tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post410081569997911780..comments2023-09-25T04:26:51.568-06:00Comments on The Barefoot Bum: The New AtheismLarry Hamelinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-69764176167357672572008-08-08T12:55:00.000-06:002008-08-08T12:55:00.000-06:00I respect athiests as I respect any being or any i...I respect athiests as I respect any being or any individual. We all have the right on what we believe and a right to co-exist with each other. Live and let live! I do hope the two main religions realize them...although I belong to one, i am not against the other. Religion is supposed to be for the order of human beings who are always 'afraid' and 'untrusting'. Religion was made to ule humans and lest to say, to brainwash them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-18799702417679382792008-08-08T12:52:00.000-06:002008-08-08T12:52:00.000-06:00I love this one:"Don't let children be exposed to ...I love this one:<BR/><BR/>"Don't let children be exposed to any religious thought until they have been armed with "critical thinking skills" and can "rationally" examine them."<BR/><BR/>I am NOT an athiest and i do believe in a Supreme Being still strongly but what i don't understand is the blindness everyone has when it comes to religion! It divides humanity, it is the main cause of war and all other things that human being fight.<BR/><BR/>I dont care whether i am christian, muslim or hindu or whatever. All I wish is for the world to be more understanding of each other, for freedom for peace to be of wider minds and not too 'limited' in their minds.<BR/><BR/>Religion is man-made!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-71265848249521413662008-01-09T07:06:00.000-07:002008-01-09T07:06:00.000-07:00I always thought of god-worship as the same as Elv...I always thought of god-worship as the same as Elvis worship--the man (if he ever existed in the first place) is dead, so let him rest! That goes for Jesus, Vishnu, Mohamed, and any other deity.<BR/><BR/>We humans just can't seem to let go--even after so many millennia. Worse, so many people seem to need this psychological safety net just to make it through each day. I pity the poor bastard (and bastardette) who refuse to make the simplest decisions without referencing a book of ancient tales first. <BR/><BR/>It seems like they're so willing to follow anybody with a collar, a bible, and a microphone these days--just look at how many cast their caucus ballots for Mike Huckabee (the next Jimmy Carter, IMHO) looking for a pastor-in-chief. <BR/><BR/>This is how close WE'RE getting to marrying religion with politics, just like the Middle East! If this does happen, where are we to go now for religious freedom (meaning freedom FROM religion)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-10364545699861556262008-01-08T12:49:00.000-07:002008-01-08T12:49:00.000-07:00I understand that many of my readers are as frustr...I understand that many of my readers are as frustrated and irritated as I am by certain commenters. Still and all, I don't think it's particularly productive to continue to fuel the controversy, especially since the commenter in question appears to have departed with, I'll admit, a bit of... encouragement... on my part.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-89733052595118717652008-01-07T16:50:00.000-07:002008-01-07T16:50:00.000-07:00Bravo. Well said.Bravo. Well said.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-33484222739287056352008-01-02T11:25:00.000-07:002008-01-02T11:25:00.000-07:00Erik, my new series, Justifying the scientific met...Erik, my new series, <A HREF="http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/2008/01/justifying-scientific-method.html" REL="nofollow">Justifying the scientific method</A> is motivated in no small part by your comments on this post.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-65583832824458600442008-01-02T10:49:00.000-07:002008-01-02T10:49:00.000-07:00It would be helpful to find a post where your poin...<I>It would be helpful to find a post where your points are more directly valid; I real all comments, and good comments (as well as spectacularly bad comments) often end up at least referenced, if not reproduced, on the blog, so your work would not be entirely buried.</I><BR/><BR/>This does seem to be the case. I shall go a-hunting.Erik Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18256105192535576897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-71767137261143693952008-01-02T07:03:00.000-07:002008-01-02T07:03:00.000-07:00I understand that my claim that the scientific met...I understand that my claim that the scientific method is the <I>only</I> useful epistemic method is controversial. I substantiate this claim at greater length in my other work.<BR/><BR/>The connection between private (phenomenological) and public knowledge is interesting and subtle, but it is not relevant to this particular article. I've written some on this theme, but I'm sure I have more to say on the topic.<BR/><BR/>It would be helpful to find a post where your points are more directly valid; I real all comments, and good comments (as well as spectacularly bad comments) often end up at least referenced, if not reproduced, on the blog, so your work would not be entirely buried.<BR/><BR/>You could also wait until I write again directly on the topic of the connection between phenomenalism and public science.<BR/><BR/>You could even submit your own essay. Subject to ordinary editorial standards, I'm always eager to publish on the blog alternative views on topics I find interesting.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-2424588798127740632008-01-02T06:48:00.000-07:002008-01-02T06:48:00.000-07:00And, as written, your claims make perfect sense, b...<I>And, as written, your claims make perfect sense, but are false.</I><BR/><BR/>I disagree. First, at the level of public knowledge, the level implied by the context, the epistemic methods you note are not applicable. Private experience is not a public epistemic method.<BR/><BR/>I would also argue that pure deduction is not an epistemic method. You can conclude from deduction only that "2+2=4" is a valid theorem of arithmetic; you still have to relate the theorem to the real world using the scientific method to conclude that it's <I>true</I>.<BR/><BR/>And I will repeat yet again that the "epistemic methods" you name — phenomenalism and deductivism — actually <I>comprise</I> the scientific method, so you have not proven my statement false. It is hardly surprising that the components of a working epistemic system themselves have some epistemic value.<BR/><BR/><I>But if theistic revelation stories about knowledge are relevant</I><BR/><BR/>Theistic revelation stories are relevant, as stories, just as any stories about any sort of experience are relevant as stories. We can and should evaluate all stories — theistic or prosaic — in the same scientific manner.<BR/><BR/><I>You would be hard-pressed to demonstrate [the conflation between testimonial evidence with reliance on previous results], since in fact I am not.</I><BR/><BR/>You might not have intended such, but your statement does indeed conflate testimonial evidence with reliance on previous results.<BR/><BR/><I>Scientific progress depends heavily on testimonial evidence; to do science is to "stand on the shoulders of giants".</I><BR/><BR/>Testimonial evidence are spoken words where the fact that someone said something is taken as fact. <BR/><BR/>"Standing on the shoulders of giants" is some sort of reliance on previous results. Previous results in science are not taken as fact in the same as evidence is taken as fact.<BR/><BR/><I>it would be a waste of time and energy for every practicing scientist to re-do every relevant experimental exercise.</I><BR/><BR/>The fallacy of the undistributed middle. To not replicate every prior result is <I>not</I> to take previous results as foundational <I>facts</I> in the same sense that evidence is fact.<BR/><BR/><I>But what do you mean by "canonical logic"?</I><BR/><BR/>I mean all the various flavors of symbol manipulation rules that are deterministic in the sense I describe, and which we employ because we have scientifically determined their value in describing the real world.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-42441460745582192342008-01-02T00:31:00.000-07:002008-01-02T00:31:00.000-07:00It's not possible to provide complete philosophica...<I>It's not possible to provide complete philosophical disambiguation of every sentence in a single post; the principle of charity entails that the assertions that I make be read at least in such a way that they make sense in the overall context.</I><BR/><BR/>Certainly. But "making sense" is not the same thing as "expressing truth". And, as written, your claims make perfect sense, but are false.<BR/><BR/><I>the obvious reading of the scientific method as the "sole" means of knowledge in a post title "The New Atheism" can be charitably read as specifying an level of epistemic abstraction where the competing claim of theistic revelation becomes relevant.</I><BR/><BR/>Indeed. But if theistic revelation stories about knowledge are relevant, so are all the examples I originally listed - and indeed, these examples are even less controversial than claims to knowledge about scientific particulars. So you should not have claimed, in any context, that the scientific method is the sole route to knowledge.<BR/><BR/><I>I'll also note that Philosophical Skepticism (the idea that we can't know anything) undermines not only science and theism, but also my ability to understand your criticism in any sense.</I><BR/><BR/>I never claimed that we can't know anything. I'm not sure why you bring up philosophical scepticism. I merely claim that science is not the unique route to knowledge. This claim is, in fact, the opposite of controversial.<BR/><BR/><I>This objection is not, strictly speaking, true, or even coherent. You are first of all conflating testimonial evidence with reliance on previous results.</I><BR/><BR/>You would be hard-pressed to demonstrate this, since in fact I am not. No practicing scientist works from first principles. Certainly it is true that experimental results are replicable - that's an important feature, after all - but honestly, it would be a waste of time and energy for every practicing scientist to re-do every relevant experimental exercise.<BR/><BR/><I>The outcome of deduction is entirely determined by the axioms, the inference rules, and the order those rules are applied.</I><BR/><BR/>This is, of course, true. But what do you mean by "canonical logic"?Erik Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18256105192535576897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-73569675126983653882008-01-01T18:32:00.000-07:002008-01-01T18:32:00.000-07:00"Finally, your demand that those that disagree wit..."Finally, your demand that those that disagree with you must "prove" you wrong betrays an obvious ignorance of the fact that no one can prove a negative."<BR/><BR/>How did this "fact" become so widespread? An introductory logic course would show that you can prove a negative, by assuming the positive and finding a contradiction. An example:<BR/><BR/>Claim: The Earth's atmosphere is not contained by a glass sphere.<BR/><BR/>Assumptions:<BR/>1. If there was a glass sphere containing the Earth's atmosphere, when someone left the atmosphere, he would run into the glass sphere.<BR/>2. People have left the Earth's atmosphere.<BR/>3. They did not run into a glass sphere.<BR/><BR/>Assume the opposite of the claim, that there is a glass sphere holding in the atmosphere. However, since 2 is true, 3 should not be true, because of 1. We've made a contradiction. Therefore, the original claim is true.<BR/><BR/>While proving God is much more difficult than this (no one can agree on the assumptions), it's not because you can't prove a negative.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-78773463671071760962008-01-01T13:06:00.000-07:002008-01-01T13:06:00.000-07:00Eril: To a certain extent, yes, you have misconstr...<B>Eril</B>: To a certain extent, yes, you have misconstrued my claims. It's not possible to provide complete philosophical disambiguation of every sentence in a single post; the principle of charity entails that the assertions that I make be read at least in such a way that they make sense in the overall context. At best, the assertions should be read in the context of my own body of work, available in the archives.<BR/><BR/>While philosophical esoterica such as phenomenalism are important topics of discussion, the obvious reading of the scientific method as the "sole" means of knowledge in a post title "The New Atheism" can be charitably read as specifying an level of epistemic abstraction where the competing claim of theistic revelation becomes relevant.<BR/><BR/>Additionally, the scientific method comprises just those epistemic building blocks you mention: deductive logic and subjective apprehension of experience. Please read the link supplied in the text for my arguments regarding the <A HREF="http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/search/label/Scientific%20Method" REL="nofollow">scientific method</A> for more information.<BR/><BR/><I>Of course this presumes an uncontroversial understanding of "truth", which isn't really available. And what counts as "reliable"? And so on and so forth.</I><BR/><BR/>I will simply refer you to <A HREF="http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/2007/12/bullshit-and-philosophy.html" REL="nofollow">this essay</A>. I'll also note that Philosophical Skepticism (the idea that we can't know <I>anything</I>) undermines not only science and theism, but also my ability to understand your criticism in any sense.<BR/><BR/><I>Scientific progress depends heavily on testimonial evidence; to do science is to "stand on the shoulders of giants".</I><BR/><BR/>This objection is not, strictly speaking, true, or even coherent. You are first of all conflating testimonial evidence with reliance on previous results.<BR/><BR/>Reliance on a previous result is an act of pure intellectual laziness, excusable only when the truth or falsity of the previous result is not particularly important. A good scientist will skeptically examine previous results critical to her own investigations.<BR/><BR/>Testimonial evidence, on the other hand, is purely phenomenal: I accept uncritically only that I actually hear or read some particular words. That the content of the speech is veridical is a particular, falsifiable hypothesis which requires the same sort of scientific analysis to determine as does drawing larger conclusions once the veracity of the words has been established.<BR/><BR/><I>Canonical logic has nothing to do with determinism</I><BR/><BR/>What I mean is that deduction is a deterministic endeavor. The outcome of deduction is entirely determined by the axioms, the inference rules, and the order those rules are applied. Two people applying the same inference rules to the same axioms in the same order will always have the same result.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-49557711143285487582008-01-01T11:38:00.000-07:002008-01-01T11:38:00.000-07:00It's just that [the scientific method is] the only...<I>It's just that [the scientific method is] the only method we've ever discovered that does give us actual knowledge.</I><BR/><BR/>Of course, strictly speaking, this is false. I can know that I am hungry simply by introspection; I can know the square root of 9 by mathematical inquiry; I can know that "I am here now" is always true when sincerely uttered; and so on and so forth. <BR/><BR/><I>By what method can we reliably and publicly differentiate between true and false statements?</I><BR/><BR/>Of course this presumes an uncontroversial understanding of "truth", which isn't really available. And what counts as "reliable"? And so on and so forth.<BR/><BR/><I>Science demands only three things: That we look for ourselves, that we think in some sort of deterministic manner (e.g. canonical logic) and that we can count. That's all you have to accept "uncritically" to use science.</I><BR/><BR/>Let's break this down a bit:<BR/><BR/>That we look for ourselves: Not really. Scientific progress depends heavily on testimonial evidence; to do science is to "stand on the shoulders of giants".<BR/><BR/>That we think in some sort of deterministic manner (e.g. canonical logic): Canonical logic has nothing to do with determinism, so I'm not really sure what you mean here. Any logic is just a formal system that exhibits certain interesting behaviors.<BR/><BR/>That we can count: It would be more accurate to say that we must be able to do a fair amount of math.<BR/><BR/>Have I misconstrued your claims?Erik Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18256105192535576897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-72854106032075280292008-01-01T10:27:00.000-07:002008-01-01T10:27:00.000-07:00ubercheesehead, you write:The observed universe co...ubercheesehead, you write:<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>The observed universe contains 10^80 elementary particles. Any given particle can undergo up to 10^45 alterations in quantum states per second. The theoretical total lifespan of the universe from singularity to heat death or collapse back on itself is 10^25 seconds. This yields a total number of quantum events possible in the universe of 10^150 events. Anything with a probability of less than one in 10^150 can be said with certainty to not have a chance of happening.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Let us take the maths/physics as correct therefore giving an upper bound of 10^150 individual quantum events in the lifetime of the universe. But that only means that any <B>quantum event</B> with a probability less than 10^-150 is unlikely (noting that such an event is by definition here restricted to involving one particle only - because that's what has been counted).<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>Let's take for a coding set only the capital letters of the English alphabet and the space bar (27 characters). If you read:<BR/><BR/>THE BAREFOOT BUM ROCKS<BR/><BR/>you immediately recognize this as the product of intelligent agency...[you can] calculate that a string of code 22 characters long with 27 choices for each character has a one in 10^31 chance of being randomly generated; and even if you do not go on to calculate that if you had a random code generator run one trillion sequences a second for 20 billion years the odds would still be against this particular sequence appearing.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Firstly, try reading up on "a priori" vs "a posteriori" probabilities. Consider the following string:<BR/><BR/>XUD THDELWQN FTJ OWNCD<BR/><BR/>Using your logic, one might calculate that ... if you had a random code generator run one trillion sequences a second for 20 billion years the odds would still be against this particular sequence appearing. This would apparently ALSO be evidence that it's designed by an intelligent agency. <BR/><BR/>Secondly, note that now you're counting <I>combinations</I> of (character) states in your probabilistic analysis, not individual (quantum) states. I suspect you're implicitly arguing above that the universe can only experience 10^70 possible states in its lifetime - but you haven't tried to tackle how many <B>small local substates</B> can be experienced within that set of universe-wide states.<BR/><BR/>For example, in a universe of 10^80 particles, how many different states are experienced at any one instant involving (say) k neighbouring particles? The answer also depends on HOW MANY states each particle can take (something entirely left out of your universe analysis above). Let that number be represented by N.<BR/><BR/>You can select at least 10^80 different initial particles and therefore at least 10^80 different sets of k (actually quite a few more as you may have a lot of choice as to how you construct the local set once the first particle is chosen). Each set of particles may take any one of N^k states, so for large enough N and k there can be more than 10^80 * N^k local substates at any one instant, and thus more than 10^150 * N^k local substates during the lifetime of the universe. <BR/><BR/>You might then argue that any local k-particle substate with a probability of much less than 1 in (10^150 * N^k) has a poor chance of occurring, but even then you might want to estimate N and k for a DNA base pair before you go down that track - and <B>think about the fact that for n base pairs, (N^k)^n grows much faster than 2^n</B>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-83834590562448032612008-01-01T08:22:00.000-07:002008-01-01T08:22:00.000-07:00Also, I almost forgot the most important examples ...Also, I almost forgot the most important examples of emergent properties in physics: temperature, pressure and entropy.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-22362324730612629732007-12-31T23:51:00.000-07:002007-12-31T23:51:00.000-07:00Actually there are several assertions in the refer...Actually there are several assertions in the referenced passage, all of which require evidentiary support.<BR/><BR/>1: All the amino acids in any given protein <I>need</I> to be either all L-chiral or R-chiral<BR/><BR/>2: The overwhelming majority of all proteins <I>need</I> to be L-chiral.<BR/><BR/>3: What precisely is the "job" that needs to be done?<BR/><BR/>4: Demonstrate precisely that actual theories of natural selection proposed by scientists entail that we should see heterochirality different from that which is observed.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-62130254677871211522007-12-31T23:35:00.000-07:002007-12-31T23:35:00.000-07:00Just one example of the problem referenced here is...<I>Just one example of the problem referenced here is the need to have all the amino acids in any given protein be either all L-chiral or R-chiral, with the overwhelming majority of all proteins being L-chiral. Although you can tilt the balance slightly using cosmic radiation, this mechanism comes nowhere near being an efficient enough filter to accomplish the job that needs to be done.</I><BR/><BR/>This is a positive assertion that demands scientific evidence. Please prove it, referencing either peer-reviewed published scientific literature or your own research. And no, the <A HREF="http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=105" REL="nofollow">Institute for Creation Research</A> is not a scientific source.<BR/><BR/>I'm not interested in anything else you have to say until you substantiate this assertion with evidence.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-4408479558157498492007-12-31T23:28:00.000-07:002007-12-31T23:28:00.000-07:00That statement will get you a jacuzi king suite at...<I>That statement will get you a jacuzi king suite at the Tautology Hotel.</I><BR/><BR/>If you're going to be obtuse, don't blame me for being over-specific.<BR/><BR/><I>Here's why: It is fine to hypothesize that if there are selective filters in place to select, preserve and aggregate beneficial events, but I have yet to see any actual natural selection mechanisms proposed that could do this in the real world. </I><BR/><BR/>That's an argument from ignorance. Even a cursory reading of the literature will show specific mechanisms, such as predation, escaping predation, finding and utilizing food sources, sexual selection, etc.<BR/><BR/><I>It is one thing, for instance, to say that if we select for the words of Hamlet...</I><BR/><BR/>Hamlet is a pedagogic analogy, not a proof.<BR/><BR/><I>blah blah blah L-chiral or R-chiral, blah blah blah</I><BR/><BR/>Without a search on the scientific literature, you're just talking out your ass here.<BR/><BR/>I'm guessing you're some sort of engineer. You've trolled a few cretinist websites and copied & pasted a few points about which you have no actual understanding.<BR/><BR/>I'm not a biochemist. I don't know doodley squat about protein chirality. And neither do you. You're pretending to have a lot of knowledge you can't actually back up.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-441321873271356142007-12-31T21:38:00.000-07:002007-12-31T21:38:00.000-07:00Let me be even more specific: What scientific theo...<I>Let me be even more specific: What scientific theories actually say is a matter of fact. The theories might be true or false, but they are what they are.</I><BR/><BR/>That statement will get you a jacuzi king suite at the Tautology Hotel.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Your exposition on probability is fundamentally mendacious, since no theory in any of the sciences employing the evolutionary paradigm asserts that the features of modern organisms arose by chance alone.</I><BR/><BR/><I>Au contraire.</I> I think Talk Origins attempt at refuting the probability conundrum is fairly typical of what I have seen advanced to refute this pretty much everywhere I have investigated. They attempt to reduce the really <B>big</B> probability problem into a bunch of bite sized steps, each one of which lies well within the realm of plausibility, with selective filters in place at each step to help the process along. This is an oblique admission of the problem involved, but does not constitute a real solution. Here's why: It is fine to hypothesize that <I>if</I> there are selective filters in place to select, preserve and aggregate beneficial events, but I have yet to see any <I>actual</I> natural selection mechanisms proposed that could do this in the real world. It is one thing, for instance, to say that if we select for the words of <I>Hamlet</I> (Talk Origins example) that we can generate <I>Hamlet</I> in a relatively short time using the combination of randomly generated code and a selective filter. It is another thing altogether to come up with a sorting filter which does not rely on a preexisting template (in this case the text of <I>Hamlet</I>). As it turns out the selective filter is entirely dependent upon intelligent agency to be meaningful. <BR/><BR/>Just one example of the problem referenced here is the need to have all the amino acids in any given protein be either all L-chiral or R-chiral, with the overwhelming majority of all proteins being L-chiral. Although you can tilt the balance slightly using cosmic radiation, this mechanism comes nowhere near being an efficient enough filter to accomplish the job that needs to be done.<BR/><BR/>I'll come back and finish responding to your post sometime in the next four days (maybe sooner, maybe later), but right now I am finished with my duties for the evening and am going home to get some lovin'. Happy New Year!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-31174008063308212862007-12-31T19:03:00.000-07:002007-12-31T19:03:00.000-07:00Oops... An individual atom of silver is not reflec...Oops... An individual atom of silver is not reflective in the image-preserving sense, but a flat layer <B>is</B>.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-26825066192530095342007-12-31T19:00:00.000-07:002007-12-31T19:00:00.000-07:00Do you mind if I appropriate it for my own use in ...<I>Do you mind if I appropriate it for my own use in other settings?</I><BR/><BR/>Feel free to use it as you please.<BR/><BR/><I><B>The content of evolutionary science is a matter of fact.</B><BR/><BR/>Sorry, this is a sloppy line of reasoning relying on categorical errors.</I><BR/><BR/>Let me be even more specific: What scientific theories actually <I>say</I> is a matter of fact. The theories might be true or false, but they are what they are.<BR/><BR/><I>Could you please just pick one and point out why it is a lie?</I><BR/><BR/>Your <A HREF="http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/2007/12/new-atheism.html#c3376149032790799119" REL="nofollow">exposition on probability</A> is fundamentally mendacious, since no theory in any of the sciences employing the evolutionary paradigm asserts that the features of modern organisms arose by chance alone.<BR/><BR/><I>And don't even get me started on that laughable canard of "evolutionary psychology." Talk about a theory of everything which explains nothing...</I><BR/><BR/>Amazingly enough, I have to (mostly) agree with you here. Many of the evo-psych folks have latched on to the adaptationist fallacy in a big way.<BR/><BR/><I>In fact, one of the weaknesses of evolutionary theory is that it has been stretched in so many directions over the last 1.5C that any observation in nature is touted as "proof" of evolution.</I><BR/><BR/>I call bullshit. Provide evidence.<BR/><BR/><I>Any field of endeavor which deals with real, live organisms or their constituent parts operates independent of how they came into their current form.</I><BR/><BR/>I call bullshit. Provide evidence. PZ Myers, for instance, a professional biologist, states unconditionally and with some frequency that evolution is critical to understanding biology.<BR/><BR/><I>Real, operational science involving observation, hypothesizing, testing, and repeating is quite agnostic about the origins of life.</I><BR/><BR/>What precisely constitutes "real science" is an issue of contention even among secular and atheist philosophers. I've written my own thoughts on the matter in my series on the <A HREF="http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/search/label/Scientific%20Method" REL="nofollow">Scientific Method</A>. I reject the notion that "real" science is a search for <I>universals</I>; I say etiology, history and forensics are just as scientific as universal sciences.<BR/><BR/><I>[I]t would be quite impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist without it. Now before you spew invective at me for saying that, just remember, it's your buddy Dawkins I am cribbing here.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm quite familiar with Dawkins statement. I disagree with it. The "intellectual fulfillment" of atheism rests only on the vacuity, incoherence and falsity of theism. As Hume showed, an affirmative scientific theory of the historical origins of modern organisms is not required to decisively reject an intelligent, much less supernatural, designer.<BR/><BR/>It must be said, however, that every scientific advance, including evolution, is yet another item of evidence supporting the utility of methodological naturalism and the plausibility of metaphysical naturalism.<BR/><BR/><I>I thought perhaps the origins of life issue might be fairly considered a core issue to atheism as it is to theism.</I><BR/><BR/>The evidence for the origins of life is buried under billions of years of history: It is entirely possible that we never will figure out precisely how terrestrial life arose. And, absent a time machine, we will certainly never have <I>positivistic</I> evidence of any particular mechanism.<BR/><BR/>It's worth repeating, thought, that even if we don't figure out the precise scientific explanation, "goddidit" is not any explanation at all.<BR/><BR/><I>Mostly it's a game of repeated claims that this or that has been thoroughly debunked elsewhere, and the links never quite reach there, rather than just taking the argument and really showing the false assumptions or gaps in the logic.</I><BR/><BR/>The fault, cabeza de queso, might well be in yourself.<BR/><BR/><I>When I asked the question I could not off handedly come up with any example of emergent properties which are not associated with systems that are the product of intelligent agency.</I><BR/><BR/>Much depends on whether you consider emergent properties to prove intelligent agency. Shape and color in physics, for instance, are often emergent properties: An aggregate such as a rock can have a shape or color that none of its constituents have. An individual atom of silver is not reflective in the image-preserving sense, but a flat layer. Individual molecules do not have a property of "hardness", but objects composed of molecules do. Likewise tensile and compressive strength.<BR/><BR/><I>The fact that the order observed in living organism does not appear to be an inherent property of the matter composing those living organisms, coupled with the complexity of those organisms strongly suggests intelligent agency in their assembly.</I><BR/><BR/>You're conflating order and complexity. Order, i.e. physical law, <I>is</I> an inherent property of the physical universe, of which matter is a part. <I>Complexity</I> is not an inherent property of matter, but complexity is obviously an emergent property, and the existence of emergent properties is routine.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-48355658934400710382007-12-31T16:43:00.000-07:002007-12-31T16:43:00.000-07:00Here's the thing, my fine fromaged friend... Say, ...<I>Here's the thing, my fine fromaged friend...</I> <BR/>Say, now that really is cute. Do you mind if I appropriate it for my own use in other settings?<BR/><BR/><I>The content of evolutionary science is a matter of fact. To misrepresent the content of the science is not an opposing viewpoint, it's not just a straw man fallacy, it is a blatant lie, a lie we can easily catch you out on.</I><BR/><BR/>Sorry, this is a sloppy line of reasoning relying on categorical errors. There are two components to any scientific theory: observations and interpretations. While I wholeheartedly agree that it is disingenuous and ethically wrong to misrepresent or fabricate the observations, it is entirely appropriate and necessary to continually scrutinize the interpretations of the observations to see how well they fit. To engage in a prolonged screechfest demanding fealty to an interpretation of the evidence and accuse anyone who questions that interpretation of intellectual dishonesty is to leave the field of scientific inquiry and enter the realm of religion.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore your talk of "the science of evolution" as if it were a monolithic and immutable unity glosses over the reality that almost all of the interpretations of the observed data which my elderly father was taught <I>vis a vis</I> evolution when he was in high school and college have long since been abandoned in favor of other interpretations which say very different things, yet are all pressed into service of supporting the same theory. In fact, one of the weaknesses of evolutionary theory is that it has been stretched in so many directions over the last 1.5C that any observation in nature is touted as "proof" of evolution. And don't even get me started on that laughable canard of "evolutionary psychology." Talk about a theory of everything which explains nothing...<BR/><BR/>Finally, you keep saying I am putting forth lies. Could you please just pick one and point out why it is a lie? If I took you more seriously I would be more vigorous in defending my honor, but if you could pick just one, I would be glad to recant.<BR/><BR/><I>Furthermore, although I'm scientifically literate I'm not a professional scientist of any kind, much less one working in a field which relies on the evolutionary paradigm.</I><BR/><BR/>Two points: <BR/><BR/>1) I'm not going into any great technical detail with anything I'm pointing out here. You do not need to be conversant with the relativistic boundary states of quarks in mesons and be able to do linear algebra to interact with this stuff. In fact I have deliberately avoided referencing anything overly technical, which I could narrowcast in on in my own field.<BR/><BR/>2)There is <I>no</I> field of operational science which relies on the evolutionary paradigm. Any field of endeavor which deals with real, live organisms or their constituent parts operates independent of how they came into their current form. The only fields of "science" which rely on the evolutionary paradigm are the speculative, nonrepeatable interpretations of data which resemble nothing so much as etiology. Real, operational science involving observation, hypothesizing, testing, and repeating is quite agnostic about the origins of life.<BR/><BR/><I>Since atheism does not depend in the least on the truth or falsity of modern theories of evolution. </I><BR/><BR/>Once again, I'm sure that there is a complete sentence struggling to escape into daylight here, but I think I know what you mean. Actually while atheism does not depend upon the veracity of the current evolutionary theory, it would be quite impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist without it. Now before you spew invective at me for saying that, just remember, it's your buddy Dawkins I am cribbing here.<BR/><BR/><I>So whatever your viewpoint opposes, it is not the typical content of this blog.</I> <BR/><BR/>I thought perhaps the origins of life issue might be fairly considered a core issue to atheism as it is to theism. And if it isn't I can only plead that I continue to pursue the topic because it's so much fun to watch smoke and steam come out of your ears. :-)<BR/><BR/><I>If you want to talk about biology or other sciences with scientists, I have directed you to appropriate forums.</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, been there, done that. Wasn't able to get any more of a real back and forth going with any of your more scientifically literate coreligionists than with you. Mostly it's a game of repeated claims that this or that has been thoroughly debunked elsewhere, and the links never quite reach there, rather than just taking the argument and really showing the false assumptions or gaps in the logic. When that fails then it is the usual flood the stage tactic: biology, physics, sociology, blah, blah, blah supports evolution. Go read up.<BR/><BR/><I>I have not mentioned banning. I have said I will not publish lies. You will be "banned" accordingly if and only if you are incapable of posting comments which do not contain provable lies.</I> <BR/><BR/>This reads like a distinction without a difference to me, but whatever. As long as I get some spare moments to post and you post 'em and respond, let's roll! Huzzah!<BR/><BR/><I>Do you know what "analogy" means? Do you understand that the fallacy of composition pertains to logic, and has nothing directly to do with the details of any particular scientific theory or pseudo-scientific bullshit?</I><BR/><BR/>Ummm...yeah. I <I>think</I> I know what "analogy" means, but perhaps in my last wrestling match with the Neananderthals over in the cave next door that understanding got knocked out of my head when Thag hit me over the head with that big rock. (He's such a bully--just because he has a larger cranial capacity than mine he thinks he better than me or something...but I digress.)<BR/><BR/>I just found it interesting that your analogy relied upon a system which could not exist without intelligent agency. When I asked the question I could not off handedly come up with any example of emergent properties which are not associated with systems that are the product of intelligent agency. If you can come up with an example of an emergent property in a system which is unambiguously not superintended by intelligent design I will be in your debt for the education. If you cannot, this will not prove that no such systems exist; it will merely mean that for me (and for you also, if you are honest) emergent properties exist only in systems which are superintended by intelligent agency, and therefore may serve as a marker of intelligent design.<BR/><BR/><I>This is nonsense. You're switching horses in mid-stream. </I><BR/><BR/>So, are you gonna answer the question or not?<BR/><BR/><I>The impossibility of emergent properties falsifies materialism out of one side of your mouth;, out their actuality verifies intelligent design out of the other. Brilliant!</I><BR/><BR/>You have misunderstood the argument. The fact that the order observed in living organism <I>does not</I> appear to be an inherent property of the matter composing those living organisms, coupled with the complexity of those organisms strongly suggests intelligent agency in their assembly. <BR/><BR/>The fact that there are emergent properties from assembling the components of you and me into living beings is actually quite immaterial to the argument, except that if emergent properties do indeed serve as a marker for intelligent design in any other system where the origins of that system can actually be observed, then this poses a problem for materialism.<BR/><BR/><I>So long as you don't lie, you stay more or less on-topic, and you at least try — even in your amusing inept manner — to make an argument, I'll publish you.</I><BR/><BR/>And so long as you keep publishing and make any response at all that does not consist entirely of screeching at me that I am lying when I either make a statement or ask a question I'll keep coming back at least until I get bored.<BR/><BR/>Cheers!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-84207597627888296242007-12-31T14:54:00.000-07:002007-12-31T14:54:00.000-07:00Don't know if this will go through. I don't unders...Don't know if this will go through. I don't understand "Choose an Identity" and such. Just want to send you a link Churchofreality.com I think you will find like minded friends & great discussion. Peace to you & yours. RioAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-88528453391022393722007-12-30T19:51:00.000-07:002007-12-30T19:51:00.000-07:00One last thing: Get down off your cross, we need t...One last thing: Get down off your cross, we need the wood. Stop complaining about censorship and banning when <B>I've published each and every one of your comments</B>.<BR/><BR/>So long as you don't lie, you stay more or less on-topic, and you at least try — even in your amusing inept manner — to make an argument, I'll publish you.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-47019919652109450062007-12-30T19:46:00.000-07:002007-12-30T19:46:00.000-07:00This is a fallacy of composition. As an analogy .....<I><B>This is a fallacy of composition. As an analogy ...</B><BR/><BR/>Whoops! There you go with intelligent agency again.</I><BR/><BR/>Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick. How stupid are you, son? Do you know what "analogy" means? Do you understand that the fallacy of composition pertains to logic, and has nothing directly to do with the details of any particular scientific theory or pseudo-scientific bullshit?<BR/><BR/><I>Could you come up with an example of an emergent property that was not superintended by an intelligent agency?</I><BR/><BR/>This is nonsense. You're switching horses in mid-stream. Your original statement, in case you've forgotten:<BR/><BR/><I>[T]here is no evidence that the complexity represented in the simplest living organism, say nothing of a human being, is an inherent property of the matter of which it is composed.</I><BR/><BR/>The impossibility of emergent properties falsifies materialism out of one side of your mouth;, out their actuality verifies intelligent design out of the other. Brilliant!Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.com