September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« Links Mentioned on the 3/03/15 Show | Main | You Can’t Get Western Morality from Science »

March 04, 2015

Comments

Feser says "In short, either everything has an explanation or we can have no justification for thinking that anything does."

I have difficulty with this.

We already know that some things have explanations - That does not entail, however, that there really is an explanation for everything. Since we already have explanations for some things, Feser's assertion falls flat on it's head. Reality is under no obligation to be explainable, all we can do is try. It's pretty easy to see why Feser likes this all-or-nothing attitude, it's been carefully handpicked for his god-case.

And then he goes on to claim that there arent any brute facts while placing his god (not anyone's else, just the god feser likes) squarely in that bracket.

And given the implications of QM, Im afraid its extremely difficult to cling onto the PSR. But Feser wildly overblows the implications of doing so.

"The only thing we know with certainty is that quantum mechanics absolutely and unequivocally shows us that a number of basic concepts essential to our understanding of the familiar everyday world fail to have any meaning when our focus narrows to the microscopic realm. As a result, we must significantly modify both our language and our reasoning when attempting to understand and explain the universe on atomic and subatomic scales." The Elegant Universe, Greene.

Chew on that scbrownlhrm

Feser's metaphysics hasnt kept pace with physics

Brad B

[You can do science without paying the least bit of attention to philosophy but the system has no way of accounting for it.]

This comes near answering my question.

Let me see if I get this straight. You think I can apply logic but I can't ground it. Is that right?

So I will ask my next question.

If you grant that I'm able to apply logic, then how can you say you...

can be only slightly familiar with a particular field and have 100% confidence of the non-validity of conclusions if I positively see logical errors undergirding those conclusions.
... if I say I"m MORE than slightly familiar with the field AND the logic undergirding those conclusions and there are no logical errors undergirding those conclusions?

Naturalism has yet to account either for what logic is or for logical necessity. Truth claims about physics are thus subsumed by a larger metaphysics. "Meta" being a term some seem to confuse.

Means and ends. Pure and simple.

"What is logic?"

One must keep one's "eyes" on the ball.

Is there sufficient reason to modify the language of that X or of this Z? If so, if we've satisfied PSR, then well and good.

And so on....


Comical.


As if physics *can be* wider than metaphysics. The noise if Hume and nothing more.

What is logic?

Means?

Ends?


Hi John Reed, you are reading correctly...you guys are always saying "we arent saying anything about reality" and then proceed to say emphatic things about reality...like there is a mountain of evidence for evolution.

John Reed2,

Try pinching yourself. :)

Try giving one's means and ends for the stuff of "Logic".

And then apply it.

"Hi John Reed, you are reading correctly...you guys are always saying "we arent saying anything about reality" and then proceed to say emphatic things about reality...like there is a mountain of evidence for evolution."

Elementary philosophy FAIL right there. Describing phenomena is about observational reality - NOT a 'god like' view of reality. This is BASIC - this is why science cant be described as true beyond colloquial definitions of true, why I talk about the map not being the same as the terrain.

Science doesnt seek a god like view of reality - because it CANT. *sigh*

I said this 3 pages ago. Science makes no ontological commitments.

As to the accusation that scientists that accept evolution have somehow ignored logic in deciding that evolution is the best model we have for explaining biodiversity on earth. If thats the case Brad, Im sure you will have no drama in pointing out the flaws in every paper ever published about evolution.

"....science cant be described as true..."

scbrownlhrm

Precisely - congratulations at being correct for the first time ever as far as I can make out. Well, science is true (and Ive said this before) in a colloquial sense i.e. where science creates models that accord to what we observe, we describe them as 'true'

I have no idea how anyone can claim that what they sense of the universe is the true reality of the universe - or even what the connection between the products of our senses and the real nature of the universe is.

But it seems thats what you are doing Brad?

Mr. Reed,

No one is disagreeing with you on the folly of Scientism.

No one is disagreeing with you on the limits of science to physicality.

No one is disagreeing with you that your own Humean appeal to appearances unavoidably annihilates logic.

Those are merely a few of the reasons why the Theist doesn't thusly appeal.

-Cause logic.

And -cause..... and -cause....


scbrownlhrm

1. I dont have an appeal to appearances
2. Describe the 'Humean appeal to appearances' that you claim
3. Demonstrate that this annhilates logic.

scbrownlhrm

Of course all this is still a distraction from the fact that you claim design and havent offered anything to back up that claim. At least Brad offered Demski.

Mr. Reed,

I have to agree with GH5 in that I see no good reason to believe in a-biogenesis despite 50 years over in RNA World. The PSR demands at least a bit of compulsion and the bench top is just too much speculation and not enough observational oomph. Not even close there in RNA World and Etc. Once we see more hard demonstrations it will be easy enough to incorporate such into that ever wider M-E-T-A..... But until then....


As for Hume and Naturalism's regularity of nature, that is just another topic that adds / falls into your overt confusion about Trespassing, about Circularity, about Meta, about PSR, and about A-T metaphysics.

Such an array of confusion will have to be untied in some books somewhere as the word count needed is just too high for here.

John Reed2,

where science creates models that accord to what we observe, we describe them as 'true'
Nicely put!

But seriously, Ive never heard of this presupp apologetics.
Then you gotta see this!

Keep in mind that Sye takes the 4 buttons seriously.


RonH,

Demonstrate a-biogenesis.

On the bench top.

Full blown life.

Minus Mind's pushing stuff around.

Where Man's Mind must push - justify that we can presuppose its absence "back then".

Elaborate on the specifics of such presumed specifics with compelling demonstrations.


Presuppositions void of compelling bench top evidence based on a paradigm which annihilates logic's coherent metaphysical starting point is an odd affair given one must - finally - surrender *both* Evidence and Logic as ultimately applicable to one's actual and full regression.

scbrownlhrm

"Demonstrate a-biogenesis. On the bench top. Full blown life."

1. The talk has been of evolution - not abiogenesis. They are different

2. If we can "Demonstrate a-biogenesis. On the bench top. Full blown life" then so what? Does that make your version of events the winner by default? No, dont think so - logic fail

3. Go and read some of the primary literature if you are interested - but of course you wont. Far easier to be ignorant and claim a win by default - thereby ignoring the logic you purport to lecture others on. Nice

2. should read "if we cant.......

There are too many such foci in the kind of presuppositionalism we find laced throughout the Naturalist's arguments to just write off on the principle of charity. Extrapolated speculations built atop such foci - once removed by the PSR's demand for compulsion - leaves our debate on the human eye in a wide open field. Once there, the unintelligible milieu surrounding the criteria of design there in the Naturalist's own, "All the products of an un-designed system are designed" litters said field with groundings capable of growing no-thing. Evidence, Logic, Presuppositions, and sound A-T metaphysics are happy - and able - to *fully* accommodate - as Feser notes - *whatever* scientific specifics ultimately reveal about physics - about the universe - and what have you. PSR (Etc...) is thus not a means to deny the evolutionist his little slice which he believes to be a pie - he can have his thin slice of reality should he earn it the hard way - rather such is a means toward honest intellectual claims about was is full blown bench top demonstrability and what is speculation - and so on up and down reality's singular metaphysical chain.


Believing in a-biogenesis sacrifices both Evidence and Logic. The former because a chronic anemia torments said bench top. The latter because the paradigm forcing such an evidence-free presuppositionalism ultimately annihilates logic's "ontic-start-stop points".

The point is merely to demonstrate the sort of thinker one is dealing with in the *philosophical naturalist*.

That said, and as noted earlier per Feser (etc.), Theism's A-T metaphysics is both happy and able to grant the 'evolutionist' his thin slice of reality - should he earn it the hard way - and then simply carry onward, upward, coherence in hand.

John, you may as well go push the buttons at Sye Ten Bruggencate's site.

One could presuppose with neither bench top demonstrability nor logic's regress. But since there are better options......

"But since there are better options......"

Such as?

It's this dogmatic insistence on "must see it in a test tube" that I find disturbing. For crying out loud, the structure of DNA was only discovered in 1953. Here's the creationist baying that if abiogenesis cant be demonstrated in a test tube right here and right now, then it must be rubbish. And therefore, the 'goddunnit' version prevails.

The science on this is just getting started.

SO the only person displying utter incoherence and a lack of logic is you scbrownlhrm.

General Appeal - Can anyone explain scbrownlhrm's posts to me? I need a translator, because what we have here is a failure to communicate.

As noted earlier, nothing is intended to take away the philosophical naturalist's thin slice of reality. He can have it so long as he earns it the hard way. It’s not that. Rather, such is merely to demonstrate the sort of evidence-free presuppositionalism which we find layered atop an eager and ready willingness to offend logic's full and final coherence. The willingness to levy truth claims void of *both* evidence *and* logical coherence simply unmasks the troubled milieu one must enter in order to dialogue.

Hi John Reeda, I give you some credit for checking Feser and then giving it a go crossing swords if you will with a respected philosopher. One thing I would offer with that though....he isnt going to make a simple error like the ones you accuse him of....he is waaaayy| better than that. Believe it or not Feser and Francis Beckwith were two of the most outspoken anti ID "as science" Christians back about 10 years ago when the push to make it taught inpublic schools.

inother words you may not want to assassinate the the credentials of a potential ally.

He will never be an ally with you on most things but your critique of his worldview shows you can inspect logical argumentation even if it is crude and easily dismissed.. iow, loaded with fallacious responses.so check out your own worldview i. The same way...reduce it back to your god and see how he holds up.

Sorry for the typos...using a mobile device here. Another tip for you John Reed...we [scb and I] are critiquing your worldview using your stated propositions. We are not making a question begging argument like you do with Feser's work. This should not be confused as a pro tip, just a little bit of advice.

So now when you inspect yourown worldview, you musnt import any tools not accounted for in you own...this is like stealing..unless you ask, then it would be borrowing.

"he isnt going to make a simple error like the ones you accuse him of"

I read what he had written and I disagreed with it. t's up to him if he wants to be sloppy - and you need to accept that he may be wrong.

"He will never be an ally with you on most things but your critique of his worldview shows you can inspect logical argumentation even if it is crude and easily dismissed"

A backhanded compliment - good to see my degree from Cambridge has stood me in god stead

"So now when you inspect yourown worldview, you musnt import any tools not accounted for in you own...this is like stealing..unless you ask, then it would be borrowing"

What does this mean?

You have a massive habit of accusing me of being wrong without actually explaining WHY. When I question to seek clarification, I either get "ah well if you dont understand I cant help you" which is simply a pathetic brush off, or i get ignored.

So explain - because everything that I have said is consistent and isnt controversial. What iS controversial is liming scientists that believe in evolution havent employed logic - which is a laughable, empty assertion worthy of ridicule.

And STILL, we have nothing better than "it looks designed, therefore it was designed, therefore God"

Tragic.

The Eye:

The troubled trio:


1) Given that the Naturalist is going to assert even an evidence-free presupposition of No-God, of No-Goal, of No-Design, of any and all X's *despite* any degree of pathological anemia on the bench top, and, then, 2) given that he will *also* assert that all the products of an un-designed system are designed, that is to say, that all the products of any irrationally conditioned bundle of blind reflexes *is* what the word *design* just does *mean*, and, then, 3) given that he will *also* with eagerness and readiness happily choose (else God) a paradigm wherein he *actually* annihilates logic's full and final coherence, well...... given this simple - and troubled - trinity, when we come to the question of the Eye, and of Design, and of Logic, and so on, it is clear to all how he plays this game. Therefore, we may play, and so on. Fine. Whatever. But - each and every time - we must first establish that these are his rules - these are the *only* rules of interpretation which he will agree to. Then, once we establish his concession thereof, well then we may proceed. Here now after 300 or so comments we are just beginning to establish the obvious - which he has been resisting, hedging, equivocating about all this time in order to avoid such a revelation about his core rule-making. This is how it typically goes when the irrationally conditioned asserts any truth claim. Evidence-free presuppositionalism joined hand-in-hand with nihilism's willing sacrifice of logic's means/ends. An insolvent chain of IOU's. And then these comical words, "Come now, let us discuss the evidence."

"given that he will *also* assert that all the products of an un-designed system are designed, that is to say, that all the products of any irrationally conditioned bundle of blind reflexes *is* what the word *design* just does *mean*"

"Evidence-free presuppositionalism joined hand-in-hand with nihilism's willing sacrifice of logic's means/ends."

Why do you keep saying things like this?

I have NEVER said any of those things, nor have you provided one SHRED of reasoning to support these assertions

Define design's features.

"Define design's features."

Comedy gold!!

I'm not the one claiming design. YOU ARE! So YOU need to "define design's features"

6 pages of comments in and you are STILL trying to foist the burden of proof onto me.

Ron and John,

"given that he will *also* assert that all the products of an un-designed system are designed, that is to say, that all the products of any irrationally conditioned bundle of blind reflexes *is* what the word *design* just does *mean*"

Why have you guys made this assertion? What do you mean by it?

Goat Head 5

GH5

I havent, based on a plain reading of what scbrownlhrm wrote - but then again, I have no idea what scbrownlhrm is on about.

In other words, Mr. Reed says there is nothing designed on planet Earth. Not laptops. Not cars. Not.......

"In other words, Mr. Reed says there is nothing designed on planet Earth. Not laptops. Not cars. Not......."

Nope. I never said that. You obviously lost the plot early on and just DO NOT GET IT.

Oh. Okay.

So designed things do exist. Cars and houses and laptops what not.


Well then, it seems we are back to where we started.

All the products of an un-designed system are designed, all the products of an irrationally conditioned bundle of blind reflexes *is* what the word *design* just does *mean*.


Those are the rules.

Well, rather, that is the rule.

Who said we are un-designed?

All I am saying is that you need to back up your claim of "design"

Oh?

That's odd.

So houses and cars and laptops are not designed products?


How. Many. Times?

YOU claim biological organisms are designed, YOU back up that claim.

Huh?

You lost me.

I was talking about cars and laptops and houses. No?


Oh well.


Well, to be honest, we could be mistaken. The Naturalist may in fact be asserting that laptops and houses and cars *don't* meet his criteria for design.

Oh well.

And you don't see anything wrong with your line of inquiry? Laughable!

What is the contentious issue here?

Well, basically.... ummm.... are cars and laptops and houses designed products?


There's no labeling of the Naturalist's criteria as right or wrong here..... just trying to figure them out so we know what the rules of interpretation are....

Why is the design of cars or laptops contentious?

This is reaching hilarious levels of inanity.

Oh... okay. There seemed to be a bit of dancing around that point for a bit.

My mistake.

Well, it's good to have that part of the criteria defined.

Laptops, houses, and cars meet criteria such that "this was designed" is accurate.


Well then, it seems we're back where we started.


All the products (laptops and what not...) of an un-designed system are designed, all the products (laptops and what not...) of an irrationally conditioned bundle of blind reflexes *is* what the term design *means*. That is the milieu of *design*, per the Naturalist.

Uggghhh, 14 hour work days are getting in the way of being able to participate in this thread.

Catching up on the reading, I have to reiterate that scbrownlhrm and I are only using you naturalists' own system and critiquing your claims...it's no wonder that scbrownlhrm has taken pains to clarify the point that you indeed do identify design when you want to.

But you cant witness all artifacts being created by intelligent beings but you have high confidence when, say for instance you observe Stonehenge with it's stark appearance and more subtle design features, including layout for atsrological purpose or calendar or...? I haven't encountered even one person that has any doubt that this rock assembly was the product of intelligent beings and that nature did not produce this...although some go further to suggest that super intelligent beings actually were behind this artifact if not directly constructing it also. Did you see it built? Did you see a blueprint?

Earlier John Reed declared that between an intelligence made artifact, it not having a self replicating feature would invalidate design inference inquiry to living things that do but then, he doesn't give a reason. I pointed out the question begging there, but we moved on. This UD post goes to great lengths to show the design inference explanatory filter and how objections to it fail.

I doubt this will dent John Reeds trance. There is the common objection to anything ID to fall back on, and it involves what I will call the 6s method...scientisms self serving selective super skpeticism. The method is mostly used on ID inquiry, and rarely ever upon its own holy books and practices of induction and abduction. Even less so is the method used on the prior logical foundations that are assumed but never proven...those that are logically able to prove knowledge but are alien to naturalism.

John shows an ability for rigorous philosophical inspection when it comes to attempting to defame an opponent [Feser's linked blog post] but he does it in the most uncharitable way, intentionally mischaracterizing, strawman making, and question begging...I hope that isn't what he learned at Cambridge :~( How about some rigorous inspection of the limits of your method, you are showing far too much confidence than can legitimately be reaped from that barren ground.

I notice another area where the 6s method is often not employed...when the abductive inference to the best explanation is applied to the naturalists evolutionary inquiry, there is no limits on the imaginative thinking to come up with theories packed with if's, could have's, might be's, not impossible's, etc... and the 6s method is not applied but in fact it is exchanged for a kind of antitype...maybe I can come up with an acronym based on Lewinton's famous line "we cant let a divine foot in the door" to describe the no mirror policy naturalists have.

But when ID uses the same abductive inference to the best explanation...and even further constraining themselves by not abandoning prior logical constraints when inferences are made based on biological observation...they are subjected to the 6s method of inquiry and summarily disqualified as having anything at all to say about it with no consideration of the actual inferences and proofs offered.

"Earlier John Reed declared that between an intelligence made artifact, it not having a self replicating feature would invalidate design inference inquiry to living things that do"

No I didnt.

I said that living things and other artefacts are qualitatively different and refrenced self replication as an example of that.

Therefore, because artfects & living things are qualitatively different, in claiming design of biological organisms YOU need to say why its applicable to apply a schema for design of artefacts (that have been created using known manufacturing processes) to biological oragnisms. YOU HAVENT DONE THAT.

What I find disturbing here is that you guys just KNOW that biological things were designed - you dont see design as a hypothesis, for you guys its a theory. And now you are looking for ways to justify your theory.

Which really isnt how it works.

But because I lack belief in God Im probably doing logic wrong or something *rolls eyes*

"This UD post goes to great lengths to show the design inference explanatory filter and how objections to it fail."

I read the article - well, actually I struggled to read it because it's badly written and there isn t a logical thread. And what it doesnt do is address the main failing of the design inference - its eliminativist.

"when the abductive inference to the best explanation is applied to the naturalists evolutionary inquiry, there is no limits on the imaginative thinking to come up with theories packed with if's, could have's, might be's, not impossible's, etc"

But that isnt how it works. And this is the nub of it. You dont undestand the science.

"Lewinton's famous line "we cant let a divine foot in the door" to describe the no mirror policy naturalists have."

How do you want things done? What do YOU suggest? You have this wrong as well.

The milieu of design is, per Naturalism, that this or that particular X be the product of an irrationally conditioned bundle of blind neuronal reflexes. Given that singular component of the Naturalist’s criteria, well, we may begin to wonder what isn’t designed within his paradigm of irrational neuronal conditioning. It just is the fact of that matter – in his paradigm – that all such conditioning is irrational – even as it just is the fact of the matter that all products of all such bundles just do satisfy and appease the quest for the Naturalist’s milieu of design. And that is the case from the base to the profound, from the lowest to the highest, from the simple to the complex as we find Naturalism’s milieu well intact amid all such sodium channels in all such bundles having all been thusly – irrationally – conditioned. It is *that* regression from design to the irrationally conditioned which opens up all doors – which is the key that unlocks – the nucleus of interpretation – the *rule* by which the Naturalists extricates all that can be called design’s milieu. Given that singular component of the Naturalist’s criteria, well, we may begin to wonder what isn’t designed within his paradigm of irrational neuronal conditioning. But of course he will at once affirm said criteria – said regress – said milieu – only to then equivocate on and retract said criteria – said regress – said milieu – should this or that irrationally conditioned bundle of blind neuronal reflex yield a product which makes a mockery of his initially affirmed milieu of design.

The thing we call “Pleasure” finds Lewis affirming that the Naturalist’s criteria for design’s milieu is quite satisfied: “You can’t go on getting any very serious pleasure from music if you know and remember that its air of significance is pure illusion, that you like it only because your nervous system is irrationally conditioned to like it.”

And so on – up and down the chain – amid the plethora of irrationally conditioned bundles of blind neuronal reflexes.

That is the rule of interpretation – the only rule – such that should the Theist fail to re-create that milieu in his regressions then the Theist will have to suffer the wrath of the irrationally conditioned. But then, the Theist’s products too, and, well, the countless other irrationally conditioned products, that plethora that just is innumerable are – all – birthed from those very same irrationally conditioned bundles of blind neuronal reflexes – and there – of course – is where the equivocations begin on the part of the Naturalist.


That Naturalist's claims and criteria are - literally - all over the map.


The comments to this entry are closed.