brains and computation vs contemplation Intellectual freedom Mind Science, worldview issues/foundations and society

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

Spread the love

. . . 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

50 Replies to “Scott Adams on responsible, rational freedom (as the machines take over)

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    Saw this one also; sorry Mr. Adams but this is again all too aptly illustrative of a much bigger problem.

  2. 2
    rvb8 says:

    The film ‘I Robot’ with Will Smith, like most of his work, (he was good in Shrek, as Donkey) was a travesty of Asimov’s work. In Asimov’s future the protagonists make the unnerving final discovery that Robot’s are indeed deciding for humans, and introducing just enough errors to make the humans think, they are still screwing things up.

    That was fiction. But if a science fiction, and science writer in 1950 could think about the future, why with all that we know now about the pace of computer evolution, can’t you?!

    I read of the development of nano-technology, and the building of the first molecular machines, of the ‘biochip’, of Quantum computers, and you airily dimiss it all?

    Wave your hand and say, ‘never happen’? Wow, that is an amazing almost willful lack of curiosity, and denial of future possibilties and dangers. You dismiss with absolutely no evidence. Hmmm, sounds familiar.

    So let’s take score; evolution? No proof! Planet hunting for earthlike objects? Waste of time. Sentient computers? Barren field! Climate change? No evidence! To name but a few.

    Barren indeed!

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8, lesson 1: a robot is a programmed, computational, GIGO-limited strictly mechanical entity utterly incapable of free, rational, responsible contemplation, conclusion and decision. Lesson 2: due to the pervasive influence and incoherence of evolutionary materialism, there is a tendency to implicitly reduce human thought and freedom to that same status; not acknowledging consequences and contradictions to things like how we are able to have a reasoned discussion. The consequence is the sort of absurdities just outlined by Adams. KF

    PS: As for the strawman stereotyping and personalities you projected above, they are the direct parallel of the cloud of ink a squid sprays out in hope of escaping behind it. Fail. Have you ever designed and built a computational entity from the ground up, starting with a catalogue of chips? (From experience, doing so will be a salutory lesson on the realities of computational substrates. Rocks have no dreams, including when they are refined into Si chips.)

    PPS: Just to pick a couple of points, first evolutionary materialism is an ideology not a science, and “evolution” is a hopelessly ambiguous term that is too often used in a slippery slope sense, gliding from minor adaptations to a grand metaphysically loaded imposition on science. As for “climate change,” climate itself is an artificial construct, average of weather over 33 years and so necessarily changes as a moving average. The questions are actual trends of weather, our ability to observe accurately and in fine enough detail, correctly identify dynamics and exert material influences on relevant scales. Where, a computer simulation model is just that, a glorified computation not reality itself; and predictions of a known chaotic system cannot sustain accuracy in the long term, much less in an OPEN, often perturbed entity. There are significant legitimate concerns, limitations and errors all along that line and one would be ill advised to surrender common sense judgement to demonstrably ideologically motivated and manipulative elites and power brokers. (Well do I recall the declarations of “watermelon” sentiments and statist/internationalist ideological agendas among those I rubbed shoulders with while working in the field of sustainable development. That’s part of why I insisted on tracing the principle to Kant’s CI and on respecting the form of this, that we must not use or manipulate/control others of like morally governed order as mere means to our own ends.)

    PPPS: You would also be well advised to take note that one of the pioneers of exoplanet studies is a design theorist, and was ideologically expelled from a university for his pains, through SJW type cultural marxist agit prop and slander.

  4. 4

    KF @ 3: Excellent points. Your following statement is well worth reposting:

    “…evolutionary materialism is an ideology not a science…”

    Amen.

  5. 5
    suckerspawn says:

    Eddie Murphy was the voice of the donkey in Shrek.

  6. 6
    Seversky says:

    The word “evolution” can be used in a number of ways, which is true of a lot of words in the English language. “Information” is another example. There is nothing wrong with it as long as you take care to specify what meaning you intend in a given context so as to avoid ambiguity.

  7. 7
    Seversky says:

    “Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.”

    — Albert Einstein

  8. 8
    Seversky says:

    The advent of intelligent machines or conscious computers has been a staple of science-fiction for many years. There’s an underlying assumption that it is almost inevitable. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t but since we have no adequate theory of consciousness yet, it’s difficult to say one way or the other.

  9. 9
    rvb8 says:

    suckerspawn,

    thanks! ooops!

    But that simply means Will Smith has done no good work. Actually, that’s a relief. Heh:)

    As usual Kairos, I must read your prose again and again. Orwell said the clues to good writing are that it is accurate, brief, and clear. The ‘ABC’ if you will, of good writing. He also said, ignore this rule, if you have to. You ignore this rule continuously, as does BA, but you don’t, HAVE to!

    Now, ‘evolutionary materialism’; this is a case in point. Because you can not, or will not, define it, it becomes meaningless. I know that you and the people here think you know what it defines, ‘atheism’, but it does a poor job. I suggest you replace this confusion with the word, ‘atheism’. I like it, I embrace it, and I understand it, as does everyone else. It will also have the added benefit of bringing clarity to your prolix style. While your at it, replace ‘evolutionary materialist’ with ‘atheist’, I will be so much happier, and your readers less confused.

    Another example to help in accuracy and clarity; “eloutionary materialism is an ideology not a science, and “evolution” is a hopelessly ambiguous term”.
    Ummm, ‘No’ and ‘No’.

    ‘Evolutionary materialism’, might be an ideology, but you don’t tell me what it is, do you mean ‘atheism’? If so your simply wrong, atheism bares none of the hall marks of ideology, religion on the other hand.

    ‘Evolution’, this is not ambiguous, unless your dictionaries are written in a different language, it means, ‘slow change over time’, its antonym, ‘revolution’, means fast change over time. Explain to me please, the ambiguity?

  10. 10
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8,

    your inadvertently telling root problem is, there is hardly any of my writing in the OP, I simply cited a clip from a well-known communicator, Scott Adams (who has apparently recently written a work on persuasion and is discussing themes from such in his blog). In short, your spiel about oh, we cannot understand your writing you incompetent is plainly exposed as being at best rooted in utter carelessness in reading; quite likely multiplied by malicious intent to dismiss substantial matters on any sneering, personality laced dismissal one can find. I suggest you think again and do better.

    As a first step, ponder the implications of evolutionary materialism that Adams inadvertently exposed.

    Now [extending . . . ] as for your attempt to sneer at:

    Just to pick a couple of points, first evolutionary materialism is an ideology not a science, and “evolution” is a hopelessly ambiguous term that is too often used in a slippery slope sense, gliding from minor adaptations to a grand metaphysically loaded imposition on science. As for “climate change,” climate itself is an artificial construct, average of weather over 33 years and so necessarily changes as a moving average. The questions are actual trends of weather, our ability to observe accurately and in fine enough detail, correctly identify dynamics and exert material influences on relevant scales. Where, a computer simulation model is just that, a glorified computation not reality itself; and predictions of a known chaotic system cannot sustain accuracy in the long term, much less in an OPEN, often perturbed entity. There are significant legitimate concerns, limitations and errors all along that line and one would be ill advised to surrender common sense judgement to demonstrably ideologically motivated and manipulative elites and power brokers. (Well do I recall the declarations of “watermelon” sentiments and statist/internationalist ideological agendas among those I rubbed shoulders with while working in the field of sustainable development. That’s part of why I insisted on tracing the principle to Kant’s CI and on respecting the form of this, that we must not use or manipulate/control others of like morally governed order as mere means to our own ends.)

    1: Evolutionary materialism is defined well enough by the notorious statement of Lewontin, and those of others, as well as being descriptive in its own brief right, so your pretended confusion fails.

    2: Elaborating slightly, we can also speak of evolutionary materialistic scientism, which will again be summarised from Lewontin et al, and already brings out the issue of imposing a question-begging worldview assertion on the praxis and institutions of science

    3: it is notorious that “evolution” is in fact commonly used in the rhetorical slippery slope sense, backed by the implicit imposition of evolutionary materialism.

    4: I will soon provide the classic Lewontin clip, for those needing a reminder.

    5: On Climate Change, which you injected into the thread without warrant, I have given enough of an in brief for those who actually want to think beyond the box imposed by a now utterly blatantly manipulative and corrupt media serving as propaganda arm of the global elites being repeatedly repudiated by ordinary voters in major nations even as we speak.

    6: The gap between computer simulations as a form of modelling and actual reality only needs to be pointed out as a reminder, for any scientifically literate person.

    7: My onward remarks on watermelon thesis environmentalism are based on direct experience of those using the green as a stalking horse cover for the red of a new form of internationalist socialism. Where, socialism has repeatedly failed because no centralised planner can concentrate, process and issue instructions regarding so complex and far-flung a system as an economy in real time.

    8: In short, socialist (or fascist) central planning (and politicised state controlled cartels) fails the processor architecture test.

    9: That is, economic planning is best effected by a vast network of small planning entities responding in real time to their specific conditions, communicated by market information. Many will fail, some will succeed; the robustness comes form the smallness and isolation of planning entities so that local failures are much less prone to ripple through the system as a whole and emulation of the successful will be relatively rapid.

    10: A legitimate welfare role of the state then emerges as supporting those that need help, while helping to promote capacity to sustain the future.

    11: In this context, environmental regulations, per the Kantian Categorical Imperative, should respect people (rather than manipulate them into marches of folly such as we see playing out in Venezuela as we speak) and should seek to husband natural, socio-cultural and economic resources such that there is a long term, multi-generational path of success.

    12: As one consequence of all this, regulations should be sound on a battery of tests tied to the long-term well-being of biophysical, socio-cultural and economic context, rather than being premised on imposition and manipulation by an overly centralised authority.

    13: Crashing major economies in order to delay projected trends by a decade or two does not pass this test. An economic transition to a different base rooted in exploration of feasible alternative energy systems, with bridging technologies in the meanwhile, makes better sense than trying to induce an undue global panic.

    14: For instance, one of my tests for the reasonableness of an interlocutor on such matters is attitude to something like pebble bed, modular nuke reactors and molten salt thorium reactors (such as LIFTR).

    15: Another, is whether such understand the implications of serious intermittency of many renewable technologies and the needs of the power grid.

    16: A third, is whether such are able to understand the implications for transportation services of needing an energy system that is able to match the sort of concentration of energy we see in fuels such as gasoline or diesel. (Hence, my discussions of algae and butanol in relevant contexts.)

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    All of this, of course, pivots on my view that of Aristotle’s famed three levers of persuasion, while pathos is most powerful in the short run, it cannot escape the long term impact for good or ill of facts, logic and controlling assumptions — logos. Where, credibility or authority of a speaker or source also pivots in the end on soundness on the merits.

    So, yes Adams is pointing to a vulnerability to emotional manipulation and blind reliance on authorities (including, prospectively, programmers of the personal decision support systems we will increasingly use), but this does not undermine our responsibility and capacity to think for ourselves . . apart from imposition of a priori evolutionary materialism.

    Which is self-refuting.

    KF

  11. 11
    rvb8 says:

    I’m not talking about the opinion piece, I’m talking about your ‘op’ sized posts. Although there is a wealth of your ops that are truly opaque, and yes, my criticism stands; this is the hall mark of poor communication.

    Adams said; “Today our important decisions are made with emotions, and rationalized after the fact. We incorrectly call this process ‘thinking.'”

    Yeah, so, your point is what exactly? That you take offense at the idea that you are not rational and that all of your decisions are based upon base wants and instincts, and if these decisions fail you say, ‘it wasn’t my fault he/she/it, is responsible’?

    We all do that, it’s called being human/animal, and it is entirely true. It’s also extremely comforting.

    Does this give me the right to act on all of those instincts? Well I could, but I’d end up in jail, sharpish. So as a self interested mildly rational individual I do a cost/benefit analysis, and come to the sensible conclusion, to leave the money in the till, and escape jail.

    To put it more plainly, there is no controversy here, Adams explained how humans behave, and why, and you have an emotionally negative response to that.

  12. 12
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: Lewontin, for those who came in late:

    . . . to put a correct view of the universe into people’s heads [==> as in, “we” have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge] we must first get an incorrect view out [–> as in, if you disagree with “us” of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations,

    [ –> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying “our” elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to “fix” the widespread mental disease]

    and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth

    [–> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]

    . . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [–> “we” are the dominant elites], it is self-evident

    [–> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]

    that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [–> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [–> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . .

    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [–> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [–> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [–> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is “quote-mined” I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]

  13. 13
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: US NAS, to show this is not just one man out on a limb:

    In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena [–> accurate and reliable, confirmed observation, description and sound analysis]. Natural [–> reliably empirically observed] causes [–> add: meet Newton’s vera causa, actually observed cause test and so] are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature,

    [–> the false choice, natural vs supernatural, when the real and readily empirically testable choice since Plato in the Laws Bk X c 360 BC has been natural ( = blind chance and/or mechanical necessity) vs the ART-ificial working by intelligently directed configuration, aka design. This is a case of irresponsible red herring distraction from the real issue to a convenient strawman creationism target set up to be soaked with the ad hominems of anti-scientific motivation and underlying between the lines insinuations of right wing theocratic “christofascist” impositions, etc]

    scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations. Any scientific explanation has to be testable — there must be possible observational consequences that could support the idea but also ones that could refute it.

    [–> observe a case of configuration-based specific functionality beyond 500 – 1,000 bits of complex organisation emerging by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity and the design inference principle would collapse. the strawman tactic is used in a context where it is easy to see that on a trillion observation base, such FSCO/I is an empirically reliable sign of intelligently directed configuration, AKA design, as key causal factor]

    Unless a proposed explanation is framed in a way that some observational evidence could potentially count against it, that explanation cannot be subjected to scientific testing. [Science, Evolution and Creationism, 2008, p. 10. Emphases added.]

  14. 14
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8, I first chose to draw you back to the focal matter — kindly, go back and look at how you responded at 2 to the clip from Adams to see that your problem is not with me; it is general. I then decided instead of putting up a separate post of commentary, let me simply extend, as you can see above. You still need to do some rethinking and adjustment to a supercilious, sneeringly dismissive mentality that is all too tellingly typical of atheists (who seem to imagine they have cornered the market on intelligence). KF

    PS: If you refuse to see the implications of thinking that responsible, rational freedom is decisively undermined, that is your problem, which we will duly note in evaluating your further remarks as produced by self-referential, GIGO driven factors such as your emotions controlled by blind[ing] forces. Responsible, rational freedom is the premise of serious discussion and those whose ideology self-referentially undermines such are victims of an incoherent — thus necessarily confused — scheme of thought. In this case, evolutionary materialism, as Adams showed in his earlier clip which is also being currently discussed here at UD.

  15. 15
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: If Adams had, in wider context, simply said, we are prone to blindly follow emotions and authorities (including automated ones) that would have been one thing, in fact above he is speaking of us as meat robots. Where, as relevant context, in the earlier OP I cited him:

    “As I often tell you, we all live in our own movies inside our heads. Humans did not evolve with the capability to understand their reality because it was not important to survival. Any illusion that keeps us alive long enough to procreate is good enough.”

    There is a serious, unrecognised problem of self-referential incoherence rooted in such evolutionary materialistic speculation on mindedness.

  16. 16
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, debates in and around UD and more broadly clearly demonstrate that “evolution” is commonly used in a slippery slope sense, with material and unwarranted rhetorical effect. It is high time to correct this. KF

    PS: Let us also note in passing on “information” — which you clearly wish to falsely imply is being used in a slippery slope sense. Machine code such as runs this computer I am typing on or your device that you will use to read this comment, is based on digital [2-state per symbol], coded information, true or false? DNA and mRNA contain digital [4-state per symbol], coded information used by the ribosome in the same essential way machine code is used, true or false. (And your experience with machine code that enables you to say false is: _______ . Mine, that enables me to confidently say true includes designing and developing mpu based entities from the ground up directly using machine code and assembly language to the point where I began to “read” same.)

    PPS: Likewise, AutoCAD reduces 3-d engineered structures to coded sequences of bits in a description language, true or false? So also, when functionally specific organised configurations of systems can be similarly described in y/n answers to q’s in a description language, it shows that functionally specific organisation is similarly informational, true or false.

  17. 17
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: on the iron triangle of writing as one addresses significantly technical and controversial, important subjects in a context where non-technical persons are apt to have picked up opinions (which, too often are fallacy-laced, with economics as case study no. 1).

    In project management, the iron triangle often makes an unwelcome but inevitable appearance: cheap, quick and good, pick any two. (Pay for it with the third.)

    In a controversial blog forum or the like, an analogous issue appears: short/simple & quick, substantial (including/pointing to details), sound.

    We all want something that gives a quick fix in a 140 character tweet. But that necessarily appeals to prejudice or background sense and sentiment. Which, on technically loaded, controversial material is utterly unlikely to be sound.

    The realistic alternatives are to go on in greater length and details (perhaps beyond a “typical” blog comment); or to use language that points to underlying considerations, both of which will require more time and effort than the typical dismissive objector is interested in.

    The point of the latter approach is to set the basis for deeper exploration while summarising a case on its merits.

    This invites the serious to go on.

    The former is likely to be off-putting right at the outset, and those who are looking for snip and snipe points will at best do just that, or more likely will pretend nothing has been highlighted.

    One of the underlying issues, is that too many objectors in and around UD are often unwilling to concede that there is a substantial issue that needs to be addressed, instead exhibiting the bigotry of implicitly assuming that ID-iots — as they view us — are inevitably ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.

    So, short & “simple” (cheap to read), substantial (but takes much time and effort to both write and to read*), sound, pick any two.

    (*Including the effort of rereading and following up on what is pithy but loaded.)

    What a contrast we find in the attitude of seeking profound understanding in The Laws Book X:

    Cle. One such [misleading] teacher, O Stranger, would be bad enough, and you imply that there are many of them, which is worse.

    Ath. Well, then; what shall we say or do?-Shall we assume that some one is accusing us among unholy men, who are trying to escape from the effect of our legislation; and that they say of us-How dreadful that you should legislate on the supposition that there are Gods! Shall we make a defence of ourselves? or shall we leave them and return to our laws, lest the prelude should become longer than the law? For the discourse will certainly extend to great length, if we are to treat the impiously disposed as they desire, partly demonstrating to them at some length the things of which they demand an explanation, partly making them afraid or dissatisfied, and then proceed to the requisite enactments.

    Cle. Yes, Stranger; but then how often have we repeated already that on the present occasion there is no reason why brevity should be preferred to length; who is “at our heels”?-as the saying goes, and it would be paltry and ridiculous to prefer the shorter to the better. It is a matter of no small consequence, in some way or other to prove that there are Gods, and that they are good, and regard justice more than men do. The demonstration of this would be the best and noblest prelude of all our laws. And therefore, without impatience, and without hurry, let us unreservedly consider the whole matter, summoning up all the power of persuasion which we possess.

    Ath. Seeing you thus in earnest, I would fain offer up a prayer that I may succeed:-but I must proceed at once.

    On this matter, I am inclined to give Solomon, in the voice of Sophia, a key place:

    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.”

    KF

  18. 18
    Fordgreen says:

    “So, short & “simple” (cheap to read), substantial (but takes much time and effort to both write and to read*), sound, pick any two.”

    KF, I don’t agree with this – there are many examples of great science communicators who have successfully explained complex topics to laypeople – and still address all three items in your list.

    I used to do a lot of writing in a corporate environment. Whenever people complained they did not understand what I wrote, I always took it as a challenge to improve how I communicated. I never blamed my readers.

  19. 19
    rvb8 says:

    With your postings Kairos you simply confirm my criticism, ‘this is poor writing’. News is equally guilty, as is Mr Arrington, and me at times, I try to improve, it’s hard.

    “with material and unwanted rhetorical effect”?
    “self referentially”?
    “self-referential, GIGO driven factors”?
    “PS:PPS:PPPS”? Do we get a, PPPPS? Why not write ‘also’, or ‘as well’, or ‘in adition’, anything!
    “Proverbs: Psalms: Mathew: Genesis: Kings etcetera”? At a science site?

    You are right, I am mocking your style, but certainly not sneering. To sneer would in some way imply I care. Mockery is just the use of overt irony to show a double standard, for example;

    “such as your emotions controlled by blind(ing) forces.”??

    My emotions are controlled by what I can actually achieve, see, understand, and control. Yours are governed entirely by myth, dreams, and fantasies.

    For example, your endless tirades against a practice that is as old as civilisation, that is legal in civilised countries, that is a personal free choice decision, that is no one’s business but the patient’s, and that if criminalized would not in any way stop the practice: abortion. You can in no way stop this practice, even if a law was passed to execute doctors, and women who supply, and have abortions. It would still go on, as it always has; this is a prime examle of emotion driven pointlessness. Abortions should be reduced? Agreed. How? Easy, education, not threats of jail or eternal damnation; grow up!

    Your emotions on the other hand, are controlled by an awkward desire that everyone in the world agree that what you believe is true.

    Which of us is truly driven by emotion? Be honest.

  20. 20
    GaryGag says:

    Since I teach decision-making, this whole discussion seems to miss all the key issues here. Machines cannot make decisions about the future for people. First, because they cannot predict any future in human society and second because, not being conscious, they lack a point of view, their own goals that are the basis for decision-making.

    All decisions are predictions of the future and no one can know that future. In competitive environments, plans collide creating events no one plans. There is no predictive method that can work or can ever work.

    All decisions are made from self-interest. Individuals make decisions to meet their goals. All people’s goals are unique and a constantly changing but they only make sense from their own point of view. This is true both for “selfish” goals and “altruistic” goals. Both are based on a personal reference system, not group consciousness of such things.

    Since the future is unknowable and decisions about the future must be made from unique individual perspectives, how can they be anything else but emotional? I could go into the science of the valuable role that emotions play in decision making.

  21. 21
    kairosfocus says:

    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. KF

  22. 22
    kairosfocus says:

    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.

  23. 23
    kairosfocus says:

    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.

  24. 24
    AhmedKiaan says:

    “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!

  25. 25
    AhmedKiaan says:

    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.

  26. 26
    kairosfocus says:

    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. KF

  27. 27
    bornagain77 says:

    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/memb.....icide.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/art.....c_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/issu.....-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?

  28. 28
    bornagain77 says:

    “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

  29. 29
    Fordgreen says:

    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.

  30. 30
    Silver Asiatic says:

    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.

  31. 31

    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.

  32. 32
    Silver Asiatic says:

    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?

  33. 33

    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.

  34. 34
    Fordgreen says:

    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.

  35. 35
    bornagain77 says:

    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/2014/0....._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/2.....84871.html

    BIBLIOGRAPHIC AND ANNOTATED LIST OF PEER-­REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING INTELLIGENT DESIGN – UPDATED – Dec. 2015
    http://www.discovery.org/scrip.....8;id=10141

  36. 36
    Origenes says:

    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?

  37. 37

    Origenes @ 35: This ought to be fun. Let’s see how Fordgreen enlightens us mere amateurs.

  38. 38

    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.

  39. 39
    kairosfocus says:

    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.

  40. 40
  41. 41
    Fordgreen says:

    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.

  42. 42
    Silver Asiatic says:

    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.

  43. 43
    rvb8 says:

    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.

  44. 44
    rvb8 says:

    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.

  45. 45

    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. 🙂

  46. 46
    kairosfocus says:

    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. KF

  47. 47
    kairosfocus says:

    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.

  48. 48
  49. 49
    Silver Asiatic says:

    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.

  50. 50
    kairosfocus says:

    RVB8 may benefit from the weak arguments page: http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/ KF

Leave a Reply