NationStates Jolt Archive

That's the typical justification. "We refuse to recognize it as science so why can't our belief system be included?"

I know. This is one of the reasons I miss Edwardis, at least the kid was honest and up-front about his beliefs. You knew where you stood.

Notice how this statement has been ignored?

Originally Posted by Bruarong
It was never my homework, Bottle. It was yours. My challenge was that if you or anyone else could demonstrate that ID was trying to test forces that were not material, I would readily agree that ID was not science.



Notice how I showed that?

"Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces."

pg 68 of Judges Dover decision.

Will B admit now that ID is not science?

The presence of a gap in general knowledge is not proof that the designer fits it. But it can be an indication that the alternative theory is inadequate.

I love when I can pop into a thread and find one little phrase that summarizes the problem. IDers think there is an 'alternative theory'. As GnI said, your argument is that you believe there is only A, B and C as an explanation for the existence of a thing. Now, of course, there is no evidence for C because it can't be tested, so instead you say if you don't like A as an explanation or B as an explanation then it must be C. Still doesn't make it a verifiable theory. We have no evidence for a designer. We have no ability to test if a thing is designed. There is no scientific theory that is the basis of C. It relies on rather pathetic attempts to claim A and B are inadequate. However, that is insufficient. One, you must show that C is even possible, which there is no evidence for. Two, cou must establish emperical evidence for C, which there is no evidence for. Three, you must establish that there cannot be anything other than A, B or C before you use disproving A or B as a proof for C.

The fact that IDers are so consistently hung up on the validity of evolution and abiogenesis as an explanation for origins and development shows that they don't have an ability to test their own theories. I have not seen a single test of evolution that relied on disproving or even addressing ID. You know why? That's because evolution is a scientific theory. So it uses actual science to test itself, not some hocus pocus if not A or B crap that you're trying to claim.

Sure, if you always had it as the final solution, then it will always win, by default. The last theory left standing, not because it was demonstrated as true, but because the others were demonstrated as not.

But this is not the ID approach, as I understand it. Complexity is never labelled 'design' because of a lack of information. It is labelled as 'perhaps designed'. Obviously, lots more work has to go into checking this, and even then, it will perhaps always remain a mere theory, and should never be believed as fact. The same goes for evolutionary theory, of course, although some people insist on calling it fact. I obviously don't think much of their understanding of the theory.

I don't know if ID has such an ultimate conclusion about not even fully understanding the natural world. I've certainly never read that in ID writings, and neither do I see it implied. My own personal feeling is that the moment humanity fully understands the natural world, science will cease from pursuing knowledge and become a museum piece. But I reckon that the natural world is far far far too complicated for you and I to concern ourselves over that issue in our lifetime.

If the natural world is designed, then I don't really care if the feelings of all the 'people out there doing serious research' are hurt. I would be far more interested in the truth, not preserving the self respect of even the most respectable people in white coats.

But I don't claim that that the world is designed--not as a scientific statement anyway. It so happens to be a part of my belief, as a Christian. But I don't claim to be able to support that with science, so my belief cannot be criticised by science. However, it is the belief that purports to be scientific that can be and should be ruthlessly criticised.

I'll tell you what. How about you clearly state the falsifiable assumption of ID and what evidence there is for that assumption without using things like "evolution is insufficient" or "randomness doesn't explain". I'll wait.

I'll tell you what. How about you clearly state the falsifiable assumption of ID and what evidence there is for that assumption without using things like "evolution is insufficient" or "randomness doesn't explain". I'll wait.

We've been waiting for 17 pages.

I'll tell you what. How about you clearly state the falsifiable assumption of ID and what evidence there is for that assumption without using things like "evolution is insufficient" or "randomness doesn't explain". I'll wait.

We've been waiting for 17 pages.

So we have. May as well get comfy.

I'll tell you what. How about you clearly state the falsifiable assumption of ID and what evidence there is for that assumption without using things like "evolution is insufficient" or "randomness doesn't explain". I'll wait.Well, as far as scientific assumptions go, it's of the sort we might find in psychology (that is, not quite as concrete as in exact sciences, because let's face it, when God's involved, exactness goes out the window). But there's the (somewhat) falsifiable assumption that "there is evidence of design in 'creation'".
And then we get to examples, like e.g. the hypothesis of irreducible complexity; which consequently gets falsified; well, not so much falsified (in the sense that contrary evidence is shown,) but the logic of the hypothesis itself is undermined. (Like the excellent analogy someone gave of the keystone in an arch, and the supporting structure that is removed after its set in place. Now absent structures might allow further reduction.)

And the assumption is self open to multiple forms of attack; I didn't put "(somewhat)" there for no reason. It is very easy to escape to a pseudoscientific interpretation that would allow anything as 'design', even evolution. So to base a scientific inquiry on this assumption we need a clear idea of what the signature of design is (a clear task for philosophy).
Once you have that, you can argue against it by using evidence that clearly doesn't fit the bill for intelligent design. Like poor Jeremy (http://www.vgcats.com/news/comic_spore_Will.jpg) with a butt over his head (but then a real world equivalent naturally). If you take normal, human, design criteria as guide, then it's pretty easy to point out mistakes. For example a lot of engineers would have preferred our kneejoint to bend the other way, as it would produce less wear. (But bear in mind that there may be objective performance criteria we've overlooked, something evolution or an allknowing creator might not have missed)

I guess enough from me for another 14 pages or so :p

What are your thoughts?
well... my thought right now is...


did you get what you needed? :D

You see, that was just it. If the OP posit stands to itself, then we can't use a 'painter' and a brush analogies because there is no painter. This painting, in your example, must be able to paint itself. If that is the case, that the conceptus is self-directing it's own painting, then measuring when the painting started to paint itself is the only meaningful definition of pre-human and post-human. If there is no miracle that occurs that defines the difference between full existence and partial existence, then all self-painting portraits (to stick with your analogy) must be equal.

If complexity of structure can be reduced to the most simple of assembled pieces, than a single cell entity is equal to it’s multi-cell counterpart. We can’t logically hold that no event occurs during ‘self-painting’ AND argue that a concepturs is not a complete machine until so-and-so occurs.

I fear you don't actually understand what an analogy is or what it is used for. It is not required that every detail of an analogy, particularly details that do not change the purpose or function of the analogy, be exactly like the thing it describes. Otherwise, it wouldn't be an analogy, it would be a description.

Meanwhile, substitute the process of a puddle becoming a lake or a stream becoming a river or a lake becoming an ocean. All of these are processes where the line between development and the thing it becomes are not well-defined and that was the point of the analogy. It has nothing to do with what processes are responsible for the development.

It's actually very apt since these are simply definitions that matter to us as humans and are not inherent to the specific developments. The difference being that some humans would force the place where they think the lines belong on others while more reasonable humans accept their fallability and allow others to come to their own conclusions.

Now I offer the challenge to you as well, please present me with the hypothesis that ID is formed upon. Present me with the experiments that have been conducted that verify it. And, no, telling us how you don't understand how evolution could be responsible is not an experiment or a proof. It may disprove evolution but it lends NO support to ID.

I suggest you go the AiG site and use their list of peer-reviewed papers.

ROTFL!!!...

Oh wait, you were serious... suggest you actually read some of those papers - the peer reviewed ones don't say what AiG claims they do and the ones that agree with Aig are NOT properly peer reviewed. For that matter they're rarely even properly written.

I see. You consider the Theory of Evolution not so much science as a belief system.

I would say that evolutionary theory is only a belief system for those who claim it is the truth. You know, like those who try to argue that while it is technically a theory, it really may as well be considered the truth--simply because it is as close to the truth as we can get it.

However, for those who accept it as a theory, like myself, it isn't a belief system, just a way to interpret the data, and necessarily needs to be criticised.

IDers think there is an 'alternative theory'. As GnI said, your argument is that you believe there is only A, B and C as an explanation for the existence of a thing.

As I pointed out to Grave, what are the alternatives? Either you explain the variety of life as being due to chance and the laws of nature, or as due to chance and the laws of nature and design. If you can think of another alternative, you get a cookie. The others don't seem to be able to do it.

Oh, and multiple parallel universes don't count, because I thought of it first.




Now, of course, there is no evidence for C because it can't be tested, so instead you say if you don't like A as an explanation or B as an explanation then it must be C.


Well if we take A as evolutionary theory, and B as some alternative that you can't think of, and then C as ID, the argument is over whether there is any evidence for C. The argument should be over whether it is possible to detect design in nature. You have claimed that there is no evidence for ID without really addressing this issue.


We have no evidence for a designer.

Design would be evidence of a designer.


We have no ability to test if a thing is designed.

You can repeat that statement all you like. Doesn't make it true.


There is no scientific theory that is the basis of C.

More rhetoric.


It relies on rather pathetic attempts to claim A and B are inadequate.

No, it doesn't. Inadequacy of A and the mysterious B are simply indications that C *might* be possible. In other words, that's just the beginning for C of a good deal of further investigations. Inadequacy is an indication, a starting point, if you like, not the whole deal or the end of story.


However, that is insufficient. One, you must show that C is even possible, which there is no evidence for.

You do that by identifying design.


Two, cou must establish emperical evidence for C, which there is no evidence for.

Identifying design would be considered evidence.


Three, you must establish that there cannot be anything other than A, B or C before you use disproving A or B as a proof for C.


Exactly, and this is possible on the basis of what we currently understand about the laws of nature and of chance. It is not possible on the basis of what we might understand about them tomorrow or next year, but then that would not be the way that science works. We don't sit on our hands simply because someone might discover something tomorrow and make us have to revise our ideas.


The fact that IDers are so consistently hung up on the validity of evolution and abiogenesis as an explanation for origins and development shows that they don't have an ability to test their own theories.

How so? How do you know that they cannot test their own theories? Which ones are you thinking of, anyway?


I have not seen a single test of evolution that relied on disproving or even addressing ID. You know why? That's because evolution is a scientific theory. So it uses actual science to test itself, not some hocus pocus if not A or B crap that you're trying to claim.

So because you don't know much about ID and its processes, it must be wrong.

You have asserted that evolutionary theory is a scientific theory, but it would not be very scientific of you to believe it is true, would it?

I'll tell you what. How about you clearly state the falsifiable assumption of ID

Firstly, assumptions in science are usually not falsifiable, otherwise they wouldn't be assumptions, but rigorously tested concepts.

Secondly, why would you demand that ID jump through the same loops that you don't expect of evolutionary theory?


and what evidence there is for that assumption without using things like "evolution is insufficient" or "randomness doesn't explain". I'll wait.

Evidence for assumptions. Hmmmm, well, you see, it really does come down to the particular world view that you hold. Based on this world view, you will tend to interpret the evidence one way or the other. Thus, for an atheist, he will never interpret the data with regards to design, because his world view says that there isn't any designer. Atheism and ID are incompatible, not because of the evidence, but because of the governing assumptions--regardless of the evidence. So it really doesn't make that much sense to demand evidence for the assumptions, because the assumptions are generally made prior to viewing the data, and form the basis on which the data is interpreted.

However, since humans are intelligent people, I suggest that we are capable of considering assumptions without ever having to believe that they are true. Thus, while I am skeptical of evolutionary theory, I am certainly capable of interpreting the data based on the assumptions of evolutionary theory (e.g. the theory of universal common descent). This means that the ID approach is possible for anyone who is capable of *allowing* that there *may* have been a designer. That is the most basic assumption necessary.

Another basic assumption is that when chance and the laws of nature fail to explain something in nature, we then get to look at whether the idea of design fits better.

The current process that ID takes is outlined below.
It is taken from a paper entitled:
Intelligent Design
The Scientific Alternative to Evolution
William S. Harris
and John H. Calvert
THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC BIOETHICS QUARTERLY \ AUTUMN 2003

And they write:

''In his book The Design Inference, 34 Dembski outlines
a methodology for detection of design using a “design-detection filter.” This logical construct recognizes that there are only three explanatory causes for any event, pattern, or object (past or present): chance, necessity (natural law), and design. The naturalistic hypothesis assumes that only chance and necessity have operated to generate life and its diversity, whereas the design hypothesis postulates that all three causes may have played a role. Design detection essentially seeks evidence that rules in design and that also rules out chance and necessity.''



None of this will prove design, of course, but proof was never really the objective, just as it really isn't the objective with evolutionary theory. If it is a scientific theory, even the proponents of the theory ought to be skeptical of it, particularly the basic assumptions. But that doesn't mean that progress is impossible.

Firstly, assumptions in science are usually not falsifiable, otherwise they wouldn't be assumptions, but rigorously tested concepts.
They are falsifiable. That is the point. ID is not, or refuses to put forward any falsifiable tests/predictions/assumptions.

Easy falsfiable prediction for Evolution:
You will not find a fossialized rabbit inside a dinosaur fossil.

List some/any falsifiable predictions for ID/Creationism


Secondly, why would you demand that ID jump through the same loops that you don't expect of evolutionary theory?
Evolutionary theory does jump through these things. It also changes as we learn more or we realise mistakes as falsfiable assumptions are prooved false, then we learn and then reconsider the theory.
The ONLY vaguely scientific thing the ID proponents do is ask questions on Evolutionary theory. Even if those questions are misled or based on false knowlege or mis-quotes.


None of this will prove design, of course, but proof was never really the objective
Well - at least you admit that ID proponents don't care abot proof.

just as it really isn't the objective with evolutionary theory. If it is a scientific theory, even the proponents of the theory ought to be skeptical of it, particularly the basic assumptions. But that doesn't mean that progress is impossible.
It is the objective. Which is why within the scientific community different camps are visciously attacking the others ideas on Evolutionary theory - to find the truth.

They are falsifiable. That is the point. ID is not, or refuses to put forward any falsifiable tests/predictions/assumptions.

''A design inference can be falsified by simply showing a lack of design or apparent meaning in the pattern, or by demonstrating that unguided natural processes can produce the same result.''
Harris and Calvert in Intelligent Design



Easy falsfiable prediction for Evolution:
You will not find a fossialized rabbit inside a dinosaur fossil.

List some/any falsifiable predictions for ID/Creationism


But I thought you we were talking about assumptions, not predictions.
At any rate, ID does make plenty of predictions. One of the predictions would be that the genome was designed, and thus has a purpose. That would mean that there is no junk DNA--that all DNA either has a purpose, or had one in the past.

It also predicts that biological systems may be the result of purpose or intention. Thus biochemists would use this basis to 'reverse engineer' biochemical machines in order to find 'design decisions' built into the architecture. For example, William Harvey used design theory to discover how blood circulated based on the structure of heart, veins and arteries.
http://www.williamharvey.org/wm_harvey.htm


Evolutionary theory does jump through these things. It also changes as we learn more or we realise mistakes as falsfiable assumptions are prooved false, then we learn and then reconsider the theory.

How would you falsify the assumption that:

''The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised,
impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process of temporal descent with genetic
modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies, and changing environments.''
or
''Evolution is a natural process of temporal descent with genetic
modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical
contingencies and changing environments. The theory of evolution seeks
to explain the diversity of life on earth through common descent and
evolutionary mechanisms.''

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199610/0058.html

Just how does one test this? By looking at similarities?




The ONLY vaguely scientific thing the ID proponents do is ask questions on Evolutionary theory. Even if those questions are misled or based on false knowlege or mis-quotes.


You have not been very convincing. Perhaps you are doing the very thing you accuse ID of doing.


Well - at least you admit that ID proponents don't care abot proof.


Science does not establish proof, but as someone once said, it attempts to find 'evidence beyond reasonable doubt'. The problem is that the word 'reasonable' is subjective, since it depends upon the world view of the individual--to a large degree.



It is the objective. Which is why within the scientific community different camps are visciously attacking the others ideas on Evolutionary theory - to find the truth.

They don't seem to be attacking each other over the concept of common descent, now, do they? If the whole concept of common descent is wrong, I doubt that evolutionary theory would ever find that.

well... my thought right now is...


did you get what you needed? :D

Not yet.

Bruarong still hasn't replied on this - if one part can be more complex than five, how do you measure complexity?

"Complexity" and "Design" being such subjective things. ;)

Not yet.

Bruarong still hasn't replied on this - if one part can be more complex than five, how do you measure complexity?

Not sure, but perhaps by the number of functions the part(s) has.

At any rate, what is the point of measuring complexity? To determine whether complexity is lost or retained (or gained)? You would have to argue that the simpler model was effective enough to allow survival, while at the same time undergoing modifications to become more effective (in the evolutionary model).

However, if simple form were already effective enough, where is the pressure to develop more complexity?



"Complexity" and "Design" being such subjective things. ;)

I would rather say that the human mind is what is subjective.

Although, most people have no problem accepting that Stonehenge was designed, even though no one seems to know who did it or how.

I had a friend who thought ID was possible. So we reviewed the the arguments and this is what we came up with...

Generally these arguments go something like:
a. X (in this case evolution) is too complex/adaptive/purposeful/beautiful to have occurred randomly or accidentally.
b. Therefore, X (evolution) must have been created/done by a intelligent/wise/purposeful being.
c. God is that intelligent/wise/purposeful being.
d. Therefore, God exists.

Now.
Premise A. assumes that you can work out the existence of some sort of intelligence to a design merely by examining an object. This argument assumes that because life is complex, it must have been designed. This is non-sequitur logic (conclusion does not follow from the premise). Life/objects/evolution appears ordered, (this is where the creator argument comes in) so it must have been ordered. In reality, there are examples of systems which are ordered simply because it is following natural physical processes, example snowflakes.

Also regarding the complexity argument. The irreducible complexity argument is used. Which boils down to the following:
Biological systems are too complex to have evolved naturally from simpler, or "less complete", predecessors. This is based on the idea that a structure's constituent parts would be useless prior to their current state.
The following link disprove this.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Apologetics/POS6-99ShenksJoplin.html

Another argument against the "complexity" argument, is the poor design argument. If there is a God he's done a pretty bad job. I refer to pharynx which can cause choking, common malformation of the human spinal column, the pointlessness of the appendix, crowded teeth, etc... in humans.
I would also read up on Pandas. Oh and photosynthetic plants. They reflect green light, even though the sun's peak output is at this wavelength! If there was intelligence behind the design, they should be able to use the entire solar spectrum. And thus have black leafs.

Regarding point C. The only argument I will make is this.
If A and B are proved true and thus C is correct (there is a god/sentient/creator/etc) then the argument (a., b., c., etc..) would have to be applied to the creator. Which would then need to applied to that creator, etc... which would lead to an infinite amount of creators/gods/designers.

one or 2 other links of interest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_Horse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_whales

At any rate, ID does make plenty of predictions. One of the predictions would be that the genome was designed, and thus has a purpose. That would mean that there is no junk DNA--that all DNA either has a purpose, or had one in the past.Why would a designer leave redundant DNA and/or organs in their product? Particulary when the only effect is to put the revised product at risk of further faults?

It also predicts that biological systems may be the result of purpose or intention. Thus biochemists would use this basis to 'reverse engineer' biochemical machines in order to find 'design decisions' built into the architecture.


So any redundant organs/bodyparts would kinda blow ID out of the water then?

Why would a designer leave redundant DNA and/or organs in their product? Particulary when the only effect is to put the revised product at risk of further faults?

Why would a designer leave redundant DNA and/or organs in their product? Particulary when the only effect is to put the revised product at risk of further faults?
So any redundant organs/bodyparts would kinda blow ID out of the water then?


The question is whether DNA or organs that we currently think are redundant really are, in fact redundant. A classic example of this is non-coding RNA. Scientists used to conclude that most of the DNA in our genomes was junk, because it didn't code for a protein. The genome is basically divided into introns and extrons. The extrons code for proteins, and the introns are just spliced out of the mRNA and thought to be of little value thereafter. Not so, it appears. The non-translated DNA can be transcribed into non-RNA and actually play a major role in the control of the expression of genes (transcriptional regulation) and translation of mRNA. It turns out that some of the so-called junk DNA is not junk after all. With time, we may come to see that none of it really is junk. That's been the weakness of the assumption, based on evolutionary theory--that DNA sequences evolved through 'mistakes' and 'blind chance'. Simply because we don't know enough about it, we have called it junk. Silly us.

The second point is that in the history of life, according to ID, DNA and organs were designed quite some time ago. That leaves plenty of time for the accumulation of junk DNA since that time, or for the dwindling away of organs that are no longer needed. Design does not imply perfection, but functionality.

The third point is that the perceived weaknesses in our functioning organs may be either because our organs no longer function as well as they used to. Or it could be that we simply don't know enough to call it truly a weakness. The human eye design, for example, has been called a weak design. But the point is, by whom? And who is in a position to design a better one? Just because the claim is made, such a claim remains full of little more than hot air until the new design is indeed demonstrated to function better.

The main problem with ID and its proponents, is the irreducible stupidity of it. Clearly 18 pages of reasoned argument will not shift the position of someone who refuses to see reason. Hopefully eventually evolution will weed the kind of fuckwit who believes in ID out of the gene pool.

The question is whether DNA or organs that we currently think are redundant really are, in fact redundant. A classic example of this is non-coding RNA. Scientists used to conclude that most of the DNA in our genomes was junk, because it didn't code for a protein. The genome is basically divided into introns and extrons. The extrons code for proteins, and the introns are just spliced out of the mRNA and thought to be of little value thereafter. Not so, it appears. The non-translated DNA can be transcribed into non-RNA and actually play a major role in the control of the expression of genes (transcriptional regulation) and translation of mRNA. It turns out that some of the so-called junk DNA is not junk after all. With time, we may come to see that none of it really is junk. That's been the weakness of the assumption, based on evolutionary theory--that DNA sequences evolved through 'mistakes' and 'blind chance'. Simply because we don't know enough about it, we have called it junk. Silly us.

The second point is that in the history of life, according to ID, DNA and organs were designed quite some time ago. That leaves plenty of time for the accumulation of junk DNA since that time, or for the dwindling away of organs that are no longer needed. Design does not imply perfection, but functionality.

The third point is that the perceived weaknesses in our functioning organs may be either because our organs no longer function as well as they used to. Or it could be that we simply don't know enough to call it truly a weakness. The human eye design, for example, has been called a weak design. But the point is, by whom? And who is in a position to design a better one? Just because the claim is made, such a claim remains full of little more than hot air until the new design is indeed demonstrated to function better.

And you know what the problem is with each point? You've got no evidence. You keep saying "maybe we'll find out..." But there's nothing to indicate that that is where science is going. We can remove an appendix with no ill effects. Most people these days end up having to have their wisdom teeth removed. They are pretty bad design, even if there is some mysterious hidden purpose for them which isn't even made apparent by the organ's absence. ID isn't science. It's science fiction.

The second point is that in the history of life, according to ID, DNA and organs were designed quite some time ago. That leaves plenty of time for the accumulation of junk DNA since that time, or for the dwindling away of organs that are no longer needed. Design does not imply perfection, but functionality.

The third point is that the perceived weaknesses in our functioning organs may be either because our organs no longer function as well as they used to. Or it could be that we simply don't know enough to call it truly a weakness. The human eye design, for example, has been called a weak design. But the point is, by whom? And who is in a position to design a better one? Just because the claim is made, such a claim remains full of little more than hot air until the new design is indeed demonstrated to function better.

Why does the designer not update their design?

We know the eye has flaws - the blind spot. What benefit of that possibly implies a designer?

You are talking about a designer who can alledgely code DNA and create the building blocks of life from (origionally) nothing. And yet they screw up a fairly vital sensory organ by damaging that organs sensory ability. How does it seem reasonable or logical that a designer of such knowlege, intelligence and ability that they can create life in all it's complexity and still be dumb enough to fluff the human eye?

Or the appendix? It's only function it to burst from time to time.

The tail-bone?

I would say that evolutionary theory is only a belief system for those who claim it is the truth.
Much like electromagnetism and gravity.

Why does the designer not update their design?

We know the eye has flaws - the blind spot. What benefit of that possibly implies a designer?

You are talking about a designer who can alledgely code DNA and create the building blocks of life from (origionally) nothing. And yet they screw up a fairly vital sensory organ by damaging that organs sensory ability. How does it seem reasonable or logical that a designer of such knowlege, intelligence and ability that they can create life in all it's complexity and still be dumb enough to fluff the human eye?

Or the appendix? It's only function it to burst from time to time.

The tail-bone?

My point is that your argument is from ignorance.
You don't know the function of such and such, and it seems silly to you, thus you equate your impression of silly-ness with either a silly designer, or the absence of one.

The point is that you and I would be silly to conclude silly-ness simply on the basis of a recognised lack of knowledge. I made that point with the non-coding RNA. Now non-coding RNA is a recognised part of a functioning organism. Previously it was thought to be junk. The difference--we now know more. It is logical to restrain from jumping to conclusions.

Lack of knowledge about nature does not prove an absence of design, nor should it argue for the presence of one. Rather, design is argued on the basis of what we do know, not what we don't.

Much like electromagnetism and gravity.

Do you believe that the theory of gravity is truth?

My point is that your argument is from ignorance.
That's rich.
You don't know the function of such and such, and it seems silly to you, thus you equate your impression of silly-ness with either a silly designer, or the absence of one.

The point is that you and I would be silly to conclude silly-ness simply on the basis of a recognised lack of knowledge. I made that point with the non-coding RNA. Now non-coding RNA is a recognised part of a functioning organism. Previously it was thought to be junk. The difference--we now know more. It is logical to restrain from jumping to conclusions.

Lack of knowledge about nature does not prove an absence of design, nor should it argue for the presence of one. Rather, design is argued on the basis of what we do know, not what we don't.

Stupid stupid stupid. You're arguing that because you've come up with an unfalsifiable concept of a designer (one whose designs are of such inscrutibility that we can't possibly determine if they are evolution or deliberate construction) that we're silly for thinking that there's no evidence for one.

That's what schizophrenic patients do. "You can't find evidence of the conspiracy to monitor my thoughts by the CIA because they don't want you to find it."

So I'm going to ask you, how do you tell the difference between design and evolution other than simply not knowing how something could have evolved?

How do you base a prediction on ID, and what predictions from ID have borne fruit?

Do you believe that the theory of gravity is truth?
Isn't gravity just a theory which has alternate explanations, such as "there was a designer who made it that way"?

Isn't gravity just a theory which has alternate explanations, such as "there was a designer who made it that way"?

That was in "The Onion" who did a spoof on Intelligent Falling.

Amazing when a spoof article has a much merit as a movement that is constantly going to the courts to get Intelligent Design though.

My point is that your argument is from ignorance.
You don't know the function of such and such, and it seems silly to you, thus you equate your impression of silly-ness with either a silly designer, or the absence of one.
Surely if intelligent design can look for design, it can also look for lack of design?

Surely an ID proponent when faced with examples that appear incompentantly designed then they would have to conclude the designer was incompentant? Yes?

Although the position "Ok... it does not appear to have any thought in the design, and does seem flawed by any known standard and a being of incredible greatness who could meld protiens together to make us should have known better.... but maybe we just don't know the hidden benefit of creating a blind spot in the optical sensory organs" shows a total lack of ability to even begin to apply your OWN standards to the evidence, let alone scientific standards.

Evidence of lack of design? Not squinting hard enough.
Evidence of dumb design? We don't understand the design.
Evidence of redundant design? We don't know for sure an organ that you can remove with no ill effects at all is redundant.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

That's rich.


Stupid stupid stupid. You're arguing that because you've come up with an unfalsifiable concept of a designer (one whose designs are of such inscrutibility that we can't possibly determine if they are evolution or deliberate construction) that we're silly for thinking that there's no evidence for one.

That is not what I said. I said that it is silly to argue against a designer on the basis of a recognised lack of knowledge. What is more logical (and actually more scientific) is to allow that there might be one, and to conclude that the only way we would ever know is if design could be positively identified in nature. Therein lies the challenge. Those who would prevent such a search are restricting the pursuit for knowledge.

''Furthermore, we cannot presently observe the working of a mindless evolutionary process in the production of the first form of life and its many subsequent variations, so, the ''we cannot see the designer''” argument is weak.''
William S. Harris and John H. Calvert


So I'm going to ask you, how do you tell the difference between design and evolution other than simply not knowing how something could have evolved?


From post # 263 of this thread:

The current process that ID takes is outlined below.
It is taken from a paper entitled:
Intelligent Design
The Scientific Alternative to Evolution
William S. Harris
and John H. Calvert
THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC BIOETHICS QUARTERLY \ AUTUMN 2003

And they write:

''In his book The Design Inference, 34 Dembski outlines
a methodology for detection of design using a “design-detection filter.” This logical construct recognizes that there are only three explanatory causes for any event, pattern, or object (past or present): chance, necessity (natural law), and design. The naturalistic hypothesis assumes that only chance and necessity have operated to generate life and its diversity, whereas the design hypothesis postulates that all three causes may have played a role. Design detection essentially seeks evidence that rules in design and that also rules out chance and necessity.''


How do you base a prediction on ID, and what predictions from ID have borne fruit?

ID would predict that if irreducible complexity in nature is designed, it may bear some resemblance to human designed complexity.

One example would be that the similarity between the nano-scale motor that drives the bacterial flagellum and complex human made machines and information processing systems supports the concept that flagella are designed. At least we know that human made machines are designed. And yet the flagellum by far out-performs anything we have ever made.

(If “similarities” are considered evidence for evolutionary theory, then they are also admissible for the design hypothesis.)

ID also predicts that the human genome (for example) is not mostly full of junk DNA, but that we have not yet discovered all the functions of the DNA.

It also predicts that if we look hard enough, we will find functions for things like the appendix, tail bone, etc.

''As recently as 1971, the Encyclopedia Britannica claimed that there were more than 100 vestigial (useless) organs in man. Even critically important organs such as the thymus and parathyroid glands were once considered to be vestigial simply because their functions were not understood. As biomedical science has progressed, there are fewer and fewer claims of functionless organs. Despite their diminishing numbers, vestigial organs are still mentioned in textbooks as one of the strongest evidences for evolution and against intelligent design by a Creator. The most frequently cited examples of vestigial organs in man are the coccyx and the appendix.

The human coccyx, or "tail bone," is a group of four or five small vertebrae fused into one bone at the lower end of our vertebral column. Most of us never really think about our "tail bone" until we fall on it. Evolutionists are dead certain that the coccyx is a vestige of a tail left over from our monkey-like ancestors. The coccyx does occupy the same relative position at the end of our vertebral column as does the tail in tailed primates, but then, where else would it be? The vertebral column is a linear row of bones that supports the head at its beginning and it must end somewhere. Wherever it ends, evolutionists will be sure to call it a vestigial tail.
Most modern biology textbooks give the erroneous impression that the human coccyx has no real function other than to remind us of the "inescapable fact" of evolution. In fact, the coccyx has some very important functions. Several muscles converge from the ring-like arrangement of the pelvic (hip) bones to anchor on the coccyx, forming a bowl-shaped muscular floor of the pelvis called the pelvic diaphragm. The incurved coccyx with its attached pelvic diaphragm keeps the many organs in our abdominal cavity from literally falling through between our legs. Some of the pelvic diaphragm muscles are also important in controlling the elimination of waste from our body through the rectum.
Another common evolutionary claim found in textbooks is that the human appendix is really a vestigial cecum left over from our plant-eating evolutionary ancestors. The cecum is a blind-ending pouch near the beginning of the large intestine which provides additional space for digestion. In some plant-eating animals, such as cows, the cecum contains special bacteria which aid in the digestion of cellulose. The appendix is clearly not a vestigial cecum because almost every mammal has a cecum and many of these also have an appendix! Man, for example, has both a cecum and an appendix -- neither is vestigial or useless. The appendix, like the once "vestigial" tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body's immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary "left over," many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice.
There are organs in the body which have no known function in the adult but are still not vestigial in the evolutionary sense. For example, poorly developed and inactive mammary glands are found in adult males of all mammals, including man. Even evolutionists do not believe that these rudimentary glands are vestigial mammary glands left over from female ancestors of males, nor do they believe that males once nursed their young. There is a much better explanation for the male mammary gland. Males and females develop from nearly identical embryos which, at an early stage of development, become either male or female under the influence of genes in the sex chromosomes. The same parts of an embryo may produce either male or female sex organs and mammary glands. In humans, almost every component of female sex organs can be found in a rudimentary form in the male; and the reverse is also true. Thus, the presence of rudimentary organs in the adult do not tell us something about evolution, but rather tell us something about embryology.
In conclusion, the "vestigial" status of many organs has often been merely a way of covering up our ignorance of their true function. Unfortunately, there is little inclination to investigate the functional significance of organs believed to be "useless." There are now few, if any, organs that are considered to be functionless in both embryo and adult. Even if vestigial organs were to exist they would not provide evidence for evolution but rather for devolution. ''

http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro07.html


ID also predicts the abrupt appearance of fossil phyla. Current evidence suggests that the first living cells appeared on earth almost immediately (within a few million years) after the temperature on earth became habitable to life.
http://www.amazon.com/Biogenesis-Theories-Origin-Noam-Lahav/dp/0195117557
(Sorry, can't find a better link)

Previously, scientists predicted that it would take billions of years for life to arise, the appearance of bacterial life so close to the time that the earth’s temperature fell below boiling suggests a sudden rather than gradual appearance of life.

And let us not forget the Cambrian explosion. The appearance of most of the major animal plans almost *simultaneously* does not sound like the Darwinian theory of numerous small changes over a long period of time. There are no known biochemical processes that can support sudden large scale changes in the genome.

Isn't gravity just a theory which has alternate explanations, such as "there was a designer who made it that way"?

Is that what you believe, or can't you answer a straight question?

ID would predict that if irreducible complexity in nature is designed, it may bear some resemblance to human designed complexity.


It could not be that humans draw inspiration from nature or anything could it.

It could not be that humans draw inspiration from nature or anything could it.

In this case, no, because many of the human made motors were designed before we understood the flagellum motor.

B, why have you ignored my post? You stated that if anyone could show that ID tried to impliment/test for the supernatural, you would accept it's not science. I showed that.

ID hasn't tested for anything. It assumes everything. TOE has been tested for. Even if there are a few assumptions in it, it is not the majority. You keep promoting religious websites that even clearly state that ID hasn't been tested for and uses many logical fallacies to try and make it legitimate.

It is a religious belief that tries to degrade science so as to allow alchemy, phrenology, astrology, and thematurgy as legitimate scientific endeavors. Would you accept that?

Not sure, but perhaps by the number of functions the part(s) has.

That's not measuring complexity, you're not even measuring any property of that part. You are just forcing observations to fit your preconceived conclusion. The carbon atom has arguably more life-related functions than the uranium atom, albeit it made of fewer parts. You can say it is more complex. But Uranium has more functions in nuclear technology. Thus you can then call anything you like as more complex.

At any rate, what is the point of measuring complexity?

You are aware that science is not about pitting opinions.

If you want to demonstrate irreducible complexity, you must be able to produce some standardized way for measuring it, let's say - oh this thing is 250 units of complexity, therefore more likely to be designed than that other thing with only 12 units of complexity.

You say number of parts doesn't determine complexity. In that case, what determines complexity?

Is that what you believe, or can't you answer a straight question?

You haven't. Why should you expect other people to be able to jump through the hoops that you have been unable to answer?

Do you believe that the theory of gravity is truth?

You do realize that gravity fails in certain environments, right? It's not complete. It has less definitive evidence that TOE. Yet the basics are able to pass every repeatable scientific test over time, just like the TOE. Unlike ID.

Is that what you believe, or can't you answer a straight question?
I answered you in the way that you believe. After all, everything was designed, right? That includes gravity, since no natural process could fit the bill. It must be designed.

And let us not forget the Cambrian explosion. The appearance of most of the major animal plans almost *simultaneously* does not sound like the Darwinian theory of numerous small changes over a long period of time.
Nor does it sound like the Cambrian Explosion. It sounds like a cretinist strawman version of the Cabrian Explosion, though.

Nor does it sound like the Cambrian Explosion. It sounds like a cretinist strawman version of the Cabrian Explosion, though.

It's the traditional "Science hasn't advanced in 150 years" argument.

As I pointed out to Grave, what are the alternatives? Either you explain the variety of life as being due to chance and the laws of nature, or as due to chance and the laws of nature and design. If you can think of another alternative, you get a cookie. The others don't seem to be able to do it.

Oh, and multiple parallel universes don't count, because I thought of it first.

No problem.

A is natural forces and chance.
B is design.

There is A and B. A and Not B. B and Not A. Not A and Not B.

In other words, it's wholly possible that our current understanding of what chance and nature can do is insufficient and it is not designed. In fact, it's possible that what we might currently consider supernatural forces were involved and it still wasn't designed. So you can do all the proving you want that natural forces and chance are insufficient and it still does nothing to prove or disprove design. It is also possible that natural forces and chance are perfectly explanatory of the current state of things and still design occurred. That's what happens when you have no knowledge of and not ability to analyze the designer.




Well if we take A as evolutionary theory, and B as some alternative that you can't think of, and then C as ID, the argument is over whether there is any evidence for C. The argument should be over whether it is possible to detect design in nature. You have claimed that there is no evidence for ID without really addressing this issue.

And the truth is that it isn't possible to detect design in nature. You've tried to claim it in the past, but all our tests for 'design' or for things to have been created by an intelligent act, e.g. a beaver dam, are based on our knowledge of things with the ability to create such things. The problem with your claims is that no matter how designed a thing might seem to YOU or others who want to claim designed without knowledge of possible designers we have no way of testing for design. The reason ID is flawed is that even if we prove that something is completely evidenced to have been created by natural forces that doesn't disprove design. It only shows that design might have involved natural forces. That's why any theory claiming design is unscientific. There is not probative value of design theory. There is not evidence for design theory. There is no evidence against design theory. And there is no way to acquire any.


Design would be evidence of a designer.

Nice circular logic. I'm sorry. I should be honest. It's not nice. It's just circular logic.


You can repeat that statement all you like. Doesn't make it true.

Yet you haven't offered up a test for design. Not one. You've offered up tests that you ASSUME can test design however no test that you could ever provide would show that a designer was involved or wasn't involved. EVER. But please give an example of a test that shows a designer wasn't involved. Please. Any test I could do that would disprove a designer.



More rhetoric.

Oh, the irony. Go ahead. Provide me with the specific scientific theory. I asked for it a number of times. You've yet to provide it.


No, it doesn't. Inadequacy of A and the mysterious B are simply indications that C *might* be possible. In other words, that's just the beginning for C of a good deal of further investigations. Inadequacy is an indication, a starting point, if you like, not the whole deal or the end of story.

Again, you pretend as if A and B (using my A and B from earlier in this post) are mutually exclusive or that they are the only possibilities. They aren't no matter how much you want to pretend they are.

Inadequacy of A are not indications relating to B at all. At all. Because B is possible even if A is adequate and B is possible if A is inadequate. A has nothing to do with B in terms of evidence. Again, your false assumptions is not evidence.


You do that by identifying design.

More circular logic. Design is identified by identifying design. Still waiting for your hypothesis. Your tests. The fruit of design theory. All the things that are required in science that you refuse to provide.


Identifying design would be considered evidence.

Identifying design would be considered evidence for design? Duh. More circular logic. How do you identify design? Two ways. Either you provide evidence for a designer that could design such a thing. You can't. Or you provide evidence that there is no other equally reasonable explanation. You show me how "life is what happens when demons take a crap" (which of course is not design) is any less evidenced or logical than "since we can't explain it, it's designed". Since all reasoning that is based on ignorance is equally likely, none of them are leading theories. Since all of them are equally untestable, none of them are leading theories. Since not all of them are design but all of them equal likelihood, then we cannot assume design nor have we found any evidence for it. When you show me that demon crap is a less likely explanation or less testable, I will accept ID. Go ahead.


Exactly, and this is possible on the basis of what we currently understand about the laws of nature and of chance. It is not possible on the basis of what we might understand about them tomorrow or next year, but then that would not be the way that science works. We don't sit on our hands simply because someone might discover something tomorrow and make us have to revise our ideas.

Again, I've already shown there are alternatives. You're lack of imagination is not a proof of anything other than your lack of imagination. I propose that demon crap is an equally likely explanation for life. Prove me wrong. Offer evidence. I'll wait.


How so? How do you know that they cannot test their own theories? Which ones are you thinking of, anyway?

I'm waiting for you to name some. Provide evidence, son. I've challenged you to do so repeatedly and so far all we have are nonsensical claims. What is the hypothesis that ID is based on? What are the tests? What fruit has come from design theory? Any medicines? Any understanding of the human body? Nature? Anything? So far, you've not provided anything resembling evidence that ID is anything more than mumbo jumbo. Don't ask me to do it for you. Provide evidence for your claims. If you don't understand that's who this sort of thing works, then maybe that's why you don't see the bug in the ID code.


So because you don't know much about ID and its processes, it must be wrong.

You have asserted that evolutionary theory is a scientific theory, but it would not be very scientific of you to believe it is true, would it?

I do know much about ID. However, it's not my job to prove ID is unscientific. It's your job to prove it IS scientific. And that last part is just a red herring. I don't believe evolution is 'true'. I believe it to be the best explanation based on all evidence we have as of yet.

No problem.

I do know much about ID. However, it's not my job to prove ID is unscientific. It's your job to prove it IS scientific. And that last part is just a red herring. I don't believe evolution is 'true'. I believe it to be the best explanation based on all evidence we have as of yet.

And he goes back to the usual attacks trying to "prove" evolution is wrong since he has no evidence to support ID.

Color me surprised.

Notice he's completely ignored the proven religious motives of every group/person he's cited in support of ID, including its originators?

Firstly, assumptions in science are usually not falsifiable, otherwise they wouldn't be assumptions, but rigorously tested concepts.

Secondly, why would you demand that ID jump through the same loops that you don't expect of evolutionary theory?

Again, what a sad lack of understanding of science. Assumptions must be falsifiable or they are pointless. I fully expect exactly that of evolution and I've never seen a single proof that shows that evolution is false only that it needs more explanation, something you don't deny.


Evidence for assumptions. Hmmmm, well, you see, it really does come down to the particular world view that you hold. Based on this world view, you will tend to interpret the evidence one way or the other. Thus, for an atheist, he will never interpret the data with regards to design, because his world view says that there isn't any designer. Atheism and ID are incompatible, not because of the evidence, but because of the governing assumptions--regardless of the evidence. So it really doesn't make that much sense to demand evidence for the assumptions, because the assumptions are generally made prior to viewing the data, and form the basis on which the data is interpreted.

However, since humans are intelligent people, I suggest that we are capable of considering assumptions without ever having to believe that they are true. Thus, while I am skeptical of evolutionary theory, I am certainly capable of interpreting the data based on the assumptions of evolutionary theory (e.g. the theory of universal common descent). This means that the ID approach is possible for anyone who is capable of *allowing* that there *may* have been a designer. That is the most basic assumption necessary.

Another basic assumption is that when chance and the laws of nature fail to explain something in nature, we then get to look at whether the idea of design fits better.

The current process that ID takes is outlined below.
It is taken from a paper entitled:
Intelligent Design
The Scientific Alternative to Evolution
William S. Harris
and John H. Calvert
THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC BIOETHICS QUARTERLY \ AUTUMN 2003

And they write:

''In his book The Design Inference, 34 Dembski outlines
a methodology for detection of design using a “design-detection filter.” This logical construct recognizes that there are only three explanatory causes for any event, pattern, or object (past or present): chance, necessity (natural law), and design. The naturalistic hypothesis assumes that only chance and necessity have operated to generate life and its diversity, whereas the design hypothesis postulates that all three causes may have played a role. Design detection essentially seeks evidence that rules in design and that also rules out chance and necessity.''



None of this will prove design, of course, but proof was never really the objective, just as it really isn't the objective with evolutionary theory. If it is a scientific theory, even the proponents of the theory ought to be skeptical of it, particularly the basic assumptions. But that doesn't mean that progress is impossible.

So amusing. So they make the same mistake you do. We know nothing of a designer so we can't say that something that can be fully explained by chance and necessity is not designed. We also can't say that design is the only alternative to chance and necessity. I propose that since we know nothing of the supernatural, something Behe admits is crucial to ID, that we can't know what unintelligent processes might be involved in the existence of life on earth. They assume intelligence is the only alternative and that it is an alternative. They make the same unscientific mistake you make. Again, show me how demon crap isn't a possible alternative once we incorporate the possibility of untestable forces.

That is not what I said. I said that it is silly to argue against a designer on the basis of a recognised lack of knowledge.

There is no "argument against a designer" - there is simply no support for this hypothesis. You build science by gathering evidence to support your pet idea, not by dismantling other people's ideas.

I must stress that even if you dismantle every other idea in the known Universe, you still have not proved your own idea.

Previously, scientists predicted that it would take billions of years for life to arise, the appearance of bacterial life so close to the time that the earth’s temperature fell below boiling suggests a sudden rather than gradual appearance of life

And let us not forget the Cambrian explosion. The appearance of most of the major animal plans almost *simultaneously* does not sound like the Darwinian theory of numerous small changes over a long period of time. There are no known biochemical processes that can support sudden large scale changes in the genome.

I get tired of hearing you repeat weasel words.

Why do you think that the estimated 300-400 million years is close to the time that Earth's temperature fell below boiling? Or that 8-10 million years is almost simultaneously?

Or that one part is more complex than five parts?

We are discussing science, but you are just giving us opinions.

Why I can even say that Google bought YouTube for loose change and you would have to agree.

Here is my challenge. Show me how intelligent supernatural actions is the only alternative for unintelligent behavior in nature. Show me that it's an alternative at all. My hypothesis is that since we have no knowledge of the capabilities of this 'intelligent actor' that we cannot assume exclusivity and thus no amount of evidence excludes it, or even evidences against it. I also hypothesize that even if we prove that all possible natural processes within the universe are insufficient for the existence of some thing that we still haven't found one lick of evidence for an 'intelligent actor' since we have no ability to analyze the capabilities of that actor nor any other possible forces existing outside of nature. In other words we have no ability to include or exclude an intellgent actor. Prove me wrong. Offer a test that excludes or includes design that doesn't equally include or exclude any other supernatural component.

B, why have you ignored my post? You stated that if anyone could show that ID tried to impliment/test for the supernatural, you would accept it's not science. I showed that.

I honestly didn't think you had. What was the test for the supernatural, again?



ID hasn't tested for anything. It assumes everything. TOE has been tested for. Even if there are a few assumptions in it, it is not the majority. You keep promoting religious websites that even clearly state that ID hasn't been tested for and uses many logical fallacies to try and make it legitimate.

If you mean by 'showing that' that you can just make a list of statements without any logical reasons supporting them, then I am not convinced, or impressed either.

Furthermore, I used one link to the AiG site, not to promote them, and not even to agree with them, but to provide food for thought about the validity of the claim of nylon eating bacteria as evidence for evolution, as was my comment at the bottom of that post. Apart from this site, which of the others was 'religious'?

You fail to demonstrate why the arguments are logical fallacies, and seem to think that giving them such a label is enough to prove that they are fallacies. At least I don't see many supporting arguments.
(I thought I had responded to anything worth responding to.)




It is a religious belief that tries to degrade science so as to allow alchemy, phrenology, astrology, and thematurgy as legitimate scientific endeavors. Would you accept that?

Everyone has a belief, you included. Whether it be a religious one or not, it will be a governing assumption in the way that you interpret the data. To be truly scientific, a person must be very skeptical of any belief--something that is very hard since no one is perfectly objective. What is even harder is to be skeptical of skepticism, although this is very necessary, within science.

If anything, I have learned from this debate just how easily people believe their favourite theory to be the truth, and how much time they spend attacking the theory that threatens their favourite one. And where you find people that are really angry and insulting, you can be almost certain that there is an underlying belief (probably mixed with a little insecurity). But it really is unscientific to believe any scientific theory to be the truth. If we believed the theory of gravity to be the truth, for example, we may never have discovered the theory(s) of relativity.

I've said several times that I am not an IDer, and am also critical of such an approach. However, the bias of people like yourself is so large, that you cannot tolerate criticism of your favourite theory, even by someone who does not necessarily disagree with everthing in your favourite theory.

My reasons for criticising evolutionary theory on this thread has been necessary here (in my view) to show how general NS criticisms of ID are desperately needing reviewing. But do with that what you wish. I'm leaving this thread for now. Not because I'm upset or impatient, but because it's time for me to enjoy my weekend and attend a work conference, which means I won't have access to NS until sometime the middle of next week. If the thread is still holding some interest by then, and if there are some comments that I think are worth replying to, I shall have a go at it.

Meanwhile, I wish you and everyone else on this thread a most pleasant weekend.

Here is my challenge. Show me how intelligent supernatural actions is the only alternative for unintelligent behavior in nature. Show me that it's an alternative at all. My hypothesis is that since we have no knowledge of the capabilities of this 'intelligent actor' that we cannot assume exclusivity and thus no amount of evidence excludes it, or even evidences against it. I also hypothesize that even if we prove that all possible natural processes within the universe are insufficient for the existence of some thing that we still haven't found one lick of evidence for an 'intelligent actor' since we have no ability to analyze the capabilities of that actor nor any other possible forces existing outside of nature. In other words we have no ability to include or exclude an intellgent actor. Prove me wrong. Offer a test that excludes or includes design that doesn't equally include or exclude any other supernatural component.


Sorry Jocabia, I'm out of time, but the next time you see me on NS, you can repeat your challenge, if you like.

Sorry Jocabia, I'm out of time, but the next time you see me on NS, you can repeat your challenge, if you like.

Interesting. You never stated the hypothesis of ID nor have you shown a single test that has performed that evidenced it. What you did show was that they are using the good old God of the Gaps. They said basically that there evidence for design is that we don't know of another way to explain it. It's flawed in almost every possible way to be flawed scientifically. One, an argument from ignorance is just that. Two, it ignores the obvious logical problems of the claim. And three, it's not testable of falsifiable since there will always be gaps. Always and forever. So basically their evidence is that as fallible human beings we cannot explain everything therefore there is an intelligent designer for everything we can't explain. Great science. That is, of course, so long as you don't know what science is or does.

I honestly didn't think you had. What was the test for the supernatural, again?

So now you go into complete denial. Can you be anymore disingenous? Are you now claiming they're not trying to insert the supernatural into science?




If you mean by 'showing that' that you can just make a list of statements without any logical reasons supporting them, then I am not convinced, or impressed either.

Of course you aren't. Because you have completely ignored every link that's been provided w/ peer reviewed journals and from every major science institute in the world.

Furthermore, I used one link to the AiG site, not to promote them, and not even to agree with them, but to provide food for thought about the validity of the claim of nylon eating bacteria as evidence for evolution, as was my comment at the bottom of that post. Apart from this site, which of the others was 'religious'?

And you used the catholic site, and you used Dembski, and you used Behe. All of which I've shown are trying to impliment YEC into science classrooms. More blatant denial.

You fail to demonstrate why the arguments are logical fallacies, and seem to think that giving them such a label is enough to prove that they are fallacies. At least I don't see many supporting arguments.
(I thought I had responded to anything worth responding to.)

And more dodging, denial, and outright lies. You obviously don't understand logical fallacies either.





Everyone has a belief, you included. Whether it be a religious one or not, it will be a governing assumption in the way that you interpret the data. To be truly scientific, a person must be very skeptical of any belief--something that is very hard since no one is perfectly objective. What is even harder is to be skeptical of skepticism, although this is very necessary, within science.

If anything, I have learned from this debate just how easily people believe their favourite theory to be the truth, and how much time they spend attacking the theory that threatens their favourite one. And where you find people that are really angry and insulting, you can be almost certain that there is an underlying belief (probably mixed with a little insecurity). But it really is unscientific to believe any scientific theory to be the truth. If we believed the theory of gravity to be the truth, for example, we may never have discovered the theory(s) of relativity.

I've said several times that I am not an IDer, and am also critical of such an approach. However, the bias of people like yourself is so large, that you cannot tolerate criticism of your favourite theory, even by someone who does not necessarily disagree with everthing in your favourite theory.

My reasons for criticising evolutionary theory on this thread has been necessary here (in my view) to show how general NS criticisms of ID are desperately needing reviewing. But do with that what you wish. I'm leaving this thread for now. Not because I'm upset or impatient, but because it's time for me to enjoy my weekend and attend a work conference, which means I won't have access to NS until sometime the middle of next week. If the thread is still holding some interest by then, and if there are some comments that I think are worth replying to, I shall have a go at it.

Meanwhile, I wish you and everyone else on this thread a most pleasant weekend.

Translation: I've been shown to be ignorant and a blatant liar and now am going to run away in hopes the thread will die and I can come back later and assert the same nonsense all over again.

Sorry Jocabia, I'm out of time, but the next time you see me on NS, you can repeat your challenge, if you like.
Further evidence that all Creationists are drinking the same KoolAid: they all "run out of time" at roughly the same points in these discussions.

In the time it took you to write out the quoted post, Bru, I could have written out a testable, falsifiable hypothesis generated by evolutionary theory. If your time is so precious, why do you waste it on these circular arguments and evasions, instead of just shutting us all up with a single stroke? Just give us a falsifiable hypothesis, a means of disproving ID. Just one.

Translation: I've been shown to be ignorant and a blatant liar and now am going to run away in hopes the thread will die and I can come back later and assert the same nonsense all over again.
No joke. Though I kind of hope he does come back and spout the same nonsense all over again, since it really just embarasses him and the ID crowd. :D

Further evidence that all Creationists are drinking the same KoolAid: they all "run out of time" at roughly the same points in these discussions.

In the time it took you to write out the quoted post, Bru, I could have written out a testable, falsifiable hypothesis generated by evolutionary theory. If your time is so precious, why do you waste it on these circular arguments and evasions, instead of just shutting us all up with a single stroke? Just give us a falsifiable hypothesis, a means of disproving ID. Just one.

He's already cut n run.

I guess it's because he "didn't believe" that the people who invented ID want to impliment the supernatural even when it comes from their own mouths.

In this case, no, because many of the human made motors were designed before we understood the flagellum motor.

This one is easy.... seriously.

Did the Egyptians migrate to South America? Probably not - at least, there is no real evidence for it.

Did the Egyptians spend much time in China? Maybe.. but again, unlikely, and no real evidence.

Near Cuba? Off the coast of Japan?


Probably wondering where I'm going with this...

Megaliths. All those places show evidence of large stone structures, with a surprising similarity to the pyramid constructions of ancient Egypt.

So - either the Egyptians got around a lot, built a load of different pyramids, then bogged off leaving no evidence (theory A, for the sake of argument), or they disseminated their knowledge past language barriers and huge distances (theory B, for the sake of argument).

Or - maybe, we have a theory C... how about the simple fact that it is easier to balance smaller rocks ON bigger rocks?

How about - the reason why ancient Chinese, South American and Egyptian 'pyramids' look so similar, is because it is just an efficient form?

(In case you are wondering what the relevence is - nature and human endeavour may well arrive at the same structures or mechanisms, because those are the most efficient forms.)

Each person is entitled to their own view point. I just don't share yours. My reason is that while I agree that some aspects of ID cannot be tested, that doesn't mean that IDers are trying to do experiments that do not allow the falsification of their hypothesis--that design is detectable. Much like the evolutionary scenario which has several assumptions, but plenty of testable predictions based on those assumptions. The assumptions of evolutionary theory cannot be tested, though, which means that it probably shouldn't pass your 'theory test'.


It isn't a question of viewpoint. ID cannot be considered a theory because it fails on so many levels. To me - the most important point being that it can never be falsified.

Any assumption of evolution COULD be falsified. This is not true of ID.


Why not? How many other theories do you have up your sleeve to explain the diversity and complexity of life? Or would you be happier with no theory than having to accept one that you didn't like? In that case, you probably wouldn't be that far from my own position.


I'm not going to prejudice my learning by excluding things "I don't like". I'm surprised you admit you will.

How many other theories? ALmost irrelevent - the simple fact is that, just because evolution might feasibly be proved a FALSE mechanism, adds nothing to the TRUTH of ID... UNLESS ID can prove that there can be NO otehr method.

What can I think of, off the top of my head?

How about the possibility that all the diverse life on this planet started somewhere else? Maybe one place - maybe millions of origins. What appears as 'diversity' would then actually just be representation of millions of homogenous lifeforms.

One idea - top of my head. No work required. The situation is not binary.


Well, he is sort of right. If it 'looks' like anything, then one had to have used one's eyes. Last time I checked, the scientific method depends on the same sort of process. It would be hard to be a scientist without your eyes, now, wouldn't it? And is this any worse than 'It looks homologous, therefore it must be related?'


What the hell are you talking about?


Yes. That is if you can find a difference between what he is saying and what I am. He is an IDer, after all. (I'm not.)


If it walks like an IDer and quacks like an IDer...


If you mean by 'explain' as mere speculation, regardless of how weak or confusing it looks, then I suppose anyone can make the same claim.

I'm not asking anyone to believe in ID, or God, for that matter. I only began this thread by criticising the criticism of ID. If you want to criticise ID, go for it. Make a crappy criticism, and I'll try to point it out to you. Make a good one, and I will commend you for it. I also have criticism for ID, but have not posted it here because I doubt anyone here is objective enough to improve it.


If you mean by 'intelligent design' as merely believing that anything that looks complex MUST have been designed, no matter how weak or illogical it seems, then... hey - this is fun! And universally applicable!


Doubt is an important part of critical science.
Why believe something is possible if you have no evidence that it is possible?


Believe? Who said anything about 'belief'?

Do you not understand what 'theory' is?


But the claim is not on the basis of real evidence, just a feeling or belief, which makes a mockery of the skeptical nature of science.

We are talking about ID here, right?

Believe? Who said anything about 'belief'?

That would be B.



Do you not understand what 'theory' is?

Obviously he doesn't, along w/ anything that goes along w/ the scientific method.



We are talking about ID here, right?

Some people are. B keeps trying to attack TOE to justify ID.

That would be B.

Obviously he doesn't, along w/ anything that goes along w/ the scientific method.

Some people are. B keeps trying to attack TOE to justify ID.

I don't get it. Seriously - I really don't.

Braurong has - I believe - said that he has worked in the sciences. I'm right, right?

I just can't reconcile the arguments I see here, with application of the scientific method on a daily basis.

I don't get it. Seriously - I really don't.

Braurong has - I believe - said that he has worked in the sciences. I'm right, right?

I just can't reconcile the arguments I see here, with application of the scientific method on a daily basis.

Self delusion takes many forms. Behe has a PhD in Biochem, but completely ignores his education in favor of indefensible personal beliefs.

Edit: and here's his own departments views on his beliefs:

http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm

Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"

The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

I don't get it. Seriously - I really don't.

Braurong has - I believe - said that he has worked in the sciences. I'm right, right?

I just can't reconcile the arguments I see here, with application of the scientific method on a daily basis.

Hey, you're only a few months behind me in realizing this. He claims that being falsifiable is not a requirement of scientific hypothesis. A positively absurd declaration that shows a complete disregard for the scientific method.

Further evidence that all Creationists are drinking the same KoolAid: they all "run out of time" at roughly the same points in these discussions.

In the time it took you to write out the quoted post, Bru, I could have written out a testable, falsifiable hypothesis generated by evolutionary theory. If your time is so precious, why do you waste it on these circular arguments and evasions, instead of just shutting us all up with a single stroke? Just give us a falsifiable hypothesis, a means of disproving ID. Just one.

It's not a coincidence. I've noticed that generally there are a few of his ilk on this board who have a tendency to flee right about the time they get nailed to the wall. They're approach relies on ignorance so they can't very well convince people once the flaws in their argument have been exposed. They have to wait and start another thread hoping that some people will be convinced before we show up again.

Here is a standing challenge. My email address is moebius74@yahoo.com. I challenge ANY IDer to show the following:

Let A = The existence of something fuly explained by natural causes including chance.
Let B = The existence of something involving and intelligent actor possibly a supernatural intelligent actor

1) Show that A and B are mutually exclusive.

They must be mutually exclusive or B is not falsifiable.

AND

2) That A and B are the only choices.

They must be the only choices or disproving A could never validate B or show how we can actually test B in some way (keep in mind that Behe and Intelligent Design proponents claim that A and B are the only choices).

AND 3) Show that any test that 'validates' B doesn't equally validate my 'demon crap theory' (that all life is formed by demons crapping it out).

Hey, you're only a few months behind me in realizing this. He claims that being falsifiable is not a requirement of scientific hypothesis. A positively absurd declaration that shows a complete disregard for the scientific method.

Technically....you are wrong in this regard, because you don't note the distinction between "hypothesis" and "theory".

A hypothesis is by definition, "a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations". That is it.

That being said, the standard for a hypothesis is very small, all a hypothesis must do is be a statement which could explain a fact or observation.

For example, if I find a bagel on top of my refridgerator, I can form perhaps 3 assumptions:

1) my girlfriend put it there
2) aliens put it there
3) my cat put it there

now #1 is a valid hypothesis as it does potentially explain the fact of how the bagel got on my refridgerator. Additionally #2 is also a valid hypothesis, as it is potentially possible that aliens put it there.

#3 is out because my cat, being far too small and lacking manual dexterity necessary for the task, couldn't do it. So #3 is not a valid hypothesis. A hypothesis does not require falsifiability, all it requies is that it is a possible explination for the observance. Aliens placing the bagel there is POSSIBLE, therefore it's a valid hypothesis.

Likewise both evolution and intelligent design are both a HYPOTHESIS. An intelligent designer is POSSIBLE. Therefore intelligent design is a valid hypothesis, it's a possible explination for a valid observation.

The trick lies in turning a hypothesis into a theory, and this is where ID fails. A HYPOTHESIS must only be possible to be valid, a THEORY must be falsifiable. #1 makes for a good theory because I can go to my girlfriend and say "hey, did you put the bagel on top of the refridgerator?"

Aliens however can not be so easily interrogated. And since I know nothing of these aliens, have no way of communicating or observing them, the hypothesis is untestable, and is therefore not a valid theory.

so in the options of girlfriend, aliens, or cat, the cat goes right out as it would be impossible. Either girlfriend or aliens are possible options, and thus valid hypothesis, however only the girlfriend hypothesis is testable and falsifiable, and thus that is the only valid THEORY.

So that's a long way of saying falsification is not necessary for a hypothesis, it is however necessary for a theory. And science really doesn't care too much about untestable hypothesis.

Here a Irreducible complexity link to check out:

http://search.hp.netscape.com/hp/search?fromPage=HPSidebar&query=Irreducible+Complexity+&x=24&y=9

The answers to those questions are not necessary in order to discover design in the natural world.

Yes, they are. Without them, there is no way to discover design at all.

All that is needed is an up-to-date understanding of the laws of nature.

Yes, yes, back to the "designer of the gaps" argument.

No, I don't think ID would just 'shove a designer in there' and move on. They work with theories. Finding something that seems to be designed supports their theory, but does not prove it. In the light of new information, old theories are revised.

But, there is no way to disprove "this was designed." No matter what new information you find out about it, you could still say, "Well, that was designed too."

The presence of a gap in general knowledge is not proof that the designer fits it. But it can be an indication that the alternative theory is inadequate.

First of all, if the presence of a gap in general knowledge doesn't provide evidence for a designer, then you have just debunked your entire argument in favor of ID being as scientific as evolution. You have just stated what all of us have been stating, even if evolutionary theory were completely and totally disproven, this would provide no backing for ID.

Second of all, gaps in knowledge don't tell us that a theory is inadequate. If they did, there would be no such thing as an adequate theory. In order to deem a theory inadequate, we must have contradictory data.

They observe similarities, and assume that similarity is due to common descent.

Wrong. They make a hypothesis that the similiarity is due to common descent. Why do your arguments always rely on the misuse of words?

What is needed is evidence that prokaryotes can evolve into eukaryotes by DEMONSTRATING in a lab some of the hypothesised pathways of development.

That would be further support, yes. But it is not necessary to see a hypothesis or theory as valid.

The idea that nothing comes from nothing--to name just one.

....except, of course, the designer.

This means that information cannot arise from systems by chance.

Of course, this is an incorrect assertion. Information is nothing more than a pattern that is interpreted to mean something. All sorts of information can arise by chance.

My point also.

Do make up your mind, please. You were arguing against this throughout the rest of the thread.

You think? At any case, I don't insist exclusively on a single common ancestor candidate. There could be a limited number of common ancestors, but due to the high number of unlikely events required in the evolutionary story, it is even less likely for multiple ancestors than it is for a single ancestor--based on what we know thus far. Evolutionary theory, as I understand it, generally prefers the most likely explanations, thus the multiple common ancestor possibility isn't very popular. You appear to be nitpicking on this point. Whether one or several, what difference does it make? All of life as we know it appears to hold some rather strong similarities.

Evolutionary theory is not concerned with the very beginning of life, but with how it changes over time. The theory remains the same whether there was one "first" life or 1 million.

Sure, they investigate speciation, and *assume* that it accounts for the microbes to man development.

Wrong again. They hypothesise this.

Next you'll be allowing ID as science, despite the acknowledgment we cannot currently test some parts of it, because one day we might.

No. There are parts of ID that are unfalsifiable and untestable by their very definition. It isn't a matter of needing more technology.

Like I keep saying, one doesn't need to know if aliens exist in order to search for extra-terrestrial intelligence.

No, but one does need to know that the type of information you are looking for could be designed by an intelligence. What does SETI look for? It looks for regularly patterned broadcasts, essentially. We know for a fact that intelligent lifeforms can possibly create such broadcasts, as we do so ourselves.

Meanwhile, if we did find evidence of such broadcasts elsewhere in the universe, we still wouldn't assume that they had been designed by alien lifeforms. We would keep investigating that area of the universe, and possibly even send a probe out that way, to test that theory. We would find the designer, if there was one.

How are we going to test ID's designer? According to you (although this is coompletely refuted by them), they don't make any claims as to who or what the designer is. They don't make any claims as to the abilities of the designer. Of course, this is falsehoods on your part. The proponents of the theory are very clear that the designer is God. So tell me, how do you empirically test for God?

It is an assumption because it cannot be disproved, just like we have in the evolutionary scenario.

Wow, your lack of understanding of the words used in science is staggering. Something isn't "an assumption because it cannot be disproved." In fact, assumptions that cannot be disproven are exactly the type of assumptions that cannot be made in science.

An asumption is *gasp* something that is assumed. It is something that is taken as true for the purposes of a theory/experiment/logical discussion but is not, itself, tested. This does not mean that it *cannot* be tested, it just means that it isn't.

ID makes the assumption that some being (generally said to be God) capable of designing life exists. The entire theory rests upon this assumption. What equivalent assumption does evolutionary theory rely upon.

And I get tired of repeating myself. Instead, why don't you post the assumptions that you think evolutionary theory is based on, and then we can use them? Or shall we turn to wikipedia for a consensus?

''In biology, evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones. All contemporary organisms are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years.''

Can we agree on that?

Yes, for the most part, but it doesn't list any "assumptions that evolutionary theory is based on." It does list the hypotheses that have developed into evolutionary theory, but it lists no assumptions on which the theory itself relies.

pos‧tu‧late  [v. pos-chuh-leyt; n. pos-chuh-lit, -leyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -lat‧ed, -lat‧ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1. to ask, demand, or claim.
2. to claim or assume the existence or truth of, esp. as a basis for reasoning or arguing.
3. to assume without proof, or as self-evident; take for granted.
4. Mathematics, Logic. to assume as a postulate.
–noun
5. something taken as self-evident or assumed without proof as a basis for reasoning.
6. Mathematics, Logic. a proposition that requires no proof, being self-evident, or that is for a specific purpose assumed true, and that is used in the proof of other propositions; axiom.
7. a fundamental principle.
8. a necessary condition; prerequisite.
[Origin: 1525–35; < L postulātum petition, thing requested, n. use of neut. of ptp. of postulāre to request, demand, akin to pōscere to request]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/postulation

Interesting. I've apparently never heard the word used properly then. Most people use the word "postulate" to mean "propose".

In a paper that I was reading a while ago, entitled 'The evolutionary history of quorum sensing systems in bacteria' Lerat, E. and Moran N., 2004, Molecular and Biological Evolution, they write this:
''The genes underlying QS are distributed in a discontinuous manner among the bacteria, suggesting that they have been subject to loss or horizontal transfer. In this regard, gene phylogenies for the components of QS systems can provide evidence as to whether they are ancestral and lost in some species or have been acquired from distantly related lineages. Knowledge of the evolutionary mechanisms of such genes is of particular importance because they are increasingly being considered as potential targets in new antimicrobial strategies.''

Here in their statement of motivation for such research, the assertion is that similarities in genes is because of ancestry, even in cases that do not appear to support this assumption. Rather than questioning this assumption, they assume that the 'discontinuous manner' is due to several other possibilities, despite having no evidence to support that. Why? Because they are working with the assumption that all of life is related through ancestry? Here is real science at work with assumptions that are not being tested. Indeed, it cannot be tested.

Shifting the discussion, are we? An individual paper does not provide evidence for science as a whole. These researchers have based their research in generally accepted theory, making their own assumptions. However, nothing they assume is untestable, despite your consistent suggestion that it is.

Meanwhile, your critique reveals a few of your own biases. Where in the quoted text did they claim that similarities in genes were due to ancestry even when the evidence did not support it? In fact, the quoted text says precisely the opposite, that these genes could have been due to transfer from other species.

Here a Irreducible complexity link to check out:

http://search.hp.netscape.com/hp/search?fromPage=HPSidebar&query=Irreducible+Complexity+&x=24&y=9

ANd every single one of those has already been refuted.

Try again.

The point is that they do not ask the question of whether the genes might reflect a pattern of design, that the genes are present based on the environment for which the bacteria were design.

Ah. So because they don't examine your pet hypothesis, one which they have no way of examining in the first place, without some idea of who or what the designer would be, one which they have absolutely no evidence for, you have a problem with it?

Thus, ancestry or acquisition (ie. conjugation, which is mating between bacteria, or the taking up of foreign DNA from the environment, known as transformation) are the only postulated alternatives.

These are the ways we have observed of acquiring genes - from ancestors and from transfer. Seems to me that it makes sense to investigate them as possible ways that particular genes were acquired.

ANd every single one of those has already been refuted.

Try again.


Tell the Search Engine, I was just trying to help.

Sure, if you always had it as the final solution, then it will always win, by default. The last theory left standing, not because it was demonstrated as true, but because the others were demonstrated as not.

But this is not the ID approach, as I understand it.

Make up your mind. You have described this as exactly the ID approach. "The other explanations don't work for me, so design does." That is precisely the line of logic you have argued in favor of.

Complexity is never labelled 'design' because of a lack of information. It is labelled as 'perhaps designed'.

Everything is "perhaps designed," no matter how complex it is or is not.

Now, give me a test that could disprove design.

ANd every single one of those has already been refuted.

Try again.

I highly doubt he'll care. I even doubt that he read it. I skipped out of the discussion once I realized I was basically beating a dead horse. Pointless, repetitive, and I'm not going to change anything, no matter how much I try. And, after reading some of his posts, it was apparent that the same flaw in logic occurred over and over again. So, meh.

Technically....you are wrong in this regard, because you don't note the distinction between "hypothesis" and "theory".

A hypothesis is by definition, "a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations". That is it.

That being said, the standard for a hypothesis is very small, all a hypothesis must do is be a statement which could explain a fact or observation.

For example, if I find a bagel on top of my refridgerator, I can form perhaps 3 assumptions:

1) my girlfriend put it there
2) aliens put it there
3) my cat put it there

now #1 is a valid hypothesis as it does potentially explain the fact of how the bagel got on my refridgerator. Additionally #2 is also a valid hypothesis, as it is potentially possible that aliens put it there.

#3 is out because my cat, being far too small and lacking manual dexterity necessary for the task, couldn't do it. So #3 is not a valid hypothesis. A hypothesis does not require falsifiability, all it requies is that it is a possible explination for the observance. Aliens placing the bagel there is POSSIBLE, therefore it's a valid hypothesis.

Likewise both evolution and intelligent design are both a HYPOTHESIS. An intelligent designer is POSSIBLE. Therefore intelligent design is a valid hypothesis, it's a possible explination for a valid observation.

The trick lies in turning a hypothesis into a theory, and this is where ID fails. A HYPOTHESIS must only be possible to be valid, a THEORY must be falsifiable. #1 makes for a good theory because I can go to my girlfriend and say "hey, did you put the bagel on top of the refridgerator?"

Aliens however can not be so easily interrogated. And since I know nothing of these aliens, have no way of communicating or observing them, the hypothesis is untestable, and is therefore not a valid theory.

so in the options of girlfriend, aliens, or cat, the cat goes right out as it would be impossible. Either girlfriend or aliens are possible options, and thus valid hypothesis, however only the girlfriend hypothesis is testable and falsifiable, and thus that is the only valid THEORY.

So that's a long way of saying falsification is not necessary for a hypothesis, it is however necessary for a theory. And science really doesn't care too much about untestable hypothesis.

You are confusing a lay hypothesis with a scientific hypothesis. A scientific hypothesis must be worded in such a way as to make it falsifiable. It has nothing to with whether that hypothesis is valid or not. It has to do with whether it is scientific or not. In form, a scientific hypothesis must not include unnecessary elements, must be falsifiable and must be testable.

Firstly, assumptions in science are usually not falsifiable, otherwise they wouldn't be assumptions, but rigorously tested concepts.

Actually, assumptions in science are *always* falsifiable. Otherwise, they are simply not allowed. They are made for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes, it is that they *have* been rigorously tested, so we simply aren't going to test for them every time. An example would be the assumption, often used, that specific markers will be expressed in mRNA or in protein levels consistently across different conditions. There are certain markers that have been tested in various cells and in various conditions, and their levels have not been changed. So now, instead of testing for this every single time, we assume that they are the same, and use them as loading controls - as a check to be sure that we put the same amount of RNA/DNA/protein into a gel for each condition.

In some cases, they are made because we do not yet have a method to test them, so we must make an assumption until rigorous testing is possible.

In some cases, they are simplifying assumptions. We know that they are not completely accurate, but we also know that they do not generally affect the end result in any significant way and they make our lives much easier. The use of Newtonian mechanics in many applications is a prime example of a simplifying assumption.

Evidence for assumptions. Hmmmm, well, you see, it really does come down to the particular world view that you hold. Based on this world view, you will tend to interpret the evidence one way or the other. Thus, for an atheist, he will never interpret the data with regards to design, because his world view says that there isn't any designer. Atheism and ID are incompatible, not because of the evidence, but because of the governing assumptions--regardless of the evidence. So it really doesn't make that much sense to demand evidence for the assumptions, because the assumptions are generally made prior to viewing the data, and form the basis on which the data is interpreted.

Atheism and ID are incompatible??!?!?!?!? I thought you said that the designer wasn't necessarily GOD!?!?!?!

Do make up your mind.

Another basic assumption is that when chance and the laws of nature fail to explain something in nature, we then get to look at whether the idea of design fits better.

How do we know when the laws of nature don't explain something?

Once again, this relies upon knowing the laws of nature with 100% certainty.

''A design inference can be falsified by simply showing a lack of design or apparent meaning in the pattern, or by demonstrating that unguided natural processes can produce the same result.''
Harris and Calvert in Intelligent Design

LOL. So they are trying to assume that a being that they refuse to define, that they don't even know what it *might* be, other than a deity, and assume that its design would look like what a person would design.

Cute.

"If we don't assign meaning in the pattern, or we can demonstrate that something else *might* be it, then design is ruled out."

Let's look at Bottle's example. Human beings can blast away at a mountain and create a great skiing slope. However, natural processes can also do this. It isn't an either/or proposition. And, when we are discussing God, both can simultaneously be true. We can never demonstrate God's guidance, but any natural process might be so guided.

Meanwhile, the very idea of a "great skiing slope" is dependent on value that *we* assign. Have you ever looked at shapes in the clouds? I've seen all sorts of animals and such in the clouds. Once, I swear I saw a thumb in the clouds pointing in the direction I was going. When I headed back home aout 10 minutes later, the same cloud formation was now a thumb pointing back towards home. Was it designed simply because I assigned meaning to the pattern?

Technically....you are wrong in this regard, because you don't note the distinction between "hypothesis" and "theory".

A theory is a hypothesis or set of hypotheses that has stood up to time and testing.

A hypothesis is by definition, "a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations". That is it.

In layman's terms, that is indeed correct. However, within the scientific method, a hypothesis must be falsifiable as well. Otherwise, the rest of the scientific method cannot be carried out. If this is the case, then the hypothesis in question is not a scientific hypothesis, although it is a hypothesis.

Aliens however can not be so easily interrogated. And since I know nothing of these aliens, have no way of communicating or observing them, the hypothesis is untestable, and is therefore not a valid theory.

You are misusing the word "untestable." If aliens do exist in the universe, we can test for them, and eventually figure out if they could put a bagel on your refrigerator. The alien hypothesis is not untestable, and it is not unfalsifiable. It is, however, unlikely...

Keep in mind that many of the hypotheses made by Einstein would have been deemed "untestable" by any definition which means "Testable right now with the knowledge and technology currently available." We are just now getting to a technological level in which we can test much of Einstein's proposals.

In layman's terms, that is indeed correct. However, within the scientific method, a hypothesis must be falsifiable as well. Otherwise, the rest of the scientific method cannot be carried out. If this is the case, then the hypothesis in question is not a scientific hypothesis, although it is a hypothesis.

Honestly, I find it impossible to believe that somebody could have a PhD in the sciences (as I think Bru has claimed to have) without being EXTREMELY clear on this point.

I was not even permitted to submit the proposal for my thesis design until after I clarified precisely how each of my individual hypotheses would be tested, and what results would disprove each of them. And that was just the PROPOSAL for my thesis, submitted before I'd even really started working on the damn thing! How could somebody get past a thesis committee or a qualifying exam and not know this kind of thing?

Not yet.

Bruarong still hasn't replied on this - if one part can be more complex than five, how do you measure complexity?

"Complexity" and "Design" being such subjective things. ;)

complexity is a relative term. you will be hard put to find a level eveyone can agree on. Good Luck.


btw... (I didn't check it since I'm at work,) did you alter your paper?

You are misusing the word "untestable." If aliens do exist in the universe, we can test for them, and eventually figure out if they could put a bagel on your refrigerator. The alien hypothesis is not untestable, and it is not unfalsifiable. It is, however, unlikely...

Fair enough, I admit to being a bit fast and loose with my definitions. What I meant to say is we have no way of testing for the aliens NOW, so for right NOW it's untestable. It is, in theory, testable in SOME WAY, so I concede that point that it would be testable in the abstract.

Therefore I submit that we should replace "aliens" with "god" and let the rest of the point stand unaltered.

Fair enough, I admit to being a bit fast and loose with my definitions. What I meant to say is we have no way of testing for the aliens NOW, so for right NOW it's untestable. It is, in theory, testable in SOME WAY, so I concede that point that it would be testable in the abstract.

Therefore I submit that we should replace "aliens" with "god" and let the rest of the point stand unaltered.

If you want to define God as someone who could theoretically be found if we were to search every cm^2 of this galaxy that works, yes.
Of course, if you would want to reduce God to that is another question.

If you want to define God as someone who could theoretically be found if we were to search every cm^2 of this galaxy that works, yes.
Of course, if you would want to reduce God to that is another question.

That's my point, I'm defining god just the opposite.

Therefore the statement "god put the bagel on the fridge" is a valid hypothesis, as it presents a possible explanation for the bagel being on the fridge.

It is not an acceptable theory as it is not testable however.

Fair enough, I admit to being a bit fast and loose with my definitions. What I meant to say is we have no way of testing for the aliens NOW, so for right NOW it's untestable. It is, in theory, testable in SOME WAY, so I concede that point that it would be testable in the abstract.

Therefore I submit that we should replace "aliens" with "god" and let the rest of the point stand unaltered.

It doesn't stand. You tried to correct me on whether a hypothesis must be falsifiable. It must be. You claimed it doesn't need to be. You were wrong. Your point doesn't stand. At all.

Irreducible Complexity is intersting in that is is falsifiable but not testable in the sense that it can yeild a poisitive result. All it can do it point at things saying "WOW! that looks designed!" and then wait to see if someone can falsify it by coming up with a model that can show how it could have been produced by natural means.

Its this reason that ID and its golden principle IC are really just creationism made to sound scientific enough to the general public that it can attack evolution.

You can't test ID to get a positive result, however, evolutionary theory can do this. We take fossils of species A and F from different geological strata, then we hypothesise that species B C D and E should exisit in strata between A and F. We arent exactly sure what B,C,D, and E will be but we predict that their morphology will be somewhere between A and F. We have found these examples time and time again. Ambulocetus natans anyone? All the homonid fossils. etc.

Our understanding of evolution helps us predict how the Influenza virus will change year to year and how we can combat this. All the people around the world who have lived because evolutionary theory has helped us develop Flu Vaccines should be thankful.

Evolutionary theory predicts that animals with similar morphology should also have similar genetics. We see this all the time. Why would a designer build a FAULTY vitamin C gene into humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas, but not other mammals? We can SEE where the gene is and how it is fauly, it matches between all mammal species but ours is now non-functional. I believe it is hamsters or guinea pigs that also have a malfunctioning Vitamin C gene. But the fault is clearly different than ours and the other apes. I will confidently call this junk DNA because although we know its intended purpose it CAN. NOT. WORK. In time to come maybe further mutations will allow the gene to come back into function as something entirely different. But that is only further evidence for evolution.

We make predicitons that can yield positive results constantly in evolution. Intelligent design merely looks for apparent design and then sits around twiddling its thumbs waiting for someone to solve its latest biochemical riddle. And while these riddles remain unsolved it, mistakenly, claims it is still a valid alternative.

(Sorry if there are typos in all that).

... We make predicitons that can yield positive results constantly in evolution. Intelligent design merely looks for apparent design and then sits around twiddling its thumbs waiting for someone to solve its latest biochemical riddle. And while these riddles remain unsolved it, mistakenly, claims it is still a valid alternative.

But the real danger of ID is that it would tend to stifle research. "Oooh, look, that's really complex, it seems to be designed because sure as heck can't figure it out. Well, if it's designed, there's no point in doing any more research. Anyone want to go out for pizza?"

But the real danger of ID is that it would tend to stifle research. "Oooh, look, that's really complex, it seems to be designed because sure as heck can't figure it out. Well, if it's designed, there's no point in doing any more research. Anyone want to go out for pizza?"

I'm going to use that from now on.


Those nights when you just cant decide what to have for dinner.

Call Intelligent Design Pizza on 555-IDPIZZA
When thinking is just too hard

I'm going to use that from now on.


Those nights when you just cant decide what to have for dinner.

Call Intelligent Design Pizza on 555-IDPIZZA
When thinking is just too hard

I like it! :D

But the real danger of ID is that it would tend to stifle research. "Oooh, look, that's really complex, it seems to be designed because sure as heck can't figure it out.

Nah. The biggest danger are the arrogance and hypocrisy shown in such statements.
"It is too complex to have evolved in my opinion, therefor it must be designed".

Please. Like evolution and ID are the only two options. As if "I do not see how it can be true, therefor it must not be" is a valid argument.

The moment IDers start to honestly plead to "teach the controversy" - meaning they admit there are millions of "theories" on how we came to be -and then proceed to explain why their theory is best instead of pretending that disproving one is to prove theirs - THEN they would deserve some respect.

Nah. The biggest danger are the arrogance and hypocrisy shown in such statements.
"It is too complex to have evolved in my opinion, therefor it must be designed".

Please. Like evolution and ID are the only two options. As if "I do not see how it can be true, therefor it must not be" is a valid argument.

The moment IDers start to honestly plead to "teach the controversy" - meaning they admit there are millions of "theories" on how we came to be -and then proceed to explain why their theory is best instead of pretending that disproving one is to prove theirs - THEN they would deserve some respect.


Well, we do agree that ID is a silly idea and certainly not science, so I won't quibble over the why and wherefore.

complexity is a relative term. you will be hard put to find a level eveyone can agree on. Good Luck.


btw... (I didn't check it since I'm at work,) did you alter your paper?

No I didn't.

Should I alter it? ;)

Actually I was thinking of adding that keystone analogy, which is nicer than mine.

No I didn't.

Should I alter it? ;)

Actually I was thinking of adding that keystone analogy, which is nicer than mine.

What? You didn't like my 'demon crap' argument?

Irreducible Complexity is intersting in that is is falsifiable but not testable in the sense that it can yeild a poisitive result. All it can do it point at things saying "WOW! that looks designed!" and then wait to see if someone can falsify it by coming up with a model that can show how it could have been produced by natural means.

Its this reason that ID and its golden principle IC are really just creationism made to sound scientific enough to the general public that it can attack evolution.

You can't test ID to get a positive result, however, evolutionary theory can do this. We take fossils of species A and F from different geological strata, then we hypothesise that species B C D and E should exisit in strata between A and F. We arent exactly sure what B,C,D, and E will be but we predict that their morphology will be somewhere between A and F. We have found these examples time and time again. Ambulocetus natans anyone? All the homonid fossils. etc.

Our understanding of evolution helps us predict how the Influenza virus will change year to year and how we can combat this. All the people around the world who have lived because evolutionary theory has helped us develop Flu Vaccines should be thankful.

Evolutionary theory predicts that animals with similar morphology should also have similar genetics. We see this all the time. Why would a designer build a FAULTY vitamin C gene into humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas, but not other mammals? We can SEE where the gene is and how it is fauly, it matches between all mammal species but ours is now non-functional. I believe it is hamsters or guinea pigs that also have a malfunctioning Vitamin C gene. But the fault is clearly different than ours and the other apes. I will confidently call this junk DNA because although we know its intended purpose it CAN. NOT. WORK. In time to come maybe further mutations will allow the gene to come back into function as something entirely different. But that is only further evidence for evolution.

We make predicitons that can yield positive results constantly in evolution. Intelligent design merely looks for apparent design and then sits around twiddling its thumbs waiting for someone to solve its latest biochemical riddle. And while these riddles remain unsolved it, mistakenly, claims it is still a valid alternative.

(Sorry if there are typos in all that).

I agree with the general sentiment, but I have to quibble your opening gambit.

First - 'looking designed' isn't the 'hypothesis' component... just the observable data. Someone who has no truck with 'Intelligent Design', at all, may concede that something looks designed.

Indeed - I'm a scientist, and I constantly find myself looking at things like the molecular model for water, and noticing how it LOOKS designed.

The 'hypothesis' part of the equation in ID is that, if it looks designed, then it IS designed.

And the only way that THAT claim could be falsified, is if we could flasify the 'designer' - which leads us to my second point:

Second - we cannot falsify the designer, because we cannot analyse the designer, or lack of it.

Example - if we assume the designer is 'god', and we work out some mythical way to 'prove' god doesn't exist... we are still left with the possibility that aliens 'designed' everything... or pixies... or goblins... or everything is just a big dream... etc. Whichever 'designer' we attack, even if shown to be false... is just opening the door on a wealth of OTHER possible 'designers'.

You just can't falsify 'Intelligent Design', because you can't isolate the 'design function', to test.


EDIT: Extra thought... even if you could PROVE that something was created through another mechanism, you couldn't PROVE there was NO 'Intelligent Designer'... after all, an 'Intelligent Designer' COULD have used evolutionary mechanisms to 'design' his product.

No I didn't.

Should I alter it? ;)

Actually I was thinking of adding that keystone analogy, which is nicer than mine.

just wondering. because your thesis is baised on the wrong presumption. your whole point is because a watch cannot "grow" like a human, it disproves the Watchmaker Analogy.

I agree..*snip* to 'design' his product.

Good point. I guess i am guilty myself on this occassion of putting the horse before the cart and falling for the ID trick that they can just imply design without ever having to test a designer. Like how Bruarong so often tries to convince us that ID has nothing to do with identifying a designer, merely identifying where there is design. My Bad.

Edit: i just realisesd how my snipping made your post look. We could take that out of context like ID people take real research out of context. I'm now going to tell everyone you're coming to work designing new pizza toppings for my Intelligent Design Pizza Shop.

just wondering. because your thesis is baised on the wrong presumption. your whole point is because a watch cannot "grow" like a human, it disproves the Watchmaker theory.

The Watchmaker Analogy has become the Watchmaker "Theory"?

I was trying to show that the watchmaker analogy is irrelevant to living systems. I think I did demonstrate my point. :)

The Watchmaker Analogy has become the Watchmaker "Theory"?

I was trying to show that the watchmaker analogy is irrelevant to living systems. I think I did demonstrate my point. :)

sorry. my bad...

you grasped the obvious difference and ignored what the analogy pointed at.

can you show in the watchmaker analogy where the material that made up the watch was compaired to the human body... or that the abilites of living things were compared to the watch?

I believe the analogy was only compairing the complexity of the watch to that of a person and the fact that both the watch and a living being was so complex that random natural evolution (as it was understood then) could not produce such a complex work of engineering with a specific function/goal.

and that as a watch was designed to tell time, living things are 'designed' for specific areas and purposes. certain plants will only be polinized by certain species of bees. other plants utilizes flies, some heat and/or wind.

So basically the design implies a designer. not that a watch can mimic a living thing precisely and totally, which is what your essay disproves, but the analogy doesn't make that claim. so I wondered why focus on how a living thing grows. a feat that a watch cannot do.

sorry. my bad...

you grasped the obvious difference and ignored what the analogy pointed at.

can you show in the watchmaker analogy where the material that made up the watch was compaired to the human body... or that the abilites of living things were compared to the watch?

I believe the analogy was only compairing the complexity of the watch to that of a person and the fact that both the watch and a living being was so complex that random natural evolution (as it was understood then) could not produce such a complex work of engineering with a specific function/goal.

and that as a watch was designed to tell time, living things are 'designed' for specific areas and purposes. certain plants will only be polinized by certain species of bees. other plants utilizes flies, some heat and/or wind.

So basically the design implies a designer. not that a watch can mimic a living thing precisely and totally, which is what your essay disproves, but the analogy doesn't make that claim. so I wondered why focus on how a living thing grows. a feat that a watch cannot do.

Because the mechanism by which the 'design' came about is essential for understanding. A fully formed watch has no chance of just appearing because someone has to make it with no precursor. A human being is the end result of millions of years of gradual change between generations. One

And from one point of view the watch did evolve. The final design of the watch would have been an improvement on the previous models of watch that inspired it. And those previous watches would have been inspired by those before them. And so on until you would get back to the most rudimentary of timepieces.

well, I'm trying to keep it to the topic of his essay. not wanting to add to the ID argument.
Because the mechanism by which the 'design' came about is essential for understanding. A fully formed watch has no chance of just appearing because someone has to make it with no precursor. A human being is the end result of millions of years of gradual change between generations. One ??? ok, but if we look at each stage of the human evolution as... say a version... then wouldn't neaderthal man be considered... say a sundial? then as you move up through the evolution chain... you have your "hourglass", "Candlemark", "Waterclock", "Pendilum", "Electric", and now we are at the "Digital clocks" stage. could not each stage of the development of the clock (which is also influenced by the changing envrionment of the understanding of both science and physics.) be considered the evolutionary chain of the watch?

And from one point of view the watch did evolve. The final design of the watch would have been an improvement on the previous models of watch that inspired it. And those previous watches would have been inspired by those before them. And so on until you would get back to the most rudimentary of timepieces.
anc each design of the watch was an improvement on accuracy, portability, durability, ease of use and even working life (winding springs vs electrical).

the only difference is that the watch/clock is not Self Growing (in every sense of the word.) which is a property that living things have, but that failure cannot be said to be the proof that a designer doesn't exsist, but just a proof that our technology hasn't made such a device yet.

however, such man made devices that can now grow is being developed. the first generation of such devices can be found here
Growing Prosthesis (bones) - http://www.wmt.com/Whatsnew/articles/GrowingProsthesis.pdf

http://www.limbpres.com/CPM/2003%20Vol%20X%20No.%202_repiphysis%20bone%20tumor.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3917573.stm

http://www.oandp.com/edge/issues/articles/2006-05_02.asp

Now imagine our science getting to the point where we have robots that can be used for a variety of porposes. if they start making more robots, would that not be "Reproduction"?

if they start designing as well, Improving themselves... won't that be their "Evolution"?

if they start programing themselves, won't that be "education"

each step... another evolution in a very similar chain.

Just because we cannot yet see a hand in our design doesn't mean there wasn't one.

JuNii, I completely agree. It's a bit of a strawman argument. The baby analogy just shows that human beings are even more wondrous form of automation than the watch. The watch analogy was going for it and the OP argument actually backs up their principle. That's actually the problem with ID itself is that you cannot damage their principles because it's based on unfalsifiable assumptions like anything more complicated than something that was created must be created. And since we can never prove something wasn't created, we can't ever establish that they're wrong. It's really that simple.

The argument against ID isn't that it's illogical. It's that it's unscientific.

The argument against ID isn't that it's illogical. It's that it's unscientific.But it isn't logical. I can think of a possible alternative, so there's nothing logical about assuming ID. Logic & wishful thinking isn't the same thing.

The "But it's gotta be intelligent design!" thing is just plain silly. Anthills are highly complicated constructs. There's nothing random about their existence, and there's absolutely no intelligent design involved. Life is no different. It's just chemicals doing what they have to under the given conditions. Just like the material in the anthill is shaped by the ants.

But it isn't logical. I can think of a possible alternative, so there's nothing logical about assuming ID. Logic & wishful thinking isn't the same thing.

The "But it's gotta be intelligent design!" thing is just plain silly. Anthills are highly complicated constructs. There's nothing random about their existence, and there's absolutely no intelligent design involved. Life is no different. It's just chemicals doing what they have to under the given conditions. Just like the material in the anthill is shaped by the ants.

It's a belief. It's perfectly logical and fully possible. It's just not scientific. Where is the flaw in the logic, because the argument is that it HAS to be intelligent design, but that since it looks designed it is. Since it's possible and it's based on observation and it's a clearly obvious conclusion of what they believe they're observing, it's logical. However, it's not testable or falsifiable so it's not scientific. Not everything you or I disagree with is illogical.

Meanwhile, your conclusion is no more logical than theirs. Worse, you include that they MUST be wrong in your conclusion which makes yours less logical. You can't confirm no intelligent design was involved without make the same leaps they do. That intelligence was not involved is not a scientific conclusion any more than that it was. It simply not addressed by science and cannot be. It is addressed by logic and yours failed when you said you can come to your conclusion but they can't come to theirs.

Good point. I guess i am guilty myself on this occassion of putting the horse before the cart and falling for the ID trick that they can just imply design without ever having to test a designer. Like how Bruarong so often tries to convince us that ID has nothing to do with identifying a designer, merely identifying where there is design. My Bad.

Edit: i just realisesd how my snipping made your post look. We could take that out of context like ID people take real research out of context. I'm now going to tell everyone you're coming to work designing new pizza toppings for my Intelligent Design Pizza Shop.

Sweet. First topping is Green Mouse and Telephone. (*tips hat to Neil Gaiman*)

It's a belief. It's perfectly logical and fully possible.Yes it's a belief, and yes, it's possible. but it isn't logical.It's just not scientific.Obviously.Where is the flaw in the logic, because the argument is that it HAS to be intelligent design, but that since it looks designed it is.I just gave you a perfectly plausible counter example. There's nothing logical about saying "Well, this sure looks like something clever made it" when you positively know things created by the mindless can look just as cleverly designed. When you know that, assuming intelligence is illogic.

You can't even deduce something intelligent made something, if there's a theoretical possibility something unintelligent did it. Without evidence for one or the other, it's just daydreaming. Not logic.Since it's possible and it's based on observation and it's a clearly obvious conclusion of what they believe they're observing, it's logical.But it isn't clearly obvious. By your standards, it's logical to assume there's life on Mars & that alien abductions happen in the US on a daily basis. Hell, by your standards, Loose Change is logically consistent.

You can't use deductive logic to nail 1 particular explanation between several equally possible ones. Doing that is free fantasy, not logic.However, it's not testable or falsifiable so it's not scientific. Not everything you or I disagree with is illogical.Hehe, so true.Meanwhile, your conclusion is no more logical than theirs. [...] It is addressed by logic and yours failed when you said you can come to your conclusion but they can't come to theirs.You're right. Only, I meant the anthill-life thing as a counter example, nothing more. I really need to learn to express myself better.

Yes it's a belief, and yes, it's possible. but it isn't logical.

It is logical as any assertion to the contrary.


Obviously.I just gave you a perfectly plausible counter example. There's nothing logical about saying "Well, this sure looks like something clever made it" when you positively know things created by the mindless can look just as cleverly designed. When you know that, assuming intelligence is illogic.

Really? Fine. Pick anything. Anything you like. Show me how it was created by the mindless. Keep in mind that in order to show this, you must show that no intelligent entity was involved, natural or supernatural. I'll wait. See you're making a conclusion every bit as unfalsifiable as theirs and worse, yours makes the claim that any other conclusion is illogical, something many intelligent designers don't do.


You can't even deduce something intelligent made something, if there's a theoretical possibility something unintelligent did it. Without evidence for one or the other, it's just daydreaming. Not logic.But it isn't clearly obvious. By your standards, it's logical to assume there's life on Mars & that alien abductions happen in the US on a daily basis. Hell, by your standards, Loose Change is logically consistent.

If there is a theoretical possiblity that something unintelligent made it, then there is also a theoretical possibility that something intelligent made it. They are choosing to believe that something intelligent made it and you are choosing to believe ONLY something unintelligent was involved and neither of you has any proof.

You don't get it. It's actually possible to explore whether alien abductions occur or whether there's life on Mars. You can't offer one iota of proof that anything was every created without any involvement of an intelligent supernatural force. That's exactly what makes their theories unscientific. Your argument, if actually applicable, would prove that their theory is, in fact, falsifiable and thus scientific. Unfortunately, nothing, nothing you've ever encountered or ever will encounter can be proven to not have the involvement of an intelligent being.

You can't use deductive logic to nail 1 particular explanation between several equally possible ones. Doing that is free fantasy, not logic.Hehe, so true.You're right. Only, I meant the anthill-life thing as a counter example, nothing more. I really need to learn to express myself better.
It's not how you're expressing yourself. The problem is your conclusion is based on exactly as much evidence as theirs is. Which is none.

It is logical as any assertion to the contrary.You you by that mean "Not at all", then we agree.It's not how you're expressing yourself. The problem is your conclusion is based on exactly as much evidence as theirs is. Which is none.Trust me, the problem is how I expressed myself.

You see, I didn't actually mean to assert anything. I meant to provide a counter example. Which, if any, of the two I personally believe has nothing to with whether or not you can logically deduce the right explanation.Really? Fine. Pick anything. Anything you like. Show me how it was created by the mindless. Keep in mind that in order to show this, you must show that no intelligent entity was involved, natural or supernatural. I'll wait. See you're making a conclusion every bit as unfalsifiable as theirs and worse, yours makes the claim that any other conclusion is illogical, something many intelligent designers don't do. You're changing the yardstick. ID doesn't hold that God makes anthills.If there is a theoretical possiblity that something unintelligent made it, then there is also a theoretical possibility that something intelligent made it.Exactly. Without more information, you can't logically deduce which is correct.They are choosing to believe that something intelligent made it and you are choosing to believe ONLY something unintelligent was involved and neither of you has any proof.Again, it was meant as a counter example. Not that I don't believe it, but what I believe is besides the point - and I claim neither certainty, infallibility nor special knowledge.You don't get it. It's actually possible to explore whether alien abductions occur or whether there's life on Mars. You can't offer one iota of proof that anything was every created without any involvement of an intelligent supernatural force. That's exactly what makes their theories unscientific. Your argument, if actually applicable, would prove that their theory is, in fact, falsifiable and thus scientific. Unfortunately, nothing, nothing you've ever encountered or ever will encounter can be proven to not have the involvement of an intelligent being.I'm having a bit of a "What the FUCK?!" experience here. What I argue is pretty much the opposite of what you're telling me I'm arguing.

Read closely: you can't logically deduce the existence of a designer. Thus calling the assumption of an intelligent designer logical, is untrue.

That you can't use a materialistic approach to conclusively prove the existence of a non-materialistic entity is another discussion.

You you by that mean "Not at all", then we agree.Trust me, the problem is how I expressed myself.

You see, I didn't actually mean to assert anything. I meant to provide a counter example. Which, if any, of the two I personally believe has nothing to with whether or not you can logically deduce the right explanation.You're changing the yardstick. ID doesn't hold that God makes anthills.Exactly. Without more information, you can't logically deduce which is correct.Again, it was meant as a counter example. Not that I don't believe it, but what I believe is besides the point - and I claim neither certainty, infallibility nor special knowledge.I'm having a bit of a "What the FUCK?!" experience here. What I argue is pretty much the opposite of what you're telling me I'm arguing.

Read closely: you can't logically deduce the existence of a designer. Thus calling the assumption of an intelligent designer logical, is untrue.

That you can't use a materialistic approach to conclusively prove the existence of a non-materialistic entity is another discussion.

You don't get it. Yes, ID does hold that God makes yardsticks. They hold that a designer created the universe and all the laws in it and this is why it's not falsifiable. Because showing that something is completely made through natural means doesn't falsify the possibility of a designer. Again, if what you say is true then ID would indeed be falsifiable. Unfortunately, it isn't. They will not say what is designed and what isn't because the fact is they don't and cannot know.

What you're arguing is that believing a designer created things because they appear designed to you is illogical. That is the basis of the entire ID argument. And obviously concluding that because you think something looks designed that it probably is, is basic logic, even if you disagree with the initial observation.

Meanwhile, you've claimed that some things we know don't involve intelligent design and by examining those things we can make conclusions that intelligent design is illogical. However, you can't point to anything, anything and KNOW it doesn't involve a supernatural designer and thus your argument falls on its face. Inherent to your argument is an assumption that some things are not designed, and that is your only argument against the basic logic of ID. And because you require the same methods and lack of material evidence that it does, because your argument against them rests on the same train theirs does, you fail. Either your argument is as illogical as theirs and thus has no bearing on theirs or your argument merely shows that some people believe one and some people believe the other but they can't be shown to be flawed merely as a logical belief.

You don't get it.Are you certain I'm the one who doesn't get it?They hold that a designer created the universe and all the laws in it and this is why it's not falsifiable. Because showing that something is completely made through natural means doesn't falsify the possibility of a designer.It's just not scientific.Obviously.That you can't use a materialistic approach to conclusively prove the existence of a non-materialistic entity is another discussion.Well I guess I.. Nah, actually I don't think I possibly could have been any more clear. We don't disagree at all that ID has fuck-all to do with science. There's no need to keep bringing it up.Again, if what you say is true then ID would indeed be falsifiable.One thing at a time here. IDists argue organisms are designed, because they look to complex to be random. You claimed this was a logical argument.

Now if that was a logical argument, the IDists (and you) would have logically deduced that design is the only possible explanation for the complexity. Only, none of you have done that, because you not only have a different explanation with tonnes of physical evidence going for it, you also have an infinite amount of theoretical alternatives to the designer. That means you can't ever deduce Godidit, because as long as there's imagination, there's at least one equally valid alternative explanation.

That is why ID isn't logical.Unfortunately, it isn't. They will not say what is designed and what isn't because the fact is they don't and cannot know.And thus you hammer home my point. It's so illogical that they can't even make themselves claim they know what is & isn't directly manipulated by their favourite fictional character.

About the falsification thing. It cannot be done. Even if you disprove evolution, flying squirrels & snake-oil nanites, there's still zombie garden gnomes, four dimensional dustbunnies & an infinite number of other more or less sane alternatives, a good chunk of which can't possibly be disproved. So even if you invoke pseudo-science to help you, you're still left with the simple fact that you can't logically deduce Godidit. It cannot be done. Ever.

If you're desperate enough though, I can always be bribed with beer.What you're arguing is that believing a designer created things because they appear designed to you is illogical.Not just to me ;) That is the basis of the entire ID argument.Wrong. The basis, if it can be said to have any, is that it's OK to call your idea logic if you like it enough.And obviously concluding that because you think something looks designed that it probably is, is basic logic, even if you disagree with the initial observation.Nope. There's nothing logical about concluding design when you don't have proof of a capable designer. Then & only then can you begin to apply logic.Meanwhile, you've claimed that some things we know don't involve intelligent design and by examining those things we can make conclusions that intelligent design is illogical.Though I did it to illustrate a point, it would probably have been better if I hadn't. You seem to believe that I'm saying "If it weren't for them darn ants, good ole yeller... Eh.. God would be the explanation". Not so. Good old brainless, four-dimensional dustbunny would still be every bit as good an explanation as a fantasy overlord.However, you can't point to anything, anything and KNOW it doesn't involve a supernatural designer and thus your argument falls on its face.Eh.. Nope. Real-world explanations aren't needed, so changing the yardstick doesn't help your argument one bit.Inherent to your argument is an assumption that some things are not designed, and that is your only argument against the basic logic of ID.Strawman.And because you require the same methods and lack of material evidence that it does, because your argument against them rests on the same train theirs does, you fail.You're the author of that argument, not I. I explicitly told you so a couple of times already.Either your argument is as illogical as theirs and thus has no bearing on theirs or your argument merely shows that some people believe one and some people believe the other but they can't be shown to be flawed merely as a logical belief.I already tried the "Read Carefully" thing, so I'm at a loss right now... Hmm.

Look Jocabia, stop making up an argument for me & just read what I'm writing. I'm not arguing that "X" is more logical than "Y". You said:The argument against ID isn't that it's illogical.Which is what I objected to (in an unfortunate, incoherent manner).

Are you certain I'm the one who doesn't get it?Well I guess I.. Nah, actually I don't think I possibly could have been any more clear. We don't disagree at all that ID has fuck-all to do with science. There's no need to keep bringing it up.One thing at a time here. IDists argue organisms are designed, because they look to complex to be random. You claimed this was a logical argument.

Now if that was a logical argument, the IDists (and you) would have logically deduced that design is the only possible explanation for the complexity. Only, none of you have done that, because you not only have a different explanation with tonnes of physical evidence going for it, you also have an infinite amount of theoretical alternatives to the designer. That means you can't ever deduce Godidit, because as long as there's imagination, there's at least one equally valid alternative explanation.

That is why ID isn't logical.And thus you hammer home my point. It's so illogical that they can't even make themselves claim they know what is & isn't directly manipulated by their favourite fictional character.

About the falsification thing. It cannot be done. Even if you disprove evolution, flying squirrels & snake-oil nanites, there's still zombie garden gnomes, four dimensional dustbunnies & an infinite number of other more or less sane alternatives, a good chunk of which can't possibly be disproved. So even if you invoke pseudo-science to help you, you're still left with the simple fact that you can't logically deduce Godidit. It cannot be done. Ever.

If you're desperate enough though, I can always be bribed with beer.Not just to me ;) Wrong. The basis, if it can be said to have any, is that it's OK to call your idea logic if you like it enough.Nope. There's nothing logical about concluding design when you don't have proof of a capable designer. Then & only then can you begin to apply logic.Though I did it to illustrate a point, it would probably have been better if I hadn't. You seem to believe that I'm saying "If it weren't for them darn ants, good ole yeller... Eh.. God would be the explanation". Not so. Good old brainless, four-dimensional dustbunny would still be every bit as good an explanation as a fantasy overlord.Eh.. Nope. Real-world explanations aren't needed, so changing the yardstick doesn't help your argument one bit.Strawman.You're the author of that argument, not I. I explicitly told you so a couple of times already.I already tried the "Read Carefully" thing, so I'm at a loss right now... Hmm.

Look Jocabia, stop making up an argument for me & just read what I'm writing. I'm not arguing that "X" is more logical than "Y". You said:Which is what I objected to (in an unfortunate, incoherent manner).

Look, dude, first, if you make an argument then it's not a strawman for me to point it out. You openly claimed that some things are not designed that we can ruin the ID argument using those as examples. You said. When I annihilated that argument you said it was only meant to be an example, but it's still an example you intended to illustrate your argument. Don't accuse me of strawman because your argument and ability to make it suck.

Meanwhile, quit accusing me of agreeing with IDers. I don't. I'm merely pointing out that what is obvious. That while it's not scientific, it's still logical.

Now here is where your argument sucks. You say that it has alternatives and thus isn't a logical deduction. Name one thing, anything where our current understanding of it doesn't have any alternatives, alternatives we don't have an evidence against.

See, something isn't invalid simply because you can't prove it. No more than something is valid simply because you can't disprove it. That's how this stuff works. That's what you don't get. Your argument would actually make it a scientific proposition because you're acting as if scientific principles can invalidate the argument and were that true the hypothesis would be falsifiable.

I find it amusing that you openly claimed that ID claims that antihills aren't designed and then when I pointed out that ID doesn't claim to know what is designed and what isn't, you jumped all over it as an example of what's wrong with it. So which is it? Do they claim that anthills aren't designed or do they never claim what is and what isn't designed specifically? You can't have it both ways.

Now, let's make this simple since you are obviously confused.

Here is the hypothesis of ID - Some things appear to be designed so we suggest that they are. Show me where that is illogical. Again, don't try to disprove it because it's proof or lack thereof has nothing to do with whether it's a logical conclusion. In fact, the less proof that is available on a topic the broader the spectrum of conclusions one can reach. So go ahead, without adding other claims or making things up or talking about scientific or material proofs, show how "that some things appear to be designed is suggestive that they are" is illogical. I'll wait.

Look, dude, first, if you make an argument then it's not a strawman for me to point it out. You openly claimed that some things are not designed that we can ruin the ID argument using those as examples. You said. When I annihilated that argument you said it was only meant to be an example, but it's still an example you intended to illustrate your argument. Don't accuse me of strawman because your argument and ability to make it suck.Look dude yourself. In my first post, I made a horrible mess of explaining that you can't deduce things out of thin air. I intended to do it by using a counter example, but unintentionally I presented it as a competing & just as inane assertion instead.

I explained that in my second post. You refused to accept that it's possible for me to make mistakes. I explained it again in my third post. Now you apparently think I'm lying. The reason I called it a strawman, is because I've already explicitly stated that what you presented as my argument, has nothing what so ever to do with my argument. Not once, but twice.

I wasn't lying, but if you can't or won't fathom that I'm capable of making poorly worded posts, then please read the following very, very carefully: You're right. I really intended to express whatever you interpreted it as. I was wrong, absurd & you're absolutely right.

Now can we please move on? Meanwhile, quit accusing me of agreeing with IDers. I don't. I'm merely pointing out that what is obvious. That while it's not scientific, it's still logical. I have not accused you of believing in anything. I know you don't subscribe to ID/creationism. What I can see, is that you agree with the IDists that their beliefs are logical, and that is all I said. Now here is where your argument sucks. You say that it has alternatives and thus isn't a logical deduction. Name one thing, anything where our current understanding of it doesn't have any alternatives, alternatives we don't have an evidence against. Ah, the classical absurdist argument. Lovely as ever, but don't drag me into it. See, something isn't invalid simply because you can't prove it. No more than something is valid simply because you can't disprove it. That's how this stuff works. That's what you don't get. On the contrary. However, the only relevance this has to my argument, is that you can't deduce the existence of God simply because you can concieve of God - just like you can't deduce the non-existence of God because you can concieve of the non-existence of God. Your argument would actually make it a scientific proposition because you're acting as if scientific principles can invalidate the argument and were that true the hypothesis would be falsifiable.

And what you don't get, is that in order for something to qualify as logic, the conclusion has to follow from the argument. So let's see if it does:

"This particular bit of my thumb is incredibly complex. Incredible complexity cannot arise naturally, nor can it arise without the help of intelligence. Since this incredible complexity isn't natural, a supernatural force is responsible. Since the supernatural force has to be injtelligent, that force is a god."

A nifty way of debunking flawed logic is by using a counter example. Since doing that apparently leads to all sorts of misunderstandings, I'll try to moderate myself. Anyway, let's see if this "logic" checks out:

"Bits of thumb are complex." Check.

"Complexity cannot arise naturally." Hmm.. If I now say something clever about anthills or snowflakes, you'll probably claim god made those too. And that's where you change the yardstick.

If ID is right, then God created organisms, because they're too complex to form naturally. God's direct intervention is required.
But if anthills & snowflakes are designed too, then it's by indirect intervention.
If God, by indirect intervention, can create systems that give rise to complexity, then there's no reason to think God needs to directly intervene with organisms. Already ID is flawed logic, but it gets worse.

You see the argument is circular. For anything beyond the "Bits of complex thumb" to be true, we have to accept as fact that the supernatural & God exists. Only, we don't know that either is the case.

Even if you really, really believe it's true, you need look no further than your own childhood to know that it's quite easy to concieve of a universe with no managers. Thus the conclusion comes before the argument, and that is not logic.

And eh.. You really don't need to keep dragging scientific methodology or empiricism into this discussion. It's a red hering & well.. I'm a vegan. I find it amusing that you openly claimed that ID claims that antihills aren't designed and then when I pointed out that ID doesn't claim to know what is designed and what isn't, you jumped all over it as an example of what's wrong with it. So which is it? Do they claim that anthills aren't designed or do they never claim what is and what isn't designed specifically? You can't have it both ways. I'm inclined not to believe you, since you're usually not that nitpicking. Of course I could be wrong, but whatever floats your boat. While ID refuses to be exact, there are none the less limits. ID doesn't hold that anthills are designed directly. Ants probably, but not anthills. They don't claim snowflakes are designed directly either. I believe you know that already, which is why I thought it redundant to get into. Now, let's make this simple since you are obviously confused.You don't need to make anything simple to dispell my confusion. Just accept what I tell you about my intentions when I need to clarify something, stop nitpicking like an obsessive-compulsive 3rd grade teacher and... Quit patronising me. It's readily apparent you're not very much brighter than me, if at all, so it just obscures your arguments & antagonises your debating partner.

Hmm.. If it's to be antagonistic, just call me names instead & get it out of your system. Here is the hypothesis of ID - Some things appear to be designed so we suggest that they are. Show me where that is illogical. Again, don't try to disprove it because it's proof or lack thereof has nothing to do with whether it's a logical conclusion. In fact, the less proof that is available on a topic the broader the spectrum of conclusions one can reach.

Alright, here we go again-again-again-again:

"God exists, therefore..." Damn, ID just failed.

"This looks designed..." Damn-damn, I don't know that there's a capable designer, so I can't deduce this thing's designed.

"Since this looks designed, God must have made it..." Damnx3! I don't know God exists, I don't know God can design shit, and I don't know something or someone else can't. Fuck. Fundy me sucks at deductive reasoning.

Jocabia it has nothing to do with logic. It's an argument from superstition, the very opposite of logic.
Superstition: "An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome."
Deductive logic: "reasoning in which the conclusion is necessitated by, or reached from, previously known facts. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true." - Curtesy of some dictionary or other.

Spot the difference & win cheap, useless, fictional prices (or a hot date with Phillip E. Johnson).

24 pages and still no falsifiable hypothesis for ID.

Shock. Surprise. Unprecedented.

Look dude yourself. In my first post, I made a horrible mess of explaining that you can't deduce things out of thin air. I intended to do it by using a counter example, but unintentionally I presented it as a competing & just as inane assertion instead.

I explained that in my second post. You refused to accept that it's possible for me to make mistakes. I explained it again in my third post. Now you apparently think I'm lying. The reason I called it a strawman, is because I've already explicitly stated that what you presented as my argument, has nothing what so ever to do with my argument. Not once, but twice.

I wasn't lying, but if you can't or won't fathom that I'm capable of making poorly worded posts, then please read the following very, very carefully: You're right. I really intended to express whatever you interpreted it as. I was wrong, absurd & you're absolutely right.

Now can we please move on? I have not accused you of believing in anything. I know you don't subscribe to ID/creationism. What I can see, is that you agree with the IDists that their beliefs are logical, and that is all I said. Ah, the classical absurdist argument. Lovely as ever, but don't drag me into it. On the contrary. However, the only relevance this has to my argument, is that you can't deduce the existence of God simply because you can concieve of God - just like you can't deduce the non-existence of God because you can concieve of the non-existence of God.

And what you don't get, is that in order for something to qualify as logic, the conclusion has to follow from the argument. So let's see if it does:

"This particular bit of my thumb is incredibly complex. Incredible complexity cannot arise naturally, nor can it arise without the help of intelligence. Since this incredible complexity isn't natural, a supernatural force is responsible. Since the supernatural force has to be injtelligent, that force is a god."

A nifty way of debunking flawed logic is by using a counter example. Since doing that apparently leads to all sorts of misunderstandings, I'll try to moderate myself. Anyway, let's see if this "logic" checks out:

"Bits of thumb are complex." Check.

"Complexity cannot arise naturally." Hmm.. If I now say something clever about anthills or snowflakes, you'll probably claim god made those too. And that's where you change the yardstick.

If ID is right, then God created organisms, because they're too complex to form naturally. God's direct intervention is required.
But if anthills & snowflakes are designed too, then it's by indirect intervention.
If God, by indirect intervention, can create systems that give rise to complexity, then there's no reason to think God needs to directly intervene with organisms. Already ID is flawed logic, but it gets worse.

You see the argument is circular. For anything beyond the "Bits of complex thumb" to be true, we have to accept as fact that the supernatural & God exists. Only, we don't know that either is the case.

Even if you really, really believe it's true, you need look no further than your own childhood to know that it's quite easy to concieve of a universe with no managers. Thus the conclusion comes before the argument, and that is not logic.

And eh.. You really don't need to keep dragging scientific methodology or empiricism into this discussion. It's a red hering & well.. I'm a vegan. I'm inclined not to believe you, since you're usually not that nitpicking. Of course I could be wrong, but whatever floats your boat. While ID refuses to be exact, there are none the less limits. ID doesn't hold that anthills are designed directly. Ants probably, but not anthills. They don't claim snowflakes are designed directly either. I believe you know that already, which is why I thought it redundant to get into. You don't need to make anything simple to dispell my confusion. Just accept what I tell you about my intentions when I need to clarify something, stop nitpicking like an obsessive-compulsive 3rd grade teacher and... Quit patronising me. It's readily apparent you're not very much brighter than me, if at all, so it just obscures your arguments & antagonises your debating partner.

Hmm.. If it's to be antagonistic, just call me names instead & get it out of your system.

Alright, here we go again-again-again-again:

"God exists, therefore..." Damn, ID just failed.

"This looks designed..." Damn-damn, I don't know that there's a capable designer, so I can't deduce this thing's designed.

"Since this looks designed, God must have made it..." Damnx3! I don't know God exists, I don't know God can design shit, and I don't know something or someone else can't. Fuck. Fundy me sucks at deductive reasoning.

Jocabia it has nothing to do with logic. It's an argument from superstition, the very opposite of logic.
Superstition: "An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome."
Deductive logic: "reasoning in which the conclusion is necessitated by, or reached from, previously known facts. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true." - Curtesy of some dictionary or other.

Spot the difference & win cheap, useless, fictional prices (or a hot date with Phillip E. Johnson).

See it doesn't start with God exists. See, you are arguing a strawman. That's the problem. According to your claim all philosophy rests on illogic, which is simply false.

So are you admitting that you cannot point out where the logic fails without changing the argument?

Here is the premise: the fact that some things appear to be design suggests that they are.

See it doesn't start with God exists.

Really ? How does one get there then ?

Here is the premise: the fact that some things appear to be design suggests that they are.

Now show this premise to be valid.

Here is the premise: the fact that some things appear to be design suggests that they are.

I think the main problem with this is that it reverses causality. It basically says, "This looks designed to me, so it probably was." The problem is that design isn't deduced after the fact. The entity that matters in the design process - in determining whether or not something was designed - is the designer itself, not the observer.

Herein lies the problem. It is logically impossible to deduce that something has been designed without first either knowing or assuming the existence of some entity capable of designing said object. When we're talking about an arrowhead or something like that, this is easy - we know that human beings are capable of crafting such things. When we're talking, on the other hand, about a molecular mechanism that existed before human beings figured out what molecules even are, we have a problem. What entity do we know of or can we safely assume to exist that could have designed such a mechanism?

If we are talking about something presumed to be designed by God, you *do* have to start with the premise that God exists. Add to that a few further assumptions about the nature of God and God's design process and you might then deduce that a particular object/mechanism/etc. has been designed by God.

Note: I admit that I haven't been reading the entire long conversation between you and Similization, so I might have gone off on a tangent here.

Really ? How does one get there then ?



Now show this premise to be valid.

One doesn't. I don't agree that ID is a scientific premise. There is no need to prove it for it to be a logical premise. That is only required in a debate or in science. It's NOT scientific. However, it's perfectly logical for me to say, come to the conclusion that if I leave and there isn't a broken glass in the sink and I return and there is and only my gf was home, that she was involved. Can I prove it? Nope. The evidence is circumstancial at best. Am I right? Maybe. Maybe not. Being right or being able to prove it are not requirements of reaching a logical conclusion. It just has to make sense and if one starts with the premise that something appears designed decided that it is designed based on such an observation obviously makes sense, even if you or I disagree with that premise.

I think the main problem with this is that it reverses causality. It basically says, "This looks designed to me, so it probably was." The problem is that design isn't deduced after the fact. The entity that matters in the design process - in determining whether or not something was designed - is the designer itself, not the observer.

Herein lies the problem. It is logically impossible to deduce that something has been designed without first either knowing or assuming the existence of some entity capable of designing said object. When we're talking about an arrowhead or something like that, this is easy - we know that human beings are capable of crafting such things. When we're talking, on the other hand, about a molecular mechanism that existed before human beings figured out what molecules even are, we have a problem. What entity do we know of or can we safely assume to exist that could have designed such a mechanism?

If we are talking about something presumed to be designed by God, you *do* have to start with the premise that God exists. Add to that a few further assumptions about the nature of God and God's design process and you might then deduce that a particular object/mechanism/etc. has been designed by God.

Note: I admit that I haven't been reading the entire long conversation between you and Similization, so I might have gone off on a tangent here.


Again, you are looking at it scientifically and we all agree that it's not scientific. However, if one can examine something logically from the premise that it was not designed, then one can certainly assume the opposite as well since we have no argument for either. Many philosophical premises are reflective of our thought processes moreso than evidence, but evidence isn't a requirement for logic necessarily. All that is required is that one not ignore evidence and in this case there is none.

Again, you are looking at it scientifically and we all agree that it's not scientific. However, if one can examine something logically from the premise that it was not designed, then one can certainly assume the opposite as well since we have no argument for either. Many philosophical premises are reflective of our thought processes moreso than evidence, but evidence isn't a requirement for logic necessarily. All that is required is that one not ignore evidence and in this case there is none.

Even from a non-scientific standpoint, it is logically impossible to deduce design without first assuming an entity capable of said design. There's just no way to arrive at that conclusion without an illogical leap unless you have an entity in mind.

You, however, seem to be making the same mistake that IDers often do. The options are not to work from the premise that something was designed or work from the premise that it was not. There is a third option, which is to assume neither - to use neither premise in your examination, whether that examination is scientific or not.

Even from a non-scientific standpoint, it is logically impossible to deduce design without first assuming an entity capable of said design.I don't think that's correct. As long as you do not assume that there is no such enitity, you are left with the option to deduce design which would then allow you to deduce there must be a designer.
If you assume there isn't a designer, you will be unable to deduce that there is one (even if there is). And if you assume there is a designer you'll be unable to deduce there isn't one (even if there isn't).
The correct scientific stance is to assume less, not more, and let the evidence speak.

What is lacking is an objective specification of design. If I gave you a specification of a watch, you could examine an object and say if it fits the specification; regardless of whether you assume watchmakers exist or not.

On a lighter note and a slight tangent, I thought I'd share http://boxjam.keenspot.com/d/20061016.html

Even from a non-scientific standpoint, it is logically impossible to deduce design without first assuming an entity capable of said design. There's just no way to arrive at that conclusion without an illogical leap unless you have an entity in mind.

You, however, seem to be making the same mistake that IDers often do. The options are not to work from the premise that something was designed or work from the premise that it was not. There is a third option, which is to assume neither - to use neither premise in your examination, whether that examination is scientific or not.

You don't have to have an entity in mind. If I come upon a dam on a river, I don't have to know what made it to think it might have been made by some creature. And I could be wrong, it could be just a result of the force of the stream/river. However, since to me it looks to have been organized intelligently, I can

Yes, and science is required to assume neither.

However, logic needn't do that. If that were true all beliefs would illogical since we can't really prove almost everything we believe. Also, you have to be careful with 'assume' because in a belief you can believe something occurred a certain away without really assuming it. Meaning I may believe in God, but that doesn't mean I think I must be right. I accept that God may not exist, but I think that he does. Thinking that something is true, doesn't mean one must exclude all other possibilities.

The essence of belief, any belief, is that one thinks it is correct. This may or may not include evidence, but it's the very essence of belief.

To be illogical, it must be counter to evidence. You can't simply claim that every unproven belief is illogical or we're completely illogical creatures.

I don't think that's correct. As long as you do not assume that there is no such enitity, you are left with the option to deduce design which would then allow you to deduce there must be a designer.

How do you deduce design without a designer in mind? Without knowing what could possibly design the object in question, how do we even begin to determine criteria for "design"?

The problem is that there is no way to make the leap to "design" without first presuming a possible designer and attributing characteristics to it that would determine what its design would be.

If you assume there isn't a designer, you will be unable to deduce that there is one (even if there is). And if you assume there is a designer you'll be unable to deduce there isn't one (even if there isn't).

I said nothing about assuming the existence or non-existence of a designer. Obviously, if you assume a designer, you will find design. If you assume the opposite, you will not. However, to deduce design, you must assume the existence of some entity capable of that design. From that assumption, you can posit criteria for a "design". And from that, you can determine whether or not something appears to meet those criteria.

Finding "design" cannot provide evidence for a designer, because without first assuming something about the designer, our observation of what appears to us to be design says nothing about the origin of the object itself and everything about what we consider to be design.

The correct scientific stance is to assume less, not more, and let the evidence speak.

Indeed. So we assume neither. We don't assume that anything in nature was designed, or even that there is an entity capable of said designing, since we cannot disprove this assumption.

What is lacking is an objective specification of design.

Precisely! And that specification can only be devised in light of the particular designer. Thus, it can only be made if we assume that a given entity could have done the designing (not that it did, simply that it is capable) and then go about using the specifications associated with that entity.

If I gave you a specification of a watch, you could examine an object and say if it fits the specification; regardless of whether you assume watchmakers exist or not.

This is a very poor analogy. A watch is not defined by having been made by a watchmaker. It is defined by certain attributes (ie. keeping time). Design, on the other hand, cannot be defined without including the existence of a designer. Without the designer, it ceases to be design.

You don't have to have an entity in mind. If I come upon a dam on a river, I don't have to know what made it to think it might have been made by some creature.

No, but you have to know that some creature could possibly do it. And, in fact, we do know of a few creatures that could build a dam. Human beings could do it. Beavers could do it.

And I could be wrong, it could be just a result of the force of the stream/river. However, since to me it looks to have been organized intelligently, I can

(Bold mine)

Ah, but see, you are once again making "design" the product of the observer, rather than the product of an actual designer. This is backwards. Observation does not create design. An entity actually designing creates design.

Of course, this also goes back to the assumptions about designers. It looks designed to you, largely, because you could do it. You know of entities capable of doing it.

However, logic needn't do that. If that were true all beliefs would illogical since we can't really prove almost everything we believe.

Who said anything about proving anything?

Beliefs can certainly be based in logic, with a given set of axioms and such - even if the axioms themselves are not chosen through the use of logic.

We are talking, however, about a particular belief. And yes, it can be arrived at logically, once a few axioms and assumptions are in place. First, an entity capable of design is assumed to exist (ie. believed in). This entity is God, and the believer attributes certain attributes (generally anthropomorphic ones) to said deity. Once these assumptions are in place, design in nature can be logically deduced from the criteria put together to determine what God would design.

Also, you have to be careful with 'assume' because in a belief you can believe something occurred a certain away without really assuming it. Meaning I may believe in God, but that doesn't mean I think I must be right.

First of all, when you make an assumption you don't necessarily think it *must* be right. You just think it is, and take it as true without testing it. In a logical process, assumptions are taken as true for the process in question. For instance, we could, for the purposes of a logical discussion, take the statement, "God exists," to be either true or false, and the logical deductions taken from that would be different. We don't have to both believe that either is correct, but it would be assumed to be either true or false for the purposes of whatever discussion we were having.

To be illogical, it must be counter to evidence. You can't simply claim that every unproven belief is illogical or we're completely illogical creatures.

Not necessarily. What evidence do you have that there are no magical purple invisble pixies that follow me around and scratch my back all day? Would you consider that a logical proposition?

To have a logical conclusion, a logical process must lead to it. This doesn't mean that it has to be proven. It simply means that logic must have been used in deriving it.

How do you deduce design without a designer in mind? Without knowing what could possibly design the object in question, how do we even begin to determine criteria for "design"?

This is a requirement to prove it. Not a requirement to observe something that appears to you a certain way. What defines broken glass when we observe it? Well that varies by person. You can't say it would be jagged, because that's not always true. You can't say it's different than the format it started in, because we don't necessarily know it. So if I observe glass and decide it's broken glass, I can logically decide that it is, based on my experiences and beliefs and you can logically decide that it isn't, based on your experiences and beliefs. Why? Specifically because the criteria is so inspecific. That's the point. Being specific is not a logical requirement. Being defined is not a logical requirement. Proof is not a logical requirement. It's really that simple.


The problem is that there is no way to make the leap to "design" without first presuming a possible designer and attributing characteristics to it that would determine what its design would be.

Not true. One can suspect a designer simply by not excluding a possible designer. Take for example the fact that if I know enough about the rules of the way the universe works I could set something into motion knowing the exact results. In order to say that a designer would be easily evidenced requires me to assume there is nothing more advanced than we are. Since a designer is not easily evidenced, it's quite possible for me to conclude that a designer's hand exists when something appears to be too unlikely for chance and one doesn't exclude it as a possiblity.

Now, how do I define 'too unlikely'? Differently from you, undoubtedly. However, it doesn't require that we agree or that I establish what is 'too unlikely'. Logic doesn't require us to agree. We have different inputs. However, you can't assume that any inputs we don't agree on are invalid. There is no basis for such a claim.



I said nothing about assuming the existence or non-existence of a designer. Obviously, if you assume a designer, you will find design. If you assume the opposite, you will not. However, to deduce design, you must assume the existence of some entity capable of that design. From that assumption, you can posit criteria for a "design". And from that, you can determine whether or not something appears to meet those criteria.

No, you can observe something that appears intentional based on your experience with things that occur unintentionally and simply not dismiss that observation.


Finding "design" cannot provide evidence for a designer, because without first assuming something about the designer, our observation of what appears to us to be design says nothing about the origin of the object itself and everything about what we consider to be design.

True enough that what appears to us to be designed says more about us than the origin. It says everything about what we're used to seeing in the unintentional. Of course. However, it doesn't require us to start with a designer. It only has to start with experience with things that are intentional and things that aren't. It's not scientific, but it's certainly logical.


Indeed. So we assume neither. We don't assume that anything in nature was designed, or even that there is an entity capable of said designing, since we cannot disprove this assumption.

See, right back to science. Science is not the keeper of logic. Logic dictates that the ability to prove or disprove something has nothing to do with whether it's true. I could step outside tomorrow and fly up into the air. I don't prepare for it because that is not my experience, but it's certainly possible. It would be illogical to ignore my experience. So I walk out every day as if gravity will never change, but I can't prove that it will never change, or disprove that it will change. We treat things as true all the time, based on logic, that we cannot actually address in terms of proving or disproving.


Precisely! And that specification can only be devised in light of the particular designer. Thus, it can only be made if we assume that a given entity could have done the designing (not that it did, simply that it is capable) and then go about using the specifications associated with that entity.

Which is a requirement in science, but not in logic. I have no requirement for making a specific definition of how or why something is designed. I know what design is, in this case. It's the intentional creation of something. How or why it was designed, and thus the abilities of the designer are not a requirement in such a belief. It's only that something is capable of designing such a thing, and that can be arrived at. It is unnecessary to start with such an assumption. You needn't know anything about what designed such a thing. You need only know that it is possible for something to have intentionally created a thing.

This is a very poor analogy. A watch is not defined by having been made by a watchmaker. It is defined by certain attributes (ie. keeping time). Design, on the other hand, cannot be defined without including the existence of a designer. Without the designer, it ceases to be design.

Really? Okay, I discover a cube. It is made out of a substance I have never encountered before. It is a perfect cube. My experience is that something that perfect is usually intentional, but I don't know of the substance nor do I know of anything that can make a perfect cube out of the substance. However, since my experience is that a perfect cube is intentional, I conclude that it was designed by something. I have no intention of following up on my conclusion. I don't really care, but it seems designed to me so I logically decide that it is.

Now, what I've assumed about any designer other than the truism that if they designed the cube they are capable of designing the cube. Tell me where I started with the designer rather than ending with a designer. Go ahead. I started with my experience that perfect cubes aren't random. I ended on, based on my belief that it's not random, that then it is intentional and thus made by something capable of intent.

Really? Okay, I discover a cube. It is made out of a substance I have never encountered before. It is a perfect cube. My experience is that something that perfect is usually intentional, but I don't know of the substance nor do I know of anything that can make a perfect cube out of the substance. However, since my experience is that a perfect cube is intentional, I conclude that it was designed by something. I have no intention of following up on my conclusion. I don't really care, but it seems designed to me so I logically decide that it is.
You can't logically decide anything. Conclusions are either logically required or they're illogical - there's no middle ground.

You have no reason to believe this new substance doesn't form cubes naturally. Assuming that it doesn't, and thus was designed, is unreasonable.

No, but you have to know that some creature could possibly do it. And, in fact, we do know of a few creatures that could build a dam. Human beings could do it. Beavers could do it.

No, I don't. You can add that requirement if you like, but I don't have to know a creature is capable of it. I simply have to not exclude it and since a random occurrance seems unlikely to me, decide logically that it is thus not just a random occurrance.

(Bold mine)

Ah, but see, you are once again making "design" the product of the observer, rather than the product of an actual designer. This is backwards. Observation does not create design. An entity actually designing creates design.

All logic is the product of the observer. Without someone to analyze something there is no logic. And our logical conclusions say much about us. You are talking about scientific observation, which is not a requirement of how we address things outside of science.


Of course, this also goes back to the assumptions about designers. It looks designed to you, largely, because you could do it. You know of entities capable of doing it.

I don't have to know any such thing. You keep making this claim, but I needn't know any such thing. I simply have to not exclude the possiblity, since I have no evidence that such a thing is impossible. As a result, I start with expectations for things that involve design and things that don't or possibly only things that don't. I needn't make a single assumption about the designer to start. I simply have to avoid limitations.

Who said anything about proving anything?

You did - "we cannot disprove this assumption." Disproving is simply proving the opposite. That's why hypotheses often have to be reworded to become a positive assertion to lend themselves to falsification.


Beliefs can certainly be based in logic, with a given set of axioms and such - even if the axioms themselves are not chosen through the use of logic.

Exactly. That's the point. This is a logical conclusion, where you don't agree with the axioms. You don't have to. It's not your conclusion.

We are talking, however, about a particular belief. And yes, it can be arrived at logically, once a few axioms and assumptions are in place. First, an entity capable of design is assumed to exist (ie. believed in). This entity is God, and the believer attributes certain attributes (generally anthropomorphic ones) to said deity. Once these assumptions are in place, design in nature can be logically deduced from the criteria put together to determine what God would design.

No, it is not assumed to exist. It is concluded to exist. This entity is not God. God is just the most prevelent suspect among those that believe in ID. Nope. You're making assumptions that are not inherent in the belief. Again, I look at something that appears to me to not be random. I can't prove it's not random. You can't prove it is. However, because of that appearance, I settle on design, because I haven't excluded it. In fact, the only thiing I to some degree excluded is randomness. However, you find it more logical to examine randomness (here I use random to simply reference a lack of intent), but in doing so you are equally excluding design. This makes sense in a world where emperical evidence and falsification is a requirement, but it has not place outside science where these requirements do not exist.

First of all, when you make an assumption you don't necessarily think it *must* be right. You just think it is, and take it as true without testing it. In a logical process, assumptions are taken as true for the process in question. For instance, we could, for the purposes of a logical discussion, take the statement, "God exists," to be either true or false, and the logical deductions taken from that would be different. We don't have to both believe that either is correct, but it would be assumed to be either true or false for the purposes of whatever discussion we were having.

Exactly why you have to be careful when you say that assumptions must be made. Because you cannot assume that no tests occur. You can only assume that those tests are unscientific. It's not untestable. It's just the results aren't necessarily emperical.

It could be assumed. Or it could be concluded based on other assumptions. Or in this case it can simply be a result of experiences since this isn't a scientific process and doesn't have a start or end point but just a series of tests and retests and conclusions and assumptions, etc. You are trying to apply the rules of science or debate where they don't necessarily apply.


Not necessarily. What evidence do you have that there are no magical purple invisble pixies that follow me around and scratch my back all day? Would you consider that a logical proposition?

To have a logical conclusion, a logical process must lead to it. This doesn't mean that it has to be proven. It simply means that logic must have been used in deriving it.

Yes, of course. You, however, have been suggesting that logic has requirements it doesn't have. We do have experiences with order and disorder even though these are loosely defined terms. The point is that many ID arguments are completely logical, they just aren't scientific because they cannot be emperically examined.

Again, you are presuming that people decided God existed before the percieved a need for God, which of course goes exactly against the God of the gaps complaint that so many make. It's clear that often people find gaps and fill it with God. You suggest that people start with God and then look for gaps for Him to fill, but what led people to the belief in God in the first place. It seems more likely God arose as an explanation. That makes him a conclusion, not an assumption.

You can't logically decide anything. Conclusions are either logically required or they're illogical - there's no middle ground.

You have no reason to believe this new substance doesn't form cubes naturally. Assuming that it doesn't, and thus was designed, is unreasonable.

Pardon? I think you mean logically acquired.

Meanwhile, it is unreasonable to expect me to investigate everything I ever encounter to collect evidence before making a conclusion. Logic tells me that almost all other substances don't form cubes naturally, so it's a reasonable conclusion that this didn't either. It doesn't make me right. It's just makes sense to draw a conclusion on my experiences.

For example, I see that the cube is glowing red and I can see distortion in the air around it, so it appears to me to be hot based on my experience. That's a logical conclusion based on my experience. So as a result I choose not to pick it up to examine it further and simply move on. Now, you might think I have to test the temperature to reach that conclusion, but that's absurd. I don't care enough, nor do I have a reason to examine it to that degree. All I need to know is that it appears hot based on my experience and that it might hurt me if I pick it up. Logical conclusion not based on any evidence I've collected about this particular new substance. It may always glow red.

I don't know. I don't need to know. I need only not ignore what evidence I have in order to make a logical conclusion. It is not however required that I have specific evidence relating to this new substance as you suggest.

This is a requirement to prove it. Not a requirement to observe something that appears to you a certain way.

How can it appear to be designed if you have no criteria for "designed"?

It's like saying, "I have absolutely no idea what 'black' is, but I'm going to say this thing over here is black anyways and call that logical."

What defines broken glass when we observe it? Well that varies by person. You can't say it would be jagged, because that's not always true. You can't say it's different than the format it started in, because we don't necessarily know it. So if I observe glass and decide it's broken glass, I can logically decide that it is, based on my experiences and beliefs and you can logically decide that it isn't, based on your experiences and beliefs. Why? Specifically because the criteria is so inspecific.

But you do have criteria. Your experiences would lead you to believe that the glass in question used to be in a different format and has now been shattered. My experiences would lead me to believe that it was as it was supposed to be, and thus not broken.

However, in the case of design, the criteria can only be defined if there is a possible entity in mind to have designed it. You cannot propose criteria for "design" without first including the designer.

Not true. One can suspect a designer simply by not excluding a possible designer.

Not really, no. There is no way to get to "design" without a designer. If we simply don't exclude a possible designer, then we still have no way to determine what is and is not designed, not logically anyways. We need a set of criteria that will be used to deduce whether or not something is designed, and this simply cannot be put together without assuming something about a possible designer.

Take for example the fact that if I know enough about the rules of the way the universe works I could set something into motion knowing the exact results. In order to say that a designer would be easily evidenced requires me to assume there is nothing more advanced than we are. Since a designer is not easily evidenced, it's quite possible for me to conclude that a designer's hand exists when something appears to be too unlikely for chance and one doesn't exclude it as a possiblity.

Ah, I see. So the God of the gaps argument is logical now.

No, you can observe something that appears intentional based on your experience with things that occur unintentionally and simply not dismiss that observation.

Ah, here we go again. Now, what experience do you have of life being intentionally created? Of molecular processes within a cell being intentionally created.

Once again, we come back to the idea that you are using "design" as it relates to humans and trying to extrapolate that out to include an entity you don't even define. We can certainly deduce that something was designed by a human or by a creature that we have observed based on what we have observed occurring intentionaly and unintentionally. This is why we can deduce that a dam was built by a beaver or that an arrowhead was created by a human being. We know that beavers and human beings can do these sorts of things. The difference lies in trying to extrapolate that to a process for which we have no experience whatsoever that would lead to a presumption of design.

See, right back to science. Science is not the keeper of logic.

My dear, Damor was the one who mentioned science. I simply replied to it. I never said, nor suggested, that science is the "keeper of logic."

Which is a requirement in science, but not in logic. I have no requirement for making a specific definition of how or why something is designed. I know what design is, in this case. It's the intentional creation of something.

Indeed. Now please demonstrate the logical process by which you arrive at, "This was intentionally created," without assuming something about a designer and the intentions of that designer.

How or why it was designed, and thus the abilities of the designer are not a requirement in such a belief.

If there is no designer capable of creating the design, then it is logically impossible for it to have been "intentionally created." It is exceedingly obvious that the intentions and capablity of the designer are an absolute necessity in design.

It's only that something is capable of designing such a thing, and that can be arrived at. It is unnecessary to start with such an assumption. You needn't know anything about what designed such a thing. You need only know that it is possible for something to have intentionally created a thing.

Exactly my point! You need to know that it is possible or, rather, you need to assume that it is possible. And it can only be possible if there is a "something" that could possibly do such a thing.

Really? Okay, I discover a cube. It is made out of a substance I have never encountered before. It is a perfect cube. My experience is that something that perfect is usually intentional, but I don't know of the substance nor do I know of anything that can make a perfect cube out of the substance. However, since my experience is that a perfect cube is intentional, I conclude that it was designed by something. I have no intention of following up on my conclusion. I don't really care, but it seems designed to me so I logically decide that it is.

And that logical process began with an assumption. You have seen perfect cubes created. You know that there is something out there that creates them. In your experience (in other words, in your observation), perfect cubes have always been created by something. You are using your experience of human design and human capabilities to extrapolate the existence of design in something similar.

Tell me, what personal experience do you have with observing life being designed? Molecular mechanisms? New species?

Now, what I've assumed about any designer other than the truism that if they designed the cube they are capable of designing the cube. Tell me where I started with the designer rather than ending with a designer.

You assumed that, even though you know of nothing that could do it, something is capable of it, based on your own experiences with cubes.

Go ahead. I started with my experience that perfect cubes aren't random.

...which, in turn, is based in your experience with perfect cubes being designed, specifically by human beings. Buried within your logical process is the idea that some entity capable of creating a perfect cube - and that, like humans, would want to create a perfect cube - exists.

I ended on, based on my belief that it's not random, that then it is intentional and thus made by something capable of intent.

...which would be an entirely illogical conclusion, unless you believe that something is capable of making it.

You are still trying to go backwards. You cannot possibly have design without a designer. Thus, any logical process to deduce design *must* start with some assumptions about a possible designer. You certainly don't have to assume the existence of a designer, that would be circular logic. But you do have to assume that some entity capable of designing exists and you do have to draw criteria for design from said entity.

An important thing to note is that you have yet to come up with an example that isn't based in your observation of things being designed. You (or other human beings, anyways) have observed humans and beavers building dams. You have observed perfect cubes being designed, and have yet to see one that was not designed.

Try to take it into something that we have no design experience with. Say, for instance, a lifeform. What do we know of that could design a lifeform? If we know of nothing, how would we go about deducing whether or not a lifeform was designed? If we have never seen an element designed, what criteria can we possibly use on a new element to determine whether or not it was designed?

I said nothing about assuming the existence or non-existence of a designer.The same applies if you replace 'designer' with entity (or anything else). The point was only that you can't deduce things contrary to your assumptions (unless you have inconsistent assumptions)

Precisely! And that specification can only be devised in light of the particular designer. Thus, it can only be made if we assume that a given entity could have done the designing (not that it did, simply that it is capable) and then go about using the specifications associated with that entity.You need only assume/presume that designer in specifying what 'design' is, though; you don't assume it in your logic.
The specifications are sought to (singularly) imply a designer, so that if any of the specifications is fulfilled your proof is done.

No, I don't. You can add that requirement if you like, but I don't have to know a creature is capable of it. I simply have to not exclude it and since a random occurrance seems unlikely to me, decide logically that it is thus not just a random occurrance.

So we've gone back to the "designer of the gaps" argument?

Design, by definition, necessitates a designer. You cannot logically come to the conclusion of design without first assuming something about a possible designer.

All logic is the product of the observer. Without someone to analyze something there is no logic. And our logical conclusions say much about us. You are talking about scientific observation, which is not a requirement of how we address things outside of science.

Logic is the product of the observer. Design, however, is not. Design can only be the product of a designer. Design can only exist with the existence of a designer. Any logical process to deduce design must take this fact into account.

And once again, you seem stuck on this matter of science. I am not talking about science. I am talking about logical deduction.

I don't have to know any such thing. You keep making this claim, but I needn't know any such thing. I simply have to not exclude the possiblity, since I have no evidence that such a thing is impossible. As a result, I start with expectations for things that involve design and things that don't or possibly only things that don't. I needn't make a single assumption about the designer to start. I simply have to avoid limitations.

Where do these expectations come from?

You did - "we cannot disprove this assumption." Disproving is simply proving the opposite. That's why hypotheses often have to be reworded to become a positive assertion to lend themselves to falsification.

I'm having trouble finding that. Where did I mention disproving an assumption? In what context?

Exactly. That's the point. This is a logical conclusion, where you don't agree with the axioms. You don't have to. It's not your conclusion.

I'm not sure what conclusion you are talking about here.

No, it is not assumed to exist. It is concluded to exist.

Then it ends up being circular logic.

This entity is not God. God is just the most prevelent suspect among those that believe in ID. Nope. You're making assumptions that are not inherent in the belief.

Every major proponent of ID has stated (sometimes under oath) that the designer they are pointing to is God.

Of course, we could say, "Super-powerful alien lifeforms outside the laws of the universe as we know it," and have the same logical process.

Again, I look at something that appears to me to not be random. I can't prove it's not random. You can't prove it is. However, because of that appearance, I settle on design, because I haven't excluded it. In fact, the only thiing I to some degree excluded is randomness. However, you find it more logical to examine randomness (here I use random to simply reference a lack of intent), but in doing so you are equally excluding design. This makes sense in a world where emperical evidence and falsification is a requirement, but it has not place outside science where these requirements do not exist.

If "randomness" means "lack of intent," how do you determine whether or not "intent" exists without an assumption about what could be doing the intending?

Yes, of course. You, however, have been suggesting that logic has requirements it doesn't have. We do have experiences with order and disorder even though these are loosely defined terms. The point is that many ID arguments are completely logical, they just aren't scientific because they cannot be emperically examined.

I never said that ID arguments aren't logical. In fact, I said exactly the opposite.

The same applies if you replace 'designer' with entity (or anything else). The point was only that you can't deduce things contrary to your assumptions (unless you have inconsistent assumptions)

Indeed.

You need only assume/presume that designer in specifying what 'design' is, though; you don't assume it in your logic.
The specifications are sought to (singularly) imply a designer, so that if any of the specifications is fulfilled your proof is done.

Once again, you are arguing with something I have never said. I never said that you assume a designer in your logic for deducing design. That would be circular logic. But, in creating your specifications for what "design" is, you do assume an entity capable of design, and you assume things about what it would design (generally anthropomorphically). This carries into the logic that you then use to deduce design. You have assumed that some entity which would design things that meet your criteria exists in order to create those criteria in the first place. You then apply those criteria, which you can only do under the assumption that said entity exists. It may or may not have designed, but it does, within your logical process, exist. If the criteria are met, you conclude design.

Pardon? I think you mean logically acquired.
Nope. Required. A conclusion is either necessarily true or logic does not reach it. Either the logic guarantees that you know it, or the logic cannot lead you there.
Meanwhile, it is unreasonable to expect me to investigate everything I ever encounter to collect evidence before making a conclusion.
I don't like your use of unreasonable.
Logic tells me that almost all other substances don't form cubes naturally, so it's a reasonable conclusion that this didn't either. It doesn't make me right. It's just makes sense to draw a conclusion on my experiences.

For example, I see that the cube is glowing red and I can see distortion in the air around it, so it appears to me to be hot based on my experience. That's a logical conclusion based on my experience. So as a result I choose not to pick it up to examine it further and simply move on. Now, you might think I have to test the temperature to reach that conclusion, but that's absurd. I don't care enough, nor do I have a reason to examine it to that degree. All I need to know is that it appears hot based on my experience and that it might hurt me if I pick it up. Logical conclusion not based on any evidence I've collected about this particular new substance. It may always glow red.
So you shouldn't call it a conclusion. It's a justifiable assumption. But it's still just an assumption. Logically, you should remain uncertain.
I don't know. I don't need to know. I need only not ignore what evidence I have in order to make a logical conclusion.
That's not how logic works. If the evidence is less than conclusive, it leads to no conclusions.

Nope. Required. A conclusion is either necessarily true or logic does not reach it. Either the logic guarantees that you know it, or the logic cannot lead you there.

Then nothing you've ever concluded about the world we live in is logical, because nothing is necessarily true.

I don't like your use of unreasonable.

So you shouldn't call it a conclusion. It's a justifiable assumption. But it's still just an assumption. Logically, you should remain uncertain.

That's not how logic works. If the evidence is less than conclusive, it leads to no conclusions.

False. It just leads one to a conclusion that may possibly be wrong. Beliefs are uncertain. That doesn't make them illogical. Once again you pretend as if I can't treat anything as true simply because I can't have complete certainty, but waiting for complete certainty is illogical and impractical. Logic is a useful tool but under your rules it would cease to be useful and become a hinderance.

Logic is just reason. It's just about the use of reason. If reason is used then it's logical. If it's not then it isn't. It's really that simple. To be logical it has to be contrary to logic, which means it has to ignore evidence to the contrary.

Reason has rules. It's not just what makes sense to you.

Believing in something for which you lack conclusive evidence is irrational behaviour.

So we've gone back to the "designer of the gaps" argument?

Design, by definition, necessitates a designer. You cannot logically come to the conclusion of design without first assuming something about a possible designer.

Nope. Again, you don't get it. If it's a designer of the gaps, I must first observe a gap. That makes the designer a result. Your own statement betrays your argument. You're suggesting I can't come up with a designer for the gap instead of a gap for the designer and I challenge you to prove it or stop declaring it to be true.

I never denied that the ID argument is a designer of the gaps argument. That's why it's not scientific. It is, however, logical, which is the point of my argument.


Logic is the product of the observer. Design, however, is not. Design can only be the product of a designer. Design can only exist with the existence of a designer. Any logical process to deduce design must take this fact into account.
I can't see any reason to state truisms that are not related to the point you originally made about logical conclusions. We are talking about logic. Thus it says a lot about the person involved in the logic. That's the point. An observation of design is about who logically decided what they were observing. Yes, there is inherent in the decision that a designer be possible, but one doesn't start with a designer, one ends with one.

It doesn't start with it being true. It only starts with it being possible. Again, prove to me that one has to start with a designer instead of ending with one or stop claiming it as true. You are claiming I MUST start with a designer and therefore I did, which is circular logic, something you used incorrectly earlier.

Is it possible for something to be designed? Yes. Do we have experience with the difference between things that are intended and things that are chance? Yes. Can I weigh that experience against my observations? Yes. If a conclusion of design is consistant with my observation, I would have to assume a designer was impossible to not settle on design and then a designer.


And once again, you seem stuck on this matter of science. I am not talking about science. I am talking about logical deduction.

Logical deduction does not require that something be able to be disproven. Something you claimed. It does require that it be true if the assumptions are correct.

"This is designed. Therefore there is a designer capable of designing it."

That is logical deduction. It's not circular logic. Deduction requires that something be true if the assumtpsion are true. That's the basis. That may seem circular to you, but it's what a logical deduction is.

However, keep in mind that deduction is not the only form of logic. I never suggested that we are only dealing in deductions. This is more induction as it possible here to reach more than one conclusion logically and in this case the process of reaching the conclusion is based on using similar types of things, a normal part of induction.


Where do these expectations come from?

My observations of the world around me and any evidence I have of similar processes. These processes needn't be identical. The essence of logical thinking is that apply the most applicable experience I can to a situation. While I don't have experience with anything that can make a cube like I described, I do have experience with things that are cubical and their design. Thus based on my experience, I think the most likely explanation is that it is designed. The only quality of my designer is that it is capable of designing the cube and no other and that quality is a result of my conclusion, not what I started with.


I'm having trouble finding that. Where did I mention disproving an assumption? In what context?

Search for the quote. You were arguing about this very point. You've been talking about not taking anything as true without proving it. You suggest you have to assume that neither is true until you prove one, which of course would leave us not ever taking anything as true.


I'm not sure what conclusion you are talking about here.

ID, which you say you're not claiming is illogical, but it's what we're talking about. You jumped into the middle of a conversation where he was claiming that ID is by its nature illogical because it can't be proven to be true. I said it's unscientific, but not illogical.

Then it ends up being circular logic.

The only circular logic is to say one MUST start with a designer and thus one did start with a designer. I'm saying that one starts with the possiblity of design and the possibility of a designer and examines an event through the lens of one's experience with intentional and unintentional events and places it where it makes more sense. That's inductive reasoning. It's pretty standard stuff.

If you encountered what looked like a building that was fifteen miles tall on Pluto. We don't know of anything capable of creating such a building. We don't know of anything capable of getting to Pluto to create such a building. However, obviously if it has windows and floors and paintings and doors, we would likely presume it was created and land on a creator as a result of what we observed. However, I doubt absent the observation that many would propose that there are beings that can build fifteen mile tall buildings on Pluto. See how that works.

Every major proponent of ID has stated (sometimes under oath) that the designer they are pointing to is God.

If every major proponent was every proponent, you'd have an argument. Since it's not a requirement of the theory and it's not what EVERY single person who supports the theory says, then it's really immaterial.

Of course, we could say, "Super-powerful alien lifeforms outside the laws of the universe as we know it," and have the same logical process.

I agree. It doesn't even have to be super-powerful or have any quality other than being capable of the design we are discussing.


If "randomness" means "lack of intent," how do you determine whether or not "intent" exists without an assumption about what could be doing the intending?

You examine things that have occurred with intent in the past and things that haven't and see if what you're observing is more consistent with one or the other. You needn't know anything about the actor or its capabilities. Again, the only thing one need know about the actor is that it's possible for one to exist capable of such an act. That's all. Then you simply land at which is more likely based on your experience with other actors and actions.


I never said that ID arguments aren't logical. In fact, I said exactly the opposite.

That's what we're discussing. You jumped into a conversation where I ONLY argued that ID is logical while not scientific. That's the point. If you agree then there is no point to arguing.

Meanwhile, it's not circular logic to being with an observation based on your experience and come to a conclusion that includes an actor. I come home and I notice a glass is shattered. I've never encountered a glass before by my experience is that things don't change physical form without a physical force in the majority of cases. Without knowing what acted upon it, I can conclude something did. I needn't know that something is capable of shattering a glass to begin with. I just need to not exclude it. Circular logic requires me to start with the designer and then land on the designer. However, only you are claiming the designer is the assumption. It's not. The only assumption is that my experience is valuable. My experience with things that are designed is what leads me to a designer. Not an assumption of an actor. A conclusion. In order for me to avoid such a conclusion, I would have to assume that things that appear to me to be designed aren't. Which is counter to my experience.

Reason has rules. It's not just what makes sense to you.

Believing in something for which you lack conclusive evidence is irrational behaviour.

Apparently, you're not familiar with inductive logic. You don't have conclusive evidence for anything you believe. You don't even have conclusive evidence that you've ever taken a step in your life. Apparently, we're all irrational beings, walking around as if we're walking around. Reason has rules. You seem to be unaware of what they are, unfortunately.

Nope. Again, you don't get it. If it's a designer of the gaps, I must first observe a gap. That makes the designer a result. Your own statement betrays your argument. You're suggesting I can't come up with a designer for the gap instead of a gap for the designer and I challenge you to prove it or stop declaring it to be true.

No, I don't. You can add that requirement if you like, but I don't have to know a creature is capable of it. I simply have to not exclude it and since a random occurrance seems unlikely to me, decide logically that it is thus not just a random occurrance.

There's your gap.

I never denied that the ID argument is a designer of the gaps argument. That's why it's not scientific. It is, however, logical, which is the point of my argument.

I don't think the designer of the gaps argument is logical at all. "I can't explain this so I'm just going to make up an explanation for it," isn't logical, and that is precisely what the gaps argument is.

I can't see any reason to state truisms that are not related to the point you originally made about logical conclusions.

It is as related as it gets. The entire point was that one cannot observe design without a designer having designed it. Because of this, one cannot deduce design without making assumptions about a possible designer.

We are talking about logic. Thus it says a lot about the person involved in the logic. That's the point. An observation of design is about who logically decided what they were observing. Yes, there is inherent in the decision that a designer be possible, but one doesn't start with a designer, one ends with one.

There is no reason to deduce "design" without a designer, any more than one would deduce that something has been painted without a painter.

It doesn't start with it being true. It only starts with it being possible. Again, prove to me that one has to start with a designer instead of ending with one or stop claiming it as true. You are claiming I MUST start with a designer and therefore I did, which is circular logic, something you used incorrectly earlier.

And, in each example that you have brought up, I showed how you started with an entity capable of design. You think a dam is designed because you have seen one designed. You think a cube is designed because you have seen one designed. They all begin with you first having knowledge of something designing that type of object.

Is it possible for something to be designed? Yes. Do we have experience with the difference between things that are intended and things that are chance? Yes.

In some cases. Do we have experience with intended lifeforms and "chance" lifeforms?

Can I weigh that experience against my observations? Yes. If a conclusion of design is consistant with my observation, I would have to assume a designer was impossible to not settle on design and then a designer.

Wrong. You are leaving out the underlying assumptions made in your "experience with the difference between things that are intended and things that are chance." Inherent in that observation, and the use of that observation, is the knowledge that the "things that are intended" were designed. To suggest that you don't use that knowledge in your logical process would be to leave out a substantial part of the thought process.

Logical deduction does not require that something be able to be disproven. Something you claimed.

Really? Show me this supposed claim.

It does require that it be true if the assumptions are correct.

"This is designed. Therefore there is a designer capable of designing it."

That is logical deduction. It's not circular logic. Deduction requires that something be true if the assumtpsion are true. That's the basis. That may seem circular to you, but it's what a logical deduction is.

Ah, but there is a problem here. We weren't discussing deducing the presence of a designer. We were discussing deducing the presence of design. If we assume that something is designed, there is obviously a designer - by the word's very definition.

However, we are discussing logically coming to the conclusion that something was designed. To do this, we must have a logical process that gets us there. Saying, "This was designed," out of the blue is not a logical process.

My observations of the world around me and any evidence I have of similar processes.

Precisely. And inherent in the use of these observations is the knowledge that creatures which can design the things you have seen designed do exist. Thus, when you then try to deduce whether another such object has been designed, the knowledge that such creatures exist is inherent in your logic.

The problem, once again, comes when you start trying to extrapolate that to objects for which you have no experience with design. Objects for which you have no similar experience for design. Then, the same logical process cannot be used. Something else must be added.

Search for the quote.

I did. I couldn't find it. That's why I asked where it was.

You were arguing about this very point.

No, I wasn't.

You've been talking about not taking anything as true without proving it.

No, I haven't.

You suggest you have to assume that neither is true until you prove one, which of course would leave us not ever taking anything as true.

No, I have suggested no such thing. I pointed out a specific case in which we assume neither - that of the process of science. I never said that neither can be assumed, I simply pointed out that the null assumption is also possible.

In fact, I made it exceedingly clear that a logical process could be carried out with either assumption.

ID, which you say you're not claiming is illogical, but it's what we're talking about. You jumped into the middle of a conversation where he was claiming that ID is by its nature illogical because it can't be proven to be true. I said it's unscientific, but not illogical.

And I made a point of stating that I was not entering the discussion, but was talking about a related tangent. You made the claim that you can find design without any knowledge as to a possible designer. I pointed out that this is not, in fact, possible. All of your examples have simply proved my point.

The only circular logic is to say one MUST start with a designer and thus one did start with a designer. I'm saying that one starts with the possiblity of design and the possibility of a designer and examines an event through the lens of one's experience with intentional and unintentional events and places it where it makes more sense. That's inductive reasoning. It's pretty standard stuff.

First of all, once again, for at least the fifth time, I AM NOT SAYING YOU START WITH A DESIGNER. That, in fact, would be circular. I am saying that you begin with something capable of design. Without this, there is no way to put together criteria for design in the first place.

In your case, you start with creatures capable of design, and you end up with experience of what they design and do not design. You don't even have to assume that they exist, because you have knowledge that they exist. You then use them to determine criteria for design. You then examine an object under that criteria and deduce design (or not). The process, however, begins with your knowledge of creatures capable of design and can only be applied to similar objects.

If you encountered what looked like a building that was fifteen miles tall on Pluto. We don't know of anything capable of creating such a building. We don't know of anything capable of getting to Pluto to create such a building. However, obviously if it has windows and floors and paintings and doors, we would likely presume it was created and land on a creator as a result of what we observed. However, I doubt absent the observation that many would propose that there are beings that can build fifteen mile tall buildings on Pluto. See how that works.

Yes, and it is precisely the type of logical process I have been describing. Once again, you begin with your knowledge of creatures that design. We know that creatures which design buildings exist. Thus, if we find a building, even one somewhat different from our own, we can use the criteria of "building" to deduce design. The logic still begins with an entity capable of design. If we had never seen a building at all, if we knew of no creature that built buildings, then there would be absolutely no reason to believe that a building on Pluto had been designed.

You examine things that have occurred with intent in the past and things that haven't and see if what you're observing is more consistent with one or the other. You needn't know anything about the actor or its capabilities.

If you are using those things that you have observed before, assumptions about the actor and its capabilities are inherent in the logic.

That's what we're discussing. You jumped into a conversation where I ONLY argued that ID is logical while not scientific. That's the point. If you agree then there is no point to arguing.

Did you not read the post in which I entered the conversation? I clearly stated that I was taking things off on a bit of a tangent - that I had not, in fact, read your entire conversation with Simil.

Meanwhile, it's not circular logic to being with an observation based on your experience and come to a conclusion that includes an actor. I come home and I notice a glass is shattered. I've never encountered a glass before by my experience is that things don't change physical form without a physical force in the majority of cases. Without knowing what acted upon it, I can conclude something did.

Problem. If you've never encountered a glass before, then how would you know it is shattered? How would you know that it has "changed physical form"? You would have had to first encounter it.

However, only you are claiming the designer is the assumption. It's not. The only assumption is that my experience is valuable. My experience with things that are designed is what leads me to a designer. Not an assumption of an actor. A conclusion. In order for me to avoid such a conclusion, I would have to assume that things that appear to me to be designed aren't. Which is counter to my experience.

Ok, for at least the sixth time, I HAVE SAID NOTHING ABOUT ASSUMING AN ACTOR OR A DESIGNER. The assumption is that there is an entity capable of acting - an entity capable of designing.

If reason is used then it's logical. If it's not then it isn't. It's really that simple. To be logical it has to be contrary to logic, which means it has to ignore evidence to the contrary.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j315/crashcow/NSG/dunce1.jpg

Sounds fishy to me.

You can't logically decide anything. Conclusions are either logically required or they're illogical - there's no middle ground.

You have no reason to believe this new substance doesn't form cubes naturally. Assuming that it doesn't, and thus was designed, is unreasonable.

Just because a conclusion is not logically required doesnt make it illogical, we simply make conclusions based on the evidence at hand, or lack of it.

He has a good reason to believe that this substance doesn't form cubes naturally; no other substance does, and cubes do not appear in nature. Therefore it seems reasonable to assume that the cube was designed.

Sadly for the cube guy, the universe is not a cube, or a watch, or a mousetrap. And beither are the organisms living in the universe. They show a huge amount of evidence of having occured naturally, and none of having been designed. Infact there has yet to be a single piece of evidence for a designer. He should have made it cube shaped.

But you do have criteria. Your experiences would lead you to believe that the glass in question used to be in a different format and has now been shattered. My experiences would lead me to believe that it was as it was supposed to be, and thus not broken.

However, in the case of design, the criteria can only be defined if there is a possible entity in mind to have designed it. You cannot propose criteria for "design" without first including the designer.

Again, you're arguing a circle. You can land on design and then as a result propose a designer. You can start with a designer and then land on design. However, one must only accept that a thing is possible in order to analyze if it is. The opposite is to assume it is impossible. I don't know means that it's possible for something to exist that is capable which is equal to the requirement for the examination.

You're failing here because you are assuming that my criteria must surround the actual designer however it can simply relate to designs I'm aware of which may or may not have the same designer. That's induction. Look it up.


Not really, no. There is no way to get to "design" without a designer. If we simply don't exclude a possible designer, then we still have no way to determine what is and is not designed, not logically anyways. We need a set of criteria that will be used to deduce whether or not something is designed, and this simply cannot be put together without assuming something about a possible designer.

So the aspects of God were decided before it was decided that he did anything? Really? Prove it. That's actual counter to the effect of deduction.

You're going to have an especially difficult time explaining why most of the traits of the gods in early times were based on explaining observed events. Unless lightning didn't come about until a god to explain it did, it's more likely that someone started with lightning and decided that someone must have created it before they decided what that someone is. It doesn't make sense that they landed on a lightning creator before they decided lightning was created. Generally, people recognize a cause before a causer. It's kind of basic.


Ah, I see. So the God of the gaps argument is logical now.

Sure, it can be. It's definitely not scientific, but that's not the point. Inductive logic allows us to conclude things that may not be true.


Ah, here we go again. Now, what experience do you have of life being intentionally created? Of molecular processes within a cell being intentionally created.

None. I don't have to. Inductive reasoning doesn't require specific experience like what you describe. It only requires similar experience and what qualifies as 'similar' is fairly loose. That's why induction isn't really acceptable in science.


Once again, we come back to the idea that you are using "design" as it relates to humans and trying to extrapolate that out to include an entity you don't even define. We can certainly deduce that something was designed by a human or by a creature that we have observed based on what we have observed occurring intentionaly and unintentionally. This is why we can deduce that a dam was built by a beaver or that an arrowhead was created by a human being. We know that beavers and human beings can do these sorts of things. The difference lies in trying to extrapolate that to a process for which we have no experience whatsoever that would lead to a presumption of design.

You keep saying deduce, but that isn't the only type of logic. We are inducing, and extrapolation is a standard form of logical induction. Extrapolation doesn't require we assume it to be true. It requires we accept the possiblity of the existence of a result and use extrapolation, inductive reasoning, to examine it.


My dear, Damor was the one who mentioned science. I simply replied to it. I never said, nor suggested, that science is the "keeper of logic."

No, but you keep limiting logic based on scientific limitations of it. Which isn't surprising since that is probably where you encounter it most. However, logic allows for induction and deduction. You keep complaining about induction as if it's not logical.


Indeed. Now please demonstrate the logical process by which you arrive at, "This was intentionally created," without assuming something about a designer and the intentions of that designer.

Sure. I did. I don't have to examine the creator. I just have to accept that the existence of one is possible. And it is. It may not exist, but it's possible. I pointed out a case where see something like a cube or a building and use inductive reasoning to conclude that design was involved. The only way to avoid the conclusion in induction would be suggest that design is impossible, which is of course what you're asking me to do. Absent of such an assumption induction leads us to the conclusion in line with what we've seen of a cube or a building or anything else we've decide has a similarity.


If there is no designer capable of creating the design, then it is logically impossible for it to have been "intentionally created." It is exceedingly obvious that the intentions and capablity of the designer are an absolute necessity in design.[/quote]

Yes, which is why a designer is a result of the design conclusion. That's how deductive reasoning works, which is what YOU're using. Deduction requires that if a design exists then something must have designed it. That's deduction. That makes the designer a result, not an assumption. Otherwise you would have to assume the designer before the design which would have no purpose.

Exactly my point! You need to know that it is possible or, rather, you need to assume that it is possible. And it can only be possible if there is a "something" that could possibly do such a thing.


I have to accept that the existance of things I am unaware of is possible. That's not an assumption. That's a fact. I don't know the quality of those things. You are trying to claim I must assume that this thing exist that could possible create a particular object. However, there is no such requirement. I must only accept that the existence is possible. You're possibility is located badly. I don't assume the thing exists. The possiblity relates to its existence not to its capabilities.

You are suggesting I must ASSUME the existence of a thing that can possibly create an object. I needn't. Acceptance of possible existance is not equal to assuming existance of some that has possible qualities.

And that logical process began with an assumption. You have seen perfect cubes created. You know that there is something out there that creates them. In your experience (in other words, in your observation), perfect cubes have always been created by something. You are using your experience of human design and human capabilities to extrapolate the existence of design in something similar.

I've not seen perfect cubes of this material created and I don't know of anything that creates perfect cubes of this material. That's the point. I don't know if there even exists a creature that can create perfect cubes of this material. I only accept that it is possible for a creator to exist. To not accept that would to be to assume it wasn't created because I for some reason decided it was impossible with no examination. THAT would be illogical.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1;11818341]Tell me, what personal experience do you have with observing life being designed? Molecular mechanisms? New species?

I don't need it. That's not a requirement of induction. I'm really tired of restating this. Please look up induction.


You assumed that, even though you know of nothing that could do it, something is capable of it, based on your own experiences with cubes.

Nope. I concluded that using induction. I only assumed that it's possible for something to exist capable of it. The idea that it does exist is a conclusion, not an assumption.

You have your deduction backwards. If something is designed then something must have designed it. Something is designed is the assumption in that deduction. You are deducing and you're doing it wrong. You don't go since something is capable of desiging this, it must be designed. That's backwards and not deductive or inductive.

...which, in turn, is based in your experience with perfect cubes being designed, specifically by human beings. Buried within your logical process is the idea that some entity capable of creating a perfect cube - and that, like humans, would want to create a perfect cube - exists.

Yes, that's how induction works. No buried within my logical process is the idea of some being that is capable of creating something similar. In my example I know of nothing capable of creating the specific type of item I am referring to. That's how induction works. In my alternate example, the giant building I know of nothing at all that is capable of building such a thing on Pluto. That's the point. I don't have to start there. I end there as a result of induction. Again, that's how induction works.


...which would be an entirely illogical conclusion, unless you believe that something is capable of making it.

False. I only have to believe that since I don't know, it's possible. Induction requires me to leave things fairly open unless I have knowledge that closes down a line of thinking. That a designer exists is a deduction of something being designed. It's not a foregone conclusion. Until I've concluded something is designed there is no reason to believe something is capable of designing it. You are making an invalid assumption and requiring me to abide by it. Assuming I have no belief to begin with about something, which is certainly possible, it is possible to induce that something is created and thus has a creator and the only aspects of that creator would be that it is capable of creating the object. However, to start with that assumption would be backwards. You're made at me for NOT using circular logic.

I need only believe that it is possible for something to exist that is capable of design. And since I have no knowledge of such a being, it would be silly to assume it wasn't possible.

You are still trying to go backwards. You cannot possibly have design without a designer. Thus, any logical process to deduce design *must* start with some assumptions about a possible designer. You certainly don't have to assume the existence of a designer, that would be circular logic. But you do have to assume that some entity capable of designing exists and you do have to draw criteria for design from said entity.

Why would I need a designer until I discover design? That's the point. I know design exists and that things can and often are designed. I know designers are possible, but in any given instance I don't know anything about a designer even if I find something they designed. I can examine design through induction and a simple acceptance of the possiblity of design. The designer and qualities of it is then deduced from the idea of design.


An important thing to note is that you have yet to come up with an example that isn't based in your observation of things being designed. You (or other human beings, anyways) have observed humans and beavers building dams. You have observed perfect cubes being designed, and have yet to see one that was not designed.

Try to take it into something that we have no design experience with. Say, for instance, a lifeform. What do we know of that could design a lifeform? If we know of nothing, how would we go about deducing whether or not a lifeform was designed? If we have never seen an element designed, what criteria can we possibly use on a new element to determine whether or not it was designed?

You use induction. If you're going to continue I suggest you look it up. I'm not claiming we're deducing anything. Deduction is a limitation of science, not logic. Induction doesn't require specific knowledge about an object. You guys are all talking about deduction and it's coloring your argument.

There's your gap.



I don't think the designer of the gaps argument is logical at all. "I can't explain this so I'm just going to make up an explanation for it," isn't logical, and that is precisely what the gaps argument is.



It is as related as it gets. The entire point was that one cannot observe design without a designer having designed it. Because of this, one cannot deduce design without making assumptions about a possible designer.



There is no reason to deduce "design" without a designer, any more than one would deduce that something has been painted without a painter.



And, in each example that you have brought up, I showed how you started with an entity capable of design. You think a dam is designed because you have seen one designed. You think a cube is designed because you have seen one designed. They all begin with you first having knowledge of something designing that type of object.



In some cases. Do we have experience with intended lifeforms and "chance" lifeforms?



Wrong. You are leaving out the underlying assumptions made in your "experience with the difference between things that are intended and things that are chance." Inherent in that observation, and the use of that observation, is the knowledge that the "things that are intended" were designed. To suggest that you don't use that knowledge in your logical process would be to leave out a substantial part of the thought process.



Really? Show me this supposed claim.



Ah, but there is a problem here. We weren't discussing deducing the presence of a designer. We were discussing deducing the presence of design. If we assume that something is designed, there is obviously a designer - by the word's very definition.

However, we are discussing logically coming to the conclusion that something was designed. To do this, we must have a logical process that gets us there. Saying, "This was designed," out of the blue is not a logical process.



Precisely. And inherent in the use of these observations is the knowledge that creatures which can design the things you have seen designed do exist. Thus, when you then try to deduce whether another such object has been designed, the knowledge that such creatures exist is inherent in your logic.

The problem, once again, comes when you start trying to extrapolate that to objects for which you have no experience with design. Objects for which you have no similar experience for design. Then, the same logical process cannot be used. Something else must be added.



I did. I couldn't find it. That's why I asked where it was.



No, I wasn't.



No, I haven't.



No, I have suggested no such thing. I pointed out a specific case in which we assume neither - that of the process of science. I never said that neither can be assumed, I simply pointed out that the null assumption is also possible.

In fact, I made it exceedingly clear that a logical process could be carried out with either assumption.



And I made a point of stating that I was not entering the discussion, but was talking about a related tangent. You made the claim that you can find design without any knowledge as to a possible designer. I pointed out that this is not, in fact, possible. All of your examples have simply proved my point.



First of all, once again, for at least the fifth time, I AM NOT SAYING YOU START WITH A DESIGNER. That, in fact, would be circular. I am saying that you begin with something capable of design. Without this, there is no way to put together criteria for design in the first place.

In your case, you start with creatures capable of design, and you end up with experience of what they design and do not design. You don't even have to assume that they exist, because you have knowledge that they exist. You then use them to determine criteria for design. You then examine an object under that criteria and deduce design (or not). The process, however, begins with your knowledge of creatures capable of design and can only be applied to similar objects.



Yes, and it is precisely the type of logical process I have been describing. Once again, you begin with your knowledge of creatures that design. We know that creatures which design buildings exist. Thus, if we find a building, even one somewhat different from our own, we can use the criteria of "building" to deduce design. The logic still begins with an entity capable of design. If we had never seen a building at all, if we knew of no creature that built buildings, then there would be absolutely no reason to believe that a building on Pluto had been designed.



If you are using those things that you have observed before, assumptions about the actor and its capabilities are inherent in the logic.



Did you not read the post in which I entered the conversation? I clearly stated that I was taking things off on a bit of a tangent - that I had not, in fact, read your entire conversation with Simil.



Problem. If you've never encountered a glass before, then how would you know it is shattered? How would you know that it has "changed physical form"? You would have had to first encounter it.



Ok, for at least the sixth time, I HAVE SAID NOTHING ABOUT ASSUMING AN ACTOR OR A DESIGNER. The assumption is that there is an entity capable of acting - an entity capable of designing.

This is just sad, my friend. You didn't assuming a designer, just assumed an entity capable of design. Seriously, this is just a dumb argument. You're being illogical. You are telling me what I MUST assume, but you are doing so because you don't know what induction is. Open a book and stop harrassing me.

Just because a conclusion is not logically required doesnt make it illogical, we simply make conclusions based on the evidence at hand, or lack of it.

He has a good reason to believe that this substance doesn't form cubes naturally; no other substance does, and cubes do not appear in nature. Therefore it seems reasonable to assume that the cube was designed.

Sadly for the cube guy, the universe is not a cube, or a watch, or a mousetrap. And beither are the organisms living in the universe. They show a huge amount of evidence of having occured naturally, and none of having been designed. Infact there has yet to be a single piece of evidence for a designer. He should have made it cube shaped.
And yet:

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j315/crashcow/NSG/fluoritequartzcubes.jpg

"It has so complex development that is difficult to distinguish the crystal, made of parallel growths of small echeloned cubic crystals with beveled edges. Low on the sample some of the Quartz matrix can be seen."

You have no reason to believe this new substance doesn't form cubes naturally. Assuming that it doesn't, and thus was designed, is unreasonable.

I'm with Llewdor. There's all sorts of minerals and crystals and semi-precious stones that form cube-shaped. To assume it's designed that way is wishful thinking. As far as it being 'perfect', well... that's just getting a little too Arthur C. Clarke -ish for my tastes.

And yet:

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j315/crashcow/NSG/fluoritequartzcubes.jpg




I'm with Llewdor. There's all sorts of minerals and crystals and semi-precious stones that form cube-shaped. To assume it's designed that way is wishful thinking. As far as it being 'perfect', well... that's just getting a little too Arthur C. Clarke -ish for my tastes.

Induction is about experience. If my experience hasn't exposed me to naturally-occurring cubes, then it is logical for me to not assume that cubes are naturally occurring. That's induction. It's also why induction can lead to one conclusion for one person and another for another.

Substituted skyscrapers. Or anything else. I know of know entity that can make fifty billion meter tall buildings. However, if I encountered one induction would lead me to believe it was designed. That's logic 101.

EDIT: For those who aren't keeping up, ID is still unscientific. I'm not arguing for it to be true or science. I simply hold that it's logical and it's logical because of induction.

Just because a conclusion is not logically required doesnt make it illogical, we simply make conclusions based on the evidence at hand, or lack of it.

He has a good reason to believe that this substance doesn't form cubes naturally; no other substance does, and cubes do not appear in nature. Therefore it seems reasonable to assume that the cube was designed.

Sadly for the cube guy, the universe is not a cube, or a watch, or a mousetrap. And beither are the organisms living in the universe. They show a huge amount of evidence of having occured naturally, and none of having been designed. Infact there has yet to be a single piece of evidence for a designer. He should have made it cube shaped.

Thank you. Some people seem to be unaware of induction. Deduction requires that if your assumptions are true so are your conclusions, but induction doesn't work that way.

If my experience hasn't exposed me to naturally-occurring cubes, then it is logical for me to not assume that cubes are naturally occurring. That's induction. It's also why induction can lead to one conclusion for one person and another for another.

And so that would be the perfect illustration as to why induction is bunk, to put it kindly.

And so that would be the perfect illustration as to why induction is bunk, to put it kindly.

That's why it's not scientific. However, you use induction regularly throughout your life. It's the basis for much of your decision-making. You compare situations to other similar situations you've encountered.

However, induction is precisely why ID is not scientific or bunk as people put it.

No, I don't. You can add that requirement if you like, but I don't have to know a creature is capable of it. I simply have to not exclude it and since a random occurrance seems unlikely to me, decide logically that it is thus not just a random occurrance.


What about extra-terrestrial writing?

Weird opening gambit, I know... let me explain:

Since we have no idea what alien culture/technology might have developed, we actually have no way to recognise 'alien' writing, if we found some - EXCEPT be the circumstances in which we find it.

Example: You find some bizarre graphics in a 'book' under the 'arm' of an alien invader... you might suspect the graphics are 'writing'.

But - on the other hand - you might currently be COVERED in alien writing. The natural forms of your body COULD be secret messages from beyond the stars. So could a daffodil.

The point is - without ANY knowledge of the 'designer', we cannot HONESTLY speak to 'design'... because we have no way to KNOW it when we SEE it.


The reason the ID claim is not logical - is because it assumes 'design' would be that which appears to US, to be design.

Stop using my lightbulb.

What about extra-terrestrial writing?

Weird opening gambit, I know... let me explain:

Since we have no idea what alien culture/technology might have developed, we actually have no way to recognise 'alien' writing, if we found some - EXCEPT be the circumstances in which we find it.

Example: You find some bizarre graphics in a 'book' under the 'arm' of an alien invader... you might suspect the graphics are 'writing'.

But - on the other hand - you might currently be COVERED in alien writing. The natural forms of your body COULD be secret messages from beyond the stars. So could a daffodil.

The point is - without ANY knowledge of the 'designer', we cannot HONESTLY speak to 'design'... because we have no way to KNOW it when we SEE it.


The reason the ID claim is not logical - is because it assumes 'design' would be that which appears to US, to be design.

That's how inductive reasoning works, however. You're giving the reason why it is not scientific. You're giving the reason why it's not deductive. However, it is inductive. BUT, it's not particularly reliable which is why it's scope shouldn't apply to science. And it's a good example, actually.

Meanwhile, if you discovered something looking like a book filled with what looked like scribbling except that patterns were present in that scribbling, you'd likely think due to inductive reasoning that it was a book with writing in it based on your experience with books and writing. That it's a book with writing in it is a logical conclusion.

However, the flaw with this analogy as Dem would likely point out is that we know of beings that are capable of such things.

So take that analogy further so that we don't. Let's say the pages of the 'book' are made of diamond and the 'writing' is etched into the diamond. Now we don't know of a being that can make pages out of diamond and then etch writing into it. And until we encountered this 'book' we never had reason to speculate that such a being exists. But here comes this 'book' and inducting reasoning says that it's a book and writing. THEN deductive reasoning tells us that if it IS a book and writing that it must THEN have a writer capable of both creating the book and writing in it OR a writer capable of writing in it, and a creator capable of creating the book. However, those traits of the writor/creator(s) are RESULTS of logic, not initial assumptions. And the only thing you need to do in regard to those conclusions is to not mark them off as impossible before you begin.

Here is the premise: the fact that some things appear to be design suggests that they are. inductive reasoningSo why on Dog's green Earth were you disagreeing with me?! You're giving the reason why it is not scientific.Inductive reasoning deduces nothing. Deductive logic is only science in the sense that it is methodical. Inductive reasoning (or unreasoning) isn't logic either, though it's sometimes called that by people who'd prefer it was.

Logic: "the principles governing correct or reliable inference." You're giving the reason why it's not deductive.Just like I did.

So why on Dog's green Earth were you disagreeing with me?! Inductive reasoning deduces nothing. Deductive logic is only science in the sense that it is methodical. Inductive reasoning (or unreasoning) isn't logic either, though it's sometimes called that by people who'd prefer it was.

Logic: "the principles governing correct or reliable inference." Just like I did.

Oh, so now you're redefining logic so you can be right. Logic includes both inductive and deductive reasoning. Your misunderstanding of that is exactly that, your misunderstanding.

http://m-w.com/dictionary/inductive

See, there is this magic thing called a dictionary. I suggest you employ BEFORE you claim something so absurd as induction is not a form of logic next time. It will keep me from choking on my soda.

Apparently, you're not familiar with inductive logic.
Oh, I'm familiar with induction. It has nothing at all to do with logic, though.

You might have had an argument if you'd tried modal logic, but if you're relying on inducton you're basically just making stuff up.
You don't have conclusive evidence for anything you believe. You don't even have conclusive evidence that you've ever taken a step in your life. Apparently, we're all irrational beings, walking around as if we're walking around.
You presuppose that we believe we're walking around. That's not necessary.

That's how inductive reasoning works, however.
Which is what makes inductive reasoning completely irrational.

Which is what makes inductive reasoning completely irrational.

I think you made up a new definition of the word rational. It makes it unscientific, but inductive reasoning is practical it is how we know how to treat things we've not encountered before when treating them is necessary. For example even if you've not seen a particular kind of metal before you would treat it as hot if it were glowing red. Inductive reasoning would tell you that the glow indicates heat in most cases you've encountered before. Inductive reasoning regularly protects us. It's based on experience whcih is often useless for an unbiased analysis of something and thus unscientific, but very useful for our day to day life. Without inductive reasoning you'd have to ignore all evidence you encounter in life that isn't repeatable and you'd not be able to make any practical conclusions about anything you've not encountered before. Hell, using context to decipher a word is based on inductive reasoning. Otherwise you'd have to look up a word every time you encountered a new word (which isn't a bad idea, but it's not practical for you whip out a dictionary in a business meeting).

Oh, I'm familiar with induction. It has nothing at all to do with logic, though.

Good thing the definition of induction disagrees with you. But, hey, you're certainly more qualified that Webster at defining words, yeah? Of course, without induction there is not purpose to a word like reliable.

You might have had an argument if you'd tried modal logic, but if you're relying on inducton you're basically just making stuff up.

You presuppose that we believe we're walking around. That's not necessary.

Induction doesn't make stuff up. It's a practical form of logic and it's what allows us to function in a practical world. Without induction, you couldn't learn to trust, you'd have to analyze everything fully yourself, except without induction you couldn't be sure what that analysis means, etc.

It's how we learn about new things and how we address new situations. It's the very basis of being rational. Refusing to use induction would be irrational. It's simply important to understand it's limitations.

I think you made up a new definition of the word rational.
Of or relating to reason.

Inductive reasoning isn't reasoning at all. It's supposition.
Good thing the definition of induction disagrees with you. But, hey, you're certainly more qualified that Webster at defining words, yeah?
Almost any English speaker is more qualified at defining words than Webster. The OED, on the other hand...
Induction doesn't make stuff up. It's a practical form of logic and it's what allows us to function in a practical world.
Induction isn't logic. Logic call tell you with certainty what isn't true. Induction then chooses something from what's left - there's no basis for that selection.
Without induction, you couldn't learn to trust
Trust is irrational.
you'd have to analyze everything fully yourself
Yes.
except without induction you couldn't be sure what that analysis means, etc.
No. You'd know exactly what it meant, and you'd be perfectly aware of the limitations of what it told you. Inductions ignores those limitations and draws conclusions beyond the scope of available knowledge.
It's how we learn about new things and how we address new situations.
You can't learn things through induction. Inductive conclusions are foundationless. If you thnk you're learning things, all you're doing is setting yourself up to be wrong a lot.
It's the very basis of being rational. Refusing to use induction would be irrational. It's simply important to understand it's limitations.
Those limitations being, it doesn't tell you anything.

You mentioned learning the meaning of words using context. Sure, if you were to settle on one specific definition you'd probably need induction, but then you also might be incorrect. Deduction will tell you what the word might mean - choosing from among those alternatives can't happen without more information (like the OED).

Of or relating to reason.

Inductive reasoning isn't reasoning at all. It's supposition.

Speaking of illogical. Inductive REASONING isn't related to reason is perhaps the most idiotic statement of the day. And on NS, that's impressive.


Almost any English speaker is more qualified at defining words than Webster. The OED, on the other hand...

Webster simply reports on the lexicon. Even you just called it INDUCTIVE REASONING. Your true Scotsman fallacy is exactly that.

Meanwhile, the OED says -
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/induction?view=uk
Whoops, how embarrassing. The OED says that inductive reasoning is a form of logic as well. I find it amusing that you say the OED is more reliable than Webster both of which are conclusions you can only come to with induction or a thorough analysis of every word in each of the current versions. Are you claiming that you've fully analyzed every word in each dictionary? Generalizations are almost always based on induction. You've made several in this post alone.

Induction isn't logic. Logic call tell you with certainty what isn't true. Induction then chooses something from what's left - there's no basis for that selection.[/QUOTE]

False. Logic doesn't require certainty or logic would have no practical value. Induction is how you learned to speak. It has a practical and rational value that you ignore with your true scotsman fallacy. Claiming that you know things in any practical fashion with complete certainity is absurd and more than a little illogical.

Trust is irrational.

No, it isn't. Trust and reliability have practical value and thus are completely rational. When I take my car to the mechanic I cannot reasonably check his work to see if he did it right. If had that time, it would make more sense to do it myself. We trust our cars to be reliable, planes to be reliable, doctors to be reliable, mechanics to be reliable, etc. Man is not an island and induction is required to protect ourselves in an environment where cannot possibly research anything and everything we encounter.


Yes.

But you don't and you know it. You're make a ridiculous argument. Simply admit you're argument is idiotic and move on. I promise every word in your vocabulary isn't one you looked up in the dictionary (especially since you don't trust it). I promise that every scientific principle you hold to be true wasn't tested by you. You can't tell me you never use experience to help you in your daily life. Your claim is nonsensical.


No. You'd know exactly what it meant, and you'd be perfectly aware of the limitations of what it told you. Inductions ignores those limitations and draws conclusions beyond the scope of available knowledge.

It draws conclusions based on available knowledge and applied properly it uses those conclusions when one must make decisions based on available knowledge. If you're driving and someone next to you does something erratic, do you wait to see what they do or take the safest approach based on your experience, based on induction? If you behave as if they may be a danger then you are using induction, making a decision that is beyond the knowledge you have.

You can't learn things through induction. Inductive conclusions are foundationless. If you thnk you're learning things, all you're doing is setting yourself up to be wrong a lot.

They aren't foundationless. They are founded on your experiences. Induction is the way we learn our first language and it's the only way. And yes, without further examination, you are setting yourself to be wrong a lot. Induction is a stage in the process. It's not the end. However, induction is faster, more practical and absolutely necessary in life. You take chances at being wrong all the time. Without it, you'd still be goo-goo ga-gaing and be completely unable to communicate with people at all. You'd never learn anything. You can't learn things without induction. It's the very basis for where we begin learning.


Those limitations being, it doesn't tell you anything.

Uh-huh. You use induction all the time. Without induction you couldn't learn from a teacher. You'd have to retest all scientific knowledge, all mathematical principle, everything. We'd never advance at all because we'd never be able to consider the work of other scientists to even remotely reliable.


You mentioned learning the meaning of words using context. Sure, if you were to settle on one specific definition you'd probably need induction, but then you also might be incorrect. Deduction will tell you what the word might mean - choosing from among those alternatives can't happen without more information (like the OED).
False. You would likely choose the most logically likely meaning.

For example, how did you learn your first word? You couldn't read a dictionary. You experience people referring to things and induction tells us that if past examples consistently showed a particular result similar situations would yeild the same result. That's what induction does. You use it all the time. ALL THE TIME.

Seriously, man, tell me you are in touch with reality? Please, tell me you just spoke before you thought about it. Claiming that induction has no value in learning is so absent from reality that one has a hard time taking you seriously.

I think it might be important to point out the difference between on the one hand mathematical induction which is soundly logical, and part of deductive reasoning. And on th eother hand inductive reasoning which is unsound.
The confusion of terminology can be rather detrimental to the discussion.

I think it might be important to point out the difference between on the one hand mathematical induction which is soundly logical, and part of deductive reasoning. And on th eother hand inductive reasoning which is unsound.
The confusion of terminology can be rather detrimental to the discussion.

Inductive reasoning in math is completely conclusive. Inductive reasoning in terms of your everyday life is something you CANNOT live without. You do it all the time. You do it whenever you make a decision about something based on your past experiences. Induction is the process of using similar situations to make decisions in the current situation. It's the process through which you first learned to speak, read, do math, etc. Induction will only take you so far and that makes it have only limited reliability, but to require deduction for all your reasoning would make any kind of pratical function in your life impossible.

Inductive reasoning in math is completely conclusive. Except for the terminology, I agree. That's why I said mathematical induction is sound, rather than unsound. It only allows you the deduce things that are true (given the axioms of your logic).
Inductive reasoning, as term from philosophy, however, is not comparable to mathematical induction. It is unsound; but as you say..

Inductive reasoning in terms of your everyday life is something you CANNOT live without. You do it all the time.It is a pragmantic way to reason, necessary to deal with the world. However, it also allows you to induce, e.g. that all swans are white (if you've only seen white ones). When in fact black ones do exist. Hence it is unsound. This does not mean it isn't usefull, but it does conflict with logic in a strict sense (because in formal logic it is impossible to arrive at false conclusions from true premisses)

I'm really not disagreeing with anyone here. It just seemed to me there might be a clash between the interpretation of terminology.
Typically 'logic' pertains to the rules of sound reasoning, in which case inductive reasoning cannot be logical. But in common use 'logic' is often used much looser, as 'making sense'. It makes sense to use induction, but it's not sound reasoning. It's logical (in the weak sense) but also illogical (in the strong sense).

Except for the terminology, I agree. That's why I said mathematical induction is sound, rather than unsound. It only allows you the deduce things that are true (given the axioms of your logic).
Inductive reasoning, as term from philosophy, however, is not comparable to mathematical induction. It is unsound; but as you say..

It is a pragmantic way to reason, necessary to deal with the world. However, it also allows you to deduce, e.g. that all swans are white (if you've only seen white ones). When in fact black ones do exist. Hence it is unsound. This does not mean it isn't usefull, but it does conflict with logic in a strict sense (because in formal logic it is impossible to arrive at false conclusions from true premisses)

I'm really not disagreeing with anyone here. It just seemed to me there might be a clash between the interpretation of terminology.
Typically 'logic' pertains to the rules of sound reasoning, in which case inductive reasoning cannot be logical. But in common use 'logic' is often used much looser as 'making sense'. It makes sense to use induction, but it's not sound reasoning. It logical (in the weak sense) but also illogical (in the string sense).

Unsound is a poor choice of terminology. It's sound, it's just not 100% reliable. When we have enough evidence, induction leads us to conclusions that are very sound. Again, so long as you recognize the limitations, it's very useful. It's very practical. What would be unsound is to never use induction.

That's how inductive reasoning works, however. You're giving the reason why it is not scientific. You're giving the reason why it's not deductive. However, it is inductive. BUT, it's not particularly reliable which is why it's scope shouldn't apply to science. And it's a good example, actually.

Meanwhile, if you discovered something looking like a book filled with what looked like scribbling except that patterns were present in that scribbling, you'd likely think due to inductive reasoning that it was a book with writing in it based on your experience with books and writing. That it's a book with writing in it is a logical conclusion.

However, the flaw with this analogy as Dem would likely point out is that we know of beings that are capable of such things.

So take that analogy further so that we don't. Let's say the pages of the 'book' are made of diamond and the 'writing' is etched into the diamond. Now we don't know of a being that can make pages out of diamond and then etch writing into it. And until we encountered this 'book' we never had reason to speculate that such a being exists. But here comes this 'book' and inducting reasoning says that it's a book and writing. THEN deductive reasoning tells us that if it IS a book and writing that it must THEN have a writer capable of both creating the book and writing in it OR a writer capable of writing in it, and a creator capable of creating the book. However, those traits of the writor/creator(s) are RESULTS of logic, not initial assumptions. And the only thing you need to do in regard to those conclusions is to not mark them off as impossible before you begin.

But, again - our 'book' is recognisable to us. This is where I am saying it is illogical - because there is no logical reason to assume a book, or writing. Like I said - we are looking for things that look like 'deign' to US. What does that tell us about design? That - if there IS a design - the designer is LIKE us.

We are trying to apply our small, three-dimensional and mortal brains to this matter, and superimpose our perspective on the macro-mechanisms of the universe - and yet, we should be facing the LOGICAL assumption that, in all probability, we wouldn't be able to SEE the design in the work of a 'designer' that actually COULD have created this little sandbox.

To my little Sims, wandering around in my Sims game - Simolean scripture might be recognisable... and they might comprehend a 'human' book that closely matches the formation of their little artifacts - but they would have no understanding of, or even capacity to realise the existence of, the ACTUAL 'design' in THEIR world.


We are not being logical - because, we are looking at a flower, and saying "You know, that's how I would design it" - and making a jump to the idea that THAT means someone did.

But, again - our 'book' is recognisable to us. This is where I am saying it is illogical - because there is no logical reason to assume a book, or writing.

Yes, there is. It's called induction. Induction states that if a form we've encountered in the past has certain traits that it's likely in the future that new forms of the same typewill have those same traits. The more similar, the more reasonable it is to expect. The more often we've encountered those traits in that type of form, the more reasonable it is to expect. It's not always accurate, but it is how inductive logic works. We use it every day and it's very practical.

Like I said - we are looking for things that look like 'deign' to US. What does that tell us about design? That - if there IS a design - the designer is LIKE us.

Not necessarily. You are using induction, in that claim. As you've so clearly pointed out, induction doesn't guarantee results.


We are trying to apply our small, three-dimensional and mortal brains to this matter, and superimpose our perspective on the macro-mechanisms of the universe - and yet, we should be facing the LOGICAL assumption that, in all probability, we wouldn't be able to SEE the design in the work of a 'designer' that actually COULD have created this little sandbox.

That's a fair argument, but you are making logical assumptions that are based just on much on your ignorance of the situations as their conclusions and assumptions are. What basis do you have for your 'logical assumption' about the probablity of our ability to recognize design from sources external to our universe?


To my little Sims, wandering around in my Sims game - Simolean scripture might be recognisable... and they might comprehend a 'human' book that closely matches the formation of their little artifacts - but they would have no understanding of, or even capacity to realise the existence of, the ACTUAL 'design' in THEIR world.


We are not being logical - because, we are looking at a flower, and saying "You know, that's how I would design it" - and making a jump to the idea that THAT means someone did.

That is logic. You may disagree with that logic, but inductive logic works exactly like that. It's not scientific because of the restrictions and limitations of science and induction, however, it is logical. It is drawing conclusions based on what little experience we have and when it comes to things like this it's really the best we can do. It's the same logical process you used to get to where you landed. The only illogical parts of certain conclusions is where people intentionally avoid incorporating experiences and evidence because we don't wish to change our minds, something often common among the dogmatically religious.

EDIT: Why aren't you on IM?

Unsound is a poor choice of terminology.Soundness is a very precisely defined concept in the terminology of (formal) logic as practised in philosophy, CS and AI. It's what is used at our university and in literature as I've encountered it. And that's why I used it here.

It's sound, it's just not 100% reliable. When we have enough evidence, induction leads us to conclusions that are very sound. Again, so long as you recognize the limitations, it's very useful. It's very practical. What would be unsound is to never use induction.If you use it in the vernaculular sense (as you evidently do), then you have a point. Which I suppose illustrates how due to differences in terminology two seemingly opposing viewpoints can both be right.
For me, if a reasoning is not 100% reliable, it's unsound.

Soundness is a very precisely defined concept in the terminology of (formal) logic as practised in philosophy, CS and AI. It's what is used at our university and in literature as I've encountered it. And that's why I used it here.

We're not talking about formal logic. In fact, we are specifically and intentionally not talking about formal logic as I have repeatedly stated. That's why their claims are not scientific. They don't hold up to formal logic.


If you use it in the vernaculular sense (as you evidently do), then you have a point. Which I suppose illustrates how due to differences in terminology two seemingly opposing viewpoints can both be right.
For me, if a reasoning is not 100% reliable, it's unsound.

Sound in terms of logic means free from error or fallacy. Not being 100% guaranteed is not equal to unsound. Sound logic, particularly inductive logic, is not free from error of result, but free from errors in application. That's the point. They aren't guilty of fallacy. They just are limited in their evidence.

Take a deductive proof. Yes, if my assumptions are true and my logic is sound then my result is guaranteed. However, what if my assumptions are not true? The result isn't guaranteed. In practical application, results are never 100%. Never.

Yes, there is. It's called induction. Induction states that if a form we've encountered in the past has certain traits that it's likely in the future that new forms of the same typewill have those same traits. The more similar, the more reasonable it is to expect. The more often we've encountered those traits in that type of form, the more reasonable it is to expect. It's not always accurate, but it is how inductive logic works. We use it every day and it's very practical.


Not necessarily. You are using induction, in that claim. As you've so clearly pointed out, induction doesn't guarantee results.

That's a fair argument, but you are making logical assumptions that are based just on much on your ignorance of the situations as their conclusions and assumptions are. What basis do you have for your 'logical assumption' about the probablity of our ability to recognize design from sources external to our universe?

That is logic. You may disagree with that logic, but inductive logic works exactly like that. It's not scientific because of the restrictions and limitations of science and induction, however, it is logical. It is drawing conclusions based on what little experience we have and when it comes to things like this it's really the best we can do. It's the same logical process you used to get to where you landed. The only illogical parts of certain conclusions is where people intentionally avoid incorporating experiences and evidence because we don't wish to change our minds, something often common among the dogmatically religious.

EDIT: Why aren't you on IM?

I prefer the term 'inductive reasoning'... because most schools of inductive reasoning are not logical.

On the other hand - when inductive reasoning IS 'logical', it observes certain criteria... like the 'criterion of adequacy'... which are not being observed in the 'Intelligent Design' debate.

Or rather - they are being observed in lipservice form... we make the protestation that our ability to understand the 'design' in the world around us, would be sufficient to bear witness to the reality of such design.

But - even in such so-called 'inductive logic', the criterea are not met - we are not given ENOUGH data to make any kind of estimation that the hypothesis of Intelligent Design will be demonstrably 'true' or 'false' depending on the nature of the evidence.

In other words - even if the evidence is bad, wrong, or non-existant, ID yeilds the same hypothesis - thus, in terms of 'Inductive Logic' (allowing for the Criterion of Adequacy), the reasoning process is non-productive.

I'd go so far as to say it was illogical, even counter-logical... which is why I prefer the term 'Inductive Reasoning'... it doesn't REQUIRE that the process be 'logical'.


And, I wasn't on IM because Yahoo dropped me. I didn't know till I checked it, and it said something about Messenger 'terminating without warning'. :)

I prefer the term 'inductive reasoning'... because most schools of inductive reasoning are not logical.

On the other hand - when inductive reasoning IS 'logical', it observes certain criteria... like the 'criterion of adequacy'... which are not being observed in the 'Intelligent Design' debate.

Or rather - they are being observed in lipservice form... we make the protestation that our ability to understand the 'design' in the world around us, would be sufficient to bear witness to the reality of such design.

But - even in such so-called 'inductive logic', the criterea are not met - we are not given ENOUGH data to make any kind of estimation that the hypothesis of Intelligent Design will be demonstrably 'true' or 'false' depending on the nature of the evidence.

In other words - even if the evidence is bad, wrong, or non-existant, ID yeilds the same hypothesis - thus, in terms of 'Inductive Logic' (allowing for the Criterion of Adequacy), the reasoning process is non-productive.

I'd go so far as to say it was illogical, even counter-logical... which is why I prefer the term 'Inductive Reasoning'... it doesn't REQUIRE that the process be 'logical'.


And, I wasn't on IM because Yahoo dropped me. I didn't know till I checked it, and it said something about Messenger 'terminating without warning'. :)

Oh, yes, I'll admit that some in the ID are completely illogical. The intentionally ignore some evidence, which is of course a violation of logic. However, the basic premise is not illogical. The problem is that so many who believe ID are trying to bend and twist logc, science and reality in order to turn it into science. The point is that proponents of ID may be illogical, however, in order to state that ID is illogical is poor claim. If it were illogical it would be much easier to dismiss. The problem is that it draws people in with the basic logic of it and then wraps them around the axle with all their twisting and turning to try and make into something it's not.

Inductive reasoning does require that the process be logical. Some ignore evidence against particular claims in an attempt to prove ID is scientifc and that is both a violation of logic AND inductive reasoning.

Oh, yes, I'll admit that some in the ID are completely illogical. The intentionally ignore some evidence, which is of course a violation of logic. However, the basic premise is not illogical. The problem is that so many who believe ID are trying to bend and twist logc, science and reality in order to turn it into science. The point is that proponents of ID may be illogical, however, in order to state that ID is illogical is poor claim. If it were illogical it would be much easier to dismiss. The problem is that it draws people in with the basic logic of it and then wraps them around the axle with all their twisting and turning to try and make into something it's not.

Inductive reasoning does require that the process be logical. Some ignore evidence against particular claims in an attempt to prove ID is scientifc and that is both a violation of logic AND inductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning requires experience, not logic - which is why I prefer that term.

Example - my dog is black, so dogs are black.


For me - to 'qualify' as inductive 'logic', more is required - such as the aforementioned Criterion of Adequacy:

Example - I have seen a thousand dogs. They were all black, so dogs are black.

In other words, to claim the process is 'logical', I think more is required... I think it must be proved that there is a tendency for the inductive process to agree with 'proven' results.

Obviously, with no defined notion of the design or designer, and no way to know for sure that what WE see as 'resembling' design IS evidence of design... the process fails to meet the criterion.

Is it 'reasoned'? Absolutely.

Is it 'logical'? No, not really.

Inductive reasoning requires experience, not logic - which is why I prefer that term.

Example - my dog is black, so dogs are black.


For me - to 'qualify' as inductive 'logic', more is required - such as the aforementioned Criterion of Adequacy:

Example - I have seen a thousand dogs. They were all black, so dogs are black.

In other words, to claim the process is 'logical', I think more is required... I think it must be proved that there is a tendency for the inductive process to agree with 'proven' results.

Obviously, with no defined notion of the design or designer, and no way to know for sure that what WE see as 'resembling' design IS evidence of design... the process fails to meet the criterion.

Is it 'reasoned'? Absolutely.

Is it 'logical'? No, not really.

I don't agree. "Everything I've seen that unintentional occurance (using known creatures as the example for intent) has met certain criteria. Every intended occurance has met certain criteria. Therefore with unknown creatures the same criteria should be expected." To suggest that in our lifetimes we've only encountered one or two examples of intelligent intent is quite frankly ludicrous. Now, does that mean that other creature or actors will meet that criteria? No. That's what's wrong with induction. However, our experience with intent while limited in some ways is extensive in others. Now, it may be your opinion that 1000 is enough dogs and 100 isn't enough, but when we have no idea how many dogs there actually are, I'm going to say it's go no more weight than any other opinion.

I don't agree. "Everything I've seen that unintentional occurance (using known creatures as the example for intent) has met certain criteria. Every intended occurance has met certain criteria. Therefore with unknown creatures the same criteria should be expected." To suggest that in our lifetimes we've only encountered one or two examples of intelligent intent is quite frankly ludicrous. Now, does that mean that other creature or actors will meet that criteria? No. That's what's wrong with induction. However, our experience with intent while limited in some ways is extensive in others. Now, it may be your opinion that 1000 is enough dogs and 100 isn't enough, but when we have no idea how many dogs there actually are, I'm going to say it's go no more weight than any other opinion.

That's missing the point.

The Criterion of Adequacy, invoked in conjunction with 'Inductive Logic', requires that there be some representational value... some significant parallel between the 'reason' yielded by the process, and the 'adequacy' of the data.

As such, our 999 dogs is more likely to produce a result of reasoning, that corresponds with reality... a sufficient similarity, perhaps, to make inductive reasoning 'valuable'.

On the other hand, the idea of the 'intelligent designer' requires something outside of our scope of understanding... be it god, goblins, or green men. As such - the Criterion of Adequacy can never be honestly approached... because we have NO data with which to compare.

Indeed, everything we DO know, is our own endeavour, which could, in no way, have yielded the observed evidences. Not only is our data useless, then - it is actually destructive to 'Inductive Logic'.

That's missing the point.

The Criterion of Adequacy, invoked in conjunction with 'Inductive Logic', requires that there be some representational value... some significant parallel between the 'reason' yielded by the process, and the 'adequacy' of the data.

As such, our 999 dogs is more likely to produce a result of reasoning, that corresponds with reality... a sufficient similarity, perhaps, to make inductive reasoning 'valuable'.

On the other hand, the idea of the 'intelligent designer' requires something outside of our scope of understanding... be it god, goblins, or green men. As such - the Criterion of Adequacy can never be honestly approached... because we have NO data with which to compare.

Indeed, everything we DO know, is our own endeavour, which could, in no way, have yielded the observed evidences. Not only is our data useless, then - it is actually destructive to 'Inductive Logic'.

See, you are ignoring it because you don't like it, but inductive logic does not require that all things be equal but just a reasonable degree of similarity. What's reasonable? Well, therein lies the problem.

You also ignore that we've encountered many things that we didn't create. The beaver dam. Ancient pottery. Unless 'we' is every descendant we've not encountered in recorded history. Our planets has more intelligent actors than humans and certainly more than modern-day humans.

Take my giant building example, though. Are you telling me that if you encountered a giant building made out of unfamiliar materials with some differences in the doors and windows but with all the general traits of a building that you wouldn't induce that this is a building built by some non-human intelligence? It's bigger than anything man could produce on a planet we've never visited with traits we've never demonstrated and out of material we've not encountered, however, the similarity to buildings we HAVE encountered cannot be ignored. Not only would logic lead us to the conclusion that designed, we'd be a lot illogical to suggest that it wasn't designed by an intelligent entity.

I'm not saying that the 'fruit' of their ID tree makes sense, but the basic premise is logical. It falls down when it fails to give an real idea of how to examine their views and when it, instead of making positive arguments, tries to argue by shooting down what it calls 'alternate theories'.

EDIT: You know if we don't stop disagreeing we're going to mess up all those lame arguments about how we just support whatever each of us says like cheerleaders.

Speaking of illogical. Inductive REASONING isn't related to reason is perhaps the most idiotic statement of the day. And on NS, that's impressive.
You've assumed the name of the concept is descriptive. Nice baseless inference, there.
Webster simply reports on the lexicon.
Webster ignores large swaths of the language. Traditional spellings, for example.
Even you just called it INDUCTIVE REASONING. Your true Scotsman fallacy is exactly that.
"Inductive reasoning" is nothing more than a pointer to identify the subject of our discussion. Again, you've assumed the name to be descriptive. Entirely baselessly.
Meanwhile, the OED says -
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/induction?view=uk
Whoops, how embarrassing. The OED says that inductive reasoning is a form of logic as well.
So you turn to the concise OED? The OED I have here has 2000-3000 words on induction (hence my preference for the OED over Webster - Webster doesn't attempt to describe the whole of the language). The relevant bit is here:

induction, n.
The process of inferring a general law or principle from the observation of a particular instance. Opposed to DEDUCTION.
Are you claiming that you've fully analyzed every word in each dictionary?
No. I'm saying that my experience with the dictionaries has shown me that the OED is more detailed and complete. At this point, the odds that I've been subjected solely to anolmalous entries is exceedingly small. Does that mean I believe it's true? Of course not. That means I'm willing to act based on my knowledge of the probabilities involved.
Generalizations are almost always based on induction.
Yes they are, which makes them necessarily unreasonable.
You've made several in this post alone
I have made none.
False. Logic doesn't require certainty or logic would have no practical value.[/quote]
Patently untrue. The real strength of logic is that it can't be wrong. The underlying assumptions can be wrong, but the deductions themselves cannot be.
It has a practical and rational value that you ignore with your true scotsman fallacy.
I really don't thikn you know what rational means.
Claiming that you know things in any practical fashion with complete certainity is absurd and more than a little illogical.
I don't think I did claim that.
No, it isn't. Trust and reliability have practical value and thus are completely rational.
Okay, you definitely don't know what rational means. You just "concluded" that something was rational because it had practical value. That's a complete non sequiter.
When I take my car to the mechanic I cannot reasonably check his work to see if he did it right.
True. Not relevant.
We trust our cars to be reliable, planes to be reliable, doctors to be reliable, mechanics to be reliable
If they were not consistently reliable they would fail more often.
Man is not an island and induction is required to protect ourselves in an environment where cannot possibly research anything and everything we encounter.
Again, not relevant. Induction remains irrational, irrespective of how badly you think we need it.
But you don't and you know it. You're make a ridiculous argument. Simply admit you're argument is idiotic and move on. I promise every word in your vocabulary isn't one you looked up in the dictionary (especially since you don't trust it). I promise that every scientific principle you hold to be true wasn't tested by you. You can't tell me you never use experience to help you in your daily life. Your claim is nonsensical.
You think it's nonsesical because you've assumed I do in fact hold those things to be true. But that's unnecessary.
It draws conclusions based on available knowledge and applied properly it uses those conclusions when one must make decisions based on available knowledge. If you're driving and someone next to you does something erratic, do you wait to see what they do or take the safest approach based on your experience, based on induction? If you behave as if they may be a danger then you are using induction, making a decision that is beyond the knowledge you have.
No. If I believe there IS danger, then I must have used induction. Behaving as if there may be danger does not require induction. It might require risk-aversion, and an awareness of the likelihood of a variety of events, but it does not require induction.

Induction doesn't draw conclusions at all. It jumps to conclusions.
They aren't foundationless. They are founded on your experiences.
Which are largely insufficient to support any conclusion.
And yes, without further examination, you are setting yourself to be wrong a lot.
So why do it? Why decide that one answer from among the many possible is correct, rather than simply contiue to consider them all as possibly correct?
Induction is a stage in the process. It's not the end.
As a stage, it introduces error.
Without it, you'd still be goo-goo ga-gaing and be completely unable to communicate with people at all.
In many respects, I am unable to communicate with people, because they all think like you. Which is insane.
You'd never learn anything. You can't learn things without induction.
Wrong. You can't learn positive things. You can't learn universal generalisations. That's not a handicap.
It's the very basis for where we begin learning.
Which we should abandon as soon as we're smart enough to understand logic.
Uh-huh. You use induction all the time. Without induction you couldn't learn from a teacher.
I don't know how you get this. Without induction, I probably can't believe that the teacher is right, but I am aware of what the teacher has told me, and I can apply it as instructed. There's no need for me to accept the teacher's word as gospel.
You'd have to retest all scientific knowledge, all mathematical principle, everything.
We do. It's called life.
We'd never advance at all because we'd never be able to consider the work of other scientists to even remotely reliable.
We don't need to accept it. We just need to use their work as a starting assumption.
False. You would likely choose the most logically likely meaning.

For example, how did you learn your first word? You couldn't read a dictionary. You experience people referring to things and induction tells us that if past examples consistently showed a particular result similar situations would yeild the same result. That's what induction does. You use it all the time. ALL THE TIME.
It's not necessary to accept a premise as true in order to test it. In fact, by accepting it as true (a induction would have us do), we likely bypass the test altogether and just introduce compounding errors.
Seriously, man, tell me you are in touch with reality?
Are you? You seem entirely unaware of what you don't know, and that's a fundamental aspect of knowledge.

..
As I return to the thread, I see that Damor has made many of the same points I am.

You've assumed the name of the concept is descriptive. Nice baseless inference, there.

Baseless? It's called reasoning BECAUSE it involves reason. Seriously, you really should know when to quit. Seriously, you really want to claim that suggesting a type of reasoning involves reason is baseless? That's the word you want to use?


Webster ignores large swaths of the language. Traditional spellings, for example.

You couldn't make that generalization without inductive logic. It is not a rational deduction to say that if it was that way in the times you've checked that it would hold true in the future. It is however a rational induction. Thank you for proving my point. I needn't worry about the rest of your argument. You've reasoned out why OED is more reliable than Webster through the use of induction. Pretty much makes the rest look stupid.

Good thing you've not made any generalizations, according to you.


"Inductive reasoning" is nothing more than a pointer to identify the subject of our discussion. Again, you've assumed the name to be descriptive. Entirely baselessly.

Prove it. Prove that the name isn't descriptive. But, hey, maybe if you say it's baseless it will make it true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
"the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it. It is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on tokens (i.e., on one or a small number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns."

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.htm
"These two methods of reasoning have a very different "feel" to them when you're conducting research."

http://www.csun.edu/science/ref/reasoning/inductive_reasoning/inductive_reasoning.html
"Induction is a major kind of reasoning process in which a conclusion is drawn from particular cases. "

Yep, I guess suggesting that a type of reasoning, involves, you know, reasoning is baseless. Or are you now going to arguing that reasoning doesn't involve reason.



So you turn to the concise OED? The OED I have here has 2000-3000 words on induction (hence my preference for the OED over Webster - Webster doesn't attempt to describe the whole of the language). The relevant bit is here:

induction, n.
The process of inferring a general law or principle from the observation of a particular instance. Opposed to DEDUCTION.

Yes, it's the opposite form of reason to deduction. One travels in one direction and one travels the other. Each has their uses provided we realize their limitations. I'm aware of that. What's your point? They are describing the type of logic that it is. Thanks for proving yourself wrong. I wonder why I even bother to post.

You - "Inductive reasoning isn't reasoning at all. It's supposition."

According to every resource that is not you says that there are two types of reasoning, Inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning, hence the terms. But, hey, if you can explain why it's called Inductive reasoning but is not reasoning, please feel free to embarrass yourself further.


No. I'm saying that my experience with the dictionaries has shown me that the OED is more detailed and complete. At this point, the odds that I've been subjected solely to anolmalous entries is exceedingly small. Does that mean I believe it's true? Of course not. That means I'm willing to act based on my knowledge of the probabilities involved.

It can't. See induction isn't useful according to you and you are using induction right now. It's practical and, oddly, you're actually showing the foundation for your inductive reasoning. Strange how you can act considering you said "inductive conclusions are foundationless." You amuse me in how clearly you express your absurd thoughts.

You can't have knowledge of probabilities without testing every entry in the book, or, of course, you could use induction which you obviously just did. Amusing that you claimed you abandoned induction when you learned how deduction works.


Yes they are, which makes them necessarily unreasonable.

Not according to the name of inductive reasoning and every resource I found that discusses inductive reasoning. Pretty much the only dissenter is YOU who admits that you base your choice of dictionaries on inductive reasoning. Strange that something can be so 'foundationless', 'unreasonable' and 'irrational' yet you can use it as the rationale for claiming I can't use Webster as a source.


I have made none.
Wow, seriously, you're just laughable. What do you think your claims about Webster's dictionary and the OED are. Generalizations. Seriously, if you don't read your posts, why should I? Please, I'm starting to feel like a bully. Quit while you're WAY behind.


Patently untrue. The real strength of logic is that it can't be wrong. The underlying assumptions can be wrong, but the deductions themselves cannot be.

If deductive logic was the only form of logic you would have a point. However, inductive logic doesn't have deductions. They are a contradiction in terms. Again, when you say things this stupid you make me feel like a bully.

I really don't thikn you know what rational means.

You told me what YOU mean by rational. Of or relating to reason. I'm using it exactly that way, which is why I'm demonstrating reasons, throughout this. I know you are trying to claim that a form of reasoning is not of or relating to reason, but, honestly, that's just stupid.


I don't think I did claim that.

Um, yes, you did. You said that things not based on deductive reasoning are "foundationless", "irrational", that "you can't learn things through induction", etc. Speaking of setting yourself to be wrong a lot.

Okay, you definitely don't know what rational means. You just "concluded" that something was rational because it had practical value. That's a complete non sequiter.

I concluded that something was rational because it was based on the reasoning I gave. Since it's based on reason, it's rational. I'm sorry that you couldn't cross that bridge without me carrying you.


True. Not relevant.

Absolutely relevant. Since I can't it's necessary to use inductive logic to determine whether I can reasonably expect this mechanic to do his job.


If they were not consistently reliable they would fail more often.

However, you could not rely on them, because past performance cannot lead to a deduction of any sort. We rely on cars because of the REASONING you just gave. That reasonign is called inductive reasoning.

However, how often they fail isn't a measure of whether they are 'consistently reliable'. The measure would of course whether there was consistency in the failures. The exact same number of failures could involve a car that is consistently reliable or one that is inconsistent (reliable would be a question at that point).


Again, not relevant. Induction remains irrational, irrespective of how badly you think we need it.

Amusing. So reasoning does not involve reason. Good to know. I sigged that little bit of hilarity, by the way.

You think it's nonsesical because you've assumed I do in fact hold those things to be true. But that's unnecessary.

You've used them as tenets of your argument. Several of your arguments have relied on some of these things. You've arrived at what you've chosen to treat as true based on inductive reasoning. That's the point. You treat them as true whether you actually 'hold those things to be true' or not.


No. If I believe there IS danger, then I must have used induction. Behaving as if there may be danger does not require induction. It might require risk-aversion, and an awareness of the likelihood of a variety of events, but it does not require induction.

Yes, it does require induction. You can't lead to a conclusion about a future action without induction. You can get to any of those likelihood without induction. Seriously, make an argument that isn't stupid please. I'm embarrassed for you.


Induction doesn't draw conclusions at all. It jumps to conclusions.

Uh-huh. It jumps to conclusions like those about the reliability of the OED and Webster's yet you manage to use those jumped to conclusions as arguments and then dismiss other people's arguments without anything other than your inductive logic. Hmmm... a strange thing to do considering your statements about the OED are 'irrational' and 'foundationless' according to you.

Which are largely insufficient to support any conclusion.

Yet, you still gladly jump to conclusions using induction. Not only do you use this 'foundationless' logic, but you require me to as well.

So why do it? Why decide that one answer from among the many possible is correct, rather than simply contiue to consider them all as possibly correct?

Like you do with Webster's and OED. Seriously, I wonder if you realize how absurd this really is.


As a stage, it introduces error.

There is some error. It's still how you learn which makes your comments about how you can't learn anything utterly wrong.

So when you use those assumptions that you talk about later you introduce error to your own experiments. Pretty much makes your conclusions no more valuable then inductive conclusions.


In many respects, I am unable to communicate with people, because they all think like you. Which is insane.

Uh-huh. All of us people who think reason involves reason, and the current definitions of words define how they are to be used, and that your generalizations count as generalizations and a whole bunch of other clear and obvious things. Did it ever occur to you that the reason people treat you like your arguments are flawed is because, well, they are.

I find it amusing that the way I think is insane now. The words you use are hilarious because they just make you look so silly.


Wrong. You can't learn positive things. You can't learn universal generalisations. That's not a handicap.

You can't learn language without induction, my friend. That's very much a handicap. You can't learn that particular type of car is reliable and another isn't, or about a particular mechanic, etc. Amusingly, you used inductive reason in this very post to argue why cars are reliable. You can't learn one source is more reliable than another. You can't learn that one car is more reliable than another. You can't determine likelihood at all. But, hey, a lack of induction isn't a handicap.

Here is your entire post without any fruit of the inductive process:


No language, no arguments, and in fact you wouldn't be here since you couldn't know how to use a computer.



Which we should abandon as soon as we're smart enough to understand logic.

Induction is a form of logic. You can keep screaming that it's not, but that's the actual definition of induction. And now that we've admitted that you're utterly wrong about not being able to learn from induction perhaps you can admit all the other places where you're so obviously wrong.

Meanwhile, you haven't abandoned it. You've admitted to using it. Honestly, are you doing this on purpose? I mean, I appreciate the entertainment, but please tell me that you're not arguing that you abandoned all inductive logic and its fruits as soon as you learned what deductive logic was.


I don't know how you get this. Without induction, I probably can't believe that the teacher is right, but I am aware of what the teacher has told me, and I can apply it as instructed. There's no need for me to accept the teacher's word as gospel.

Why would you apply it as instructed? Every lesson is foundationless. Your use of the OED is foundationless. Your understanding of words is foundationless.

Now, of course you gave your foundation, but since it was induction, it was foundationless according to you. The fact that you're countering basic truisms like something that you give a foundation for can't be foundationless is quite frankly ridiculous.


We do. It's called life.

Yes, it is. And we walk around and experience things and with those experiences we build one thing on top of the other. Your originating lessons, what you built all of this on, inductive reasoning.

We don't need to accept it. We just need to use their work as a starting assumption.
Ha. Assumption - 1 a thing that is assumed to be true
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/assumption?view=uk
OED. Hiliarious.

Meanwhile, you use foundationless starting assumptions? Wow. How embarrassing for you. Considering you claimed you wouldn't assume anything to be true unless you've tested it, are you sure you want to use the word assumption?


It's not necessary to accept a premise as true in order to test it. In fact, by accepting it as true (a induction would have us do), we likely bypass the test altogether and just introduce compounding errors.

Induction doesn't suggest that we not test things. It just allows us to continue forward when testing is impractical or impossible. However, you admitted that you wouldn't inductive conclusions as assumptions. In fact, you've included them in this discussion. Assumptions are accepted as true.


Are you? You seem entirely unaware of what you don't know, and that's a fundamental aspect of knowledge.

..
As I return to the thread, I see that Damor has made many of the same points I am.

Hilarious. You claimed that people are using a word incorrectly by using it exactly as it appears in the lexicon and exactly how everyone would understand it, which is amusing since the purpose of language is to communicate. You've claimed that to believe that Inductive reasoning is a form of reasoning is foundationless, that logic only includes deduction despite every description of the discipline, that you can't learn anything with induction even though you admit that you can and that you have, that you've never generalized while admitting to generalizing about cars, the OED and Webster's. Seriously, given my experience with you, if what I don't know is what you do, I couldn't get a higher compliment.

This stuff is gold. Please never stop posting.

By the way, this is an honest question. No joke. You have Asperger's, no? Don't answer if that's offensive. You just remind me of a friend.

See, you are ignoring it because you don't like it, but inductive logic does not require that all things be equal but just a reasonable degree of similarity. What's reasonable? Well, therein lies the problem.

You also ignore that we've encountered many things that we didn't create. The beaver dam. Ancient pottery. Unless 'we' is every descendant we've not encountered in recorded history. Our planets has more intelligent actors than humans and certainly more than modern-day humans.

Take my giant building example, though. Are you telling me that if you encountered a giant building made out of unfamiliar materials with some differences in the doors and windows but with all the general traits of a building that you wouldn't induce that this is a building built by some non-human intelligence? It's bigger than anything man could produce on a planet we've never visited with traits we've never demonstrated and out of material we've not encountered, however, the similarity to buildings we HAVE encountered cannot be ignored. Not only would logic lead us to the conclusion that designed, we'd be a lot illogical to suggest that it wasn't designed by an intelligent entity.

I'm not saying that the 'fruit' of their ID tree makes sense, but the basic premise is logical. It falls down when it fails to give an real idea of how to examine their views and when it, instead of making positive arguments, tries to argue by shooting down what it calls 'alternate theories'.

EDIT: You know if we don't stop disagreeing we're going to mess up all those lame arguments about how we just support whatever each of us says like cheerleaders.

Don't worry, I can still be your cheerleader. The pompoms and miniskirt finally arrived.

A couple of points I have to make:

One: I didn't invent 'inductive logic', or even the interpretation I'm giving... the 'Criterion of Adequacy' is textbook stuff... (although, when you start hitting this kind of philosophical discipline, textbooks may vary).

I'm not saying we can't infer design through 'inductive logic'... I'm just saying it is a 'weak' use of the discipline if it DOESN'T account for elements like the
'Criterion of Adequacy'. As such, I'd say it fails to display 'logic', although it CAN be argued as 'reason'.

Two: The beaver dam is a good example of design... but how about 'intelligent' design? I'm not sure there is any true 'intelligence' at work in the process, or that the structure is truly what we might consider 'designed'. I'm not picking on the beavers... I'm just saying, if they build a structure instinctively, they are not architects... just stylish stackers.

Three: Your 'big building' is the problem. It is evidence that you are hitting one side of the debate, and not seeing the other. A 'big building' is one thing - it IS a 'design' we are familiar with, we can recognise it because we have experience of it. Perhaps, if we were talking about some parallel artifacts, inductive reasoning MIGHT be able to provide a result that would meet the 'Criterion of Adequacy'...

But, we aren't. We are talking about being able to spot the fingerprints of a designer that we cannot recognise. We can't be at all sure we could recognise the work of this 'designer' if it were handed to us gift-wrapped and labelled as such. Show me some OTHER material that we have discovered that we can be SURE is the design work of god, goblins or green men, (whichever), and we MIGHT have some basis.

As it is, we are lost in The Matrix, trying to discuss the evidence of who is running it... when the evidence may never be exhibited in any way we can see. (In The Matrix, the evidence that MIGHT help you work out something about the 'designer' would be the holding tanks (for example) that the Matrix dweller is suported in while he/she 'plays'. But the 'player' never SEES the holding tank... only an artifact world).

Don't worry, I can still be your cheerleader. The pompoms and miniskirt finally arrived.

A couple of points I have to make:

One: I didn't invent 'inductive logic', or even the interpretation I'm giving... the 'Criterion of Adequacy' is textbook stuff... (although, when you start hitting this kind of philosophical discipline, textbooks may vary).

I'm not saying we can't infer design through 'inductive logic'... I'm just saying it is a 'weak' use of the discipline if it DOESN'T account for elements like the
'Criterion of Adequacy'. As such, I'd say it fails to display 'logic', although it CAN be argued as 'reason'.

Two: The beaver dam is a good example of design... but how about 'intelligent' design? I'm not sure there is any true 'intelligence' at work in the process, or that the structure is truly what we might consider 'designed'. I'm not picking on the beavers... I'm just saying, if they build a structure instinctively, they are not architects... just stylish stackers.

Three: Your 'big building' is the problem. It is evidence that you are hitting one side of the debate, and not seeing the other. A 'big building' is one thing - it IS a 'design' we are familiar with, we can recognise it because we have experience of it. Perhaps, if we were talking about some parallel artifacts, inductive reasoning MIGHT be able to provide a result that would meet the 'Criterion of Adequacy'...

But, we aren't. We are talking about being able to spot the fingerprints of a designer that we cannot recognise. We can't be at all sure we could recognise the work of this 'designer' if it were handed to us gift-wrapped and labelled as such. Show me some OTHER material that we have discovered that we can be SURE is the design work of god, goblins or green men, (whichever), and we MIGHT have some basis.

As it is, we are lost in The Matrix, trying to discuss the evidence of who is running it... when the evidence may never be exhibited in any way we can see. (In The Matrix, the evidence that MIGHT help you work out something about the 'designer' would be the holding tanks (for example) that the Matrix dweller is suported in while he/she 'plays'. But the 'player' never SEES the holding tank... only an artifact world).

See, here, we are very close, because I agree with you that we can't actually recognize the designer if there is one. However, the point is that the basis of ID isn't illogical or unreasonable. However, you're right, they take it too far. We can't say conclusively that we wouldn't recognize the designer or that the designer isn't held to some of the same design considerations that we are. We can't really say anything. So we can't say that we won't be able to see the designer. They really can't say that we can see the designer in anything we've seen yet, which of course doesn't exclude their theory at all as a inductive conclusion.

Induction would tell us that looking at all things that we know has an intelligent designer would tell us traits of what consitutes design. That's the basis of ID and it's correct. The problem is that many in ID then ignore those ACTUAL traits and instead favor traits that aren't found by looking at past design and suggesting that those traits evidence design. It's a bait and switch, but that doesn't invalidate the bait.

I could go through this point by point, but you've neatly isolated a distinction you clearly don't think is real, but I deem fundamental.
You treat them as true whether you actually 'hold those things to be true' or not.
But whether I hold them to be true is what matters, here.

This all started because we were dsicussing believing in things, and I see no reason to do so unless those beliefs are supported by deduction. Otherwise, we don't know they're correct, so why would we voluntary hold as true things we know might be untrue? The more rational position would be to remain uncertain.

And I am going to address a few points individually.
Baseless? It's called reasoning BECAUSE it involves reason. Seriously, you really should know when to quit. Seriously, you really want to claim that suggesting a type of reasoning involves reason is baseless? That's the word you want to use?[quote]
Names are not necessarily descriptive. They're only pointers directing us to the concept. They need not describe the concept.
[quote]You couldn't make that generalization without inductive logic. It is not a rational deduction to say that if it was that way in the times you've checked that it would hold true in the future.
I didn't claim that Websters excludes any particular large swath in its entirety, which is what I would have had to say for your objection to make any sense. I only required evidence of some such exclusions, which I clearly can have.
You've reasoned out why OED is more reliable than Webster through the use of induction.
If I have two dictionaries in front of me, let's assume for the moment that the contents of the dictionaries will remain fixed for the duration of this experiment. If I randomly consult both dictionaries several dozen times, and find information within the OED repeatedly excluded from Webster, but never the other way around, what are the odds I've stumbled across exclusively anomalous data? This is why it makes sense to prefer one over the other; in my experience, one has shown itself ot be superior. Should I come across contrary evidence, I'll need to re-examne my preference.
Prove it. Prove that the name isn't descriptive.
That's the whole point of this, isn't it?

You seem somehow convinced that all names are descriptive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
"the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it. It is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on tokens (i.e., on one or a small number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns."

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.htm
"These two methods of reasoning have a very different "feel" to them when you're conducting research."

http://www.csun.edu/science/ref/reasoning/inductive_reasoning/inductive_reasoning.html
"Induction is a major kind of reasoning process in which a conclusion is drawn from particular cases. "

Yep, I guess suggesting that a type of reasoning, involves, you know, reasoning is baseless. Or are you now going to arguing that reasoning doesn't involve reason.
Reasoning is based on reason. Reason is the application of logic. The question now is, what do we count as logic?

You seem willing to render the term "logic" meaningless by allowing any system that draws conclusions, however baseless, to qualify. I would prefer to limit logic to label only systems of sound reasoning.

Or is there some other firm line you'd like to draw somewhere?
Yes, it's the opposite form of reason to deduction. One travels in one direction and one travels the other. Each has their uses provided we realize their limitations. I'm aware of that. What's your point? They are describing the type of logic that it is.
Except only one of them is logic. Unless, as I mentioned above, "logic" doesn't mean anything.
According to every resource that is not you says that there are two types of reasoning, Inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning, hence the terms. But, hey, if you can explain why it's called Inductive reasoning but is not reasoning, please feel free to embarrass yourself further.
Because calling inductive reasoning reasoning would be inconsistent with the defintion of reasoning.
You can't have knowledge of probabilities without testing every entry in the book
If we had perfect knowledge, we wouldn't beed probability mathematics.
Not according to the name of inductive reasoning...
but since names aren't necessarily descriptive, you can't trust that.
...and every resource I found that discusses inductive reasoning.
Which, by defining induction as reasoning, directly contradicts itself.
If deductive logic was the only form of logic you would have a point.
I might just be claiming that.
You told me what YOU mean by rational. Of or relating to reason. I'm using it exactly that way, which is why I'm demonstrating reasons, throughout this.
Perhaps I should have defined reason, as well.
I concluded that something was rational because it was based on the reasoning I gave. Since it's based on reason, it's rational. I'm sorry that you couldn't cross that bridge without me carrying you.
But your reasoning was unreasonable, and thus not actually reasoning at all.
Absolutely relevant. Since I can't it's necessary to use inductive logic to determine whether I can reasonably expect this mechanic to do his job.
Only if it's necessary that you draw a conclusion. But that's not necessary, at all. You can happily remain at the rational default position of uncertainty.
Amusing. So reasoning does not involve reason. Good to know. I sigged that little bit of hilarity, by the way.
Inductive reasoning doesn't. You continue to insist that inductive reasoning is a subset of reasoning. It's simply not true.
You can't lead to a conclusion about a future action without induction.
Which is why I didn't draw such a conclusion.
You can get to any of those likelihood without induction.
I might need a few assumptions like "the coefficient of static friction between tires and dry tarmac is relevantly similar to what it was last year". Again, assumptions - not things I need to believe to be true.
Uh-huh. It jumps to conclusions like those about the reliability of the OED and Webster's yet you manage to use those jumped to conclusions as arguments and then dismiss other people's arguments without anything other than your inductive logic.
I don't need to jump to conclusions to do that. I have evidence which points me solidly toward one dictionary over another. It would be unreasonable of me then to conclude (as induction would have me do) that the OED is superior in all cases.

It has tended to be superior in the instances I've tested. It is highly unlikely, given the number of tests, that I have encoutered predominantly anomalous data. Therefore, in the absence of contrary evidence, I shall favour it.

I don't see any induction there.
There is some error. It's still how you learn which makes your comments about how you can't learn anything utterly wrong.
It might be how you think you learn, but you're not learning anything since you can't know you're right.
So when you use those assumptions that you talk about later you introduce error to your own experiments. Pretty much makes your conclusions no more valuable then inductive conclusions.
My conclusions should include my assumptions.

If A, then B.
A
--
Therefore, B.

If I then go around insisting "B! B, everyone! B!" that's absurd. But if I include my assumptions ("If A then B", "A"), you can see that I've actually done something worth mentioning. We can test the assumptions' validity later, secure in the knowledge that the conclusion is sound.
You can't learn language without induction, my friend.
If by language you mean "knowing what other people mean when they say things", of course not. Deduction will never let me know the minds of others.

Neither will induction. It will just make you think you know. And you'll be wrong.

This is the primary reason I prefer the written language. Should there be a misunderstanding, it allows us to go back over what was said to determine exactly where the problem was. That helps us learn and fill in the gaps.
Induction is a form of logic. You can keep screaming that it's not, but that's the actual definition of induction.
Except calling it logic contradicts any useful definition of the term logic.

If the logic is unsound, what good is it?
please tell me that you're not arguing that you abandoned all inductive logic and its fruits as soon as you learned what deductive logic was.
I didn't need to abandon it because it never made any sense. How can I possibly draw a conclusion for which I lack conclusive evidence?

Yeah, I'm uncertain a lot. But I'm not wrong.
Why would you apply it as instructed?
Because they test me on it. And then, that application forms the basis of my own experience with the information. My own experience is the source of my knowledge.
Your understanding of words is foundationless.
My understanding of words is incomplete, as is yours. I'm just more acutely aware of it.
Ha. Assumption - 1 a thing that is assumed to be true
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/assumption?view=uk
OED. Hiliarious.
Assumed. Not accepted.
Meanwhile, you use foundationless starting assumptions? Wow. How embarrassing for you. Considering you claimed you wouldn't assume anything to be true unless you've tested it, are you sure you want to use the word assumption?
That might have been sloppy of me. I can't conclude - of course I can assume. The difference is I don't believe my assumptions.
Induction doesn't suggest that we not test things. It just allows us to continue forward when testing is impractical or impossible.
So do assumptions, but they don't saddle us with foundationless beliefs.
Assumptions are accepted as true.
Only for the purposes of the relevant experiment. There's no need to believe our assumptions. That's why they're assumptions.
Hilarious. You claimed that people are using a word incorrectly by using it exactly as it appears in the lexicon and exactly how everyone would understand it, which is amusing since the purpose of language is to communicate.
The purpose of the language is to communicate precisely, because otherwise it's not communication.

That everyone thinks they know what other people mean doesn't mean they actually do.

Oh, and:

By the way, this is an honest question. No joke. You have Asperger's, no?
I have to consider the possibility I'm only affecting Asperger's to legitimise my lack of people skills.

Jocabia if you are right, howcome induction can result in unreason?

You're arguing that simply because "reason" can refer to the process of thinking, all thinking is logical/reasonable/rational.

Jocabia if you are right, howcome induction can result in unreason?

You're arguing that simply because "reason" can refer to the process of thinking, all thinking is logical/reasonable/rational.

No, I haven't argued that at all. I've argued that one can't claim that simply because some people misapply induction that it must not be reasoning. Induction is by definition a form of reasoning. I've claimed that provided one doesn't ignore evidence or avoid it in the process of reasoning and that they've engaged in one of the two processes of reasoning, induction or deduction, that one cannot argue that their argument is illogical. If a conclusion is reached through the inductive or deductive process then by definition it is logical. It is where they claim evidence they don't have, they claim evidence that exists doesn't, or they simply avoid anything that might give them evidence that disrupts their conclusion that they move into becoming illogical.

If one allows you to define that inductive reasoning is not reasoning then the majority of what you treat as true is irrational.

If I have two dictionaries in front of me, let's assume for the moment that the contents of the dictionaries will remain fixed for the duration of this experiment. If I randomly consult both dictionaries several dozen times, and find information within the OED repeatedly excluded from Webster, but never the other way around, what are the odds I've stumbled across exclusively anomalous data? This is why it makes sense to prefer one over the other; in my experience, one has shown itself ot be superior. Should I come across contrary evidence, I'll need to re-examne my preference.

Yes, that's called inductive reasoning. Thank you for showing it's value. Thank you for showing what you've learned from that process. Thank you for showing that it's rational. Disproving yourself couldn't be done better if you did it on purpose. I think we're done here.

No, I haven't argued that at all.Eh.. didn't you just do it?

If one allows you to define that inductive reasoning is not reasoning then the majority of what you treat as true is irrational.Of course it is reasoning. Any thought process leading to conclusions, decisions or conscious actions can be said to be reasoning. For example, I'm willing to bet some fiction writer just reasoned out the behaviour of a deeply irrational fictional character.

But that doesn't make it logical/rational/reasonable. Most of human behaviour is based on inference & induction. We'd be semi-paralysed if it wasn't. And yes, we humans are terribly irrational. All the time. Only, inference & induction doesn't need to be wrong, it just has the potential to be wrong. That's why it's illogical/irrational/unreasonable.

Eh.. didn't you just do it?

Of course it is reasoning. Any thought process leading to conclusions, decisions or conscious actions can be said to be reasoning. For example, I'm willing to bet some fiction writer just reasoned out the behaviour of a deeply irrational fictional character.

But that doesn't make it logical/rational/reasonable. Most of human behaviour is based on inference & induction. We'd be semi-paralysed if it wasn't. And yes, we humans are terribly irrational. All the time. Only, inference & induction doesn't need to be wrong, it just has the potential to be wrong. That's why it's illogical/irrational/unreasonable.

Um, perhaps a few definitions will help you -

Rational 1 based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

You've admitted the behavior is based on or in accordance with logic. Induction is in accordance with both. Thus, it's rational.

Logical - 1 of or according to the rules of logic.

Again, you've already said that it employs the rules of logic.

Reasonable - 1 fair and sensible.

Now, reasonable could technically be up for debate with what you've accepted already, but the other two really can't be. However, one might argue that if not doing something, you know like using induction, would leave you semi-paralyzed as you've posited, then it's pretty hard to argue that it's not fair and sensible. I'm sorry but you're complaint here is based on your unfamiliarity with the vocabulary you're using, not with anything I've said.

I find it amusing that each of the three of your are acting as if you're agreeing while stating things that can't be reconciled. Llewdor has claimed that Inductive reasoning isn't reasoning at all and that it's basically useless (although he's since changed his position because it was untenable). GnI has argued that it's reasoning but not logic. You've argued that without it we'd be semi-paralyzed but that it's not 'base on or in accordance with the rules of reason and logic' while simultaneous that it's employing the rules of reason.

And your fiction writer is a terrible example because he is using reason to describe irrational behavior while not being irrational himself. It's like saying that saying that a person isn't living because they are drawing someone dead. One doesn't follow from the other.

Yes, that's called inductive reasoning. Thank you for showing it's value. Thank you for showing what you've learned from that process. Thank you for showing that it's rational. Disproving yourself couldn't be done better if you did it on purpose. I think we're done here.
It's only induction if generalise. I haven't done that, here. I have only deduced things (the long odds of purely anomalous data).

The crux of our disagreement comes from your insistence that treating things as true is logically equivalent to believing them to be true. That's clearly false. It's demonstrably possible for people to behave in ways contrary to their beliefs. In fact, that's how science works. We test hypotheses without believing their accuracy a priori.

It's only induction if generalise. I haven't done that, here. I have only deduced things (the long odds of purely anomalous data).

The crux of our disagreement comes from your insistence that treating things as true is logically equivalent to believing them to be true. That's clearly false. It's demonstrably possible for people to behave in ways contrary to their beliefs. In fact, that's how science works. We test hypotheses without believing their accuracy a priori.


Amusing.

Induction - 3 Logic the inference of a general law from particular instances.

Deduction - 3 the inference of particular instances by reference to a general law or principle.

When you say you've looked at several particular incidences and because they were consistent you concluded something about the group itself (the long odds), that's of course induction. For someone who I've seen regularly try to tell people who to use the English language, you don't seem very practiced. You then applied your INDUCTIVE conclusion through deduction. Your assumptions in your deduction were the result of induction. INteresting that you would use what you call irrational assumptions.

No, that is not the crux of our disagreement. You didn't enter this discussion saying anything about belief. You entered talking about decisions and conclusions. You've been squirming and now you think you've locked on to something that doesn't make you look foolish so you're trying to pretend like we're having a different disagreement than we are. You claimed that induction has no value. You claimed that it's irrational. You claimed that it's not a form of reason. You claimed that one can't learn from induction. All of these things are completely and utterly untrue and you've actually contradicted yourself all along.

Here is how you entered the conversation -
"You can't logically decide anything. Conclusions are either logically required or they're illogical - there's no middle ground."

And you've proven that this claim is false. You've proven that you inductive logic to decide things all the time. The crux of our disagreement is that I actually apply induction to the use of induction and you try to pretend things that are induction aren't and things that aren't are. You've proven yourself wrong. Just give up. There are times when persistence isn't an admirable quality.

Induction would tell us that looking at all things that we know has an intelligent designer would tell us traits of what consitutes design. That's the basis of ID and it's correct. The problem is that many in ID then ignore those ACTUAL traits and instead favor traits that aren't found by looking at past design and suggesting that those traits evidence design. It's a bait and switch, but that doesn't invalidate the bait.


No - Induction can ONLY tell us about things that look like design WE would recognise... and, since we can't speak with any authority about what might have been 'designed' by any OTHER entity... 'us' is all Inductive Reasoning can tell us.

We might qualify as one 'intelligent design' possibility... but that doesn't mean we are representative.

No - Induction can ONLY tell us about things that look like design WE would recognise... and, since we can't speak with any authority about what might have been 'designed' by any OTHER entity... 'us' is all Inductive Reasoning can tell us.

We might qualify as one 'intelligent design' possibility... but that doesn't mean we are representative.

By induction, we have no reason to believe we're not representative. You reach in a bag of marbles and no matter how many marbles you pull out they are black. Now that doesn't mean the next one will be black but induction would conclude that all the marbles are black. In absense of any evidence that a designer would create things with wholly different traits than the designed things we've already encoutnered, you have nothing on which to base the claim that they would. While I agree with you philosophically, in terms of logic, you're making the leap here.

Inductive reasoning tells us that we are representative. And, yes, there are obvious reasons why such a conclusion can be incorrect but it has more basis than a conclusion that suggests that what evidence we have is not representative or even likely to not be representative.

By induction, we have no reason to believe we're not representative. You reach in a bag of marbles and no matter how many marbles you pull out they are black. Now that doesn't mean the next one will be black but induction would conclude that all the marbles are black. In absense of any evidence that a designer would create things with wholly different traits than the designed things we've already encoutnered, you have nothing on which to base the claim that they would. While I agree with you philosophically, in terms of logic, you're making the leap here.

Inductive reasoning tells us that we are representative. And, yes, there are obvious reasons why such a conclusion can be incorrect but it has more basis than a conclusion that suggests that what evidence we have is not representative or even likely to not be representative.

No no.... Inductive Reasoning tells us we are VERY representative of HUMAN endeavour. It tells us we are related to beaver designs... maybe enough to recognise them.

However, it tells us NOTHING about the 'design' of any entity that could design a whole world, of the degree of complexity we see every day. Aliens, gods or fairiefolk, we are nowhere near able to even see the fingerprints of the designer ON the design... let alone discuss the designer.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dawkins-God-Alister-E-McGrath/dp/1405125381/sr=8-1/qid=1161360132/ref=pd_ka_1/202-2577118-3107017?ie=UTF8&s=books

If you read this book, you may get a better perspective on these things.

No no.... Inductive Reasoning tells us we are VERY representative of HUMAN endeavour. It tells us we are related to beaver designs... maybe enough to recognise them.

However, it tells us NOTHING about the 'design' of any entity that could design a whole world, of the degree of complexity we see every day. Aliens, gods or fairiefolk, we are nowhere near able to even see the fingerprints of the designer ON the design... let alone discuss the designer.

Inductive reasoning is designed for just that, my friend. The less similar the comparison the less reliable the claim, but you're basically making the opposite claim with less information.

Again, only you are limiting it to human endeavour. I am saying everything we know to have be created with intent by humans or animals. I've compared it to scenarios where we'd certainly recognize design. Now does that carry over into scenarios where we can't? No. That's the point. You're making an argument for why we couldn't use the criteria to eliminate things as NOT designed, but it doesn't explain why we couldn't see design in things that do meet the criteria.

Put it this way, can a god or gods create things that don't have the marks of design on them? Certainly. Can a god or gods create things that DO have the marks of design on them? Certainly. In our experience are there marks of design that mean something didn't occur by random chance or simple natural forces (meaning absent an intelligent actor)? Yes. If those marks are there, could that mean a human, animal, alien or some other inside-the-universe actor? Yes. Could it also mean that there is a super-universe actor? Yes, it could. However, absent evidence that such traits could occur without either, we should certainly hypothesize that if those traits occur it has an intelligent actor, whether within the universe or without.

It's not evidence of a supreme being by any means. Not by the longest of shots. See, you're saying that we couldn't recognize design, but certainly could recognize what traits are found in all design we've encountered. You keep saying another being may not have those traits and that's true, however, the evidence would still exist that things with these specific traits occur absent a designer or at least appearing to be absent a designer. See a supreme being could cover up design to look like it's not design, but you're suggesting this being could cover up the undesigned to make it appear designed which is a contradiction.

No no.... Inductive Reasoning tells us we are VERY representative of HUMAN endeavour. It tells us we are related to beaver designs... maybe enough to recognise them.

Hence the reason that all of Jocabia's examples have been human designs, simply slightly different. Humans form cubes, so a cube, even out of a new material, is most likely made. Humans build buildings, so a building, even a huge one on Pluto, has most likely been built.

A better example, however, would be finding a "something" on Pluto that we don't recognize at all. It doesn't look like anything we have seen, made or otherwise. It seems to serve a purpose, but it is not a purpose we have seen. It is made out of a material wholly new to us. Is it designed?

Or, conversely, we are looking at something we see every day, but we have *never* seen it designed. It has simply always been there. Is it designed?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dawkins-God-Alister-E-McGrath/dp/1405125381/sr=8-1/qid=1161360132/ref=pd_ka_1/202-2577118-3107017?ie=UTF8&s=books

If you read this book, you may get a better perspective on these things.

Hmm.. most non-Christian reviews of this book are rather.. negative.
However, fair is fair.

*orders it*.

Hence the reason that all of Jocabia's examples have been human designs, simply slightly different. Humans form cubes, so a cube, even out of a new material, is most likely made. Humans build buildings, so a building, even a huge one on Pluto, has most likely been built.

A better example, however, would be finding a "something" on Pluto that we don't recognize at all. It doesn't look like anything we have seen, made or otherwise. It seems to serve a purpose, but it is not a purpose we have seen. It is made out of a material wholly new to us. Is it designed?

Or, conversely, we are looking at something we see every day, but we have *never* seen it designed. It has simply always been there. Is it designed?


Yes, but that wouldn't demonstrate induction or deduction. That's the point. No one is claiming that we can capture all design. No one is claiming that some design would or could slip past us. The point is that without actually knowing the designer or anything about them, it's possible to recognize something as design by simply having the same traits as things designed by us. Differences in them can expand upon what CAN be design but can never contract it. That's the point. No quality of any possible designer, not trait, not lack of designer, nothing can ever contract what we find in design. It can only expand what design looks like. That means that things that have similarities to what we recognize as design we have every reason to conclude is design as a result of inductive logic, even if that means we don't catch all of the designs that don't share those traits.

No, that is not the crux of our disagreement.
Of course it is. If it's possible to examine probabilities without believing them, everything I've said makes perfect sense. You've simply assumed that's not the case, which neatly fills the gap in your own reasoning.
You didn't enter this discussion saying anything about belief. You entered talking about decisions and conclusions.
Because beliefs are conclusions you've reached in the absence of conclusive evidence. Thus, they are irrational.

Given that I'm using rational to mean only that which stems from deductive reasoning, you may well think that I'm irrational (and I might be), but that doesn't change the substance of my argument.

Yes, but that wouldn't demonstrate induction or deduction. That's the point. No one is claiming that we can capture all design. No one is claiming that some design would or could slip past us. The point is that without actually knowing the designer or anything about them, it's possible to recognize something as design by simply having the same traits as things designed by us.

....which is, as I already pointed out, beginning with a designer. You started with "us" and put together criteria for design based upon "us". You started with an assumption about the possible designer - that it is enough like us that its design would mimic our own.

But, as you just admitted, you cannot apply that criteria to a wholly alien or different entity. You wouldn't know if a "something" on Pluto was designed. Of course, if you found a lifeform on Pluto and studied it, you could devise a set of criteria that could be applied to see if a Plutonian had designed a given object, just as you have done with human design.

Likewise, if you found an entity capable of designing life, you could study it and put together a set of design criteria based upon this new entity. And then you would have a basis for figuring out what it (or creatures like it) had and had not designed.

Differences in them can expand upon what CAN be design but can never contract it. That's the point. No quality of any possible designer, not trait, not lack of designer, nothing can ever contract what we find in design. It can only expand what design looks like. That means that things that have similarities to what we recognize as design we have every reason to conclude is design as a result of inductive logic, even if that means we don't catch all of the designs that don't share those traits.

And yet, ID attempts to apply human design criteria to something so far outside the range of what human beigns have designed that it becomes silly and illogical. Your examples of a cube or a building work because human beings have designed these things. The example of a dam works because human beings and other creatures we have observed make such things. We have put together design criteria that will apply to human beings, creatures we have observed, and any new human-like creatures. They can be used in examining designs similar to those we have seen before (ie. cube/building/dam).

But we have no experience of observing a supernatural designer or even a super-powerful life-designing alien. We have no experience with seeing life designed. We have no experience with aliens on Pluto or any given "something" they might design. Because of this, our human and animal-derived criteria will fall flat in examining such things. Such designs will, of necessity "slip past us."

....which is, as I already pointed out, beginning with a designer. You started with "us" and put together criteria for design based upon "us". You started with an assumption about the possible designer - that it is enough like us that its design would mimic our own.

Again, no I didn't. I don't have to know anything about the designer, just the designs. That's the point. You keep bringing up the designers, but recognizing common qualities of design doesn't say anything about what a particular designer has done or can do. You're failure to recognize that is exactly that, your failure. We are discussing the qualities of design not the qualities of designers.

But, as you just admitted, you cannot apply that criteria to a wholly alien or different entity. You wouldn't know if a "something" on Pluto was designed. Of course, if you found a lifeform on Pluto and studied it, you could devise a set of criteria that could be applied to see if a Plutonian had designed a given object, just as you have done with human design.

Sure you would and could. The designer doesn't have to have anything in common with us, only it's designs do. That makes not one single assumption about the designer, only the designs. That's called induction. There can be designers that are capable of design similar to our own, or dissimilar to our own, or both, or neither, none are included or excluded. However, we KNOW that design we can recognize has certain traits so we use induction to make general conclusions about design. We know that those conclusion CAN apply to design of other beings. We know it, for a fact, because we haven't only seen the design of one being. The application relies on analyzing the designs we know about and making a general conclusion about what designs look like regardless of designers based on our experiences. Because it's induction we are well aware that other designs are possible or even likely, but we're not trying to catch other designs, because we have no way to do so.

Now it's possible that using induction you would leave some designs out, because that's how induction works, but it would not incorporate designs that aren't designs. That's the point. Your chief complaint is that it wouldn't catch designs that aren't designs, but who cares, that doesn't make useless of illogical, just incomplete, much like pretty much every analysis of everything. It takes us only so far and no farther, however, to claim that you would see something that looks very much like a building on Pluto and wouldn't think it was designed is flat out dishonest.

We make not ONE single assumption about other designers. Not one. Here's what we know and what are assumptions. We've encountered designs from multiple beings. Those designs have common traits. We KNOW there are designs that we haven't encountered. Looking for the common traits may help us find some of them. Does this conclude or assume that other beings with the ability to create similar designs that we haven't included? Nope. Not at all. They may or may not exist and there is no way to tell even if we encounter more designs. Does this conclude anything about the beings that would make these designs? Nope. It doesn't make one single assumption about the beings or their existence. Not one. They aren't necessary. That's basic logic. Now, if you still don't understand, I don't know what to say.


Likewise, if you found an entity capable of designing life, you could study it and put together a set of design criteria based upon this new entity. And then you would have a basis for figuring out what it (or creatures like it) had and had not designed.

Certainly, but it's not necessary to do so. That's how induction works. We can work off of what we know of design and look for things with similar traits. My problem with ID is that they are constantly trying to increase the generality of those traits to incorporate more and more things, something that goes against evidence. You're actually pretending if that's the only way to apply it, but that's not true and your analysis is dishonest.

I'll put it bluntly. Are you actually claiming, honestly, that if you saw a building on pluto that was 500 miles tall and had doors and windows and was made out of a substance we'd never seen before and made faster than any human could ever possibly make it, you'd look at it and go, nah, that's probably naturally occurring? I guarantee you today you don't have in mind a designer who could create such a thing, but if you saw such a thing afterward you'd certainly posit one. That means the designer is a result not an assumption.

And yet, ID attempts to apply human design criteria to something so far outside the range of what human beigns have designed that it becomes silly and illogical. Your examples of a cube or a building work because human beings have designed these things. The example of a dam works because human beings and other creatures we have observed make such things. We have put together design criteria that will apply to human beings, creatures we have observed, and any new human-like creatures. They can be used in examining designs similar to those we have seen before (ie. cube/building/dam).

ID is often expanded into areas where it becomes silly or illogical, however, it's not silly to suggest that human beings can design life, we already do. We create computer programs with creatures inside that we couldn't tell from actual life forms other than they are missing a dimension. We design breeds of dogs to have certain traits. We design plants and other animals. We design lots of things and there is no reason to believe that life is outside of our reach.

Meanwhile, induction doesn't require that we be capable of such a thing. See, like I said the incorporation of new designers can only expand the scope not contract it. The traits of design properly applied and if properly identified would only identify designs, since designers can't hide design if they didn't design something. You're complaining that a narrow body of experience is broadening the scope of the conclusion, but it's not, it can't. It can ONLY narrow it. You're making claims that go completely counter to logic and then complaining that I don't take it as proof that the thing you're trying to call illogical is. The fact that you're being illogical doesn't prove they are.


But we have no experience of observing a supernatural designer or even a super-powerful life-designing alien. We have no experience with seeing life designed. We have no experience with aliens on Pluto or any given "something" they might design. Because of this, our human and animal-derived criteria will fall flat in examining such things. Such designs will, of necessity "slip past us."

Which would have some bearing if we were claiming that we can identify what is definitely not designed, but that's not the claim. Again, expanding your test group can only expand the criteria, not contract, it can only allow us to catch more design not less. You're trying to claim that a smaller test group results in designed things that are not designed but every piece of evidence you've tried to offer to that end has actually been exactly the opposite.

The fact that some designs will 'slip past us' doesn't mean that we won't catch some. It actually adds validity to the criteria, because it errs on the side of less design not more.

Of course it is. If it's possible to examine probabilities without believing them, everything I've said makes perfect sense. You've simply assumed that's not the case, which neatly fills the gap in your own reasoning.

Except we're not talking about belief. You never talked about belief until recently, that was not the basis for your entry into the discussion. Is your argument really so weak that you have to pretend like you're arguing something else just so you can feel better? Or will you simply admit that these were your first several entries into the discussion? Did you forget mention AT ALL what you've called the 'crux of our disagreement'?

Meanwhile, you are resting on a fallacy called equivocation. You are pretending that anytime I've mentioned believing something that I was talking about a belief as in an absolute truth.

Believe -
3 : to hold an opinion : THINK <I believe so>
transitive verb
From Webster's

4 think or suppose.
From OED.

Like I believe that gravity exists or you believe that the OED is more reliable than Webster. This again based on your difficulties with the English language and less than amusing.

You've been adjusting your position throughout and pretending you haven't. You BELIEVE lots of things and we both know it. Treating something as true and believing mean exactly the same thing.

You started with this.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11818225&postcount=365
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11818483&postcount=372

Later you claimed that any conclusion reached through induction is irrational, useless, and cannot result in learning while you used induction in your own arguments, showed conclusions you reached through induction, and admitted you learned things through induction, all while claiming you've never altered your position and changing 'the crux of our disagreement'.

Did you just figure you'd just keep changing your argument until you could latch onto something that would make it look like I meant something else? Did you decide you'd make it seem like I was talking about absolute truth versus just observed truth so that you wouldn't have to admit that you've been spouting nonsense for several days?





Because beliefs are conclusions you've reached in the absence of conclusive evidence. Thus, they are irrational.

False. That's not what beliefs are. Everything having to do with practical application we do in the absense of conclusive evidence. That is the 'crux of our disagreement' and always has been. It has nothing to do with belief. It has to do with the FACT that you don't have conclusive evidence that the OED is more reliable than Webster's. You don't have conclusive evidence that gravity is what is keeping you on the ground. Everything you know and BELIEVE can be wrong. Everything. Everything you've ever said. Everything you've ever used as a basis for everything else. Everything. It's not all irrational.

Again, we're right back to the claim that logic requires something to be guaranteed because if it doesn't then you couldn't make the claim you just did. Unfortunately, it shows you misunderstand logic or are trying to redefine it.

Reason and logic don't require that your conclusion be infallible, but only that your reasoning and logic follow the rules of reason and logic, and among those rules are induction. By definition, induction is rational.

And beliefs are simply conclusions. Some are irrational, but to claim that all are you'd have to redefine the word belief, something that I don't put past you since you wish to redefine the word pedophile and many others that you use incorrectly.

Given that I'm using rational to mean only that which stems from deductive reasoning, you may well think that I'm irrational (and I might be), but that doesn't change the substance of my argument.

Seriously, you're going to change the realm of the discussion you've had with me just so you won't have to admit you're wrong? Really? How sad?

Oh, look, you ARE trying to redefine terms. Hey, if that what it takes so you don't have to man up and admit you were wrong, go ahead. But, personally, I find that pretty weak.

[quote=me]I think you made up a new definition of the word rational.
Of or relating to reason.

Now you did claim that induction isn't a kind of reason, but I proved that wrong. I guess your basic claim is that you're not wrong, because all of the words you've used incorrectly when used incorrectly could possible mean something that isn't wrong. How wonderful for you? And did you know that the sun orbits the earth and always has? Because when they claimed it did they defined orbits as what the sun was doing around the earth?

Let's play that game. Then nobody will be wrong. Of course, communication will pretty much fall apart. But, hey, who needs it?

Meanwhile, weren't you the guy who complained that language SHOULD NOT evolve and that we have to adhere strictly to the definition of words without ever changing them. You are consistent in your ability to change the rules to make it so you're always right even when you're absolutely wrong.

Again, no I didn't.

Really? Then where did your criteria for design come from again? They didn't come from the things you have seen designed? That would be completely contrary to everything you have said here.

I don't have to know anything about the designer, just the designs.

You cannot know anything about something that is designed without knowing something about the designer. If you had seen lots of cubes, but had never seen any designer for them, then finding a cube wouldn't lead you to believe it had a designer. It was in seeing that "intentional action", as you put it, that you formed your criteria.

That's the point. You keep bringing up the designers, but recognizing common qualities of design doesn't say anything about what a particular designer has done or can do. You're failure to recognize that is exactly that, your failure. We are discussing the qualities of design not the qualities of designers.

It is logically impossible to discuss the "qualities of design," without discussing the "qualities of designers." Design does not exist without a designer. The properties of a design are inherently dependent upon the designer.

Sure you would and could. The designer doesn't have to have anything in common with us, only it's designs do.

Its designs will only have something in common with our designs if it has something in common with us.

Now it's possible that using induction you would leave some designs out, because that's how induction works, but it would not incorporate designs that aren't designs. That's the point. Your chief complaint is that it wouldn't catch designs that aren't designs, but who cares, that doesn't make useless of illogical, just incomplete, much like pretty much every analysis of everything.

Wow, strawman much? I have made no complaint that it "wouldn't catch designs that aren't designs." Try again.

Actually, that isn't even a strawman. It is so completely far from anything I have said or implied that you must have just made it up on the spot.

It takes us only so far and no farther, however, to claim that you would see something that looks very much like a building on Pluto and wouldn't think it was designed is flat out dishonest.

I never claimed any such thing. If I found something that looked like a building on Pluto, I probably would think it had been designed. However, I would recognize that I thought this specifically because I had seen human beings design buildings. The logic there doesn't start with a property of the object itself, but begins with the criteria I use for determining "design". And those criteria were formed based on observed designers.

Even in your own description, you began with designers. You basically said, "I have seen human beings design buildings, and I have never seen a building that was not designed. As such, if I found something that very closely resembled a building on Pluto, I would conclude that it had been designed."

Certainly, but it's not necessary to do so.

It is if we wish to examine something we have never before seen designed or even seen anything similar designed, presumably designed by an entity we have never observed before, and determine whether or not it was designed.

Tell me, why haven't you come up with a single example that isn't just a version of something you have actually seen designed before? It is because you actually realize that your logical process cannot apply to something wholly alien.

ID is often expanded into areas where it becomes silly or illogical, however, it's not silly to suggest that human beings can design life, we already do. We create computer programs with creatures inside that we couldn't tell from actual life forms other than they are missing a dimension. We design breeds of dogs to have certain traits. We design plants and other animals. We design lots of things and there is no reason to believe that life is outside of our reach.

Copying and designing is not the same thing. We *copy* animals and virtually represent them in computer programs. We breed dogs, but we do not design them. We simply work with the dogs we have.

Meanwhile, induction doesn't require that we be capable of such a thing. See, like I said the incorporation of new designers can only expand the scope not contract it. The traits of design properly applied and if properly identified would only identify designs, since designers can't hide design if they didn't design something. You're complaining that a narrow body of experience is broadening the scope of the conclusion, but it's not, it can't. It can ONLY narrow it. You're making claims that go completely counter to logic and then complaining that I don't take it as proof that the thing you're trying to call illogical is. The fact that you're being illogical doesn't prove they are.

Once again, you are simply making things up. It's almost as if you simply don't want to read what I have actualy written.

I am the one who is talking about broadening the scope by adding designers. If we observe new designers, then we will have a grasp of what they design, and can then use it in criteria to determine whether or not they designed it. You, on the other hand, have essentially been claiming that we can "broaden the scope" without new designers, by assuming that any new designers will be similar enough to us to design the exact same things. Meanwhile, you have yet to show how your logical process can be applied to ID, as we haven't seen any designers at all creating lifeforms.

However, looking at something we have never before seen designed has nothing to do with the logical process you have described, which is:

1) Look at designs we have observed, made by designers we have observed
2) Find similar items
3) Conclude similar items are also designed.

If you had never before seen or heard of a dam, much less something making a dam, and then you came upon one, would it be logical to conclude it was designed? If you had no idea that beavers could make dams, would it be logical to look at a dam and say, "A beaver made it"? Of course not! But that is *precisely* what ID does.

Except we're not talking about belief. You never talked about belief until recently, that was not the basis for your entry into the discussion. Is your argument really so weak that you have to pretend like you're arguing something else just so you can feel better? Or will you simply admit that these were your first several entries into the discussion? Did you forget mention AT ALL what you've called the 'crux of our disagreement'?
Apparently, we were talking past each other for several posts. Finding the crux of our disagreement is the point of discussions like this one.
Meanwhile, you are resting on a fallacy called equivocation. You are pretending that anytime I've mentioned believing something that I was talking about a belief as in an absolute truth.
That's what a belief is. You believe something to be true.
Believe -
3 : to hold an opinion : THINK <I believe so>
transitive verb
From Webster's
See? Even your chosen dictionary agrees with me on that one.
Like I believe that gravity exists
Yes.
or you believe that the OED is more reliable than Webster.
I don't believe that. I have evidence of it, and in the absence of contrary evidence am willing to act as if it is true. There is no reason for me to believe it.
You've been adjusting your position throughout and pretending you haven't.
I've been trying to make you understand my position.
You BELIEVE lots of things and we both know it.
I aspire not to. An ideal rational agent should hold no beliefs whatever.
Treating something as true and believing mean exactly the same thing.
That's entirely false. That would completely change the nature of nearly every religion on the planet.
Later you claimed that any conclusion reached through induction is irrational, useless, and cannot result in learning while you used induction in your own arguments, showed conclusions you reached through induction, and admitted you learned things through induction
I've done no such thing. I suspect you think so because you have attributed to me opinions I don't hold (like the OED is objectively superior to Webster, or physical laws persist over time).
Did you just figure you'd just keep changing your argument until you could latch onto something that would make it look like I meant something else?
I'm trying to figure out what you meant, given your inability to accept that beliefs entail belief.
Did you decide you'd make it seem like I was talking about absolute truth versus just observed truth so that you wouldn't have to admit that you've been spouting nonsense for several days?
We ARE talking about absolute truth versus observed truth. It's a thread about the origins of the universe.

This is the fun bit:
That's not what beliefs are.
I don't understand why you think that.
Everything having to do with practical application we do in the absense of conclusive evidence.
Yes.
That is the 'crux of our disagreement' and always has been.
But we agree on that point. The difference is that you think it's somehow reasonable to draw conclusions (or hold beliefs) in the absence of conclusive evidence, and I don't.
you don't have conclusive evidence that the OED is more reliable than Webster's.
I'm aware of that.
You don't have conclusive evidence that gravity is what is keeping you on the ground.
I'm aware of that (ignoring that gravity is really just a description of the effect, not the cause).
Everything you know and BELIEVE can be wrong.
Everything I believe, certainly. Which is why one shouldn't believe things.

Things I know can't be wrong. That's how knowledge works. If it turns out to have been wrong, I can't have known it.
Everything. Everything you've ever said. Everything you've ever used as a basis for everything else. Everything. It's not all irrational.
Not as long as I'm aware it could be wrong, and form no beliefs regarding it, no.
Reason and logic don't require that your conclusion be infallible, but only that your reasoning and logic follow the rules of reason and logic, and among those rules are induction.
Induction doesn't have rules.
And beliefs are simply conclusions. Some are irrational, but to claim that all are you'd have to redefine the word belief, something that I don't put past you since you wish to redefine the word pedophile and many others that you use incorrectly.
I didn't say I wanted to redefine pedophile. I merely stated I was sympathetic to Zarakon's preference for etymological accuracy. That's a fairly weak statement.

I'm drawing a line here between belief and knowledge. Knowledge is supported by conclusive evidence. Beliefs are not. Therefore beliefs are irrational.
Meanwhile, weren't you the guy who complained that language SHOULD NOT evolve and that we have to adhere strictly to the definition of words without ever changing them.
My goal there was to maintain linguistic precision over time. In some cases we've already moved past the point of precision, so some tinking might prove useful.

This thread (specifically, the exchange between you and Damor) has already demonstrated that the term "sound" was obfuscatory given that you seemed to think it meant something different from how Damor was using it (I'm with Damor on that one, by the way).

Really? Then where did your criteria for design come from again? They didn't come from the things you have seen designed? That would be completely contrary to everything you have said here.

Seriously, if you're not going to read, we're done. You claimed I begin with an assumption about the designers. The assumption about designs is inherent. They come from the things I have seen designed. Exactly what I said and have said all along. It, however, makes no assumptions about the designer which is what you claimed it does. This is all very basic.


You cannot know anything about something that is designed without knowing something about the designer. If you had seen lots of cubes, but had never seen any designer for them, then finding a cube wouldn't lead you to believe it had a designer. It was in seeing that "intentional action", as you put it, that you formed your criteria.

False. Completely and utterly false. If all you had seen were designed cubes, and, yes, knew about the designers, then if you encounted another cube logic would suggest it was also designed. However, that logic makes no assumptions about the designer at all and relies on no qualities of past designers but only the qualities of the design themselves. If we were aiming to make conclusions aboud designers we could do so by analyzing the traits of those designers we are aware of, but that isn't the purpose here. The purpose is to analyze the origin of objects, the process involved. The process is design, and the aspects of the designer are deductions that can be made from the design.

By the way, since you're struggling, many of the intentional actions we arrived at as a result of the EXACT process I'm describing, we never saw the intentional action and are only knowledge of it is the design itself.

Since, you're being so obtuse, here's a lesson. Logic 101-
Deduction -
"This is designed therefore it has a designer." That's a deduction. Deductions are true if the starting assumption is true.

"There is a creature capable of designing X, therefore that creature designed X." That is not a deduction since the conclusion doesn't follow the assumption.

Therefore there is no value nor need for any assumptions about the creature that designed X. If X is designed then necessarily one reaches the deductive conclusion that a creature capable of designing X exists. It's not a circular argument. At all. Deductions work like that. They have to be true if the starting assumption is true. It's called deductive logic.

Induction -
"Everything I've ever seen that has traits x, y and z was designed, therefore it is likely that anything having traits x, y and z was designed." That's an induction. Inductions are not necessarily true, but the starting assumptions should be. The value of inductions are limited by experience. They can be true or false regardless of the validity of the assumptions. They are practical, rational and valuable, but they are not guaranteed. Inductions when used properly tend to be very reliable.

You'll notice that the designer isn't mentioned because it needn't be mentioned. It has no value. There is no need to make any assumption because we are working from a premise that is NECESSARILY true and working out to a premise that is only likely based on the value of the starting premise. Assumptions about a designer adds nothing to the evaluation of design.



It is logically impossible to discuss the "qualities of design," without discussing the "qualities of designers." Design does not exist without a designer. The properties of a design are inherently dependent upon the designer.

You have a problem with the basic definition of logic. Because a designer must exist in order for something to be designed doesn't make a lick of difference. The designer is not a part of the logic process. It won't be no matter how much you want it to.

Every marble I've seen is black. In fact, every marble anyone has ever seen is black. I don't have to examine why it is black or why we defined black the way we did or who made the marbles black. Black is a quality of the marble. In the designed items we analyze, because of the purpose of the analysis, designed simply becomes a quality of the article. Unless we are trying to deduce or induce things about a particular designer or designer(s), there is no reason to include any qualities of the designers. No value. That's basic logic.

Were designers what made the articles have the quality 'designed'. Yes, they were directly responsible. They couldn't have been designed if not for designers. However, this FACT has no bearing on the inherent logic process nor any bearing on the outcome of the logic process. Nothing you ever conclude about a particular designer or group of designers, none of their qualities will EVER affect the outcome of the logic proces. EVER. That's also basic logic.


Its designs will only have something in common with our designs if it has something in common with us.

Really? How did you reach this conclusion? Remember that you said ONLY. Induction states that if their designs are common to ours then they are LIKELY to have things in common with us, but you said ONLY. You are claiming that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a designer to design something in a similar way to us without certain commonalities. Not only is that a nonsensical statement because it assumes facts you have no evidence for, but it's also nonsensical because it doesn't explain what you mean by 'something in commmon'. It's pretty much a non-statement. The letter T has something in common with the a water molecule, if you're being broad enough. The question is whether your claim is about anything of significance.


Wow, strawman much? I have made no complaint that it "wouldn't catch designs that aren't designs." Try again.

Typo much? I mistyped. You complained that it wouldn't catch designs that aren't "like our" designs. I left out the part in quotes.


I never claimed any such thing. If I found something that looked like a building on Pluto, I probably would think it had been designed. However, I would recognize that I thought this specifically because I had seen human beings design buildings. The logic there doesn't start with a property of the object itself, but begins with the criteria I use for determining "design". And those criteria were formed based on observed designers.

Yes, but that wouldn't change the fact that recognition of design isn't based on pre-existing assumption of a designer, as you previously claimed. The fact that you would think a designer exists is the fruit of the observation and your analysis of it, not the assumption.

No, those properties are formed based on observed designs. In many of the designs we've analyzed we learned about the designers by looking at their designs, not the other way around, or are you not aware of the science of archeology. We started with the designs and learned about the designers. In some cases before we encountered the designs we didn't know the designers existed. Your logic is completely backwards, and I'm really surprised you can't see it.

I'll tell you what, when you can show me when we've actually directly studied the behavior or capabilities of ancient egyptians or cro-magnon man, I'll give you a big wet kiss. However, last I checked, all of our study of beings not existing today was indirect through things they designed that were left behind or perhaps their bodies. However, their bodies don't tell us as much about their behavior as their tools and whatnot do. Our understanding of them is based on our evaluation of their designs, completely the opposite of your claims.

Even in your own description, you began with designers. You basically said, "I have seen human beings design buildings, and I have never seen a building that was not designed. As such, if I found something that very closely resembled a building on Pluto, I would conclude that it had been designed."

Nope. I 'basically' said that I've never seen a building that wasn't designed. The fact that humans designed them is unimportant and the logic of the claim wouldn't change if magnet buddies designed the buildings. In fact no change to the designers would ever change my claim. The only change that could change my claim is a change to the design or discovering a building that wasn't designed. Changes to the designers is an aside. And as a fact, I've seen buildings not designed by humans with many of the same traits I mentioned in these buildings.


It is if we wish to examine something we have never before seen designed or even seen anything similar designed, presumably designed by an entity we have never observed before, and determine whether or not it was designed.

Tell me, why haven't you come up with a single example that isn't just a version of something you have actually seen designed before? It is because you actually realize that your logical process cannot apply to something wholly alien.

I'm not going to come up with an example that's not a version of something designed before. Why would I? That wouldn't be induction, it would be fiction. Induction requires me to look at things that were designed before and allot traits of them that would help notice other things that are designed. That doesn't change the value of induction and it doesn't change that things that are the fruit of induction are useful.

Copying and designing is not the same thing. We *copy* animals and virtually represent them in computer programs. We breed dogs, but we do not design them. We simply work with the dogs we have.

And we copied caves and called them houses. And we breed houses because we are just working with materials that already exist. However, like houses, prior to our intervention the German Shepard didn't exist, nor is there any reason to believe it would have. It was the direct result of an intelligently directed process to make a dog that combined the traits found separately, but not in the same animal.

Once again, you are simply making things up. It's almost as if you simply don't want to read what I have actualy written.

Oh, the irony.

I am the one who is talking about broadening the scope by adding designers. If we observe new designers, then we will have a grasp of what they design, and can then use it in criteria to determine whether or not they designed it. You, on the other hand, have essentially been claiming that we can "broaden the scope" without new designers, by assuming that any new designers will be similar enough to us to design the exact same things. Meanwhile, you have yet to show how your logical process can be applied to ID, as we haven't seen any designers at all creating lifeforms.

I'm not broadening anything. That's what you don't get. You've repeatedly complained that some designs would slip through and that I'm not looking at any designs that don't resemble designs we've seen before. Want proof?

"It is if we wish to examine something we have never before seen designed or even seen anything similar designed"

"Such designs will, of necessity "slip past us.""
You complained repeatedly that designs that don't share the traits of the designs we've already seen will slip past us or we can't analyze, but I pointed that I don't care. You keep pointing out as if it's a flaw, but the point is that it's not the purpose of the analysis.

Such things are not the product of induction. What we will be able to analyze is the things that DO have the common traits of designs we've seen, things that ARE similar to designs we've seen. Thus, your arguments about what we wouldn't catch are an expansion on the fruit, trying to widen the net. I'm saying that because it is induction the net has to be necessarily narrow.

However, looking at something we have never before seen designed has nothing to do with the logical process you have described, which is:

1) Look at designs we have observed, made by designers we have observed
2) Find similar items
3) Conclude similar items are also designed.

If you had never before seen or heard of a dam, much less something making a dam, and then you came upon one, would it be logical to conclude it was designed? If you had no idea that beavers could make dams, would it be logical to look at a dam and say, "A beaver made it"? Of course not! But that is *precisely* what ID does.

Again, you are trying to widen the net. It would slip through. So? It wouldn't make those case that don't slip through less useful. It wouldn't prevent other things from slipping through. The application is necessarily narrow. Again, for someone who claims they aren't trying to broaden the fruit of this process, you sure complain a lot about what designs won't be captured.

And, no, it's not what ID does at it's core. That's the point. It's what some people use ID to do. And that is their problem. A misapplication of the concept doesn't invalidate the concept. In fact, it wouldn't matter if the concept was ALWAYS misapplied. The concept is still valid despite your complaints.

Since logic isn't your strong suit I will correct your mistake before -
1) Look at designs we have observed.
2) Find similar items
3) Conclude similar items are also designed.

As to your addendum to 1, it's not only not part of the assumptions in many cases the only qualitative knowledge of the specific group of designers we have is based on an analysis of their designs.

Now, if you'd like the actual core of the argument both from my standpoint and ID -
1)Look at designs we are aware of and log traits that are common to the designs but not common to anything we've actually seen the creation of that was undirected.
2)Find items with those traits.
3)Conclude similar items are also designed.

It's not magic. We look for specific traits we through induction associate with design. The designs need only have these traits. Now what these traits is a place where IDers often fall down. People like Bruarong like to pretend that the only place we've seen certain traits are in designs, which is provably false. Other IDers want to pretend that this process is scientific, but it's not. We all agree on that. Many try to claim that it can tell us what isn't designed. It clearly cannot. That's backwards to the logic. However, no matter the misapplication that occurs, the basis is a completely logical and useful concept used to analyze many designs we know today.

Pyramids are a pretty good example since it was largely debated who made them as people thought them impossible for humans to create (this was obviously some time ago). They weren't similar in MANY ways to anything we'd seen before and they were beyond our technology as well, much like the creation of life. However, we rightly recognized them as designs long before there was a complete concensus on the designers.

Incidentally, why did you ask if I was an Aspie?

Incidentally, why did you ask if I was an Aspie?

I told you. You remind of some friends who also have it. I just wondered. It was simply for my own edification. Some of your complaints about other people are often related to the condition, for example.