Darwinian Debating Device #4: “Desperate Distractions”

_{Barry Arrington

October 10, 2014

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Darwinists frequently employ the debating device that I call “Desperate Distractions.” This occurs when the Darwinist has lost the debate beyond any hope, and instead of admitting they have lost, the Darwinist continues to throw mud at the wall to see if anything will stick. Apparently, their determination never to cede a micro-millimeter impels them to continue to post even the most outrageous foolishness rather than be seen as ceding the field. I suppose they believe that as long as they continue to respond nobody will notice they have lost.

Our example of this debating device is drawn from a comment posted by a Darwinist defending Jeffrey Shallit, who ran a string of gibberish through a compression program and then ran the first 12 lines of Hamlet’s soliloquy through the program and concluded that “String #2′s compressed version [i.e., the compressed version of the first 12 lines of Hamlet’s soliloquy] is bigger and therefore more random than string #1 [i.e., gibberish achieved by haphazardly banging at a keyboard].”

Barry Arrington responded:

Sure, the compressed version of Hamlet is bigger than the compressed version of gibberish. And if one insists on defining relative randomness in terms of relative compressibility Hamlet is “more random.” Here’s the problem with that approach. It is glaringly obvious that Hamlet is not in any degree “random” whatsoever as that word is used by English speakers. Therefore, by its very nature it is not subject to a relative randomness analysis except to the extent one observes that it is totally non-random and any string that is even partially random is therefore more random. So what did Shallit accomplish when he insisted that under his esoteric definition of “random” Hamlet is “more random” than gibberish? He made a trivial mathematical point, and in the process made himself look foolish.

There followed a back and forth in the combox, but at the end of the day no one was able successfully to defend Shallit’s calling Hamlet more random than gibberish. That did not stop DiEb from continuing the debate long after the debate was lost, and he posted this gem:

J. Shallit said:

String #2′s compressed version is bigger and therefore more random than string #1: exactly the opposite of what Arrington implied!

That’s quite different from

“[Hamlet’s] compressed version is bigger and therefore more random than [gibberish].”

1. String #1 is not “Hamlet”, just an excerpt of ca. 500 bytes.

2. It’s not about gibberish in general, but about your special version of “gibberish”, represented by string #2.

First, let us fisk DiEb’s comment [DiEb gets the strings confused; I will correct this with brackets]:

1. String #[2] is not “Hamlet”, just an excerpt of ca. 500 bytes.

And the point of this observation is what exactly? Sure, Barry used “Hamlet” for a shorthand reference to the first 12 lines of Hamlet’s soliloquy. So what? DiEb has drawn a distinction that makes no difference.

In other words, in order for DiEb’s comment to have any force it would have to make a difference that String # 2 is merely the first 12 lines of Hamlet’s soliloquy instead of the entire play. He is essentially saying “Oh sure, the entire play of Hamlet may not be “more random’ than a string of gibberish, but the first 12 lines of Hamlet’s soliloquy surely are.” And that statement is just plain foolish.

2. It’s not about gibberish in general, but about your special version of “gibberish”, represented by string #[1].

DiEB again draws a distinction that makes no difference. He is essentially saying “Oh sure, the first 12 lines of Hamlet’s soliloquy might not be “more random” than gibberish in general, but it is certainly more random than the special version of gibberish in string 1.” No, the first 12 lines of Hamlet’s soliloquy is not random at all. It follows that it is never “more random” than any gibberish, whether gibberish in general or the specific example of gibberish in string 1, and to suggest otherwise is, again, just plain foolish.

So what is going on here? DiEb has made a fool of himself. He obviously thought that making a fool of himself served some purpose. What purpose might that be? The purpose is to continue debating long after the debate is lost. It makes no difference that the actual words border on the idiotic. The point is to keep going in a desperate attempt to distract attention away from the fact that the debate has been lost, thus, “desperate distractions.”

Comments

Box
Suppose, that you – E.Seigner – pay a visit to a beach. On this beach you observe a pile of sand (pic 1) and a sand castle (pic 2). How do you explain the difference in shape?
I have been through this game with Phinehas. Read up. The answer is the same. It's your turn to answer a question: How do you explain the difference in shape? Box
In which sense is the arrangement of parts is out there?
In the objective sense it's out there, but as the picture I gave should lucidly illustrate, there's also a necessary subjective aspect to the arrangement. The subjective aspect forces the perception of the square on us, even though it's illusory and not out there. Since the illusion is perceived, it must be considered and analyzed, so it can be determined to be an illusion.E.Seigner_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

E.Seigner on the difference of shape of piles of sand and sand castles:
ES #164: You mean Why the shape differs? This question requires further context so as to attribute causes and reasons.
Suppose, that you - E.Seigner - pay a visit to a beach. On this beach you observe a pile of sand (pic 1) and a sand castle (pic 2). How do you explain the difference in shape?
ES #164: There is a sense in which the arrangement of parts is out there (...)
In which sense is the arrangement of parts is out there?Box_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

Box
ES #161: The material is the same, the shape differs. Box: How do you explain the difference in shape?
You mean Why the shape differs? This question requires further context so as to attribute causes and reasons. To provide the context, you should answer this question first yourself. Box
So there is no sense in which the arrangement of parts is ‘out there’? In every sense only parts exists in the outer world and their arrangement is only in our minds?
There is a sense in which the arrangement of parts is out there, but the very concept of "arrangement of parts" requires an observer. Therefore arrangement of parts is observer-relative, subject to interpretation. In this image some would say there's a square whereas others would say there's no square and both are right from their own point of view. The image displays none other than "arrangement of parts".E.Seigner_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

StephenB, your post #156 is a masterpiece! Thank you.Box_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

E.Seigner on piles of sand and sand castles:
ES #161: The material is the same, the shape differs.
How do you explain the difference in shape?
Box #159: Do you hold that an arrangement of parts is something that is inherently to a Lego castle? Or is it only in our minds?

ES #161: The arrangement of parts in some sense is an airy nothing, because there’s air between the parts. In another sense it’s nothing but the parts. The mind connects the dots, so to say.
So there is no sense in which the arrangement of parts is 'out there'? In every sense only parts exists in the outer world and their arrangement is only in our minds?Box_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

Box
I fail to see the logic … 1. Metal does not behave computer-like in nature. 2. A certain arrangement of metal exhibits computer-like qualities. Conclusion: Those computer-like qualities must be only in our minds and not in the computer.
These two are not the only premises. It takes a whole digital-virtual culture to make sense what a computer even is. It's undeniably observer-relative and intersubjective, not merely objective. Box
ES #153: Try reading the other post I also linked to. It’s less polemical and more focused. Box: You must be confused. I quoted multiple times from the article and did read it.
Right, my mistake. And good of you to follow the sources linked to. Box
- Is there a difference between a Lego castle and a random pile of Legos? If so, can you say why?
This one has been adequately handled in my exchange with Phinehas. His example was a pile of sand and sand castle. You just demonstrated an ability to read what's been linked to, so you will surely find the discussion that is on this very page. In an appropriately quotable way I put it perhaps in #110: "I have described the difference between the mound of dirt and the sand castle as incidental difference of shape. The material is the same, the shape differs. You have repeatedly asserted that the difference is “obvious and striking”, but you have given no logical (or mathematical or scientific or whatever) proof that your assertion should mean anything beyond what I have described." Box
- Do you hold that an arrangement of parts is something that is inherently to a Lego castle? Or is it only in our minds?
The arrangement of parts in some sense is an airy nothing, because there's air between the parts. In another sense it's nothing but the parts. The mind connects the dots, so to say. Anyway, the point is that your formulation "arrangements of parts" - regardless if it's inherent to the castle or to the mind - does not add up to the definition of "design" as used in the classical argument from design. Design as "arrangement of parts" is synonymous to shape or pattern, but in the classical argument as used in premise #2, quoted in #65, it's synonymous with plan or project, implying purpose rather than shape or pattern. Pattern ("order or arrangement") is in premise #1, so this meaning is separated from "design".E.Seigner_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

E Seigner:
As gpuccio says here, the methods of ID don’t get around to telling anything about the function.
The way science works is we observe the function and then try to figure out the answers to the 3 basic questions science asks. You have been told this several times and yet choose willful ignorance.Joe_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT}

ES #153: It follows (...) from the fact that metal does not behave computer-like in nature (...)
I fail to see the logic ... 1. Metal does not behave computer-like in nature. 2. A certain arrangement of metal exhibits computer-like qualities. Conclusion: Those computer-like qualities must be only in our minds and not in the computer. Can you explain why this makes sense?
ES #153: Try reading the other post I also linked to. It’s less polemical and more focused.
You must be confused. I quoted multiple times from the article and did read it. Two questions for E.Seigner: - Is there a difference between a Lego castle and a random pile of Legos? If so, can you say why? - Do you hold that an arrangement of parts is something that is inherently to a Lego castle? Or is it only in our minds?Box_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT}

StephenB- You didn't quite say enough: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.” Dr BeheJoe_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT}

StephenB
A design is an arrangement of parts.
Arrangement of parts devoid of function (or devoid of any observer-relative quality)? StephenB
The trick is to arrange those pieces so that they will function as a mousetrap.
Ah, so the function also must be there. Then it's not just the arrangement of parts. The trick is to understand that the function is observer-relative. It takes someone with the intent to catch the mouse and it presumably also takes an actual mouse to be caught, then the function will be there. So no, it's not just an arrangement of parts. As gpuccio says here, the methods of ID don't get around to telling anything about the function. The relevant quote:
Now, the important point that I want to suggest is that neither Shannon’s theory of communicating the message nor ID theory of generating the message are really “qualitative”. Both are “quantitative” theories. In a sense, neither deals with the problem of “what is meaning” and “what is function”.
Which, compared to the Aristotelian approach, is reductive - on quantitative theory of information, the mousetrap would be considered strictly nothing but the parts as they happen to be arranged. You equivocate on the concept of "design", saying at one time it's arrangement of parts, i.e. mere pattern or shape, but at other time also includes function, i.e. it's a plan or project. The word "design" colloquially allows this equivocation, but there's a logical difference - the difference between "shape" and "project" - that should be maintained. My suspicion is that Dembski lives off a few equivocations like this one.E.Seigner_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT}

Feser:
Take a few bits of metal, work them into various shapes, and attach them to a piece of wood. Voila! A mousetrap.
Attach? Voila? There are millions of ways to attach pieces of metal to wood. Only one of those combinations will trap a mouse. The trick is to arrange those pieces so that they will function as a mousetrap.
Or so we call it. But objectively, apart from human interests, the object is “nothing but” a collection of wood and metal parts.
Tell that to the mouse. If it could talk it would tell you that it is more than a collection of parts. Throw parts around aimlessly for a million years and there will be no trap without the designer. The purposeful arrangement makes it more than a mere collection of parts.
Its “mousetrappish” character is observer-relative; it is in the minds of the designer and users of the object, and not strictly in the object itself.
Not strictly in the object? What does strictly mean? Are you saying that it is there, in part, but that it is also in the mind of the designer and the user? That is not the same as saying that it is not in the object at all, is it? To make your case that it is not detectable, you have to say that it isn't in the object at all, but to make your case that the designer designed it, you have to say that it really is there, sort of. So, you are saying that the design is in the object, except that it isn't. Very nice. You must be hanging out with E. Seigner. Oh wait, she has been hanging out with you. That's what it is.
“Reductionism” with respect to such human artifacts is just common sense. We know that cars, computers, and cakes are objectively “nothing but” the parts that make them up – that their “carlike,”
No, we don't know that at all. You are proposing "bundle theory" (a thing is nothing but a bundle of parts), which is not from Aristotle, but from .... drum roll...the atheist David Hume. Aristotle was a substance theorist, not a bundle theorist, which means that he thought that any object is more than a mere collection of parts, that it contained a universal. Wikipedia: "A thing-in-itself is a property-bearer that must be distinguished from the properties it bears." Aristotle did not make exceptions for Ed Feser. Indeed, Feser follows the anti-reductionist Aristotle faithfully until the subject of intelligent design comes up, at which time, he shifts to the reductionist David Hume. He hates ID with so much irrational passion that he temporarily abandons his hero (and mine) just long enough to make an anti-intellectual case against ID. Unbelievable!
Aristotel “computerlike,” or “cakelike” qualities are not really there inherently in the parts, but are observer-relative – precisely because we took the parts and rearranged them to perform a function we want them to perform but which they have no tendency to perform on their own.
Oh, so now we have moved from "not strictly" in the object to not there are all. Here is a clue professor Feser. A design is an arrangement of parts. It isn't the conception of an arrangement. That's called a concept and that is what is in the head of the designer and the user. So now you are saying that the parts are arranged in the heads of the designer and the user, but are not arranged in the object. It must be hell to have all those arranged parts bulging out of the designer's and user's head. "O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts, And men have lost their reason."StephenB_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT}

Geez. Desperate to ignore physical evidence that doesn't fit his talking points, ES doubles down on his hapless "physicalist" distraction.
The physicalist assigns arbitrary priorities among appearances and pretends that this equals scientific objectivity and freedom from ideologies. In truth, this attitude subconsciously cements unexamined presuppositions.
You're probably right ES. When researchers first noted that the properties that made one codon identifiable from another were independent of the lowest total potential energy state of the medium - their metaphysics certainly came into question. Come to think of it, those guys that figured out that water boils at different temperatures depending on its altitude are probably trying to get something over on us as well.Upright BiPed_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PDT}

Box:
I don’t see any logic in the following part of his [Feser's] reasoning: computerlike qualities are observer-relative, because (?) the parts of a computer have have no tendency to perform that function on their own. So because(?) metal has no inherent tendency to perform computerlike qualities, those qualities are observer-relative; IOW those computerlike qualities are only in the minds of the designer and users of the object? It simply does not follow.
I think your instincts are right. Take atoms, molecules and cells, thence biological life. Atoms and probably molecules have no inherent tendency to perform cell-based lifelike qualities or functions. In fact the ubiquity of ATP as an energy currency in the cell shows that the unconstrained course of relevant chemistry and thermodynamics is away from the FSCO/I we find in life. Thence, we see the complex factory like nanomachines, information systems, codes, algorithms etc in the living cell and onwards biological organisms. The essence, if we dare call it that, of life forms, lies in complex information, control and execution systems in the cell. The physical embedding of such is observable as a physical entity but it is clear enough that the information itself is not merely a matter of configuration. It also points strongly to the only empirically warranted, needle in haystack analysis plausible source for FSCO/I. Design as key causal factor. But of course, this pattern of reasoning Feser does not like; not just the a priori evolutionary materialists and their closely associated fellow travellers. The exchanges over the design inference are now much more complex. KFkairosfocus_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT}

Box
I don’t see any logic in the following part of his reasoning: computerlike qualities are observer-relative, because (?) the parts of a computer have have no tendency to perform that function on their own. So because(?) metal has no inherent tendency to perform computerlike qualities, those qualities are observer-relative; IOW those computerlike qualities are only in the minds of the designer and users of the object? It simply does not follow.
It follows not just from the fact that metal does not behave computer-like in nature, but also from the Aristotelian metaphysical premises, like in the argument from design I quoted in #65. When you ignore the premises, everything will be over your head. Try reading the other post I also linked to. It's less polemical and more focused. Box
A question for Feser: how about shape and patterns, are they part of a mousetrap, car, computer et cetera? If so, do you think it is possible that shape and pattern are correlated to mousetrappish, carlike and computerlike qualities?
What are mousetrappish, carlike and computerlike qualities? The point is that they are man-concocted purposes manufactured into or culturally imputed on the configurations of matter. Such qualities are not inherent to the substantial form (=Aristotelian form) of objects in nature. This is exactly how Aristotelians distinguish a natural object from artefact: The purposes of natural objects are inherent to their substantial form, but the so-called substantial form (i.e. purposes of the thing, that which makes the thing the kind of thing it is) of artefacts is observer-relative, intersubjective, and culturally determined rather than naturally determined as in natural objects. And the further point is that, since nature is God-made and artefacts are man-made, it won't do to approach nature like one approaches artefacts, and try to detect or infer a designer from natural objects the way one infers it from artefacts. Those two are incompatible categories due to crucial difference in their substantial forms. Artefacts don't even have substantial form in the relevant sense, whereas every natural object has it. Feser concludes in the other post: "The fundamental error – made by Darwinian naturalists and ID theorists alike – is to think of the world as a “watch” in the first place." When God creates, the outcome is nature, not artefact. Since every natural object without exception has substantial form, the divine designer cannot be read out of "complexity" in nature, certainly not out of some computable complexity. It can, if one is so inclined - and must, if metaphysics points that way - be read out of *all* nature. Complexity is utterly irrelevant, therefore ID is doing it fundamentally wrong when it claims complexity to have some value in determining the "intelligent designer". Take Lego bricks for example - your own example. They are manufactured, man-made, and in this sense "intelligently designed". Whether they are in a random pile or carefully put together to form what we'd call a castle, it doesn't change the fact that they are manufactured, man-made, and in this sense "intelligently designed". Whatever configuration the bunch of bricks has, it also doesn't change the fact that the cause of the configuration is more likely man than an animal, because animals are completely uninterested in plastic. Conclusion: The configuration of Lego bricks plays exactly zero role in detecting the "intelligent designer". The entire detection rests on the simple fact that they are Lego bricks, a manufactured artefact. Similarly, when a religiously or spiritually inclined person sees nature, he sees God's creation - throughout nature everywhere, not only in "complex" objects or some "specified" configurations.E.Seigner_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT}

tintinned
StephenB @150, does this justify rudeness, or would ignoring him be more appropriate? Would not responding to his comments not be the mature approach? How long do you think a rude person would keep commenting if nobody responded to his comments? Why not be the bigger man?
Some of our more polite commenters do, indeed, retire from a thread if their anti-ID adversaries continue to be unreasonable. In terms of their one on one relationship, that is, perhaps the best policy. However, members of our reading audience have no way of knowing why these amiable commentators left the scene. In many cases, onlookers may conclude that the unreasonable person had the better argument and their non-combative debate partner had no answer. A few people must stay around to make sure that doesn't happen. Those who remain must deal with these "Darwinist debate tactics." If we react to these maneuvers in a respectful way, it makes them appear respectable. Sooner or later, someone has to call things by their right name. There are, after all, rules of reason that define the difference between a rational argument and an irrational argument. Many of our adversaries, either implicitly or explicitly, deny reason rules, which means that they have already made a deliberate and public choice to join the community of irrational people. To call such people irrational is simply to remind them and everyone else of that choice.StephenB_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT}

StephenB @150, does this justify rudeness, or would ignoring him be more appropriate? Would not responding to his comments not be the mature approach? How long do you think a rude person would keep commenting if nobody responded to his comments? Why not be the bigger man?tintinnid_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

SB: At what point (if ever) do disrespectful expressions of intellectual dishonesty cease to merit a respectful response? Daniel King:
Maybe you could give me your answer to the question, so I could tell you if I agree or not, and explain my answer as best I can.
OK. That's fair. Here is an example. E. Seigner has said that Upright Biped is a physicalist. I assume that you have been writing here long enough to know that this is not the case. Indeed, it would be impossible for a believer in non-material information to be a physicalist. I corrected ES on this matter and my corrective was ignored. Indeed, ES continued (and continues) to make the same false assertion. At what point (after how many times) would such disrespectful behavior finally merit a disrespectful response. After the second time?, the third time?, the tenth time? Never?StephenB_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

StephenB: "To reject a rational argument is to be irrational. If my arguments are rational, then they ought to be refuted or accepted" But who is the judge and arbiter on the rationality of your argument? You? People agree to disagree all of the time. And they can do it civilly. Mature adults don't resort to name calling. They don't say that the other person's ideas are staggeringly stupid and accuse them of being incapable of rational thought. These types of responses are supposed to end as we mature. Why is this concept so difficult for some to grasp?tintinnid_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

StephenB, the real question is how do you know someone is being intellectually dishonest? That requires you to know what they really do or do not think about something. That requires you to see inside their mind.Turbokid_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

StephenB, Maybe you could give me your answer to the question, so I could tell you if I agree or not, and explain my answer as best I can.Daniel King_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

My question was a response to your comment, not his. .... I will repeat my question to you for the third time: At what point (if ever) do disrespectful expressions of intellectual dishonesty cease to merit a respectful response?
You'll have to make your question more clear to me (I beg your patience), before I can answer. I don't understand your point. Was there something objectionable about what I said?Daniel King_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

E.Seigner, in post #122, links to an article by Edward Feser, who writes:
Take a few bits of metal, work them into various shapes, and attach them to a piece of wood. Voila! A mousetrap. Or so we call it. But objectively, apart from human interests, the object is “nothing but” a collection of wood and metal parts. Its “mousetrappish” character is observer-relative; it is in the minds of the designer and users of the object, and not strictly in the object itself. “Reductionism” with respect to such human artifacts is just common sense. We know that cars, computers, and cakes are objectively “nothing but” the parts that make them up – that their “carlike,” “computerlike,” or “cakelike” qualities are not really there inherently in the parts, but are observer-relative – precisely because we took the parts and rearranged them to perform a function we want them to perform but which they have no tendency to perform on their own.
A few comments: The question is if Feser indeed holds a totally reductionist position. Does he tone down when he writes "it is in the minds of the designer and users of the object and not strictly in the object itself"? I don't see any logic in the following part of his reasoning: computerlike qualities are observer-relative, because (?) the parts of a computer have have no tendency to perform that function on their own. So because(?) metal has no inherent tendency to perform computerlike qualities, those qualities are observer-relative; IOW those computerlike qualities are only in the minds of the designer and users of the object? It simply does not follow. A question for Feser: how about shape and patterns, are they part of a mousetrap, car, computer et cetera? If so, do you think it is possible that shape and pattern are correlated to mousetrappish, carlike and computerlike qualities?Box_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

tintinnid: Simply because a person doesn’t accept your argument doesn’t make them incapable of rational thought. The only thing that we can say for sure is that one side is wrong." To reject a rational argument is to be irrational. If my arguments are rational, then they ought to be refuted or accepted. To reject them (if they are rational) without addressing them is irrational.StephenB_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

Daniel King
Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to address that question to the author of that sentence?
No, it wouldn't. My question was a response to your comment, not his. If you have a separate question about UB's comment, then go ahead ask it, but don't merge it into my question to you. I will repeat my question to you for the third time: At what point (if ever) do disrespectful expressions of intellectual dishonesty cease to merit a respectful response?StephenB_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

StephenB: "If someone consistently refuses to respond or responds inappropriately to rational arguments, it seems reasonable to conclude that this person is incapable of rational thought." Simply because a person doesn't accept your argument doesn't make them incapable of rational thought. The only thing that we can say for sure is that one side is wrong.tintinnid_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

At what point (if ever) do disrespectful expressions of intellectual dishonesty cease to merit a respectful response?
Do you mean this particular example @25:
So basically you are a loudmouth bullshitter who can’t defend your position; who is prone to whining that ID people won’t play pretty with you.
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to address that question to the author of that sentence?Daniel King_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed
But hey, thanks for letting me know that I’m a physicalist, I was plumb unaware of that until just now.
You welcome. Upright BiPed
If a physicalist is someone who doesn’t allow their ideology to ignore the observable fact that the earth travels around the sun, then I’m all in.
Way to go! The characteristic physicalist denies the distinction of accidents and essence, of appearance and reality. The physicalist assigns arbitrary priorities among appearances and pretends that this equals scientific objectivity and freedom from ideologies. In truth, this attitude subconsciously cements unexamined presuppositions. We all inescapably have metaphysical presuppositions, therefore better to be aware of them. For the essentialist, what travels around what is just an appearance. The real question is why this appears to travel around that. Without an answer to the why-question, you don't really have an answer. If you deny the why-question, you don't even have the right question. PS. If someone is interested, then of course I noticed the ad hominem by Barry. And the way StephenB justifies it and compounds on it of his own accord. But I also notice that this is a normalcy for them. Let them make their imaginary points as I have an actual discussion.E.Seigner_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

E. Seigner to Upright Biped:
Of course, when you are a physicalist for whom everything is fundamentally physics. Then indeed the emergence of life poses an overwhelming puzzle whose explanation must lie outside the natural order. But, different from you, I am not a physicalist.
This is a good example of an adhominem argument. It is false, inappropriate, and directed to the person. It is obviously false because UB has consistently demonstrated, among other things, why information is, and must be, non-material. Thus, he consistently argues against Darwinist physicalism. It is inappropriate because it has nothing to do with the point that UB made. The process alluded to was not characterized in physicalist terms nor did it imply physicalism in any way. It is personal because it is aimed straight at the person. The language used was explicit; it is about who and what UB is:... "Of course, when you are a physicalist ... But, different from you, I am not a physicalist."StephenB_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

Daniel King
Right, “staggeringly stupid” is an insult to the person who made the statement, not an ad hominem.
That is correct. In order for an argument to be adhominem, it must be irrelevant, inappropriate, and about who or what the person is. If, for example, someone lies under oath, it is not an adhominem argument to call him a liar. Or, if someone molests a child, it is not an adhominem argument to call him a pedophile. On the other hand, when a Darwinist falsely accuses an ID proponent of lying or secretly smuggling religion into science, he is referring directly to the person's character and making demonstrably false statements. With respect to the insult, I will repeat the question I asked of you @31: At what point (if ever) do disrespectful expressions of intellectual dishonesty cease to merit a respectful response?StephenB_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

#134 Ahhhh, ES. You should have spent more time with it. Surely a rampant obfuscationist like yourself could have done better than "You're just pointing out physical evidence and universal observations". But hey, thanks for letting me know that I'm a physicalist, I was plumb unaware of that until just now. If a physicalist is someone who doesn't allow their ideology to ignore the observable fact that the earth travels around the sun, then I'm all in. ;)Upright BiPed_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply