2014

Sometimes, the very dismissiveness of hyperskeptical objections is their undoing, as in this case from TSZ: Pesky EleP(T|H)ant Posted on June 25, 2014 by Richardthughes Over at Uncommon Descent KirosFocus repeats the same old bignum arguments as always. He seems to enjoy the ‘needle in a haystack’ metaphor, but I’d like to counter by asking how does he know he’s not searching for a needle in a needle stack? . . . What had happened, is that on June 24th, I had posted a discussion here at UD on what Functionally Specific Complex Organisation and associated Information (FSCO/I) is about, including this summary infographic: Instead of addressing what this actually does, RTH of TSZ sought to strawmannise and rhetorically dismiss Read More ›

I dedicate this post to our Denyse O’Leary (UD News desk), who suggested me to deal a bit with this topic. — A “whole” (or “all” or “total”) can be a “true whole” or a “false whole”. A “true whole” (or “unit”) is anterior and independent from the consideration of parts, is not obtained from their sum, it doesn’t presuppose them. A “false whole” (or “set”) is the mere sum of parts, is logically posterior to them, and is a fictitious “one” only because we consider it so. While a simple set is artificially composed bottom-up by its parts, a real unit overarches top-down any part. The above distinction is strictly related to the difference between analysis and synthesis, and Read More ›

I am finally getting around to an in-depth read of Thomas Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos, and I am gratified to learn that an honest materialist agrees with my assessment of “emergentism.”  It is a confession of ignorance disguised as an explanation.  In Materialist Poofery I wrote: the materialist . . . must come up with a theory that reduces the mind to an epiphenomenon of the electro-chemical processes of the brain.  What do they do?  They say the mind is an ‘emergent property’ of the brain.  Huh?  Wazzat?  That means that the brain system has properties that cannot be reduced to its individual components.  The system is said to ‘supervene’ (I’m not making this up) on its components causing the Read More ›

Humans and chimpanzees are genetically similar. Some estimate the similarity at 98%. Others slightly less. A lot of ink has been spilt regarding this issue. See here, here, here, here, and here for just a few examples of the thousands of articles that have been written on the subject. What is all the fuss about?  It seems to me that much of the fuss is accounted for by the fact that whether they are in the ID or the creationist camp, many theists have an adverse visceral reaction to the data, and for that reason they work very hard to discredit or downplay it. I once felt this way. But as John Adams famously said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever Read More ›

I’ve been quiet on UD for a while, but after seeing the (however qualified) praise VJ Torley has handed Myers for his limp-wristed opposition to a moralizing Richard Dawkins, I feel the need to offer another view. Myers deserves no praise for his opposition to Dawkins on the issue of the morality of (mandatory) aborting children with Down Syndrome, and people who are pro-life do themselves a disservice by choosing to offer him even an ounce of respect on this issue. In this case, the enemy of your enemy is still your enemy. I’ll keep this succinct. First, Myers is not rushing to the defense of children with Down Syndrome. Ask him if he thinks a woman who aborts a Read More ›

Hot on the heels of Denyse O’Leary’s recent post on Richard Dawkins’ tweet that it would be immoral to bring a kid with Down syndrome into the world by choice, P.Z. Myers has weighed in against Dawkins. Myers writes: I’m fully in agreement with Dawkins that abortion is not an unethical choice. The woman can choose whether to keep a child or not, and it is perfectly reasonable, and even responsible, for her to include any information about genetic disorders in making her decision. However, singling out children with Down Syndrome is seriously problematic — it is not immoral to have a child with Downs. It is immoral to insist that a fetus with Down Syndrome should be aborted. I Read More ›

Robert Marks has an article “Biological Information: New Perspectives from Intelligent Design” at Human Events today. If you have comments, please post them there.