Here’s some personal correspondence between Liz and me. I presume that she checks posts before allowing publication, so if this is inappropriate I claim innocence.

Dear Liz,

As you know, I have great respect for you, even admiration, but I suggest the following.

You wrote:

The reason I get exercised about ID is that I do think, in simple scientific terms, that it is fallacious. Not because there couldn’t have been an ID, nor because science demonstrates that there wasn’t/isn’t one, but because the inference is, IMO, fallacious.

I respond:

The reason I get exercised about the proposed creative power of the Darwinian mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection is that I do think, in simple scientific terms, that it is fallacious. Not because this mechanism couldn’t possibly have produced all that it is credited with, but because evidence, logic, and simple probability calculations demonstrate that this proposition is fallacious.

Thus, it seems to me, we are separated by an immense chasm over which there is no bridge.

Gil

Let’s face it, the ID versus materialism debate has profound scientific, philosophical, theological, and even ethical implications, which is why passions run so high.

Someone is wrong and someone is right. I just want to know the truth.

The ‘here’ in the first para refers to Secular Cafe, from which this is reposted.

In a number of threads, here and in other places, I’ve seen discussions – sometimes more than a little vituperative – concerning the value or otherwise of anecdotal evidence.

To start with my current position on it before commenting further.

I think that anecdotal evidence is evidence, but with three little caveats.

It is often, IMV, poor evidence, it is sometimes evidence of something other than what the anecdote purports to be evidence of, and it is rather infrequently later confirmed by later observations which have physical rather than anecdotal evidence behind them.

Having got that out of the way, an in-exhaustive list to identify the sort of alleged phenomena in which anecdotal evidence raises its head, in no particular order but as they spring to mind, with a few exceptions which I am anxious to include.

Ghosts, the effectiveness of clairvoyance, the effectiveness of astrology, the effect (or otherwise) of the full moon on madness,  hospital admissions et al, sightings of monsters on various lakes, UFO sightings, alien abductions, the power of prayer, what may broadly be called religious or spiritual experiences, unusual and hard or impossible to replicate physical phenomena.

For all of these, and others, I’d see it as important to keep a few things in mind.

Continue reading →

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.

Continue reading →

While I tend to see materialism, or any ism really, as misguided attempts to to translate the epic poem of reality into a language of limits, the universe to an Upanishad, the unknown and unexpected cuisine of eternity into bite sized morsels of processed food by-product. Ultimately, I think isms, including materialism narrow the minds of the porters stuck with the baggage. Like a person forced to wear a hat two sizes too small, like a fundamentalist’s child taught to feel shame at the first whiff of curiosity about something potentially interesting, isms discourage freestyle boogie on the cranial dance floor. They attempt to definitively answer the important question, “Why?”*. At least, that is my general attitude. I can and occasionally do trot out tome lubricant for my neurons in order to formulate a logical support for the idea, but I just ran across a printed copy of this paper in a file folder which accidentally traveled with me this week. Continue reading →

Questions about truth, free will, logic have been raised in another thread.  To help clarify the discussion, let’s separate those from the “necessary premise” discussion.

Here’s an example of the argument being raised:

True statements can only be expected to exist, and we can only expect to be able to deliberately discern them, if we assume the universe is governed by logic (necssarily rationally ordered) and if we assume for ourselves the libertarian free will causative capacity to discern them.

This seems a rather strange claim, given then many people believe that our best and most reliable true statements are those coming from science, and based on describing our world in terms physical causation.  Moreover, science is often considered to provide our best examples rationality and logical reasoning.

Continue reading →

In another thread, WJM has frequently made arguments similar to this:

As I have said repeatedly, premises that support one’s arguments are only necessary if one wishes to develop a rationally coherent worldview. One is always, of course, free to believe whatever they wish – rationally justifiable or not.

Several of the other participants in the discussion have found such statements to be unsatisfying.  This post is intended as a place where we might hope that WJM will fill in some of the gaps.

Continue reading →

In another thread, WJM writes:

Also, when I say I must accept such a prioris in order to even hope to deliberately establish a rational worldview, that means that without such premises, reason (logic) itself breaks down into nonsense.

WJM is laying out the case for rationalism.  Typically, rationalism is described as assuming innate knowledge.  However, some instead assume a priori knowledge.  Thanks to WJM, I now have an inkling on what might be intended by “a priori knowledge.”

The opposing philosophical position is that of empiricism, that knowledge comes through the senses.  Most of those posting here (self included) seem to be empiricists, while WJM is clearly standing for some version of rationalism.

This is intended as a stub topic, to allow comments specifically addressing the rationalism vs. empiricism debate.

is on a debate tour of Britain.  Apparently Polly Toynbee pulled out of debating him.  I heard on Uncommon Descent that a replacement had been found. (I’d emailed WLC to volunteer myself! – but I guess it has to be Somebody.)

I’m starting this thread to house any comments about the tour and the debate.

Nearly ten years ago, on the 15th September, 2001, I read this piece in the Guardian, by Richard Dawkins.

I was a theist then, a catholic, in fact, by conversion, in my early twenties, having been baptized in the Episcopal Church of Scotland, sung at matins every Sunday until from age 8 to 11, sent to a Quaker boarding school, where I was devout, if rebellious, and became a Friend, later being confirmed at a High Church Anglican church in Devon, and finally, having married a catholic, feeling I had “come home” to the catholic church.

Continue reading →