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

Phinehas
When someone gives a counterexample that confounds your metaphysics, you can’t just ignore that counterexample in favor of one that you prefer. Perhaps your preferred example demonstrates something interesting (e.g. fruit is a food, and it is primarily the substance that makes food food), but it doesn’t really address the difficulties presented in the example you avoided.
I didn't avoid any example. Specifically, I didn't avoid the comparison of sand particle and sand castle. In fact, I brought it up myself in the form of the paradox of the heap and my whole case rests on it. The argument based on it is complete and stands unchallenged by you. In my last post, I fully quoted your mention of the comparison and I added the example that you avoided! It's you who is not getting around the plastic fruits example, whereas I am comfortable with both examples. They both prove my point. I proved my point sufficiently on the paradox of the heap alone and I didn't even need to bring in the plastic fruits. Anyway, here you have explicitly conceded my point: "(it is primarily the substance that makes food food)" Of course substance or essence is that which makes any thing the thing. This is what substance and essence mean, as distinguished from properties and accidents. For example, all dogs have (or are meant to have) legs, and they should typically have four legs, but a three-legged dog, and even a legless dog, does not cease to be a dog. This means its legs are accidental properties, not its essence. The same way your sand castle just happens to have the shape of a castle, but the essence of it is sand, not the castle. I look for the essential in your pictures, whereas you look for the incidental. 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. Phinehas
More important how? More important when? When I want to shave, I’m pretty sure the shape of my razor is at least as important as its substance. If the substance were shaped into a sphere, it would certainly have an adverse effect on my ability to shave with it.
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. Phinehas
Adding the slightest humility to your approach would do wonders. I highly recommend it. It is a prerequisite to learning and growing.
Lead by example. Or else you are utterly worthless as a teacher. Phinehas
I never made a “something like” point.
High time to make it then. If not this point, then any other relevant point. Phinehas
Nope. I disagree because, in your rush to deny design,...
What??!! I have been affirming design all along. The entire dialogue was based on affirmation of design, and if anyone denied it anywhere, it was you... Wait a minute. I see the topic is Desperate Distractions and that's what you are doing. You are just getting into the topic. Well, you drastically reduced your chances by this silly move. You have one last try to make a relevant point.E.Seigner_{October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

E.Seigner:
ES: A sand castle is sand, not a castle. 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.
ES: Let’s apply this reasoning to the other example I brought. A plastic fruit is plastic and it is a fruit. Otherwise, fruits don’t exist, since a fruit built from any substances would be the substance and not a fruit. Everything alright with this?

Not at all. When someone gives a counterexample that confounds your metaphysics, you can't just ignore that counterexample in favor of one that you prefer. Perhaps your preferred example demonstrates something interesting (e.g. fruit is a food, and it is primarily the substance that makes food food), but it doesn't really address the difficulties presented in the example you avoided.
The reasoning will be properly in perspective as soon as you acknowledge that substance or essence is always more important than shape or size.
More important how? More important when? When I want to shave, I'm pretty sure the shape of my razor is at least as important as its substance. If the substance were shaped into a sphere, it would certainly have an adverse effect on my ability to shave with it.
I have it figured out beyond slightest doubt.
This probably tells me more than anything you've said so far. You should have, at the very least, the slightest doubt. Otherwise, you've likely overestimated your ability to reason and underestimated your propensity to fall short. Adding the slightest humility to your approach would do wonders. I highly recommend it. It is a prerequisite to learning and growing.
Whereas you, ever since you gave up the “something like” point which was supposed to tell something important about different designs, have absolutely no reason to disagree anymore.
I never made a "something like" point. I used "something like" in passing as a figure of speech to indicate a potential example. It was never meant to tell something important. I have no idea why you glommed onto it and started claiming it was crucial to my argument. I honestly found your doing so a bit embarrassing for you. I haven't given it up, I've merely moved past it. But since you seem to be having difficulty doing the same, I'm happy to remove the stumbling block. For clarity, I have no problem amending what I said to:
P: I picked these two pictures deliberately to reflect the two strings Barry created. I think it quite likely that the “design” of the first heap is limited to dump heap of dirt here, just like the “design” in Barry’s first string was type random gibberish of approximate length n.
So, without the crucial phrase upon which my entire argument rested, I am now forced to admit that a particle is a heap, right? Hardly.
So now you disagree for no reason at all.
Nope. I disagree because, in your rush to deny design, 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.Phinehas_{October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

Ph: Nope. A sand castle is sand and it is a castle. Otherwise, castles don’t exist, since a castle built from any substances would be the substance and not a castle. ES
Let’s apply this reasoning to the other example I brought. A plastic fruit is plastic and it is a fruit. Otherwise, fruits don’t exist, since a fruit built from any substances would be the substance and not a fruit. Everything alright with this?
More bad logic: A real castle (even full size) can be made of sand. A real fruit cannot be made of plastic.StephenB_{October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

If castles are made out of rocks and rocks are made out of sand (and other sediments), then wouldn't castles be made out of sand?Joe_{October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

Phinehas
ES: A sand castle is sand, not a castle. Ph: Nope. A sand castle is sand and it is a castle. Otherwise, castles don’t exist, since a castle built from any substances would be the substance and not a castle.
Let's apply this reasoning to the other example I brought. A plastic fruit is plastic and it is a fruit. Otherwise, fruits don't exist, since a fruit built from any substances would be the substance and not a fruit. Everything alright with this? The reasoning will be properly in perspective as soon as you acknowledge that substance or essence is always more important than shape or size. This of course would be the ultimate death-blow to your argument, but that's life. Phinehas
I don’t think so. I’m not denying that sand castles are sand. And I’m not denying that they are castles. Neither substance or appearance are irrelevant to me. Why should I blind myself in one eye to see better out of the other?
Substances and appearances are different metaphysical categories with different priority. To not acknowledge this is a form of blindness. Let's say you just keep adding sand particles and at some point you exclaim: Eureka, a heap! This is trivially true. We both agree on this. What we disagree on is that the sand heap has any deeper meaning to it compared to the sand particle. We don't disagree on the "heap" part of your exclamation. We disagree on the "Eureka" part. Let's say you take water from a pond and you pour it in an aquarium or vice versa. Water changes shape in the process, but does it acquire any deeper meaning as a result? What is the revelation involved? Am I missing something? Or is it, as logic tells me, that I'm missing nothing here. I have it figured out beyond slightest doubt. I have also considered counter-arguments and these have been found defective. I have given you full argumentation why the difference between sizes and shapes is incidental and inessential. Whereas you, ever since you gave up the "something like" point which was supposed to tell something important about different designs, have absolutely no reason to disagree anymore. So now you disagree for no reason at all. No problem. I can live with this.E.Seigner_{October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

E.Seigner:
A sand castle is sand, not a castle.
Nope. A sand castle is sand and it is a castle. Otherwise, castles don't exist, since a castle built from any substances would be the substance and not a castle. I don't see the value in a metaphysics where castles, particles, and heaps either don't exist or are irrelevant. Castles, particles, and heaps exist in reality, and a metaphysics that doesn't reflect reality is bankrupt.
The whole point of logic and metaphysics is to escape the deception of appearances.
Again, I don't think so. The point of logic and metaphysics is to move closer to understanding reality. I think if you focus too much on avoiding the deception of appearances (or empirical evidence) you'll just end up falling (or may have already fallen) for the deception of concepts and language in your metaphysics. True, we see through a glass darkly. But we also think through a glass darkly, and supposing otherwise can lead you away from reality.
P: I don’t see the value in throwing useful tools away.
ES: But you just did! You threw metaphysics away, whereas I use it to put appearances into perspective.

I don't think so. I'm not denying that sand castles are sand. And I'm not denying that they are castles. Neither substance or appearance are irrelevant to me. Why should I blind myself in one eye to see better out of the other?Phinehas_{October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

E. Seigner
P.S. If anyone compounds on StephenB-ish misrepresentations of my arguments, my verdict of the ID community will be complete. This being a Dembski website, it gives a fairly adequate picture of the kind of people that his theory tends to attract.
I can support every point I made. Would you care to take them one at a time? Anti-ID partisans love the luxury of scrutinizing but the loathe the prospect of being scrutinized. Meanwhile, your allusion about the "kind of person" I am qualifies as ---a "desperate distraction."StephenB_{October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT}

Mung
If essence is important, then it must also be important to know what an essence is.
And how would you approach this problem? Mung
To speak of substantial sameness seems to me to be incoherent. Substances are individual.
There are multiple substances in Aristotelianism and its derivative schools of thought, yes. I do not share this view, but if you do, then you are in pretty respectable company. Mung
Further, it would seem that according to E.S. two substances that share the same form must share the same shape. But this is neither true of sand nor water.
Only if "form" here means Aristotelian form(al cause). This would be a misunderstanding of my argument, because I am not an Aristotelian to begin with. As specifics get added (the way you add "form" here), my difference from Aristotelianism and Thomism gets clearer. I just might discuss it, if your further questions are interesting enough.E.Seigner_{October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT}

Phinehas
ES: Both are sand. The substantial sameness has importance despite the apparent difference. Ph: No. Both are sand only if we are talking about a particle of sand and a heap of sand. But we can apply the concepts of particle and heap across a number of substances. This indicates to me that particles and heaps have meaning apart from sand, or grain, or seeds, or salt, or data, or whatever.
As if I had been saying anything different. And the meaning of words like particles and heaps is specifically to denote the apparent reality, as distinguished from the essential reality which is more fundamental. When you have plastic things shaped exactly like fruits, even with aroma added and all, you still cannot eat it. Plastic fruits are plastic, not fruits. A sand castle is sand, not a castle. Phinehas
For me, reality is important. Appearances can deceive, but so can your metaphysics.
The whole point of logic and metaphysics is to escape the deception of appearances. It can deceive you only when you are using it wrong. And you are using it wrong. Phinehas
I don’t see the value in throwing useful tools away.
But you just did! You threw metaphysics away, whereas I use it to put appearances into perspective. I also hereby note that you have given up the crucial point in your argument - the "something like" point. The "something like" was meant to be a description of types of design, such as "dump heap of dirt here" or "type random gibberish of approximate length n". The point I make about them is that they all are meant to describe design, and if we were to scrutinize how these descriptions are applied, we'd see that they are applied exactly like words "particle" and "heap", denoting different modes of the same supposed substance, instead of substantially different things. By your method, you'd maintain that sand castles are castles rather than sand and plastic fruits are fruits rather than plastic. A child might agree, but I won't. Anyway, luckily for you you gave up this point before it came to this. P.S. If anyone compounds on StephenB-ish misrepresentations of my arguments, my verdict of the ID community will be complete. This being a Dembski website, it gives a fairly adequate picture of the kind of people that his theory tends to attract.E.Seigner_{October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT}

Phinehas
I think ES would say that she can discern which pile is which. She just can’t discern which pile is designed because both are designed.
She claims that she can discern one pile from the other, yes, but that difference is insignificant because she also claims that she cannot discern which one was delivered by the dump truck and which one was crafted by the artist. Also, you cannot take too seriously her claim that both are designed since she also claims that the design is not in the object but in the person who observes it, which means it is designed only if the observer perceives it to be so.StephenB_{October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT}

Further, it would seem that according to E.S. two substances that share the same form must share the same shape. But this is neither true of sand nor water.Mung_{October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

Phinehas @ 94, thank you. I've never believed that levity is an obstacle to understanding. :) This is an interesting discussion, it's hard to know quite where to step in. Let's start with sand and color. One might ask, how much sand is there, or how much color is there. One might also ask, what color is the sand, and even, what sand is the color? Is "coloredness" truly an essence, and if so, in what sense? Socrates may be human, and white Socrates may be a white human, but is this because Socrates is composed of two different essences, humanity and coloredness? E.Seigner:
The substantial sameness has importance despite the apparent difference. For me essence is important.
If essence is important, then it must also be important to know what an essence is. To speak of substantial sameness seems to me to be incoherent. Substances are individual.Mung_{October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

Mung, LOL @ 91!Phinehas_{October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
In keeping with that point, I don’t really believe you when you say that you can’t discern which pile was delivered by a dump truck and which pile was sculpted by an artist.
I think ES would say that she can discern which pile is which. She just can't discern which pile is designed because both are designed. But this narrow (or overly broad?) definition of design merely leaves her without the ability to describe the difference she can (and a child could) discern. Or, if she does describe it, that opens her up to then having to explain away whatever word she uses to describe it the same way she had to explain away design. Her metaphysics put her in the unenviable position of having to deny the apparent.Phinehas_{October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT}

E.Seigner:
P: If your metaphysics is telling you that a particle is a heap, so much the worse for your metaphysics.
ES: Both are sand. The substantial sameness has importance despite the apparent difference.

No. Both are sand only if we are talking about a particle of sand and a heap of sand. But we can apply the concepts of particle and heap across a number of substances. This indicates to me that particles and heaps have meaning apart from sand, or grain, or seeds, or salt, or data, or whatever. I can say that there's a heap over there without knowing the heap's composition. I can also say that a heap is not a particle. This is a distinction that exists, is useful, and is significant despite any substantial sameness or difference.
For me essence is important. For you appearances are important.
Not quite. For me, reality is important. Appearances can deceive, but so can your metaphysics. Making essential sameness primary to the point that the obvious and striking difference between green and red can only ever be "incidental," or to the point where green-ness loses meaning because it's just another shade of red, or to the point where you are no longer able to describe the obvious and striking difference between the two strings or two mounds of dirt in any sort of meaningful way ought to be an indication that you've wandered off the reservation. I don't see the value in throwing useful tools away. Instead of ruling out all empirical evidence as irrelevant, wouldn't it be wiser to use such as checks and balances on your metaphysics lest you end up in la-la land. I could swear Barry posted something about this recently.Phinehas_{October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

There is a very striking and obvious difference between the two mounds of dirt depicted that even a child could recognize. You and I both know that it is there. How would you describe that difference?
I have performed an analysis of both pictures, and the second picture turns out to be more random than the first.Mung_{October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

Barry, I see what you are doing posting additional "Darwinian Debating Devices" threads. You're trying desperately to distract us from this one. But we're on to you now!Mung_{October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

E. Seigner
For me logical certainty always overpowers the mixed and contradictory reports of sense-perception. Any day, under all circumstances, without fail. For you it seems to be the other way around. So, now the *real issue* is that we have no identifiable common ground.
You are confusing certainty, which is based on knowledge, with certitude, which is based on feelings. You may feel certain that the observer projects design, but your misguided feelings do not qualify as logical certainty. You only feel that they do. In keeping with that point, I don't really believe you when you say that you can't discern which pile was delivered by a dump truck and which pile was sculpted by an artist. You must be trolling around just for fun. No one could possibly be that lacking in intelligence and common sense.StephenB_{October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

Phinehas
I never denied that a sand particle and a heap of sand are both sand. I merely pointed out that a particle is not a heap. Paradoxes or thought experiments that highlight shortcomings in the way we describe quantities using vague language are helpful right up to the point where they convince you that a particle is a heap. At that point, you’ve missed the point.
I draw a completely different lesson from the paradox. It demonstrates that there's no fixed point where a collection of sand particles becomes a heap. It teaches that there are verbal differences without a real distinction. It tells that there are relevant distinctions versus irrelevant distinctions. There's important and less important. These purely logical distinctions may seem overly abstract to you, but they are crucial to me precisely because they are logical. Cold and warm feel different, but both are temperature. This is the distinction of appearance versus essence. Colors are a similar case. Different colors are different wavelengths, construed as if substantially different by the mind, while they objectively and measurably are different wavelengths of the same substance. Phinehas
If your metaphysics is telling you that green is red, so much the worse for your metaphysics.
Both are color, so there's essential sameness. The difference is also there, but it's apparent, a matter of degree, not of kind. Colors blend into each other. There are no fixed boundaries between them. Phinehas
If your metaphysics is telling you that a particle is a heap, so much the worse for your metaphysics.
Both are sand. The substantial sameness has importance despite the apparent difference. For me essence is important. For you appearances are important. This is irreconcilable. Your case rests on intently overemphasizing the kind of difference that the paradox logically puts into perspective. For me logical certainty always overpowers the mixed and contradictory reports of sense-perception. Any day, under all circumstances, without fail. For you it seems to be the other way around. So, now the *real issue* is that we have no identifiable common ground.E.Seigner_{October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

E.Seigner:
P: A difference in degree can be obvious and striking as well, though, can it not? A particle and a heap are two different things…
ES: No. A sand particle and a heap of sand are both sand. A water drop, rain, river, lake, and ocean are all water. Different design, if you like, but all design. No non-design.

I never denied that a sand particle and a heap of sand are both sand. I merely pointed out that a particle is not a heap. Paradoxes or thought experiments that highlight shortcomings in the way we describe quantities using vague language are helpful right up to the point where they convince you that a particle is a heap. At that point, you've missed the point. I'm not sure the paradox of the heap is strictly about what you appear to think it is. You appear to think that, because you can call both a particle and a heap sand, the paradox is resolved. Or that both a heap and a particle being sand is the point. However, the same kind of descriptive vagueness can be seen in a sorites paradox based on color gradient. Color Gradient Illustrating Sorites Paradox So, this proves that green and red are all just shades of red, right? How does that do any more than merely render the concept of green meaningless and useless? Again, if your reasoning leads you to the point where you deny the obvious and striking difference between green and red or between mound of dirt one and mound of dirt two, then so much the worse for your reasoning.
P: In fact, to assert that the obvious and striking difference between the two mounds of dirt depicted is “incidental” does inflict harm on your most newly acquired language. If anything, this demonstrates that either incidental cannot necessarily follow from quantitative, or that quantitative is an inadequate description for the obvious and striking difference we see.
ES: You misread causality into an account of logical correspondence. You are evidently unfamiliar with the language of metaphysics. Every keyword in my post is technically accurate metaphysics, but you quibble over them on rhetorical, empirical, and other irrelevant grounds.

I certainly quibble over whether or not empirical objections are relevant. If your metaphysics is telling you that green is red, so much the worse for your metaphysics. If your metaphysics is telling you that a particle is a heap, so much the worse for your metaphysics. If your metaphysics is "technically accurate" in describing the difference between string one and string two, or mound one and mound two as "incidental," then so much the worse for your metaphysics.
P: Really? You’ve argued that there are degrees of design, have you not? (How else to explain your particle vs. heap analogy?) So how do you arrive at the conclusion that the degree of design in the mound of dirt is as much as the degree of design in the sand castle?
ES: What the heaps share is the *quality* of design. I added, for clarity, that even if it were a natural dune, it would still have design. There’s no thing devoid of design.

So, now you are denying that mound two can have more design than mound one? Or, at the least, more apparent design? Then what are you left with for describing the obvious and striking difference between the two? You've effectively said that green is a shade of red and, in the process, merely crippled your own ability to describe green. So much the worse for your metaphysics.
And what does your concept of design look like? Qualitative or quantitative? Or whichever looks better for the given occasion?
Is the difference between green and red qualitative or quantitative?Phinehas_{October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

Phinehas
A difference in degree can be obvious and striking as well, though, can it not? A particle and a heap are two different things...
No. A sand particle and a heap of sand are both sand. A water drop, rain, river, lake, and ocean are all water. Different design, if you like, but all design. No non-design. Phinehas
And it may be premature to conclude that there is no qualitative difference whatsoever between a particle and a heap, since the heap tends to have the quality of being much harder to miss.
So you plan to play dense on the paradox of the heap. Come on, even children understand the paradox of the heap. And adults generally understand without telling that to go overboard with the paradox necessarily involves a distinction without difference, a logical fallacy. Phinehas
Are you implying that incidental necessarily follows from quantitative? If not, then you have done nothing to support the notion that the difference we see is incidental.
They don't follow from each other. They are the same logical category. Phinehas
In fact, to assert that the obvious and striking difference between the two mounds of dirt depicted is “incidental” does inflict harm on your most newly acquired language. If anything, this demonstrates that either incidental cannot necessarily follow from quantitative, or that quantitative is an inadequate description for the obvious and striking difference we see.
You misread causality into an account of logical correspondence. You are evidently unfamiliar with the language of metaphysics. Every keyword in my post is technically accurate metaphysics, but you quibble over them on rhetorical, empirical, and other irrelevant grounds. Phinehas
I picked these two pictures deliberately to reflect the two strings Barry created. I think it quite likely that the “design” of the first heap is limited to something like dump heap of dirt here, just like the “design” in Barry’s first string was type random gibberish of approximate length n.
I see that we have arrived at a crucial point in your argument. Your argument vitally depends on "something like". Very well. How do you prove that "something like" is a quality rather than quantity? Is it meant to be one of these? How do you prove it is even relevant to anything? Phinehas
Really? You’ve argued that there are degrees of design, have you not? (How else to explain your particle vs. heap analogy?) So how do you arrive at the conclusion that the degree of design in the mound of dirt is as much as the degree of design in the sand castle?
What the heaps share is the *quality* of design. I added, for clarity, that even if it were a natural dune, it would still have design. There's no thing devoid of design. This happens to in line with the Thomist argument from design which I quoted above. And I'm not even a Thomist. It's just that this perspective is standard across all classical metaphysics. Phinehas
[You are] limiting yourself to the most narrow concept of design, anthropomorphizing nature, or assuming common-sense is synonymous with nonsense.
And what does your concept of design look like? Qualitative or quantitative? Or whichever looks better for the given occasion?E.Seigner_{October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

E.Seigner: A difference in degree can be obvious and striking as well, though, can it not? A particle and a heap are two different things, and a child, without needing to know about qualitative and quantitative differences, can immediately recognize a difference. The child knows a difference is there, even if it is just a quantitative one. And it may be premature to conclude that there is no qualitative difference whatsoever between a particle and a heap, since the heap tends to have the quality of being much harder to miss. The same might be said of the design in the second mound of dirt.
Of course I agree there’s a quantitative or incidental difference, but this is all I can say.
Are you implying that incidental necessarily follows from quantitative? If not, then you have done nothing to support the notion that the difference we see is incidental. In fact, to assert that the obvious and striking difference between the two mounds of dirt depicted is "incidental" does inflict harm on your most newly acquired language. If anything, this demonstrates that either incidental cannot necessarily follow from quantitative, or that quantitative is an inadequate description for the obvious and striking difference we see. Said another way, if your reasoning leads to the conclusion that the difference between the two mounds of dirt is incidental, then so much the worse for your reasoning.
If you say design implies a designer, then this applies equally to both heaps. Both heaps have some design. The simpler heap looks like cast off a truck...
I picked these two pictures deliberately to reflect the two strings Barry created. I think it quite likely that the "design" of the first heap is limited to something like dump heap of dirt here, just like the "design" in Barry's first string was type random gibberish of approximate length n.
...so it’s as man-designed as the sand castle.
Really? You've argued that there are degrees of design, have you not? (How else to explain your particle vs. heap analogy?) So how do you arrive at the conclusion that the degree of design in the mound of dirt is as much as the degree of design in the sand castle? Or are you trying to make a qualitative argument here? After having tried to convince us that design is quantitative, why smuggle qualitative design back into the conversation? This makes it appear that you are appealing to the quantitative nature of design to avoid addressing its qualitative nature only to then appeal to its qualitative nature to avoid addressing the significant quantitative difference. Throw in the word "incidental" as a pretense, and then hope no one notices how striking and obvious the difference really is. The thing is: not everyone's head is stuck so firmly in the mound of dirt.
If it were a natural dune, then I’d say it’s designed by nature, which is also a common-sense phrase.
Not really, except where limiting yourself to the most narrow concept of design, anthropomorphizing nature, or assuming common-sense is synonymous with nonsense.Phinehas_{October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

Correction: "...no point at which in degree..." in my first paragraph should be "...no point at which the difference in degree..."E.Seigner_{October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

Phinehas
So, having lost the use of the word “design” to describe the obvious and striking difference, how do you describe it? Or would you prefer we all just stop trying to describe it?
This is a much better question. The answer is that my way to describe the difference is to say it's a difference in degree, incidental to the substance. This means it's not an essential difference and there's no point at which in degree implies a new quality to the substance. It's a purely quantitative difference throughout. Let's say there's a body of water. Water consists of drops. How many drops do you need to take away until it ceases to be water and only a drop is left? This is the classical paradox of the heap. Drops and water are really a continuum of the same thing, but different scales of the continuum are verbally termed differently, just like cold and warm are really both temperature. The difference is of degree, of quantity, not of quality. Now, you presented me with two images of sand heaps (Mound of Dirt #1 and #2) and you said that there's a difference that any child can see. Yes, any child can see it. However, this is equivalent to showing a sand particle to a child and you say Claim #1: "This is a sand particle." and then you point to a large pile of sand and say Claim #2: "This is a heap." and then you further say Claim #3: "These two are obviously totally different things and everybody with eyes to see immediately knows the difference." You just might convince the child. But I am not a child. I am someone familiar with the paradox of the heap and I recognize how claim #3 cannot be taken too far without committing a logical fallacy. The difference between the sand particle and the heap is quantitative, not qualitative. The different words "drop" versus "water" or "sand particle" versus "heap" do not entail or imply a distinct substance or essence. The difference is merely verbal, incidental, inconsequential, only a matter of scale or degree, whereas the essential substance is the same. Therefore, when I say that the sand particle and the heap are essentially the same thing, and you reply that I am selectively hyperskeptical, then you will have gone overboard. This is precisely the difference I see in your two images. There is no essential difference. The "obvious" difference of the shapes is a matter of degree, not of kind - both are heaps and both have shapes, and one heap can smoothly be re-shaped into the other. It's analogous to a single body of water that assumes different shapes in different vessels - a huge difference in shapes of water, but no difference in the quality of water. Of course I agree there's a quantitative or incidental difference, but this is all I can say. If you say design implies a designer, then this applies equally to both heaps. Both heaps have some design. The simpler heap looks like cast off a truck, so it's as man-designed as the sand castle. If it were a natural dune, then I'd say it's designed by nature, which is also a common-sense phrase.E.Seigner_{October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

E.Seigner:
I am all for the “real issue”, but first tell me what the “real issue” is so we could discuss it. When you ask a question, put sufficient context around it so that it doesn’t look like an abstract question when you don’t mean it as abstract. If you want me to know the aim with your questions, you will tell me the aim. Otherwise it will spiral into a guessing game. In fact, you already achieved it.
I'm pretty sure you didn't end up anywhere you didn't want to go. What I've written so far along with where I've written it, including the blog, the OP, the references to content from other posts, are all more than sufficient context for what I've written. Anyone who isn't deliberately trying to misunderstand won't.
So, what’s the “real issue”? Or are you not interested in new perspectives after all?
The real issue is how to describe the obvious and striking difference in the examples Barry and I have presented. You appear to be unhappy with how the word "design" is being used to describe this difference, since God designed everything (or, everything has a shape, which is a synonym for a particular usage of "design"). Fine. You don't want to describe the obvious and striking difference in the strings, the mounds of dirt, Poker hands, or countless other examples using the word design. (Note that the ability of the same concept to transcend the specific examples resists the reductionist approach that some would like to offer.) But your insistence on not using a particular word to describe the obvious and striking difference doesn't make that difference go away. It's still there. Staring us all in the face. Easily recognized by a child. So, having lost the use of the word "design" to describe the obvious and striking difference, how do you describe it? Or would you prefer we all just stop trying to describe it? (Once again, I've directly addressed the distraction you've raised. Will you now give up the tactic of continuing to distract instead of engaging? I'm not holding my breath.)Phinehas_{October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

DiEb: The solar system or cosmos blind search capacity are so overwhelmed by a config space of 2^ (7 * 535) that using the search size scales to one straw size, the haystack size would swallow up the observable universe of some 90 bn LY across. So, one of the underlying issues comes up, that search size to space size is such that sampling theory tells us very firmly only to expect a representation of the bulk, in a realistic case. Where, the constraints of functionally specific text in English (or similar) requiring components in specific arrangements, leads to isolated islands of function. The likelihood of success on a cosmos scale blind needle in haystack search are effectively infinitesimal. That is why we do have a case of no observational evidence. There is no empirical evidence of FSCO/I arising by bling search, but there are trillions of cases of it arising by design, routinely. So that is not extraordinary (if you wanted that out). So, yes, every individual outcome is rare so a blind search for any one given outcome is vastly unlikely to succeed. But that simply moves the goalposts from the real thing: we have independently specified observable function, here as text in English, and we know what in our experien e routinely produces it. With an analysis of why suggested alternatives reliably will not. Thus, we are well within inductive, inference to best explanation rights to hold that the best explanation of FSCO/I is design. And where the shifting of the subject becomes an exercise in distraction, a red herring in effect. A strawman in particular, as there is a consistent misrepresentation of the argument and reasoning and evidence behind the design inference on FSCO/I. (Which BTW has been pointed out to you more than once, so why do you resist the correction?) It is more than time for a fresh start. KFkairosfocus_{October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

DiEb, I did. They are both so much blah, blah, blah, an excellent example of the "desperate distractions," that are the subject of this post. Thank you for yet another such example. Neither of them even begins to explain how the distinctions you drew made any difference.Barry Arrington_{October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington:
As soon as you stop evading the question and address how the two distinctions you drew made any difference whatsoever, I will answer your question.
(highlighting mine) - Please take a look at #54 and #75.DiEb_{October 16, 2014
October
10
Oct
16
16
2014
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PDT}

Phinehas
The OP has charged that anti IDers are prone to turn to distractions in an attempt to avoid the real issue. Are you going to do anything to disabuse observers of this notion? Anything at all? Or will you insist on reinforcing it?
I am all for the "real issue", but first tell me what the "real issue" is so we could discuss it. When you ask a question, put sufficient context around it so that it doesn't look like an abstract question when you don't mean it as abstract. If you want me to know the aim with your questions, you will tell me the aim. Otherwise it will spiral into a guessing game. In fact, you already achieved it. So, what's the "real issue"? Or are you not interested in new perspectives after all?E.Seigner_{October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT}

Phinehas, Perfect pedagogical pics for ID. Its extremely, highly-highly, almost-almost impossible but not totally-totally impossible (in theory), mind you to describe the difference without using that dirty-dirty word 'intelligence' or any other dirty-dirty language. I just-just know that Dieb and/or Seigner will grace us with a description of the chain of physio-chemical interactions that resulted in simple dirt transformed into complex (highly improbable) specified dirt.Steve_{October 15, 2014
October
10
Oct
15
15
2014
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply