Scott Adams on responsible, rational freedom (as the machines take over)

_{kairosfocus

November 17, 2016

Academic Freedom, Mind, mind and brain, worldview}

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

. . . as in, it’s a delusion:

>>When the machines take over our important decisions we will do the same thing we do now – we will imagine that we are making the decisions on our own. Today our important decisions are made with emotions, and rationalized after the fact. We incorrectly call this process “thinking.” In the near future, our machines will make our daily decisions using Big Data and whatever they know about us as individuals to maximize our outcomes. You’ll like that future because the machines will make better decisions than you, and you’ll have better quality of life.

In the new world ahead, you will be the robot – albeit a moist one. The machines will be doing the thinking and making the decisions. You will simply do what they program you to do . . . >>

The pattern is adding up.

So, what does almost cavalier dismissal of responsible, rational freedom entail? (Apart from utter incoherence.) END

Comments

RVB8 may benefit from the weak arguments page: https://uncommondescent.com/faq/ KFkairosfocus_{November 21, 2016
November
11
Nov
21
21
2016
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

rvb8
You then go on to explain that visitors complain of a lack of science but when ‘morality’ is discussed refuse to pony up the science to support their position.
I was also trying to point out that just recently, the topic of morality got more interest from you guys. AK popped up after days of silence to give his opinion on abortion, and you got interested in that topic also. So, the claim that we're the ones interested in that is the double-standard also.
Agreed! Why? Well the empirical measurable scientific research on the subject of morality, or why some people do good and others do not, is really hard to come by.
I give you credit for just stating the facts here. Again, you're very interested in morality but you have no scientific support for your opinions.
Mainly it exists in sociological field tests, questioneers, evolutionary psycology, and as your side says, ‘guessing’. To be sure that doesn’t stop research into morality and altruism, charity, why we are selfless etcetera, but definitive answers into why we do things is inherently hard.
That is, definitive from empirical science, which is not the only means of arriving at understandings.
Evolution on the other hand is a hard science. measurable, detectable, solidly evidence based, backed up by geology, botany, biogeography, embryology, anatomy, redundent biological characteristics, homology, dating methods, DNA etcetera.
That's the wishful thinking all evolutionists would have us believe, yes.
This site purports to be a sounding board for empirical evidence of design; I have seen none, am seeing none, and will make an educated guess, will see none.
UB has a post for you @44.Silver Asiatic_{November 21, 2016
November
11
Nov
21
21
2016
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

F/N: Cf here: https://uncommondescent.com/design-inference/the-e-yes-joke-shows-the-power-of-manipulative-framing-in-rhetoric-media-and-persuasion/kairosfocus_{November 21, 2016
November
11
Nov
21
21
2016
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

RVB8, if you claim that you have yet to see evidence of the design inference it is plainly because you have shut your eyes and closed your mind, starting with the question, what best explains complex coded text strings beyond 500 - 1,000 bits; a classic example of FSCO/I. KF PS, your comments beyond 73 ASCII characters are cases in point.kairosfocus_{November 21, 2016
November
11
Nov
21
21
2016
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

RVB8, start with 100+ million dead globally and narrow to a mini civil war in both Jamaica and Grenada, then bring to bear the ongoing agenda of cultural marxism. Mix in gross economic failure leading to collapse. Beyond that, this is even more tangential. No appeal to a mythical idealised Marxism is going to move any sensible person aware of the history of the past 100 years. KFkairosfocus_{November 21, 2016
November
11
Nov
21
21
2016
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT}

RV says: "This site purports to be a sounding board for empirical evidence of design; I have seen none, am seeing none, and will make an educated guess, will see none." However: .
11/09/16 Rv, I believe you are one of the people I saw lamenting a lack of scientific topics on UD, so I have a science question for you. In 1955, Francis Crick proposed a yet unknown set of “adapter” molecules that he predicted would be necessary to connect the pattern of nucleic acids in DNA to the amino acids they specify during translation. Three years later Mahlon Hoagland and Paul Zamecnik discovered the tRNA adapters that Crick predicted would exist. They also found the complex proteins (aaRS) that are required to bind those tRNA with their individual amino acid cargo – establishing the Genetic Code. This all makes sense with the physicalist axiom (as naturalist philosopher Alex Rosenberg puts it) that “no clump of matter is about any other clump of matter”. In other words, a codon in DNA is obviously not “about” the amino acid it specifies during translation, and thus, Crick’s adapter molecule is required to establish a systematic association within the process of translation. And of course, all of this is exactly what is found inside the cell; there is an “adapter” tRNA for every amino acid, and there is an aaRS to load every adapter with its correct amino acid (in accordance with the code). The association of anticodon-to-amino acid is made when the aaRS loads the correct amino acid to the tRNA adapter (establishing the genetic code), and then the codon-to-anticodon association is made when the charged tRNA adapter enters the ribosome to deliver its amino acid cargo (to be bound to the new protein). None of this is even slightly controversial, and is taught in every biology textbook on the surface of the planet. In the genetic translation process, the sequence of codons in DNA establishes the order of amino acids to be bound to the nascent protein, and in a separate process, the aaRS establishes which amino acid will be associated with each codon. My question to you is: Do you think Crick, Rosenberg (and the rest of the planet) have it right? Given that a codon cannot be “about” an amino acid, is a correctly loaded tRNA adapter required to establish the systematic association?
No response thus far. :)Upright BiPed_{November 20, 2016
November
11
Nov
20
20
2016
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT}

Kairos, your first enemy was Marxism? Of course Marx himself never described his thought as Marxism, that came later, he described Communism. I assume you're equally anti this? Of course the guiding principal of Communism is briefly and accurately stated as; 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.' Tell me Kairos, exactly what part of this proposition do you disagree with? You may (will) come back with, 'Mao-Stalin-Gulag-Mao-KGB-terror-purge-Mao-Stalin-genocide-Beria-Stalin etc' But what part of Marx's proposition do you disagree with? Where is it un-Christian? Actually it sounds like the kind of thing Jesus would say, don't you think? The only reason Communism was overthrown was because it has never started; nowhere in the world of humanity have the pricipals of Das Kapital been introduced; never! If we did follow the teachings of Marx, as opposed to the indecipherable teachings of Jesus, Mohummed, Abraham, we might actually become a human race I could respect. As it stands we truly are shoddy protectors of the poor and the earth.rvb8_{November 20, 2016
November
11
Nov
20
20
2016
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PDT}

SA, @ 29, 'There's a double standard at work also.' You then go on to explain that visitors complain of a lack of science but when 'morality' is discussed refuse to pony up the science to support their position. Agreed! Why? Well the empirical measurable scientific research on the subject of morality, or why some people do good and others do not, is really hard to come by. Mainly it exists in sociological field tests, questioneers, evolutionary psycology, and as your side says, 'guessing'. To be sure that doesn't stop research into morality and altruism, charity, why we are selfless etcetera, but definitive answers into why we do things is inherently hard. Evolution on the other hand is a hard science. measurable, detectable, solidly evidence based, backed up by geology, botany, biogeography, embryology, anatomy, redundent biological characteristics, homology, dating methods, DNA etcetera. This site purports to be a sounding board for empirical evidence of design; I have seen none, am seeing none, and will make an educated guess, will see none.rvb8_{November 20, 2016
November
11
Nov
20
20
2016
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT}

FG It's great that you're seeking to learn and the fact that you're not a materialist should help your understanding of ID quite a lot. I would agree with your view also that there are different ways of explaining the ID inference and some work better than others for different people - depending on background and area of interest.Silver Asiatic_{November 20, 2016
November
11
Nov
20
20
2016
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

KF, firstly I'm not actually a materialist. Just an interested onlooker trying to make sense of this stuff. Frankly, a lot of it goes over my head (especially the stuff around FSCO/I etc). I probably should go read some of Dembskis books on CSI etc, perhaps a different way of explaining it would helpful. Or maybe others like Meyer can pick up this topic too - often different ways of explaining something are needed.Fordgreen_{November 20, 2016
November
11
Nov
20
20
2016
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

PPS: Still open thread: https://uncommondescent.com/design-inference/btb-boboh-vs-the-trillion-member-observational-base-of-fscoi-and-the-design-inference-on-reliable-sign/kairosfocus_{November 20, 2016
November
11
Nov
20
20
2016
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

FG at 28, thanks for highlighting a typo I missed. ID not UD. For what I mean, cf Sophia's little speech that triggered RVB8, noting what Sophia wanted to discuss and how the defiantly simplistic and stubbornly mocking reacted (which, sadly, sounds quite familiar); beyond that level is a long discourse with ultimate roots in Plato, Ari etc. As for the bland declaration of refutation of core ID claims, I suggest to you that your own comments illustrate a key ID contention, by exemplifying how . . . with a trillion-member observational base . . . functionally specific, configuration-based complex organisation and associated information [FSCO/I for short] is a highly reliable sign of intelligently directed configuration -- i.e. design -- as key cause. This is backed up by an analysis of the blind search challenge implied by configuration spaces for 500 - 1,000+ bits relative to sol system or observed cosmos scale atomic and temporal resources. If you doubt this, kindly provide an observed case to the contrary: _____________ . (Prediction, as many before you, you cannot.) Per Newton's vera causa principle, we are entitled to see cases of FSCO/I as indicating design as cause, and to require of those proposing an alternative, that they show causal adequacy per actual observation. It is violation of this principle and substitution of an ideological agenda of lab coat clad materialism that has got origins sciences into the mess they are in. KF PS: Notice, how supporters of materialism have not stepped up to the plate to demonstrate how they can derive responsible, rational freedom from their premises? Such freedom is necessary for credible, rational discourse.kairosfocus_{November 20, 2016
November
11
Nov
20
20
2016
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

BA 77 @ 34: More great stuff. Simple, to the point, and true. "Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis." Exactly.Truth Will Set You Free_{November 20, 2016
November
11
Nov
20
20
2016
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

Origenes @ 35: This ought to be fun. Let's see how Fordgreen enlightens us mere amateurs.Truth Will Set You Free_{November 20, 2016
November
11
Nov
20
20
2016
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

Fordgreen @33
Fordgreen: ... the ID refutations are definitely out there from people who are experts in their field and fairly easy to find.
Can you give an example of such an ID refutation?Origenes_{November 20, 2016
November
11
Nov
20
20
2016
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

The Third Way - people http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/ Scientists stunned by the public’s doubt of Darwin - April 22, 2014 Excerpt: (Stephen) Meyer said that view under-represents the real facts being discovered in evolutionary biology. “Very few leading evolutionary biologists today think that natural selection and random mutation are sufficient to produce the new forms of life we see arising in the history of life,” Meyer said. “And then when the public is catching wind of the scientific doubts of Darwinian evolution and expresses them in a poll like this, these self-appointed spokesmen for science say that the public is ignorant. But actually, the public is more in line with what’s going on in science than these spokesmen for science.” http://www.worldmag.com/2014/04/scientists_stunned_by_the_public_s_doubt_of_darwin Lynn Margulis: Evolutionist and Critic of Neo-Darwinism - Stephen C. Meyer - April 25, 2014 Excerpt: in Chapters 15 and 16 of Darwin's Doubt, I addressed six new (that is, post neo-Darwinian) theories of evolution -- theories that proposed new mechanisms to either supplement or replace the reliance upon mutation and natural selection in neo-Darwinian theory.,, I show that, although several of these new evolutionary theories offer some intriguing advantages over the orthodox neo-Darwinian model, they too fail to offer adequate explanations for the origin of the genetic and epigenetic information necessary to account for new forms of animal life -- such as those that arise in the Cambrian period. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04/lynn_margulis_e084871.html BIBLIOGRAPHIC AND ANNOTATED LIST OF PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING INTELLIGENT DESIGN - UPDATED – Dec. 2015 http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=10141bornagain77_{November 20, 2016
November
11
Nov
20
20
2016
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

SA: "Fair enough, but consider this … you seem to be looking for ‘creds’. But is it enough for you to have an authoritative statement? Does that end the discussion?" No, not looking for authoritative statement. Certainly we need to avoid the "argument from authority" fallacy. But on the other hand, and I think this is part of the critical thinking approach, it is important to know something about a person's qualification, experience etc. (maybe UD should have a bio section for major contributors?) After all there are a ton of crackpots out there on the web claiming all kinds of nonsense but few have much expertise in their field, so it is important from a critical thinking point of view to assess where the source is coming from. So if I can't determine the source, and what the person is saying is so tortuous to understand, that certainly will influence how much energy I expend trying to decipher what they are saying. As to your point that the arguments here aren't refuted - well, I think the converse is true - I don't think many professional scientists are posting here either. People like Coyne, Dawkins do not post here and do not have any interest in doing so. Both sides then (like myself) are really interested amateurs. But the ID refutations are definitely out there from people who are experts in their field and fairly easy to find. So it's really probably the amateurs who are keeping the discussion alive.Fordgreen_{November 20, 2016
November
11
Nov
20
20
2016
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

BA @ 26: I will answer for the sneering atheist. Question: How does one derive objective morality from the amorality inherent in atheism? Answer: By delusion. Question: How does one derive consciousness from materialism? Answer: By delusion.Truth Will Set You Free_{November 20, 2016
November
11
Nov
20
20
2016
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

FG
It would be one thing if they were written by the leading lights of the ID movement (e.g., Meyer, Behe, Wells), but it seems they aren’t interested in posting here. Instead, it seems many of the posts on UD are written by interested amateurs, but since many are anonymous we don’t even know what their science creeds are. So that definitely impacts how much time I want to spend here.
Fair enough, but consider this ... you seem to be looking for 'creds'. But is it enough for you to have an authoritative statement? Does that end the discussion? Instead, what we do here is just deal with the issues. We take challenges from anyone, whether they have science creds or not. As it stands, thus far, even if all of the posts here were generated by amateurs, we don't see any compelling counter-arguments from ID opponents. So, that's your challenge as well. Instead of critiquing the writing style, how about giving your counter-view to the scientific and philosophical points raised?Silver Asiatic_{November 20, 2016
November
11
Nov
20
20
2016
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

KF @ 25: Excellent response to the "sneering" atheist. You indeed show great patience, restraint and love toward that very unlovable (and unlikeable) group. I hope to share that ability one day.Truth Will Set You Free_{November 20, 2016
November
11
Nov
20
20
2016
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

There's a double standard at work also. Complaints come in that there's no science discussion. But when the topic of morality is introduced, that's what generates interest. Then the opinions offered (as with AK and rvb) are done without reference to science. Finally, when theists respond on moral issues and cite, necessarily, a transcendent origin for morality, we are criticized for introducing religion.Silver Asiatic_{November 20, 2016
November
11
Nov
20
20
2016
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

KF: "So, UD faces the difficult challenge of being a dialectics heavy subject in a rhetorically driven context." That's not really the issue I was getting at. But then I don't think you are particularly interested in feedback. But it's your blog and you can write whatever you want. Readers will decide for themselves whether they like it or not. Personally I'm not sure how much time and energy I want to invest trying to unpack and parse some of the posts on UD. It would be one thing if they were written by the leading lights of the ID movement (e.g., Meyer, Behe, Wells), but it seems they aren't interested in posting here. Instead, it seems many of the posts on UD are written by interested amateurs, but since many are anonymous we don't even know what their science creeds are. So that definitely impacts how much time I want to spend here.Fordgreen_{November 20, 2016
November
11
Nov
20
20
2016
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

“Yet our common moral knowledge is as real as arithmetic, and probably just as plain. Paradoxically, maddeningly, we appeal to it even to justify wrongdoing; rationalization is the homage paid by sin to guilty knowledge.” - J. Budziszewski, What We Can't Not Know: A Guide https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7173009-yet-our-common-moral-knowledge-is-as-real-as-arithmetic
bornagain77_{November 20, 2016
November
11
Nov
20
20
2016
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT}

AhmedKiaan, exactly how does one derive objective morality from the amorality inherent in atheism? After solving that little problem, perhaps you would like to also tell us exactly how does one derive consciousness from materialism? It is hard to take your arguments for morality seriously when they are on based on the thin air of your imagination.
Early Christian Opposition to Infanticide Excerpt: "Infanticide was common in all well studied ancient cultures, including those of ancient Greece, Rome, India, China, and Japan."(It even led to the collapse of some ancient cultures),,, From its earliest creeds, Christians "absolutely prohibited" infanticide as "murder." Stark, op. cit., page 124. To Christians, the infant had value. Whereas pagans placed no value on infant life, Christians treated them as human beings. They viewed infanticide as the murder of a human being, not a convenient tool to rid society of excess females and perceived weaklings. The baby, whether male, female, perfect, or imperfect, was created in the image of God and therefore had value. http://christiancadre.org/member_contrib/cp_infanticide.html Why America might pull through the demographic collapse Excerpt: From antiquity, he notes, a symptom of a civilization’s decline has been the destruction of children: Macedonian poet Poseidippus of Pella wrote: “Even a rich man always exposes a daughter.” A 200 BCE survey of seventy-nine families in Miletus, an ancient Greek colony on the Western Turkish coast, show a combined total of 188 sons but only 28 daughters. One Greek author, Polybius, suggested as a last resort “passing laws for the preservation of infants.” But most Greek colonies were finished already. http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/why_america_might_pull_through_the_demographic_collapse How Darwin's Theory Changed the World Rejection of Judeo-Christian values Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide. “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75). Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.). http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn85/darwin-theory-changed-world.htm
You say you are for increased education AK. How about letting some of the many fatal weaknesses of Darwinian evolution being taught in school?bornagain77_{November 20, 2016
November
11
Nov
20
20
2016
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT}

AK, the issue on the GLOBAL abortion holocaust is to end it and to reform our institutions GLOBALLY from the corruption that has enabled holocaust under false colour of law and under false colour of rights, across the world. Your blanket sneering at US conservatives is at best distractive, yet another layer of the trifecta of fallacies. The fallacy of psychoanalysis from afar also fails; has it dawned on you that some things are so horrific -- the worst holocaust in history -- that we dare not remain silent in the face of evil, lest silence on excuse of our own flaws becomes enabling behaviour? That is, aiding and abetting a HOLOCAUST? Do you think that a "mere" 600,000 children killed in the womb per week is materially better than the current one million per week? Please, think again before making further foolish accusations or assertions. KFkairosfocus_{November 20, 2016
November
11
Nov
20
20
2016
02:04 AM
2
02
04
AM
PDT}

There are people here who spend a lot of effort and words telling you how morally superior they are than everybody else, atheists, muslims, liberals, whoever. It's a common need when you feel insecure, these proclamations of superiority. It is also pride.AhmedKiaan_{November 20, 2016
November
11
Nov
20
20
2016
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PDT}

"Abortions should be reduced? Agreed. How? Easy, education, not threats of jail or eternal damnation; grow up!" rvb, I've been visiting the US for a couple years now, and thank god I will be getting back to europe early next spring, but the situation with abortion here is simple. There are ways to reduce it, education and access to contraception. Plenty of places do this, and get results: fewer abortions. That's the fact. So why doesn't that happen here--or in places like I believe colorado where they cut abortion by 40% by doing this, why do conservatives ignore the facts of reality and try to cancel those programs? The key is to understand that US conservatives actually don't give a kit's caboodle about reducing abortions. They don't give a KC about the kids after they're born, that should tell you a clue. See, the proven way that reduces abortions costs a little tax money. A tiny amount, but an amount. Instead, they want to cut those programs to save their tax dollars, and then just give speeches and pass laws against those evil irresponsible sluts, so they feel self-righteous. It's a fun feeling! And did I mention you get to save a few pennies a year? Win-win! High abortion rates as a result? Who cares! Sluts' Fault!AhmedKiaan_{November 20, 2016
November
11
Nov
20
20
2016
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PDT}

PS*: Again, Solomon in the voice of Sophia speaking to the elders in the gates hell-bent on a march of folly:
Prov 1:20 Wisdom cries aloud in the street, in the markets she raises her voice; 21 at the head of the noisy streets she cries out; at the entrance of the city gates she speaks: 22 “How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge? 23 If you turn at my reproof,[a] behold, I will pour out my spirit to you; I will make my words known to you. 24 Because I have called and you refused to listen, have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded, 25 because you have ignored all my counsel and would have none of my reproof, 26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when terror strikes you, 27 when terror strikes you like a storm and your calamity comes like a whirlwind, when distress and anguish come upon you . . . . 32 For the simple are killed by their turning away, and the complacency of fools destroys them; 33 but whoever listens to me will dwell secure and will be at ease, without dread of disaster.”
____________ * F/N: A well-known convention, now famously echoed in Steve Jobs' one last point.kairosfocus_{November 20, 2016
November
11
Nov
20
20
2016
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT}

RVB8, Really, now! Solomon went on record 3,000 years ago on the challenge of marches of folly and their consequences and you run off on all sorts of side-tracks and insinuations; manifesting exactly the agenda of mockery and despising of knowledge he warned against. That speaks volumes. And, has consequences; ruinous consequences. Next, please put away your amateur psychoanalysis from afar. I have no "compulsion" or obsession that the world comes to agree with design theory, though for cause I believe its core contention is very well warranted thank you. Witness, what happened in the past couple of weeks here at UD when the core issue that there are highly reliable, readily recognisable signs of design was put on the table. The balance on the merits in favour was obvious, and the stubborn resistance to same by objectors was also quite obvious. Next, it obviously has not registered that this is my second major controversy with a civilisation-dominating agenda; in my youth I stood up stoutly against Marxism in a Marxism-dominated context. All the tactics and techniques I am seeing today are drearily familiar. I suspect, evolutionary materialist scientism dominated science is going to have to go over the cliff; which I would prefer to help avert. As, consequences for our civilisation are liable to be harsh. (Ask those who suffered through the collapse of Communism in E. Europe. No responsible person would willingly impose such on our world. Unfortunately, too often history is shaped by the stubbornly irresponsible. Which was Solomon's point as a philosopher in his own right . . . you seem to have triggered off on your obvious antipathy to the Judaeo-Christian tradition instead of being able to take a pause to see that Solomon and Plato both have something worthwhile to say that we need to heed. If, we are to avert catastrophe. Of course, with a few notable exceptions, history is very firmly on the side that marches of folly to ruin often prevail, being driven by out of control passions and by manipulative agendas/ interests that cannot stand the cold light of day.) Yes, the dominant course of history is against us, but no sane person imagines that a march of folly to ruin is something to be desired. Now, too, I am aware that absent people standing up and insisting that something is wrong, the agit-prop steamroller will continue on its way to ruin. So, I stand with others, in hope that just perhaps, a critical mass of people will wake up in good time to help avert catastrophe. Now, for an example of what is really going on, notice where this thread started, with a second example from Scott Adams showing the manifest self-referential incoherence and self-contradictions of evolutionary materialistic scientism. Contrast, where it now is. Which, I am sure, is no accident. That is, we have in hand a live example of what Solomon warned against. If we are willing, we may thus easily notice how a pivotal concern has been dismissed, distracted from and how red herrings have been dragged away to strawman caricatures soaked in personalities and then set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere for discussion. Again, that is no accident, and long ago, I spoke of this as a trifecta pattern of fallacies: red herrings, strawman caricatures, ad hominems. The agit prop stratagem at work here, is that it is far easier to attack real and/or imagined flaws of the opponent rather than actually address major issues where the balance on the merits is against the agenda. (Indeed, in the USA, the election cycle just past turned on exactly this pattern. The geo-strategic peril of our civilisation was lost sight of in the toxic rhetorical smoke and fog, and that in the first instance directly led to the choice of which is least bad in the main election. In the second instance, it led to a widespread failure to cogently address the same perils in that election. Don't even mention the spreading evils that come from the mass slaughter of 800+ million unborn children over the past generation and the consequences of the utter perversion of governance that such leaves in its wake. Where, it is relevant to point out that when slavery was done away with, slave masters and those who kidnapped people into slavery were not sentenced to death . . . the projections above are outrageous and point to the utterly dishonest nature of the movement that has led to the worst holocaust in history, bar none; a holocaust that piles up at the rate of one million per week. The patent issue is reformation that returns government, law, medicine, the media, education and our civilisation as a whole to sanity -- as well you know or should know, not some imaginary mass death sentence; the just and stinging condemnation of history will be a sufficient sentence for what has been the worst, most blood guilt soaked generation in history: grandpa, what did you do during the Abortion Holocaust? As for a sound look at the global economic challenges, that was not even on the cards. As for a sound, balanced look at sustainability challenges, that was not even a serious candidate for discussion, so poisoned has been the atmosphere.) Back to the focal issue for the moment, regrettably but as usual, you are straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel. Whatever real or imagined flaws as a writer of blog comments or even original posts I may have, or Mrs O'Leary or Mr Arrington, etc etc etc, such patently pale into utter insignificance in the face of the elephant in the room that so many plainly want to pretend is not there. Namely, as Mr Adams inadvertently illustrated again, the ancient philosophy and ideological agenda of evolutionary materialism and associated selective hyper-skepticism -- now dressed up in a lab coat -- is a self-refuting and necessarily false view that undermines the very rationality it boasts of. That has been shown over and over and over again, and just as often, the activists want to distract, distort, denigrate rather than face it. Just like the Marxists before them. First things first, RVB8. KF F/N 1: If -- after months of hanging around UD to make objections -- you do not understand the fallacy of self-referential incoherence (cf. here . . . notice, how Wiki tries to blunt the force of the point, an inadvertently telling approach . . . ) or the classic observation of computing: garbage in, garbage out, you are not tall enough for this ride. Especially, in a world where Google, Bing, etc -- or even Wikipedia -- are a click or two away. F/N 2: Here in context on first principles of right reason may be a useful place to begin the necessary process of correction. F/N 3: Just in case, notice that the subject of the self-falsification here, is our ability to have responsible, rational freedom. A necessity for reasoned discussion to exist and have credibility.kairosfocus_{November 20, 2016
November
11
Nov
20
20
2016
12:25 AM
12
12
25
AM
PDT}

FG, we are not just dealing with science here at UD, but with a controversy with the ruthless and with complex worldviews level issues as well. Scientific explanations that are non controversial can indeed take short cuts and make simplifications that we cannot. And, observe what just happened when I took time to deal with something that IS quite simple and even obvious. Namely, that on a trillion member base of observations, functionally specific, complex, information rich organisation is a strong and reliable sign of design as cause. Too often, we are dealing with mind-locked objectors here to pounce on any real of imagined errors or faults, not responsible discussion. So, UD faces the difficult challenge of being a dialectics heavy subject in a rhetorically driven context. KFkairosfocus_{November 19, 2016
November
11
Nov
19
19
2016
11:37 PM
11
11
37
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply