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

E.Seigner:
Luckily for you nobody of some importance is following this site, so you should be safe from international humiliation.
Who are those important people? Name them so I can cut them down to size. Are they important because their excrement don't stink? Or are they important because they won't eventually turn into dust like everybody else? Inquiring minds and all that.Mapou_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

tintinnid @131, 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.StephenB_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed
We know its there, we know why its there, we know the additional constraints it puts on the origin and operation of the system … and its been there since for organization of the very first living cell on earth.
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. Btw, this Darwinian Debating Devices series is hilariously self-defeating. Nearly every OP here glaringly employs these very Darwinian Debating Devices. Luckily for you nobody of some importance is following this site, so you should be safe from international humiliation.E.Seigner_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

Now observations are insults? Strange.Joe_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

You don’t understand. An adhominem attack is an irrelevant attack on a person. It is not a relevant attack on a statement.
Right, "staggeringly stupid" is an insult to the person who made the statement, not an ad hominem. And it has the merit of being irrefutable by the recipient.Daniel King_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

StephenB, thank you for correcting me. Calling someone's statement staggeringly stupid is not technically a personal attack, although the tone is certainly beyond rude. However, what about the second part of the comment where Barry claims that the commenter is beyond the capability of rational thought? I guess that you could argue that this statement is conditional on the previous statement being true, but it is definitely a stretch to argue that this is not an attack on the person. Especially given that Barry's comment made no attempt to counter ES' comment with anything other than calling it staggeringly stupid. If Barry were honest, he would acknowledge this and move on. I don't think that he will but I am always hopeful. After all, we are all guilty of this at times.tintinnid_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

#129 was addressed to ESUpright BiPed_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

I’m saying whichever way you put numbers on design, it does not become “intelligent design” at some point, as distinguished from “unintelligent” or whatever other design.
As I have already told you once before (which you immediately ignored because it is not suited to your pre-packaged talking points), when a representation of information has a dimensional orientation (i.e. that which makes the representation individually recognizable within its system is not determined by the thermodynamic properties of the medium -- like the codons in DNA) then the origin of that representation is (for all people who are not ideologically dumbfounded by universal observation) very legitimately inferred to be from an intelligent source - given the intractable fact that dimensional representations are only found elsewhere in the cosmos in the translation of recorded language and mathematics. We know its there, we know why its there, we know the additional constraints it puts on the origin and operation of the system ... and its been there since for organization of the very first living cell on earth. Now you may continue to do the silly dance you are doing (I have no expectations that you intend to do anything else, least of which is learn something about the subject matter), but your little dance will not make the observations go away. You can have your own opinions, but you don't get your own facts.Upright BiPed_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

Who do we complain when the moderator uses a Darwinian Debating Device? Oh, I forgot, staggeringly stupid is not an ad hominems attack, it is just a perceptive observation.
You don't understand. An adhominem attack is an irrelevant attack on a person. It is not a relevant attack on a statement.StephenB_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

"Box, let it go. When someone says something as staggeringly stupid as the comment in 124 there is literally no sense trying to argue with them. They have proved they are beyond the reach of rationale argument." Who do we complain when the moderator uses a Darwinian Debating Device? Oh, I forgot, staggeringly stupid is not an ad hominems attack, it is just a perceptive observation.tintinnid_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

E Seigner:
I’m saying whichever way you put numbers on design, it does not become “intelligent design” at some point, as distinguished from “unintelligent” or whatever other design.
That is true. However those numbers are about probabilities. And without direct observation or designer input, that is what we have to go with.Joe_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

Box, let it go. When someone says something as staggeringly stupid as the comment in 124 there is literally no sense trying to argue with them. They have proved they are beyond the reach of rationale argument.Barry Arrington_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

Box
Are you saying that it follows – from the fact that Lego bricks are designed – that a castle made of Lego bricks cannot be distinguished by design from a random heap of Lego bricks?
I'm saying whichever way you put numbers on design, it does not become "intelligent design" at some point, as distinguished from "unintelligent" or whatever other design. Whether you pour Lego bricks on the floor randomly or you construct an "obvious and striking" castle of them, the "intelligent designer" behind the activities is you in both cases. No numbers on the Lego can change that. And what are you saying?E.Seigner_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

ES #122: Now, to be absolutely clear, artefacts are designed, but “design” in my (and Feser’s, Aquinas’, Aristotle’s, etc.) sense applies to each and every empirical thing, so artefacts cannot be distinguished from other things by design at all.
Are you saying that it follows - from the fact that Lego bricks are designed - that a castle made of Lego bricks cannot be distinguished by design from a random heap of Lego bricks?Box_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

@Mung For your convenience, I searched up a better blog post by Feser. Better in the sense that it's (mostly) unpolemical against ID, and is entirely concentrated on explaining what artefact is in Aristotelian sense http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/04/nothing-but.htmlE.Seigner_{October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT}

Mung When you asked about my use of form and substance, I assumed - correctly, it seems - that you mean Aristotelian form, because that's the only kind of "form" that has metaphysical import. I am acutely aware that there's form of ordinary English that means shape and Aristotelian form(al cause) that is a concept for the metaphysically informed. In all quotes that you bring up, I mean form as shape (or, in the last quote "a form of blindness" it's "a kind of blindness"). It's clear from immediate context in every single case. But when talking about Aristotelian form instead, I always specify it's Aristotelian this time. I'd do same with Platonic forms. If by those quotes you mention you mean to imply that it's unclear to you if I am accurate in metaphysical terminology, then there's no other way to put it that you are trying your very best to misunderstand and misrepresent me. When trying as hard as you do, you just might succeed. Mung
In all honesty I was going to offer my own response to that question today, as follows: The difference can be described as the sand castle is an artefact. But you (E.Seigner) never chose to go that route. Why not? Let me guess. Because artefact = designed.
Well, when I finally did bring up artefact in my previous post, I had already anticipated your equation and rejected it: "What is that which is common to castles? If you call it “design”..." And Feser rejects it too. Now, to be absolutely clear, artefacts are designed, but "design" in my (and Feser's, Aquinas', Aristotle's, etc.) sense applies to each and every empirical thing, so artefacts cannot be distinguished from other things by design at all. There are other considerations which make the difference. Another reason I did not brought up artefact earlier is that it's an Aristotelian concept. I'm not Aristotelian and artefact is one of those concepts that doesn't make much sense to me and makes me favor other systems instead of Aristotelianism. But I know what it is and I am able to discuss it, if anyone has the guts or wits for it.E.Seigner_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
10:49 PM
10
10
49
PM
PDT}

E.Seigner:
Where did I allegedly use “form”?
ES @ 44:
My logic is that the design is analytically separable from the thing. Any design, form, pattern, etc. can be applied to any thing.
ES @ 64:
ES: Design and shape are synonyms. They are also interchangeable with pattern and structure for most purposes. Mung: Another synonym would be form. Correct? ES: Correct.
: ES @ 102
Substances and appearances are different metaphysical categories with different priority. To not acknowledge this is a form of blindness.
Mung_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT}

No idea what happened to that link on form. https://uncommondescent.com/ddd/darwinian-debating-devices-6-desperate-distractions/#comment-519228Mung_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

E.Seigner;
Where did I allegedly use “form”? And where are your recent posts?
I am not your enemy. I have always taken you seriously. I think you have a perspective that is interesting and worthy of consideration. But to answer your questions, as early as post 44 you used "form." E.Seigner:
Even before shaping, the thing already has some shape, form, pattern, or design, given by outside circumstances, the surroundings or environment.
As for your second question, you responded to my recent posts here: https://uncommondescent.com/ddd/darwinian-debating-devices-6-desperate-distractions/#comment-519659Mung_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

E.Seigner:
You’d do well to read what Feser writes about artefacts. Nature versus art looks like precisely the kind of distinction you want to make.
Interesting you should say this. Phinehas asked you more than once how would you describe the difference.
So, having lost the use of the word “design” to describe the obvious and striking difference, how do you describe it?
In all honesty I was going to offer my own response to that question today, as follows: The difference can be described as the sand castle is an artefact. But you (E.Seigner) never chose to go that route. Why not? Let me guess. Because artefact = designed.Mung_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT}

Mung
But it’s difficult to know when you are employing “technically accurate metaphysics” in your use of terms and when you are not. For example, my recent posts on your use of form and substance.
It's easy: I always use technically accurate metaphysical terms. Where did I allegedly use "form"? And where are your recent posts? Mung
That said, how did the Scholastics resolve the “paradox of the heap”?
They treated it as a case study of distinct metaphysical categories. Substance versus properties. Essence versus accidents. Mung
ES: ...it’s substance that makes each and every thing the kind of thing it is Mung: That which makes each and every thing the kind of thing it is is essence.
Substance and essence are near-synonyms in metaphysics. There's a subtle distinction between them on Aristotelianism, but it's negligible in low-level discussion such as here. There's no distinction between them on Neoplatonism. Mung
A pile of sand will always consist of sand. A castle will not always be made of sand. There is something that is shared in common by all piles of sand (and it isn’t their shape), and there is something that is shared in common by all castles (and it isn’t sand).
What is that which is common to castles? If you call it "design" and you deny it in sand particles and water drops, then show how you define it so you can coherently deny design in sand particles and water drops. The classical argument from design as I quoted above affirms design throughout nature and universe. You'd do well to read what Feser writes about artefacts. Nature versus art looks like precisely the kind of distinction you want to make. Feser's conclusion is unfavorable to ID: "...since natural objects are (for the A-T philosopher) simply not artifacts in the relevant sense, it is a waste of time to argue for a divine designer on the basis of the assumption that they are..." Try take his conceptual framework (so that we both are roughly on the same page) and argue it to a different conclusion.E.Seigner_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

Mung: "A pile of sand will always consist of sand. A castle will not always be made of sand." Yes, that is correct. Sand cannot be the essence of a sand castle.StephenB_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

A partial list of E.Seigner’s logical errors: [a] “Everything is designed” [b] “Design is not 'in' the object” Explanation: This is a contradiction. To say that something is designed is to say that design is, indeed, in the object. “So the design is always there, but never inherent.”. Explanation: If the design is always there, then it is, by definition, inherent. Where else could "there" be? “I say “inherent”, and this is not the same as “in the thing”. Explanation: Inherent means “in the thing.” (ES is attempting to have it both ways, saying that design is "inherent" in the object insofar as the creator put it there, but it isn't "in" the object insofar as the observer can detect it). This is a clear contradiction. Design is either in the thing or it isn't. “It takes a separate argument for you to establish that the thing is the same as its design.” Explanation: To say that design is in the thing is not to say that it is the thing. (category confusion) “But if you did, and if design was inherent to things and inseparable from them, then wouldn’t this make it logically impossible for you to show me a thing without design?” Explanation: To say that design is inherent in a thing is not to say that everything is designed. “This means that the thing can be mentally separated from its design, one can imagine the thing with some other design,” Explanation: No, this is impossible. I cannot imagine my coffee cup having another design. If it has another design, then it is no longer a coffee cup or else is a different kind of coffee cup. I can, however, imagine the matter in my coffee cup being rearranged into another kind of object. “My logic is that the design is analytically separable from the thing. Explanation: Only the idea of the design or the purpose for the design can be analytically separate from the designed object–not the design itself. “Any design, form, pattern, etc. can be applied to any thing.” Explanation: No, it can't. The design of my coffee cup cannot be applied to the design of someone's car. This is ES's error of "design projection." "Funny enough, the way 'design' is often talked about in ID theory, it comes very close to purpose rather than mere shape. “Design” in ID theory is often equivalent to a plan, to a project." Explanation: the purpose is the rationale for the design. It is not the design itself. “A plastic fruit is plastic and it is a fruit”. Explanation: No. A real fruit cannot be made of plastic. “...but the essence of it (castle) is sand, not the castle." Explanation: The sand is the physical raw material for the castle–it is not the essence of the castle, which could be made of different raw materials other than sand and still be a castle. “I look for the essential in your pictures, whereas you look for the incidental.” Explanation: A things essence is not detected by the senses, it is understood by the intellect. It is a waste of time to “look” for essentials in pictures. These are not minor mistakes that can be brushed aside since they reflect total confusion over the very same metaphysical model that is being presupposed.StephenB_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

E.Seigner:
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.
A pile of sand will always consist of sand. A castle will not always be made of sand. There is something that is shared in common by all piles of sand (and it isn't their shape), and there is something that is shared in common by all castles (and it isn't sand). Here's some water. And here's castles made of water.Mung_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

E.Seigner:
it’s substance that makes each and every thing the kind of thing it is
That which makes each and every thing the kind of thing it is is essence.Mung_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

E.Seigner:
Every keyword in my post is technically accurate metaphysics, but you quibble over them on rhetorical, empirical, and other irrelevant grounds.
But it's difficult to know when you are employing "technically accurate metaphysics" in your use of terms and when you are not. For example, my recent posts on your use of form and substance. That said, how did the Scholastics resolve the "paradox of the heap"?Mung_{October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

Phinehas
Let’s not. Let’s apply the reasoning to the example within which the reasoning was supplied, since that is the example within which I made my point.
If you are not playing dense, then you understood that my thesis - namely, that substance is always primary - applies to both examples without any problem, whereas your reasoning doesn't even properly apply to the sand castle example, despite your imagining that it does, and it definitely doesn't apply to the plastic fruits example, which you have by now conceded. In fact, it's substance that makes each and every thing the kind of thing it is. This is what substance means. If you keep talking about substance without bothering to consider the meaning, then I can safely consider our discussion closed. Phinehas
You’ve got this backwards. You’ve made a universal, sweeping statement that substance is always more important than shape. You’ve avoided saying exactly what you mean by “more important,” but let’s set that aside for the moment. Providing a single example (fruit) where substance is “more important” (from a specific perspective where we are only speaking to its usefulness as food) than shape does very little to make your “always more important” case.
Let's remember for the moment that I brought up the paradox of the heap which to me is not even a paradox, but a logical demonstration of the relationship of substance and properties, of essence and accidents. This relationship is the difference in priority, the difference in importance. This is how substance is always more important. Surely you got this all along. Phinehas
On the other hand, providing one example (a razor) where shape is just as important as substance annihilates your case and leaves a smoking crater behind.
Razors are artefacts (in Aristotelian sense) and, in artefacts, properties are given function (not just shape) that make its properties as if new substance. In my approach and reasoning it changes nothing. If substance is what makes the thing the kind of thing it is, and in artefacts material properties are given a certain function, and the function is the main logical substance of the artefact, then in considering the artefact's function one is considering its substance. It's still substance that matters. You thought substance was always material? No. Substance is logical. To make this absolutely clear, I have been exchanging it with the word "essence". The material is not the point. The point is in the logical distinction of substance and properties. In examples like sand, water, plastic, etc. both substance and properties are material, so it should be very clear that the distinction is logical, not material. And when you bring in artefacts like the razor, it poses no problem to me. I still go by the logical distinction of substance and properties, as I have been doing all along. Phinehas
Said another way, I don’t need to address a million examples that suggest sometimes in order to falsify your statement, but you must address every single example that disproves always.
Keep these examples coming, until it will be clear even to you what a folly it is to try to disprove this logical distinction which is basic Philosophy 101 and has never been disproven. Instead, it's seen as absolutely central, when approaching any problem, to consider: What's the substance? What's the essence? What's the real issue? What's it truly about? This is various formulations of the same question. It's as vital as the fundamental laws of thought. But maybe you will make a breakthrough and prove that everybody has been doing it wrong for millennia. Good luck with that. And congrats when you become famous. Phinehas
I disagree because, in your rush to deny ID, you’ve swallowed whole a metaphysics that leaves you incapable of describing the obvious and striking difference between a mound of dirt and a sand castle.
First, you haven't even defined ID yet. And I know now that you never will. Second, 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. Phinehas
Now, since you believe so wholeheartedly that substance is always primary, perhaps you would like to address the substance of what I’ve said.
See, it's clear even to you that "substance" is logical or conceptual rather than material. After carefully considering everything, I take the substance of what you've said to be this:
I’ve not claimed to be a teacher, let alone a worthwhile one. Nor have I claimed that I’ve figured all of this out beyond the slightest doubt. You are welcome to follow my example in this or not.
Thanks for the warm invitation to give up logical certainty. The problem with it that you are making an emotional appeal, not logical or rational, so I will stay where I am, thank you very much. If you are unable to add any more rational substance to the discussion, then I wish you a lovely weekend.E.Seigner_{October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PDT}

What's worse than a castle built on sand? A castle built of sand on sand. That castle is in a heap of trouble.Mung_{October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

E.Seigner:
I didn’t avoid any example. Specifically, I didn’t avoid the comparison of sand particle and sand castle.
You avoided this:
Ph: Nope. A sand castle is sand and it is a castle. Otherwise, castles don’t exist, since a castle built from any substance would be the substance and not a castle.
Instead of addressing the point, you said this:
ES: Let’s apply this reasoning to the other example I brought.
Let's not. Let's apply the reasoning to the example within which the reasoning was supplied, since that is the example within which I made my point.
In my last post, I fully quoted your mention of the comparison...
I did not realize that you considered quoting my point the same as addressing it. Clearly, you have not avoided quoting my point.
It’s you who is not getting around the plastic fruits example, whereas I am comfortable with both examples.
You've got this backwards. You've made a universal, sweeping statement that substance is always more important than shape. You've avoided saying exactly what you mean by "more important," but let's set that aside for the moment. Providing a single example (fruit) where substance is "more important" (from a specific perspective where we are only speaking to its usefulness as food) than shape does very little to make your "always more important" case. On the other hand, providing one example (a razor) where shape is just as important as substance annihilates your case and leaves a smoking crater behind. Said another way, I don't need to address a million examples that suggest sometimes in order to falsify your statement, but you must address every single example that disproves always. Even so, I am ever so happy to concede that, given a certain perspective where "more important" means more useful as food, the substance of fruit is more important than its shape. Yet, a razor's shape is clearly as important as its substance.
Anyway, here you have explicitly conceded my point.
If your point is merely that there are certain objects or items where, given a certain understanding of what it means to be more important, their substance is more important than their shape, then yes. Not only have I conceded your point, but I've never argued otherwise.
You just play dense on a basic logical distinction that is clear even to a child. See, now you made me play your child card back at you. Enjoy it.
What I see is you totally avoiding the point. Your answer is non-responsive. It is entirely possible that I am being dense, but I can assure you that I am not playing dense. If I am being dense, please demonstrate how.
Lead by example. Or else you are utterly worthless as a teacher.
I've not claimed to be a teacher, let alone a worthwhile one. Nor have I claimed that I've figured all of this out beyond the slightest doubt. You are welcome to follow my example in this or not.
P: Nope. I disagree because, in your rush to deny design,…
ES: What??!

You are right. Please allow me to rephrase.
P: Nope. I disagree because, in your rush to deny ID, you’ve swallowed whole a metaphysics that leaves you incapable of describing the obvious and striking difference between a mound of dirt and a sand castle. I disagree because a particle is not a heap and green is not just another shade of red. I disagree because castles exist and the shape of a razor is as important as its substance.
Now, since you believe so wholeheartedly that substance is always primary, perhaps you would like to address the substance of what I've said.Phinehas_{October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

E. Seigner
The same way your sand castle just happens to have the shape of a castle,
Bad logic. The sand castle doesn't "just happen to have" the shape of a castle. It has that shape because an intelligent agent first conceived it and then brought it into being.
but the essence of it is sand, not the castle.
Bad logic. The sand is the physical raw material for the castle--it is not the essence of the castle, which could be made of different raw materials other than sand and still be a castle.
I look for the essential in your pictures, whereas you look for the incidental.
Bad logic. A things essence is not detected by the senses, it is understood by the intellect. It is a waste of time to "look" for essentials in pictures.
To convince me that the incidental is somehow important or means something special, for artistic purposes or whatever, you really need to elaborate an actual argument to support your case, but you have not even begun yet. This discussion will be over pretty soon and you will have missed your opportunity.
Bad logic. ID does not detect essences; it detects features.StephenB_{October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply