tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post5731270789408484024..comments2024-03-04T05:55:35.225-05:00Comments on Vital Remnants: A First Lesson in Practical LogicMartin Cothranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-37997686192727177862009-06-12T18:57:53.988-04:002009-06-12T18:57:53.988-04:00Much belated, but here's the promised distinct...Much belated, but here's the promised distinction between artifacts and natural things. <br /><br />http://tearingdownthemaskofmaya.blogspot.com/2009/06/works-of-art-and-works-of-nature.html<br /><br />Aside from any theological issue, talking about God as an engineer is a philosophical mistake, because it fails to recognize the difference between natural and unnatural things.Thomas M. Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07824873424225826685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-36235660273814411192009-05-25T22:10:34.645-04:002009-05-25T22:10:34.645-04:00> ...no-one should consider Hitchen's inabi...> ...no-one should consider Hitchen's inability to make cogent arguments irrelevant to my task of criticizing his book.<br /><br />But you have it to show, don't you?<br /><br />> Modern science takes up a certain stance towards the world which reduces the objects of experience from things which appear to us as beautiful, useful, etc. (things which make themselves significant to us Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-56564120844411303792009-05-25T21:17:29.515-04:002009-05-25T21:17:29.515-04:00> I think such a discussion would be well outsi...> I think such a discussion would be well outside the scope of science and outside the scope of what ID has to say.<br /><br />Fine, but I was just responding to what you said.<br /><br />> All of scientific knowledge lies somewhere between the "It doesn't conflict with anything and it sure looks nifty" level (such as superstring theory) and the "perverse to withhold Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-75793745696850796602009-05-19T15:22:00.000-04:002009-05-19T15:22:00.000-04:00Lee,
You're correct that, even though the comment...Lee,<br /><br />You're correct that, even though the comments veered off topic immediately, the original post concerns itself with logical discourse, and so our debate over my language falls squarely into the original topic. It should be clear that simply using "epithets" does not amount to a formal logical fallacy (specifically an ad hominem fallacy), but you wish to say "they're not material."<Thomas M. Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07824873424225826685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-14152956575944698412009-05-19T14:38:00.000-04:002009-05-19T14:38:00.000-04:00I can't tell why you object to my using the word "...<I>I can't tell why you object to my using the word "commutative." I intended to communicate "interchangeable", as in "independent of order" -- which design, relative to accident or necessity, is not. "Commutative" is a synonym of "interchangeable.</I>"<br /><br />Technically, "commutative" would be a property of the way things are combined (in this case, temporally), "independent" would describeOne Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-4524236344189248822009-05-18T19:19:00.000-04:002009-05-18T19:19:00.000-04:00>> To a point, I agree, but it isn't (as...>> To a point, I agree, but it isn't (as the mathematicians would say) commutative.<br /><br />> Forgive me for being a little too obsessive over these minor errors, but being a math teacher, I can't help to point out that a much better notion would be "independence"...<br /><br />I can't tell why you object to my using the word "commutative." I intended Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-24302716768164365922009-05-18T14:57:00.000-04:002009-05-18T14:57:00.000-04:00To a point, I agree, but it isn't (as the mathemat...<I>To a point, I agree, but it isn't (as the mathematicians would say) commutative</I>.<br /><br />Forgive me for being a little too obsessive over these minor errors, but being a math teacher, I can't help to point out that a much better notion would be "independence", and while I'm at it, the listener/reader infers while a speaker/writer implies.<br /><br /><I>If the universe, life, evolution, One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-78533006150191666842009-05-17T21:48:00.000-04:002009-05-17T21:48:00.000-04:00> "Question-begging epithets" are not...> "Question-begging epithets" are not a formal logical fallacy...<br /><br />Well, all I can say is, use them if you enjoy them, but they're not material. Nobody never uses them.<br /><br />> ...if epithets are substantive (if they, for example, if they are used to make a distinction), then they are acceptable within the course of polemical discourse.<br /><br />I think the Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-37310714512430443082009-05-17T16:33:00.000-04:002009-05-17T16:33:00.000-04:00Lee,
"Question-begging epithets" are no...Lee,<br /><br />"Question-begging epithets" are not a formal logical fallacy, and if epithets are substantive (if they, for example, if they are used to make a distinction), then they are acceptable within the course of polemical discourse. One would be hard-pressed to find more biting polemic than that which Irenaeus directed against the gnostics, or Athanasius against the Arians, Thomas M. Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07824873424225826685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-18548085588544832282009-05-17T14:40:00.000-04:002009-05-17T14:40:00.000-04:00> First you are separating causes that are not ...> First you are separating causes that are not imcompatible. In additon to "necessity, accident, or design" we have some combination of two of them, or all three of them, in varying degrees of admixture.<br /><br />To a point, I agree, but it isn't (as the mathematicians would say) commutative.<br /><br />If the universe, life, evolution, what have you, was ultimately designed, Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-23026061736236118692009-05-17T13:08:00.000-04:002009-05-17T13:08:00.000-04:00I think there are only three possibilities. If we ...<I>I think there are only three possibilities. If we take it as a given that all animals have common ancestry, it happened by: necessity, accident, or design. If there is a fourth possibility, I am unaware of it.</I>Oh goody, a trilemma. I see you are trying to use one of the methods outlined in this post. I <A HREF="http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/2009/05/One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-73275582804293922502009-05-17T12:54:00.000-04:002009-05-17T12:54:00.000-04:00If rabbit skeletons are not to be found in pre-Cam...<I>If rabbit skeletons are not to be found in pre-Cambrian strata, can we therefore conclude common descent?</I>Changing the subjectdoes not save your position. Your claim was "The proposition that all life has common ancestry is itself unfalsifiable." He presented a method of falsification(one of many). Just admit you were wrong and move on.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-8093511073154033292009-05-17T12:45:00.000-04:002009-05-17T12:45:00.000-04:00If we were to find a rabbit skeleton in a Precambr...<I>If we were to find a rabbit skeleton in a Precambrian strata, would evolutionists just give up? I doubt it. They simply assume that the rabbit, while still alive, had gone on a digging frenzy. I wouldn't be surprised if that has indeed happened. "Hmmm. This does not look like an animal typical of the strata. We will therefore assume it doesn't belong here.</I>"<br /><br />No, they would not beOne Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-34176018290136265512009-05-16T16:24:00.000-04:002009-05-16T16:24:00.000-04:00> This doesn't really follow. I think you&#...> This doesn't really follow. I think you're referring to an ad hominem argument, but an ad hominem argument refers to rejecting an argument based on irrelevant personal characteristics of the speaker.<br /><br />Well, you made me go dig out my ancient textbook. "An Introduction to Critical Thinking," by W. H. Werkmeister. The book's intro page says he was a professor Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-58629798703420266582009-05-15T23:53:00.000-04:002009-05-15T23:53:00.000-04:00I'll comment on the rest of this later, but--
"an...I'll comment on the rest of this later, but--<br /><br />"an over-reliance on them in argument is actually (I think Martin will back me up on this) a form of logical fallacy."<br /><br />This doesn't really follow. I think you're referring to an ad hominem argument, but an ad hominem argument refers to rejecting an argument based on irrelevant personal characteristics of the speaker. Since one ofThomas M. Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07824873424225826685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-83176908366527521512009-05-15T23:38:00.000-04:002009-05-15T23:38:00.000-04:00And I should add: so far, the primary standard you...And I should add: so far, the primary standard you have presented in this thread is this: if it earns a disapproving adjective from you, we can safely dismiss it from the discussion.<br /><br />That goes for theologians who are not at least "half decent"; theology that is "obscene", "vulgar", or "repugnant"; or for scientists who are not "serious".<br /><br />Now, I like a well-turned adjective Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-79340097891694716142009-05-15T18:18:00.000-04:002009-05-15T18:18:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-67742641888005797932009-05-15T18:04:00.000-04:002009-05-15T18:04:00.000-04:00Well, in this day and age, that constitutes almost...Well, in this day and age, that constitutes almost sort of an apology. Which I consider to be almost sort of gracious, and of course I almost sort of accept it.<br /><br />That was a joke. Almost. Sort of.<br /><br />We've had these exchanges before, Thomas, and I just don't see how they can be fruitful until you divulge what your source of religious authority happens to be. I can thump on Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-72597769088029408472009-05-15T17:21:00.000-04:002009-05-15T17:21:00.000-04:00I shouldn't have questioned whether you were famil...I shouldn't have questioned whether you were familiar with evolution, but rather whether your statement uses the term "evolution" too ambiguously. Likewise, I shouldn't have suggested that you weren't familiar enough with Calvin (I haven't read a great deal of his work myself, having encountered much of it second-hand), but instead should just have expressed my confidence that Calvin Thomas M. Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07824873424225826685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-56484680708278154632009-05-15T12:49:00.000-04:002009-05-15T12:49:00.000-04:00Lee,
"You mean, presuming evolution is true, this...Lee,<br /><br />"You mean, presuming evolution is true, this is how facts that don't fit the theory are explained. Right?"<br /><br />No. Are you familiar with what evolution means, Lee? You seem to be confusing genotyical shifts over generations with both natural selection and common descent.<br /><br />"Do you have a specific ID statement in mind, or are you just venting?"<br /><br />I do: Thomas M. Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07824873424225826685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-35114426664967698602009-05-15T10:54:00.000-04:002009-05-15T10:54:00.000-04:00> it seems that random evolutionary drift has a...> it seems that random evolutionary drift has a far greater influence than is previously thought.<br /><br />You mean, presuming evolution is true, this is how facts that don't fit the theory are explained. Right?<br /><br />> Unfortunately for ID theorists, that's not what they want. They need an engineer God tinkering with the genome...<br /><br />Do you have a specific ID Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-66847377304215061432009-05-14T23:28:00.000-04:002009-05-14T23:28:00.000-04:00Evolutionary theory provides a relatively complete...Evolutionary theory provides a relatively complete mechanism which can account for genotypical change and make predictions (whether for new finds in the fossil record or, as in the case of a virus, an actively changing genome). Evolutionary theory is not written in stone; in fact, the total effect of natural selection is being intensively debated, for it seems that random evolutionary drift has aThomas M. Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07824873424225826685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-63235400211163305362009-05-13T22:46:00.000-04:002009-05-13T22:46:00.000-04:00As James Taranto says, Homer nodded...
> Lee: ...As James Taranto says, Homer nodded...<br /><br />> Lee: "ID attacks that assumption. If they can show that accident is improbable (same as Anonymous's murder case without an eyewitness), then the remaining possibility -- design -- is rendered more possible."<br /><br />Amend that last word to "probable."Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-36776722173331125532009-05-13T22:43:00.000-04:002009-05-13T22:43:00.000-04:00Yes, Martin, and thanks for getting the thread bac...Yes, Martin, and thanks for getting the thread back on track.<br /><br />As to falsifiability, that's pretty much what ID is trying to do to Darwinism: show that the presumptions underlying evolution are too improbable to have happened without intelligent design.<br /><br />You would think they would welcome the attempt. But Darwinists seem to act as if the very act of trying to falsify Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-67898327177157755152009-05-13T21:47:00.000-04:002009-05-13T21:47:00.000-04:00I might point out that the simple maxim that the a...I might point out that the simple maxim that the absence of a falsifying condition is not proof of the truth of a position. The only thing it is proof of is the absence of a falsifying condition.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.com