RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2028
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2011,04:55   

Oh, all right.  Here's his "reasoning":
Quote
I’ll let you figure out the percentage, but here’s the link. Islam conquered and then lost Spain and left behind a highly educated, philosophical position of God’s absolute power. Let’s call that nominalism. Nominalism emphasized ideology over induction. Contrast with the neo-Platonism of Augustine, and you’ll start to spot the differences. During the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation you had this playing out in philosophy: Augustinian Reformers versus Aristotelian nominalists. Darwin’s exposure to Atheism at the tender age of 16 exposed him to nominalism and the raw power of ideology, which he massaged for 30 years or so to make it palatable to a British Victorian society. It was still ideology but cleverly packaged as induction. Darwin’s real genius lay in marketing, no matter what you may have read otherwise.

Is that clear?  Then here's more:
Quote
The impending collapse of Islam is both a breakdown of authoritarian structure and ideology. The modern Muslim looks around and values what he sees (prosperity, smaller families, job mobility) over what he hears (Imam talking about eternal punishment for not having kids, etc). He is choosing induction over nominalism, ID over Darwinism.

In summary,  
Quote
It’s not always clear which is ideology and which is induction, and part of Darwin’s genius was selling evolution as induction–which it isn’t. But as Imre Lakatos argues, you can spot the difference between the two in the manner in which they handle exceptions and ad hoc hypotheses. Which comes back to ID being the recognition that not only is Design recognizable, but it is also the opposite of nominalism–it is interactive.

I think that makes it pretty clear.

And all this in a thread on the dreaded Demographic Collapse which turns out to be only having one or two children instead of the traditional seven.

Only on UD.

--------------
...after reviewing the arguments, I’m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODE’s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%.  --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

  
  10669 replies since Aug. 31 2011,21:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (356) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]