Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Comment of the week

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

At Slashdot:

Science is a method, not a result, nor a being. “Science” doesn’t say anything. With highly politicised topics like this, it is not the data that tells the tale, but rather those flawed humans who may or may not appropriately report the data that tells the tale. There has been enough fraud discovered in academia alone, without systemic bias toward a given result, that to fail to question these results is a major failing on the part of anyone who takes them at face value. – tmosley

Comments
first time posting, not sure if this will be read by anyone, but I wanted to signup just to post it: Has anyone else pointed out (probably) how strange it is that the game of billiards is frequently used as shorthand for some kind of deterministic framework? I mean, it's a cliché at this point, and maybe a cliché to point out the cliché as well. But it's a terrible analogy. Not just because the universe doesn't behave that way, but because anyone who has ever appreciated the game of pool realizes that a great deal of design goes into making each and every shot. The whole beauty of the game comes from this fact. You analyze the board, survey your options, plan out as long a sequence of winning moves as you can manage, aim with intense precision, and then shoot, maybe putting some english on the ball if you'd like. Any failure to execute the shot according to your design, the slightest deviation of an angle or two to the right or left, can result in a bad shot, a scratch, or even losing the entire game by sinking the eightball prematurely. In short, the game of billiards, rather than being used as an illustration of blind determinism, could easily be recast as an argument for design. It is sort of a testament to the times we are living in that no one ever points this out or looks at the analogy of pool from this perspective. Pointing it out is a little like invoking Aristotle's formal and final causes in a highschool chemistry class. But the perspective shift can easily be made. It's funny. It almost seems like the more forethought - design - is involved in a game, the more people talk about it mechanistically. Whereas games of chance, like poker, are celebrated for the ways in which players skillfully read and outwit their opponents, although this doesn't seem to me to involve design so much as a kind of moment-by-moment cunning. Unless you are conspiring with fellow players through a self designed system of tells, or something like that. Anyway - this may be a rant, but oh well. These thoughts all came to me after watching a documentary about Sir Isaac Newton, and contemplating the perfect orbits of planets around the earth due to the pull of gravity. The force of gravity might seem like a blind force, but the fact that planets orbit so perfectly rather than erratically swinging and crashing into each other is, in my mind, a clear indication of design and an intelligent designer. An intelligent darwinist could obviously mock that statement on a surface level as a naive and stupid remark, pantsing me for the amusement of his friends, but he would be sadly missing the core of my argument. Anyway, it was therapeutic for me to get that all out, if nothing else. Thank you if you read it. And thank you Uncommondescent, for being a venue of discussion about this sort of thing.Poolshark
October 3, 2017
October
10
Oct
3
03
2017
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT
The real science will always be proved later. At that time, many would have not been the accepted immediately. But after many years, when the argument has been put forward to death, another group of researchers or scientists have given a reasonable explanation. Maybe, this is the place where science really confuse people.debbieevans
June 12, 2016
June
06
Jun
12
12
2016
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT
Carpathian: I don’t know if we can ever prove to everyone’s satisfaction that we are not a result of purely materialistic forces, (...) [my correction]
What would be the most compelling evidence in favor of the concept of a purely material human being?
Carpathian: (...) but the other position doesn’t have any evidence at all backing it up.
According to you there is not any evidence that a human being is something other than matter. Is that your position?
Carpathian: Haldane’s mind can be the result of materialistic processes despite the fact that he might be wrong about that mind’s origin.
"Despite"?
Carpathian: I could also be wrong, but the difference is I accept that I might be and Haldane cannot.
According to Haldane it's "immensely unlikely" that you are right about the mind being the result of materialistic processes. Do you agree with Haldane? If not, why not?Box
June 15, 2015
June
06
Jun
15
15
2015
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
Box:
(2) If materialism is true, how can it be proved?
I don't know if we can ever prove to everyone's satisfaction that we are not a result of purely materialistic forces, but the other position doesn't have any evidence at all backing it up. Haldane's mind can be the result of materialistic processes despite the fact that he might be wrong about that mind's origin. I could also be wrong, but the difference is I accept that I might be and Haldane cannot.Carpathian
June 15, 2015
June
06
Jun
15
15
2015
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
Mung:
Carpathian: My point is that both of us have a belief we hold to be true Mung: But you can’t both be right.
Exactly. While we both hold our beliefs to be true, in this case, one of us is wrong. Haldane wants a conclusion that excludes materialism, but the problem is that if he is wrong, he has know way of knowing it. He has simply asserted that materialism cannot lead to beliefs that can be trusted as being true. I assert the opposite.Carpathian
June 15, 2015
June
06
Jun
15
15
2015
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
Carpathian,
Carpathian: But if my belief in materialism is true, then Haldane is wrong, [(1) wrong about what exactly?] since my belief would then have proven to be valid [(2) proven valid by what experiment?] and his belief [(3) which belief?] invalid. [my questions]
(1) Haldane is still right about blind forces producing unreliable beliefs on principle. Even if materialism is true and it is your belief that materialism is true, this true belief is still produced by blind unthinking irrational forces. IOW a very unlikely event took place: blind stupid irrational stuff produced a true belief. Hence Haldane's statement: "It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true." (2) If materialism is true, how can it be proved? (3) His belief is IMO that blind forces—opposed to rational deliberation—produce unreliable beliefs.Box
June 13, 2015
June
06
Jun
13
13
2015
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
Carpathian: My point is that both of us have a belief we hold to be true But you can't both be right. Logical output is determined by logical input, i.e., garbage in, garbage out. Indeed. One of you must be wrong.Mung
June 13, 2015
June
06
Jun
13
13
2015
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
Box:
If materialism is true, according to Haldane, we have no reason to suppose that our beliefs are true.
But if my belief in materialism is true, then Haldane is wrong, since my belief would then have proven to be valid and his belief invalid. My point is that both of us have a belief we hold to be true regardless of of where that reasoning comes from and regardless of which one of us is right. Logical output is determined by logical input, i.e., garbage in, garbage out. Haldane's argument is based on faulty premises.Carpathian
June 13, 2015
June
06
Jun
13
13
2015
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
Carpathian,
Carpathian: Regardless of whether “materialism” is true or not, we are “rational” by definition since we are reasoning beings.
I take it then that you hold your belief—that we are reasoning beings—to be true. If materialism is true, according to Haldane, we have no reason to suppose that our beliefs are true. IOW your trust in your belief—that we are reasoning beings—is inconsistent with materialism.Box
June 13, 2015
June
06
Jun
13
13
2015
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
kairosfocus:
The fixation on Math as a human endeavour is apparently blinding you to that major side, of which the Euler expression is a capital and surprising example that happens to be connected to major domains of mathematics and applications in the real world. KF
You are not addressing my point which is this: Math is something man invented, it is not divine in origin. As evidence I presented PI, which due to being a man-made irrational value, does not reflect the reality of the finite dimensions of a circle. Math is not discovered, it is created. With our man created math, man has determined relationships in the universe we live in. Again, the argument is not about math, but rather its origins. A math with divine origins would not have us guessing what the diameter of a circle is.Carpathian
June 13, 2015
June
06
Jun
13
13
2015
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
Box:
But we have no choice but to assume that we are rational. Indeed, I agree with you, we may not be rational, but assuming that we are not-rational and declare that all is lost is not an option.
I am not saying we are not rational. I'm saying the opposite. Regardless of whether "materialism" is true or not, we are "rational" by definition since we are reasoning beings. My point is that we cannot logically determine whether our beliefs can be trusted by virtue of where we believe we come from.Carpathian
June 13, 2015
June
06
Jun
13
13
2015
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
Mung:
We have to assume our cognitive functions are reliable, otherwise we’d have no reason to believe materialism is true!
We would not have a reason to believe anything if we thought our cognitive functions were not reliable and that includes believing in ID.Carpathian
June 13, 2015
June
06
Jun
13
13
2015
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
Box:
Box: Indeed. It is self-referentially incoherent to believe that one’s cognitive functions are unreliable based on one’s belief in materialism. :) Haldane: For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true.
Haldane claims that his cognitive functions would be unreliable if materialism were true.Carpathian
June 13, 2015
June
06
Jun
13
13
2015
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
Mung: We have to assume our cognitive functions are reliable, otherwise we’d have no reason to believe materialism is true!
Indeed. It is self-referentially incoherent to believe that one's cognitive functions are unreliable based on one's belief in materialism. :)Box
June 12, 2015
June
06
Jun
12
12
2015
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
Box: IOW is materialism not capable of accommodating beliefs we can trust? We have to assume our cognitive functions are reliable, otherwise we'd have no reason to believe materialism is true!Mung
June 12, 2015
June
06
Jun
12
12
2015
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
Carpathian #180: This is not a point with can be objectively proved from a subjective viewpoint.
But we have no choice but to assume that we are rational. Indeed, I agree with you, we may not be rational, but assuming that we are not-rational and declare that all is lost is not an option. So the question is: when reflecting on blind forces producing believes—assuming that we are rational and therefor capable of correct assessment—, are we correct to conclude that such believes are not trustworthy? In that case, do we have, as Haldane states, “no reason to suppose that our beliefs are true”? IOW is materialism not capable of accommodating beliefs we can trust?Box
June 12, 2015
June
06
Jun
12
12
2015
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
F/N: I have also outlined reasons to observe that in core aspects, the logical study of structure and quantity allows us to discover relationships embedded in our world and in some cases in any world, e.g. two-ness cannot not exist. The fixation on Math as a human endeavour is apparently blinding you to that major side, of which the Euler expression is a capital and surprising example that happens to be connected to major domains of mathematics and applications in the real world. KFkairosfocus
June 12, 2015
June
06
Jun
12
12
2015
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
Carpathian, I rather doubt that BA77 argues something like, 0 = 1 + e^i*pi, so God exists. He may outline that this speaks to the powerful and highly relevant unity of Mathematics, and makes mind a plausible explanation for the cosmos we inhabit. That, is an argument that I have slightly expanded by drawing out the underlying phil issue of the one and the many, and highlighting the intellectual responsibilities taken up at that level when one rejects a core worldview alternative. So, when you try to pounce on an over simplified argument, and act as though that answers to the fuller case . . . and even I have only outlined, that is a strawman. All that does is it inocculates you rhetorically against attending to the full form argument, but that cannot do away with your intellectual responsibilities. KFkairosfocus
June 12, 2015
June
06
Jun
12
12
2015
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
kairosfocus:
Carpthian, you have (again) set up and knocked over a strawman.
It is not a strawman as it is bornagain77's position. Both daveS and myself believe that math is a human construction and there are IDists who say otherwise. Do you believe math is a human construction or a creation separate from man?
One serious answer is, that the world reflects a root mind, a powerfully logical root mind. You are free to reject that, but then you need to put up an answer that addresses the comparative difficulties challenge: factual adequacy, coherence and balanced elegant explanatory power that is neither simplistic nor an ad hoc patch-work.
I don't see elegance at all, I instead see something that humans are quite capable of coming up with, and that is a brute force mathematics that gets bent and shaped to fit new problems. Please understand that I am not discussing the failings of math for mathematical reasons, I am instead using it as an example that math is not divine. If you see math as a human construction, then we agree. If you disagree, show me how you would fine-tune the universe with irrational values for physics. This would not be a problem for a designer who uses math that goes beyond ours but then by definition, ours would be inferior and thus not divine in origin but rather created by us.Carpathian
June 12, 2015
June
06
Jun
12
12
2015
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
Box, The problem for me is what the following implies.
For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true.
If Haldane is wrong, he nevertheless still believes he is correct. He cannot know he is correct and the same goes for me. Because he cannot know he is wrong, he also cannot know that he is right. Both of us hold our beliefs to be true and that holds regardless of which one of us is correct about where our mental processes actually originate. This is not a point with can be objectively proved from a subjective viewpoint.Carpathian
June 12, 2015
June
06
Jun
12
12
2015
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
F/N: Let me refocus 132 above, to Carpathian: __________________ >>First, What I have done is to identify Mathematics as a discipline that studies the logic of structure and quantity. Where, structure and quantity are key features of this world and in key cases, any world. I doubt you will dispute that. For, then you will be in deep trouble with the physical sciences and their mathematical nature. In that context, I point out that the features of that logic are often discovered rather than invented. And I laid out exhibit A: 0 = 1 + e^i*pi as an exhibit that shows the surprising unity and power of Mathematics in the face of the diversity of the observed cosmos. In turn, that points to the real domain of challenge, one of the foundational hard questions of a discipline that can be defined as that field that studies hard, deep questions, philosophy. Namely, the literally starting question in phil as a discipline: the problem of the one and the many. How do we find unity and diversity that is at least in key part intelligible, in a world of such diversity, which is a cosmos not a chaos? One serious answer is, that the world reflects a root mind, a powerfully logical root mind. You are free to reject that, but then you need to put up an answer that addresses the comparative difficulties challenge: factual adequacy, coherence and balanced elegant explanatory power that is neither simplistic nor an ad hoc patch-work. One thing that is easily shown to be a non starter — never mind the lab coats or the claim to be the epitome of reason — is evolutionary materialist scientism. It is self referential, and incoherent so self-falsifying. If you disagree, simply answer solidly to the point long since put up by Haldane:
“It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [[“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. ]
One last point, it is not about proof and it is not a question in Mathematics that you in the end face. For, take P1, P2, . . . Pn => Q If you don’t like Q you can always find some story as to why you object to Pi etc, and so you dispute the argument. But then, you are sitting at the table of comparative difficulties now. The hard question is on the table. What is your alternative, and how does it fare in the face of comparative difficulties, why? That tends to put a very different colour on the matter. So, the ball is now in your court. Your answer is: _________ ? Why that answer?>> __________________ The problem of the one and the many is now on the table. KFkairosfocus
June 12, 2015
June
06
Jun
12
12
2015
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT
// follow-up #177 // Come to think of it Searle's Chinese Room argument also points out the disconnect between physical causality (computational causality) and mental causality.Box
June 11, 2015
June
06
Jun
11
11
2015
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
Carpathian: (...) if we have a sound “chemical” process, why would it not be logical?
Your question is answered by Reppert:
. . . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [[But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [[so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
IOW there is a disconnect between physical causality and logical causality. It's possible for a monkey to type "E=MC^2", but even if he does it has nothing to do with reflections on mass and energy.Box
June 11, 2015
June
06
Jun
11
11
2015
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
Carpthian, you have (again) set up and knocked over a strawman. There is no direct leap from Mathematics is in material part discovered and manifests unifying patterns in our world -- something that naturally comes from what it is about -- and a jumped to, claimed deductive conclusion it is therefore divine. This was already discussed but you have obviously fixated on a strawman that is handy to deflect and dismiss. What has been put on the table is the foundational phil problem of the one and the many as a much broader problem [and in a different intellectual discipline with its own methods], so also unity and diversity in a coherent world and the challenge, what best explains it. I suggest to you that you would be well advised to face it, or at least not caricature the reasoning of those who have. KF PS: You seem also to struggle with limits and the like. Just how much analysis have you done? Do you appreciate why the definition of a continuum is made in the way it is, for instance?kairosfocus
June 11, 2015
June
06
Jun
11
11
2015
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
Mung:
Carpathian: The relationship of forces and their interaction with matter are completely separate and independent of any description of them. Mung: LoL
You're saying they're not? So instead of e = mc^2, I could simply write e = mc and physics would have to adjust?Carpathian
June 11, 2015
June
06
Jun
11
11
2015
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
Carpathian, think continuous and discrete and how one gets from one to the other.Mung
June 11, 2015
June
06
Jun
11
11
2015
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
Velikovskys #157, "Not really, He could just reveal the truth ,that would be more convincing" He already did ) But one must be ready to listen or, in biblical terms, one must have ears to hear. See Luke 16:31.EugeneS
June 11, 2015
June
06
Jun
11
11
2015
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
kairosfocus:
I think you will be able to see that my summary captures the essence: the logical study of structure and quantity.
I have no problem with this at all. My problem is the conclusion that: 1) math is in some way divine 2) math is built into the universe and is waiting to be discovered. Math, the tool we use to describe relationships, has limitations in describing the very things we want answers to. In the case of curves, we insist on deriving constants and algorithms that we can never resolve. How would you fine-tune a universe using a tool that never gives you "finite" results? I use finite here, not irrational, to highlight the difference in a described object and its description. "PI" is an irrational number but a circle has finite dimensions. If you were the intelligent designer of the universe, our limited mathematics would not be good enough since none of your algorithms would ever resolve completely and that would be "playing dice with the universe". Again, it is not math I have an issue with, it is the conclusion by the ID members here that it is in some way divine.Carpathian
June 11, 2015
June
06
Jun
11
11
2015
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
Carpathian: The relationship of forces and their interaction with matter are completely separate and independent of any description of them. LoLMung
June 11, 2015
June
06
Jun
11
11
2015
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
Carpathian, are you old enough to remember the big Pentium recall? Computational substrates are simply physically interacting components, that are inherently subject to GIGO, garbage in, garbage out. There is no inherent limitation in hardware or software that keeps the bugs out. Someone intelligent and insightful has to go through and establish the soundness. And sometimes, there is a slipup as happened with the floating point processing in the original Pentium. Haldane's point is cuttingly sharp: the mere chemistry has no inherent connexions to logical validity or soundness. That only becomes a grievous challenge to those locked into the notion that matter interacting by blind chance and mechanical necessity, somehow threw up knowing, reasoning, insightful mind. But in fact to do that is to futilely try to get North by insistently heading West. KFkairosfocus
June 11, 2015
June
06
Jun
11
11
2015
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
1 2 3 7

Leave a Reply