We cannot live by scepticism alone

_{Mario Lopez

March 5, 2009

Science}

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

Scientists have been too dogmatic about scientific truth and sociologists have fostered too much scepticism — social scientists must now elect to put science back at the core of society, says Harry Collins.

Comments

Joseph @ 173
Name them.
Life came about from organic compounds that happened to obtain the ability to self replicate. Life came about from an unknown unknowable entity called "the designer" A space dog from the year 10,000 went back in time and seeded the planet with magic "earth buttons" that became life A tri-top-top fromt the far side of the universe invented a tp-t-tp machine which happened to create a self-replicator on this side of the universe. An old man in the sky did it.
Prove it or admit you are bluffing.
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=evolution&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search Lots of papers on evolution. None of them requiring a designer.George L Farquhar_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

KF @ 170
Has it ever occurred to you that I am simply not interested in the peer reviewed publication game, especially on the Plato’s Cave shadow show terms that so plainly now usually obtain?
If you want to change how things work hiding in a dark corner won't do it. You might not be interested in the peer reviewed game, but it's the only game in town. And what does "Plato’s Cave shadow show terms" really mean? That you might get a letter saying "thanks, but no thanks" if you do write a paper and submit it? Have the courage of your convictions man!
Others are indeed trying — kudos to them — and are CONSISTENTLY having serious issues with harassment and worse, e.g. the brouhaha over Sternberg and Gonzalez, etc. Fine for them.
You are in fact in a better position then they are, you have nothing to lose do you? Are you looking for tenure at the moment?
But, in the end, too often the appeal to peer review is an appeal to blind trust in authority and — worse — in pseudo- consensus.
That's the worst side of it. But the better side of it is that your work is publised, people can build upon it with some assurance it's probably correct and everybody can comment. Again, it's the only game in town. Play or accept your concepts will never impact on the real world or with the next generation of scientists who might be interested in developing your concepts more.
Ideas stand in the end not on emotions or views of authority but on warrant in light of facts, reasoning and reasonable first plausibles.
Exactly. Your views have as much chance of being heard as anybody elses. The facts in your paper can be examined by all and if objections are found and can be substantiated then you only stand to gain as your position is refined and errors removed.
I am therefore far more interested in the seeking of the well-warranted truth, and in the development of an alternative, including a reasonably serious level education alternative; in the teeth of distortions, calumnies and in too many cases negligent false accusation or worse.
Most scientists would object to any sort of discrimation or harrasment of people for their views. By refusing to submit your papers to a peer reviewed enviroment you are essentially letting the "darwiniods" win. The few that are harrassing ID proponents want you to shut up. By taking this tack, you are letting them win and giving them exactly what they want.
On track record, if there was a public knowledge of which journal,t he editor would come immediately under the sort of NCSE-orchestrated nasty demonising and bullying tactics [It is all now in the open record for us to see] that all but destroyed not only Mr Sternberg’s career and reputation but his personal life as well.
Sternberg appears to still be working in the same place, under the same circumstances. My understanding is he lost rights to have a key to the building or similar. And if what I heard about how he treated valuable artifacts is true, he deserves more.
Do you see why I am speaking of Plato’s Cave games?
Yes, because something nasty happened to Sternberg you'll spend the rest of your life pretending that's the reason you won't publish your ideas in a forum where they can be exampled by all.
Now, too, before you get to islands of function, you are looking at attracting drifting search rafts by broadcasting warmer/colder signals to NON_FUNCTIONAL outcomes, or else at wafting the rafts towards the islands by currents or winds.
It's been previously shown that you do not grasp even Dawkins' Weasel example, as you said that as each letter is identified it becomes fixed and cannot change any more. Why, then, should your prouncements on the origin of life be listened to?
And if you are implying that the cosmos’ laws have “life” written into them, you are implicitly partially accepting the conclusion of cosmological ID
If the cosmos is designed for life, why is it that the only life identified is on this planet, and only this planet. If the cosmos was indeed designed for life I would expect at least a radio signal by now. Where is all the life in this "designed for life" cosmos KF?
The islands of function in view are those for first life and for the creation of major novel body plans — increments of about 600 k bits and 10’s - 100’s of mega bits respectively. (Cf my always linked, as already noted.)
If you can write it up and publish it then this might have some weight.
This has already been done at peer review level as has been linked, for proteins.
So, even though you are the primary proponent of FCSI you rely on others to do the hard work? I looked at the paper you linked to. I cannot find any mention of FCSI or even CSI. The closest I can find is Functional Sequence Complexity. They mention Random Sequence Complexity (RSC), Ordered Sequence Complexity (OSC) and Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC) but not FSCI. This is why you need to publish. If you make up your own terms and the refer somebody to a paper that does not even include that term when asked for an example then don't be surprised if your "example" is refused as irrelevant. What is the relevance of FSCI to the paper you linked to? If FSCI is equivilent to RSC, OSC or FSC then why don't you use that name instead and make it alot simpler for people to understand what you mean?
a] An Onion. — what is the length of its genome? Certainly, more than 600,000 bits.
And the value of it's FSCI? And how would you work it out? So FSCI = Genome length is it? The odd thing about the onion is that it's genome is bigger then a humans. So an onion has more FSCI then a human? Is that right?
b] A lego brick. — how much space does the digital specification drawing with associated required information on dimensions, etc take up? Certainly, moe than 1,000 bits
At it's simplest, it could be a dozen or two bits if they are simple x,y,z, coords for each vertex that makes it up.
[GLF here needs to look at the way the explanatory filter works,a s was already linked and pointed out.]
Is there a list of items that have been used with the EF that you can link to? I know how it works. What I want is somebody to apply it to an object chosen by a 3rd party. Can you show me how the EF works? Let's take two cases. A 1mm diamond cut into a pyramid shape. 1 1mm diamond that has not been cut. Please show me how the EF determines which is "designed"?George L Farquhar_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

---David Kellogg: On who is misunderstanding and who is being misunderstood: we’re clearly not going to resolve this. You refer to a universal moral code that you can only receive, understand, and implement in contingent and relative terms. If it makes you happy to call it objective, fine." I have asked you several times if murder and child prostitution are wrong, and your refuse to say that it is. I can only conclude that you do not think it is not wrong. Since you will not answer the questinon for yourself, I am reduced to answering it for you. Meanwhile, where is the courage of your convictions? As I pointed out, there was no child prostitution in the Bible, because MARRIAGE IS NOT PROSTITION. Please write that down. In order to justify your notion that child prostituion can be acceptable in some circumstances, you hearken back to the Bible in a bizarre attempt to show that it was once accepted. As I have indicated, the example you cite in the Bible is not prostituion, and even if was, it would still be wrong. Do you labor under the illusion that every act committed in Old Testament history is reputed to be a moral act? Your comments make no sense at all. Each time I ask you a simple straightforward question, you hide behind a series of conteested definitions and dubious historical refernces. All rational people understand that murder and child prostitution are wrong. The only question left is this: Are you and George Farquhar rational people?StephenB_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

StephenB, I am not saying that it is not prostitution. I am saying that what was not prostitution then is indeed prostitution now (at least in the West). In fact, I believe that the Biblical practices of bride price would be called child prostitution today and would be rightly illegal. It's kind of what went on with that fundamentalist Mormon community in Texas. On the issue of equivalence: a supposed moral universal could have a stable definition, no? If the definition is not stable, how can the morality be universal? That was my point: not that Biblical characters prostituted their children, or that a voice told Abraham he should murder his son, but that no definition of a moral law holds true universally. That Abraham did not kill his son even in the story (supposing Abraham ever existed) is irrelevant. I never said he killed his son, and I said the story was one of attempted murder. On who is misunderstanding and who is being misunderstood: we're clearly not going to resolve this. You refer to a universal moral code that you can only receive, understand, and implement in contingent and relative terms. If it makes you happy to call it objective, fine.David Kellogg_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

kariosfocus @ 169
And of course Conway’s game is a program, by a programmer, illustrating the provenance of information systems. I will bet that it incorporates at least 143 ACII characters worth of FSCI, too.
How pathetic. No doubt you have the same objection to any simulation of anything. Yes, Conway's game of life is of course a program. Tell me, if I write a program that simulates physical reality down to the sub-atomic level, taking into account all modern physics and on hardware capable of simulating sufficient items to allow a realistic (a planet sized environment) simulation of earth pre-life, let it run in parallel for billions of years with billions of simultaneous simulations running and then if some sort of simple life appeared, would you make the same objection? Of course you would. You just don't get the idea of a "simulation" do you?
At best it illustrates how programed — thus, designed — functional systems can hill-climb incrementally to particular forms of peak performance. It does not at all address the issue of the sea of possible configs and the need to get to the shores of islands of function without broadcasting oracles or built in wafting winds and currents.
A moment ago you did not even know how many characters of FSCI the program would have contained
I will bet that it incorporates at least 143 ACII characters worth of FSCI, too.
And now you are ready to opine on what it is and what it shows? Try doing some reading first. No, it does not "the issue of the sea of possible configs and the need to get to the shores of islands of function" as that was not what the topic at hand was. It shows that some simple rules, some random arrangments and simple replicators can appear from "nothing". Stephen Wolfram thinks that this sort of game has deep implications as to how reality actualy works. You should check it out. If you are honestly interested in learning something new.
Newton and many others being actually biblical Creationists; i.e. it is per historical fact possible to be a creationist and a great Scientist],
The difference between Newton and you was that Newton could keep his science and theology seperate. There was no "god" in his equations. Did you also know he was an Alchemist?
So, the best current explanation for the computer we have stumbled across in the heart of the cell is: design.
Agreed. Except you cannot say anything whatsoever about the designer, and I can. Also, you say "best current" explanation. Well, I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you, but "god did it" is not really new, it's been around since day 1. KF, if you've proven your case all you need to do is publish. People can believe what you say or not, but they can only critisize on a factual level. If you are capable of defending your work, and you are right about what you say, you will win!George L Farquhar_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

kariosfocus @ 167
I therefore start with an issue, the alleged dubious status of FSCI
It's simply the truth. FSCI in the way you use it on your "always linked" appears to be defined and used only by you. It may bear some relation to a phrase coined by Orgel et al, but it has not been defined with any rigour. In fact, do you think Orgel himself would agree with your co-option of that phrase? As you are such a fan of Orgel, do you agree with "Orgel's Second Rule"?
Evolution is cleverer than you are.
Do you agree? Or do you only pick and choose from his body of work as to what you agree with? Orgel also thought that life on earth may have come from interstellar space.
FSCI is the FUNCTIONALLY specified form of CSI
Do you have any examples? Of a given objects CSI and then FSCI?
as a rule of thumb look for at least 1,000 bits, equivalent to 143 ASCII characters
I would expect more then a "rule of thumb" after all the years you have been promoting this concept. This is why I keep telling you to publish. You won't get very far with "rules of thumb" in a paper, you'll have to tighten up your definitions!
in the past several years, Trevors Abel, Chiu, Durston et al have spoken to a particular manifestation of FSCI, functional sequence complexity
Did they speak to this on a blog or did they publish papers that could be cited?
6 –> this is of course FSCI in action, and as at 2007 in the peer reviewed literature with Durston as lead author, a table of no less than 35 specific measured values of FSC has been published; complete with a sufficiently full description of the method that the validity of the results can be seen as fully warranted in light of well accepted principles of information theory, probability, statistics and measurement practice.
Could you point me to the section where it says "And this FSC could only have come about from intelligent agency"?
Sad to say, because we are here not dealing with a balanced, facts- controlled discussion, but instead — at root — with the Plato’s Cave rhetorical tactics of manipulative debate.
I bow to the master of manipulative debate. You are willing to spend tens of thousands of words to repeat yourself over and over to random internet blogs and critics but not willing to spend any time putting your ideas on a formal setting and publish then and recieve critisism.
So, the FSCI objection aptly illustrates the underlying problem with the always question-begging and self-referentially inconsistent selective hyperskepticism that has come to so infect the Darwinist advocacy movement in our time.
It's a reasonable objection. The only person using that phrase is you. You seem to think that your "always linked" proves that god exists (onlookers, please visit the "always linked" for yourself, it's more about Jesus then math). You believe that you have proven that the "designer" was required for the origin of life. You believe that FSCI proves that. You believe that God is the "designer", as your website makes clear. So, in summary, you have proved that god exists but are not willing to publish a paper saying so? Either you have not, and know it or, well, I'll let the onlookers decide for themselves.
First and foremost among these is the fact that since 1953, we have stumbled, not upon a stone in a field or a watch, but A DIGITAL, COMPLEX INFORMATION STORING AND USING COMPUTER in the heart of the cell.
How simple would life have to be before you would have said it did not need to be designed?George L Farquhar_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

George L Farquhar,
Domoman "It seems to me that you do have your salt plain holding a PDA (that is, Earth holding life) amongst an otherwise barren planet (that is, an otherwise barren universe)." No. You would be right if there was only a single life form on the planet and there was no evidence of ancestors leading up to it.
How does that disprove my point? The argument isn't so much against whether or not life could evolve via unguided natural processes, but rests more on the fact that life seems to be incredibly rare, perhaps even unique within the universe. Whether or not life could evolve is one thing, but you still have the first cell(s) on Earth that are technologically more advanced than anything humans have ever created. It's been said that the way that DNA compresses information is a trillion times better than our most advanced computer chips (Meyer). I've also heard that the algorithms within the most simple cell far surpasses our own manmade algorithms. Even if you ignore any organisms past the first cell(s) your still left with a "PDA" (the first "simple" cells) on a "salt plain" (the Earth) on anotherwise barren "planet" (the universe). My point still holds and you seem to be ignoring it as can be suggested by your next comment:
And in any case, you argue against your case here. Why does it appear that there is a barren universe (no life) and a single planet with life? If life was indeed designed would we not expect the universe to be teeming with life? What do you believe is the reason that it is not? Life could presumably be designed to exist in other places, such as the outer reaches of the Sun’s atmosphere, the moon, interstellar gas clouds etc. Yet we don’t see it. Why?
Now you're pulling something roughly related to, or directly related to, theology, into the argument. This does nothing to counter my initial point, and only affirms what I've already mentioned: that the universe is comparable to an otherwise barren planet. I can ask similar questions, which really solve nothing, and cannot really be known unless one were to directly speak with the hypothetical designer of life. I could ask, why should the designer need to create life on any other planet besides Earth? It could be to show that life is exceedingly unique. Besides, if this designer had created life on other planets, or the sun, as you suggest is possible, then evolutionists may suggest this also supports the pointless existence of life in the universe. This sort of argument will go nowhere, and the evidence supporting the design or non-design of life should be based on scientific methods; such as creating scientific methods to test for design in nature.
"evolutionary accounts such as a lizard evolving into a bird have never been physically witnessed." This reminds me of Gish’s reply to everything “Were you there?” [...] How would you expect to “Witness” something that everybody agrees can take much longer then a single human lifetime? In addition, we’ve only really been aware of such things for only a small amount of time (a few human lifetimes). So the “were you there” objection is a poor one.
Well, if the lack of direct observation cannot count against the neo-Darwinian theory, then all the supposed evidences of evolution which scientists supposedly witness today speak nothing of the neo-Darwinians validity. But, now, if you decide to say that these observations really do count, then I will suggest there is easily, and more abundant evidence, for genetic entropy, compared to the evidences of the neo-Darwinian theory of Evolution. If the present evidences of how life operates can be used to interpret the past geological record of life, then the fossil record should not be interpeted to support neo-Darwinian theory, but rather through the lenses of genetic entropy. Invariably, genetic entropy also leads to the obvious conclusion that life must have been designed. For the main reason that: if life is degrading and because of this cannot evolve in an upward fashion, then it could not have possibly evolved to then fall apart, but rather started in a previous wholly designed state. It might be be argued that physics were not in the past as they are now, and so genetic entropy does not count against evolution, but then no present "evidences" of neo-Darwinian evolution can be used to suggest its validity. Rather neo-Darwinism is accepted on faith alone. You also say,
We’ve never witnessed the continents seperate, yet we are sure it happened. Murders happen and are not witnessed yet people still go to jail for them.
I'm not really to sure what evidences are used to suggest the seperation of continents, but I'm guessing this is the fact that we have witnessed the movement of continents along with supposed evidence of their once former connectedness (they seem to fit together much like a jigsaw puzzle). As for murders: heck yes we've seen them witnessed! Often times they might be done in private, but there are many times witnesses to murders. Even if we haven't ever witnessed a murder though, we know that guns can be used to kill animals, so finding one within a dead human would suggest that another person (or the person himself) shot the gun which killed him. But if we had never seen a gun, or even a gun fire, let alone kill an animal or human, we should have no reason to suggest that murder or suicide resulted in the man's death via a supposed gun. Furthermore, in the case of the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, we find something more likened to: finding a bullet in a man's chest and some scientists conclude murder or suicide (which has been directly observed), while the majority of scientists (mainly because they were taught this or because of a priori assumptions) assume that the gun was created over eons of time through natural means which then accidently happened to be shot at the man and kill him. If all we have is the evidence of the gun and the dead man with a bullet in his chest (which can be likened to the fossil record), there is good, repeated examples which to assume it was murder or suicide (which can be likened to the repeated, observable evidences of complex, specified and functional information via inellgent agents). Yet there would be no reason to assume the random creation of a gun over eons of time which lead to the death of the man by accidental gun firing (which can be likened to the supposed, unobserved mechanism of neo-Darwinian theory). The same thing cannot be said for the macro-evolution of animals. We have never directly observed such an evolution, as from a lizard to a bird. We have seen small evolutionary changes, such as changes in beak sizes, but this does not suggest that a lizard has the potential to turn into a bird. Rather, if anything, we almost always see genetic entropy in action. Which is very similar to what happens when something is created, such as a computer, and then later decays through universal entropy.
"Animals therefore, as far as we can tell, may be just like a watch such as in Paley’s example." Except watches do not breed.
As I've already stated, we do not have enough evidence to suggest that animals can breed to create what the neo-Darwinism mechanism supposes they can. That is, entirely new organisms. Besides, just think of the first cell(s) on Earth, which could not come about via breeding anyway, and you've got yourself a clear analogy of Paley's watch. Except this time, the cell is far more advanced then a watch and seems to be completely unique (as life has never been found on other planets).Domoman_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

Allen, you’re right, name calling is effective in shutting down debate (Nazi! Fascist! Racist!), and surely you know that the Materialist Left is as guilty of this as its adversary. But invoking “Godwin’s Law” also shuts down debate—this when it is meant to discourage historians and others from pointing out how certain philosophies and policies have led to totalitarianism, racism and other grievous ills. If we cannot learn from the great materialist adventures of the 20th Century, then should we not also be forbidden to learn from the evils purpetuated by the Church in the preceding centuries?Rude_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

Joseph [179], I’m merely using a well-known story in which a person is commanded to murder his son and sets out with the intention of murdering his son.
But you don't know Abraham's intent. He could have just been acting like he was going to carry out the command.
the command clearly violates any supposedly universal moral imperative not to murder.
1- I don't believe the COMMAND does that, and 2- I don't believe there is a universal moral imperative not to murderJoseph_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

----Seversky: "On the issue of skepticism, we should bear in mind that it is not a monolithic structure but rather comes in a number of different flavors." No one thinks otherwise. I have gone out of my way to distinguish the destructive notion philosophical skepticism, which I have defined with precision, and the necessary and laudible practice of scientific skepticism.StephenB_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT}

----David Kellogg: I have never said that there is “nothing wrong” with child prostitution. My point was rather different. You’re misunderstanding it in predictable ways." I am not misunderstanding you at all. You misunderstand yourself, which is not unusual for skeptics and moral relativists. You tried to tie the word "prostitution" to Old Testament events that were clearly not prostitution. So now, after having been shown that it was NOT prostitution, you are backing away from that position. The only thing predictable in this dialogue is the irrational fruits of moral relativism. Of course, you can always reverse you position and return to the world of rational thought. All you need to do is say that child prostitution is wrong? Are you prepared to be rational and make the necessary declaration? ----"Further, I am not saying that the situations in Biblical times were “equivalent”; in fact their non-equivalence is part of my point. You can’t use the same yardstick to measure both." If you didn't think they were equivalent, you would not have offered them as examples. If you don't like your own examples then stop using them. It was only after I exposed the absurdity of using those Bible references that you suddenly found them to be inadequate. ----"For example (to pick a case of attempted cold-blooded murder), if today a father takes his son to a remote place because a voice in his head tells him to kill his son, that person would probably be judged insane. Back then, he talked to God." Once again, your dubious forays into Biblical exegesis are misguided. For starters, Abraham did not kill his son. I will not go into other multiple reasons why your latest assault on the Bible is irrelevant as well as evasive, unless, of course, you return to that ridiculous example. Once again, you are invited to return to the world of rational thought. Please stop evading the issue and provide a yes or no answer. Is cold-blooded murder absolutely and objectively wrong?StephenB_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

Joseph [179], I'm merely using a well-known story in which a person is commanded to murder his son and sets out with the intention of murdering his son. There was at the least intention to murder. Most theologians have said that this was not wrong if God commands it. Abraham was, in their view, right to obey God, and would have been right even if he hadn't been stopped. Whatever your position, or if, like Kierkegaard, you think this story points to something important about our existential uncertainty, the command clearly violates any supposedly universal moral imperative not to murder. So: if you think Abraham was talking to God, then murder is sometimes OK (if God commands it). If you think Abraham was not talking to God, I suppose this isn't an exception. Rude [180], if Singer encouraged a specific person to kill his son, I would certainly want him locked up. I believe there are laws that cover such things. (As an aside, the idea of Jeff Jacoby talking sense is kind of funny.) mullerp [181], if I encounter someone who has the same views about God that Abraham does, including a claim to all the knowledge about God's character etc., and he wants to kill his son based on personal instructions from that God, I'm still going to try to stop him. All the theological things that follow in your comment are, as H. L. Mencken said, "explanations of the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing." In any event, I'm amused that my critique of objectivity is countered by your defense of an objectivity somehow beyond human understanding. What use is that? There's an objective measure out there somewhere, but we can't access it? That seems far less stable than my appeal to provisional, relative judgment.David Kellogg_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

Seversky: You said: "What it requires is that proposed explanations should be consistent with what is already known and must be testable if they are to be of any use." This sounds just like the requirements that was used to reject Gallileo's findings. There is a great difference between a)"consistent with what is already known" and b)"consistent with all preceding data". The one you proposed (a) is not science, it is protecting dogma. The latter (b) that I propose is science.mullerpr_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

Since the theory of knowledge has been surfacing as part of this discussion I would like to refer all interested parties to Alvin Plantinga's "Warrant Series". # Warrant: the Current Debate, Oxford University Press, New York & Oxford, 1993. ISBN 0-19-507861-6 (1987-1988 Gifford Lectures, online) # Warrant and Proper Function, Oxford University Press, New York & Oxford, 1993. ISBN 0-19-507863-2 (1987-1988 Gifford Lectures) These works has been thoroughly influential in epistemology and its proposed method is sure to enlighten any one that wants to find new knowledge.mullerpr_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 96
Skepticsm is easily refuted, and I don’t need a quote from D. James Kennedy on a peripheral issue to confirm the point.
I agree that the issue of whether or not Kennedy accurately quoted one of the Huxleys or attributed it correctly is peripheral to the question of skepticism although not to the issue of his reliability as a witness. The same can also be said of the question of the Huxleys "sexual mores". I dare say that for every secularist of questionable morals we can find a prominent religionist whose personal behavior falls short of the standards they preach to others. Sadly, that is part of the human condition and why the Bible is wise to caution us against judging lest we be judged or or throwing stones unless we ourselves are without sin. On the issue of skepticism, we should bear in mind that it is not a monolithic structure but rather comes in a number of different flavors. While the radical version, in the sense of denying the possibility of reliable knowledge, is a recognized philosophical position, I doubt that you will find many, outside of university philosophy departments, who actually espouse it. And this should not be confused with - and has no bearing on - the value of scientific skepticism. Science is skeptical of new explanations to the extent that they will not be accepted just on the word of those who propose them. What it requires is that proposed explanations should be consistent with what is already known and must be testable if they are to be of any use. The reliability of the knowledge slowly accumulated by the scientific enterprise over the years is founded on its insistence that only those explanations which have survived repeated testing qualify for admission to the ranks of established theories. The question of the ethical oversight of scientific research is always going to be a thorny one. The specter of the 'mad genius' or coldly amoral psychopathic scientist of popular fiction hovers over all such debates. The fact is that there is always the possibility of such characters being found amongst scientists as there is amongst any other group of human beings like politicians or the clergy. This does not mean, however, that scientists are unconcerned about the ethical or social or political implications of what they do. While some may be so tightly focused on their own research that they have little attention to spare for the consideration of ethics, there will always be others to raise the alarm about something problematic. In the 1970's ther was a BBC TV series call Doomwatch which was about a small government agency tasked with monitoring scientific research so as to head off any potential disasters before they happened. It was staffed with scientists on the grounds that they were best placed to understand the research in detail, which makes sense. On the other hand, philosophers, as part of their training, will have studied and ethics and understand the nuances and pitfalls of the various arguments in far more detail than scientists. Over and above that, politicians and the ordinary citizens they represent will demand both to know what is happening and to at least have a say in what is being, particularly if it is being done on their dollar. And who will deny that they have that right. The question is: who, if anyone, should have overriding authority over what is being done, the people who pay for it, the people who think about it, the people who run it or the people who do it? What I and others fear is that those who argue for objective morality or natural moral laws, however well-intentioned, are attempting to arrogate control of science to themselves and have it subordinated to their ideological or theological ends and we all know where that leads. What I believe actually happens and should continue to happen is a messy process of 'negotiation' - for want of a better word - which leads to resolutions which satisfy no one but which they can live with, at least for the time being.Seversky_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

"What are the published papers that support the non-telic, adesign position? Almost all published papers support that viewpoint. There are several hundred thousand, at least." Absolute nonsense. Nearly every paper of the several hundred thousand if not all papers in evolutionary biology are either neutral on design or support design. I haven't seen one presented anywhere on the internet or in a journal or referenced here that does not fit this description. On another thread just last night Allen MacNeill, a teacher of evolutionary biology, demonstrates this every time he comes here and provides examples.jerry_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

David, You said: "Further, if Abraham was talking to God, then God commanded Abraham to commit cold-blooded murder — of his own son no less — and therefore there’s at least once instance when cold-blooded murder seems to be justified, at least by the God of the Bible. That was my initial point: that cold-blooded murder seems to be justified in the story, at least from the narrator’s perspective." You must have missed this explanation I specifically gave to counter the argument above. I preemptively covered that base because I knew from experience the skeptic stance which you then put forward post the fact. From #177 [my bold]: "You might have to find out that Abraham rationally knew that God was and is the only divine authority that have the right to request something like this, because he knew God will supply righteousness that is consistent with God’s character. Abraham certainly looks like someone who understood that God is an objective truth and source of all righteousness." There you have the rational justification from a Divine being acting consistent to the full complement of His revealed nature. Subjecting a Divine entity like the God of the Bible to your subjective concept of justice does in fact nothing to God's authority. As I said, it is like smoke in the eyes of everyone who want to understand the nature of God. I have engaged with modern liberal theologians that embraced the full blown skepticism that this thread's article discuss. Their approach to the Bible reflect much of your musings. What these liberal theologians does not grasp is the irrational foundation of their epistemology. Fortunately there are those in the liberal theological tradition that has already parted ways with post-modernism and is actively seeking a solid foundation for their epistemology.mullerpr_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

"If I encountered someone who says God told him to kill his son, I would want that person locked up — whether or not that person claims to see an angel." Hmm, but what if you encountered someone who says that Peter Singer suggested he kill his son, would you then want that person or Peter Singer locked up? Here, why not let Jeff Jacoby talk some sense?Rude_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

Joseph, there’s no evidence for anything about Abraham beyond the stories of the Bible.
Thanks for admitting you just made something up to suit your need. Also "God" commanded Abraham to test his faith. Ya see Abraham did NOT kill his son. That means there wasn't any murder- cold-blooded or otherwise. Do you not understand the story? On another note it is the people who think our existence is due to an accumulation of genetic accidents who should be locked-up. In that scenario there aren't any morals and anything goes.Joseph_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

mullerpr, I'm not saying God doesn't exist. I'm just saying that if the same thing happened today, we would judge it differently. If I encountered someone who says God told him to kill his son, I would want that person locked up -- whether or not that person claims to see an angel. That's my "moral conduct" toward other people. Perhaps you would treat someone on his way to kill his son differently? Further, if Abraham was talking to God, then God commanded Abraham to commit cold-blooded murder -- of his own son no less -- and therefore there's at least once instance when cold-blooded murder seems to be justified, at least by the God of the Bible. That was my initial point: that cold-blooded murder seems to be justified in the story, at least from the narrator's perspective. I've read part of The Spiritual Brain, though not all of it. In my view, it hangs some weighty claims on some very thin pegs. Joseph, there's no evidence for anything about Abraham beyond the stories of the Bible. Should I also believe that the goddess Athena protected Odysseus on his way home from Troy? There's a great deal of detail in that story.David Kellogg_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

Hi David, You said: "For example (to pick a case of attempted cold-blooded murder), if today a father takes his son to a remote place because a voice in his head tells him to kill his son, that person would probably be judged insane. Back then, he talked to God." What is the basis for you to trust any of your thoughts? This is yet another attempt to cloud the issue by using your own subjective assertion that the subjective value of a single message (i.e. "go sacrifice your son") is somehow part of the proof that God does not exist therefore communication with God is impossible therefore Abraham had to be insane. There is an objective way to settle this question of yours, but it seems as if you might not be interested, because then you might not have your way. The fact is there is no skeptic argument that can disprove God's existence. What you do here is "poisoning the well", it is a fallacy of argument. You might have to find out that Abraham rationally knew that God was and is the only divine authority that have the right to request something like this, because he knew God will supply righteousness that is consistent with God's character. Abraham certainly looks like someone who understood that God is an objective truth and source of all righteousness. Encounters with the Divine is, in fact, a well researched topic. There is even a complete study that investigated the brain states during meditation. It is reported in "The Spiritual Brain" along with a number of other investigations into the validity of a materialistic view of mind. http://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Brain-Neuroscientists-Case-Existence/dp/0060858834 Would you like to consider this as data to enlighten your subjective skepticism? The fact that you can creatively conjure up your subjective skepticism against the accounts of the Bible, has no bearing on any trustworthy search for knowledge. It is just like blowing smoke into everyone's eyes. If that is a sample of your moral conduct towards other people then you have proven a lot of people right in this discussion.mullerpr_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT}

George asks:
E.G. Is all life designed, just some of it or what? How do you tell teh difference? Can you give me an example of a designed and a non-designed organism? Are only IC structures designed, or is that just one way to tell?
That is why we need science. To help us answer those questions. It is very wrong to ask ID to have the answers when your position doesn't answer anything and it has more resources available to find the answers. And to refute/ falsify ID all YOU have to do is to demonstrate that an accumulation of genetic accidents can bring forth living organisms from non-living matter OR at least demonstrate that a flagellum can "evolve" via an accumulation of genetic accidents from a population that never had one.Joseph_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT}

For example (to pick a case of attempted cold-blooded murder), if today a father takes his son to a remote place because a voice in his head tells him to kill his son, that person would probably be judged insane.
Only if he gets caught and then admits to voices in his head.
Back then, he talked to God.
Nice twist to suit your needs. Did Abraham hear voices in his head? No evidence for that. As a matter of fact an angel came and stopped him. What would a Court do if an angel stepped in to testify?Joseph_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT}

For example George, please show us the peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates that E. coli's flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents. Or what can you reference pertaining to accumulating genetic accidents?Joseph_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT}

If there are two positions, ie designed or not designed, then disproving one does add credence to the other.
George- This is indeed true. However there are more then two positions available.
Name them. What are the published papers that support the non-telic, adesign position?
George: Almost all published papers support that viewpoint. There are several hundred thousand, at least.
Prove it or admit you are bluffing. IOW please show us at least some of those alleged papers.Joseph_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

StephenB [165], I have never said that there is "nothing wrong" with child prostitution. My point was rather different. You're misunderstanding it in predictable ways. Further, I am not saying that the situations in Biblical times were "equivalent"; in fact their non-equivalence is part of my point. You can't use the same yardstick to measure both. For example (to pick a case of attempted cold-blooded murder), if today a father takes his son to a remote place because a voice in his head tells him to kill his son, that person would probably be judged insane. Back then, he talked to God.David Kellogg_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT}

PS: GLF, in speaking of the problem of the divine foot in the door, I am alluding to Lewontinian a priori materialism imposed upon science in these last few decades, now officially [cf my discussion in section E the always linked on the radical materialist redefinition of science and its defects], and its motivation. It seems I have to cite this yet again. Let me do so a little more fully: __________________ . . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads we must first get an incorrect view out . . . the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth . . . . Sagan's argument is straightforward. We exist as material beings in a material world, all of whose phenomena are the consequences of physical relations among material entities. The vast majority of us do not have control of the intellectual apparatus needed to explain manifest reality in material terms, so in place of scientific (i.e., correct material) explanations, we substitute demons . . . . Most of the chapters of The Demon-Haunted World are taken up with exhortations to the reader to cease whoring after false gods and to accept the scientific method as the unique pathway to a correct understanding of the natural world. To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test . . . . Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us 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 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, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen. [NY Rev of Bks, 1997] __________________ This is wrong -- and utterly revealing on so many levels one hardly knows where to begin: 1 --> As Newton shows in his General Scholium to the Principia, belief in the Lord God Creator who is Pantokrator and decrees laws of nature [the root of that quaint little phrase . . . ] is hardly incompatible with believing in a generally orderly and intelligible cosmos. 2 --> Indeed, it was the historical foundation on which science was built in the past 350 years or so. Lewontin is grossly, culpably ignorant or deceitful. So are Ms Forrest, NCSE, ACLU and NAS and NSTA etc etc etc; including of course judge 'copycat" Jones over in Dover. 3 --> As Newton's discourse on natural Philosophy will show at once, science exists in a wider context of warrant and discovery or justification of truth: epistemology, a branch of philosophy. With it comes: logic (a sister branch) and of course metaphysics, the root of all philosophy. Science has no proper claim to be the ultimate or unique ground of truth. 4 --> the imposition of materialism as an ap priori, even if disguised as "methodological naturalism" subverts science from seekingthe truth aboutthe universe based on empirical evidence. indeed much orf th4e above I have had to correctt his morning traces to this error. 5 --> And, the facts scream out,a nd so does common sense, in protest. And no we are not going to squelch the screams to be good little materialists. 6 --> As for ID, it is the science that studies signs of intelligence, not the identity of the designing intelligence in the first instance. But, context can then point in cases of origins sciences to non-human intelligence [the computer in the heart of the cell], and to even an extra-cosmic designer -- the finetuning of our cosmos to facilitate cell based life. 7 --> That may be COMPATIBLE with belief in God [which you will see I and millions of others across 20 centuries would warrant on very different grounds], which is what Lewontin is so desperate to squash. So, he wants to censor the possibility of inferences to the known causes of the sort of things that we know are routinely produced by intelligence. 8 --> That is Plato's Cave games under the false colour of science. Full stop.kairosfocus_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT}

7] Domoman, 93: It seems to me that you do have your salt plain holding a PDA (that is, Earth holding life) amongst an otherwise barren planet (that is, an otherwise barren universe). Well worth pondering inlight of the search space issue on getting To life, and thence to body plan level novel functionality . . . per FSCI and the problem of lucky noise and the further problem that law-like regularities are what mechanical forces create [even in the case of chaos], the very opposite of the contingency/choice that is at he heart of information. AND, BTW, at he heart of reasoning -- if we may not choose, we would not be able think and reason in any sense worth having, we would just be playthings of chance and mechanical forces. 8] GLF, 110: ,i>you would be in a much stronger position if you could say “I wrote a paper but it was not published because of bias” rather then “I did not write a paper because I knew in advance it would not be published”. Has it ever occurred to you that I am simply not interested in the peer reviewed publication game, especially on the Plato's Cave shadow show terms that so plainly now usually obtain? Others are indeed trying -- kudos to them -- and are CONSISTENTLY having serious issues with harassment and worse, e.g. the brouhaha over Sternberg and Gonzalez, etc. Fine for them. But, in the end, too often the appeal to peer review is an appeal to blind trust in authority and -- worse -- in pseudo- consensus. Ideas stand in the end not on emotions or views of authority but on warrant in light of facts, reasoning and reasonable first plausibles. I am therefore far more interested in the seeking of the well-warranted truth, and in the development of an alternative, including a reasonably serious level education alternative; in the teeth of distortions, calumnies and in too many cases negligent false accusation or worse. That i s why for instance I was willing to be a part of the WAC and Glossary project here at UD. This is of course subject to open, ongoing peer review. So far, as I already noted this morning, your example of "peer review" shows that you have not even acquainted yourself with key facts at the 101 level, sadly. 9] GLF, 113: I don’t know, why is that? What’s the point in that as the identity will become known once they are published. So what is gained? Simple. On track record, if there was a public knowledge of which journal,t he editor would come immediately under the sort of NCSE-orchestrated nasty demonising and bullying tactics [It is all now in the open record for us to see] that all but destroyed not only Mr Sternberg's career and reputation but his personal life as well. Do you see why I am speaking of Plato's Cave games? 10] GLF, 114: It’s how you search the space that is important. Your concept of “Random search” is flawed. Not at all: I have simply said that a random walk from an arbitrary initial point, regardless o step size will sample so small a proportion fo the config space of say 1,000 bits worth of info, that getting to the shores of an island of functionality to then start rewarding differential success is maximally improbable. (A point you have repeatedly conceded on the first life case -- then tried to dismiss as "no-one has a good account so let's put to one side.' Actually, we do: there is a COMPUTER in the heart of the cell. We have a very good, empirically well supported theory on the origins of digital computers, sir: design.) Now, too, before you get to islands of function, you are looking at attracting drifting search rafts by broadcasting warmer/colder signals to NON_FUNCTIONAL outcomes, or else at wafting the rafts towards the islands by currents or winds. That is, the underling situation in such cases would be riddled with pre-programmed active information that is premised on foresight of where islands of function are. Precisely what a non-design situation cannot -- by definition -- do. (And if you are implying that the cosmos' laws have "life" written into them, you are implicitly partially accepting the conclusion of cosmological ID.) The islands of function in view are those for first life and for the creation of major novel body plans -- increments of about 600 k bits and 10's - 100's of mega bits respectively. (Cf my always linked, as already noted.) 11] GLF, 114: For increasing complexity the earth would need a constant source of new energy. Otherwise things would tend to move to a state of lower entropy. If you had looked at App 1, you would have seen that the first thing is that mere injection of energy into a system tends to INCREASE its disorder. For input energy to drive a process of organisation and development, it is empirically well-warranted that it will be practically necessary for there to be a coupling and organising mechanism, which is of course information-rich. (That is how for instance your car works,a nd it is how photosynthesis -- the foundation of energetic processes in life -- works. If we did not have systems organised to take in and digest then assimilate food, we too would soon revert to disintegration.) 12] GLF, 114, Can you put a figure on the FSCI content of some things for me? This has already been done at peer review level as has been linked, for proteins. In the more simple cases, we have many DVD,s Hard Disk drives, ROMS, and CDSs etc full of digital information that is indisputably functional. Once we see functional information that takes up at least 1,000 bits, we can be to moral certainty assured that we have quantified a case of FSCI. The number of bits in a case of known functionality based on contingent information can then easily be seen as a measure of the degree of FSCI involved; 1,000 bits being the practical lower bound 9to make sure that lucky noise could not reasonably have thrown it out). Any ASCII text string in English that is contextually responsive is a case in point. So, the objection is a case of self-referentially inconsistent selective hyperskepticism -- as is usual by now. And, such things are all-pervasive in a digital age. However, let us per argument address the cases he cites to show what is going on: a] An Onion. -- what is the length of its genome? Certainly, more than 600,000 bits. b] A lego brick. -- how much space does the digital specification drawing with associated required information on dimensions, etc take up? Certainly, moe than 1,000 bits c] A pyramid made of diamond -- a diamond is naturally per forces of necessity an octahedral crystal, i.e two square-base pyramids back to back. As this is of low contingency, that is not a case of high contingency. A diamond cut in the shape of a pyramid or another shape may however have functional information stored in how it is cut, which may in certain cases exceed 1,000 bits. [GLF here needs to look at the way the explanatory filter works,a s was already linked and pointed out.] ++++++++++++ One could go on and on, but the overall point is well enough made -- and with considerable cases in illustrative point -- for now at least. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT}

Continuing: Let's highlight a few select cases that throw the key issues into sharp relief: 2] SB to Sev, 86:
If the logic of our minds does not match the logic of the world, then all is lost. That is what truth is, a correspondence of our minds with reality. Any rational discussion presupposes the existence of absolute truth. You believe, for example, that I am in error and therefore not in correspondence with reality. Otherwise you would not be disputing my points. If, as you believe, that I am in error, then it follows that you believe that I am going against the truth. Thus, you believe your position to be true and my position to be false. You do, therefore believe in absolute truth, which is, for you, that fact that there are no absolute truths. If you didn’t believe that point to be true, you would not be defending it. That was the irony I was alluding to earlier. So, absolute truth exists for both of us, except that I affirm it and you deny even as you make your appeal on its behalf.
Well said, Stephen. And of course, this picks up on Josiah royce's point, that "error exists" is undeniably true and entails much else on truth and our ability to access it through knowledge. It even hints at our duty to seek and to support the truth, i.e it underscores that we find ourselves morally bound as a matter of fact. 3] Mullerpr @ 166: While scrolling back up . . .
. . . the tactic of the skeptic is to cloud the argument and then claim that the uncertainty he/she created is the truth. Well I suppose this is a powerful tactic, but certainly not sustainable. This approach to knowledge is anti-scientific as well, for the simple reason that it accepts the skeptical hypothesis based on the claims of the hypothesis and ignores any objective data because it claims there is no such thing as objective data . . . . [S]kepticism will inevitably lead to oppression. What worries me is that there are so many people already chanting the orders to kill free thought without any reflection on the inevitable oppression they welcome over themselves.
Radical absolute skepticism denies the possibility of knowledge and so claims to know that knowledge is impossible. Thus, it affirms what it absurdly tries to deny: knowledge is possible and we inescapably seek it. Selective hyperskepticism, takes up the radical skeptic's stance ona case by case basis: where it objects, it is militantly skeptical. but on matters of similar degree of warrant that it finds more congenial, it is all too willing to accept without serious challenge. Thus, it is self-referentially inconsistent and just as absurd. What is a sustainable epistemic stance is reasonable, critically aware faith: we trust what seem to be good first plausibles, and we hold our claims per provisional (often, for good reason morally certain) warrant to best explanation in light of comparative difficulties on factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory elegance and power. This last is of course precisely the stance of the well informed Christian. (Observe where the linked note was taught.) 4] Sev, 77:
Actually, I did look up “Illustrations of the Tao” and there would seem to be room here for some measure of agreement between us. In my view, moral codes are founded on our common interests as human beings . . . The function of moral codes is to regulate the behavior of human beings towards one another in order to ensure that those basic needs are met and to proscribe behavior that harms those interests. On that view, we would expect to find that most if not all human societies share certain basic moral precepts such as that unlawful killing or stealing from others is wrong. To that extent you could argue that it is evidence of objective morality or natural moral laws although I would view it more as an emergent property of humans when living in groups that promotes social cohesion and stability.
In short, the facts of human experience show us to be ineluctably moral,and that we find ourselves bound to respect one another in light of the inherent dignity of human beings [which evolutionary materialism undermines . . . part of why it is inevitably deeply controversial, despite pretenses otherwise]; where immoral acts prove themselves to be consistently personally and socially destructive. (As the Kantian Categorical imperative exploits in providing an objective test for moral precepts: can they be universalised without destruction or utter incoherence and chaos?) In short, there is a plain core of objective morality, though consistency and error are always challenges. just like in any other serious field of endeavour on which we can and do make mistakes with serious consequences. Stating one way we warrant it hen trying to use that to dismiss the fact of warrant is self-defeating. 5] GLF, 83: Have you heard of Conway’s game of life? Some simple rules and self replicators arise. No, it’s hardly as complex as a PDA but “information processing system” is somewhat vague. And of course Conway's game is a program, by a programmer, illustrating the provenance of information systems. I will bet that it incorporates at least 143 ACII characters worth of FSCI, too. At best it illustrates how programed -- thus, designed -- functional systems can hill-climb incrementally to particular forms of peak performance. It does not at all address the issue of the sea of possible configs and the need to get to the shores of islands of function without broadcasting oracles or built in wafting winds and currents. And, BTW, both a PDA and the cell's DNA- RNA- Ribosome- ATP- Enzyme etc system arte cases of functionally specific, complex digital information applied to algorithmic, step by step executed physical processes. This is not "analogy," it is instantiation. We have many cases where we directly know thew provenance of such entities in design, and no cases where such are observed to occur by unaided chance + necessity. On the uniformity principle of newton and other founding scientists [all design thinkers by the way; Newton and many others being actually biblical Creationists; i.e. it is per historical fact possible to be a creationist and a great Scientist], LIKE CAUSES LIKE. So, the best current explanation for the computer we have stumbled across in the heart of the cell is: design. 6] CJY, 91 backs that up:
Why wouldn’t you suspect the “broken designs” to be the result of natural degradation and the highly functional informational architecture to be the result of previous foresight. Can you even give an example (observation) of an information processing system such as that found in PDA having generated itself from only background noise [chance/statistical randomness] and an arbitrary collection of laws [absent previous planning for future consequences on the part of an intelligent agent]? Can you give an example of an evolutionary algorithm generated by the same method?”
Another well said point. [ . . . ]kairosfocus_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT}

H'mm: Now, let us select further strikingly illustrative points, almost at random. the first of these struck me on beginning to scroll up; especially as it exemplifies the spirit we need far more of here at UD. Kudos to Adel. 1] Adel, 145: So, Huxley had a core commitment to using evidence to support propositions. Why is that a problem? Adel, First, I must thank you for the wider context you supplied, and your further warranting that my inference to Cliffordian provenance (based on phrasing and timeline) was correct. This is the spirit of serious objective discussion that we need more of here at UD, on all sides. Did you get it online, or from the print [I have had no luck turning out an Internet version]? kindly provide a link or bibliographical information. Now, on the substance:
Agnosticism is not properly described as a “negative” creed, nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.[Huxley, Appar. Christianity and Agnosticism, 1889.]
a --> Do you appreciate the self-referential import of the above? And . . . b --> the onward implication [as I have briefly noted on above] that it leads logically to an infinite regress, i.e an absurdity? [This is the root problem of Cliffordian evidentialism, as I discussed in the previously linked online note on selective hyperskepticism.] c --> But, a pause: I supsect Huxley was an objectivist on both morality and knowledge in the sense of warranted, credibly true belief. d --> On substance: Huxley is saying that we need logical justification for claiming to hold things objectively true, and that failure to have such for any claim is a moral as well as an intellectual failure. this claim plainly refers also to itself -- it is self-referential. e --> Key step: Can it meet its own test, then? f --> This would strictly require logical warrant for the efficacy of logic as providing warrant, and it would require warrant for that warrant, ad infinitum. That is, infinite regress, an impossibility for us. (In praxis, we all sooner rather than later come to first principles or plausibles that we take on trust as credible without further warrant than it seems wise. The efficacy of logic is one of these.) g --> you draw attention to Huxley's argument:
The justification of the Agnostic principle lies in the success which follows upon its application, whether in the field of natural, or in that of civil, history; and in the fact that, so far as these topics are concerned, no sane man thinks of denying its validity.
h --> We can immediately set aside the rhetorical flourish at the end, which is meant to put the objector on the defense, on the back foot as we say in Cricket. that is, Huxley here claims default and tries to shift burden of proof on a claimed consensus of those he deems "sane." Oops. i --> But is the claim that the agnostic principle is "successful" on application to natural or human history -- i.e to science [esp origins science] and serious affairs of life -- any better warranted? [let's leave aside the further infinite regress on warranting the claim that such applications are "successful."] j --> You will note my use of "warrant." That is a clue. Epistemic grounding of beliefs or assertions as knowledge is wider than logic,and once we see that we must observe facts, and accept the testimony of our senses and such like we immediately see that we are implicating the question of the trustworthiness of our senses, memories etc: none of which are in the end subject to logical proof, indeed we know they are not infallible. l --> But, they WORK -- i,e. we see here the key claim of pragmatism. the first problem of which is the poit that often false models work very well indeed. m --> In fact, as Huxley wrote, Physics was beginning to grapple with the first serious findings that on exploration would overturn the then 200 year old unparalleled success of the grand Newtonian Synthesis. And,a s a reasonably well informed person you will be aware that there are key contradictions between its two main successors: relativity and quantum theory. [Simple e.g.: the first premises itself in key part on electromagnetism [cf Einsteins first paper], and the second seeks to overturn same.] n --> So, we are now at the position of provisional warrant, with major assumptions taken on trust because they are plausible and successful, providing a better explanation than rivals, in our estimation; on comparative difficulties analysis. o --> in short, we have gone full circle back to: reasonable faith. p --> Finally, Huxley's declamations against faith -- which were obviously targetted at the Christian Faith and world-life view -- simply do not come to grips wit hthe implications of that faith's central warranting argument. Namely, the resurrection of Jesus with 500+ eyewitnesses [witnesses whose testimony could not be broken], the outpouring of the Spirit of God, and the resulting stream of millions who know God personally through encounter int eh face of Jesus; transforming lives and cultures, and seeing God's miraculous hand at work. q --> For instance a certain Mr Blaise Pascal is one of these millions. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 9, 2009
March
03
Mar
9
09
2009
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 … 18 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply