Back to Basics of ID Darwinist rhetorical tactics Governance & control vs anarchy Politics/policy and origins issues Popular culture Selective Hyperskepticism

ID and the Overton Window/ BATNA/ March of Folly issue . . .

Spread the love

The parable of Plato’s Cave in The Republic — vid:

[youtube d2afuTvUzBQ]

. . . is a classic point of departure for discussions of true vs false enlightenment, education, worldviews, liberty and manipulative sociocultural agendas or power games that open up marches of folly. ( I think Acts 27 still has the best classical case study on how democratic polities and/or decision makers can all too easily be led into such ill advised marches.)

March of folly?

Yes:

Of Lemmings, marches of folly and cliffs of self-falsifying absurdity . . .
Of Lemmings, marches of folly and cliffs of self-falsifying absurdity . . .

Of course, with a US Election cycle in full swing as the number one media story for the year, such is obviously highly relevant to anyone interested in public policy or geostrategic issues. But, these issues are also highly relevant to the debates that surround origins; not least because objectors to the design inference too often try to paint supporters of ID as right wing, theocratic creationists — who must therefore be “ignorant, stupid, insane (or wicked . . .)” — of course, dressed up in cheap tuxedos. Hints of terrorism in echo of the Islamists, and/or of Torquemada are also there.

However, as Aristotle warned in The Rhetoric, Bk I ch 2:

“Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker [ethos]; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind [pathos]; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself [logos]. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible . . . Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile . . . Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question . . . “

A grim warning, spoken with the ghost of Socrates standing at his shoulder.

If we are to come to a balanced, sound and truly enlightened view, we must needs understand the relevant dynamics at work in our time. Accordingly, I think the Overton Window model and the BATNA concept from negotiation theory are helpful:

Overton_window_PC_cave

Here, the idea is that a community typically has a comfort zone (which we like to think strikes a happy and “moderate” medium), which defines a range of acceptable views, proposals and policies. Things outside that window will be perceived as too radical and/or unacceptable.

And of course the spin-meisters are ever at work to push/pull one or the other BATNA points in ways that suit their paymasters and/or agendas.

That is what “mainstreaming” (in large measure) is about, and it is what drives “astroturfing” that creates a false sense of “grassroots” support as well as the desensitising/ glamourising the (formerly) distasteful/ obscene . . . or just plain bizarre. And the linked, more ruthless media message dominance jamming out of opposition or questioning that prevails with more radical agendas — once they scent victory. Beyond that (as the 1930s demonstrated) lie show trials in kangaroo courts, gulags and death camps.

You will also note that I have put in “left” and “right” wings, in more or less the terms they self-understand. My own view — and i/l/o various objections, pardon the difficulties of a 3-D scale on axes of state power, lawfulness and leadership, with anarchic breakdown at one end of each —  is that these terms are much less meaningful these days than an analysis on degree of control that sees a sweet spot of limited, genuinely constitutional democratic self-government (or at least the lawful state) in the middle forming an inherently unstable equilibrium of degrees of state power, lawfulness and leadership/governance culture:

U/d b for clarity, nb Nil

Such is of course of general interest, but applies particularly to the debates, media message dominance tactics, activism (and astro-turfing), policy agendas and general tone of the issues surrounding the design inference.

As the issue is too often distorted, let us remind ourselves of the per aspect form of the design inference explanatory filter:

explan_filterThe pivot of this filter is the premise that in scientific reasoning and work, we often make abductive inferences to the best current, empirically grounded explanation . . . I here give the simple “O, HI PET” framework I developed for and have used in the classroom:

sci_method_generic

. . . in light of competing possible explanations and links to a body of [currently] accepted theory (BOAT):

Abductive, inductive reasoning and the inherent provisionality of scientific theorising

It is important to understand that we live in a day in which many institutions are dominated by naturalistic, evolutionary materialistic scientism, and so the stamp of approval of “Scientific Consensus” carries great weight. [Never mind, properly conducted science is inherently provisional and open ended in its methods, findings, explanatory models, predictions, conclusions and recommendations — that tends to be forgotten in the push for message and policy dominance.]

With this in hand, we may readily see:

1 –> The tendency to tag ID thinkers and supporters as “Creationists” and then to smear and dismiss both as ignorant, stupid, insane and/or wicked, is little more than polarising rhetoric in support of controlling, manipulative agendas that wish to exclude and domineer rather than reason.

2 –> Such should long since have been stopped (and frankly, Mr Dawkins and NCSE et al have long owed a public apology . . . ), and those who insist on such tactics should stand exposed as acting in disregard to truth, fairness, fact and civility. Let is set such aside.

3 –> Similarly, the particularly pernicious tactic of crying “Gish gallop” — i.e. dismissal by insinuating a flood of distortions, half truths and misrepresentations without providing substantiation when a case is presented on a wide array of evidence should cease. Dr Gish won hundreds of debates on record by pointing out serious, systematic gaps in the fossil record and a pervasive lack of an adequate, empirically warranted blind watchmaker chance and/or necessity mechanisms for body plan origin by [neo-]Darwinian or similar  means. That was so in the 1970’s and 80’s, leading to the rise of punctuated equilibria, and it remains so today, whether or not one is inclined to give much credence to his young earth creationist views.

4 –> Further to this, functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information (FSCO/I) is real and readily observable — the text of this post and comments will be cases in point (s-t-r-i-n-g data structures) . . . as are  an Abu 6500 C3 reel:

abu_6500c3mag

. . . the process-flow network of an oil refinery:

Petroleum refinery block diagram illustrating FSCO/I in a process-flow system
Petroleum refinery block diagram illustrating FSCO/I in a process-flow system

. . . the cell’s metabolic network:

cell_metabolism

. . . and the protein synthesis mechanism in that network [top, left]:

Protein Synthesis (HT: Wiki Media)
Protein Synthesis (HT: Wiki Media)

4 –> Such systems are inherently highly contingent [the parts can be clumped or scattered in many possible ways) based on wiring-diagram, functionally specific arrangements of nodes and arcs familiar from engineering praxis.For example:

wireframe_scope

5 –> Their complexity can be measured by in effect listing a structured framework of yes/no questions that describe the network (similar to CAD software); where, once we hit a threshold of 500 – 1,000 bits [binary digits] — configuration spaces of scope 3.27*10^150 or 1.07*10^301 possibilities from 000 . . . 0 to 111 . . . 1 — the implied scope of blind watchmaker search in the relevant haystack will readily overwhelm scopes of 10^57 atoms (Sol system) or 10^80 atoms (observed cosmos), 10^17 s (~10 bn y) and 10^12 – 14 actions/s (comparable to fast chem reaction rates).

6 –> It can be readily seen, by contrast, that FSCO/I rich configurations by the very necessity of particular arrangement to reach function, will naturally come in relatively narrow clusters in configuration spaces — islands of function:

islands_of_func_chall

7 –> Thus there is first a challenge to find islands in the midst of seas of non function, and secondly, a hill-climbing challenge:

is_ o_func2_activ_info

8 –> This speaks to the origin of life also, where in a Darwin pond etc, there will only be physics and chemistry to appeal to, in the context of statistical mechanics’ analysis of the underlying molecular-atomic behaviour:

Brownian_motion_large

. . . yielding the laws of thermodynamics (which are abductively inferred best explanations) and linked patterns of energy conversion and work, e.g. the heat engine:

A heat Engine partially converts heat into work9 –> Where, it is a general observation on a trillion member observation basis, that FSCO/I rich structures and systems are seen to come from energy conversion and coupling to give shaft or flow work that is then put into an assembly process under a wiring diagram.

10 –> To date, there are no actually credibly observed exceptions to this pattern that FSCO/I reliably comes form intelligently directed configuration, aka design. That is, inductively, FSCO/I is at least as reliable a sign of design as deer tracks in a relevant context are of deer:

A probable Mule Deer track, in mud, showing dew claws (HT: http://www.saguaro-juniper.com, deer page.)
A probable Mule Deer track, in mud, showing dew claws (HT: http://www.saguaro-juniper.com, deer page.)

11 –> This then extends to the need to explain the class of system we have to deal with in life forms, von Neumann, kinematic self replicators [vNSRs] with considerable construction involved:

vNSR12 –> When it comes to origin of body plans, much the same challenge obtains, e.g. to explain the origin of the brain as a key structure with considerable progammed content:

the_brain. . . that works based on neural networks:

Fig. G.18(b): Integration of Neurons in layered networks and the brain, the body's controller, n.b. motor area. (Credits: Jedismed, Riken, HSS, India)
Integration of Neurons in layered networks and the brain, the body’s controller, n.b. motor area. (Credits: Jedismed, Riken, HSS, India)

____________

As a consequence, the design inference needs to be addressed on an empirical, inductive, observationally anchored basis, not by trying to recategorise it rhetorically as a religious agenda and dismissing based on in effect strawman tactic prejudice.

But, in a deeply polarised ideologically dominated, Overton Window spin-game era, that is a big challenge. One, we need to face squarely. END

PS: As there seems to be a fixation on a 3-D scale I used above, here is a similar case:

threedim

35 Replies to “ID and the Overton Window/ BATNA/ March of Folly issue . . .

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    FSCO/I vs the debate games.

  2. 2
    kairosfocus says:

    Plato (360 BC) and Jesus (c. 29 AD) warned us about the issues of manipulation and false enlightenment — when what we imagine is the light in us is in fact darkness — 2,000 and more years ago. Why is it we are still facing that problem as a civilisation?

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:

    What does this tell us about the tendency to appeal to Capital-S “Science” and to “the Scientific Consensus” on matters where there is in fact considerable uncertainty? What dangers lie, then in an Overton Window/ range of generally accepted views seen as respectable possibilities, shaped by such a “Consensus” context or the like? (What does this imply given that the balance of strengths and limitations on the claimed agreed Science is often not properly understood or discussed in the policy deliberations and public debates?)

  4. 4
    kairosfocus says:

    What is it that is going on in the sausage factory behind the Overton Window and conventional wisdom of our day?

  5. 5
    Zachriel says:

    See you’re still using that messed-up cube of yours.

    The first problem is that anarchism is on three different vertices. They should be a single vertex. You might start with just two dimensions; left-right, statist-libertarian.

  6. 6
    kairosfocus says:

    Z, pardon but you have cart before horse in a word meanings debate. Anarchy happens when state power, leadership and law break down and/or are absent [ the latter being, state of nature as Kentucky was as “a dark and bloody ground” when Boone et al made a purchase], so each dimension at one extreme becomes anarchic. Note the suffix, implying of that character. Anarchic tendencies promote anarchy without that being fully there just on any one dimension, and the point of anarchy occurs when all three are at the nil end of the scale. As was highlighted to you months ago. KF

    PS: FYI, Anarchy appears at just one indicated vertex, If one is at SON end of scale on a dimension it means you are on the face of the cube that touches that end and holds that value, e.g. full breakdown of state power means you are on the RH face, lawlessness that you are on the back face and lack of leadership, on the top one. The point of intersection is the designated repeller pole, full blown anarchy.

  7. 7
    Zachriel says:

    kairosfocus: so each dimension at one extreme becomes anarchic.

    Then they would meet at a single vertex.

    kairosfocus: Anarchy happens when state power, leadership and law break down and/or are absent

    There can certainly be leadership in an anarchic society, and while there is, by definition, no state power, there can be conventions (laws) that guide behavior.

  8. 8
    kairosfocus says:

    Z, There is no effective state level leadership in full blown “dark and bloody ground” anarchy, there is a breakdown or absence of state power and with that also lawlessness. That is, there is no enforceable framework for defending the civil peace of justice. But, all of this is a side-track. KF

    PS: The three dimensions meet at the indicated repeller pole, as was pointed out to you months ago.

  9. 9
    hrun0815 says:

    Zachariel, maybe 3D objects projected onto a 2D surface work differently to KF than to all other people, but it seems pretty clear to me that anarchy in all three dimensions does not meet. Not at the repeller pole nor anywhere else. It is puzzling, for sure, but not more than many other things KF posts. His mind just works a bit different I guess.

  10. 10
    kairosfocus says:

    Hrun, there is an obvious “origin” lower LH pole and there are scales on 3 mutually orthogonal axes. The scales show what has been pointed out already. I point out that the nil or anarch-IC — note the suffix — end of the three scales do met in the repeller pole point. KF

    PS: Observe the PS to the OP, hopefully that may help move back the Overton window.

  11. 11
    Zachriel says:

    kairosfocus: There is no effective state level leadership in full blown “dark and bloody ground” anarchy

    There’s no state leadership because there is no state. That doesn’t mean there isn’t leadership.

    kairosfocus: The three dimensions meet at the indicated repeller pole

    Not according to the diagram, which shows three distinct vertices for anarchy.

  12. 12
    kairosfocus says:

    Z, I simply observe that once there is generally effective leadership in a region, a state type structure can be formed. This has happened many times in history. I suggest that you look at the PS added and accept that there are in effect slices along each axis, much like a Rubik’s cube has sub cubes — here 5 x 4 x 4 = 80, as a first level look. Starting Left low front, we move to nil state power on that scale, specifying in effect the RH face: state can break down independent of law or leadership. Go to nil lawfulness i.e. no effective laws. Then go to no effective leadership and you are at top back right, full blown anarchic chaos, anarchy proper — the repeller pole. Your insistence otherwise (and this is after this was pointed out months ago) is ill informed. I accept it is hard for some to think in 3D terms but the scale retains its utility and applicability to analysis of a lot of history. KF

    PS: Please, get the difference between anarchic and anarchy as is indicated. That you keep on insisting on obfuscating a key distinction even after the matter has been pointed out is not a happy sign.

  13. 13
    Zachriel says:

    kairosfocus: I simply observe that once there is generally effective leadership in a region, a state type structure can be formed.

    It may happen, but not necessarily. Humans had leaders long before the invention of the state.

  14. 14
    kairosfocus says:

    Z, the state in the sense of a reasonably coherent unit of power on a region (often a clan warlord with near relatives and retainers forming a de facto small scale monarchy — which still tends to emerge) and the more or less modern state are different. I also cannot but notice the increasingly tangential tendency. KF

  15. 15
    kairosfocus says:

    Q: Has big-S Science — as in, Scientific “Consensus” driven by [self-refuting] evolutionary materialistic scientism dominating key institutions, processes and the media — become today’s main manipulative shadow show that en-darkens even as it pretends to enlighten, leading to marches of folly and civilisational collapse into chaos . . . opening the door to tyranny?

  16. 16
    Zachriel says:

    kairosfocus: the state in the sense of a reasonably coherent unit of power on a region (often a clan warlord with near relatives and retainers forming a de facto small scale monarchy

    There were human leaders long before the invention of monarchy.

  17. 17
    kairosfocus says:

    Z, that is even more tangential and lends to the view that it is part of a distractive rhetorical strategy. KF

    PS: Monarchy is as old as monogamy or polygamy and a family or clan led by the chief father figure passing the mantle on to his sons.

  18. 18
    Mung says:

    Zachriel: There were human leaders long before the invention of monarchy.

    So?

  19. 19
    Zachriel says:

    kairosfocus: Monarchy is as old as monogamy or polygamy and a family or clan led by the chief father figure passing the mantle on to his sons.

    Tribal societies often have distributed leadership, even within the family.

    Mung: So?

    Because kairosfocus’s cubic analysis includes a leadership spectrum that goes from autocratic to oligarchic to democratic to anarchic. The first three seem to imply the spectrum concerns the distribution of leadership, but the last is out of place. There can be leadership in an anarchic society — indeed, that’s when leadership has its greatest strength.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....hllg_b.gif

    Similar problems inhabit his lawfulness spectrum.

  20. 20
    kairosfocus says:

    Z, the tangent continues. Tribes may indeed share leadership (and the Spartans had two kings) but that is irrelevant to the point that dominant clan leadership strongly tends to be inherited, setting up monarchy as a natural govt form. And on leadership the obvious issue is concentration vs diffusion, from autocrats to oligarchies across to anarchic every man does what seems right in his own eyes, boiling down to mob rule, riot rule, brigandage or piracy and law of the jungle: a dark and bloody ground. The chaos resulting — anarchic conditions are VERY unstable and repellent when actually on the ground or just a serious threat — snaps back to autocrats or oligarchies if we are lucky. As for lawfulness, the trend is again obvious: the autocrat whose word is life, death and law, moderated to a corpus of law that tries to be just, then the rise of constitutional law as controlling law concomitant to democracy, then utter diffusion of law into ineffectiveness as extreme libertarian views or disintegrative discrediting of the state takes over . . . or as one is in a state of nature in a dark and bloody ground regulated only by the threat of feuds (which points right back to the rise of clan warlords). Anarchy and society are not a stable combination, reality is civil wars or feuds among clans constituting warlord led microstates leading to dominant coalitions and/or conquest by neighbours tired of raids. KF

  21. 21
    Mung says:

    Wolf packs, Elephant herds, Ant colonies, Bees.

    All democracies. I’m sure.

  22. 22
    Zachriel says:

    kairosfocus: Tribes may indeed share leadership (and the Spartans had two kings) but that is irrelevant to the point that dominant clan leadership strongly tends to be inherited, setting up monarchy as a natural govt form.

    Most of human history predates monarchy.

  23. 23
    kairosfocus says:

    Z, since you are playing word games, human history goes out about 5k y, when record peters out. And, that would be more than good enough for my analysis. More to the point, I have already pointed out what the speculations well beyond that tend to ignore, once you have families, you have the strong tendency to pass on position in a clan. Which is more than enough for my point: monarchy is a natural form of government, if you insist. And the point in the scales is, autocracy then oligarchy then democratic forms that fade off into breakdown of leadership that controls a relevant zone for clan based micro state or city state or nation state or empire. The Mongol Empire and the Early Muslim Empires show the evolution of leadership and law I speak of running out within the past 1,000+ years; just for reference. The Roman Empire and the ancient Jewish one are pretty good cases in point of corpus of laws, as is the English common law tradition from Alfred on. Every man did what was right in his own eyes and dark and bloody ground (Amerindian characterisation of Kentucky to Daniel Boone and co) are proverbial. Constitutional democracy is a modern institution, with dependence on mass literacy and very delicately balanced socio-cultural and political forces. KF

    PS: I forgot to correct: state leadership is not the issue it is leadership in the relevant region, as I noted. Once there is leadership with effective control, the autocratic word is life/death is proverbial, leading to moderation into a body of law . . . the transition post Stalin in our time is a good case in point there; it was a question mark as to whether Khrushchev would go without blood, on a vote of the leadership elite. And the autocrat has often created the state in his image.

  24. 24
    kairosfocus says:

    Q, back on track: Has big-S Science — as in, Scientific “Consensus” driven by [self-refuting] evolutionary materialistic scientism dominating key institutions, processes and the media — become today’s main manipulative shadow show that en-darkens even as it pretends to enlighten, leading to marches of folly and civilisational collapse into chaos . . . opening the door to tyranny?

  25. 25
    Zachriel says:

    kairosfocus: since you are playing word games, human history goes out about 5k y, when record peters out.

    You’re playing word games. It’s clear from context that we are using the word “history” to refer to past events generally.

    kairosfocus: monarchy is a natural form of government, if you insist.

    So natural, it didn’t exist for most of human history. Monarchy was a response to organized warfare. There are still societies in existence that have no organized authority, but have leaders.

  26. 26
    kairosfocus says:

    Z, word games continue. Enough has been said, the very natural tendency to pass down leadership in families has been already noted. Time to refocus the real issue: Overton window. KF

  27. 27
    kairosfocus says:

    Q: Are we living in a secularist cave world, with digital technology shadow shows mistaken for reality? (And, per ex falso quodlibet, rejecting unwelcome truth because it cuts across the message dominant myths we have been led to confuse for reality?)

  28. 28
    Zachriel says:

    kairosfocus: Enough has been said, the very natural tendency to pass down leadership in families has been already noted.

    So we both agree that leadership can exist without a state.

    Z, that’s a turnabout, I said that right from the beginning. State power and its apparatus, law (oral or written) and leadership can each exist or fail to exist in a zone without the others; hence orthogonal dimensions. KF

  29. 29
    kairosfocus says:

    Q, again: Are we living in a secularist cave world, with digital technology shadow shows mistaken for reality? (And, per ex falso quodlibet, rejecting unwelcome truth because it cuts across the message dominant myths we have been led to confuse for reality?)

    PS: The Captcha is getting really fussy!

  30. 30
    Zachriel says:

    kairosfocus: I said that right from the beginning.

    Good, then let’s look at the leadership spectrum again. It goes from autocratic to oligarchic to democratic to “nil”. The first three appear to be diffusion of leadership. A pure democracy has political leadership the most widely distributed. How do you get from there to “nil”, which implies the complete lack of leadership. Even in a pure democracy, there are leaders, indeed, often very powerful leaders. Your spectrum is either incoherent or perhaps we are missing something.

  31. 31
    jerry says:

    KF,

    I have come here infrequently in the last couple years. I am interested in a lot of things besides ID and know the ID area fairly well. When I come back, I see that no one is presenting new arguments for or against or seem to be doing so.

    I find the posts of you and Dr. Torley extremely long and sometimes hard to follow because so much is shoved into them. It is like you are each writing a book. The end result is that I rarely read them all. Similar to this OP.

    On this, I did follow the term Overton Window and went to your link on the topic. I am interested in that now and never heard the term before and understood it immediately. So I will pursue it and thank you for referring to it.

    But now back to the OP.

    The cube has nothing to do with what you want to accomplish so why even respond to someone like Zachriel who has only one interest, pointing out some flaw in anything any ID proponent has on something.

    You seem to want to win the rhetoric war on ID and address the ID thesis is a rational way so that others can also address it without the interfering nonsense that people throw our ways. Is that correct?

    One way of doing this is ignoring the irrelevant comments by your detractors. I often wonder why they are here since they never add much. They are here to criticize only and often not on the thrust of the argument at hand but on some side peripheral issue.

    As to your framework for acceptable positions. I live in the New York City area and before he died, Ed Koch once said that before he became mayor he would never say he would get the NYC finances in balance because no one would believe him. New York was so chaotic that a promise of that nature would have gotten the electorate laughing at him.

    But that was his objective and he did successfully do it. If you promise outside the range of what people believe is acceptable, you will turn them off. So your Overton framework makes sense to me.

  32. 32
    Zachriel says:

    jerry: The cube has nothing to do with what you want to accomplish so why even respond to someone like Zachriel who has only one interest, pointing out some flaw in anything any ID proponent has on something.

    If it has nothing to do with the topic, then your argument would be with kairosfocus who included it in his original post. Then again, it’s hard to tell from reading the original post what kairosfocus is trying to say about the Overton Window.

  33. 33
    kairosfocus says:

    Jerry

    The Overton Window concept together with BATNA and the issues raised in Plato’s parable of the cave give us analytical tools for understanding dynamics of what we can call conventional wisdom.

    That wisdom is often set in the context of the left vs right debate, which for various reasons I think is less than helpful. Not least, the attempt to label as creationism and further pigeonhole as right wing would be theocratic tyrants etc, with hints of terrorism and inquisitions as imagined.

    In short, the design scientific debate has been caught up into a much wider ideological polarisation in the civilisation.

    That is the context in which I raised a different analysis of political dynamics, centred on the balance of freedom and control. Until we had a critical mass of literate people with a worldview that valued responsible freedom, modern constitutional democracy was impossible, the most one could hope for was an oligarchic but lawful state, with the danger of falling into despotic autocratic tyranny. Opposed has always been anarchy, which — contrary to various fantasies of the enlightement era so called — has always been chaotic, utterly dangerous and destructive, That is a repeller pole that leads to the cry we want a strong king to give us safety.

    In looking at these dynamics, we can see that state power, lawfulness and leadership are three significantly independent dimensions, hence the analysis using a 3-d frame.

    In that context, the underlying issues once attempts to dispute over words, axes and scales etc are set aside, we see the issue that constitutional, limited government democracy is a delicate equilibrium heavily dependent on a morally fired social consensus and on the people being at a certain level of understanding and ability to think and read for themselves.

    It will always be manipulated by those who wish to advance special interests, as Ac 27 illustrates.

    Also, it is critically dependent on there being a critical mass of people with a worldview that supports responsible freedom and self government.

    Which, notoriously, evolutionary materialistic scientism undermines, and would substitute the lab coat clad atheistical magisterium.

    On other sides, there is a toying with the matches of anarchy though an extreme libertarianism that seems to view government as little better than fraud and theft with an eye out for the chance to slip in a tyranny.

    In short, in the OP I alluded to a debate that was had months ago, that Z obviously wishes to renew.

    The best answer is to expose the matches that are being played with so recklessly.

    On both sides.

    Then, the focus shifts back to the pivotal matters at stake.

    I actually believe that the decisive issues are not particularly difficult, being at really 6th Form and first year uni level, say about Freshman and Sophomore level in the US style system. Hence the outline.

    The creationism in a cheap tuxedo canard needs to be exposed.

    People cry Gish gallop, they need to be corrected in a nutshell.

    There is an attempt to pretend that functionally specific complex information and/or associated information is not a real thing, so I point it out by example.

    What accounts for it, given the issue of blind needle in haystack search and the issue of actual observation of trillions of cases in point.

    There are games around what science is and what its methods are. Some basics are enough to put the matter back in balance.

    And in all of this I think our own brains are a capstone example, leading also to the question as to what grounds responsible freedom.

    Yes, the latest news on sciences is interesting, but there is a place also for getting back to basics to clear the air clouded, polarised and poisoned by all sorts of rhetorical stratagems.

    And, we need to understand the matches we are playing with.

    Especially when we begin to set BATNA levels based not on reality but on Plato’s cave shadow show games.

    Marches of folly are no joke.

    KF

  34. 34
    jerry says:

    KF,

    Again, I think you include too much in your OP’s. Yes, maybe all has relevance but in the end I am not sure what you want to achieve because there is so much to digest. Having been on this site for 10 years, I have seen all the tricks played to divert and obscure the real argument. I believe you and others have listed these at various times. Sometimes, I think the pro ID people are their own worst enemies by adding to the confusion.

    But I am still not sure what you want to accomplish with this OP.

  35. 35
    kairosfocus says:

    Jerry, opposition to the design inference now primarily pivots on politics and linked manipulation of what is perceived as acceptable. It is time to address the politics (including, have you watched the video of Plato’s parable and pondered the implied calculation in the shadow shows?), while highlighting the core case behind the inference. KF

Leave a Reply