27 January 2006

What a difference a day makes.

The Discovery Institute, over at their Media Complaints Division Blog, has posted yet another article castigating Judge Jones for ruling that Intelligent Design is unscientific.

This one, by a second-year law student, takes more or less the same tone as the others:
In this detailed analysis, I will take a close look at Judge Jones reasoning, and evaluate the potential legal basis for determining the scientific status of ID. Ultimately, I find that the Kitzmiller opinion has no legal basis to determine the scientific status of intelligent design, and as such, is merely the opinion of one man, not the law as proclaimed by a federal district court judge.
Ed Brayton, over at Dispatches, has already fisked the substance of that post. I'd like to take a second to look at something else: the Discovery Institute's pre-decision view of how the judge should rule.

Back on October 17th, in a press release titled, "Discovery Institute Tells Dover Judge Teaching About Intelligent Design is Constitutional," Robert Crowther had this to say:
Today, the Discovery Institute, the nation’s leading think tank researching intelligent design, filed an Amicus Curiae (i.e. “Friend of the Court”) brief in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case urging the judge to rule that it is not unconstitutional to teach about the scientific theory of intelligent design.
Let's be clear: they didn't ask the judge not to rule on the constitutionality of ID. They asked the judge to rule that ID was not unconstitutional.

That October release wasn't an anomoly; it was the pre-judgement norm. From a November article:
Although Discovery Institute does not support the particular policy adopted by Dover, it has been clear in supporting the principle of academic freedom when it comes to intelligent design. That is why the Institute supported filing a friend of the court brief on behalf of 85 scientists who sought protection of the freedom to research and write about intelligent design. That is also why the Institute itself filed its own brief defending the constitutionality of teaching about intelligent design.
Again, they weren't demanding that the judge stay away from the question of whether or not ID is constitutional. They were actively promoting the view that it is constitutional to teach ID. As recently as the day before the decision was released, Casey Luskin described the constitutionality of Intelligent Design as, "the big question at stake in the case."

The was the DI's view on December 19th was that the constitutionality of Intelligent Design was central to the Dover case. Starting on December 20th, they began to condemn Jones as, "an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur" for ruling on the constitutionality of Intelligent Design.

What a difference a day makes.

57 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's other garbage written by the little psycho creep named Michael Francisco:

http://www.evangelsociety.org/francisco/about.html

"We will take every thought captive to Christ. Our vision is that the Lord will use us to equip believers with reasoned analysis of the critical issues of the day."

Har-dee-har-har, Michael, you fundy piece of crap. Let's see some examples of your "reasoning."

"Homosexual orientation is ... a sinful lifestyle that should not be encouraged and legally protected."

Really? So the First Amendment and the 14th doesn't apply to gays, Michael, you lying tool?

"The 'gay gene' arguments have long ago fallen by the wayside for want of evidence."

Really? When did that happen, Michael, you lying tool?

And here's some of the crap that appears at the website of the "Evangel" organization which Michael published:

"stepping away from the media spin, and looking at the underlying science reveals that scientists have uncovered little reliable evidence to support the popular hype that surrounds global warming. As a result, Christians have no reason to fear contributing to global warming, and may drive any vehicle with a clear conscience." --http://www.evangelsociety.org/sherk/wwjd.html

That may the stupidest thing I have ever seen written by any "Christian" anywhere. Oh, I take that back. The same author (James Sherk) writes elsewhere that "Environmentalists Embrace Poverty." http://www.evangelsociety.org/sherk/responsiblecreationcare1.html

Here's Michael's ignorant lie-peddling friend Dave Talcott (a philosopher) spouting off about "fine-tuning":

"How do we predict what an intelligent designer would do? Perhaps we can't with any degree of certainty. But, what does seem clear is that the probability of an intelligent designer designing a life-permitting universe is much greater than 1 x 10-104."

Got that folks? Although we can't ("perhaps") predict with any degree of certainty what an "intelligent designer" of universes would do, it seems "clear" that the probability of such a designer designing a "life-permitting universe" (exactly like ours) is greater than 1 x 10-104.

You really have to feel sorry for these people. After you kick them in their pathological lying nuts, that is.

Where does the Discovery Institute find these morons?

11:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re the above comment:

For a non-religious organisation, the DI sure does keep interesting company, eh?

11:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

More excerpts from classic "articles" from Michael "The Next Casey Luskin" Francisco's website:

"As far as basic ID theory is concerned, as long as the Designer is designing and intelligent, any number of beings could suffice. The Christian God, Allah, or extra-dimensional aliens from some unpronounceable planet could be the source of the design ID proponents see in the natural world."

Wow, any number of deities or extradimensional (??!!) aliens could've dunnit! And this is supposed to make ID "scientific"? That's amusing.

"by giving us story of why we are here, who we are, and where we are going, Darwinian evolution"

Evolutionary biology doesn't tell us any of those things. Can you imagine? A lying creationist idiot who attacks strawmen? It's really really shocking, isn't?

"With Darwinism guiding inquiry, we may well dismiss important organs, systems, and events as "vestigial" and never learn of their possibly vital role in the human body."

Or we might not, as people practicing the scientific method elucidate and test possible functions for all kinds of biological structures without any guidance from "extradimensional aliens." Man, this garbage published by the Discovery Institute's latest lying idiot named Michael Francisco's is really stupid!!

"A commitment to methodological naturalism in the strict sense is a recent development, and could very well blind us to the real state of things if there are supernatural or unnatural causes."

Try to figure that one out, folks. Here's a tip: you'll need a bong at least two feet long.

11:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"With Darwinism guiding inquiry, we may well dismiss important organs, systems, and events as "vestigial" and never learn of their possibly vital role in the human body."

I propose that the appendix is the seat of the soul. That might explain why people like Francisco are so full of crap.

"A commitment to methodological naturalism in the strict sense is a recent development, and could very well blind us to the real state of things if there are supernatural or unnatural causes."

And if you look at the stark contrast between the state of man's knowledge as evidenced by technology before and after this "recent development", you get the distinct feeling that, if there are "supernatural or unnatural causes", it doesn't seem to matter one bit.

Unless it means we're all going to hell. In which case, I'll save some good seats!

1:12 PM  
Anonymous Incorygible said...

I really don't get it. To me, it seems like the underlying questions for rendering a verdict in this case were pretty simple. At issue was ID (and the motives for teaching it), about which two contesting claims were made (one by the plaintiffs and one by the defendants). I can easily see Judge Jones's thought proces (or, for that matter, that of any other "judge" in any other court, including that of public opinion):

The plaintiffs say ID is religion. Does it look like religion?

Yes.

The defendants say ID is science. Does it look like science?

No.

As far I can tell, the only reason Judge Jones considered whether or not ID was science was precisely because the defendants, when challenged that ID was religion and therefore violated the establishment clause, said, "Nuh-uh! It's science!"

Therefore, they have no one to blame but themselves for the good Judge weighing in on this question. What, was he supposed to do? COMPLETELY ignore their entire defense? Is that REALLY what they now claim they wanted? What am I missing?

1:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Michael Francisco, eat your fricking heart out as the wheels of time roll over your toxic bigotry:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/257316_gayrights27ww.html

OLYMPIA -- The Senate today voted 25-23 to approve a gay rights bill and ended the debate over legislation that emerged in Washington the same year singer Anita Bryant began her "Save Our Children" crusade against such protections.

The House quickly concurred by a 61-37 vote, and Gov. Chris Gregoire said she planned to sign the bill into law Tuesday.

The bill would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in housing, lending and employment.

1:32 PM  
Anonymous Yellowstone Scott said...

Judge Jones HAD to rule on whether ID is science. The test of constitutionality, as I understand it, has two prongs. The first asks whether the challenged action has the "effect" of promoting religion; the defendants themselves proved this true beyond any doubt. But the second prong asks whether the action still serves some "legitimate secular purpose." If ID is science, then even if it tends to promote religion, it could still be allowable. The TMLC essentially staked their case on passing the second prong of the test, so the judge had no alternative but to rule on whether or not ID is science.

2:34 PM  
Anonymous thordaddy said...

It doesn't stand the smell test to suggest that ID isn't science or science isn't religion. At their most fundamental level both endeavors interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning.

The only appreciable difference is that science interprets a LIMITED selection of empirical evidence contained in the Universe and uses primitive methods of measurement to give it meaning. This is why science only answers the HOW and not the WHO and WHY. These are the domains of religion and it interprets empirical evidence that fall outside the contraints of evolutionary science and gives meaning via the "natural" laws of theoretical physics.

Science is religion. Religion is science. There is NO fundamental difference according to the "natural" laws of theoretical physics.

6:32 PM  
Anonymous Blipey said...

Science is religion. Religion is science. There is NO fundamental difference according to the "natural" laws of theoretical physics.

Thordaddy, think about what it is you're stating. I'm sorry, that might be asking a bit much, but come on.

Are you claiming that God can be described by "natural laws"? You can't really mean that. Does this mean if God were to visit my house and slip on the ice, he could die?

Is God merely a subject of and to natural laws of physics, chemistry, etc.? If your answer is "No.", I'd like you to explain your claim that:

There is NO fundamental difference...

It would seem to me that if God were not subject to natural laws, then there would be a fundamental difference, but hey, I just speak English and look up words and concepts that I don't understand...perhaps I'm not looking in the right places?

7:15 PM  
Anonymous Blipey said...

OH, yeah. Thordaddy, can you cite some of the "empirical evidence" of those things that lie outside of scientific investigation.

I've had to read your long lines of crap through many blogs and have never once--not once--been graced by an example of empirical evidence of supernatural things.

Please edify me.

7:25 PM  
Anonymous Charlie B said...

It doesn't stand the smell test to suggest that ID isn't science or science isn't religion. At their most fundamental level both endeavors interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning.

Science describes and attempts to predict, using naturalistic tools, logic, and occasionally serendipity.

Religion attempts to give meaning using philosophy and often authority, and particularly revelation.

There are some places where the line can be a bit blurry, but ID is not one of them. ID attempts to restate the argument from design using the two suggested methods of IC and CSI. Neither of these have produced anything other than flawed (and, as far as I'm aware, wholly rebutted and refuted...) criticisms of existing theory, and as such do not provide positive evidence of design. ID itself is a faith position.

By redefining "empirical" to mean just about everything, thordaddy is trying the same approach as Dembski and Behe in redefining "science."

Science doesn't need "meaning", just understanding. For people that need meaning, there's religion. Plenty of scientists have reconciled their faith and the science without compromising the language in the way you (and Behe and Dembski) have.

7:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Blipey,
You don't understand. thordaddy doesn't have to PROVIDE empirical evidence. All he has to do is SAY THE MAGIC WORDS "empirical evidence." It's supernatural.
-gfl

8:01 PM  
Anonymous blipey said...

Right! My bad. Magic is acceptable science...I do live only 2 miles from Kansas, after all.

8:23 PM  
Anonymous thordaddy said...

blipey opines,

>>Are you claiming that God can be described by "natural laws"? You can't really mean that. Does this mean if God were to visit my house and slip on the ice, he could die?

--I'm saying that an IDer can be be explained via the "natural" laws of theoretical physics by interpreting empirical evidence contained in the Universe. Are you aware of any other manner to do such things?

>>Is God merely a subject of and to natural laws of physics, chemistry, etc.? If your answer is "No.", I'd like you to explain your claim that:

There is NO fundamental difference...

--If a scientist were to describe an IDer, it seems to me that he would use science to describe this IDer. But he says there is no empirical evidence for such an IDer. Then he puts down his pocket protector and puts on his daddy disguise and marvels how the "love" for his children are subject to the "natural" laws of physics. He deduces quite instantly that he is interpreting empirical evidence contained within the enery that bombards him relentlessly. Something within this energy and within his interpretative mechanisms allows him to experience the meaning of "love" for his children. Again, if you are aware of a more scientific process, please explain.

>>It would seem to me that if God were not subject to natural laws, then there would be a fundamental difference, but hey, I just speak English and look up words and concepts that I don't understand...perhaps I'm not looking in the right places?

--You're looking in the wrong direction. The point is that we are bombarded by emprical evidence in which we interpret and give meaning. It is a process fundamentally identical to science. The only difference is that the empirical evidence we interpret outside science is much more complex and involves far more advanced tools for "measurement."

But this begs the question. If this is the process according to physics theory, how does a scientist explain an interpretation of the empirical evidence that spans the depth of human history and is shared by billions in the present? This interpretation of an IDer. If it's not in the energy (information) or part of the evolutionary theory then these scientists got some explaining to do.

1:51 AM  
Anonymous thordaddy said...

charlie b says,

>>Science describes and attempts to predict, using naturalistic tools, logic, and occasionally serendipity.

Religion attempts to give meaning using philosophy and often authority, and particularly revelation.

--I don't see any dispute in recognizing that at the FUNDAMENTAL level both science and religion interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning or description.

>>There are some places where the line can be a bit blurry, but ID is not one of them. ID attempts to restate the argument from design using the two suggested methods of IC and CSI. Neither of these have produced anything other than flawed (and, as far as I'm aware, wholly rebutted and refuted...) criticisms of existing theory, and as such do not provide positive evidence of design. ID itself is a faith position.

--Evidence of an IDer is embedded in the empirical evidence and it has been interpreted by human intelligence for thousands of years and throughout billions of people. Are you aware of another process that abides by physics theory and evolutionary theory that could explain this mass awareness of an IDer?

>>By redefining "empirical" to mean just about everything, thordaddy is trying the same approach as Dembski and Behe in redefining "science."

--LOL!! Redefining "emprical" to mean "everything" is exactly what empirical means. Everything observe or experienced is empirical evidence. Science redefined it and hence provides the proof for empirical evidence outside science. This strains the credibility of those scientists that say there is no empirical evidence for ID let alone an IDer.

>>Science doesn't need "meaning", just understanding. For people that need meaning, there's religion. Plenty of scientists have reconciled their faith and the science without compromising the language in the way you (and Behe and Dembski) have.

--You're right. We already had meaning in order to create science. Science is built upon measurements of distance and time. We all experience these two properties of the Universe and they are the most solid empirical evidence in the scientific arsenal because they are universal and SHARED with religious interpretation. If we had not given meaning to distance and time prior to science, science would be what?? How did we get this meaning and how do we all experience it? Ask the physics theorists.

2:11 AM  
Anonymous thordaddy said...

anonymous and blipey,

If I pointed to authors and scientists advocating ID would you be more satisfied? I have actually just taken up this debate in the last month or so and chose the ID side because it DOESN'T represent the conventional wisdom.

It would be silly of me to not see the benefits of science when I clearly see the benefits of science. But I also see science being defined by judges, manipulated by teachers, used by politicians and so on and so forth. There is good science and bad science.

It is my belief that contrary to what the conventional wisdom states, a philosophical, scientific and religious consensus would decide that on this one issue alone that the empirical evidence is suffice to theorize of an Intelligent Designer. It recognizes the sensitivity of our interpretive mechanisms and the limited capability of science to interpret this empirical evidence outside its scope.

An ethos of design and purpose throughout the scientific community seems apparent.

2:26 AM  
Blogger John Pieret said...

I have an article, "Trying To Keep Up With the Joneses," at my blog addressing the legal issues Mr. Francisco raises.

5:00 PM  
Blogger blipey said...

Thordaddy:

--Evidence of an IDer is embedded in the empirical evidence and it has been interpreted by human intelligence for thousands of years and throughout billions of people. Are you aware of another process that abides by physics theory and evolutionary theory that could explain this mass awareness of an IDer?

Humanity was also "massively aware" that the heavens revolved around the earth for an awfully long time. So, what I think you are claiming is that belief doesn't inform thoughts about evidence but can actually be substituted for evidence. This is what was meant earlier by saying you redefined "Empirical".

Empirical evidence needs to be objectively verified in order to be "true." This is exactly what science does--objectively verifies evidence. This is exactly what ID does not do. ID assumes a conclusion and then arranges evidence, quite unobjectively, to jibe with this predetermined conclusion.

If, as IDists claim, we can never know anything about the designer but only that he did design things, how can we know this. ID clamors on about following the evidence and looking closely at the facts, but has yet to produce any. I'll repeat my question from above: Please tell us what this evidence is. Cite one piece of evidence that we are designed by an IDer.

You conveniently forgot to address that one request by sidestepping the issue.

But I also see science being defined by judges, manipulated by teachers, used by politicians and so on and so forth. There is good science and bad science.

I will not argue the point that people sometimes misuse the findings of science or even obscure and suppress it. This obviously happens on occasion. I find it odd that the political right often trumpets that scientists are all part of some vast conspiracy. Why not also point out that they also use sciences findings or suppress those they don't agree with.

With all the shouting about bad scientists, why is not also reasonable to assume that there is political and social bias with those that support ID? Why are IDists to be held separate from this assumed bias?

While I have many problems with the supposed "science" of ID, it is the mental miasma in which it resides that is most troubling to me.

6:20 PM  
Anonymous thordaddy said...

blipey opines,

>>Humanity was also "massively aware" that the heavens revolved around the earth for an awfully long time. So, what I think you are claiming is that belief doesn't inform thoughts about evidence but can actually be substituted for evidence. This is what was meant earlier by saying you redefined "Empirical".

--This will take several steps. First, you didn't answer by what process humans interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning and perhaps turn it into a belief. Some say this is what science does, but what about outside science? Secondly, this massive awareness about the heavens revolving the earth were the BEST interpretations for the empirical evidence and method of measurement at the time and then science gave us a better look. The point is that even without science, the gist of the interpretation was correct. And let it be known that science has yet to give us the best look. Lastly, SCIENCE redefined empirical evidence in order to define itself. It is indisputable proof of empirical evidence outside science (religion).

>>Empirical evidence needs to be objectively verified in order to be "true." This is exactly what science does--objectively verifies evidence. This is exactly what ID does not do. ID assumes a conclusion and then arranges evidence, quite unobjectively, to jibe with this predetermined conclusion.

This is silly if I may say. Empirical evidence need only be empirical evidence without scientific contraints to be "true." Empirical evidence is ANY observation or experience and not just scientific ones. Having said that, it is necessary for "objectivity" for an interpretation of empirical evidence to be credible and not true, absolute or undeniable. Science has functioned in this regard, but on a much smaller scale of empirical evidence and interpreting mechanisms.

>>If, as IDists claim, we can never know anything about the designer but only that he did design things, how can we know this. ID clamors on about following the evidence and looking closely at the facts, but has yet to produce any. I'll repeat my question from above: Please tell us what this evidence is. Cite one piece of evidence that we are designed by an IDer.

--As long as we are under the assumption that evidence can be used in its full meaning and not need abide by the constraints of science then it is clear that if one accepts both physics theory and evolutionary theory then humans are being constantly bombarded with energy (empirical evidence) in which they interpret and give meaning or sometimes disregard. Knowing this process, what does a scientist think when he observes a "belief" in an IDer by billions of intelligent human beings over thousands of years? He knows that within this empirical evidence and within the interpretive mechanisms of humans was something that gave indication/evidence of an IDer. How can it be ANY OTHER WAY? Are you to say this a mass illusion even when you put your pocket protector down and observe the ALL the empirical evidence? Even this illusion would evidence an IDer.

>>You conveniently forgot to address that one request by sidestepping the issue.

--That's the easiest evidence to observe.

2:15 AM  
Anonymous thordaddy said...

blipey,

>>I will not argue the point that people sometimes misuse the findings of science or even obscure and suppress it. This obviously happens on occasion. I find it odd that the political right often trumpets that scientists are all part of some vast conspiracy. Why not also point out that they also use sciences findings or suppress those they don't agree with.

--Yet, you have no scientific analysis to underpin your concession that others manipulate the meaning of science. This seems a case of interpreting empirical evidence outside science. What it says is that a judge defined science and now a judge can redefine it. What this says in the classroom is that a teacher accepts a theory that has no point and rejects one that is held by a large majority of her students. What this says in society is that abortion is nothing more than the disposal of a glob of "cells." Scientists might exist inside this box, but most people exist outside it. Science can't think it can just fight on its home turf or disregard how their findings are manipulated by unscrupulous "liberals."

>>With all the shouting about bad scientists, why is not also reasonable to assume that there is political and social bias with those that support ID? Why are IDists to be held separate from this assumed bias?

--I don't hold any illusions about who supports ID generally. But this makes science all that more suspicious when it becomes ideological. Recognizing a bias in ID is tantamount to expressing a bias in science. This is why I say that scientists need to come out into the real world and defend their theories with more than reduntant references to science.

>>While I have many problems with the supposed "science" of ID, it is the mental miasma in which it resides that is most troubling to me.

--This is how you have interpreted the empirical evidence. The question is whether it's true even though it's not objective?

2:34 AM  
Blogger blipey said...

Good God Almighty.

I thought that IDists, in general, railed against post-modern relativity.

Thordaddy, your 2 posts above this one are all constructed around deconstructionism...isn't this anathema?

Since you provided no new information in these posts than what you had earlier espoused, I won't ask for anything else, except:

Please give me the definition of "empirical" that you are using.

I believe the one most people use goes something like this:

based on observation and experiment

So, my question still stands, "What evidence have you observed that I may recreate with an experiment and verify to other people?"

Let me know when you've got an example. I"m going to leave this alone until you respond with something that isn't a rewording of a post you've already submitted. Please try to string new words together, that have different meaning than ones you've uttered before.

This isn't necessarily a poke at you or any other IDists, but only a desire to enter into actual dialogue. If I am too dense to understand your argument, merely repeating it won't work...I need to be educated in some other way.

This is what I meant about the mental miasma in which ID resides. Scientists say things like:

1. Here is our interpretation of the fossil records.

IDists say THAT'S CRAP

2. Scientists find new fossils and fill in gaps, expanding the knowledge of the fossil record.

IDists say that's craop

3. Blah, blah, blah...It all boils down to what Dr. Behe said on the stand in Dover. Which was basically, who cares what the papers say, it's crap, it'll always be crap, even if it isn't crap I'm not going to change my mind, I'm not interested--it's crap."

There's nothing new in ID at all. Present new arguemnts and we'll listen, present the old ones and there is no reason to listen.

Scientists, no matter what you think of them, all always presenting and working on, new things. Behave accordingly and you'll be taken seriously. I'm not saying you have to work on the same things, just work on SOMETHING.

3:45 PM  
Anonymous thordaddy said...

Blipey opines,

>>Good God Almighty.

--Are you interpreting the empirical evidence?

>>I thought that IDists, in general, railed against post-modern relativity.

Thordaddy, your 2 posts above this one are all constructed around deconstructionism...isn't this anathema?

--You need to broaden your horizons. I'm not an "Idists," whatever that means. All EVIDENCE is up for inspection and re-interpretation. Science is not sacred, is it?

>>Since you provided no new information in these posts than what you had earlier espoused, I won't ask for anything else, except:

Please give me the definition of "empirical" that you are using.

--How's this

1 : originating in or based on observation or experience -empirical data-
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory

Are those sufficient? These are the REAL definition of empirical and not the distorted scientific one.

>>I believe the one most people use goes something like this:

based on observation and experiment

So, my question still stands, "What evidence have you observed that I may recreate with an experiment and verify to other people?"

--You're conveniently adding a NEW STEP. But you miss the larger point. It is SCIENCE's job to measure the empirical evidence. To sit back and say it can't be done by clinging on the notion that NO ONE else may pick up science's slack seems anathema to science.

If we can measure "love" through the use of biology and psychology, why can not the same sciences be applied to the human phenomena of belief in an intelligent designer? To say it can't be done is to say someone else must do it. There is nothing keeping science from making predictions and interpreting the empirical evidence for design and creation other than its ideological unwillingness.

>>This is what I meant about the mental miasma in which ID resides. Scientists say things like:

1. Here is our interpretation of the fossil records.

IDists say THAT'S CRAP

--Actually they say why does evolutionary gradualism need punctuated equilibrium?

>>2. Scientists find new fossils and fill in gaps, expanding the knowledge of the fossil record.

--See above.

>>3. Blah, blah, blah...It all boils down to what Dr. Behe said on the stand in Dover. Which was basically, who cares what the papers say, it's crap, it'll always be crap, even if it isn't crap I'm not going to change my mind, I'm not interested--it's crap."

There's nothing new in ID at all. Present new arguemnts and we'll listen, present the old ones and there is no reason to listen.

Scientists, no matter what you think of them, all always presenting and working on, new things. Behave accordingly and you'll be taken seriously. I'm not saying you have to work on the same things, just work on SOMETHING.

--I haven't made any argument that relates to Behe. My argument is my own and comes from what I have gleaned in the past month or so about this debate added to things I was already familiar with about theorectical physics.

The basic argument is this:

ID is not science,

ID is religious,

Science is not religious.

Science is not ID.

I believe this to be fundamentally false because all intelligent human endeavors behave under the same set of "natural" laws.

We are constantly bombarded by energy (information) in which our interpretive mechanisms give meaning. All we have done with science and religion is to say that one is objective while the other it subjective. But the basic fundamental remains and that is both science and religion interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning via the known "natural" laws.

The subjective truth is no lesser than the objective truth if both represent the actual truth.

The scientist must try to explain how the MASS awareness of an IDer can exist outside the energy (information) or the interpretive mechanism?

Doesn't billions of subjective "truths" that span the history of man evidence an interpretation of empirical evidence? Again, how could it happen any other way?

Please answer these direct questions as I have answered your to the best of my ability.

How can we proceed if the fundamental premise is false?

10:46 PM  
Blogger blipey said...

thordaddy has stated:

At their most fundamental level both endeavors interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning.

I'm assuming this is the fundemental premise you are talking about.

I am also assuming this is the definition of empirical that we are going to work with:

relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory

The scientist must try to explain how the MASS awareness of an IDer can exist outside the energy (information) or the interpretive mechanism?

I'm really not sure what the question is here. I will guess that it has something to do with how a scientist can explain the religious leanings that some take to be hard-wired into us.

I don't think that anyone is trying to suggest that people don't have a prediliction to religious belief. And I certainly don't think anyone is trying to say the very real and observable fact that people say they believe in an IDer isn't true. People can and do believe what they want to believe.

I think you are trying to say that because everyone believes something, it is therefore true. Science isn't trying to claim that people don't have beliefs and thoughts...religion certainly isn't claiming that either. What science is stating is that while the belief may be observable and have biochemical effects, the actual truth of that belief is not verifyible

So the claim that scientists must prove that a particular thought lies outside the "energy" (whatever that is) is both silly and not doable. Obviously, people have thoughts--these thoughts don't necessarily have to translate into objective truth. You need to separate the act of having a thought from the thought itself--many people may have the strong belief that centaurs exist (this thought is within the "energy"--if I understand what you mean), but this thought is false as far as we know (the actual existence of unicorns lies outside the "energy").

Doesn't billions of subjective "truths" that span the history of man evidence an interpretation of empirical evidence? Again, how could it happen any other way?

I suppose, using our current definition of empirical evidence, it does represent an interpretation. However, so what? Subjective truth is just that subjective, it will never become objective. I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, many other people claim to also. This does not make him real.

As for other ways that it could happen...there could billion uncountable gazillions of ways:

1. A race of space aliens called Baluuboos created us to believe in God.

2. A race of space aliens called Baluuboos found us, decided to run an experiment on us, and indoctrinated us to believe that there is a God.

3. Chemical reactions and the laws of physics created some biological pathway that predisposes us to believe in God.

4. There is a God.

5. We were cloned from one human being way back in time and he believed in God.

Really, many people could add many things to list, but none of them--even if true--strengthen your core claim that people's subjective beliefs becaome objective truth if only enough of them are added together.

As for the fundamental premise...yes, both religion and science seek to provide answers, and each of them make observations. I think your problem is that you believe they must make the SAME observations in the SAME ways. By defining empirical evidence as everything, you handicap both religion and science. Science will never be able to explore the supernatural realm--even if it can in principle explain why we create it in our thoughts. Religion will never be able to make testable theories that advance our knowledge of the natural world.

So, yes, I believe your "fundamental principle" is false.

As an aside, there have always been a large number of people who are aethiestic...this would seem to fit your definition of mass consciousness. With your reasoning, does this then prove the non-existence of an IDer?

You see, having thoughts is subjective--both the IDer believers and the IDer detractors can't be objectively correct.

12:27 AM  
Blogger blipey said...

Now, I would like to have an answer to some experiment that we can run that will objectively prove that there is an IDer. You can use any definition of empirical you would like. I used yours, so it might be nice if you addressed mine (observable from experiment--and I will certainly agree that this evidence should be weighed without regard to a certain theory in the first place).

However, what good is evidence if we don't apply it to a theory? How might we apply it to a theory? What theory might we apply it to? How might we verify this theory?

So, again...

1. What is your theory?
2. How can we objectively test it?
3. What test have you performed?
4. What data do you have from this test?
5. Can this test be confirmed?

As an example:

1. There is an IDer
2. Hmmmm. (Don't say poll people to see if they believe in one--must be objective)
3. Look up the IDer in the phonebook. (sorry, I just don't know what you might do other than ask people if they believe in one and take their word for it--a phonebook listing would be WAY more convincing than asking a bunch of Christians, Atheists, Bhuddists, Agnostics, Criminally Insane Inmates, etc.)
4. (555) 370-2632.
5. Hand me the phonebook.

12:41 AM  
Anonymous thordaddy said...

blipey,

Your dismissiveness is not worthy of a scientist. Because you have effectively shut off personal discovery of an IDer and have suggested such endeavors futile, it stands to reason that others will fill in the cracks with their own interpretations. To come back and say, "Oh no, no... you can't do that, it's unscientific," is silly because you've taken your ball and left the field.

ID exists because Science is limited in nature and declareditsel not up for the job.

You made several startling admissions.

You say,

>>What science is stating is that while the belief may be observable and have biochemical effects, the actual truth of that belief is not verifyible

--Why? Seems nothing more than an unwillingness in science. In fact, there are many instances of places science doesn't want to roam. Subjective truth is equally valid to objective truth as long as they both represent actual truth.

Then you say,

>>So the claim that scientists must prove that a particular thought lies outside the "energy" (whatever that is) is both silly and not doable. Obviously, people have thoughts--these thoughts don't necessarily have to translate into objective truth. You need to separate the act of having a thought from the thought itself--many people may have the strong belief that centaurs exist (this thought is within the "energy"--if I understand what you mean), but this thought is false as far as we know (the actual existence of unicorns lies outside the "energy").

--But the belief in a Creator precedes science, spans human history and is interpreted by billions of people. How can this be seen as any thing other than near objectivity FOR a IDer being interpreted from the empirical evidence? If this mass awareness is subjective then WHAT is objective?

People think of centaurs because both horses and humans exist to conceptualize such a thing. The belief in this creature can by no means be equivalent to the belief in an IDer.

next,

>>Subjective truth is just that subjective, it will never become objective.

--This suggest that subjective truth is not truth at all? Therefore, it's a lie? Untenable.

Case for Creator,

Mass awareness of IDer through "subjective" interpretation of empirical evidence via "natural" laws

Lack of evidence for randomly created intelligence

Seemingly contradictory positions in evolution combining evolutionary gradualism with punctuated equilibrium

No evidence of outside intelligence

A seemingly closed door in the quantum world saying, "You can go no further."

Again, blipey, this is not a rant against science, but you have conceded that the potential for an anwer is outside the scientific realm yet people still want answers. This means, most naturally, that ID will assert itself and make its most compelling arguments and it has no reason to hamstring itself inside scientific constraints when those very constraints produce NO answer as the scientist will forcefully DECLARE. Do you understand?

3:06 AM  
Blogger bcpmoon said...

The post-modern arguments of Thordaddy are really not new, but I still find it very interesting that this tool of the left has been put to such widespread use by the right.
Anyway, only one thing I would like to comment on: The analogy to love. Basically he says that we all experience love, therefore love exists, although this is a subjective feeling. True. True but trivial.
He then takes the next step by saying, we all have religious experiences/feelings, therefore an IDer exists. This is complete rubbish.
Just because I am religious does not mean there is a god. Just because I experience love does not mean there is Amor.

5:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The tack back is working at the Disco blog, why not track back to this article?

9:31 AM  
Blogger blipey said...

thordaddy:

You can rant all you want about my not understanding your argument. Yes, I am saying you are ranting; you have yet to answer any one of my questions--or bother to acknowledge them, in fact. Instead of answering the questions, you make up a new one from scratch and answer it and try to answer it.

So, I am still looking for:

Some experiment you can tell me about, so that I may objectively and unequivically determine the existence of the IDEr.

This seems to me to be a very simple request: the test either exists or it does not. PLEASE INFORM ME OF WHAT IT IS SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE FORWARD.

Let me examine some of the reasons you may have used to avoid this question:

1. You don't want to propose a scientific test, because you say that science isn't good enough.

Good enough. However, you say that science and religion are equals. Some quotes:

At their most fundamental level both endeavors interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning.

Great. Disregarding the fact that science doesn't give meaning to anything, but only intreprets observations and experimental data, this still shouldn't stop you from answering my question (at least in your world). In your world, my question becomes, "What objective truth can we arrive at by examining the evidence from religion?"

You are speaking of awareness of human beings, in whatever subjective world that exists in. So, I come to Earth and poll a lotof humans: many say they believe in God, many say they believe that God doesn't exist. As an outside observer, which group do I believe? Why? What is fundamentally different about their beliefs? You claim that this question should and can be answered by obsereving evidence. What is fundamentally different about each group's answer that I may use to filter truth from? PLEASE TELL ME THE EXPERIMENT TO RUN IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THIS.

The only appreciable difference is that science interprets a LIMITED selection of empirical evidence contained in the Universe and uses primitive methods of measurement to give it meaning.

This implies that there are ubermethods of measurement. What are these ubermethods? Please note, I am not talking about uberobservations, but actual measurements. A measurement implies that there is a set scale and value to the something that is being measured. What thing are we measuring? What device do we use to measure it? What scale do we evaluate it on? How can we use these measurements to further our knowledge if we can make them?

Science is religion. Religion is science. There is NO fundamental difference according to the "natural" laws of theoretical physics.

This is a perfect example of why your arguemnt is trivial. If there is no difference according to natural laws, there is also no need for there to be an IDer. If natural laws and investigation techniques suffice, the question of whether or not there is an IDer is moot (for scientific investigation). You effectively reduced the IDer to an Evolutionator.

--I'm saying that an IDer can be be explained via the "natural" laws of theoretical physics by interpreting empirical evidence contained in the Universe.

See above.

The only difference is that the empirical evidence we interpret outside science is much more complex and involves far more advanced tools for "measurement."

See two above.

--This will take several steps. First, you didn't answer by what process humans interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning and perhaps turn it into a belief. Some say this is what science does, but what about outside science?

Okay, try this. We look at things. We take measurements. We apply these measurements to theories we might have. By reproducing the results over a period of time and by finding new ways and venues in which the measurements and observations still behave the way we want them to, we advance the knowledge of the human race.

Religion certainly also pursues knowledge, but not in the same way. Just saying the two disciplines are identical doesn't make it so. Unless we're using your world view--in which I suppose if 3 billion people said they were the same, they'd be the same. Of course, if 3 billion people also said gravity didn't exist, that would also be true.

You made the claim that science and religion were the same. The burden of proof rests upon you. Tell me how science and religion measure things in the same way. Show me an example of a measurent tool, its data, and its use. Show me how it is the same as a scientific tool. Show me how we can use it to affect the natural world. Show me how an IDer, if a part of the natural world, cannot be reduced to deterministic natural law.

Knowing this process, what does a scientist think when he observes a "belief" in an IDer by billions of intelligent human beings over thousands of years? He knows that within this empirical evidence and within the interpretive mechanisms of humans was something that gave indication/evidence of an IDer. How can it be ANY OTHER WAY? Are you to say this a mass illusion even when you put your pocket protector down and observe the ALL the empirical evidence? Even this illusion would evidence an IDer.

This is garble-dee-gook. If I ask an insane person something, I don't take what he said--even though he may truly believe it--as evidence of an objective truth. Did you bother to read any of my short list of possibilities as to how this "mass consciousness" may have come about? I'm sure there are psychologists that could give you a giant rundown on such things. You seem to wipe away this possibility by saying even if it is an illusion, this is proof of an IDer. What the hell does that mean: Even if it is an illusion that there is an IDer, that means that there is an IDer. That's logically inconsistent. If the IDer is imaginary, than the set which contains a non-imaginary IDer is mutually exclusive. Or, are you saying that because we think, the process of having the thought proves the existence of the IDer? This is no different that any opinion you've given so far. It is still just an opinion. Please back it up with some data.

If I pointed to authors and scientists advocating ID would you be more satisfied?

Not necessarily. We don't believe and use scientific theories because scientists tell us to. We believe and use scientific theories because many people, across disciplines, under many circumstances, using many tools, produce results that are helpful and useful to us. ID has produced NO work, NO useful results, explained NOTHING, and advanced human knowledge in NO MANNER. So, saying that some particular guy--even if he is a scientist--doesn't make your case. Besides, trying to find a scientist who actually works with ID principles is impossible. Even the few scientists (i.e. Behe) that claim to work on ID never publish anything that uses ID principles, but only things that use the TofE. So, no, you'd have to produce some actual evidence of a working theory of ID to satisfy me.

9:41 AM  
Anonymous thordaddy said...

blipey opines,

>>Some experiment you can tell me about, so that I may objectively and unequivically determine the existence of the IDEr.

This seems to me to be a very simple request: the test either exists or it does not. PLEASE INFORM ME OF WHAT IT IS SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE FORWARD.

--According to you is does not exist or else it would have been found. Did "gravity" not exist before it was tested? The debate is very simple.

You are asking me to do what you think is SCIENTIFICALLY impossible by using SCIENCE. This doesn't make any sense.

But people still yearn for answers and an answer will be found EVEN if it need mean the liberalization of interpreting empirical evidence. This really is SCIENCE. Getting fast, loose and creative with the "facts."

You seem to think that science can declare an answer off-limits and that those that seek that answer won't in turn help along the evolution of science. It's inevitable that "science" will "answer" this question at one point or another. If it's the science you like now or a more advanced version that has an expanded scope of empirical evidence in which to interpret with more discerning technology, then so be it. You can't stop it. Get ahead of the curve. The evidence of a designer represents nothing more than a paradigm shift and that's why most conservative scientists fear it so much.

Don't look for a lot of "science" in my argument. I'm looking forward about 20 years to see how the paradigm shift will effect our lives and how science will been seen in its proper perspective as just a tool to be manipulated.

The question is why "science" can't give an answer to the question with the evidence at hand?

It has to take the ridiculous position that there is NO empirical evidence. What nonsense. What is a belief that has preceded science, spanned the existence of mankind and is shared by BILLIONS of people presently? If this is not an interpretation of empirical evidence then WHAT IS IT? If this is merely SUBJECTIVE then what is OBJECTIVE?

I say science and religion are fundamentally the same in that they are both intelligent human endeavors that seek to interpret empirical evidence and give it meaning. There is simply no other way for us to proceed in life.

You say, "No, science 'measures' things and makes predictions."

All you have really done was to define science by saying it saw the most obvious things (objective observation of regularly occuring events) and measured it in the most obvious manner (distance and time) and said everything else is "unknown."

Science must evolve. This is the point and it will form a new paradigm. If "science" wanted to see the evidence for an IDer, it certainly would.

1:21 PM  
Blogger blipey said...

thordaddy:

FU&@$ O(F!!!!

You have whinede and moaned and kvetched and bullsh%tted ad nauseum. You have made the same claim over and over and over and have not once backed it up or said anything that may support your wild ravings.

You have repeatedly claimed that science doesn't look at all the evidence. It would seem to me that you should therefore be able to point us in the direction of the rest of it.

Please...once again, Give me either:

1. A single, solitary, tiny, honest-to-God piece of evidence

2. A method we may use to investigate where this "extra-scientific" data may reside.

You speak of "The Future":

I'm looking forward about 20 years to see how the paradigm shift will effect our lives and how science will been seen in its proper perspective as just a tool to be manipulated.

While you're looking into your crystal ball, perhaps you can inform us of what tools we may use to investigate your "new science"?

Or, failing that, perhaps you can fill us in on what this new paradigm looks like so we may start lookng in the right direction. You have used way too many words to tell us nothing: not a piece of evidence (scientific or otherwise), not a roadmap to where we should be looking, not an environment in which we should immerse ourselves in order to find objective truth, NOTHING. YOU STILL HAVEN'T SAID A D*MN THING.

It has to take the ridiculous position that there is NO empirical evidence. What nonsense. What is a belief that has preceded science, spanned the existence of mankind and is shared by BILLIONS of people presently? If this is not an interpretation of empirical evidence then WHAT IS IT? If this is merely SUBJECTIVE then what is OBJECTIVE?

The above paragraph has been included, almost word for word, in all of your posts. You have not bothered to respond to the questions and doubts I have raised. You have retyped (or perhaps just cut and pasted?) this paragraph over and over. Do you think this passes for explanation?

Really clearly, once again however:

1. Subjective thoughts are those which come from opinion and observation but are not necessarily universally true.

2. Objective truth is something that ALL observers can agree upon. This is something that can be recreated without fail by anyone, all the time. If I ask a lot of Muslims if they believe in God, they'll say yes. If I ask a lot of aethiests if the believe in God, they'll say no. What makes one groups observations more true than the other's? NOTHING. THIS IS A TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE OF SUBJECTIVE. If this cannot be INDEPENDENTLY verified by something else, how is it objective? This is one of those things you have completely failed to address. If you are claiming it needs no independent verification, why?

2:11 PM  
Anonymous thordaddy said...

blipey pleas,

>>Please...once again, Give me either:

1. A single, solitary, tiny, honest-to-God piece of evidence

2. A method we may use to investigate where this "extra-scientific" data may reside.

--Well, even you have interpreted an IDer from the empirical evidence. What more evidence is needed lest you be a liar? Add 3 billion more blipeys and the "subjective" becomes conspicuously like "objective."

As for a method, all I can say is that it will be more advanced than those we have presently. Do disagree with this assumption? Therefore, this advanced technology will increase the scope of interpreted empirical evidence unless you are convinced we have interpreted it all.

Then you say,

>>Or, failing that, perhaps you can fill us in on what this new paradigm looks like so we may start lookng in the right direction. You have used way too many words to tell us nothing: not a piece of evidence (scientific or otherwise), not a roadmap to where we should be looking, not an environment in which we should immerse ourselves in order to find objective truth, NOTHING. YOU STILL HAVEN'T SAID A D*MN THING.

>>Blipey, I'm not sure how many ways it can be stated.

You are asking me to do what you claim cannot be done. You are asking me to give a scientific solution to a problem that is not scientific. Hence,

ID is not science

and therefore,

Science cannot explain an ID.

You say as much and so my answer stands.

ID will be explained using ALL empirical evidence both in and outside of science. It will use both objective and subjective in evaluating a solution to the problem. There is simple nothing any scientist can say about this as they have voluntarily disqualified themselves from the game.

If you want a shot a influencing the paradigm shift then you better get ahead of the curve. Claiming to be a scientist and telling us we can't get an answer using the evidence seems antithetical to science.

Lastly,

>>1. Subjective thoughts are those which come from opinion and observation but are not necessarily universally true.

--Subjective truths are those that science hasn't bothered to measure to its full extent. That's all. There is no excuse why scientists can't search for the cause for the mass awareness of a Creator. Afterall, it's a very obvious observation.

>>2. Objective truth is something that ALL observers can agree upon. This is something that can be recreated without fail by anyone, all the time. If I ask a lot of Muslims if they believe in God, they'll say yes. If I ask a lot of aethiests if the believe in God, they'll say no. What makes one groups observations more true than the other's? NOTHING. THIS IS A TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE OF SUBJECTIVE. If this cannot be INDEPENDENTLY verified by something else, how is it objective? This is one of those things you have completely failed to address. If you are claiming it needs no independent verification, why?

--The only thing we all agree on is distance and time and even time is under scrutiny in some corners. I'd say a belief in a Creator, despite the various attributed motivations of that Creator, is as universal as any "objective" truth that reside below the absolute acceptance of distance and time.

You are telling me science HAS NO explaination for such mass awareness.

Excuse me if I am cynical of your feigned ignorance.

4:49 PM  
Blogger blipey said...

thordaddy:

You ignorant, lying, little pissant--excuse me, but I can find no other words to adequately describe you. Your feigned ignorance of the questions being asked of you speak well niether of you nor your school of thought.

You stated:

You are telling me science HAS NO explaination for such mass awareness.

I have said no such thing. I stated above that:

I don't think that anyone is trying to suggest that people don't have a prediliction to religious belief....What science is stating is that while the belief may be observable and have biochemical effects, the actual truth of that belief is not verifyible.

I have also suggested that you talk to a psychologist about mass consciousness, as I have no expertise in that area. The very fact that I believe there are others who know about such things would suggest (and is true) that I believe science can,in fact, in principle answer the questions of why we have a prediliction for religion. However, knowing why we have such a leaning in no way verifies any "truth" we may think those thoughts have. There are very large groups of poeple who have strong beleifs about a great number of things--not just religion--the mere fact that these various things (the world is flat, black people are inferior, ice cream is the best food on earth, New York is the best city in the world...) are believed does not make any of them true. How is belief in an IDer, in principle, different?

Your only answer so far has been that people have believed it for a very long time. I'd quote you, but I'd have to copy the same words from every one of your previous posts as you have made no new arguments in this thread. IF this is your only reply, the case is still not lost. You could still advance a theory that went something like this (take note, I'm now adding NEW info to your side of the debate since you have neglected to...feel free to use it):

1. There is a specified time period past which a belief becomes an objective truth.

2. Test this idea. Design an experiment around it that will effectively change the world around us. Say, we start raising children to believe that n-rays exist. Keep testing them until n-rays can be observed.

3. Repeat this process. See how this process affects the outside world.

Obviously, this may not be the best experiment in the world, but please propose something that is better. That's what I'm asking for...an actual proposal, not rhetoric that says, "just wait 20 years, you'll see--something'll happen...no really, it will; I don't know what it'll be, but wow...will it be cool!"

You also state:

--Well, even you have interpreted an IDer from the empirical evidence. What more evidence is needed lest you be a liar? Add 3 billion more blipeys and the "subjective" becomes conspicuously like "objective."

I really don't know where I've "interpreted an IDer", but whatever. If you could cite me stating that an IDer positively exists, please do so. Besides that little quibble, the rest of that paragraph is complete crap. Since when have I argued that my beliefs are objective truth? If you have 3 billion blipeys I think the only thing we've learned is that there might be 3 billion thordaddies saying the same thing 15 billions times. The world may implode if that happens (just becasue I believe this does not means the world will implode, so don't panic).

Your blather continues:

As for a method, all I can say is that it will be more advanced than those we have presently. Do disagree with this assumption? Therefore, this advanced technology will increase the scope of interpreted empirical evidence unless you are convinced we have interpreted it all.

So, you have no method. You rant about science not having a good one, then you propose to replace it with...nothing. Until you have a better idea, please SHUT UP.

And, no, I don't disagree with the idea that we'll know more in the future than we know now. This is trivial to our arguemnt, which is why science doesn't work and why ID is a better alternative. The problem is that evolutionary theory advances our knowledge everyday...do some reading. And, ID has never advanced our knowledge of anything, so I fail to see how, at its current rate of success, it will ever increase our knowledge. You keep saying that it does, but have never said how. Until you provide the how, SHUT UP.

Even more ridiculous:

You are asking me to do what you claim cannot be done. You are asking me to give a scientific solution to a problem that is not scientific. Hence,

ID is not science

and therefore,

Science cannot explain an ID.

You say as much and so my answer stands.


Yes, I claim it can't be done. If this alone foils you, your argument isn't very solid. I claim it can't be done. You claim it can be done. I explain why I think it can't be done. You say you don't have to explain because I say it can't be done.

What I am asking you for is a reason to buy your argument. Play by your rules, present something that can be used as positive evidence of an IDer. Don't accept that I say it can't be done...explain why it can be done. I realise this isn't what ID proponents do, they would rather have something to attack--that's easier--than do actual work--that can be very hard.

This gets tedious:

If you want a shot a influencing the paradigm shift then you better get ahead of the curve. Claiming to be a scientist and telling us we can't get an answer using the evidence seems antithetical to science.

You haven't even shown that the curve exists; how am I to get ahead of it? With nothing other than your opinion that in 20 years something will be different, am I just supposed to lie around for 20 years and then get to work? What do I work on in the intervening time? You still have provided NOTHING to fill this time.

Also, not sure where I claimed to be a scientist. If you could cite that, it would be appreciated. I like to have it pointed out to me when I am lying. I am an actor and have said so in other threads, other blogs, and at my homepage (all easily found and read by the public).

However, I don't need to be a scientists in order to ask you what the evidence might be. I also don't need to be a scientist to be able to hear the answer. You do HAVE TO PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE if I aam to hear it, though...I believe scientists may also need to actually witness the evidence. They haven't found it, you haven't provided it (except saying that people believe things...interestingly never countering the examples of aetheists, insanity, etc. and why these peoples' beliefs aren't true.)

Never claimed otherwise:

--Subjective truths are those that science hasn't bothered to measure to its full extent. That's all. There is no excuse why scientists can't search for the cause for the mass awareness of a Creator. Afterall, it's a very obvious observation.

They certainly can, and many do so I believe--they're called pychologists, and nueroscientists, and other. You still haven't back up your claim that because some people believe something, it is true. Science can and obviously does explore the human mental capacity...exactly what evidence is there that the human mind creates or receives absolute truth?

And lastly, do you even believe the things you write:

--The only thing we all agree on is distance and time and even time is under scrutiny in some corners. I'd say a belief in a Creator, despite the various attributed motivations of that Creator, is as universal as any "objective" truth that reside below the absolute acceptance of distance and time.

An informed person such as yourself must realise that we certainly do not agree on either time or distance: general relativity, look it up. I suppose we can all agree on the concepts of distance and time but we will all observe them differently, depending on reference frame. That's really neither here nor there, however, for this discussion.

As for belief in a creator being universal...what about the aetheists? Agnostics? It is a belief that is universal except when it's not? So, how does this translate into objective truth, when even the thought itself isn't universally held. And, if I get your argument at all, you are claiming that the idea is true because it is a universal one...but we see that it really isn't.

In parting, I must thank you. I believe I have vented enough that my head may not explode. So, having become healthier on this thread, thank-you. However, I find you tedious and boring, like many of the ID crowd. Good luck and God bless.

9:48 PM  
Anonymous thordaddy said...

blipey,

If I say my daughters eyes are brown and I predict in 10 years that her eyes will still be brown, my "subjective" observation becomes "objective" in 10 years if her eyes are still brown. It's the truth. The question is why this "subjective" truth isn't just "objective" NOW since it is the absolute truth NOW?

The point is that some subjective truth is objective from the very first observation. Is the "belief" of an IDer such an example? Three billion "beliefs" has some empirical value, NO?

Your point seems to be that even though you posit at minimum the possibility of a Creator, you nonetheless must stand by the scientific creed that there is NO empirical evidence for an IDer.

You are holding TWO mutually exclusive positions. If you hold onto the possibility of an IDer, on what basis do you do this other than acknowledging the empirical evidence?

If you say this is just a "belief" based on NO empirical evidence because none exists, what realm does this "belief" originate?

Either way you remain in the scientific box under the illusion that I am bounded by your constraints because other scientists take your same approach.

I am merely trying to explain this battle in a larger context. A context that includes science, but also goes outside science. You are under the illusion that you can remain in the scientific box and fight on your own terroritory.

"Science" has come to some pretty unsettling conclusions and they have profound effects on all of society. You need to see this in a much larger scope.

Let's come to an understanding about the fundamentals, first.

11:44 PM  
Anonymous thordaddy said...

blipey opines,

>>And, no, I don't disagree with the idea that we'll know more in the future than we know now. This is trivial to our arguemnt, which is why science doesn't work and why ID is a better alternative.

--Then this seems a concession that empirical evidence lies outside of science's scope due in part to limited technology and primitive methodology.

Next you say,

>>Yes, I claim it can't be done. If this alone foils you, your argument isn't very solid. I claim it can't be done. You claim it can be done. I explain why I think it can't be done. You say you don't have to explain because I say it can't be done.

--Saying it "can't be done" doesn't "foil" anything. It only says you're a scientist and scientist CAN'T do it. This doesn't mean other people can't posit a more assertive answer given the evidence at hand and the empirical evidence that science doesn't bother with, but tacitly acknowledges exists.

What Science won't answer, others will!

Lastly,

>>An informed person such as yourself must realise that we certainly do not agree on either time or distance: general relativity, look it up. I suppose we can all agree on the concepts of distance and time but we will all observe them differently, depending on reference frame. That's really neither here nor there, however, for this discussion.

--Distance and time are the closest we will get to universal properties outside of life and intelligence. We know all these things preety objectively and modern physics is built upon the change in velocity (motion) using distance and time. Having said that, gravity is seen as objective yet it contains references to force and mass. Mere conventions of the mind.

All I am asking is how mass awareness in a Creator can constitute NO empirical evidence? We can debate whether the interpretation is correct ONLY after we agree on the premise that this mass awareness represents an interpretation of empirical evidence.

>>As for belief in a creator being universal...what about the aetheists? Agnostics? It is a belief that is universal except when it's not? So, how does this translate into objective truth, when even the thought itself isn't universally held. And, if I get your argument at all, you are claiming that the idea is true because it is a universal one...but we see that it really isn't.

--The Creator is the athiest's and agnostic's most cherished "ally." Without the Creator, what would they believe in?

Again, I want to know whether this mass awareness is an intepretation of empirical evidence? Does not the athiest and agnostic base his "belief" on the empirical evidence?

12:10 AM  
Blogger Ginger Yellow said...

"Again, I want to know whether this mass awareness is an intepretation of empirical evidence? Does not the athiest and agnostic base his "belief" on the empirical evidence?"

No and no. People's belief in a creator God is quite demonstrably not based on interpretation of empirical evidence. Science isn't about just experiencing something then going with what your gut tells you. It has to be about methodical inquiry, or else it would instantly get tangled up in the contradictions of human and societal consciousness. There is a subset of science that takes subjective experience and uses it to form and test scientific hypotheses. Dennett calls it heterophenomenology. But the point is that the only thing such inquiry tells us about is the mind's self-awareness or lack of it, not the outside world. The more research we do in this area, and in brain science in general, the more we discover that the mind plays tricks on itself and is deeply unreliable as an interpreter of its own stimuli and actions.

"I believe this to be fundamentally false because all intelligent human endeavors behave under the same set of "natural" laws. "

So? Politicians operate under natural laws. Does that make everything they say or believe true? What about estate agents? Or second hand car dealers?

"If we can measure "love" through the use of biology and psychology, why can not the same sciences be applied to the human phenomena of belief in an intelligent designer?"

We can't. There is no way of "measuring" somebody's love for anyone else and saying scientifically that it is "justified" or even "true" love. That's a moral and metaphysical judgement that has absolutely nothing to do with the brain chemistry that causes the feeling of love. Equally there is no way to scientifically judge the truth value of a person's beliefs about a non-intercessionary supernatural being. Science cannot distinguish between the truth value of weak Christianity and weak Hinduism, not because it excludes emprical evidence, but because the fact that someone says they believe something is not evidence of the truth of said belief. It is only evidence that the person holds the belief, and not even cast-iron evidence of that.

1:54 AM  
Anonymous thordaddy said...

ginger yellow opines,

>>The more research we do in this area, and in brain science in general, the more we discover that the mind plays tricks on itself and is deeply unreliable as an interpreter of its own stimuli and actions.


--LOL! This begs the question.

If there is NO empirical evidence for an IDer and you claim this belief to be a trick, I want to know what physical realm this happens in and how?

Did this idea just "poof" into existence? Or, is it one big trick?

2:17 AM  
Blogger Ginger Yellow said...

"If there is NO empirical evidence for an IDer and you claim this belief to be a trick, I want to know what physical realm this happens in and how?"

I'm not saying this belief is a trick. I'm saying that any belief can be, and often is, a trick. For instance people with blindsight genuinely believe they cannot see at all, yet they perform far better under controlled tests of visual perception than chance would allow. The holding of a belief is evidence only of the mental processes of the believer. There is no way of telling what beliefs represent external truths without research into things other than the fact of belief itself. Your wilful ignorance of this obvious point is getting very tiresome and I do wish you'd address it instead of spouting the same old gibberish. There is no reason why something should be true because it is insantiated in the "phsyical realm". The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (in which millions of people believed and still believe, incidentally) were subject to natural laws,m and they were still lies.

When you propose a research programme based on people's belief in God (or Gods - precisely which creator(s) does "mass awareness" supposedly provide evidence for? They aren't mutually compatible) - then I might be interested. Until then you're just bloviating.

3:52 AM  
Blogger blipey said...

Good luck, Ginger Yellow. Very well, written.

7:18 AM  
Anonymous thordaddy said...

ginger yellow,

You are putting the cart before the horse. I'm not asking whether the "belief" is true or not, but HOW is it manifested? We can get to the truth later only after we agree that the "belief" manifests itself in the same manner as all other "beliefs" and that is according to the "natural" laws?

Namely, one has interpreted empirical evidence for the existence of an IDer and this interpretation is irregardless of whether the "subjective" belief is "objective" or not?

When the scientist acknowledges this truism then we shall proceed.

As of now, scientists are beholden to the dogma that there is NO "empirical" evidence. They can make this stand only by distorting the FULL MEANING of empirical and pervert it to the advantage of science. Apparently, "subjective," even backed by enormous history and very large numbers of observers counts for nothing? "Subjective" has been rendered at minumum "unknown" and at its worst, a lie, illusion or trick.

If one man observes the apple fall from the tree and makes "accurate" measurements and "accurate" predictions, we call it scientific.

If 3,000,000,000 people see the apple falling, but say nothing more than they saw the red apple fall, it means nothing.

This gap needs to be bridged because it strains credulity.

Shall we proceed with your concession of these points?

12:35 PM  
Blogger blipey said...

Thordaddy:

You rival DaveScot for sheer stupidity. I didn't think that was possible, but I have learned something new.

You think that because you can type, you are intelligent--one of the true drawbacks of the internet. So much good can come of it, but it can also be hijacked by morons like yourself.

7:16 PM  
Anonymous thordaddy said...

blipey,

It doesn't bother me for you to state your opinion. LOL! You're just not that persuasive.

If 3,000,000,000 people typed,

-I believe in a Creator.-

you would say it meant "nothing."

Who can believe such nonsense?

8:51 PM  
Blogger blipey said...

So, if I got 3,000,000,000 people to type "Thordaddy's an idiot" this would become truth?

That's absolutely ridiculous. You are an idiot on your own laurels, not because people type it.

7:18 PM  
Anonymous thordaddy said...

blipey,

It's much more of a problem to say,

If 3,000,000,000 people typed,
-I believe in a Creator.-
it would mean "nothing."

Than to say

So, if I got 3,000,000,000 people to type "Thordaddy's an idiot" this would become truth.

Afterall, those 3 billion people confirm your "truth." But according to you it would mean "nothing" which suggests the value of your subjectiveness, does it not?

1:43 AM  
Blogger blipey said...

Exactly the point you blithering idiot. It means absolutely nothing that I got 3,000,000,000 people to type "thordaddy's an idiot". It's subjective.

If 3,000,000,000 people type "I believe in a creator", it is subjective. It is not my point that thoughts are subjective only when I disagree with them. It is my point that thoughts without outside confirmation are all, always, and forever--SUBJECTIVE

Your point is aparently that thoughts are objective only when I agree with them, but if I don't then I will ignore them

You would go a long way in proving you are not an idiot if you waould address the issue of why 3,000,000,000 people typing one of the above statements is different from the other group. You have given no reason that they are other than that you believe it. Why are you right and others wrong?

8:25 AM  
Anonymous thordaddy said...

blipey,

You find yourself in quite the hole when you claim "subjective" observation to be "nothing."

When Newton saw the apple fall from the tree, it was a "subjective" observation in which you now state as having NO meaning.

The fact is now obvious for all to see.

Newton's "subjective" observation was an OBJECTIVE truth right from the very start.

This simply means that ALL "objective" truths start as "subjective" observations which in turn means some "subjective" obversations are "objective" right from the beginning.

How then you can claim that subjectivity means "absolutely nothing" is something you will have to detail more clearly.

I would be remiss if I didn't note that you once again have failed to answer the question.

If there is NO empirical evidence for an IDer and you claim this belief to be a trick, I want to know what physical realm this happens in and how?

12:20 PM  
Blogger blipey said...

Thordaddy,

I don't how much more clear I can be and how much more you can obfuscate things. I have answered your questions almost every time I reply. I have evaluated the question by your rules; I have taken a look at our differences through MINE and YOUR perspectives.

Do not tell me I don't answer questions and then completely fail to address issues that I and others have asked you to clarify. By doing so, you reveal yourself to be a complete and total jackass.

Do you feel it is not your duty to answer questions? Do you feel that it is not incumbent upon you to educate others? Do you feel that your purpose in life is to troll for attention? If this is your goal, you are accomplishing your dreams. Congratulations.

To start with, I have never claimed that thoughts or subjective ideas are worth nothing. This is an idea you keep harping on because it is what you would like for me to have said--you have a ready made reply for this that you have neither changed nor seem capable of explaining.

What I HAVE said, is that a subjective idea, while perhaps pointing the direction for research and questioning, IS NOT AN ANSWER IN AND OF ITSELF. You have never, even though many people have asked you, explained why you think that a subjective idea IS TRUTH IN AND OF ITSELF.

I beg to differ about Newton seeing the apple and your daughter's brown eyes. These are not under any reasonable definition subjective ideas. We can see the evidence for ourselves, and everybody who looks at your daughter will say she has brown eyes. We can test this, not simply by believing what others say, but by comparing her eyes to other things we call brown.

If anyone was standing beside Newton, they would also have seen the apple and claimed that it was falling. No one standing there would say, "hmmm, that apple sure took off like a rocket." These are both objective reality.

Now someone standing beside Newton could have seen the apple and thought, "Wow, isn't it interesting how that tree rejected that apple, causing it to be thrown to the ground."

Newton, on the other hand, thought about how the Earth might have attracted the apple in some way.

While they have the same objective observation, their thoughts are both subjective and would have to be tested by outside, independent means to ascertain which (if either) was correct.

This is the difference between an observation and a thought. Why do you maintain that the process of thinking and the observation of a result are the same thing?

See, thordaddy; I've answered a question you posed, explained my reasoning, given an example, and posed a question afterwards which is related to my above reasoning and example.

This is how you carry on in civilized society. Why don't you try it? I'm sure you will completely ignore my examples, bitch with no need about how I have never addressed your question (see paragraphs 4 and 5, above, if you doubt this). You will then go on to say (and feel to copy and paste this paragraph into your response, it's a little closer than going back up to yours and copying it):

Lots of people--3,000,000,000 can't be wrong. Don't say that they mean nothing, how can ridiculous be that, you can't believe! Not convincing...counts for nothing Creator, red brick go the house, empirical means that chickenmayo tasty objective is first and foremost subjective brown eyes, truth is always there no matter what is not observed falling apple

Could you please at least fake an answer, now? I really can be convinced of things I don't know...but not if you NEVER give a positive argument for something. Just telling me you are right will never convince me. And, before you claim the same of me...reread the above; you know, the part where I gave examples, reasoning, posed a question, and am ready to hear an answer

4:37 AM  
Anonymous thordaddy said...

blipey opines,

>>This is how you carry on in civilized society. Why don't you try it?

But typed moments earlier,

>>By doing so, you reveal yourself to be a complete and total jackass.

Like your distorted definitions of "science" and "empirical," it seems you pervert "civilized" also?

Then you say,

>>I beg to differ about Newton seeing the apple and your daughter's brown eyes.

--You can beg all you want, but if ONLY I see my daughter's brown eyes or Newton sees the falling apple, both are subjective truths that are clearly objective despite science.

The point is CLEAR.

Some subjective truths are OBJECTIVE TRUTHS right from the very first observation. All you keep saying is that subjective truths mean nothing, but clearly you are wrong in the above cases.

All you can state is that my observation of my daughter's brown eyes is tentative. You say you need further evidence, prediction, testing, etc. None of this creates actual OBJECTIVITY in this case. My dauthers brown eyes is a subjective observation that is clearly objective.

Will you argue against this?

PS I looked for an actual question but clearly couldn't find one.

4:00 PM  
Blogger blipey said...

Thordaddy:

Yes you are a jackass. I started out with civilized questions, but your refusal to engage in reasoned debate caused me to change tactics. This is what people who are not insane do. If the audience is not responsive to the first argument or method, you must change. Insane people (like yourself), however, continually repeat the same argument with the same style, and the same structure...continually expecting a different result. I may change to sarcasm soon, or sappy, Teletubby niceties, or something else...you however will continue to present the same material until you infuriate anyone who tries to understand what you are talking about.

Thordaddy said:

PS I looked for an actual question but clearly couldn't find one.

I assume this is because you put the same amount of work into reading my comment as you do anything else--very little. Quoted from my very last comment (which repeats the same quesztion I've been asking from the beginning--with no answer as of yet):

Why do you maintain that the process of thinking and the observation of a result are the same thing?

Since you cannot recognize a clear question when it is presented, I understand your inability to function as a real human being. I apologize for assuming you had this basic skill.

The fact that something is brown is clearly different from the "fact" that something is hot, for example. Brown is brown, granted there are different shades, but green will never be brown.

Conversely, we all have an opinion as to what is hot or cold. However, what is hot in some conditions or to some people may be cold in other conditions. Therefore, we need outside parameters and correlation to determine if something is "hot".

Once again, there are millions of people who do not believe in a creator, why are they wrong and the millions of people who do believe in a creator right?

What is the basic difference in their beliefs?--subjective beliefs.

Look how I've neatly separated that and made it bold just for Thordaddy. I wouldn't want you to be confused as to what a question might look like, so I'm pointing it out to you. And making it look different than the surrounding text. If there is anything else you need me to do to point out where things are in this thread, don't hesitate to ask. I'll be around to ask if you need dessert later, or perhaps coffee. Have a nice day.

10:49 PM  
Anonymous thordaddy said...

blipey asks,

>>Why do you maintain that the process of thinking and the observation of a result are the same thing?

--Because both fall under the definition of "empirical." Here's a little definition for you.

1 : originating in or based on observation or experience -empirical data-
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment -empirical laws-
4 : of or relating to empiricism


When one observes, HE THINKS. But on the larger point in which you seem to be ignorant of, theoretical physics maintains that the process of thinking and the process of observing are fundamentally identical via the "natural" laws.

Next you ask,

>>What is the basic difference in their beliefs?--subjective beliefs.

--There is no OBJECTIVE difference between subjective beliefs if TRUTH is of no concern. But the TRUTH is what we are seeking and if the claim is that science can't weigh the evidence and come to a consensus then you are simply saying that someone else will.

As long as science probes deeper and deeper into the human mind then it only makes sense that science will ask why 3,000,000,000 believe in a Creator and 3,000,000,000 NEED a Creator to even believe what they do. LOL! If science leaves the answer to someone else then someone else will answer. Science be damned

2:42 AM  
Blogger blipey said...

Great Thordaddy, you ALMOST provided completely new info for your side. Only one week into the discussion before you ALMOST get it. I'm so proud.

Let's take a look at you definition of empirical (which, thank you for finally explaining in its entirety):

1. originating or based in observation or experiment.

The question is then, "Have you taken a Polaroid of the creator?" That would be observation; I would say if you have no observation, the creator is not empirically evident.

Question 2 would be, "What experiment can you perform that will make the creator observable?"

2. relying on observation or experience alone, often without regard to system and theory

The observation quetion still stands--have you observed the creator since reading the last paragraph? Now, experience is a nice waffle word, but have you experienced the creator since the last paragraph...and this does not mean have you thought about him. No ,it means have you experienced him in siome MEASURABLE way?

3. Capable of being verified or disproved by experiment or observation.

Well, my, my, my. Isn't this what we've been asking you for all along? So, what is the experiment that Thordaddy proposes? What universal observation may we look for that proves or disproves the creator? I think you may come up empty trying to prove either conclusion.

What is the basic difference in their beliefs?--subjective beliefs.

--There is no OBJECTIVE difference between subjective beliefs if TRUTH is of no concern. But the TRUTH is what we are seeking and if the claim is that science can't weigh the evidence and come to a consensus then you are simply saying that someone else will.


Tordaddy, this is a perfect example of why people think you're a jackass. In what way does your response answer the question?

You start by saying that there is no difference if we're looking for truth. This has 3 difficulties:

1. You don't explain why this may or may not be true.

2. By tacking on "if we're looking for truth" it is a trivial statement. That's like saying "we would have won if we scored more points than them."

3. You, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY--YOU MISREPRESENTED THE QUESTION IN ORDER TO ANSWER IT. I believe this is because you don't have an answer to the original question and in order to cover this up, you lie like a jackass. It could be because you're stupid, however; I'm not ruling out this possibility.

Let's take a look at the original question as posed by Blipey. We'll bold the important words:

Why do you maintain that the process of thinking and the observation of a result are the same thing?

Now let's take a look at the question that Thordaddy answered, after formulating it in his head, while ignoring Blipey's question. We'll bold the important points:

theoretical physics maintains that the process of thinking and the process of observing are fundamentally identical

That's very nice. You are saying that mental activity is the same as mental activity. Duh. Now, how about addressing the question of WHY MENTAL ACTIVITY IS THE SAME PHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS. IN other words, Why is thinking that the elephants are pink, the same as elephants actually being pink? Are these two statements equally true?

If we use your logical system, both are equally true, which is certainly a stupid conclusion.

8:28 AM  
Anonymous thordaddy said...

blipey opines,

>>Let's take a look at you definition of empirical (which, thank you for finally explaining in its entirety):

1. originating or based in observation or experiment.

--This isn't MY definition, but THE definition.

>>The question is then, "Have you taken a Polaroid of the creator?" That would be observation; I would say if you have no observation, the creator is not empirically evident.

--That's like asking if you've taken a picture of Gravity... well, have you? LOL! You and I both know that the definition of "observation" is much more liberal in the realm of science and nothing would indicate that it shouldn't become more liberal in the future.

>>Question 2 would be, "What experiment can you perform that will make the creator observable?"

--The scientists are going with design inference which is used in forensics for example. Others are researching irreducible complexity and complex specified information. Remember, that evidence for the origin will always be partially speculative and based on inference.

>>The observation quetion still stands--have you observed the creator since reading the last paragraph? Now, experience is a nice waffle word, but have you experienced the creator since the last paragraph...and this does not mean have you thought about him. No ,it means have you experienced him in siome MEASURABLE way?

--See, once again you try to have your cake and eat it too. You want to distort "empirical" evidence to suit your needs, but don't let others use the FULL and COMPLETE definition of empirical. You unwillingly admit to the existence of empirical evidence OUTSIDE of science by restricting the definition. Are you not aware of this reality? Are 3,000,000,000 believers NOT measurable and testable?

>>Well, my, my, my. Isn't this what we've been asking you for all along? So, what is the experiment that Thordaddy proposes? What universal observation may we look for that proves or disproves the creator? I think you may come up empty trying to prove either conclusion.

--It's the preponderence of evidence in which 3,000,000,000 believers and 3,000,000,000 non-believers are only the greatest empirical evidence. Ironically, the non-believer needs God to have any belief. If you as a scientist say the answer is unanswerable then all you are saying is that others will answer with the evidence in hand. Science be damned. Why do you avoid this reality?

>>Tordaddy, this is a perfect example of why people think you're a jackass. In what way does your response answer the question?

--What is the objective truth before its objective? If objective truth is just self-evident then why do we need science?

>>You start by saying that there is no difference if we're looking for truth. This has 3 difficulties:

1. You don't explain why this may or may not be true.

--There is no difference between a subjective truth and an objective truth if they BOTH represent the TRUTH. Do you disagree?

>>2. By tacking on "if we're looking for truth" it is a trivial statement. That's like saying "we would have won if we scored more points than them."

--It's not trivial to make the OBJECTIVE statement that my daughter's eyes are brown while you HAVE TO CLAIM it a subjective truth. If Newton's subjective observation was of an objective truth (self-evident), who needs Newton?

After much needless blabber, we get to the question,

>>Now, how about addressing the question of WHY MENTAL ACTIVITY IS THE SAME PHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS. IN other words, Why is thinking that the elephants are pink, the same as elephants actually being pink? Are these two statements equally true?

--I was actually thinking of the green glowing mice... Oh wait, those are real! The ability we have to conceptualize pink elephants is the same ability we have in theorizing about fermions and bosons. Lord knows we haven't "observed" those little "balls." But we know they exist because we have somehow managed to measure that which is not directly observable.

>>If we use your logical system, both are equally true, which is certainly a stupid conclusion.

--How can you demonize my "logical system" when it is mirror of science itself? Science is selective in its definitions of empirical, liberal in its definition of "observe" and unlimited in its ability to measure and test.

When science say it can't measure the evidence because there is no evidence, why should it been seen as credible? We see the system ourselves and can't comprehend why science takes this stand for any other reason than for ideological motivation. Science is threatened by a designer because scientists want to feel like the real designers behind all of our knowledge. Yet they fail to seek the answer to the most pressing question.

WHY?

11:14 PM  
Blogger blipey said...

Thordaddy:

Your inability to think deeply about a subject worries me greatly. It worries me in the sense that education in this country will never get its due if this is the rigor that is expected by the public.

You have once again failed to answer any questions in a meaningful way. Your failure to understand basic concepts is mind-boggling. However, this is the least of my concerns. It is your inability to address, or to even recognize: questions, concerns and whole topics of discussion that is the most damning.

1. originating or based in observation or experiment.

--This isn't MY definition, but THE definition.


I did not imply that this was not a correct definition. I was congratulating you on finally finding and letting us know what you believed. You should stop thinking everyone is out to get you personally. This is a problem I find that many IDiots have--they frame the debate in a way that is us against them, instead of a debate of ideas. It is easier to draw people into your argument if you frame it this way: people naturally understand social concepts, technical ones are harder to grasp.

--That's like asking if you've taken a picture of Gravity... well, have you? LOL! You and I both know that the definition of "observation" is much more liberal in the realm of science and nothing would indicate that it shouldn't become more liberal in the future.

No; it's not like asking if I have taken a picture of gravity. Because, we have done that...observed gravity. We observe it everyday in quantifiable, measurable ways. Have you ever measured the Creator? If you habve, I'll stand corrected--it is like taking a picture of gravity. However, until you provide evidence that is the same as the evidence for gravity, you are not allowed to equate them. You may certainly say they are different and require different measures--I have never said you couldn't--but you keep claiming they are the same while providing different kinds evidence for each. This cannot logically be done. If they are the same, then provide evidence for each in the same manner.

And there certainly is a good reason that the definition of science shouldn't include everything. If we put everything and every thought, and every method, and every everything into science, how can we possibly learn anything? Please don't respond by saying that someday everything will be clear because you say so.

But, taking your side (as I have often done here, contrary to what you would like to think), if the definition of science were to become more liberal, would you be against teaching astrology...the beliefs of the Raeliens, etc in science class? These would certainly be more liberal beliefs and "definitions", why not include them? Or, how about the doctrine of reincarnation and the caste system? These are certainly scientific, are they not?

--The scientists are going with design inference which is used in forensics for example. Others are researching irreducible complexity and complex specified information.

Which scientists are "going with" these concepts? Since you provide no list, I'll assume that it is the handful among tens of thousands that the DI claims are doing significant research? You'll have to do better than that. Not because the number is small--never a good reason to discard something--but because even those scientists ARE NOT DOING ID RESEARCH WITH ID CONCEPTS, because there are no scientific concepts or even concepts that advance our knowledge of anything. If there are, I'm sure you'll provide a list. Saying you are researching a topic and actually researching it are different...probably not in your mind, though.

You're just a goofy little man:

You unwillingly admit to the existence of empirical evidence OUTSIDE of science by restricting the definition. Are you not aware of this reality? Are 3,000,000,000 believers NOT measurable and testable?

I am aware that you think something is a reality in some way. Am I required to believe it anymore than you are required to believe that science and religion or different?

Aren't we working with THE definition of empirical? You know, observation and experiment (which, interestingly you used 2 comments ago but deleted in your last response). You provided this definition, but then claimed you didn't have to provide either observation or experimental evidence (probably because you decided to delete this last part from the definition when you realised you had none).

And yes: 3 billion people are measurable...I can certainly record what they believe. I have never claimed otherwise, and have often said we can learn things from this data. What I continually ask you and what you continually avoid answering is: Why is their belief necessarily a reflection of the physical world? Anymore than the aethiests' view is a reflection of the physical world? You will never answer this question, I understand, but I'll keep asking you...because I have a belief that it is possible (noticably different then the reality of it happening).

Yes, I am saying there are unanswerable questions--why do you deny that this is true?

If everything is answerable, I'd ask you to provide the following info:

1. What are all the decimal digits of PI?

2. In what manner can an NFL game finish 14 - 1?

3. How old is God?

When you provide these answers, I'll accept that everything is answerable and that everything should be included in the blanket of scientific investigation. Until then, science will concern itself with how and you can look for why somewhere else.

Look; you've avoided the question yet again:

--There is no difference between a subjective truth and an objective truth if they BOTH represent the TRUTH. Do you disagree?

No, I don't disagree, but that's not what I asked. I asked how do you determine the truth of the statement? You claim that the mere existance of an idea confirms its truth...I claim that there are many ideas that exist that are not true. I asked if you could provide a reason that your explanation of truth is better than mine. How do we determine which ideas are true and which are not? Please avoid this again...I love it.

Now you're just lying:

--It's not trivial to make the OBJECTIVE statement that my daughter's eyes are brown while you HAVE TO CLAIM it a subjective truth. If Newton's subjective observation was of an objective truth (self-evident), who needs Newton?

I claimed that your daughter's eyes being brown is DEFINITIVELY AN OBJECTIVE TRUTH. Go back and read it. That was THE POINT of my comment. Her eyes are always and forever brown--objectively. This is why I found it a ridiculous claim that you were basing subjective ideas on that truth. It was the idea in your head (as a general class of things) that is subjective. If you think that her eyes are green (which you would be free to do), this would be in the same class of thoughts as thinking her eyes are brown. You would be wrong, becasue her eyes are brown, that doesn't stop you from thinking otherwise. Why can you not differentiate the concept of a thought from the concept of reality?

Now you're blathering AND redefining concepts willy-nilly:

The ability we have to conceptualize pink elephants is the same ability we have in theorizing about fermions and bosons. Lord knows we haven't "observed" those little "balls." But we know they exist because we have somehow managed to measure that which is not directly observable.

Many things: it is also the same ability we have to conceptualize the world being flat. So what? It is not our conceptualizations that are true, but our observations--why do you persist in claiming that our conceptualizations are the same as objective reality?

I also suppose that you now claim "observable" means "visible"? I believe the sense that we are talking about means "measurable"? We certainly have measured the energy created by these "little balls". Have you measured the energy produced by the creator? Once again you cite a measurable quantity as evidence of something you have no measurement for. Why?

Science is selective in its definitions of empirical, liberal in its definition of "observe"

Weren't you arguing for just this thing to occur? Let's see:

You and I both know that the definition of "observation" is much more liberal in the realm of science and nothing would indicate that it shouldn't become more liberal in the future.

Oh, yeah. You were. So, which is it? Observation should be more liberal, or less? You can't even type one coherent (consistent, if you need a definition) comment. Why should we take your word on anything? Your word is subjective. My word is subjective. Your argument is sloppy; mine is coherent and seeks answers--which you do not provide. I am not saying that I am necessarily right, but your arguments are silly, shallow, and incoherent.

11:10 AM  
Anonymous thordaddy said...

blipey opines,

>>No; it's not like asking if I have taken a picture of gravity. Because, we have done that...observed gravity. We observe it everyday in quantifiable, measurable ways. Have you ever measured the Creator? If you habve, I'll stand corrected--it is like taking a picture of gravity. However, until you provide evidence that is the same as the evidence for gravity, you are not allowed to equate them. You may certainly say they are different and require different measures--I have never said you couldn't--but you keep claiming they are the same while providing different kinds evidence for each. This cannot logically be done. If they are the same, then provide evidence for each in the same manner.


--You don't measure gravity. You measure the distance that the apple fell from the tree and record the time it took and then find its mass. You do this to "observe" gravity.

But I digress because you put the cart before the horse. We have not even settled the fundamental debate.

Is there NO empirical evidence for an ID or is there empirical evidence for an IDer? If you stand by the former then the discussion can go no further and you must declare that an IDer does not exist.

I believe it to be the latter and science is my evidence.

We simply have no other mechanism by which to have "faith" in an IDer outside an interpretation of the empirical evidence. This evidence need not be measured to be legitimate, it need only be measured to be science.

But science believes NO empirical evidence exists and so they seek no expirement to quantify it.

They take the stand that 3,000,000,000 believers in an IDer have been tricked by supernatural forces. What a very unscientific explanation!

4:39 PM  
Anonymous thordaddy said...

blipey continues,

>>Aren't we working with THE definition of empirical? You know, observation and experiment (which, interestingly you used 2 comments ago but deleted in your last response). You provided this definition, but then claimed you didn't have to provide either observation or experimental evidence (probably because you decided to delete this last part from the definition when you realised you had none).

--I used the definition of "empirical" in the same advantageous way that science uses it and you dare to criticize? 3,000,000,000 people have made "observations" and interpreted an IDer in the very same manner that Newton "observed" an apple fall a certain distance from a tree, recorded the time it took to hit the ground and defined its mass and infered gravity.

>>And yes: 3 billion people are measurable...I can certainly record what they believe. I have never claimed otherwise, and have often said we can learn things from this data. What I continually ask you and what you continually avoid answering is: Why is their belief necessarily a reflection of the physical world? Anymore than the aethiests' view is a reflection of the physical world? You will never answer this question, I understand, but I'll keep asking you...because I have a belief that it is possible (noticably different then the reality of it happening).

--Well, by what world does someone come to his beliefs outside the physical world?

4:47 PM  
Anonymous thordaddy said...

blipey continues,

>>You claim that the mere existance of an idea confirms its truth...I claim that there are many ideas that exist that are not true. I asked if you could provide a reason that your explanation of truth is better than mine. How do we determine which ideas are true and which are not? Please avoid this again...I love it.

--If 3,000,000,000 people believe in Gravity, would gravity be true? Again, what of 3,000,000,000 believers in an IDer and 3,000,000,000 non-believers in need of an IDer to have any belief? All you can say is that it's "faith" and it's obtained through some supernatural means in a non-physical world. How unscientific!!

>>I claimed that your daughter's eyes being brown is DEFINITIVELY AN OBJECTIVE TRUTH. Go back and read it. That was THE POINT of my comment. Her eyes are always and forever brown--objectively. This is why I found it a ridiculous claim that you were basing subjective ideas on that truth. It was the idea in your head (as a general class of things) that is subjective. If you think that her eyes are green (which you would be free to do), this would be in the same class of thoughts as thinking her eyes are brown. You would be wrong, becasue her eyes are brown, that doesn't stop you from thinking otherwise. Why can you not differentiate the concept of a thought from the concept of reality?

--You have no empirical evidence outside my subjective statement concerning my daughter's blue eyes and yet you state it an OBJECTIVE truth. HUH? How did you turn the SUBJECTIVE truth to an OBJECTIVE truth without any large consensus, measurable quantities, direct observation, etc.?

Then this whopper,

>>I also suppose that you now claim "observable" means "visible"? I believe the sense that we are talking about means "measurable"? We certainly have measured the energy created by these "little balls". Have you measured the energy produced by the creator? Once again you cite a measurable quantity as evidence of something you have no measurement for. Why?

--Observable is NOT "visible," but merely "measurable?" You "measure" energy from these conceptualized balls that have never been observed in the manner most people define observe and then you claim I'm being "willy-nilly."

Lastly,

>>Oh, yeah. You were. So, which is it? Observation should be more liberal, or less? You can't even type one coherent (consistent, if you need a definition) comment. Why should we take your word on anything? Your word is subjective. My word is subjective. Your argument is sloppy; mine is coherent and seeks answers--which you do not provide. I am not saying that I am necessarily right, but your arguments are silly, shallow, and incoherent.

--Observation is more liberal and science has liberalized it. The question is why they feel threatened to liberalize it even further? And it stands to reason that if one liberalizes his definition of "observable" then his scope of legitimate empirical evidence will also be liberalized.

You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be able to say you've "observed" something by merely inferring its existence through other inference and as long as this liberalization of "observation" serves the prevaling wisdom then it is acceptable. But as soon as it seeks to answer that unanswerable question then science plays all coy and conservative again.

5:16 PM  
Blogger blipey said...

Has anyone ever come right out and said, "Thordaddy, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about."?

I often get the idea that YOU have NO IDEA what you're talking about. I picture you sitting at your desk, flipping through the thin volume of catch-phrases that you've been supplied by the IDiots.

I see you often typing random thoughts, then suddenly remembering you have not included a party-line phrase in the comment for a few lines. Luckily, there is always something right there in that thin tome of shallow reasoning.

Cake and eat it too

How can 3,000,000,000 people be wrong

Evidence is a scientific conspiracy

elitists

liberal dogs

EVILutionists

home school your kids before the intelligencia gets them

Aliens are taking over the world

Can 3,000,000,000 people be wrong?

oh, I meant shut up, that was rhetorical

Irreducible complexity

a growing number of trillions of scientists support our cause

scientists are stupid

wait, I don't think the last 2 ideas are compatible

that's okay, the slim tome of unreason doesn't have to make sense, just keep typing from it

11:48 PM  
Anonymous thordaddy said...

blipey,

Perhaps you have no "faith" in an IDer because simply No empirical evidence exists. But for those that do have "faith" in an IDer, how did they come by this "faith," scientifically-speaking?

We can start over with your answer to this question and try an simplify this debate?

8:58 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home