Origenes on the self-defeating incoherence of the [hyper-]skeptic

That's fine, it is a good point. KF kairosfocus

Origenes. a missing factor is the hold of Newton's laws of mechanics, extended to a whole view of the world at that time. Some were convinced of global mechanical necessity to the point of, the first moment of the cosmos determines all else since to mathematical precision.This made belief in freedom difficult to sustain. That is what Kant faced. This of course cries out for the self moved rational soul as a first requisite of even doing philosophy, but to those locked into a system, that seems little more than a clever verbal trick. To those caught up in the evolutionary materialist web, the same seems so today. The rot runs deep, and it is hard for many to take courage of logic and recognise that determinisms destroy any basis for even the reasoning that gets to determinism. KF kairosfocus

//Moderator, please remove @47. It is posted in the wrong thread.// Origenes

Kant takes it for granted that the best science is Newtonian mechanics, which is fully deterministic. So if Newtonian mechanics were absolutely true — true about how the world in itself really is — there’s no free will, and probably no personal immortality and probably no God …

It is clear as day that determinism does not allow for a person who is in control of his actions and thoughts and is, therefore, utterly incompatible with any rational inquiry, including science. The fully deterministic materialism of Kant’s days should have received nothing but ridicule as a metaphysical hypothesis.

Kant wants to construct a barrier between science and metaphysics in order to prevent physics (the best science of his day) from leading to naturalism (no God, no free will, no soul).

Determinism is simply utterly absurd and unacceptable. It cannot be taken seriously. Did Kant not know this? 1.) If determinism is true, then all our actions and thoughts are consequences of events and laws of nature in the remote past before we were born. 2.) We have no control over circumstances that existed in the remote past before we were born, nor do we have any control over the laws of nature. 3.) If A causes B, and we have no control over A, and A is sufficient for B, then we have no control over B. Therefore 4.) If determinism is true, then we have no control over our own actions and thoughts. - - - - Kant needed 50 books to erect some half-baked barrier against determinism, while it took me just 4 lines to completely demolish it …. Origenes

PM1, 36:

[KF:] you have been repeatedly answered point by point and have no actual demonstration of blind chance and mechanical necessity producing FSCO/I beyond 500 to 1,000 bits on observation. [PM1] I don’t accept that as a criterion, because it relies on assimilating biology to engineering, and I regard that as a catastrophic error. One might as well be using a lawn-mower to bake a cake.

In steps: >>I don’t accept that as a criterion, because it relies on assimilating biology to engineering,>> 1: Wrong word, setting up a strawman that would be a begging of the question. 2: Notice, the actual descriptive phrase that builds on Orgel and Wicken: functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information, with a threshold of 500 - 1,000 bits of compact description length. Observe, it nowhere injects engineering as a prior concept. 3: Instead, functionally specific organisation is a commonplace observed phenomenon. The text of your objection is a case in point, a string of characters in English. 4: So is a nut-bolt pair, or a gear, or a fishing reel or a watch or an instrument on the dashboard of a 747, or a reciprocating engine, or a turboprop, or a high bypass fan jet, or the process flow network of a petroleum refinery. 5: So is a ribosome, so is the metabolic process flow network of the cell, so is protein synthesis, so are many protein codes stored in DNA or when transcribed, edited and expressed in mRNA, etc etc. So is the eye, so are flight feathers, so are animal and aircraft wings, and so are many other cases. 6: The issue then, is to be willing to acknowledge that FSCO/I is an observable reality, and those who try to deny or dismiss this had better show us that these cases are not in any significant degree dependent on correct parts, properly oriented and arranged then coupled together and that their relevant function could readily be fulfilled without resort to any particularly fine tuned array of components. 7: We can comfortably conclude that such an alternative is not the case and that the dismissiveness highlighted is tellingly unwarranted. 8: The issue then becomes, what best explains the cause of FSCO/I, to which trillions of observed cases tell us, design. That is, intelligently directed configuration, what Paley meant by contrivance. 9: Where, the attempted evolutionary out fails as -- ever since Paley pointed it out in 1802 -- it is manifestly the case that a self replication facility is a significant further increment of FSCO/I. Here, the logical focal case is claimed OoL in a darwin pond or the like, where 10: for cause, "emergence" must only be allowed to hold its empirically defensible sense: what arises in a system because of the arrangement and interaction of components, e.g. packing of Na+ and Cl- ions in a salt crystal, or of various domains in a high alloy steel jet turbine single crystal blade, or a house, or an FM radio receiver, or a bacterial flagellum. >>and I regard that as a catastrophic error. >> 11: Yes, you here set up a strawman to knock it over. >>One might as well be using a lawn-mower to bake a cake.>> 12: Resort to an irrelevant metaphor. However, I do note that the industrial dough kneading machine I just was watching, requires many correctly arranged parts, and involves a high power rotary motor; a single phase cap start cap run squirrel cage induction motor unit I believe, that runs parallel to an electric lawn mower or weed whacker, and is similar to a gas engine lawn mower. KF kairosfocus

Jerry, I suggest, we refer explicitly to the moderate form of the pessimistic induction. Given the track record of scientific theories since the 1500s, no theory rises to moral certainty. What may be morally certain is empirical reliability of a body of weak sense knowledge in a tested gamut of investigation or praxis. But that "begs the question" of adequate warrant, which notoriously did not obtain across the recent pandemic, huffing and puffing over gold standards notwithstanding. Where, cumulative evidence counts. Proverbially, a chain is no stronger than its weakest link. However, a rope is a SYSTEM. Due to twisting, counter twisting and re twisting or even braiding, a rope made of many short, weak fibres can be long, strong and reliable, invulnerable to failure of any one fibre. KF kairosfocus

PS, Paley, in Ch 2:

Suppose, in the next place, that the person who found the watch [in a field and stumbled on the stone in Ch 1 just past, where this is 50 years before Darwin in Ch 2 of a work Darwin full well knew about] should after some time discover that, in addition to

[--> here cf encapsulated, gated, metabolising automaton, and note, "stickiness" of molecules raises a major issue of interfering cross reactions thus very carefully controlled organised reactions are at work in life . . . ]

all the properties [= specific, organised, information-rich functionality] which he had hitherto observed in it, it possessed the unexpected property of producing in the course of its movement another watch like itself [--> i.e. self replication, cf here the code using von Neumann kinematic self replicator that is relevant to first cell based life] -- the thing is conceivable [= this is a gedankenexperiment, a thought exercise to focus relevant principles and issues]; that it contained within it a mechanism, a system of parts -- a mold, for instance, or a complex adjustment of lathes, baffles, and other tools -- evidently and separately calculated for this purpose [--> it exhibits functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information; where, in mid-late C19, cell based life was typically thought to be a simple jelly-like affair, something molecular biology has long since taken off the table but few have bothered to pay attention to Paley since Darwin] . . . . The first effect would be to increase his admiration of the contrivance, and his conviction of the consummate skill of the contriver. Whether he regarded the object of the contrivance, the distinct apparatus, the intricate, yet in many parts intelligible mechanism by which it was carried on, he would perceive in this new observation nothing but an additional reason for doing what he had already done -- for referring the construction of the watch to design and to supreme art

[--> directly echoes Plato in The Laws Bk X on the ART-ificial (as opposed to the strawman tactic "supernatural") vs the natural in the sense of blind chance and/or mechanical necessity as serious alternative causal explanatory candidates; where also the only actually observed cause of FSCO/I is intelligently configured configuration, i.e. contrivance or design]

. . . . He would reflect, that though the watch before him were, in some sense, the maker of the watch, which, was fabricated in the course of its movements, yet it was in a very different sense from that in which a carpenter, for instance, is the maker of a chair -- the author of its contrivance, the cause of the relation of its parts to their use [--> i.e. design]. . . . . We might possibly say, but with great latitude of expression, that a stream of water ground corn ; but no latitude of expression would allow us to say, no stretch cf conjecture could lead us to think, that the stream of water built the mill, though it were too ancient for us to know who the builder was. What the stream of water does in the affair is neither more nor less than this: by the application of an unintelligent impulse to a mechanism previously arranged, arranged independently of it and arranged by intelligence, an effect is produced, namely, the corn is ground. But the effect results from the arrangement. [--> points to intelligently directed configuration as the observed and reasonably inferred source of FSCO/I] The force of the stream cannot be said to be the cause or the author of the effect, still less of the arrangement. Understanding and plan in the formation of the mill were not the less necessary for any share which the water has in grinding the corn; yet is this share the same as that which the watch would have contributed to the production of the new watch . . . . Though it be now no longer probable that the individual watch which our observer had found was made immediately by the hand of an artificer, yet doth not this alteration in anywise affect the inference, that an artificer had been originally employed and concerned in the production. The argument from design remains as it was. Marks of design and contrivance are no more accounted for now than they were before. In the same thing, we may ask for the cause of different properties. We may ask for the cause of the color of a body, of its hardness, of its heat ; and these causes may be all different. We are now asking for the cause of that subserviency to a use, that relation to an end, which we have remarked in the watch before us. No answer is given to this question, by telling us that a preceding watch produced it. There cannot be design without a designer; contrivance, without a contriver; order [--> better, functionally specific organisation], without choice; arrangement, without any thing capable of arranging; subserviency and relation to a purpose, without that which could intend a purpose; means suitable to an end, and executing their office in accomplishing that end, without the end ever having been contemplated, or the means accommodated to it. Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of means to an end, relation of instruments to a use, imply the presence of intelligence and mind. No one, therefore, can rationally believe that the insensible, inanimate watch, from which the watch before us issued, was the proper cause of the mechanism we so much admire m it — could be truly said to have constructed the instrument, disposed its parts, assigned their office, determined their order, action, and mutual dependency, combined their several motions into one result, and that also a result connected with the utilities of other beings. All these properties, therefore, are as much unaccounted for as they were before. Nor is any thing gained by running the difficulty farther back, that is, by supposing the watch before us to have been produced from another watch, that from a former, and so on indefinitely. Our going back ever so far brings us no nearer to the least degree of satisfaction upon the subject. Contrivance is still unaccounted for. We still want a contriver. A designing mind is neither supplied by this supposition nor dispensed with. If the difficulty were diminished the farther we went back, by going back indefinitely we might exhaust it. And this is the only case to which this sort of reasoning applies. "Where there is a tendency, or, as we increase the number of terms, a continual approach towards a limit, there, by supposing the number of terms to be what is called infinite, we may conceive the limit to be attained; but where there is no such tendency or approach, nothing is effected by lengthening the series . . . , And the question which irresistibly presses upon our thoughts is. Whence this contrivance and design ? The thing required is the intending mind, the adapted hand, the intelligence by which that hand was directed. This question, this demand, is not shaken off by increasing a number or succession of substances destitute of these properties; nor the more, by increasing that number to infinity. If it be said, that upon the supposition of one watch being produced from another in the course of that other's movements, and by means of the mechanism within it, we have a cause for the watch in my hand, namely, the watch from which it proceeded — I deny, that for the design, the contrivance, the suitableness of means to an end, the adaptation of instruments to a use, all of which we discover in the watch, we have any cause whatever. It is in vain, therefore, to assign a series of such causes, or to allege that a series may be carried back to infinity; for I do not admit that we have yet any cause at all for the phenomena, still less any series of causes either finite or infinite. Here is contrivance, but no contriver; proofs of design, but no designer. [Paley, Nat Theol, Ch 2]

kairosfocus

PM1, as you know or should acknowledge, the first context of the design inference and FSCO/I relevant to the world of life is a darwin pond or the like, dominated by physics, chemistry and thermodynamics. Your strawman about holding biology to an engineering frame fails. First, this is pre biology. Second, part of what is to be explained is the molecular nanotech, coded information and algorithm using von neumann kinematic self replicator which is itself a huge increment of information. Without self replication, there is no reproduction so no differential reproductive success. Then, too, the origin of coded algorithmic information, system function and fine tuned integration issues do not go away once cells are present. That is, you cannot plausibly get copious information and organisation beyond 500 - 1,000 bits by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. It remains true that FSCO/I has but one observed source, design. Intelligently directed configuration, and the first example is text . . . originally raised by Cicero. KF kairosfocus

F/N: Let us refocus Origenes in the OP, which exposes the core dynamic:

The skeptic wants to criticize, but he doesn’t want to be criticized himself. We all make statements of belief, skeptics included. But the skeptic posits a closed circle in which no beliefs are justified. Yet at the same time, he arrogates to himself a position outside of this circle by which he can judge the beliefs of others, a move he denies to his opponents.

This brings out a core challenge that materially reduces worldviews analysis to comparative difficulties. Namely, self-referentiality and its implications for explicit or implied knowledge claims. We are, after all, part of our world, we are assessing the strengths and limitations of our own rationality and ability to know reality. Where, too, on knowledge, a slight modification to Dallas Willard and heirs is manifestly right:

To have knowledge in the dispositional sense—where you know things you are not necessarily thinking about at the time—is to be able to represent something as it is on an adequate basis of thought or experience, not to exclude communications from qualified sources (“authority”). This is the “knowledge” of ordinary life, and it is what you expect of your electrician, auto mechanic, math teacher, and physician. Knowledge is not rare, and it is not esoteric [--> knowledge belongs to the people and the hyperskeptic who would reduce it to a rare bird indeed is manifestly wrong] . . . no satisfactory general description of “an adequate basis of thought or experience” has ever been achieved. [--> see Greenleaf on evidence and adequate warrant to moral certainty in court, this was long since known, also, the Godel results undermine Geometry and Math as gold standard of absolutely certain systematic knowledge] We are nevertheless able to determine in many specific types of cases that such a basis is or is not present [p.19] . . . . Knowledge, but not mere belief or feeling, generally confers the right to act and to direct action, or even to form and supervise policy. [p. 20] [--> something that irks ideologues when that authority is not firmly in their grasp and control, as they cannot monopolise legitimacy and impose their agenda. cf. 1984 . . . and current events] In any area of human activity, knowledge brings certain advantages. Special considerations aside, knowledge authorizes one to act, to direct action, to develop and supervise policy, and to teach. It does so because, as everyone assumes, it enables us to deal more successfully with reality: with what we can count on, have to deal with, or are apt to have bruising encounters with. Knowledge involves assured [--> warranted, credible] truth, and truth in our representations and beliefs is very like accuracy in the sighting mechanism on a gun. If the mechanism is accurately aligned—is “true,” it enables those who use it with care to hit an intended target. [p. 4, Dallas Willard & Literary Heirs, The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge, Routledge|Taylor& Francis Group, 2018. ]

Now, what this means is what Origenes highlighted: the would be global skeptic is caught up in his own web. He cannot stand outside the circle, he is inherently self referential. And then, Jerry has a serious point about the tendency of skeptics to project to the despised other while being evasive when confronted with the self referentiality of their assertions and projections. That is then compounded when the hyperskepticism is not global but selective and targetting of the other. For, such inevitably brings the stand outside the circle double standard down to the topic and people targetted. For, with similar cases we have dismissive skepticism for thee but unwarranted credulity for me. This is the we cornered the market on knowledge effect. We are dressed in the holy lab coat and what we say goes, Winston. I suspect, at naive level, this is often a case of blindly going with the flow, part of a widespread problem of want of careful, instructed logical thought. But at another level, blameworthiness enters. For, once a double standard is exposed, we should fix it. This of course points to yet another unpopular insight. Namely, that our rational freedom is by the very fact of freedom, morally governed. It is not blind stochastic and/or mechanically necessary output, it is responsible reasoning based on built in first duties. That comes out strongly in how attempts to dismiss first duties consistently break down by self referentiality. The objectors appeal to what they try to dismiss. Double standard. That then poses the challenge, does one stick to the double standard or go with the correction of error. Too often, the answer is evasiveness or pumping out a toxic, accusatory squid ink rhetorical cloud while trying to escape behind it. In that context, a trifecta pattern tied to Alinsky's self-admittedly devillish rules for radicals crops up. And yes, what do you think it means when you dedicate a book to the devil? Over a decade ago, elsewhere, I noticed that too many skeptical objectors showed selective hyperskepticism. In the course of arguing with such, I repeatedly saw apattern: red herring distractors, led away to strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems and set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere, frustrating responsible discussion. That pattern is sadly manifest and all too common to this day. It is also revealing on motivation and agenda, BTW readily explaining the saw off the branch on which we sit resistance to the first duties of responsible reason. Instead of doubling down on error like that, let us turn to a duly chastened comparative difficulties approach. We err, error undeniably exists and this is a first truth and first point of knowledge that leads to prudence and seeking adequate warrant tempered by defeasibility of weak sense common sense knowledge. So far, credibly right -- true -- and reliable belief held on a warrant. Yesterday, I deferred to the authority and experience of a plumber to fix a sewage line. Later today, I will visit him at his shop to talk multimedia ideas . . . especially whether and how PTZ security cameras can be adapted to teleconferencing and streaming. Knowledge belongs to the people and is not rare. The hyperskeptics must become willing to acknowledge this widespread phenomenon. And yes, the narrator criticising the six blind men was implying superior objective knowledge. KF kairosfocus

I had to discontinue it because it made me disingenuous

An extremely disingenuous comment. Proves my point. Typical hyperskeptical comment. jerry

I tried medication for my hyper-skepticality. I had to discontinue it because it made me disingenuous.... chuckdarwin

Origenes at 35, Remember, if you want to create a Woke Mob Dictatorship you take over the Universities, you dictate which words are acceptable to your group and which words can be censored. And this is nothing less than a dictatorship. relatd

As to trying to mock exposure of a sadly typical hyperskeptical Alinsky tactic trifecta rhetorical pattern [red herrings > strawman caricatures > ad hominems] you are actually exemplifying it in this thread

Translation:

Anti ID responders use the same extremely disingenuous pattern over and over. Reply with: red herrings strawman and ad hominems (preferred.) As if they are real and relevant when they are obviously not. A pattern recommended by Alinsky.

I am equating “hyperskeptical” with extremely disingenuous. If one puts a space in hyperskeptical the expression becomes meaningful in normal English but not the intended meaning of the word used by Kf. Hyper skeptical is a legitimate position in many cases. For example, US government health care prescriptions. While hyperskeptical implies disingenuous behavior. Disingenuous behavior describes the anti ID person accurately. Aside: challenge: find an anti ID comment that is not of this pattern which means Kf’s obscure rhetoric is right on. jerry

I’m tired of repeating myself

Translation: I haven’t got anything but I will keep on pretending that I do. And I will cite a lot of names and obscure concepts to show how well read I am even if I cannot use what they say coherently. In other words, dazzle/baffle them with BS. Aside: does the anti ID person have anything besides BS? They never tire of repeating the same incoherent nonsense despite the claims of being tired repeating their nonsense. jerry

@33

you have been repeatedly answered point by point and have no actual demonstration of blind chance and mechanical necessity producing FSCO/I beyond 500 to 1,000 bits on observation.

I don't accept that as a criterion, because it relies on assimilating biology to engineering, and I regard that as a catastrophic error. One might as well be using a lawn-mower to bake a cake.

There are trillions of cases by FSCO/I by design, warranting recognising it as a sign of design and reason to accept that entities capable of such were there.

I think that this a serious misunderstanding of information theory and how to use information theory to conceptualize semantics. PyrrhoManiac1

Kairosfocus @

... it remains clear that hyperskepticism as a worldview level claim faces self referentiality and turns out to be generally self defeating. KF

There is still a fair amount of hope for the hyperskeptic, rumors have it that Stanford University contemplates adding 'self-defeating' to its 'harmful language' list, that now includes the words ‘American’ and ‘survivor.’ Origenes

KF/31 What kind of dressing would you like with your word salad? I mean do you actually read the stuff you post?

As to trying to mock exposure of a sadly typical hyperskeptical Alinsky tactic trifecta rhetorical pattern [red herrings > strawman caricatures > ad hominems] you are actually exemplifying it in this thread.

On the increasingly fewer occasions when I try to read your stuff, I keep recollecting WC Fields: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with b*llsh*t." Amen...... chuckdarwin

PM1, you know that you have been repeatedly answered point by point and have no actual demonstration of blind chance and mechanical necessity producing FSCO/I beyond 500 to 1,000 bits on observation. There are trillions of cases by FSCO/I by design, warranting recognising it as a sign of design and reason to accept that entities capable of such were there. Meanwhile, it remains clear that hyperskepticism as a worldview level claim faces self referentiality and turns out to be generally self defeating. KF kairosfocus

SG, on the pyramids, even Wikipedia has to admit bafflement as to how they were built and you were present when that howtwerdun puzzlement was drawn out. The obvious ramp is infeasible and other types are a puzzle. The logistics of 70 ton stones or even that of 2 - 3 ton ones at one every three minutes for a decade or two and much more reduce us to unsettled debates on construction. This, you either know or should acknowledge. Already, you appeal to signs of design and the inference, so you know or should know that design is readily inferred on sign. As for the hieroglyphic code in pyramids and other monuments of Egypt, the DIRECT comparison is alphanumeric, algorithmic code and molecular nanotech execution machinery in the cell, which also requires key-lock fitting fine tuning. You and others tried to dismiss it and pretend . . . yes, it is a clear rhetorical pretence . . . that the consensus expressed from Crick to Lehninger and even admitted by Wikipedia that this is genuinely a code is not there. All of that goes to show fundamental unseriousness on the part of objectors. As to trying to mock exposure of a sadly typical hyperskeptical Alinsky tactic trifecta rhetorical pattern [red herrings > strawman caricatures > ad hominems] you are actually exemplifying it in this thread. Gaslighting and piling on or drumbeat repetition of corrected error all add up and not in your favour. The slander that the design inference on logic dating to Plato in The Laws Bk X 2360 years ago is recycling of Bible based religious interpretation is just that, slander that was used to get a particularly bad court decision. As for the recycled arguments on "emergentism," this is yet again repetition of the something from nothing fallacy. The only actually observed source of alphanumeric code, algorithms, wider FSCO/I beyond 500 to 1,000 bits etc is intelligently directed configuration. To prevent ideological captivity of science, we for cause insist on Newton;s rule that proposed causes be actually observed capable of the like effect. OoL and origin of body plans are standing demonstration that evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers come up short. KF kairosfocus

SG at 29, I've quoted Biology textbooks and Ba77 has produced a large body of evidence that shows evolution is the wrong answer. That the complexity of living things that we can observe today, right now, are beyond its capabilities. I think your attraction to textbook evolution is more than just any supposed science involved, which boils down to storytelling in the end. You talk about the tool marks regarding the construction of the pyramids but ignore living things which have their own tool marks. Generating novel organs from thin air or design? Make up your mind. The complexity of the cell indicates clearly that it was designed. From the code it uses, to its interconnected functions, to the molecular switches that control the activities within it. And then, realizing this, which can be observed, you will still believe evolution can do this? Based on what? relatd

Origenes: As has been pointed out to you, we have currently no step-by-step knowledge about the building of the Piramides. Tell me, in your opinion, how detrimental is that fact to the design hypothesis?

We have tool marks, we have tools, we have inscriptions and hieroglyphics, we have evidence of continual human habitation, we know what humans are capable of, we have documented evidence of various parts of the construction of the pyramids. We know where and how the blocks were quarried. So I am fairly confident that the pyramids were built by humans. Do you have anything remotely like this for the design of life? I didn’t think so. Sir Giles

Relatd: And the steps you’re looking for. What happens when you get them? What then?

If you can provide the steps, and the evidence to support them, I would conclude that design is the most likely explanation. But, given the evidence we have so far, from multiple areas of science, evolution appears to be the best explanation. Sir Giles

SG

Provide us with the steps the designer used to create the flagellum.

As has been pointed out to you, we have currently no step-by-step knowledge about the building of the Piramides. Tell me, in your opinion, how detrimental is that fact to the design hypothesis? Origenes

SG at 26, ID, as science, cannot identify the designer, but the Catholic Church can. And the steps you're looking for. What happens when you get them? What then? relatd

Relatd: Intelligent Design has been shown to be true. That will always be my point.

Really? Provide us with the steps the designer used to create the flagellum. The eye. Same sex attraction. You guys keep saying that ID is fact because we can’t provide you with the steps evolution followed to produce them. But ID can’t provide the steps either. Does that mean they are both wrong? Sir Giles

SG @21 So, according to you, the arguments that ID offers, such as: 'irreducible complexity', 'complex specified functional information', 'the conservation of information', 'fine-tuning' and so on, are somehow arguments from the scripture? Is that why you call ID 'creationism'? Origenes

SG at 23, Oh please. Politics again? It's just politics? Talk about the actual scientific observations ID makes. Talk about that. I'm not a "follower" of anybody. Intelligent Design has been shown to be true. That will always be my point. relatd

Relatd: ID is just rebranded/relabeled Creationism? It isn’t. I think you know that.

Scientific Creationism was a rebranding of Creationism. iD was a rebranding of Scientific Creationism. The evidence is seen in an earlier draft of Wells and Dembski’s book. “Find-and-replace”doesn’t lie. Sir Giles

SG at 21, ID is just rebranded/relabeled Creationism? It isn't. I think you know that. The complexity of a single living cell, the instructions that control it, its internal repair mechanism and molecular switches. Accidents didn't make it happen or come to life. A recent book about the complexity of the human body and the interdependence of its parts drew this (non) "review" on Amazon. "Should be in the religion section." No attempt to refute any of the observations in the book that any scientist could examine right now. Just the (fake) insistence that actual scientific observation is religion. That's inane, stupid and wrong. But something tells me you would say something similar if not the same thing. relatd

Origenes: It should be noted that Emergentism is nothing but a desperate attempt to repair the failed philosophy of naturalism

As ID nothing but a desperate attempt to repair the failed philosophy of Creationism. Sir Giles

PM1: I’ve explained before why that’s not true. I’m tired of repeating myself so I won’t rehearse what’s already fallen on deaf ears.

Your turnabout projection is very telling. As is your hyper-skepticism and dismissiveness. Topped only by your erection (I am tempted to stop here, but I don’t want KF to get excited) of a strawman set ablaze with oil of red herring. There is more to say, but Plato’s cave and Cicero are calling. Something about lemmings and cliffs. Sir Giles

PM1 on emergence being *POOF* magic:

I’ve explained before why that’s not true. I’m tired of repeating myself so I won’t rehearse what’s already fallen on deaf ears.

It should be noted that emergentism is nothing but a desperate attempt to repair the failed philosophy of naturalism. Naturalism started off by positing that particles in the void are all that exist. A massive blunder because it should have been immediately apparent to anyone that such does not allow for adequate rationality; IOW that it undercuts itself as a coherent rational inquiry. So, naturalism as a philosophy was a non-starter from the very beginning. In hindsight, the stupidity that brought it into existence is truly astounding. Yet the failed hypothesis dominates science and institutions ... I truly feel utterly ashamed of my fellow men. Origenes

KF and Origenes When you two are finally done patting each other on the back, you're more than welcome to come fishin' with me in my leaky boat. I know some really premium trout streams we can float out here in the Rockies. Life jackets are optional. Row, row, row your boat..... chuckdarwin

@16

emergence is manifestly a something from utter non being or chaos poof magic that cannot back up the IF

I've explained before why that's not true. I'm tired of repeating myself so I won't rehearse what's already fallen on deaf ears. PyrrhoManiac1

PM1, the Spartans famously answered a threat by another city state: IF. That is your problem, emergence is manifestly a something from utter non being or chaos poof magic that cannot back up the IF. KF kairosfocus

@11

the only viable answer is, the only credible worldviews are those that have room for rational, responsible, significantly free creatures such as we evidently are; if we are not, rational dialogue and knowledge collapse.

Just for the record, I actually agree with you about that. The main point of contention is that I think there naturalism can easily accommodate this challenge, if (1) the concept of emergence is defensible and (2) emergent naturalism is entitled to hold that teleology, intentionality, rationality, and consciousness are emergent phenomena. But, we've been down that road before, and I don't see much point in another round of mutual incomprehension. PyrrhoManiac1

Kairosfocus, in #11 you say exactly what I think, only you say it better. Origenes

PM1, my outline response there is here. KF kairosfocus

Origenes, you anticipated part of my just now reply to CD. He evidently is in that unhappy, leaking boat. KF kairosfocus

CD, self referentiality of arguments is a huge bugbear, with two key problems. One, can be question begging circularity. The other is far more deadly, self referential incoherence, thence self contradiction and the principle of explosion. As Origenes showed, it is the case for grand skepticism and it easily becomes the case for Agrippa's trilemma. Of course, on worldview level matters, this is redoubled as we are part of the world to be accounted for and self referentiality is inevitable. BTW, this is a key reason for why all significant worldviews face difficulties, and the only viable answer is, the only credible worldviews are those that have room for rational, responsible, significantly free creatures such as we evidently are; if we are not, rational dialogue and knowledge collapse. As a simple example, the blind men and elephants story is often used to relativise knowledge and truth claims, but lurking there is the implicit objectivity of the narrator. So, yes it often comes up, precisely as it is a central problem but one many are unaware of. Indeed, your attempted dismissiveness indicates that you are in that unhappy, leaking boat. KF kairosfocus

Kairosfocus @3

As for global skepticism it is self referential, self referentiality is a main reason why philosophy bristles with difficulties.

I could not agree more. As you suggest, self referential incoherence is not restricted to global skepticism. Indeed, we see philosophies occupying center stage that do not allow for adequate rationality, thereby undercutting themselves as a coherent quest for truth. Unfortunately, there seems to be no general awareness WRT this huge problem. Origenes

@CD, never said I’d purchase Twitter lol AaronS1978

AS1978 I’m not sure buying Twitter is a prudent move. For one thing, I’m sure it would be grossly overpriced. But knock yourself out….. chuckdarwin

My response to the argument in the OP is here. PyrrhoManiac1

@2

the circle metaphor originates with Jim Slagle, who applied it to Freudianism and Marxism, in his book ‘The Epistemological Skyhook.’

Is that book worth reading? I've had my eye on it for a while, and it seems intriguing. I see that Slagle also has a forthcoming book on Plantinga's EAAN. I've long found the EAAN quite deeply confused and unpersuasive, but perhaps Slagle can change my mind. Not that it matters, but I'm inclined to think that Slagle is wrong about Marx and Freud. I don't think either of them, read carefully, are committed to arrogating to themselves an exception that they claim holds of everyone else. They are "local skeptics": they debunk very specific claims about capitalism or about the mind, but they uphold more general claims, such as standards of evidence and criteria of of evaluation of scientific theories. By contrast, Nietzsche is a global skeptic: he casts doubt on truly comprehensive ideas, such as the value of morality or the value of rationality. Nietzsche is fascinating because he is perhaps the most radical skeptic in the entire Western tradition -- far more radical than Montaigne or Hume. This is why Nietzsche's response to "but you've just contradicted yourself!" is to say "yeah, I know, so what?" This is why, I think, the easy and popular conflation of Marx and Freud with Nietzsche is quite badly misleading: Marx and Freud are beholden to epistemic and ethical principles that Nietzsche openly rejects. Marx and Freud are certainly quite radical and subversive up to a point. Marx is critical of the idea that capitalism is the best we could do, in terms of building a society that realizes the values of freedom and equality, but he doesn't call those values into question. Nietzsche calls into question the value of equality itself. Freud is critical of the idea that we are aware of all mental contents, but he doesn't call into question the value of self-knowledge. Nietzsche replaces the scientific goal of self-knowledge with the aesthetic goal of self-transformation -- "creating oneself as a work of art". Anyway, sorry for the tangent, but I wanted to say something about why it's a mistake to read Freud and Marx as Skeptics, in the same sense that Nietzsche is a Skeptic. PyrrhoManiac1

If I had a nickel for every time CD replied to an OP by mocking it I’d think I’d have enough cash to purchase Twitter. AaronS1978

If us "skeptics" had a nickel for every time the phrase "the self-defeating incoherence of the [hyper-]skeptic" appears in these comments, we could take a nice long vacation to Maui and go real surfing. Seriously, what does that phrase even mean? Sounds to me like just a one long theistic whine.... chuckdarwin

Origenes, you have been a fishing in waters the hyperskeptics have posted, NO FISHIN. Now we can see why. As for global skepticism it is self referential, self referentiality is a main reason why philosophy bristles with difficulties. Stanford, if it means that global skepticism is not self referential, fails at that point. Good catch. KF kairosfocus

KF@ Thank you for headlining my post, the circle metaphor originates with Jim Slagle, who applied it to Freudianism and Marxism, in his book ‘The Epistemological Skyhook.’ - - - Some comments on the Stanford entry on "Skepticism” by J. Comesaña. “Pyrrhonian Skepticism”:

But some skeptics are skeptics regarding second- (and higher-) order propositions as well as regarding first-order propositions. Following the same ancient tradition, we will call that kind of skepticism “Pyrrhonian Skepticism”. Without any claim to historical accuracy, we will take Pyrrhonian Skepticism to be absolute skepticism—the thesis that suspension of judgment is the only justified attitude with respect to any proposition p. Is Pyrrhonian Skepticism so understood self-refuting?

Allow me to answer this question: (1.) Suspension of judgment is the only justified attitude with respect to ANY proposition p. (2.) (1.) is itself a proposition. From (1.) and (2.) (3.) Suspension of judgment is the only justified attitude with respect to (1.) What does conclusion (3.) mean? It means that we do not know whether or not “Suspension of judgment is the only justified attitude with respect to any proposition p” is true. So, applied to itself, proposition (1.) undercuts itself. It is clearly a self-contradictory statement. The Stanford article goes on to argue that the proposition “the only justified attitude with respect to the proposition that p is suspension of judgment” is not self-contradictory. I agree with this, of course. Surely, it might be the case that suspension of judgment is the justified attitude towards some particular proposition. However, the claim becomes self-contradictory when it is about ANY proposition (which includes itself). So, what is the Stanford article doing here? I really don’t know. Perhaps someone can explain. – – – – More Stanford:

Agrippa’s trilemma, then, can be presented thus: (1.) If a belief is justified, then it is either a basic justified belief or an inferentially justified belief. (2.) There are no basic justified beliefs. Therefore, (3.) If a belief is justified, then it is justified in virtue of belonging to an inferential chain. (4.) All inferential chains are such that either (a) they contain an infinite number of beliefs; or (b) they contain circles; or (c) they contain beliefs that are not justified. (5.) No belief is justified in virtue of belonging to an infinite inferential chain. (6.) No belief is justified in virtue of belonging to a circular inferential chain. (7.) No belief is justified in virtue of belonging to an inferential chain that contains unjustified beliefs. Therefore, (8.)There are no justified beliefs.

At first glance (8.) is clearly a self-contradictory statement. But perhaps there is a reason that it cannot be applied to itself? Unwittingly the Stanford article assures us that it can be applied to itself:

It is interesting to note that Agrippa’s trilemma is perfectly general; in particular, it applies to philosophical positions as well as to ordinary propositions.

OK! It applies to everything! Well, let’s apply it to itself then: (1.) There are no justified beliefs. (2.) (1.) is itself a belief. From (1.) and (2.) (3.) (1.) is not a justified belief. What does (3.) mean? It means that it is not justified to hold the belief that there are no justified beliefs. It follows that there are justified beliefs. Conclusion: ‘Agrippa’s trilemma’ is perfectly self-refuting nonsense … The Stanford article somehow fails to notice this obvious fact. Origenes

Origenes on the self-defeating incoherence of the [hyper-]skeptic kairosfocus