Baxter
Skeptic Friend
USA
131 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2011 : 09:17:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
When? We've got lots of history behind us, now, so surely you can find an example of an inference made in spite of, or without waiting for, the empirical evidence that has worked out for the best? I'm sure we can all think of lots of counter-examples (Salem witch trials, etc.), but let's focus on the positive case, here.
|
I just meant in practical examples, like me inferring that my dog is at the door if I hear scratching sounds at the door. I can't prove it til I open the door but it makes sense to make the inference. |
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me." ~from Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey
"We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know." ~Robert G. Ingersoll
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2011 : 11:09:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Baxter
I just meant in practical examples, like me inferring that my dog is at the door if I hear scratching sounds at the door. I can't prove it til I open the door but it makes sense to make the inference.
|
We know that there are dogs and that dogs scratch doors. We don't know that there are minds capable of creating universes. You need to check your assumptions before you go and make inferences. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Baxter
Skeptic Friend
USA
131 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2011 : 05:46:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
Originally posted by Baxter
I just meant in practical examples, like me inferring that my dog is at the door if I hear scratching sounds at the door. I can't prove it til I open the door but it makes sense to make the inference.
|
We know that there are dogs and that dogs scratch doors. We don't know that there are minds capable of creating universes. You need to check your assumptions before you go and make inferences.
|
Hawks, what you've said is true but I think you've missed the analogy. We know that minds design things. We don't know the dog is scratching at the door until we observe it. We infer it based on what we do know. See what I mean? |
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me." ~from Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey
"We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know." ~Robert G. Ingersoll
|
|
|
|
Baxter
Skeptic Friend
USA
131 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2011 : 06:28:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Baxter, you aren't making an inference, you are falling victim to magical thinking by assigning conscious agency to unconscious, undirected physical processes. Nature does not "create" with intention. Furthermore, every mind we know of requires a biological brain. Therefore, it is illogical to postulate that there can be such a thing as "non-material" minds. We have no reason to believe such things exist or even can exist, so postulating their existence explains nothing. It's a classic argument from ignorance.
|
So are you for strict empiricism, and see no use in philosophizing about such things?
I wouldn't try to assign design to evolution, but to the "fabric" of the universe itself. In other words, the attributes of the universe that allow a physical process such as evolution to occur in the first place. |
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me." ~from Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey
"We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know." ~Robert G. Ingersoll
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2011 : 07:49:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Baxter
Hawks, what you've said is true but I think you've missed the analogy. We know that minds design things. We don't know the dog is scratching at the door until we observe it. We infer it based on what we do know. See what I mean?
|
You forget to ask yourself, "What other things can create scratching sound from the door?" It could be a cat, a boar, or a bear cub. Or any other number of possible animals. And the reason for scratching may be something else than they want to come in to get scratched by their Master. With the unknown number of other animals comes a number of different motivations: the cat want to get out of the rain, the boar think there's something interesting to dig up, and the bear cub smells food indoors.
Hawks is right, you need to pay closer attention to what assumptions are necessary for your inference. As your analogy clearly shows.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2011 : 12:23:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Baxter
Originally posted by Hawks
Originally posted by Baxter
I just meant in practical examples, like me inferring that my dog is at the door if I hear scratching sounds at the door. I can't prove it til I open the door but it makes sense to make the inference.
|
We know that there are dogs and that dogs scratch doors. We don't know that there are minds capable of creating universes. You need to check your assumptions before you go and make inferences.
|
Hawks, what you've said is true but I think you've missed the analogy. We know that minds design things. We don't know the dog is scratching at the door until we observe it. We infer it based on what we do know. See what I mean? |
No, we know that human minds design things. We have no evidence of any other types of minds doing any designing, and so cannot infer anything about them. We have no evidence of any mind designing a whole universe, so we can't infer from that, either. We cannot make inferences from a total lack of evidence.
That a particular sound you hear might be your dog scratching on your door can only be inferred from multiple previous observations of your dog scratching at your door. If it's the first time you've heard the sound (new dog, perhaps), then you can't infer anything. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2011 : 17:01:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Baxter
Hawks, what you've said is true but I think you've missed the analogy. We know that minds design things. We don't know the dog is scratching at the door until we observe it. We infer it based on what we do know. See what I mean?
|
Hmpf. Nice switching there. Let me see if I got this right:
Baxter says: We know that dogs scratch doors.
Baxter says: We know that minds design things.
Baxter says: We can't make the inference that a dog is scratching the door because we haven't seen the dog scratching the door.
Baxter says: We can make the inference that a mind created the universe because, after all, minds create things.
See what I mean?
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Baxter
Skeptic Friend
USA
131 Posts |
Posted - 04/22/2011 : 21:30:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
Hmpf. Nice switching there. Let me see if I got this right:
Baxter says: We know that dogs scratch doors.
Baxter says: We know that minds design things.
Baxter says: We can't make the inference that a dog is scratching the door because we haven't seen the dog scratching the door.
Baxter says: We can make the inference that a mind created the universe because, after all, minds create things.
See what I mean?
|
The first two statements above are correct. The others are thus (in a concise form):
3) We can make the inference that a dog is scratching the door because of experience, even though we won't know for sure until we verify it.
4) We can make the inference that a mind designed the universe due to experience, even though we won't know for sure until we verify it.
My point is that we can make an inference to something even if we haven't yet verified it. |
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me." ~from Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey
"We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know." ~Robert G. Ingersoll
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
IDiot exposes once again, ID's religious nature.
