Joined: Dec. 2007
|Quote (Zachriel @ Sep. 26 2012,09:30)|
|vjtorley: Are crows capable of reasoning about hidden causal agents? Five reasons for skepticism|
First. Crows can't reason because they "are unable to explain the basis of their judgments".
Second. Crows can't reason because they can't "justify their claims in the court of public opinion, and if they cannot do so, they are rightly ignored."
Third. Crows can't reason about causation because causation "is quite a sophisticated concept".
Fourth. Crows can't reason because vjtorley is confused about causation.
Fifth. One cannot help wondering what would happen if vjtorley actually took the time and effort to observe crows?
May I politely suggest that you really shouldn’t accuse someone with a Ph.D. in philosophy of not understanding the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.
Yeah, that sheepskin makes your thinking golden. Just ask Dr. Dr. Dembski.
Link if you want to bother.
ETA: Dembski and Torley are both notoriously carpless. Post carp, ergo prompter carp.
Edited by CeilingCat on Sep. 27 2012,06:30
...after reviewing the arguments, Iâ€™m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODEâ€™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