Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

L&FP 45: The Hypothetical Syllogism — a lecture

arroba Email


This syllogism is of considerable practical importance:

Corresponding Tautology: ((p →q) ∧ (q→r))→(p→ r) Example: Let p be it snows. Let q be I will study discrete math. Let r be I will get an A. If it snows, then I will study discrete math. If I study discrete math, I will get an A. Therefore , If it snows, I will get an A.

This raises the issue of denying the consequent, ~q. If p –> q and ~q, then as q is necessary for p, ~p. Where, p is sufficient for q, by reason of its core characteristics, the states of affairs associated with p, causal power, requirement of logic of being etc.

Let us note, p –> q is equivalent in import to ~q –> ~p.

(Let’s add, that denying the antecedent, thinking this falsifies the consequent also fails, p –> q does not mean there isn’t another way, say r, to get q. There’s more than one way to skin a cat-fish.)

Connected to ID, Newton’s rules demand that causal adequacy be shown before assigning powers to claimed causes, especially for things we cannot directly observe. (Design [= intelligently directed configuration] routinely causes functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information beyond 500 – 1,000 bits. Undirected, blind dynamic-stochastic processes . . . chance and/or mechanical necessity alone . . . have no such observed powers. Hence the controversial resort to Lewontin’s a priori commitment to only allow materialistic causes.)

Dynamic-stochastic process:

As it just came up again, let me again document how the ID explanatory filter does not impose design as a default but instead infers across three broad explanatory forces, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity and/or design . . . and yes all three factors can be jointly at work so we need to examine an entity, network, structure or process per aspect:

The ID Inference Explanatory Filter.

We thus see modus ponens [direct implication] and modus tollens [denial of the consequent]. A classic application of the latter, is that once a chain of implications terminates in a falsehood, this upends the chain. This is used in proof by reductio ad absurdum.

Related, p –> q and q –> r entails, p –> r, which extends to any chain we may warrant. That is, truth of an initial proposition chains downstream. This truth transmission property is an important power of implication.

Bearing in mind that time may be a factor in causal chains, cause-effect bonds, likewise, will flow from initial conditions to outcome. Hence, the issue of a first-cause agent, something which is self-moved and initiates chains of consequences. To type, I move a finger to and press a key initiating a keyboard scan and ultimately screen display, etc.

This points to the explanation argument, inference to the best explanation, aka abductive reasoning. (Abductive reasoning also includes the educated guesswork of spotting candidate patterns, hypothesis creation.)

The idea here is that facts of observation f1, f2, . . . fn = F, require a common explanation, so, we have candidate explanations e1, e2 . . . em that can be tested for implying the span of facts F. We also look for coherence and for balanced explanatory power [neither an ad hoc patchwork nor simplistic], picking the best, where E –> F. Power to predict future facts is a further important test. Such explanations, are not proved, nor can abduction — an inductive form of reasoning — prove, though it can support high reliability in a tested zone of application. However, implications are such that a false explanation or model can also be highly reliable.

Underneath, is the meaning of IF — THEN –, that is sufficiency:

p –> q is equivalent to ~ [p AND ~q], we cannot have p true and q false. This does not mean, p is true. To get there, we would need EQUIVALENCE, i.e. p –> q and q –> p. That is p is necessary and sufficient for q. The fallacy of affirming the consequent confuses p –> q with that equivalence.

Linked, q is necessary for p, that is, ~p OR q. This can be shown by using truth tables for what is called material implication.

Hence, the peculiar phrase for equivalence, “necessary and sufficient.” In Mathematical contexts, we may see p IFF q, p if and only if q. Notice, a false p can properly imply a true q, which is a subtlety that is the root of many errors of thought.

Also related, is the disjunctive syllogism:

The conjunctive syllogism is p AND q, so that for and to be true both must be. This can be chained, and of course we then see if a chain has in it x and y so y = ~x, then the whole is inconsistent logically. One use of this is in a coherence defence by augmenting explanation. If claims p1, p2, . . . pn = P are suspected to be inconsistent but on augmenting with some e, e AND P is coherent, P must be coherent. This is the heart of Plantinga’s free will defence of the coherence of the concept of God in ethical theism. It also allows us to see that we can for example make a coherent account of the passion-resurrection narratives in the gospels. Weakening, to the case where there are contradictions, we may be able to identify which of x or y to choose, or we may be able to footnote the matter and set it aside as a difficulty. In short, it can be very hard to demonstrate substantial and irretrievable inconsistency in a string of propositions forming a narrative.

The celebrated case of the six blind men of Hindustan encountering the elephant and having partial patterns (beloved of post modernists and those who try to reduce differences to relativism), is a subtle lesson:

The onlooker with a broader picture and better explanation illustrates the power of a best explanation. Notice, here, it is Jesus of Nazareth!

Such various real-world syllogisms, however, are important.

In particular, implication used for explanation or prediction has utility in planning or modelling. We propose a “simplified” or proposed or candidate, p and explore its implications or what it explains. We may look at several, then choose the best, which we then implement.

In short, the logic of implication is powerful, subtle, useful but a source of many pitfalls. We would to well to study it. END

F/N: Found the name of the lecturer, Michel Legault. The course seems to be in TX, USA. Or, is it Vietnam? KF kairosfocus
BO'H: the point remains, there is clear evidence of agency as capable of undertaking designs that produce string data structure code bearing entities, that such constitutes language, that such are often part of algorithms which are goal directed stepwise processes, and associated execution machinery, i.e. computer organisation. That such agency as we observe is human only serves to highlight that as contingent beings we do not exhaust the set of possible designers, and so design is a process not a characteristic confined to some humans; not even all humans are capable of designing and creating machine level code for information processing systems. So this is not about all or only humans. In that light, the further observation of reliable signs for certain designs e.g. as already noted, indicates to any reasonable person that we should be willing to acknowledge the import of such signs when we see them. Indeed SETI is a case in point, such was not widely denounced as anti scientific. It so happens that the most blatant SETI signal is in the cells of our bodies and those of other cell based life forms. It is the implications that are the ideological problem, not the nature or strength of the evidence or the force of associated abductive reasoning. KF kairosfocus
kf @ 41 - Thank you for providing a title to summarise your comment. Bob O'H
F/N: The above exchange makes it clear just how important it is to sort out our logic, and particularly how we handle the logic of implication. Particularly note struggles on inference to the best explanation. Seemingly oddly technical but crucial to right reason which we will need if ever we are to pull ourselves out of the mess we are in as a civilisation. KF kairosfocus
BO'H, switcheroo again. Science studies the empirical, here features that show signs of design. The kind of configuration and function are actually pointers to the causal powers of the source. You have again tried to obfuscate that. KF kairosfocus
Bob O'H:
but you still haven’t explained how you can show that an unidentified designer has the power to do the designing you’re inferring.
We cannot show that the humans of 4,000 years ago had the power to design and build Stonehenge. We know what the designers had the power to do by what they left behind for us to discover and study. ET
Newton's four rules pertain to cause and effect relationships. Why that has to be said is beyond me. Scientific inferences are based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. For example the genetic code involves a coded information processing system with the ribosome as a genetic compiler complete with error detection. There isn't any evidence that nature can produce coded information processing systems and error detection. There is ONE and ONLY one known cause for producing coded information processing systems and error detection- intelligent agency volition. The only scientific inference with respect to the genetic code is that it was intelligently designed. ET
We can't create life de novo because life is not reducible to physics and chemistry. ET
kf - OK, so you're saying that because humans can do genetic engineering, so could a putative designer. Except that, as I pointed out @19, we simply don’t know enough to be able to create live de novo (I wrote this in response to your 16). So you don't have causal adequacy yet. Bob O'H
PS: Lyell:
Principles of Geology: Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth's Surface, by Reference to Causes Now in Operation
That is, observed causal processes were said to create sufficiently comparable effects to then identify patterns of effects to compare, allowing reconstruction of say canyon formation or laying down of layered sediments [you will recall 1 cm to 1 inch or so per 1,000 years as rule of thumb]. Thus we see hypothesis formation type abduction, which was then applied through comparative difficulties in an ongoing debate. Less than ten miles from here, for 26 years, we have watched live geology in action. My observation is, we saw thick layering due to ash falls, mud flows etc and rapid canyon formation in action [e.g. Fort Ghaut filled in then New Fort Ghaut formed by water action], also we saw restructuring of understanding of Andesitic, island arc volcanoes. I often glance at the road cut by Gov't HQ and note a roughly 1 1/2 inch concrete like layer I think is from a massive pyroclastic flow, with thick layers that are very comparable to what we have seen since 1995. Over at Foxes Bay and at mouth of the Belham, we are reminded that our beach sand often comes fresh from the volcano, pushing out the beaches dozens of yards from the 1995 shoreline. Just the other day, I had a conversation on cliff crumbling that took down part of a C17 - 18 battery on Gun Hill and a comparison was made to regular cliff collapses at Margarita Bay. In short, live processes that make comparative results to traces visible from the past. The point is, process with causal effect is observable, leading to inferred explanation of sufficiently similar cases from the past we cannot directly inspect. Intelligently directed configuration is observable, with effects, especially in computer contexts and in NC machines etc. Molecular nanotech, though in early days yet, is observable. Seeing what blends the two in the living cell is a reasonable extension, looking at several aspects. From such, we see that undirected mechanical necessity and/or chance cannot reasonably account for the phenomenon, given information complexity well beyond 500 - 1,000 bits [search/config spaces 3.27 *10^150 to 1.07*10^301] so that atomic resources of sol system or observed cosmos across ~10^17 s and with reasonable chem rxn rates will not credibly search more than a negligibly different from 0 fraction of the spaces. This is what random document, infinite monkeys theorem exercises show decisively. But, design routinely generates such. Indeed, reckoning with messaging on the Internet not just actual programming code, we have trillions of examples all around us. The best explanation side of abductive reasoning then contrasts what is adequate from what is grossly inadequate candidate cause. kairosfocus
BO'H, again, design is a category of process and designers are a category of agents capable of intelligently directed configuration. There is no good reason to infer that we exhaust these categories, with their identifying characteristics. We know that in many cases, design processes create reliable traces or signs. So, it is clear that we exemplify what members of such categories can do. The existence of say computer technology and of embedded systems is sufficient example of the capability of design observed here and now, especially once we see that molecular nanotech and gene engineering exist. Newton's vera causa rule is satisfied never mind your hyperskeptical dismissiveness. I suggest you ponder the full title of Lyell's Principles of Geology. In that context, we are looking at string based data structures with complex meaningful, symbolic codes in the cell [so, language], expressing algorithms [goal-directed stepwise processes], and with associated execution machinery. These are strong signs of design antecedent to our existence and as part of how cell based life came to be. Repeating essentially empty, adequately answered objections and refusing consent to such adequacy does not change that actual state of affairs. Perhaps, now you can see why I have had to draw seriously adverse conclusions about the way that objections to the design inference typically work. Design is the best explanation for cell based life and that will remain the case unless there can be demonstration of FSCO/I beyond 500 - 1,000 bits of complexity coming about by clearly blind chance and mechanical necessity. As you should know, weasel type programs sneak in targetting information, hill climbing algorithms do not address adequately how to find islands of function deeply isolated in gibberish dominated large config spaces and random document generation exercises are x 10^100 short of the config space scale required. Also, search for golden search is in an exponentially harder space, the power set space of the config space n has 2^n cells. Figure out 2^[2^500]. KF kairosfocus
kf - As far as I'm concerned it hasn't bee adequately addressed. It seems like you are arguing that Newton's rules are not relevant for ID (which would make my question, as well as your original comment, moot), but then you could just be up front about that. Bob O'H
BO'H: the substantial issue you raised has been adequately addressed. The focal issue for the OP should be faced. KF kairosfocus
I'll take that as a no. Bob O'H
BO'H, more than enough has been adequately said on a side issue. KF kairosfocus
kf @ 25 - how does that answer my question @23? I'm sorry, but the link isn't clear. Is there any chance you could give a simple and direct answer? Bob O'H
2+2=4, and people are not entitled to different views on it. Likewise subjectivity and objectivity, also have their logic, which must be accepted. One can have differing subjective views, for subjective issues. But one cannot really have differing objective views, because for objective issues, there is only 1 correct answer. So it is a matter of objective fact how subjectivity works, and there is only 1 correct answer for it. Where is your actual enforcement for people to follow logic on this issue? You are supposed to pile the pressure on, to get a critical understanding of how subjectivity works, that is logically consistent. And again, the mess in academics is because of rejection of subjectivity. As I have already evidenced to you, and the evidence is very obvious. It is very obvious that atheists, materialists, etc. are fact obsessed people who are clueless on the intellectual level about making personal judgements about what is good, loving and beautiful. Consequently they systematically make bad personal judgements. So bleedingly obvious. The mess has nothing whatsoever to do with lack of understanding of implication logic. The covid mess: Risking creating lethal viruses, while knowing that lab leaks happen all the time. It is bad personal judgement. Then lying about what happened. Bad personal judgement. Then lying about therapeutics like hydroxychloroquine and invermectine not working. Bad personal judgement Then lying about the damage the vaccines do. Bad personal judgement. It is just systemic bad personal judgement, from a materialist culture in which people don't pay dedicated attention to subjective issues. mohammadnursyamsu
I hope some, at least, will not allow the side issue being raised to attack the design inference to distract them from working through the pivotal issues of implication logic. Which, we will need going forward to sort out the mess we have made of intellectual life in our civilisation. Take time to watch a treasure of a lecture, too. KF kairosfocus
F/N: Walker and Davies:
In physics, particularly in statistical mechanics, we base many of our calculations on the assumption of metric transitivity, which asserts that a system’s trajectory will eventually [--> given "enough time and search resources"] explore the entirety of its state space – thus everything that is phys-ically possible will eventually happen. It should then be trivially true that one could choose an arbitrary “final state” (e.g., a living organism) and “explain” it by evolving the system backwards in time choosing an appropriate state at some ’start’ time t_0 (fine-tuning the initial state). In the case of a chaotic system the initial state must be specified to arbitrarily high precision. But this account amounts to no more than saying that the world is as it is because it was as it was, and our current narrative therefore scarcely constitutes an explanation in the true scientific sense. We are left in a bit of a conundrum with respect to the problem of specifying the initial conditions necessary to explain our world. A key point is that if we require specialness in our initial state (such that we observe the current state of the world and not any other state) metric transitivity cannot hold true, as it blurs any dependency on initial conditions – that is, it makes little sense for us to single out any particular state as special by calling it the ’initial’ state. If we instead relax the assumption of metric transitivity (which seems more realistic for many real world physical systems – including life), then our phase space will consist of isolated pocket regions and it is not necessarily possible to get to any other physically possible state (see e.g. Fig. 1 for a cellular automata example).
[--> or, there may not be "enough" time and/or resources for the relevant exploration, i.e. we see the 500 - 1,000 bit complexity threshold at work vs 10^57 - 10^80 atoms with fast rxn rates at about 10^-13 to 10^-15 s leading to inability to explore more than a vanishingly small fraction on the gamut of Sol system or observed cosmos . . . the only actually, credibly observed cosmos]
Thus the initial state must be tuned to be in the region of phase space in which we find ourselves [--> notice, fine tuning], and there are regions of the configuration space our physical universe would be excluded from accessing, even if those states may be equally consistent and permissible under the microscopic laws of physics (starting from a different initial state). Thus according to the standard picture, we require special initial conditions to explain the complexity of the world, but also have a sense that we should not be on a particularly special trajectory to get here (or anywhere else) as it would be a sign of fine–tuning of the initial conditions. [ --> notice, the "loading"] Stated most simply, a potential problem with the way we currently formulate physics is that you can’t necessarily get everywhere from anywhere (see Walker [31] for discussion). ["The “Hard Problem” of Life," June 23, 2016, a discussion by Sara Imari Walker and Paul C.W. Davies at Arxiv.]
more on the antrhopic principle from Lewis and Barnes https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/hitchhikers-guide-authors-puddle-argument-against-fine-tuning-and-a-response/#comment-729507 KF kairosfocus
MNY, Sandy has a right to her views too. Further to that, you have long since been given adequate summary. Absent our self-moved ensouled status, we would have no credible capacity for rational inference or judgement so for warrant and knowledge etc. However, as we are error-prone, a responsible balance will recognise that we have to provide adequate warrant for knowledge claims. To say that is not to undermine our first-cause self-moved capability, it is to recognise it and our limitations. Error-prone. KF kairosfocus
BO'H, really! Are you aware of what Plato calls techne, art, root of the ART-ificial? Design -- as you understand as a highly educated person -- is a category of causal process manifesting intelligently directed configuration, as opposed to blind mechanical necessity and/or stochastic, chance process or chance circumstances. Where, intelligent agents capable of design is again a class of entity. We are members of the class, but manifestly do not and cannot exhaust it. So, we have every epistemic right to make reference to the wider class from particular cases. For example, there is no good reason to infer that only we would be capable of mathematics, physics, chemistry, engineering, computer science and tech, nanotech. So, we must be willing to let signs such as string data structure complex algorithmic code and associated molecular nanotech execution machines observed in the cell to speak for themselves as signs pointing to art. Similarly, cosmological fine tuning and the privileged life facilitating state of affairs regarding our planet. None of this is idiosyncratic or abstruse, it takes ideological commitment to hyperskepticism to try to argue otherwise. Fail, again. KF kairosfocus
Sandy, really the best thing is to just shut up and accept the basic logic of subjectivity and objectivity. Unless ofcourse you can find an error in it. But you kind of not find any error, not provide any alternative basic logic of subjectivity and objectivity, and you just leave it all hanging in the air, because of "morality". And logic is not cultural, and I am just a Western person. subjectivity = to identify what makes a choice, a creator, with a chosen opinion, based on feeling objectivity = to identify a chosen thing, a creation, with a 1 to 1 corresponding model of it, based on evidence You feel what emotions are in someone's heart, what their personal character is, and then you express those feelings, by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, thereby choosing an opinion on it. And science is just modelling. Just copying from creations, 1 to 1. Copy from the universe proper, to the universe of mind. And don't go bringing me dictionary definitions. Give me practically efficient working logic. mohammadnursyamsu
BO’H, again, you full well understand that once a relevant designer is possible, design traces in entities, states of affairs etc is inductive evidence supporting existence of such a designer.
Where do newton's rules fit into all of this? Bob O'H
F/N: Plato goes on record, c 360 BC, regarding a cosmological design inference in opposition to then fashionable evolutionary materialism:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos -- the natural order], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [[T]hese people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them . . . . Then, by Heaven, we have discovered the source of this vain opinion of all those physical investigators . . . . they affirm that which is the first cause of the generation and destruction of all things, to be not first, but last, and that which is last to be first, and hence they have fallen into error about the true nature of the Gods. Cle. Still I do not understand you. Ath. Nearly all of them, my friends, seem to be ignorant of the nature and power of the soul [[ = psuche], especially in what relates to her origin: they do not know that she is among the first of things, and before all bodies, and is the chief author of their changes and transpositions. And if this is true, and if the soul is older than the body, must not the things which are of the soul's kindred be of necessity prior to those which appertain to the body? Cle. Certainly. Ath. Then thought and attention and mind and art and law will be prior to that which is hard and soft and heavy and light; and the great and primitive works and actions will be works of art; they will be the first, and after them will come nature and works of nature, which however is a wrong term for men to apply to them; these will follow, and will be under the government of art and mind. Cle. But why is the word "nature" wrong? Ath. Because those who use the term mean to say that nature is the first creative power; but if the soul turn out to be the primeval element, and not fire or air, then in the truest sense and beyond other things the soul may be said to exist by nature; and this would be true if you proved that the soul is older than the body, but not otherwise. [[ . . . .] Ath. . . . when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second. [--> notice, the self-moved, initiating, reflexively acting causal agent, which defines freedom as essential to our nature, and this is root of discussion on agents as first causes.] [[ . . . .] Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it? Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life? Ath. I do. Cle. Certainly we should. Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life? [[ . . . . ] Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul? Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things? Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things. Ath. And is not that motion which is produced in another, by reason of another, but never has any self-moving power at all, being in truth the change of an inanimate body, to be reckoned second, or by any lower number which you may prefer? Cle. Exactly. Ath. Then we are right, and speak the most perfect and absolute truth, when we say that the soul is prior to the body, and that the body is second and comes afterwards, and is born to obey the soul, which is the ruler? [[ . . . . ] Ath. If, my friend, we say that the whole path and movement of heaven, and of all that is therein, is by nature akin to the movement and revolution and calculation of mind, and proceeds by kindred laws, then, as is plain, we must say that the best soul takes care of the world and guides it along the good path. [[Plato here explicitly sets up an inference to design (by a good soul) from the intelligible order of the cosmos.
KF kairosfocus
BO'H, again, you full well understand that once a relevant designer is possible, design traces in entities, states of affairs etc is inductive evidence supporting existence of such a designer. Evolutionary materialistic scientism as you know does not have a demonstration of capability of a Darwin warm pond or the like combination of blind chance and mechanical necessity being able to produce language, string based digital codes [4-state, observed], algorithms and molecular nanotech execution machinery. Our own experiments by Venter et al show that molecular nanotech is feasible of manipulation in the lab, is amenable to design, and we separately know designers routinely produce language, codes, string data structures, complex algorithms and execution machinery. Your suggested argument is to dismiss evidence of agent capability and signs of agent action, put up a known far less capable causal candidate -- which holds ideologically driven institutional power -- and insist on such a weak candidate with no evidence of required capability. Fail. KF kairosfocus
When are discussed these types of subjects in fact science is not helping at all ,actually stays in the way of seeing corectly the reality because good science is built on a correct philosophic(logic, morality,basic duties) understanding of the world. First good understanding of the world then science appear on that understanding ground. Sandy
The point is, with genetic engineering now commonplace . . . ponder the increasingly notorious Wuhan virology lab etc . . . it is highly plausible that a molecular nanotech lab can account for creation of cell based life on our planet.
Eh? At best genetic engineering can modify cell based life. We simply don't know enough to be able to create it de novo. And Wuhan was working on viruses, which rely on the mechanisms of cell based life. Bob O'H
kf @ 16 -
Once a designer of relevant capability is possible of being ...
OK , so we are back at "Newton’s rules demand causal adequacy be shown before assigning powers to claimed causes, especially for things we cannot directly observe.” So how do you demonstrate that an unknown designer has the relevant capability? I assume that this is roughly synonymous with demonstrating causal adequacy (in the sense it's a necessary condition). Bob O'H
MNY, BTW, the OP discusses how hypothetical worlds can be assessed for implications then decisions can be made as to which is actualised. Responsible rational freedom is a condition of credible rational inference and judgement. Just, we also have to reckon with our error-proneness, hence with degrees of warrant and duty to right reason, truth and prudence, etc. KF kairosfocus
BO'H, cart before horse again, expressing selectively hyperskeptical burden of warrant shifting, begging questions bigtime. Once a designer of relevant capability is possible of being -- and yes, we are back to logic of being -- then evidence that a feature of our world shows reliable signs of design counts as strong evidence towards accepting the existence of a designer of adequate capability. I put on the table LGM from the next big galaxy over, to highlight that OoL on earth is NOT -- repeat, NOT -- a cosmological issue. This was brought out in the foundational scientific book for modern design theory, The Mystery of Life's Origin by Thaxton et al, 1984. It should be well known. The point is, with genetic engineering now commonplace . . . ponder the increasingly notorious Wuhan virology lab etc . . . it is highly plausible that a molecular nanotech lab can account for creation of cell based life on our planet. The side of the design inference that does have cosmological import is the significance of a credible beginning of the observed cosmos joined to massive evidence of fine tuning that sets up cell based life on suitably privileged planets such as ours. KF PS: If in say exploring Mars we were to run across remnants of a crashed space vehicle not of human manufacture and that included a computer, we would very properly draw the right design inferences. Further SETI showed that we were very aware of the possibility of extra-terrestrial intelligences. The rhetorical suggestion that we must dismiss evidence on signs we have because we don't have separate conclusive proof for a relevant designer is fallacious nonsense; frankly, reflective of ideological, institutional dominance with rising desperation that the grip on power is beginning to slip. kairosfocus
MNY, logic, once existential and universal quantifiers and the issue of "existential import" was on the table, has had to face the issue of empty reference. As I noted, this shifted the framework for the square of opposition that is at the heart of syllogisms. There are further subtleties as the IIRC C18 interpretation of the claims, on rechecking original Greek, can be reassessed but what it means is that as a fact of current thought we have to bear in mind empty reference. KF kairosfocus
MNY, BTW, the possibility of empty references is one reason why it is so important, today, to address the logic of being and for example God as a serious candidate necessary, world framework being who is a required part of the fabric for any possible or actual world, i.e. eternal Creator. KF kairosfocus
kf @ 6 - but you still haven't explained how you can show that an unidentified designer has the power to do the designing you're inferring. And you you (via Newton's rules) "demand causal adequacy be shown before assigning powers to claimed causes, especially for things we cannot directly observe." You raise computer technology, but there we know that the designers are human (or are computers designed by humans), and they have causal adequacy. Bob O'H
5 Habits That Will Make You POWERFUL Beyond Belief I guess JP has a simpler way to explain what KF is trying to explain for some time , but in reverse , from finality to roots . @Mohammadnursyamsu I guess you had no contact with western civilisation. This is not necessarily a bad thing but when you try to convince someone about your ideas and you use terms that are not used in western world you can't make yourself understood . :) "Therefore it is equally logically valid to say a painting is beautiful or ugly, in spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, but to be forced to say the painting is beautiful, or ugly, provides an invalid opinion." Nope, it's not equally logically if morality is involved. If is not involved you talk about a simple preference :I like coca-cola ,Ronaldo prefer sprite, you like cricket ,John prefer football. When is about moral value or moral hierarchy then duty is "activated" and is not anymore a simple preference. Tricky part: a tool called "free will" allows you to interchange atributes of objective moral law with your subjective preference. Sandy
That's not how the logic works in common discourse. Nor I suspect, generally. And take a look at the logic of subjectivity, something you don't know about. The basic logic of subjectivity: Subjective things make choices, and subjective things can only be identified with a chosen opinion. If there are the alternative possibilities A and B, and A is chosen, then the question, "what made the decision turn out A?", must be a choice between subjective words P and Q. Either chosen answer P or Q, is equally logically valid. But a forced answer P or Q is invalid. Therefore it is equally logically valid to say a painting is beautiful or ugly, in spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, but to be forced to say the painting is beautiful, or ugly, provides an invalid opinion. Say the answer P is chosen, then the opinion is that P made the choice turn out A. And because P is chosen, then we can start the logic again, and ask the question, "what was it that made the choice turn out P?". And the answer would be a choice between subjective words P and Q. If someone chooses the opinion that a choice was made out of hate, then in turn one can choose the opinion that it is hateful to choose the opinion that the choice was made out of hate. 1. Creator / chosen / subjective / spiritual / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / objective / material / fact Emotions, like love and hate, personal character, like courage and kindness, God, the soul, the spirit, they are all in category 1. They all make choices, and they all can only be identified with a chosen opinion. mohammadnursyamsu
MNY, the lecture is solid. The context is that "Paul" may refer to an empty set. That dramatically modifies the square of opposition. KF kairosfocus
That lecture is bogus. To say, Paul does not work, means Paul exists, and doesn't work. It doesn't mean that it is a questionmark whether or not Paul exists. mohammadnursyamsu
BO'H, the focus of this thread is implication logic, foundational to a lot of our thinking. The side issues and long since adequately answered objections come across as a distraction from far more serious matters, Besides, you are a highly educated person and you know the difference between acts of intelligence and identification of particular agents. There is no contradiction as you try to allege, you know full well that causal efficacy of intelligence brims over from the computer technology we are using, and that the technology is replete with signs of such. So, we identify design as an effective process which may leave reliable signs. Cell based life is replete with those signs and we may infer abductively to intelligent cause. However, that is worlds apart from say identifying that a ship from the Andromeda galaxy visited our sol system and used its molecular nanotech lab to seed our primitive planet with terraforming first life etc, or that they did it on orders of their high Senate. Or some other such thing. Your objection fails, and fails in ways that raise questions. KF kairosfocus
kf @ 8 -
Where, we routinely observe such traces and intelligent causes, so causal adequacy is not the issue.
kf @ OP -
Connected to ID, Newton’s rules demand that causal adequacy be shown before assigning powers to claimed causes, especially for things we cannot directly observe.
OK, so causal adequacy is not the issue because you're not assigning powers to claimed causes? IOW you're not saying that intelligent designers can design intelligently? Can you not see the contradiction? Bob O'H
BO'H, it corrects your distortion of the design inference. We know designers are possible, that design is a process of intelligently directed configuration and that it often leaves characteristic signs. Where, we routinely observe such traces and intelligent causes, so causal adequacy is not the issue. What has never been observed is blind, undirected dynamic stochastic processes creating FSCO/I beyond 500 - 1,000 bits. Your own comments above exceed that threshold; you just added to the trillions strong observational base on causal sources and causal adequacy. That such a process is shown to produce the like effect, as you know from the comparison of arson, does not in itself directly identify any particular agent. That such a straightforward and obvious point should be stretched and wrenched into the sort of weak objection being made is a mark of frankly desperation. It tells us that the basic design inference is solid, and it tells us that the material signs in the living cell, of language and goal directed stepwise process, are especially strong. KF kairosfocus
kf @ 4 - none of that answers my question, and seems to be pointedly avoiding it. If, as you write, "Newton’s rules demand that causal adequacy be shown before assigning powers to claimed causes, especially for things we cannot directly observe", how is this really a tenable position for you? Bob O'H
BO'H: we see design as a process, one commonly observed and seen to commonly show reliable signs in effects of design. So, as long as a designer is possible, then signs of design provide evidence that such has been active. It is not that ID bans inference to a designer but that design as process can trace to different possible candidates, as there's more than one way to skin a cat-fish. So, just as with arson, we can identify signs [say, accelerants] before we can credibly identify any particular designer as definitive "suspect." For the cell, complex coded algorithms, so language and goal-directed stepwise processes. All of which has been pointed out to you or in your presence many times. KF kairosfocus
Connected to ID, Newton’s rules demand that causal adequacy be shown before assigning powers to claimed causes, especially for things we cannot directly observe.
So, in connection to ID, how can you do that when you refuse to identify the claimed cause (i.e. the designer)? Bob O'H
Applications of right reason towards the naturally evident end of our faculty of reason, truth. The accurate apprehension, description and assertion of actual states of affairs. To say of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. And here, to draw out why and/or how, with what warrant. kairosfocus
L&FP 45: The Hypothetical Syllogism — a lecture, drawing out subtleties of if-then reasoning. kairosfocus

Leave a Reply