Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006
|
StephenB demonstrates the power of amnesia:
Today:
| Quote | —efren ts: “To get around this problem, Stephen tries to redefine (by fiat) nature such that human intelligence is now not natural. But, until such time as you can demonstrate that human intelligence can operate independent of the ugly bag of mostly water it is associated with, you are, to repeat, assuming your conclusion.”
You are very confused. The purpose of a definition is to explain what one means and what one doesn’t mean. To say that natural causes does not mean intelligence is to define one’s terms. If only you would do that. |
*FLASH*
August:
| Quote | Diffaxial: I don’t share your fondness for arriving at conclusions that are inserted into your reasoning “by definition” at the outset – more philosophy by dictionary. The above simply reduces to “by definition…intelligence cannot be natural.”
StephenB: It should be obvious that if ID defines “natural” as law and chance, and if it defines agency as something else, then agency cannot be natural under that definition. The very first step in establishing any kind of rational discussion is to define one’s terms precisely. This may be the first time in history that one group of thinkers [ID scientists ] explained exactly they mean by their terms only to have another group of non-thinkers [Darwinists] tell him that they may not do that.
Diffaxial: From the above we extract (momentarily), “ID defines ‘natural’ as law and chance. ID defines agency as something else. Therefore agency cannot be natural.” This reduces tautologically to, “ID defines agency as non-natural”.... Do you really want to say that this is only a definition, and not a claim?
StephenB: It is a definition with respect to a hypothesis, which posits that the cause will be non-natural. The whole purpose of the design inference is to reason FROM that which is observed [the natural] TO its cause [intelligence]. By definition that cause would be something different that nature because nature, Darwin style, creates only the illusion of design AFTER the fact, whereas ID posits the reality of design BEFORE the fact.
Diffaxial: IOW, “agency is non-natural” is a claim, something posited or hypothesized by ID. Hence your definitions are not merely definitions but posits with considerable content, and to take issue with them is not to object to an attempt to attain terminological precision, but rather to the asserted content of these claims. (BTW, they fall far short of being “operational” definitions, as no operations are anywhere described).
StephenB: It is a precise definition that is both comprehensible and testable.
Diffaxial: Only claims are testable.
Your argument that your “definition” is “testable” makes my point: it is more than a definition. It is a claim. Supporting a claim (”intelligence cannot be natural”) by reciting a definition that includes within it the same claim (”by definition, intelligence cannot be natural”), accomplishes nothing; all you’ve done is repeat your claim. |
I gotta get me one of them flashy thingies.
[edits for further samples of Stephen's dreary repetitiveness]
--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace
"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington
|
