Reflectorites
I just realised that FMAJ1019 had replied to my message asking him to
clarify Stan Zygmunt's and my question as to whether or not he was in fact
Pim van Meurs.
I note that FJ just sidesteps the issue, when if he wasn't Pim he could easily
say so, without losing his anonymity.
I will therefore assume that FMAJ1019 is in fact Pim van Meurs unless he
denies it.
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000 23:45:21 EDT, FMAJ1019@aol.com wrote:
>SJ>In any event, since FMAJ109 specialises in numerous
>unsubstantiated one-liner oracular pronouncements
>(like Pim did), then it would help if he(?) stated what
>his background is so that we could judge better
>whether he knows what he is talking about.
FJ>Such as? Perhaps you can support your so far unsubstantated
>assertions?
I do support *my* assertions with quotes from the literature. I have also
fully stated my background so people can make up their own mind as to
whether I know what I am talking about.
But FJ just makes assertions with no supporting quotes. That might be OK
if we knew his background and we could assess his knowledge in the area
in question.
From memory Pim was an oceanographer, so if FJ makes an oracular
pronouncements on measuring oceans, I will assume he knows what he is
talking about!
Otherwise I will regard FJ's unsubstantiated assertions as of dubious value.
FJ>My background is irrelevant to my arguments.
That would be OK if they *were* arguments. But mostly they are just, as
Stan put it "`one-liner' style of responses" with no evidential backing.
FJ>I hope that you can recognize this logical fallacy?
See above. There is no "logical fallacy". If FJ wants his arguments to be
taken seriously (by me at any rate) he will need to back up his assertions
with *evidence*.
FJ>For starters: Perhaps you can show us what the relevance of ID is when it
>cannot exclude nature as the designer?
I have already done that in other posts. Briefly the answer is that there are
only two categories of cause known to science: 1) unintelligent natural
cause; and 2) intelligent agency cause.
Of 1) unintelligent natural cause, there are only two categories: a) law and
b) chance.
Dembski's Explanatory Filter provides a rigorous way of excluding 1a) law
and 1b) chance causal explanations. That leaves only 2) intelligent agency
cause.
FJ>Let's assume that ID can infer design accurately,
Strictly speaking ID doesn't "infer design". ID shows a way to *detect*
design (i.e intelligent cause).
What is then inferred from the fact of design is a designer. Such inferring of
a designer from design is nothing technical that the ID movement will do
specially. It is normal, automatic human thinking activity that ordinary
people do all the time in their everyday lives.
But the designer need not be the Judeo-Christian God, although that is one
possibility and many will probably make that identification.
FJ>something that so far has hardly been shown,
It has been shown. Dembski's methodology for detecting design is in his
book the "Design Inference". This was actually a Ph.D dissertation at the
University of Chicago and was published by Cambridge University Press.
FJ>and we can identify a design.
The first step was to establish the theoretical underpinning. The next step is
to apply it to actual cases of claimed deign.
FJ>If we cannot exclude natural forces
We can "exclude" *unintelligent* "natural forces" like law and chance. If
FJ wants to invent a new category of *intelligent* natural forces the best of
luck to him!.
FJ>what then have we learned more from our design inference?
We would have "learned" that something in nature was not caused by
unintelligent natural causes.
If FJ thinks that is unimportant, then that is his opinion. I am sure most
people would disagree with him.
If the discovery by SETI of intelligent life in outer space would be the
greatest discovery of all time, imagine what the discovery of intelligent
cause in the history of life on Earth would be!
I have answered this question more fully in my other responses to the same
question that FJ has asked repeatedly. So I suggest FJ hold off responding
here or we will have multiple threads on the same topic.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A peculiarity of Darwinism, both in biology and in other fields, is that it
explains too much. It is very hard to imagine a condition of things which
could not be explained in terms of natural selections If the state of various
elements at a given moment is such and such then these elements have
displayed their survival value under the existing circumstances, and that is
that. Natural selection explains why things are as they are: It does not
enable us, in general, to say how they will change and vary. It is in a sense
rather a historical than a predictive principle and, as is well known, it is
rather a necessary than a sufficient principle for modern biology. In
consequence its results when applied to social affairs were often rather
odd." (MacRae D.G., "Darwinism and the Social Sciences," in Barnett
S.A., ed., "A Century of Darwin," [1958], Mercury Books: London, 1962,
p.304)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 14 2000 - 18:25:37 EDT