Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Denying the Truth is not the Same as Not Knowing it

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Highlighting an exchange in a prior post:

Phinehas

As a result of your [i.e., ES’s] metaphysics, you are unable to describe in any meaningful way the difference between a mound of dirt and a sand castle.

Silver Asiatic

It’s amazing how difficult this concept is for some people.

Well, Silver, yes and no.

No, in the sense that it is no more difficult for them to apprehend a self-evident truth than anyone else. That is what it means for the truth to be “self-evident.” Don’t let them fool you into believing they genuinely do not perceive the self-evident. They do.

Yes, in the sense that as Phinehas has noted, ES’s prior metaphysical commitments force him to deny self-evident truths. The cognitive dissonance that is necessarily entailed by denying self-evident truths must be a difficult burden to bear.

Comments
response postedMung
November 16, 2014
November
11
Nov
16
16
2014
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PDT
franklin has been waiting for mung to post a response and I guess #104 is the most substantial he can muster on the subject we were discussing.franklin
November 6, 2014
November
11
Nov
6
06
2014
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT
where is franklin?Mung
November 6, 2014
November
11
Nov
6
06
2014
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
where is mung?franklin
November 6, 2014
November
11
Nov
6
06
2014
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
Mung
E.Seigner, is the fact that hemoglobin functions by carrying required oxygen to the tissues of vertebrates an objective reality, or is this a projection of an observer?
That blood is running in bloodvessels is an objective reality, but what it carries (it carries many things besides hemoglobin) and whether it's required (required for what? for life? for death? which one is the purpose?) is open to interpretation.E.Seigner
October 25, 2014
October
10
Oct
25
25
2014
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT
mung
what are the other functions of hemoglobin
You don't know what the other functions of hemoglobin are? mung
does the function of hemoglobin change depending the species
yes mung
are there multiple functions for hemoglobin in a single species
yes mung
what determines the objective function of hemoglobin
I don't know why don't you tell me. I notice (and the onlookers as well) that you have appeared to back away from your claim that "ithe fact that hemoglobin functions by carrying required oxygen to the tissues of vertebrates an objective reality" wise move, actually.franklin
October 24, 2014
October
10
Oct
24
24
2014
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT
franklin:
...if I were studying a species of vertebrate that has hemoglobin I could make the correct, and true, statement that one of the functions of hemoglobin, in that species, is to transport, and supply, oxygen to metabolically active tissue.
good for you what are the other functions of hemoglobin does the function of hemoglobin change depending the species are there multiple functions for hemoglobin in a single species what determines the objective function of hemoglobinMung
October 24, 2014
October
10
Oct
24
24
2014
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT
mung
Are you asserting that your “facts” are descriptions of objective reality?
Yes the simple fact I posited can be determined by anyone and there is only one conclusion that is viable. mung
I made no claim about all vertebrates.
Well, mung, if I were studying a species of vertebrate that has hemoglobin I could make the correct, and true, statement that one of the functions of hemoglobin, in that species, is to transport, and supply, oxygen to metabolically active tissue. If you, on the other hand, were studying a species of vertebrate that had no hemoglobin is seems like an obvious error to state that hemoglobin transports oxygen to the metabolically active tissue of that species. mung
all vertebrates do not have hemoglobin therefore, it is not an objective reality that hemoglobin functions by carrying required oxygen to the tissues of vertebrates
you almost got it right, mung. Here would be the correct form: all vertebrates do not have hemoglobin therefore, it is not an objective reality that hemoglobin functions by carrying required oxygen to the tissues of allvertebrates. mung
s the fact that hemoglobin functions by carrying required oxygen to the tissues of vertebrates
this is where you go wrong, mung, vertebrates that have no hemoglobin do not have oxygen transported to their tissue by something they don't have. No where here have you qualified which vertebrate species are to be considered and which are not. Your general statement is false. If you wish to argue that hemoglobin, in vertebrates that posses this respiratory pigment, functions (one of many functions) to transport oxygen it is trivially true but it is not an objective reality since the statement is species-dependent in the vertebrate linage.franklin
October 24, 2014
October
10
Oct
24
24
2014
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
franklin, I'm willing to consider that you jumped in with both feet without first testing the water. Care to try again? Are you asserting that your "facts" are descriptions of objective reality? Or are you just "projecting" your "facts"? Aw heck. Encouraging people in their folly is not charitable. franklin:
...all vertebrates do not have hemoglobin so your statement cannot represent an objective reality.
I made no claim about all vertebrates. So your argument is a non-sequitur. Let's lay it out for the casual observer: all vertebrates do not have hemoglobin therefore, it is not an objective reality that hemoglobin functions by carrying required oxygen to the tissues of vertebratesMung
October 24, 2014
October
10
Oct
24
24
2014
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT
"Is posting factual information now considered trolling by ID proponents?" When has it not been considered trolling by the ID proponents? No, seriously. When? Why else would they have to train their flock on identifying the Darwinian Debating Devices? A list of "devices" that has made UD a laughing stock in the rational world. Sorry. Was that trolling behaviour?Acartia_bogart
October 24, 2014
October
10
Oct
24
24
2014
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
mung
Or are you just trolling?
Is posting factual information now considered trolling by ID proponents? mung
franklin, nice to see where on the side of reality you weigh i
are you questioning the factual nature of my statement that not all vertebrates have hemoglobin?franklin
October 24, 2014
October
10
Oct
24
24
2014
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
franklin, nice to see where on the side of reality you weigh in. Or are you just trolling?Mung
October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT
mung
E.Seigner, is the fact that hemoglobin functions by carrying required oxygen to the tissues of vertebrates an objective reality, or is this a projection of an observer?
all vertebrates do not have hemoglobin so your statement cannot represent an objective reality.franklin
October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
E.Seigner, is the fact that hemoglobin functions by carrying required oxygen to the tissues of vertebrates an objective reality, or is this a projection of an observer?Mung
October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT
Thomas offers this: “… if we enter a well-ordered house we gather therefrom the intention of him that put it in order…” When we observe a well ordered house we recognize the intention or design.Silver Asiatic
October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
10:51 PM
10
10
51
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic
You claimed to not know what chance is.
Surely you can back this up with references. If I asked for a definition, then because I noticed an ID theorist use it weirdly, and my question was to ensure what he means by it. For my own purposes I have a very good idea what it is.E.Seigner
October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT
You claimed to not know what chance is.Silver Asiatic
October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic
You might notice this is an argument against a chance origin of the world.
You might notice this is an argument against a chance origin of the world, not of a house or a dump of sand. It has no bearing when arguing about the distinction of a dump of sand and a sand castle.E.Seigner
October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT
Thomas offers this: “… if we enter a well-ordered house we gather therefrom the intention of him that put it in order…” When we observe a well ordered house we recognize the intention or design. You might notice this is an argument against a chance origin of the world.Silver Asiatic
October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic #76
St. Thomas offers this: "… if we enter a well-ordered house we gather therefrom the intention of him that put it in order..."
Actually, he offers this: "First, by observation of things themselves: for we observe that in nature things happen always or nearly always for the best; which would not be the case unless some sort of providence directed nature towards good as an end; which is to govern. Wherefore the unfailing order we observe in things is a sign of their being governed; for instance, if we enter a well-ordered house we gather therefrom the intention of him that put it in order..." And: "Secondly, this is clear from a consideration of Divine goodness, which, as we have said above (44, 4; 65, 2), was the cause of the production of things in existence." He is making an analogy to argue that the entire universe is designed.E.Seigner
October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT
I noticed a mutation in the first "alpacas"- I was reading it and thought "what the heck are "apacas"?"Joe
October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
mung:
Oxygen transport of hemoglobin in high-altitude animals (Camelidae)
Great! Now we find that oxygen transports hemoglobin! kidding aside what did you think of the article, mung?franklin
October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
tintinnid:
How do you distinguish between this non intelligent design [the complex quartz crystal structure] and the intelligent design of a sand castle.
So you agree the sand castle is intelligently designed? Why? So you think complex quartz crystal structure is not intelligently designed? Why?Mung
October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
Turbokid: "I believe that a lot of things that get called self-evident truths are just things where the truth seems obvious (but may in fact not be)." Therefore, there are no self-evident truths. We'll just ignore for the sake of convenience the self-evident truth that self-evident truths ought to be self evident! Or not.Mung
October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT
SA: "We do not need to know if either was designed in advance to observe the differences in the two. Right? Why not give a try to explain the differences that you would observe?" Again, everybody is ignoring the complex quartz crystal structure. How do you distinguish between this non intelligent design and the intelligent design of a sand castle. Especially if you have no knowledge of human ingenuity and experience. A rational person would acknowledge that detecting design would be biased by past biases and experiences. Anyone who doesn't know this is staggeringly stupid and incapable of rational thought.tintinnid
October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT
Turbokid
It goes to the heart of whether self-evident truths exist and what they are.
OK but the fact that you haven't made a commitment about whether SE truths exist is a problem. I think you need to make your position on this known. Otherwise why criticize the mathematical example?Silver Asiatic
October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
SA @75, it is not like arguing about a misspelled word. It goes to the heart of whether self-evident truths exist and what they are. I believe that a lot of things that get called self-evident truths are just things where the truth seems obvious (but may in fact not be). Barry's examples of the mathematical equations are interesting (and remember he presented them as examples). What WJM has said (I think) is that 587×264=154,968 is a self-evident truth, it's just that he doesn't have the capacity to apprehend it as such (and that what varies is people's ability to recognise self-evident truths, but not the self-evident nature of the truths themselves). This puts him in disagreement with Barry who says 587×264=154,968 is not a self-evident truth (not just that he doesn't recognise it as such).Turbokid
October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
Oxygen transport of hemoglobin in high-altitude animals (Camelidae)Mung
October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
ES, hemoglobin was isolated in the 1840's and its function within the bloodstream was suggested by Claude Bernard as far back as the 1870's. We teach this function in all biology courses around the world, in all languages, without exception. My question to you was hardly controversial, yet you refuse to answer it. If taken solely at your word, and by your actions, you have a wholly confused, disastrously confused, idea about the rationale behind ID. You protect this state of confusion because it profits you to do so.Upright BiPed
October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
But we are only able to detect the design in a sandcastle and a lego castle because we know, in advance, that they are designed.
How did you know in advance that this particular sandcastle was designed? Did you observe the creators building it? Did you see the photo posted on the internet beforehand along with a comment saying "Look what I made!"? Or did you make an inference to the best explanation? (i.e. In all cases where you know the origin of sandcastles, that origin has involved design. Therefore, wherever you observe sandcastles where you do not have direct evidence of their origin you conclude that they were designed.)StephenA
October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply