Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
That’s not circular thinking on my part. That’s an inability to understand my perspective on your part.
Well, considering that you claim tp have invented your god and your perspective, it’s not a great shock when others can’t inhabit your mind.
Consider for a moment that Your private one-off existence is rather outside the mainstream. So if your goal is to communicate rather than to play word games, you need to drop your shields and tell us what you believe.
Rather than waiting for us to guess and then tell us we are wrong.
I’ve been thinking a lot about this “inability to comprehend” that often plagues such debates, and usually turns into accusations of deceit or willful ignorance, and how to find a belief or view to frame that problem in a more productive way than my “biological automaton” view.
I think it might be a better way to think about it is to see it as two entirely different gestalts that, for the most part, cannot be defined, explained, evidenced, or argued through or around.
When IDer’s and anti-IDers use certain terms, they mean entirely different things on a level (IMO) beyond the capacity of any other set of words, which one may use to define or explain the first term (like will, choice, chance, nature, intelligence, etc.), to bridge. Entirely different things are “obvious” to the different gestalts; they process data and information from fundamentally different conceptualizations of self/objective relationship and what information, at a fundamental level, represents.
Case in point: libertarian free will. In my view, the concept of libertarian free will is obviously valid, and obviously necessary for what, to me, are obvious reasons. But, to others, libertarian free will is obviously incoherent and obviously unnecessary. Another case in point: morality. IMO, these core concepts are profoundly different between the two gestalts in question – so profoundly different that virtually no attempt to understand the other point of view yields positive results and generally ends up with one side painting the other with rhetoric, motive-mongering and character assassination.
Since apparently my “biological automaton” perspective is found to be offensive by some of those I enjoy debating, I’m changing my conditional belief to: many people are of a fundamentally different gestalt than I, which renders some areas of communication immune to meaningful concept-sharing, not because one side “lacks” a commodity the other side has, but rather because they both have an existential quality to their “beingness” where some concepts are fundamentally different from each other and, for the most part, cannot be translated into the other gestalt.
So I’m retiring the “biological automaton” belief. I think the “gestalt differential” will be a more productive and useful view for me, and less annoying to some others.
I’ve not only said what I believe, I’ve also explained how I come to beliefs and why.
Other than the fact that many of us reflexively respond to posts, you haven’t given us any reason to take you seriously.
I mean, I can see a need to respond to Behe, Dembski, Axe, and to posters like gpuccio, and even KF. But I can’t see what difference it would make if you were right or wrong.
How would my life be different?
You have often mentioned “libetarian free will.” I haven’t a clue as to what that expression means to you. In debates of free will in other places, people explain themselves. You don’t. So I shall take “libertarian free will” as an empty phrase that you like to toss around, but that has no actual meaning.
Since I don’t know anything about you, how could I possibly answer that question? It is up to each individual to assess information and make their own judgments on if it is meaningful or useful to them.
Thank you for clearing that up.
Henceforth I shall take you as believing nothing, as being an empty vessel. For, if you have explained your beliefs, then that is the only conclusion that I can come to.
Wait a minute. I thought you believed what you wanted, not what the evidenced suggests? Why then suggest “It is up to each individual to assess information and make their own judgments on if it is meaningful or useful to them”?
William J. Murray,
No, you have NOT been thinking, William; you have been word-gaming. You continue to word-game.
You have an incredibly naive “understanding” of the asymmetry of the situation, William. You don’t appear to have even a high school education. You can’t word-game that away.
Many of us here understand ID/creationism FAR better than you do; in fact FAR better than most followers of ID/creationism. We have read their “works;” you and most of your cohorts have not, and cannot. Furthermore, many of us know in great detail the socio/political history of ID/creationism; you and your cohorts do not, and will not.
Even further, many of us know in great detail the real science; you and your cohorts do not and will not.
The asymmetry becomes starker when it comes to being able to compare the assertions of ID/creationist leaders and their followers with the real science that is out there. We can make valid comparisons; you and your cohorts can not because you know neither the ID/creationist claims nor the real science.
You can’t read Dembski, Marks, Abel, or any of the self-proclaimed “gurus” of ID/creationism, or comprehend what their writings assert; but we can and we have, right here on this site.
Go look at the threads where we have dissected Dembski & Marks, Abel, Sewell, and others. Know this; you can’t comprehend what went on there. You can’t comprehend simple facts of science at even the high school level; you can’t comprehend the egregious errors and misrepresentations of science made by your dear leaders. You can’t and you won’t because it means you have to work through the details; and horrors of horrors, you might actually discover that ID/creationism is a pseudoscience right to its very core. You rationalize your ignorance as a choice; but we know that your choice is to avoid confronting what you don’t want to hear.
So don’t try to puff yourself up and pretend you are some kind of equal, William; you simply are not. You are a kid floundering around trying to sound erudite and crafty with “philosophical” pretzel bending; however, all you are demonstrating is that you are a sucker for pseudo-philosophy and sectarian word-gaming every conversation into an endless labyrinth over the meanings of the meanings of the meanings of meanings.
The fact that you spend all your time on the Internet playing these word games rather than actually going out and learning something tells us everything we need to know about you and your attitudes. You are boring; and you have no intention of learning anything except how to become more proficient at playing word games. It’s your sectarian heritage, William. ID/creationism insures you will remain an idiot.
Blunt, but fair I think.
Were William to attempt to calculate FSCO/I as he claims that he can (rather he claims that it is easily calculable and therefore he should be able to do so) he would also discover the same. And this is why his claim remains just that, a mere claim with nothing to back it up.
Somewhere I got the impression you had written a book (or more).
Surely you have some understanding of the need to communicate ideas.
I have no problem communicating my ideas. What is not my responsibility is the fact that many people are incapable of understanding those ideas – not because they are not intelligent enough, but simply because their gestalt is incongruent with the conceptual framework necessary to understand them.
For example, my core concept of god is not even outside the mainstream of thousands of years of philosophical thought – although I’ve stripped off what I consider to be non-essential aspects of God of the various religions. Yet, for some reason, that concept of God seems to be very difficult for many anti-IDists to respond to without adding in a lot of other characteristics that are irrelevant to my arguments. It seems their minds insist that my perspective of god match up with their concept of what they have argued against for some time as a matter of habit.
The same is true of morality. Consider the arguments that I raise are essentially hypothetical, in terms of deductions from hypothetical premises accepted arguendo. Inevitably, those in opposition argue as if I’ve made a claim of fact and demand I back it up, or that I am being evasive or “playing games” because I won’t tell them what is moral and what is what and where my list of morality comes from – all completely irrelevant to the argument I am actually making.
Or consider the idea of evidence. Often those of a different gestalt will claim that there is no evidence for god, when in my gestalt there is an over-abundance of evidence for a god – of some sort; testimonial, anecdotal, even physical. But, in the oppositional gestalt, none of that is valid evidence, while in mine, it is undeniably valid.
Indeed, one can see this easily in the idea of intelligent design. Under my gestalt, ID is so obviously true it is a trivial assertion, and denial of it appears to be madness. Under the oppositional gestalt, it is trivially false, and those that support it are either mad, stupid, or deceitful.
It really is fascinating to watch as people struggle with trying to organize how to view others and what they say, and how often – on both sides – it leads to the conclusion that others are deceitful or suffering from madness or stupidity. It’s like a battle for control of how reality will be perceived at a fundamental level – and, thinking about it, that’s probably a pretty good concept of what is going on.
ID vs Darwinism is a battle of two different gestalts that experience and conceptually organize reality in two completely different ways.
But what do you mean by “ID”? Nobody at UD seems to know, and there are lots of versions out there (common descent fine with Behe, not so much Dembski, etc). What do you mean by ID?
What specifically required “Intelligent Design” from an “Intelligent Designer”?
Calculating FSCO/I for, say, this comment and the one it is replying to and then doing the same for a few DNA sequences would go a long way to changing how I perceive your claims.
Will you do so? Apparently the definitions and methods are readily available, according to a certain W.J.M anyway.
“I have no problem communicating my ideas” – Its like a man sending mail to the wrong house.
See, that’s the very point. None of this is problematical whatsoever to the ID gestalt; you asking “what do you mean by ID” is, from our perspective, like Bill Clinton asking what the meaning of “is”, is. IOW, from our perspective, it’s trivially obvious what we mean by it:
Some phenomena bear signifiers, patterns or other characteristics which are only currently known to be produced by foresight and planning, and which are not currently known to be produced by any other cause. These signifiers, patterns or characteristics are addressed, in one way or another, as some form of organized, complex, and functionally specified collection of parts/information. The heart of ID is developing a rigorous means of identifying the difference which is, in many cases, trivially identifiable and true. IOW, formalizing a mathematical model that arbits the difference between a battleship and a pile of rock, even if we had never seen anything like a battleship before.
There are an infinite number of ways to say basically that same thing, and different ID advocates use different explanatory techniques, and different methods, using occasionally different terms to find such an arbiting model. That many different IDists have various views about it, and use different evidences, models and tacts, terms and phrases in their research is not any different from different evolutionary biologists making competing or complimentary claims about the history of evolution or how best to model and describe it.
Richardthughes said:
Exactly. The people at that house have no idea what I’m talking about.
and you think you’ve been understood. So what constitutes ‘communicating’, that thing you have no problem with?
The problem for this version of ID is that no one has yet provided operational definitions for the terms you are using such that they can be objectively measured by independent observers.
So is the version of ID you support the same as that mentioned by Dembski in his Specification paper? That is, do you agree with him that “By contrast, to employ specified complexity to infer design is to take the view that objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, can exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause.”?
The difference is that evolutionary biologists have rigorous definitions for their terms and are working with the same underlying objective, empirical evidence. No ID proponent has produced any such thing.
If you disagree, please present that evidence.
William,
Did you miss this request? Care to comment?
Rember that? It was the second half of the comment I made.
And you’ll no doubt continue to claim that this mystery quantity FSCO/I can be calculated and therefore ID is science but come up with one reason or another, perfectly valid reasons to the ID gestalt I’m sure, but it’ll remain a mystery. Simply a sciency sounding cherry for the ID cake.
A fig leaf, if you will, to convince some subset of IDers that ID has solid science behind it. It seems to be the real thing, but it’s just more cargo cult science and I have to wonder if you are saying what you are saying with a straight face. Does your inability to calculate what you say can be calculated not raise any warning bells?
I think a good number of people understand ID just fine, but it adds nothing to the business of science.
Science is about finding regularities in nature, not about assigning animistic spirit causes to things not yet understood.
It is, perhaps, a difference of worldview.
Not on virtually any of the essential principles or commodities under discussion. Those things, I think, go to the core of the gestalt difference. Other things are not related, and can be understood – but those are usually relatively uninteresting things, as far as the significant items usually up for discussion.
So do you have any problem communicating your ideas?
I think some are missing the point. Under William’s current gestalt,he is incapable of believing other than what he currently believes. He cannot accept the reasoning behind opposing beliefs, his conceptual framework doesn’t allow it.
It may be that, should it become beneficial to William to believe otherwise, he may adopt a different gestalt
If you are convinced that goddidit, then ID must indeed be trivially obvious.
I beg to differ, William. I mean, I know where you are coming from and all (it’s basic pedagogical theory), but it just doesn’t wash. Even if you were correct in saying that the communication problem is not that what you are saying doesn’t make sense, but that we do not have the conceptual framework to understand it, it would still be your communication problem. If I have to teach a class of eight-year-old’s calculus, and fail, then that’s my problem not theirs. And in fact, I think it’s perfectly possible to teach a class of eight-year-olds calculus – indeed I’ve done it. But what you have to do first is to start from where they are at.
However, I don’t even accept your premise. It’s just possible that your idea is entirely sensible but so alien to our way of thinking that we are incapable of understanding it. But there is another possibility: that your idea is not as sensible as you think it is, and the reason you can’t unpack it in a form in which it can be generally understood is that there are problems with it. It may sound convincing to those who share your conclusions – but exposed to the queries of those who do not, a priori, share your conclusions – it may reveal flaws. If you let it.
I’m not saying that is certainly the case. But you should at least consider that it may be. I have often thought I had an argument that made self-consistent and reasonable sense, attempted to communicate it, failed, tried to make it even clearer – and revealed its inner flaws to myself. In fact one of the reasons I love teaching (and blogging for that matter!) is that in trying to explain things to others, I find out where the flaws are in my explanation.
But be that as it may: my main point is that if you find yourself saying to yourself “I am communicating, but my listeners are not understanding” that should be a huge red flag that your ideas need re-examining. And if you don’t do this, you risk painting yourself into an inescapable corner, whereby any dissent is interpreted as failure to understand, and your ideas are immunised against rigorous analysis. The same happens with conspiracy theories – once you get into a loop whereby all infirming evidence can be dismissed as fabrication or cover-up, and all consilient opposing opinion as evidence of the extent of the conspiracy.
I’m giving you credit for a pretty stripped-down god. But I suggest that what still doesn’t make sense is this business of “necessary consequences”.
So I can understand why people are loading it up with Last Judgment baggage – calling it Karma looks a bit cosmetic from the other side of the river.
In that case you need to make your argument clearer. See above.
It’s valid but largely subjective, and therefore not easily testable. And the ID “evidence” isn’t valid, for reasons we’ve frequently given, and which you admirably concede you don’t have the skillset to dispute.
You forget that you don’t know the math or the science. What is “obvious” is not always true. That’s why science is useful.
It’s not an “oppositional gestalt” – it’s an entire methodology by which we evaluate the same methodology as is invoked by ID proponents. And find it wanting.
Look, if all IDists said was: “it looks designed to us, and also we have subjective anecdotal experience which you don’t have, and that supports our views” – fine.
But they don’t. They say “we do science like you, and our science says you are wrong”. Well, no. If ID proponents want to make a scientific argument, then they need to make one that passes scientific muster. And it doesn’t.
It may pass muster by some other criteria, using other kinds of evidence that science doesn’t deal with (the subjective, the anecdotal) and such evidence should not be dismissed.
But those who live by science die by science, and Dembski, Axe, Behe, Gauger, Meyer, Luskin – they all mount scientific evidence, and those scientific arguments fail.
On purely scientific grounds.
It really is fascinating to watch as people struggle with trying to organize how to view others and what they say, and how often – on both sides – it leads to the conclusion that others are deceitful or suffering from madness or stupidity.It’s like a battle for control of how reality will be perceived at a fundamental level – and, thinking about it, that’s probably a pretty good concept of what is going on.
ID vs Darwinism is a battle of two different gestalts that experience and conceptually organize reality in two completely different ways.
Perhaps I should take that as an admission that neither you, nor other ID proponents, have any comprehension of the complexities of language and of meaning.
You really don’t get it? Basically, you’re entire explanation for how we should approach understanding your claims is that we should already know what you are claiming. Truly profound and instructive William…Wow!
My standard of “what to believe” is “because I wish to”. How does the gestalt view not wash, according to that standard?
Do you think I’m trying to convince you, and so by your standard, it doesn’t wash? No, I’m not.
Do you think I’m claiming that the gestalt view is true, or correct? Or most likely? And so, it bears the burden of some kind of “rigorous analysis” against which it wouldn’t “wash?” No, I’m not. I don’t claim any of my beliefs to be true. Do you remember that?
Do you remember what I claim my beliefs (and thus, my gestalt perspective) to be? It appears that, once again, you do not, because your entire post is apparently written from a perspective on beliefs that is irreconcilable with my perspective on beliefs – how and why I adopt them, and what they mean to me. Otherwise, you’d see that I cannot possibly “paint myself into a corner” when it comes to beliefs, because I can adopt or suspend any belief at will, regardless of evidence or argument. And, you’d see how irrelevant your reference to “rigorous analysis” would be.
I certainly do not care if my beliefs hold up to rigorous analysis – I believe whatever I wish. My beliefs cannot confine me because I owe them no allegiance nor am I emotionally committed to them. They serve me, not vice versa.
Some people have trouble understanding these ideas. Others do not. Some people seem to be entirely impervious to conceptualizing some of these views (I don’t use “my” here, because there are plenty of similar conceptualizations). Some people flat out say they cannot conceive of libertarian free will, or believing whatever one wishes to believe.
My goal with this particular perspective was – as I said – finding a way to frame the parties involved – myself included – so that I react more positively and constructively.
Or so you choose to believe…
Thanks for making that clear.
If you don’t take yourself seriously, I guess there is no reason for anybody else to take you seriously.
William J. Murray,
That will never happen unless you are confronted with a good dose of reality for some extended period of time. There is nothing that produces mutual understanding and agreement better than an intense dose of reality that can take away your life and the lives of others having the same experience.
When people cannot distinguish between battleship parts and atoms and molecules, there is reason to suspect they are suffering from some kind of delusional thinking if not outright insanity.
When ID/creationist “gurus” with PhDs in mathematics cannot perform the basic skills of a high school physics/chemistry student and check units when plugging things into equations – and spends over 11 years of his life arguing with experts that tell him he is doing things wrong – what are we supposed to assume about the mental competence of that PhD?
When one of the Wizards of ID writes long, contorted screeds with nearly all references to himself making exactly the same evidence-free assertions in his other screeds; and when he sets up an “institute” in his home and refers to it as the funding agency for his “work,” what are we to think? What are we to think of this same Wizard of ID churning out dozens of papers that serve as references and attempting to generate the appearance of an active, ongoing area of research?
What are we to think of decades of quote-mining on the part of ID/creationists in which they blatantly portray working scientists as asserting something exactly the opposite of what was evident in the entire context from which these quotes were mined?
What are we to think of all the ID/creationists attempts at publication hijacking, in which ID/creationists distort the findings of science to their followers?
I am talking about actual, verifiable activities on the part of ID/creationists, William; activities that continue to this very day. It has been going on for something like fifty years now.
When you can compare solid, objectively observable behavior and assertions that conflict with solid, objectively observable reality; and you find solid and objectively observable differences, what are we to think, William? What are we to think when they are called out on it but they repeat the behavior again and again over a period of fifty years?
Is reality whatever you wish to believe? Is that what you think? Can you leap tall buildings with a single bound? Can you stand naked in front of a speeding train and not be killed? Can you stick your bare hand into molten iron for several minutes and not be burned? Can you make New York City go away by simply denying its existence?
You appear to think that reality is whatever you wish to believe. What universe do you live in, William? Have you never experienced any consequences for your actions? Have you ever experienced pain? Have you ever been injured? Did anybody ever die in your presence? Have you ever been in a situation from which you did not expect to emerge alive? What would you do if a category 5 tornado was bearing down on you?
Do you live in a glass bottle somewhere? No germs, no responsibilities, no demands from an external reality? Who feeds you? Do you ever go to the bathroom? Do you breathe air? Do you have to eat? Do you need any of that stuff?
Are you a solipsist? If so, is it possible for a solipsist to commit suicide? Can you starve yourself to death? If you are a solipsist, have you tried? What happened?
Is there a computer in front of you, William? If so, do you know where that computer came from?
By any chance, do you happen to be majoring in sectarian apologetics at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty “University?” Are you getting grade points for your posts here?
I agree with Neil Rickert.
Then I think you are confusing predictive models with normative models. If what you say here is true (and it seems perfectly reasonable to me – normative models are a good thing), then why do you advocate Intelligent Design? Merely because you think it is a good thing to think true? Or because you think it is a better predictive model than the evolutionist model?
If the former, then fine, but then you are not in a position to critique “evolution” or “materialism” except on the grounds as beliefs, they do not serve you (personally) as well as your own, or possibly that you do not find them self-consistent. But that’s not what you do. I frequently read posts of yours at UD, in which you criticise evolution qua science not qua normative belief system.
It seems to me that you are trying to have your cake and eat it!
I haven’t seen anyone say either of those things here, though I could have missed it.
Re libertarian free will: I can certainly conceive it, but what I belatedly realised is that it doesn’t make any sense – cause-free will would necessarily be uninformed free will, which might be free, but would cease to be will. If that is the view you are referring to, we can talk about that – but don’t mistake denying the possibility of married bachelors for simply being unable to conceive of such a thing. We are all too capable of conceiving of things that turn out to be incoherent (perpetual motion machines that do work, for instance).
As for “believing what one wishes to believe” – I don’t suppose there is a single person here who thinks that is not possible. Many regret that it is so universally true.
You have no problem trying to communicate your ideas, but you are woefully bad at communicating your ideas.
You are as Mike described you. People comprehend you vacuous and ignorant ideas just fine.
I think you’re confusing an argument for a personally held position. Why/how I hold any particular position is irrelevant to any arguments I might put forth for a position, based on what I know about it.
As far as ID argumentation is concerned, we all have limitations to our knowledge; we are all susceptible to misunderstanding things; we are all prone to bias. None of us have perfect knowledge about any subject, nor can any of us perfectly interpret it. Thus, we all make the best arguments we can, pro or con, on any given subject we choose to engage in. You either engage your opponent’s argument, or you do not. Why anyone makes such an argument is irrelevant to the argument.
No, I don’t think you ever have read such a post of mine at UD or anywhere else where I criticize evolution on the basis of the science involved. I also reject your categorization of “normative” for my ID arguments until you explain your usage of it in this case.
No, it wouldn’t. Information, influence, etc. is not taken sufficient cause. It might be necessary, but in libertarian free will, it is not sufficient.
Also, Liz, are you blithely unaware of the personal invective, character smearing and innuendo going on in this thread? I’m afraid I’m going to have to retract my earlier statement that you do a good job with the guano system.
Good point, William. I don’t tend to patrol this thread as vigorously as others (and I’m a bit spotty with it anyway), and I apologise. I’ve moved a couple of posts, and will take the opportunity to remind everyone that the rules apply throughout the site.
remind us again of your thoughts on censorship, William.
My arguments are not hinged upon whether or not the research in any particular paper, the data, etc. are valid, and so saying that “I don’t know the math or the science” can be nothing but a pejorative statement; my arguments don’t require the math or the science.
My perspective about the gestalt is not an argument that this **is** the defining difference between IDists and anti-IDists; it’s a useful tool for my personal use. I said something about it here because of the push back I got about the whole “biological automaton” concept – to state that I had changed it to what I had hoped would be a less problematical outlook. It wasn’t a claim of fact; it has nothing to do with the “science’ or “math” involved, or how or why other IDists argue what they argue, and it has nothing to do with any of the other arguments I’ve made about ID, morality, free will or other such concepts.
However, I will also say that I do not primarily judge posts on the rudeness of the words – in my view there is no obvious distinction between saying that someone is stupid, or lacks maturity, and in saying that they lack the gestalt to comprehend a certain meaning.
The relevant rule is this:
I understand that the topic here is “capacity to understand”. That means that everyone needs to be particularly aware of maintaining respect for others capacity while we are discussing this topic.
Perhaps I will write a post on this – I guess it’s sort of my field 🙂
No, I’m not a solipsist, and you are applying your concept of what “belief” means here, not mine. My beliefs are not held as statements about reality, but are perspectives I adopt for my own purposes – to help me be a good person, and to help me enjoy life.
I don’t ever hold beliefs that contradict my actual experience. For instance, I won’t believe that I’m not looking at a computer monitor right now. I also won’t believe that I do not exist. I won’t believe that big, heavy objects or bullets can pass through my body. My experience contradicts those beliefs, and I always choose to believe that which doesn’t directly conflict actual experience.
I don’t know what reality is beyond my experience, but I certainly don’t claim it doesn’t exist outside of my experience. All I can do is base my views on what I experience, but I can choose how to interpret that experience.
The reason I make an argument is generally because I find the argument persuasive! It’s only “irrelevant” to the argument if we are barristers in court, or an a debating society, where you have to make the best of the brief you’ve got.
I’m using “normative” in to mean what I took you to mean when you said you choose your beliefs to “serve me, not vice versa”. I’d call a normative belief something like “belief in the goodness of human nature”. It may not be an objectively true belief but may nonetheless useful belief to hold – possibly even partially self-fulfilling. A predictive “belief” (scare quotes intentional) however, is a model that can be tested objectively i.e. by independent agents, and, if supported, held to be at least some kind of approximation to reality. I find the “belief” that organisms evolved to have great predictive power. However, scientific methodology is designed to exclude as far as we can any “self-fulfilling” property of a predictive “belief” – having a hypothesis should not in itself increase its chances of being supported by data. If it does, there’s something wrong with the methodology.
This is still incoherent IMO – if the outcome of a willed action is only partly dependent on information, then the remainder is necessarily uninformed. With which I would agree (that there is a stochastic element to decision-making). But having a stochastic element doesn’t make a decision “willed” though it may make it “free”. Explain what the willed-but-uninformed part is 🙂
You’ve cited science. I can’t remember where or who – it was Dembski, or maybe Behe. And “you don’t know the science” is no more, or less, pejorative IMO than “you don’t have the conceptual framework”.
I will allow both 🙂
OK.
Since it is my view (for my own reactive benefit) that everyone has a different gestalt, which is like a total conceptual framework, that filters out or is incapable of processing certain core, conflicting concepts from fundamentally different gestalts (like a firmware sort of confirmation bias), I think it is a profound and obvious difference between that view and calling someone “stupid” or “immature”. It would be more akin to saying that there are cultural difference so profound that we cannot understand each other in regards to certain fundamental concepts that rely on an ubringing in that culture as a member of that culture.
That makes us equals – just of different cultural (gestalt) orientations/backgrounds. Surely we can agree that we cannot understand – on their own terms – certain variances of perspective such variants of cultural gestalt would produce?
Whereas, calling someone stupid or immature is nothing but invective intended to belittle the capacity of the other person to make any argument whatsoever in the eyes of anyone involved in the debate?
Well, I will draw the distinction as I think, aware that the line is fuzzy, and what is intended is not always what is received.
So, William, in your view is there no objective way to discriminate between “gestalts” on the basis of value?
Because I cite a paper or refer to scientific research doesn’t mean I was making a scientific argument based on the scientific merits. Most often I refer to those papers, such as the math papers by Dembski or the work of Douglas Axe in arguments where others claim that IDists publish no research, or in support of arguments I’m making that accept arguendo that their conclusions are valid. I’ve never, to my knowledge, engaged in a debate that their conclusions are in fact valid.
But that is where the train usually goes off the rails; I make arguments that are logical in nature based arguendo on [edit: or simply employing as examples] the conclusions of that work, get challenged that no one is doing such research, refer to Axe’s or Abel’s research or to Dembski’s work, and then I get challenged to argue their work on the merits of the math or the science. That’s not the argument I was making in the first place.
It is when knowing the science or the math has absolutely nothing to do with any argument I make, while “not having the same conceptual framework” is, IMO, something worth investigating – unless, of course, it is your view that such conceptual variances could not be at the root of some of the issues.
But, in what appears to me to be the case, you are equating a view of a gestalt/conceptual difference that makes very difficult or precludes understanding about certain core concepts as the other group holds them and uses them, with being called “stupid” or “immature” or “not knowing the science or math”.
Now that’s new, and pretty interesting. Considering the invective my gestalt concept has generated here, I think I’ve touched on a pretty significant issue. It seems that you and others here are insisting that certain concepts of yours are descriptive of reality, and that anyone who disagrees is disagreeing with what reality actually is and not with your particular interpretation of it.
And so you equate having your view of reality considered an interpretive gestalt as the same (qualitatively) as being called stupid or immature. You’re apparently making a claim on what reality actually is, and how it must be interpreted.
Very interesting.
William, no one is arguing that what you believe isn’t fine for you or that you should care whether your beliefs hold up to rigorous analysis. Your beliefs are your beliefs – do with them as you wish.
However, you keep bringing up ID as well, and ID is not just your belief. And you’ve noted such as well. You may well find ID “trivially true” given your beliefs, but as Lizzie points out, the problem is that ID is not being argued or supported according to your beliefs. It’s being argued as being scientifically rigorous. As noted William, it isn’t – or at least it has been shown not to be scientifically rigorous up to this point. Thus, from a scientific perspective, we can dismiss it. There’s no reason then to assess ID from your perspective when it’s been sold as understandable from a scientific perspective. Oddly, you don’t address this.
I’m not claiming my gestalt view to be actual, Liz. Am I having a problem communicating this? It’s a useful perspective. I’m not claiming it to be anything more. I don’t claim it to be true or actual, so your question about an “objective way to …” entirely inappropriate.