Why is ID so successful?

[Peter Soderqvist]

Re: Re: 1 + 1 = 2

Yes. For example, if I have a lump of mud and stick another lump of mud to it, I don't have two lumps of mud; I have a single, larger, lump of mud. (If you don't like mud, I can do the same thing with a lump of peanut butter.)

If I have a cold room and I add a space heater to it, I get a warm room. If I add another space heater to it, I don't get two warm rooms -- or even necessarily a warmer room.

If I have one happy cat on my lap, and someone adds another happy cat on my lap, I probably now have zero[ happy cats.

And if I have a cup of water and I add a cup of alcohol to it, the resulting solution isn't two cups of liquid.

Of course, if I have a brick and add another brick to it, that does indeed make two bricks.

But why should our hypothetical "abtract units" be defined to -- or indeed, self-evidently have the properties of bricks, instead of lumps of mud or happy cats?



Yes, that proposition is sometimes incorrect. For example, I can develop an inconsistent system where the Godel sentence for that system is not even expressible within the system, and therefore not provable.

Soderqvist1: abstract units are undefined terms, which have no content! Bricks, mud, cats are labels for concrete objects in our empirical world! Inconsistent system is not system P! I alleging that Principia Mathematica and related systems are essentially incomplete, but truth according to the premises Kurt Godel proposed in Königsberg 1931, and that truth doesn't change with time! Do you alleging otherwise?

 

[hammegk]

So scientifically ID seems to be a non-starter. But as I have said the debate is really political rather than scientific and the reason that ID has had the successes it has are to do with clever strategy on their part.

Sorry, the battle is not political, it is philosophical -- materialism vs "something else".

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9024914/site/newsweek/?rf=technorati

Maybe we should junk mathematics because 'algebra' might have different meanings?

LOL. The question is: What is most real, the math, or the perceived "physical" universe?.

Whether I'm winning or not is debatable, as we are here doing.

As soon as a fair majority agree that The Scientific Basis for Morals & Ethics(btw, someone should write the book) is "correct", you will at least be making headway. It looks to me -- at the moment -- that materialists/Scientism are losing rather than gaining adherents.



Meanwhile, continue to argue that 1+1 does not equal 2. An old saw about removing urine from a boot comes to my mind.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Mercutio said:
I would disagree. As used here, there is no definition of "innate" that is not circular. And thus useless. As is the case with the majority of the terms Iacchus uses.

Note that I put the word in quotes. You don't think it's possible that instinct is sufficient to recognize single objects vs. pairs?

Perhaps I'm missing the "complexity" of Iacchus's definition of innate.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammegk said:
As soon as a fair majority agree that The Scientific Basis for Morals & Ethics(btw, someone should write the book) is "correct", you will at least be making headway. It looks to me -- at the moment -- that materialists/Scientism are losing rather than gaining adherents.

Is someone suggesting that there is a scientific basis for ethics?

Meanwhile, continue to argue that 1+1 does not equal 2. An old saw about removing urine from a boot comes to my mind.

You're going to continue to use mathematical nomenclature just to cloud the issue, aren't you?

~~ Paul

 

[Upchurch]

Is someone suggesting that there is a scientific basis for ethics?

Well, the straw man isn't going to build itself for hammegk to beat down, now is it?

 

[hammegk]

Well, the straw man isn't going to build itself for hammegk to beat down, now is it?

Can't find a link to furnish, Uppie?

 

[Iacchus]

Two games. First, the game to keep science from being polluted with a bunch of question begging crapola. Second, the game to keep my kids from being indoctrinated with religious nonsense disguised as question begging crap science.

Whether I'm winning or not is debatable, as we are here doing.

~~ Paul

Yes, and we all live in the material world ... all of which is entertained in the realm of the mind. I guess that makes the whole notion of science circular too now doesn't it, Merc?

 

[Iacchus]

Note that I put the word in quotes. You don't think it's possible that instinct is sufficient to recognize single objects vs. pairs?

Perhaps I'm missing the "complexity" of Iacchus's definition of innate.

~~ Paul

Or, how about four ducks versus five ducks and whatnot? Do you see how it's possible to get from 1 + 1 = 2, to 4 + 1 = 5? Or, would this be "complicating" the issue?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Iacchus said:
Or, how about four ducks versus five ducks and whatnot? Do you see how it's possible to get from 1 + 1 = 2, to 4 + 1 = 5? Or, would this be "complicating" the issue?

Perhaps, but it's certainly making the issue bone-crushingly boring.

~~ Paul

 

[Mercutio]

Yes, and we all live in the material world ... all of which is entertained in the realm of the mind. I guess that makes the whole notion of science circular too now doesn't it, Merc?

Actually, Iacchus, science does not demand that the world be material. It makes no difference whether it is, or whether it simply appears that it is. Hammegk has understood this distinction in other threads, Paul has made the point in other threads, you yourself have been told it in many threads, but perhaps chose to ignore it.

You have repeatedly claimed that the material is within the mental. Given appropriate logic, I would have no problem with that. Heck, I even (usually) understand where Interesting Ian is coming from. But the problem is, Iacchus, your particular version of mind is purely circularly defined, inconsistent, incompatible with observations (whether we take these observations as assuming material or immaterial evidence), and proudly and actively ignorant of any attempts to correct these problems.

The problem is not "material versus mental" at all. I (perhaps we) disagree with your "philosophy" because it is unsupported, and I believe it is (as it is now) unsupportable. You could convince me (and others, perhaps) otherwise, but in over two years of opportunity, you have not come close.

Do you realise that your very first day of posting here, you used your "1+1=2" example?

It didn't work then, either.

 

[drkitten]

Can't find a link to furnish, Uppie?

I shouldn't bother finding anything for hammy. He'll panic at the thought he might be expected to read something for himself.

 

[Iacchus]

Actually, Iacchus, science does not demand that the world be material. It makes no difference whether it is, or whether it simply appears that it is. Hammegk has understood this distinction in other threads, Paul has made the point in other threads, you yourself have been told it in many threads, but perhaps chose to ignore it.

Yes, but you're the one who seems to have the patent on what's circular and what isn't, when in fact the whole thing is circular ... if, we are to heed what you say.

So, is it just a matter of circularity on my part when I say you speak out of both sides of your mouth? Hmm ...

 

[hammegk]

new drk: You'd hope a guy with a PhD could find something to offer besides personal attacks. Hard to say, between you & Hoyt, who is the least helpful. To me, Dr.A seems more of a useless joke.

As to Uppie ... stick around for awhile ...you might eventually understand what I said ...

 

[Iacchus]

Perhaps, but it's certainly making the issue bone-crushingly boring.

~~ Paul

However, it's not just a matter of 1 + 1 = 2, it's how you come to know anything.

 

[Robin]

Sorry, the battle is not political, it is philosophical -- materialism vs "something else".

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9024914/site/newsweek/?rf=technorati

Did you actually read the article before you posted? Here is an example:

If you experience God directly, your faith is not going to hinge on whether natural selection could have produced the flagellum of a bacterium. If you feel God within you, then the important question is settled; the rest is details.

In other words the ID battle is not a spiritual one. As your article states truly spiritual people don't really care one way or another. In fact they usually try to avoid pinning their faith to one particular scientific point of view.

And the battle is not scientific, as I pointed out before the huge shortcomings of the ID case

The battle is very much a political one.

Oh and "something else"? I am glad you have thought it through so carefully.

As soon as a fair majority agree that The Scientific Basis for Morals & Ethics(btw, someone should write the book) is "correct", you will at least be making headway. It looks to me -- at the moment -- that materialists/Scientism are losing rather than gaining adherents.

Who on earth said anything about the scientific basis for morals and ethics? Who suggested such a thing? OK, I'm sure some fool did somewhere but what has it got to do with the debate at hand? I mean honestly - think about it!

And I have already pointed out several times that science does not imply materialism. Some of the most important scientists we have are not materialists.

But you are plugging away at the party line I mentioned in my OP. It is a political ploy.

 

[hammegk]

In other words the ID battle is not a spiritual one. As your article states truly spiritual people don't really care one way or another. In fact they usually try to avoid pinning their faith to one particular scientific point of view.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you experience God directly, your faith is not going to hinge on whether natural selection could have produced the flagellum of a bacterium. If you feel God within you, then the important question is settled; the rest is details.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting how we read the same words and come to opposite conclusions. Materialists cannot "feel God within" and continue to be materialists.

Who on earth said anything about the scientific basis for morals and ethics? Who suggested such a thing? OK, I'm sure some fool did somewhere but what has it got to do with the debate at hand? I mean honestly - think about it!

I'm the fool in the sense I keep bringing it up.

Either Science can answer all questions worthy of asking, or it cannot. If it cannot, what does any self-respecting materialist have to draw on that has ever historically provided social and cultural stability? Without social and cultural stability, how do you think Science will fare? And do you concur that ID is at the cutting edge of this debate?

And I have already pointed out several times that science does not imply materialism.

You and I agree it does not. Do you think most laymen agree with this position?

Some of the most important scientists we have are not materialists.

Agree to some extent, yet currently those that are not lose the respect of their peers, who then feel the need to make excuses for such a fall from grace.

What examples of not-materialists in the current "publish or perish" world of science do you identify?

 

[Iacchus]

You have repeatedly claimed that the material is within the mental. Given appropriate logic, I would have no problem with that. Heck, I even (usually) understand where Interesting Ian is coming from. But the problem is, Iacchus, your particular version of mind is purely circularly defined, inconsistent, incompatible with observations (whether we take these observations as assuming material or immaterial evidence), and proudly and actively ignorant of any attempts to correct these problems.

Without "a mind," how would you know? "Mind" is none other than the arena of sentience ... whereas sentience simply is. If you wish to know what sentience is, perpaps you should explore it through the medium of sentience? How else are we to describe it then, if not through sentience? How else do we describe anything?

The problem is not "material versus mental" at all. I (perhaps we) disagree with your "philosophy" because it is unsupported, and I believe it is (as it is now) unsupportable. You could convince me (and others, perhaps) otherwise, but in over two years of opportunity, you have not come close.

Our perception of the world, whether we express it through science or religion, is based wholly upon what our minds tell us. So, if there's some way we can escape the subjectivity of our minds, by all means, please inform us. However, the fact that you should have to say anything at all, suggests it's wholly subject to how we "interpret" it.

Do you realise that your very first day of posting here, you used your "1+1=2" example?

It didn't work then, either.

So, how do you know -- with all the inherent bullcrap aside -- 1 + 1 = 2?

 

[Iacchus]

And do you concur that ID is at the cutting edge of this debate?

Well, I think we have to establish what version of ID we're talking about here. Albeit with most materialists (I could be mistaken?), there appears to be only one. In which case we're speaking of a lop-sided issue from either side, and that becomes politics. I agree with you, however, that ultimately it's a philosophical matter.

 

[Mercutio]

I shouldn't bother finding anything for hammy. He'll panic at the thought he might be expected to read something for himself.

Funny, I gave hammegk something to read in an Interesting Ian thread some time ago, and he read, understood, and seemed to appreciate it. I don't think he agreed with it, but I can't require that...

 

[Iacchus]

Without "a mind," how would you know? "Mind" is none other than the arena of sentience ... whereas sentience simply is. If you wish to know what sentience is, perpaps you should explore it through the medium of sentience? How else are we to describe it then, if not through sentience? How else do we describe anything?

If, in fact we have to rely wholly on sentience in order to interpret our world, why should we deem sentience circular? If so, then our attempts to define who and what we are -- or, for that matter, anything -- is worthless. Unless of course there's more to sentience (and the mind which maintains it) than what is circular. Which, is my whole point.