Why do Some Materialists Insist on Wallowing in Obvious Error?

_{Barry Arrington

August 14, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

In the combox to the do we need context post a materialist who goes by RDFish states this regarding a non-repeating series of prime numbers (comment 48):

The only known source of such a series is a human source.

Fish then emphatically declares that absolutely nothing can be inferred about the source of the series other than the fact that it is able to produce the series (comment 125).

I corrected Fish by showing how from his own concession an inference to the best explanation could be made. I argued as follows:

1. The only known cause of Y is Z.
2. We observe a particular instance of Y.
3. Because Z is the only known cause of Y, the inference to the best explanation is that this particular instance of Y was also caused by Z.

Because “intelligence” is the only known cause of a non-repeating series of primes, we can infer that the best explanation we currently have for this particular instance of non-repeating primes from an unknown source is “act of an intelligent agent.”

Fish is having none of it. He writes (comment 158):

Not only do I deny we could draw any warranted inferences about the source, but I also argue that “the ID inference” is underspecified to the point of meaninglessness.

Sometimes you’ve just got to slap your head and wonder why. Why do some people insist on wallowing in their error? The answer is not because RDFish is a materialist. Anyone who has ever read the book or seen the move Contact would know that famous materialist Carl Sagan would have disagreed with RDFish and readily conceded that the series was produced by an intelligent agent. Even uber-materialist Elizabeth Liddle has admitted in these pages that “act of an intelligent agent” is the best explanation for the data. See here.

Why then? Why does an obviously intelligent and articulate person insist on spewing such blithering idiocy? It is a mystery to me. Can someone explain it to me?

Update:
The best answer so far comes from Vishnu: “I suspect it’s because he gets some sort of enjoyment by being a difficult jackass on pro-ID blogs.”

Vishnu’s answer is parsimonious and accounts for the data admirably.

Comments

Mark Frank @ 10
But abstract reasoning is a whole bunch of capabilities of which creating strings of prime numbers is one very small part.
At least you recognize that creating strings of prime numbers is, in fact, a capability of abstract reasoning. But unlike you, RDFish has yet to admit that however small the capability to create strings of prime numbers may be, abstract reasoning can't be inferred from it.Charles_{August 14, 2014
August
08
Aug
14
14
2014
11:37 PM
11
11
37
PM
PDT}

Acartia_bogart @ 5
But I am surprised that nobody countered with the fact that the signal was “transmitted”, somehow, and therefore adds considerable additional context and information.
It was my post 41 with which RDFish first disagreed, in which I stated "Given the phrase “a non-repeating series of prime numbers” in the context of conscious living beings observing that phrase encoded in radiation wavelengths impinging on all telescopes simultaneously around the globe, the source of this “noumena” is:"
He simply said that you could infer almost nothing about a series of prime number without additional context.
No, not "almost nothing", rather he argued not even just intelligence could be inferred. No one argued that "beliefs, desires, intentions, and emotions. These assumptions are completely unwarranted" - that was RDFish's opening strawman.
RDFish even opened the door for others, but they never grasped it.
He kept trying to change the subject from the original post about inferring intelligence from a complex message or series of primes, to his preferred subject of the meaning of intelligence. He slammed the door shut on the original subject and kept trying to pry open his own door for his own personal agenda.Charles_{August 14, 2014
August
08
Aug
14
14
2014
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT}

Barry – why do you persist in turning rather interesting debating points into shouting matches? Presumably not because you are an immaterialist – Gpuccio and VJ Torley would never do that. As RDFish showed with many examples, the argument of the form: 1. The only known cause of Y is Z.2. We observe a particular instance of Y.3. Because Z is the only known cause of Y, the inference to the best explanation is that this particular instance of Y was also caused by Z. Is not as obvious as it first appears. It rather depends on how you define Z. Options include: 1 Human being with the education and desire to produce strings of prime numbers 2 Human being 3 Living organism that thinks, feels and acts like a human being 4 Living organism that is capable of generating strings of prime numbers 5 Thing that is capable of generating strings of prime numbers These are all true descriptions of the only currently known cause of generating strings of prime numbers. As I understand it, RDFish’s point is that given that we know it is not a human being then can we infer anything about Z except the last? Can we conclude the source feels and acts like a human being? Can we conclude it is a living organism? Looking at the comments I believe you argue that we create prime numbers through “abstract reasoning” and therefore the best explanation is that the source is capable of abstract reasoning. I could insert that in the sequence above as 3a Living organism that is capable of abstract reasoning. You treat intelligence/abstract reasoning as though it were a single indivisible attribute. But it isn’t. But abstract reasoning is a whole bunch of capabilities of which creating strings of prime numbers is one very small part. So can we infer that other attributes associated with abstract reasoning are also present in the source? And if so which other attributes? I am not sure of the answer. But it certainly seems like an interesting point and not wallowing in obvious error.Mark Frank_{August 14, 2014
August
08
Aug
14
14
2014
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT}

AB
I’m sorry BA, but RDFish was absolutely correct about the flawed logic that you used.
Really AB? You're going to jump in with both feet and wallow around with him? Astounding. Again, can someone explain this to me?Barry Arrington_{August 14, 2014
August
08
Aug
14
14
2014
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT}

Bogart,
But I am surprised that nobody countered with the fact that the signal was “transmitted”, somehow, and therefore adds considerable additional context and information. RDFish even opened the door for others, but they never grasped it.
So much for the search for truth, right? This is an exercise to dodge and conceal. - - - - - - - - - - In any case, signal transmission was brought up in the conversation several times. Like all other points of evidence, it doesn't matter. As it turns out, it would only matter if the transmission came from a temperate earth-like planet with a big Eat at Joe's sign on it. You see, in the anti-intellectual pursuit to deny ID we are not allowed to use the knowledge we have to discover the things we don't know. And words like "intelligence" can only be used to denigrate ID, but not to support it.Upright BiPed_{August 14, 2014
August
08
Aug
14
14
2014
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT}

This question (title of this post) has been answered before on this site - it's because evolutionists will on principle never concede a point. When you can justify arguing whether a dead dog is really dead, or ever comes back to life; or whether you can infer anything when presented with 500 coins all faced heads up; it's not about being reasonable - it's about denying an inch to those ignorant, stupid, wicked or insane "Creationists".drc466_{August 14, 2014
August
08
Aug
14
14
2014
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT}

So, A_B - if it's all a matter of context: can you provide a context where a series of prime numbers justifies not inferring the act of an intelligent agent?drc466_{August 14, 2014
August
08
Aug
14
14
2014
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT}

I'm sorry BA, but RDFish was absolutely correct about the flawed logic that you used. Keeping in mind the title of the original OP. He simply said that you could infer almost nothing about a series of prime number without additional context. But rather than honestly debate, the ID crowd resorted to name calling and their ultimate weapon; calling his argument a strawman. But I am surprised that nobody countered with the fact that the signal was "transmitted", somehow, and therefore adds considerable additional context and information. RDFish even opened the door for others, but they never grasped it.Acartia_bogart_{August 14, 2014
August
08
Aug
14
14
2014
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT}

"Even uber-materialist Elizabeth Liddle" Well she's a committed "methodological naturalist": EL - "Yes, rejection of “MN” is religious, for a very simple reason. It is not possible to investigate a non-material cause. With “methodological naturalism” we keep on investigating. With “methodological non-naturalism” you may reach a place you have to stop, because you’ve met the “non-material” part. That stoppage is the religious rejection of “MN”. I’ll repeat what I just posted elsewhere: “MN” is not a limitation on science. It is quite the opposite. It’s what leads us to keep searching. Rejecting “MN” is what poses limitations on investigation, not the acceptance of MN." Philosophically she strikes me a Deist but that for her to clarify.rich_{August 14, 2014
August
08
Aug
14
14
2014
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

Of related interest: Nature by Numbers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkGeOWYOFoA Mathematics is the language with which God wrote the Universe. – Galileobornagain77_{August 14, 2014
August
08
Aug
14
14
2014
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

There's obviously an essential tool missing from the "genetic toolkit" of the malaria parasite! How do we [ID'ists] determine whether this is a design feature or a design flaw?Mung_{August 14, 2014
August
08
Aug
14
14
2014
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

Materialists wallow in obvious error because it is their lot in life and they do not accept they have the free will to change. ;)Joe_{August 14, 2014
August
08
Aug
14
14
2014
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply