Why is ID so successful?

[Upchurch]

There is no "ten" in base 2, any more than there is a "two." You could state that you have one-zero (10) objects.

Fine! All of you with your "proper terminology" and "correct semantics".

 

[Mercutio]

Fine! All of you with your "proper terminology" and "correct semantics".

What I like about this...

Uppie, arguing on the same side as the math police, gets corrected even though he is "on their team". It is not about sides, it is about what is demonstrably right or wrong.

Then, when corrected, he admits it with a smile. Or two, actually. Because it is not about slapping Upchurch, it is about correcting a stated claim.

And that's the way it is supposed to work.

 

[drkitten]

What I like about this...

Uppie, arguing on the same side as the math police, gets corrected even though he is "on their team". It is not about sides, it is about what is demonstrably right or wrong.

Then, when corrected, he admits it with a smile. Or two, actually. Because it is not about slapping Upchurch, it is about correcting a stated claim.

And that's the way it is supposed to work.

Language award nomination sent.

 

[hammegk]

Language award nomination sent.

Indeed.

And much easier than applying one's self-admitted expertise to answering questions.


The exchage here on 1+1 rather than considering why ID is so successful is actually a good part of the answer that eludes y'all.

 

[drkitten]

And much easier than applying one's self-admitted expertise to answering questions.

Ask a question, and I will answer it.

Sneer at the answer, and I will not answer followups.

Stalk me around the forum, and find out just how thin my patience is.

The exchage here on 1+1 rather than considering why ID is so successful is actually a good part of the answer that eludes y'all.

It is indeed. It illustrates the need for a shared vocabulary and a willingness to acquire the necessary background knowledge -- two traits that you not only do not have, but actively avoid.

 

[Iacchus]

It is indeed. It illustrates the need for a shared vocabulary and a willingness to acquire the necessary background knowledge -- two traits that you not only do not have, but actively avoid.

It's as simple as 1 + 1 = 2 ... by the way.

 

[Upchurch]

It's as simple as 1 + 1 = 2 ... by the way.

You agree? How astonishingly honest.



....or you are still just trying to sound pithy and don't realize what you are saying...

 

[Iacchus]

You agree? How astonishingly honest.

....or you are still just trying to sound pithy and don't realize what you are saying...

Hey, it's only as difficult as it needs to be. At least this is what Occam's Razor seems to suggest about it, correct?

 

[hammegk]

Ask a question, and I will answer it.

I did, and you did not in any form understandable to me, or I suspect, most people.

Stalk me around the forum, and find out just how thin my patience is.

Then quit running like a bunny.

It is indeed. It illustrates the need for a shared vocabulary and a willingness to acquire the necessary background knowledge -- two traits that you not only do not have, but actively avoid.

And you are full of it and of yourself.

I've made every effort to acquire background knowledge. If my questions were nonsense, I suspect you have sufficient intellect to see where they were heading, and rather than attempt to assist someone not of your expertise to any understanding, you disappear firing salvoes of cheap shots.


And the questions remain, there, and now here.

How do you define "genetic difference"?

Is the "genetic difference" between all Felidae greater than the difference between chimp and man?

I did mention that a current popularization in newspapers mentions 40 million dna differences between chimp and man. The gross number -- 40 million -- to me seems much more indicative than some percentage computation, especially since "junk dna" seems to be useful in many instances now being recognized.

 

[Upchurch]

Hey, it's only as difficult as it needs to be. At least this is what Occam's Razor seems to suggest about it, correct?

More or less, as long as it sufficiently takes all information into account. Unfortunately, ID fails to do this so Occam's Razor really is moot in this respect.

 

[drkitten]

Then quit running like a bunny.

And you are full of it and of yourself.

Oh, yeah, that will encourage me to cast further valuable pearls in front of you.

And the questions remain, there, and now here.

And the answers remain, there. Go learn something.

 

[Iacchus]

More or less, as long as it sufficiently takes all information into account. Unfortunately, ID fails to do this so Occam's Razor really is moot in this respect.

Oh, now I see you're requiring Occam to become fully omniscient. No, I'm afraid it doesn't work that way ... at least according to what I've been told.

 

[Upchurch]

Oh, now I see you're requiring Occam to become fully omniscient. No, I'm afraid it doesn't work that way ... at least according to what I've been told.

Not at all. ID isn't logically consistant, therefore it cannot describe any real world situation. Evolution is logically consistant. So, there is no need to apply Occam's Razor to the ID vs. Evolution debate because they are not equal theories.

 

[Iacchus]

Not at all. ID isn't logically consistant, therefore it cannot describe any real world situation. Evolution is logically consistant. So, there is no need to apply Occam's Razor to the ID vs. Evolution debate because they are not equal theories.

So, whatever happened to the notion of 1 + 1 = 2 we were "thrashing" around? Did you happen to notice that I was not the one who veered away here? Just for the record, how do you think Occam's Razor should apply to that?

 

[hammegk]

Oh, yeah, that will encourage me to cast further valuable pearls in front of you.

I'm sure you could be a fount a valuable info. Sorry you continue to choose not to share, rather disparage the questioner.

And the answers remain, there.

Perhaps so. I see no way I'll ever come to grips with them.

Go learn something.

I have. I've learned you are unwilling to answer questions at the layman's level.

hammegk
And the questions remain, there, and now here.

How do you define "genetic difference"?

Is the "genetic difference" between all Felidae greater than the difference between chimp and man?

I did mention that a current popularization in newspapers mentions 40 million dna differences between chimp and man. The gross number -- 40 million -- to me seems much more indicative than some percentage computation, especially since "junk dna" seems to be useful in many instances now being recognized.

 

[drkitten]

I have. I've learned you are unwilling to answer questions at the layman's level.

Then you're wrong, again.

I'm unwilling to answer your questions at the layman's level.

 

[Upchurch]

So, whatever happened to the notion of 1 + 1 = 2 we were "thrashing" around?

It turned out to be neither self-evident nor always correct. Why do you ask?
[fquote]Did you happen to notice that I was not the one who veered away here?[/fquote]From what?
[fquote]Just for the record, how do you think Occam's Razor should apply to that? [/FQUOTE]I don't think it does from a purely mathematical POV. As an example of self-evidence and/or simplicity, it fails Occam's Razor since "1 + 1 = 2 is self-evidently true in all situations and is simple" does not agree necessarily agree with the facts, which is a necessary requirement for Occam's Razor.

 

[Iacchus]

It turned out to be neither self-evident nor always correct. Why do you ask?

This is one of the simplest statements one could make. What are you talking about? Do you insist on denying the very fundamental axiom that 1 + 1 = 2? As I have said -- and apparently Occam too -- there's no need to make it more complicated than it needs to be.

 

[drkitten]

Do you insist on denying the very fundamental axiom that 1 + 1 = 2?

Well, first, as has been pointed out, that's not an axiom.

And second, since as a statement, it demonstrably has counterexamples, it makes sense to deny it as a general and "self-evidently true" statement.

And third, I don't think you understand Occam's razor.

As I have said -- and apparently Occam too -- there's no need to make it more complicated than it needs to be.

Yes. But sometimes it needs to be complicated. You're reading from a system under one of the more complicated systems.

A system should be as simple as possible while still remaining workable -- but no simpler.

 

[Iacchus]

If 1 + 1 does not equal "2" (in base ten), would "E" still equal MC²?