This was originally intended as a brief reply to the comment by William J Murray but it sort of grew into something a little longer so I thought, since everyone else is doing it, I’d put it up here.
William J Murray:
I think that any fair reading of UD will show that the vast majority of pro-ID posters there, and certainly the moderators and subject contributors, are not “anti-science” at all, nor “sneer” at science; rather, they have what is IMO a legitimate concern over the anti-religious, anti-theist, pro-materialist agenda that many of those currently in positions of power in the institutions of science blatantly demonstrate.
I would agree that not all contributors to UD are anti-science but there is, nonetheless, a prominent strand of such thinking there. Many of the original posts mock the speculative excesses of evolutionary psyschology, for example, or seem to gloat over instances of where science has apparently got it wrong. Those occasions where the author of such comments has got it wrong themselves pass largely unremarked. The overall impression is of an anti-science advocacy site.
I will grant that there are a few contributors to UD who are critical of the perceived atheist/materialist stance of many scientists in public fora as improper because it associates science with atheism. They hold, as I do, that the most science can say on such questions is that, following Laplace, it has found no need for such hypotheses thus far. While it may be true that a majority of scientists hold atheistic views it is misleading to suggest that they are endorsed by science as a whole.
That said, my impression of UD is that the majority of contributors are critical of science because they believe it is hostile and threat to their religion. They feel that science is perceived as a source of knowledge that is more reliable and authoritative than that offered by the various faiths which is thereby undermined. One slightly amusing response is the attempt to cast science as just another religion. Those who do so seem to be oblivious to the contradiction: on the one hand, religion is presented as a way of knowing that is fully the equal of science, on the other hand, the authority of science is supposed to be undermined by calling it just another religion, implying that religion is a lesser form of knowledge and science is to be dragged down to that level. Unfortunately, much as they would like to, they can’t have it both ways
There is without doubt a very vocal group of scientists and advocates of science who believe that it does make religious beliefs untenable They highlight the harm that has been done – and is still being done – in the name of the various faiths as evidence that we would all be better off without it. My own view is that this is reactionary and most prominent in the United States. It is a response to the extreme hostility felt by many Americans towards any form of non-belief and the excessive influence of such religious beliefs on the society and politics of that country.
My own view is that it is true that, over the millennia, a great deal of blood has been spilled in the name of various religions. It is also true that huge numbers have been killed in the name of the various political ideologies, which were in some cases atheistic, that gained power in the twentieth century. I would argue that it is further true that trying to compare body counts is a pointless distraction. The real lesson to be taken is the dangers of absolutist thinking.
In spite of the posturing and boastfulness of some, we are mostly well aware of our own weakness and vulnerability. Instinctively, we crave the kind of reliable knowledge about the world in which we find ourselves that will give us a good handle on it and increase our chances of survival. We are all too easily seduced by anyone or any belief system which appears to offer such certainty, especially in times of heightened insecurity. The danger is that, once convinced of the absolute truth of such beliefs, there are some who will have no doubt that they are fully justified in doing almost anything to defend and promote such them. Thus we have the spectacle of William Lane Craig apparently feeling compelled to defend and justify the massacring of children, even though I have no doubt it is something he would never do himself, because it is something reported in his Bible as being required of believers and approved by his God.
Thus we come back to Oliver Cromwell’s impassioned plea, used as the motto for this blog:
I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.
Mr. Rickert:
What is the basis by which you expect me to judge the validity of your arguments?
Madbat:
What is the basis by which you expect me to judge the validity of your arguments?
That’s not even close to what I took madbat to be talking about.
You are trying to fit what he said into the way that philosophy and theology look at the world. And it doesn’t fit.
I do not have such an expectation.
Since you may have missed my point, let me spell it out for you:
1: You made an argument which seems to depend on an assumption that natural language is a logic calculus. I am deeply skeptical of that assumption. You have provided no support for it. So I am inclined to suspect that you were just spewing nonsense.
2: Your argument also seemed to assume that human reason is based on the use of logic. I am deeply skeptical of that, too. You have provided no support for it.
I am well aware that many philosophers make similar assumptions. But that does not constitute evidence in support of those assumptions.
I asked: “What is the basis by which you expect me to judge the validity of your arguments?:
Mister Rickert responded:
Since you and Toronto do not expect me to evaluate the validity of your commentary, I’ll refrain from attempting to do so. I’ll just take what you two write as rhetorical commentary you don’t expect me to consider as potentially valid.
That would be consistent since you have refused for months to validate the premises used to build your worldview.
As other readers have probably noticed, you have slipped back into “escape mode”.
You make it seem as if we are somehow retreating from the argument so you can claim a reason to run away yourself.
That was a really childish thing to do when the rest of us are behaving as adults.
Why would I attempt to validate something I’ve repeatedly stated cannot be validated, but rather must be assumed axiomatically?
I have no idea whatyou’re talking about. You and Mr. Rickert flatly state that you are not expecting me to evaluate your posts for validity.
Since that is the case, as I said, I will no longer attempt to evaluate them for validity, or respond to them as if you are trying to make valid arguments.
How is that “childish” or “retreating” from the debate? It’s only putting it in the proper perspective after you and Mr. Rickert corrected my misapprehension that you were attempting to produce valid arguments, one way or another, about the subject at hand.
Hi everybody! As is unsurprising to me, Neil Rickert & Toronto have a pretty good grasp of the meaning of my posts, whereas WJM is far off track… (oh, and for future reference: I am female).
I’ll address mostly his first response after my last post, because anything that follows from him after that is based on all his misunderstandings and misinterpretations he presents therein:
It is quite clear that you don’t even begin to understand what feedback and reinforcement processes are if you think that the examples of these processes operating in non-human organisms that accomplish and arbit information acquisition, translation and use are a *non-sequitur*.
I have already pointed out that my description does not contain *the self as some kind of arbiting agent that can supervene over the process*. But then, I’m used to you not reading what I write.
Yeah. The point you missed here is that I am not arguing for the acquisition and processing of sensory information being a *belief system*. I am simply describing how sensory systems work, in which cases and in relation to WHAT they are what in our language is called *reliable*. You are trying to turn this description, bizarrely, into a *belief system*, which it is not. This seems to be abundantly clear to everybody else participating in this discussion, except for you.
This sounds rather gibberish to me. What you seem to be saying is: If I see, e.g. a cup, and recognize it as a cup (according to what I have learned the word *cup* to refer to), then I am making an axiomatic assumption. Wow. I have no idea what you could possibly mean by this. But then, of course, *axiomatic assumption* probably means something in your vocabulary that I could never dream of. I am getting used to that.
I already clarified and formalized, twice, in great detail, what I mean. Do you practice selective reading?
Let me repeat:
Living things (humans, flatworms, amoebae, daffodils) have sensory systems that receive and process information from the environment. This information is translated into reactions, some of them behavioral. Living things that receive information through their sensory systems that does not allow them to react in a certain manner do not survive and reproduce as well as their conspecifics whose sensory systems DO allow them to receive information that enables them to react in this certain manner. Because of the fitness effect of this manner of reaction, we call that manner *beneficial* or *desirable*. And we call the sensory system that delivers information that results in beneficial behavior *reliable*. The sensory systems continue receiving information, including information on the effects of the reactions. Some of this information comes from the organism itself (e.g. pain). Those organisms whose sensory systems again allow them to react in a certain manner to this information (e.g. avoidance of the specific behavioral reaction to the initial information, i.e. negative reinforcement) survive and reproduce better than their conspecifics that are unable to react in this manner. Again, for the same reason, we call this manner of reaction *beneficial*, and the associated sensory system *reliable*. And we call the class of information, i.e. experience, that leads to positive reinforcement *desirable*, and the class of experience that leads to negative reinforcement *undesirable*.
Uhm, so, you want the biochemical, biophysical, anatomical, and physiological details? Is that what you are asking for? Why? (I can, of course, gather up this information and present it here; I just wonder what it will help you understand?)
Uhm, the processes we summarize by the term *mind* are a component of the information processing pathway. I thought that was pretty obvious from my description.
I agree. Good thing I never said that. You don’t seem to understand the concept of generalization very well.
Wow. This is so bizarre and so far from anything I actually said that I find it hard to comment on this at all. There is no *maxim* or *belief system* or *axiomatic assumption* contained in any of my statements. Read the summary of my description of information reception and processing again, then you can answer all those bizarre questions yourself. I am clearly defining my use of the terms *reliable* and *desirable* therein.
I didn’t say you claimed to know X to be true; I clearly said that *you assume that you are privileged, over people that disagree with you, to know X to be true*
1) what makes you think that *what kind of outcomes your belief system generates* is the arbiting principle by which I judge belief systems? I described the reliable generation of desired outcomes as the result of feedback and reinforcement processes operating in information reception and processing systems of living organisms. Nothing more, nothing less.
2) I am judging your argumentative premise (which now has apparently become your entire belief system, which is fine by me) by its internal consistency. According to YOU, this argument of yours is an entirely theoretical, logical argument. Thus, I am investigating the argument on that basis: its internal logical coherence. You have been insisting, up until this point, that you are NOT interested in investigating its consequences on practical outcomes, but that you are ONLY interested in its internal, logical consistence and rationality. That’s exactly why I have investigated it in that manner and come to the conclusion that it is NOT internally consistent and coherent.
3) Where exactly logic belongs within the conglomerate of cognitive processes has no bearing on the outcome of this investigation. You are, again, claiming that logic is a separate entity from experiential results. We have been over this before. I have clearly described earlier, in last consequence without counterargument from you, that logic is derived from experience.
No. Because logic is not an axiomatic premise. See above. And even IF we take logic to be an axiomatic premise, your argument is still incoherent and irrational according to those very rules of logic, and still doesn’t succeed (the argument I am addressing is about moral statements being self-evident, not about logic being self-evident).
Of course. Because that’s how you WANTED to discuss these views: under purely logical considerations.
And the rest are just variations on the theme…
First, the funny part.
Read the following.
So you don’t have to produce valid arguments, but we do?
Now to the serious part.
We make arguments.
1) What **you** do with them after we make them is not as important as our making them, so that readers of this blog can see how bad your arguments are.
2) The fact that you have such a hard time refuting our comments is proof that they are very valid arguments.
Let’s look at it this way, Toronto (and Mr. Rickert, if he so chooses); when I’m reading your comments here, how should I process and/or evalluate them? Please advise me.
Should I process them as if you are attempting to show, in a meaningful and/or methodical way, how my ideas or conclusions are erroneous? If so, according to what basis, principle, model, or other commodity should I be evaluating your attempt? Should I be using logic? Emotion? Flip a coin? Should I pray for an answer?
It seems to me that are making a claim that something about my argument is wrong. Is that a correct assessment? If so, then you are arguing they are wrong according to what means of evaluation or comparison? You must be evaluating my argument according to some model, principle, system or other commodity in order for you to think they are “wrong”, so please tell me what you are using to reach the conclusion my argument, inferences, conclusions or ideas are “wrong”, so that I may employ that same thing to better understand your criticism.
Or, should I process your comments as if you are just being mischievious and are not really making an effort to present a meaningful argument?
Should I process them as if you are just writing random commentary that may or may not make any sense, just stream of consciousness material, whatever occurs to you, you write?
When I write a prpopsition and an argument and reach a conclusion, and attempt to defend that conclusion, I expect others to examine my argument logically, and to make their case against it logically (employing whatever evidence might be avialable if appropriate). When you claim that I am in error in some way, again – how should I to process what you written?
You say you don’t expect me to use any particular means of evaluation when I examine your challenges to my argument; so, leaving your “expectations” out, in order to best understand, process and evaluate your commentary/argument, please advise me on what system, model, view or commodity you use in order to formulate your criticisms.
WJM seems to think that my description of how sensory systems work is accurately summarized by his homecooked concept of *feedback loop information generating system*, and he further seems to think that this constitutes my worldview. He is, as is obvious to anybody else here but him, wrong. But I really don’t know how to make myself anymore clear than I already repeatedly did.
Maybe this would help: you seem to think that my description of information reception and processing in living organisms is wrong. Why don’t you point out where you think it is wrong and what would be the correct description instead?
1) Read our comments.
2) Reply to them, **** based on your understanding of what you have read ****.
Regardless of your bizarre concept of *FLS* which has rather little in common with anything I actually described, I don’t need to appeal to any *universal principle* in order to argue that your premise is logically incoherent and irrational. The only thing I need is mutual agreement with you on the definition of the terms coherent and rational. The ONLY thing that needs to be binding to enable us to come to conclusions that we both understand and agree on are the definitions we use. But, of course, that’s probably the reason why you keep evading the use of ANY clear definition for anything here.
When you said this:
…you already implicitly agreed to my use of the word rational; but you will probably backpedal because this would result in your agreement to my conclusion that, according to this definition of the word *rational*, you and I agree that your premise IS irrational. So all I can do is ask for YOUR definition of the word, and probably be met by silence, as usual.
I didn’t say or claim it is wrong. I was only making the case of what would result if it was right.
Perhaps you can clarify by answering a few questions:
Is the “I” anything other than an accumulated part of the feedback loop process? Is what a human calls “reason” or “logic” both a product and part of the system? Does logic exist outside of that system?
Let’s put this in perspective. That I am not expecting you to validate my posts is simply an observation that bring a strong prior commitment to completely unwarranted beliefs. So I have no expecation of being able to persuade you to budge from that prior commitment.
The particular issue where I commented on validation, was where my main purpose was to question some of your prior commitments. Since the particular case is one that has not yet been settled by scientific research, of course I cannot prove that you are wrong. So I was only attempting to bring to your attention the fact that you cannot prove that you are right and that there is disagreement with your claim.
How totally boorish. We put a lot of effort into presenting our case, and you simply state that you will dismiss them out of hand.
My reply, based on my understanding of what I have read, and giving you a best interpretation, is that you are just being mischievious.
Then please answer the question: how should I evaluate your posts? By what commodity, system, principle, or set of values should I attempt to assess the validity of what you write?
I did exactly that. I pointed out the assumptions that your argument depended on, and I questioned those assumptions. You have not disagreed that your argument depended on those assumptions. And you have not provided any support at all for those assumptions.
It is up to you where you take it from there.
Yes, this might look to you like a game of burden tennis. Nevertheless, the ball is still in your court.
I didn’t say that you claim it to be wrong. I said that you seem to think it is wrong. Do you think that my description of information reception and processing in living organisms is wrong, or do you not?
If you DO think it is wrong, please be specific as to where you think it is wrong, and what would be the correct description instead?
If you DON’T think it is wrong, most of your ongoing argumentation on this point seems moot.
So, if you and I agree that the “rational” means “wins 2 out of 3 coinflips”, and we flip a coin 3 times and I win twice, that would make my argument rational?
No, I have asked you the rules of the game repeatedly, and you refuse to inform me. What rules are you playing by? How is the game played? Is the game being arbited by logic, or something else? If something else, what?
My best take on this, is that your position in this debate is so unsupportable that you have started to attack our credibility.
I had been assuming that you were an ordinary human with an ordinary ability to communicate. However, it now seems that you are a mindless mechanical robot, something along the lines of Eliza.
Yes, obviously. But equally obviously, neither of us implicitly or explicitly agreed to that definition of rational. Is that the definition you propose to use?
The only rules I am following are to be honest and to attempt to explain my position as clearly as possible.
If it is your view that arguments should only be conducted in strict logic, then please post all future messages in FOPC (First Order Predicate Calculus). You can provide accompanying natural language definitions of the symbols used in that logic, where needed.
Personally, and consistent with my view that natural language is not a logic calculus, I doubt that FOPC is sufficiently expressive for the topics we have been discussing. But please do try to prove me wrong on this.
I would too, actually – sensory systems in plants are a fascinating study subject, but regrettably not my field of expertise;
here is a nice review article (not specifically addressing daffodils, but about light signal perception in plants in general, so definitely relevant to daffodils 😉 )
http://www.imamu.edu.sa/topics/IT/IT%206/Phytochromes%20and%20light%20signal%20perception%20by%20plants%20an%20emerging%20synthesis.pdf
It’s a good starting point to search the literature!
If nothing else, this thread has been a good illustration of why the “magisteria” can’t overlap. Only one of them has anything to do at all with reality.
Which one is that?
Madbat,
I asked you:
So, if you and I agree that the “rational” means “wins 2 out of 3 coinflips”, and we flip a coin 3 times and I win twice, that would make my argument rational?
To which you answered:
Yes, obviously. But equally obviously, neither of us implicitly or explicitly agreed to that definition of rational. Is that the definition you propose to use?
I have another question to help clear this up; if I have the above definition of a rational beleif (wins 2 out of 3 coinflips), and all of my beliefs won 2 out of 3 coinflips (including some that directly contradict each other) then my perspective that all of my beliefs are rationally coherent and consistent is accurate?
So, it’s your position that all ordinary humans with ordinary means of communication identify, interpret, process, evaluate, and extrapolate information (IOW, think) pretty just like you do, and any who do not think pretty much just like you do are not ordinary humans?
You realize I hope that you have used two different definitions of “rational” in one sentence.
Your first use of the term is the new “2 out of 3 coin flips” and then you conclude by re-defining “rational” as reasonable again.
The last part of your sentence with the new definition should be, “…that all of my beliefs are “2 out of 3 coin flips” coherent and consistent is accurate?”
No, I didn’t. I supplied one definition, and both uses of the term “rational” refer to it.
Just to clarify then, the second use means, “…that all of my beliefs are “wins 2 out of 3 coin flips” coherent…”
It means that (in our hypothetical scenario here) all of my beliefs were accepted by a system of 2 out of 3 coin flips. If I had a belief that was not, my belief system would not be rationally coherent and consistent as per the assumed definition of “rational”, which is “2 out of 3 coin flips”.
So, if that is my definition of rational, and all of my beliefs met that criteria, I am justified in saying that I have a rationally consistent and coherent belief system.
Right?
William J Murray,
“Which one is that?”
🙂
In all honesty, William, you’ve made one of the most thorough and imapssioned attempts I’ve seen to provide some kind of credibility for your version of a Magisterium. But what you’ve shown is that the supernatural can’t even get out of the starting gate. Even in your limited argument regarding design, you’ve been able to come up with nothing but questionable premises, which you can’t even begin to discuss the validity of. Even if you never go beyond “If X, then Y”, at some point you’re going to have to defend X. And that’s the point where solipsism catches up with you.
Please don’t pretend to read my mind. You are no good at it.
I doubt that there is any simple “one model fits all” account of how people communicate, reason, etc.
Here’s what linguist Jacques Guy posted on usenet in 2000:
That’s as accurate description of language as I have seen.
And, honestly, we should try to stop this talk about how “people process information.” The use of that expression is a pox on the language. A CPA might be processing information when auditing the books. But ordinary thinking by ordinary people is not processing information. It might well be using information, but that’s not the same thing at all. Processing information is what mindless mechanical machines (for example computers) do. It has at most a superficial resemblance to what people do when thinking.
If by “rationally consistent” you mean, “wins 2 out of 3 coin flips consistent and coherent belief system”, then yes you are right.
If you mean a “reasonable and coherent belief system”, then no, you are wrong.
The ultimate secret of language is this: language is absurd, illogical. If it were not, it would not work.
I appreciate this – it puts attempts to converse/debate with you in a very helpful context.
Great! Then, by how I define “rational” (not to be confused with the “2 out of 3” hypothetical definition), atheistic and materialist worldviews cannot be rationally consistent and coherent, and I have made that case conclusively to any rational person – as I define and apply that term.
I’m glad that’s settled.
You’re misunderstanding of defining a term is just as bad as your misunderstanding of “feedback loop” was.
Let’s take a closer look at what I was explaining to you.
If we define rational as “red”, that’s what it means when we use it.
For example, “That ball is rational”, means the ball is red.
If I say, “That ball is red”, it means the ball is rational.
I cannot say, “It is rational to use the blue ball instead of the red ball”, because rational is defined as only one thing, and that is “red”.
You used a form of rational twice in one sentence with different meanings, once as “wins two out of three coin flips” and then again as an equivalent to “reasonably” in your phrase, “rationally coherent”.
If you only had one definition, then simply clarify it for me by agreeing that you meant, “two out of three coin flips coherent” when you used the phrase, “rationally coherent”.
This should take you one sentence in a reply comment.
Did you mean, “two out of three coin flips coherent” when you used the phrase, “rationally coherent”?
You used a form of rational twice in one sentence with different meanings,
No, I didn’t. Already covered.
You have summed that up very well.
I have no idea what you’re talking about, or how it even remotely addresses anything I’ve said.
Yes, that’s what I already said I meant when I used the term. And “2 out of 3 coin flips consistent”.
Where was I arguing about the supernatural? Can you direct me there?
No, no, no.
You used the the term, “rationally” consistent which I replaced with “2 out of 3 coin flips” consistent.
It was I who replaced “rational” with “2 out of 3 coin flips”.
The “new” term “rational”, no longer describes a **logical** conclusion, our new definition of “rational” is instead, **statistical**, i.e. “2 out of 3”.
The whole sense of your argument now supports a “statistically” based conclusion, not one based on logic or reason.
Your worldview is now acceptable only by virtue of the number of coin tosses that go your way.
That was the whole point of asking you whether you really did consistently use the new definition of rational in a “statistical” sense.
Now, did you use our new term the same way in both instances, as a statistical term?
If you were consistent, your worldview is no longer “reasonable” or logical.
William J Murray,
We have to do better at terminology as I see you defining your terms less strictly than we do.
If Elizabeth has a chance, maybe she could set up a thread which really just contains definitions that we could add to or modify.
These would include definitions from your side that you could contribute so that we can understand what you mean when you use a certain term.
I agree with everything Toronto said on this one, but want to add some points nevertheless.
WJM:
1) how come you are hardly ever answering any questions other people ask you, but just stack other questions on top of them instead? I answered your question, so how about answering mine for a change: DO YOU PROPOSE to use *wins 2 out of 3 coin flips* as the definition for *rational*? IS THIS how you have been using the word *rational* in your statements and arguments?
2) answering your second question: in the scenario you propose, your beliefs are winning 2 out of 3 coin flips. That’s all. Whether *your perspective that all of your beliefs are winning 2 out of 3 coin flips coherent and consistent is accurate* is a nonsensical question. I have no idea what this sentence could possibly mean.
LOL. How unsurprising.