Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Here’s an Example of Evolution’s Unavoidable Anti Realism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Though evolutionists think of themselves as realists—ruthlessly objective investigators interested only in truth—their naturalistic constraint ultimately leaves them with only anti realism. This is because any a priorirestriction of the answer might exclude the true answer. If I decide my math homework must contain only odd numbered answers, then I’ll be wrong on those problems whose correct answer is an even number. I can round up, approximate, truncate, contort or whatever to obtain an odd number, but I will be wrong. For such problems, the only way to be right is to remove the a priori restriction. But evolutionists cannot do this. Foundational to their thinking is that the world must have arisen by itself, strictly via natural laws and processes. What most evolutionists do not grasp is that their extreme rationalism leads at best to anti realism, and at worst to skepticism.  Read more

Comments
Equally important, you must forget about Hume’s stupid error in believing that the validity of inductive reasoning depends on observations. (Quiet please, it actually depends on the law of Identity).
See Goodmans new Riddle of induction, which was described in the reference about Hume and CR, here here.
Most of all, you must not fall into the trap of believing that a few million observations to the effect that pigs can’t fly necessarily indicates that pigs can’t fly. Don’t be a walking anachronism. Be a critical rationalist and liberate yourself from the bane of justificationism.
Which, again ignores the substance of my comments. What is in question is how knowledge is crated, in practice and the actual role those observations play in the process, which apparently you're not interested in.
Specifically, he addresses the question: why do we have expectations of which we have great confidence? How does this actually work, in practice? When we rationally criticize these expectations, a clear “principle of induction” that actually provides guidance is not found there in any reliably, identifiable sense.
critical rationalist
October 1, 2012
October
10
Oct
1
01
2012
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PST
OT: Video - Our Reasonable Faith: A Conversation and a Charge | William Lane Craig, Todd Wagner | 09/30/12 http://www.watermark.org/media/bornagain77
September 30, 2012
September
09
Sep
30
30
2012
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PST
:) What are you REALLY trying to say StephenB? :)bornagain77
September 30, 2012
September
09
Sep
30
30
2012
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PST
Upright Biped: “Can a thing that does not exist cause something to .happen?” There you go again---trying to "justify" your claims with a rational argument. Didn't you know that critical rationalism liberated us from such burdensome exertions of the intellect. I gather you are still harboring illusions about our capacity to know anything about the real world, or to link causes with effects, or to draw inferences from data. This justification business is for the birds. You must get with it. Equally important, you must forget about Hume's stupid error in believing that the validity of inductive reasoning depends on observations. (Quiet please, it actually depends on the law of Identity). You must also forget about Karl Popper's stupid error in believing everything that Hume and Kant said. Karl Popper said it; Critical Rationalist believes it; that settles it. Most of all, you must not fall into the trap of believing that a few million observations to the effect that pigs can't fly necessarily indicates that pigs can't fly. Don't be a walking anachronism. Be a critical rationalist and liberate yourself from the bane of justificationism.StephenB
September 30, 2012
September
09
Sep
30
30
2012
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PST
CR, you are more than welcome to the last word.Upright BiPed
September 30, 2012
September
09
Sep
30
30
2012
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PST
IMO replicators require the ability to replicate/ make copies of, themselves. The ability to replicate is not the property of DNA, but of the cellular system- “Evolution in Four Dimensions page 49 Take the genes out of the cellular system and they do not replicate themselves.Joe
September 30, 2012
September
09
Sep
30
30
2012
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PST
So, apparently, genes are not replicators because they have nothing to do with “what we are talking about”.
That doesn't follow from what I said. So obvioulsy you have other issues. OK critical rationalist- how are YOU defining a "biological replicator"? And then please tell us how genes fit that definition. IOW add some substance to your claim, for once.Joe
September 30, 2012
September
09
Sep
30
30
2012
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PST
CR: I’ve addressed the above, as it the claim that all explanations must be justified by some “source” is justificationism – which you apparently cannot recognize as an idea that is subject to criticism. Until such time as this occurs, further discussion will not be productive. UB: No shit, Sherlock. You’ve successfully defended yourself against logic and reason.
From a comment on another thread…
StephanB: There is no problem of induction. There is only a problem with people who wage war against reason.
CR: This is a false dilemma, which has apparently lead you to the conclusion that I deny reason or I am "at [war]" with rationality, which is also false. Critical Rationalism is an explanation for the growth of knowledge, in practice, which is itself the result of rational criticism. This includes detailed descriptions of what induction is and when it would be valid, etc. As such, not only did Popper point out no one has actually formulated a "principle of induction" that actually works in practice, but he also pointed out that it's not necessary to explain the growth of knowledge. Furthermore, Poppper separated Hume's logical problem of induction with Hume's psychological problem of induction. Specifically, he addresses the question: why do we have expectations of which we have great confidence? How does this actually work, in practice? When we rationally criticize these expectations, a clear "principle of induction" that actually provides guidance is not found there in any reliably, identifiable sense. To summarize, it ends up that induction is not only impossible in the case of certainty, but is unreliable regards to probability except in very specific, well defined applications. But this is does not represent an insurmountable problem [for] reason and progress, in practice, as deduction does offer us certainty in modus tollens.
By dissolving justificationism itself, the critical rationalist regards knowledge and rationality, reason and science, as neither foundational nor infallible, but nevertheless does not think we must therefore all be relativists. Knowledge and truth still exist, just not in the way we thought.
With that cleared up, unless you are genuinely interested in addressing the actual substance of my comments, then I do not think further discussion will be productive.
So, no, I have not "defended [myself] against logic and reason." as this is clearly a misrepresentation. What I've done is point out that… A. Your conclusion regarding Darwinism is parochial in that it depends on your specific form of epistemology B. This specific form of epistemology is a form of justificationism. C. Justificationism as an actual explanation for the growth of knowledge, in practice, has not withstood rational criticism. As always, feel free to provide an alternate explanation that actually does work, in practice. Detailed related comments start here.critical rationalist
September 30, 2012
September
09
Sep
30
30
2012
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PST
Joe: Genes are not replicators because they do not fit the definition. That said, replicators do play a causal role in their own replication. But that has absolutely NOTHING to do with what we were discussing.
So, apparently, genes are not replicators because they have nothing to do with "what we are talking about". However, if we exclude replicators playing a causal role in their own replication from "what we are talking about", as Joe accepts it, then are essentially left with "Obviously [CR has] no idea what a replicator is." When faced with this, we get...
The ability to replicate is not the property of DNA, but of the cellular system- “Evolution in Four Dimensions page 49
...which is not a definition of a biological replicator. Nor does Joe explain how the contents of this quote are inconsistent with genes being a biological replicator. So, Joe still hasn't actually added anything of substance to his "objection".critical rationalist
September 30, 2012
September
09
Sep
30
30
2012
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PST
CR,
UB: Darwinian evolution functions as a result of recorded information. As a consequence, it is entirely dependent on the material requirements of recorded information. Darwinism cannot be the source of those material requirements, and hence, it cannot be an explanation for them. To continually say that it is – is to say that a thing that does not exist can cause something to happen, and can be an explanation of it happening. CR: I’ve addressed the above, as it the claim that all explanations must be justified by some “source” is justificationism – which you apparently cannot recognize as an idea that is subject to criticism.
You crack under the weight of a simple question: "Can a thing that does not exist cause something to happen?" There is nothing which will make you address this question as a critique of your justification in Darwinian explanations. You are obviously free to obfuscate. I'll go with empirical investigation (i.e. logic verified by observation and experiment).
CR: further discussion will not be productive
No shit, Sherlock. You've successfully defended yourself against logic and reason.Upright BiPed
September 30, 2012
September
09
Sep
30
30
2012
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PST
The ability to replicate is not the property of DNA, but of the cellular system- "Evolution in Four Dimensions page 49
Joe
September 30, 2012
September
09
Sep
30
30
2012
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PST
Genes are not replicators because they do not fit the definition. That said, replicators do play a causal role in their own replication. But that has absolutely NOTHING to do with what we were discussing. Note how "critical rationalist" is neither critical nor rational.Joe
September 30, 2012
September
09
Sep
30
30
2012
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PST
CR: A replicator doesn’t play a causal role its own replication? Joe: Genes are still not replicatirs. DNA is NOT a replicator. Both genes and DNA get replicated as part of the cellular replication process. Obvioulsy you have no idea what a replicator is.
Note how Joe neither answers my question, nor actually engages the issue of what replicator *is*. But then makes the claim that I "obvioulsy" have no idea what a replicator is. So, apparently, genes are not replicators merely because *I* do not know what a replicator is? And this is somehow "obvious", based on what exactly?critical rationalist
September 30, 2012
September
09
Sep
30
30
2012
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PST
UB: CR, When you have the intellectual integrity to address the content of #80, specifically how that effects your claim, then I might re-engage you. Not until then.
#80
UB: Darwinism cannot be the source of those material requirements, and hence, it cannot be an explanation for them.
I've addressed the above, as it the claim that all explanations must be justified by some "source" is justificationism - which you apparently cannot recognize as an idea that is subject to criticism. Until such time as this occurs, further discussion will not be productive.critical rationalist
September 30, 2012
September
09
Sep
30
30
2012
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PST
Obviously you have no idea what a replicator is.
Someone who repeatedly copies and pastes the same talking points?Mung
September 30, 2012
September
09
Sep
30
30
2012
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PST
CR: So, again, are you suggesting that genes do not play a causal role in whether they are replicated?
Joe: No, I am suggesting that genes are not replicators.
A replicator doesn’t play a causal role its own replication?
Genes are still not replicatirs. DNA is NOT a replicator. Both genes and DNA get replicated as part of the cellular replication process. Obvioulsy you have no idea what a replicator is.Joe
September 30, 2012
September
09
Sep
30
30
2012
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PST
CR, When you have the intellectual integrity to address the content of #80, specifically how that effects your claim, then I might re-engage you. Not until then.Upright BiPed
September 29, 2012
September
09
Sep
29
29
2012
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PST
That is correct. One, and only one, molecule in biology sets the translation protocol used in protein synthesis. And that molecule is the aaRS.
What if the behavior of tRNA changed in a way that shifted when that molecule was delivered forwards or backwards, by, say one? Wouldn't change the translation? Also...
As you might expect, many of these enzymes recognize their tRNA molecules using the anticodon. But this may not be possible in some cases. Take serine, for instance. Six different codons specify serine, so seryl-tRNA synthetase must recognize six tRNA molecules with six different anticodons, including AGA and GCU, which are entirely different from one another. So, tRNA molecules are also recognized using segments on the acceptor end and bases elsewhere in the molecule. One base in particular, number 73 in the sequence, seems to play a pivotal role in many cases, and has been termed the discriminator base. In other cases, however, it is completely ignored. Note also that each enzyme must recognize its own tRNA molecules, but at the same time, it must not bind to any of the other ones. So, each tRNA has a set of positive interactions that match up the proper tRNA with the proper enzyme, and a set of negative interactions that block binding of improper pairs. For instance, the aspartyl-tRNA synthetase shown here (entry 1asz) recognizes the discriminator base and 4 bases around the anticodon. But, one other base, guanine 37, is not used in binding, but must be methylated to ensure that the tRNA does not bind improperly to the arginyl-tRNA synthetase.
What if tRNA was changed in in a way that allowed "improper" bindings? Wouldn't this change the translation? Are these aspects of tRNA not controlled by genes?critical rationalist
September 29, 2012
September
09
Sep
29
29
2012
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PST
UB: CR, you use epistemiology as a tool to ignore empirical evidence. I will not participate.
So, if I do not hold your specific epistemology I must be ignoring empirical evidence? Now you are attempting to conflate ignoring empirical observations with the specific role that empirical observations play in creating knowledge. Surely you can do better than this? No? Why don't you start out by explaining how it is possible to extrapolate observations referenced in your argument without first putting them into an explanatory framework? Please be specific.critical rationalist
September 29, 2012
September
09
Sep
29
29
2012
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PST
CR, you use epistemiology as a tool to ignore empirical evidence. I will not participate.
CR: Is this the point where you stop asking serious questions again?
UB: No, it’s the same point it’s been all along. It is the point where you refuse to integrate knowledge that challenges your beliefs, then I object to your refusal, so as a defensive maneuver, you ask me to accept the trivial reality that I could be wrong. It’s a neat self-deluding defense, where you absolve yourself of the responsibilities critical rationalism while continuing to fly the banner.
Upright BiPed
September 29, 2012
September
09
Sep
29
29
2012
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PST
tRNA doesn’t represent a “protocol” but aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases does?
That is correct. One, and only one, molecule in biology sets the translation protocol used in protein synthesis. And that molecule is the aaRS.Upright BiPed
September 29, 2012
September
09
Sep
29
29
2012
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PST
Repeating the question does not explicitly reveal the relevance.
Reminder:
CR: As for being a better explanation, ID does not explain how the knowledge used to build the biodiversity we observe was created. Darwinism does.
Darwinian evolution functions as a result of recorded information. As a consequence, it is entirely dependent on the material requirements of recorded information. Darwinism cannot be the source of those material requirements, and hence, it cannot be an explanation for them. To continually say that it is – is to say that a thing that does not exist can cause something to happen, and can be an explanation of it happening.
Upright BiPed
September 29, 2012
September
09
Sep
29
29
2012
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PST
UB:Do you believe a thing that does not exist can cause something to happen? Or is that kind of observation unimportant to knowledge? CR: Your question has changed. It was… (paraphrasing for time) “Can an effect that did not exist yesterday cause something to happen today.” […] So, I’m unclear how this is still related to your argument. [gives explanation] UB: CR, don’t lose your place in the conversation. I asked you: "Do you believe a thing that does not exist can cause something to happen? Or is that kind of observation unimportant to knowledge?"
Repeating the question does not explicitly reveal the relevance. IOW, you seem to be trying to conflate denying causality with our ability (or lack there of) to actually observe cause or explain observations. Again,
William Warren Bartley compared critical rationalism to the very general philosophical approach to knowledge which he called "justificationism". Most justificationists do not know that they are justificationists. Justificationism is what Popper called a "subjectivist" view of truth, in which the question of whether some statement is true, is confused with the question of whether it can be justified (established, proven, verified, warranted, made well-founded, made reliable, grounded, supported, legitimated, based on evidence) in some way.
Darwinism is a explanation for these observations. You're trying to compare apples with oranges.
I do not say in my argument that tRNA are the protocols in protein synthesis, I say that aaRS is. You are unambiguously wrong, and I gave you an unambiguous correction. Deal with it.
tRNA doesn't represent a "protocol" but aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases does? Both tRNA and aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases are "modulated" by knowledge laden genes. Protocols represent knowledge. For example, drug protocols represent the knowledge of which drugs to take at which times and at what amounts, etc. So, using the term "protocol" only in respect to minoacyl-tRNA synthetases appears arbitrary and/or vague. From a search for that phrase.
Recent analyses of entire genomes revealed a big surprise: some organisms don't have genes for all twenty aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases. They do, however, use all twenty amino acids to construct their proteins. The solution to this paradox revealed, as is often the case in living cells, that more complex mechanisms are used. For instance, some bacteria do not have an enzyme for charging glutamine onto its tRNA. Instead, a single enzyme adds glutamic acid to all of the glutamic acid tRNA molecules and to all of the glutamine tRNA molecules. A second enzyme then converts the glutamic acid into glutamine on the latter tRNA molecules, forming the proper pair.
Enzymes are "regulated" by knowledge laden genes.
CR: Now, it’s your turn. “____ , my epistemology could be wrong.” UB: Faced yet again with an intractable critique of your justification, your following text goes off into the weeds, with further meaningless obfuscation of fossils, dinosaurs, locks, keys, etc etc. I do not intend to follow.
"Faced yet again with an intractable critique of your justification" isn't even wrong, as I'm arguing that justificationism is impossible. To reiterate, your argument is Parochial. Again…
If you prefer a more formal approach, take the following argument.. P01. John has a favorite ice cream flavor. P02. John has a favorite ice cream shop. P03. John just ordered his favorite ice cream flavor at his favorite ice cream shop. C01. John just ordered vanilla ice cream. Does the conclusion follow from the premises? No. Why not? Because there is an implicit premise that John’s favorite ice cream shop only serves one flavor of ice cream: vanilla. Furthermore, all one needs to do is point out John’s favorite ice cream shop offered him significantly more than one flavor.
You appear to be unwilling to even acknowledge the *existence* of different "flavors" of epistemology, let alone whether the form you old could be wrong. Again, my theory is that you do not recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism. Despite repeated requests to provided provide inconsistent evidence for my own theory, none has been provided. Why is this?critical rationalist
September 29, 2012
September
09
Sep
29
29
2012
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PST
...and if I may repost something that has already been said: [CR], you are non-responsive to any empirical observations which conflict with your narrative. Therefore, the actual content of the conversation is rendered pointless. There is absolutely nothing that would cause you to engage the evidence I presented to you. Instead, you demand that I respond to your irrelevant topics. Silence or mockery become my choices. And silence is looking better all the time.Upright BiPed
September 29, 2012
September
09
Sep
29
29
2012
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PST
CR, don’t lose your place in the conversation. I asked you:
Do you believe a thing that does not exist can cause something to happen? Or is that kind of observation unimportant to knowledge?
Faced with having to engage an intractable critique of your justification in Darwinian explanations, you avoided the question and answered with a new question:
Can you justify that cause? And justify that cause’s cause?
To which I answered:
If I could observe something of that cause’s cause, then the answer would be “yes”, and we would have a place to start.
Faced again with the question you left unaltered by obfuscation, you then doubled down:
So, justificationism would be possible if you could observe causes and infinitely regress observing those causes?
...and all the while the critique of your justification remains safely avoided: Do you believe a thing that does not exist can cause something to happen? This scenario immediately led to a second intractable critique of your justification in Darwinian explanations. That critique was headed by the question:
The important question for you is a test of your critical rationalism: How do you justify ignoring what we can already see?
To which you simply punted to another conversation. Much easier to simply do away with these pesky critiques of your justification than to deal with them directly, eh, CR? - - - - - - - - - - - -
Wow. So, I get to decide if you’re wrong about any argument I write because, well, I wrote it?
If you make a statement of fact about the content of my argument, and you are wrong in that statement, then “yes” I get to tell you that you are indeed incorrect. I do not say in my argument that tRNA are the protocols in protein synthesis, I say that aaRS is. You are unambiguously wrong, and I gave you an unambiguous correction. Deal with it. Not only are you wrong about the content of my argument, you are also wrong about the biology. Pasting a Wiki text which does not address your misconception of the biological facts will not change this situation. What is required is for you to accept a critique of your justification in Darwinian explanations. The genetic code is not established by tRNA, they are merely passive carriers of the code. The code is established by aaRS. Look it up. The RCSB Protein Data Bank:
Introduction When a ribosome pairs a "CGC" tRNA with "GCG" codon, it expects to find an alanine carried by the tRNA. It has no way of checking; each tRNA is matched with its amino acid long before it reaches the ribosome. The match is made by a collection of remarkable enzymes, the aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases…
When you get the biology worked out, then you can critique my argument with some sense of validity. But not until then. - - - - - - - - Faced yet again with an intractable critique of your justification, your following text goes off into the weeds, with further meaningless obfuscation of fossils, dinosaurs, locks, keys, etc etc. I do not intend to follow.Upright BiPed
September 29, 2012
September
09
Sep
29
29
2012
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PST
CR: Can you justify that cause? And justify that cause’s cause,? And justify that cause’s, cause’s cause? Ad infinitum? Do you find your inability to do this unimportant? UB: CR, you are getting sloppy. If I could observe something of that cause’s cause, then the answer would be “yes”, and we would have a place to start. That is the progression of science. You should know this living in an era of mankind where our ability to reach into matter has grown exponentially.
So, justificationism would be possible if you could observe causes and infinitely regress observing those causes? Are either of these things actually possible, in practice? Translated: "*if* justificationism were possible then justificationism would be possible." And, I'm the one getting sloppy? Furthermore, while a single statement can show a universal theory to be in error, no number of single statements can entail it. Nor does saying some designer "just was" complete with the knowledge of how to build the biosphere, already present, serve an explanatory purpose. To be perfectly clear, I have not claimed no one had formulated "a principle of induction". I claimed, no one has formulated a "principle of induction" that actually works, in practice. So, justificationism doesn't actually solve the problem is claims to solve: namely, explain the growth of knowledge. Nor does saying some designer "just was" complete with the knowledge of how to build the biosphere, already present, explain the growth of knowledge in how to build the biosphere. UB: The important question for you is a test of your critical rationalism: How do you justify ignoring what we can already see? See my reply to Mung here.
CR: Incorrect? My explanation is consistent with the observations. And it’s a good explanation for those observations. UB: Yes, you are incorrect. I should know, since I wrote the argument.
Wow. So, I get to decide if you're wrong about any argument I write because, well, I wrote it? Again, from the Wikipedia entry on tRNA
tRNA genes Organisms vary in the number of tRNA genes in their genome.The nematode worm C. elegans, a commonly used model organism in genetics studies, has 29,647 [12] genes in its nuclear genome, of which 620 code for tRNA.[13][14] The budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae has 275 tRNA genes in its genome. In the human genome, which according to current estimates has about 21,065 genes [15] in total, there are about 4,421 non-coding RNA genes, which include tRNA genes. There are 22 mitochondrial tRNA genes;[16] 497 nuclear genes encoding cytoplasmic tRNA molecules and there are 324 tRNA-derived putative pseudogenes.
The explanation that tRNA is modulated by knowledge laden genes is consistent with observations.
SB: Your position first assumes that the relevant portions of an explanatory framework between opposing views is substantially different, and that this difference is the distinction between those opposing views. Yours is an unsupportable position, no matter what side of the fence you’re on. You would do well to learn some evidentiary discipline from ID thinkers.
Again…
Are dinosaurs merely an interpretation of our best explanation of fossils? Or are they *the* explanation for fossils? After all, there are an infinite number of rival interpretations that accept the same empirical observations, yet suggest that dinosaurs never existed millions of years ago. For example, there is the rival interpretation that fossils only come into existence when they are consciously observed. Therefore, fossils are no older than human beings. As such, they are not evidence of dinosaurs, but evidence of acts of those particular observations. Another interpretation would be that dinosaurs are such weird animals that conventional logic simply doesn’t apply to them. One could suggests It’s meaningless to ask if dinosaurs were real or just a useful fiction to explain fossils – which is an example of instrumentalism. Not to mention the rival interpretation that an abstract designer with no limitations chose to create the world we observe 30 days ago. Therefore, dinosaurs couldn’t be the explanation for fossils because they didn’t exist at the time. Yet, we do not say that dinosaurs are merely an interpretation of our best explanation of fossils, they *are* the explanation for fossils. And this explanation is primarily about dinosaurs, not fossils. So, it’s in this sense that science isn’t primarily about “things you can see”. (I’d also note that the above “rival interpretations” [which are bad explanations] represent general-purpose ways of denying anything, but I’ll save that for another comment.)
So, are suggesting there is an exception in the case of *your argument* or *my explanation*? If so, how?
CR: So, the entire crux of the issues between Darwinism and ID is based on epistemology. Is knowledge justified by some authoritative source or is it created? UB: The argument you ignored was created from observation. CR: Is this the point where you stop asking serious questions again [or stop making serious attempts to answer questions]? Or perhaps you simply cannot recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism? UB: No, it’s the same point it’s been all along.
That's not an answer to the question I asked. And you are equivocating on the definition of creation as defined in the question.
It is the point where you refuse to integrate knowledge that challenges your beliefs, then I object to your refusal, so as a defensive maneuver, you ask me to accept the trivial reality that I could be wrong. It’s a neat self-deluding defense, where you absolve yourself of the responsibilities critical rationalism while continuing to fly the banner.
This is the point where I refuse to accept your justificationist claim that we use theories to create observations because justificationism is impossible, in practice, and we cannot extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework. Of course, being a CR, I'm open to actual criticism, such as actually presenting a "principal of induction" that works in practice, etc. Furthermore, I didn't merely ask if "you could be wrong" I asked if your *epistemology* could be wrong. If you cannot see the difference between these things then I'm not the one who is refusing to integrate knowledge.
CR: I presented an explanation for the evidence and an argument for that explanation. I also disclosed my epistemology, and argued for it. Again… UB: Your explanation was materially flawed even without integrating additional knowledge. Plus, you did not integrate the additional knowledge. Disclosing your epistemology doesn’t mean shit if you don’t get 2+3=5. Perhaps it’s a good time to answer your own question.
Do you know what epistemology is? It's as if you deny the field exits at all. For example… CR: Do you think that your specific epistemology could be wrong? UB: Its less than a simple yes/no question. It pathetically trivial – and I’ve already answered it. Anyone can be wrong. (and they can be wrong for a variety of reasons) If it's not a simple yes or no question, then it seems you're desperately trying to answer some question I did not ask. What's my answer to the same question? "Yes, my epistemology could be wrong." My conception of human knowledge is an idea that is subject to rational criticism. It's really that simple. Explanations for the growth of human knowledge are ideas. And our current, best explanation is critical rationalism. LIke all other ideas, It contains errors to some degree and is incomplete. And like all other ideas, we can make progress by using deduction to find those errors. It is not static. Nor is it based on justificationism Problems are solvable. Problems are inevitable. Our theory of the grown in human knowledge is no exception. Now, it's your turn. "____ , my epistemology could be wrong." Elaborate on what you mean by that, if you like, but unless you explicitly start from there, then you are evading the question I'm asking.
UB: Now here is a simple yes/no question for you: Can a thing that does not exist cause something to happen, and therefore be an explanation for that thing happening?
Your question has changed. It was… (paraphrasing for time) "Can an effect that did not exist yesterday cause something to happen today." Which I explained in the sense that, at some point an time, neither a key *or* lock existed (specific knowledge of how to restrict access from some people, but not others). Nor can a key unlock a lock when it is in your pocket (or can an electronic key fob unlock a door when it's out of range or lacks power, etc.). So, I'm unclear how this is still related to your argument. Again, I've already provided my explanation: knowledge emerges from material arrangements.
CR: ...some kinds of phenomena can be explained in terms of themselves alone – without direct reference to anything at the atomic level. In other words, they are quasi-autonomous (nearly self-contained). Resolution into explicably at a higher level is emergence. IOW, it’s not necessary for genetics to be reducible to law for it to be *explicable*. Note that I keep providing *explanations* for observations in the form of Darwinism while you keep claiming I'm ignoring those same observations.
critical rationalist
September 29, 2012
September
09
Sep
29
29
2012
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PST
Well now, I have a couple of theories about that.
I have as yet come across any evidence incompatible with my theories.Mung
September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PST
Can a thing that does not exist cause something to happen, and therefore be an explanation for that thing happening?
Well now, I have a couple of theories about that.Mung
September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PST
CR,
Can you justify that cause? And justify that cause’s cause,? And justify that cause’s, cause’s cause? Ad infinitum? Do you find your inability to do this unimportant?
CR, you are getting sloppy. If I could observe something of that cause’s cause, then the answer would be “yes”, and we would have a place to start. That is the progression of science. You should know this living in an era of mankind where our ability to reach into matter has grown exponentially. The important question for you is a test of your critical rationalism: How do you justify ignoring what we can already see?
Incorrect? My explanation is consistent with the observations. And it’s a good explanation for those observations.
Yes, you are incorrect. I should know, since I wrote the argument. The protocols in my argument are the aaRS. There are specific structural and functional reasons for this. Those reasons are given in the argument, and reflected in biological texts around the globe. Next time, read a text for comprehension before you criticize it. That way your criticisms can be based upon its actual content instead of your assumptions.
You continue to confuse denying observations and pointing out it’s impossible to extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework, despite being corrected repeatedly. So, if anyone is denying anything…
Your position first assumes that the relevant portions of an explanatory framework between opposing views is substantially different, and that this difference is the distinction between those opposing views. Yours is an unsupportable position, no matter what side of the fence you’re on. You would do well to learn some evidentiary discipline from ID thinkers.
Is this the point where you stop asking serious questions again? Or perhaps you simply cannot recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism?
No, it’s the same point it’s been all along. It is the point where you refuse to integrate knowledge that challenges your beliefs, then I object to your refusal, so as a defensive maneuver, you ask me to accept the trivial reality that I could be wrong. It’s a neat self-deluding defense, where you absolve yourself of the responsibilities critical rationalism while continuing to fly the banner.
I presented an explanation for the evidence and an argument for that explanation. I also disclosed my epistemology, and argued for it. Again…
Your explanation was materially flawed even without integrating additional knowledge. Plus, you did not integrate the additional knowledge. Disclosing your epistemology doesn’t mean shit if you don’t get 2+3=5. Perhaps it’s a good time to answer your own question.
This is a simple yes or no question, which is both relevant to the issue at hand, yet has continually gone unanswered.
Its less than a simple yes/no question. It pathetically trivial – and I’ve already answered it. Anyone can be wrong. (and they can be wrong for a variety of reasons) Now here is a simple yes/no question for you: Can a thing that does not exist cause something to happen, and therefore be an explanation for that thing happening?Upright BiPed
September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PST
That second sentence in my post 71, should read: 'And I couldn’t help but be struck by the confidence of a quite superior intellect, when actually stating the obvious (to a scientist of integrity, viewing the evidence), when contrasted with the endless exclamations of delighted surprise of the myrmidons of scientism, when flummoxed by yet another hole in their most cherished fantasy, already riddled all over, like a colander.Axel
September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PST
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply