Driver
Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011
|
| Quote (REC @ Aug. 14 2014,01:19) | This is worth preserving. Quotes are Barry's, rest is RDFish's reply:
Hi Barry Arrington,
| Quote | RDFish/AIGuy says nothing can be inferred about the source of a non-repeating series of 100 prime numbers.
This assertion is, of course, absurd and is a classic example of the sometimes extreme bad faith and affected hyper-skepticism ID proponents bring to these debates. |
That is not an argument, Barry – that is simply name-calling. I don’t think you are very good at this.
| Quote | In 48 above RDFish has already admitted: “The only known source of such a series is a human source” so let us use Mr. Fish’s own admission and do a little elementary reasoning.
1. What is it about humans that makes them able to generate such a series? Obviously, it is their capacity for abstract reasoning.
2. Thus, the only known source of such a series is able to produce the series because it has the capacity for abstract reasoning.
3. We can infer, therefore, that any source that has the ability is able to do so on the same basis. |
No, you’ve made a simple logical error.
Your argument thus far is this:
1. X generates Y by virtue of Z
2. Therefore anything that generates Y must do so by virtue of Z
But of course this is fallacious, since something else could well generate Y by some other means.
| Quote | | 4. From this we infer that the best explanation for the series is that it was generated by some agent with the capacity for abstract reasoning. |
No, that is a perfectly horrible argument, Barry. One could just as well reason:
1) Humans generate electrical arcs by utilizing their knowledge of electrical engineering.
2) Thunder clouds generate electrical arcs.
3) Therefore the best explanation for how thunder clouds generate electric arcs is that they employ knowledge of electrical engineering.
Or this:
1) Humans solve mazes by using their conscious minds
2) Slime molds solve mazes
3) Therefore the best explanation for how slime molds solve mazes is that they use their conscious minds
Or this:
1) Humans solve Steiner Spanning Tree problems by using their conscious minds
2) Soap films solve Steiner Spanning Tree problems
3) Therefore the best explanation for how soap films solve mazes is that they use their conscious minds!
And so on.
| Quote | | This is an inference to best explanation. It is incumbent upon anyone who would challenge that inference to demonstrate why it is not the best explanation for the data set, which, of course, they will not be able to do. |
Actually, it is incumbent upon you to retract your fallacious argument, and to concede that I was correct in my argument: We have no warrant to assume anything at all regarding the source of a prime series other than its ability to generate the series we observe.
Cheers,
RDFish/AIGuy
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-510449 |
Barry declares victory:
| Quote | Why does an obviously intelligent and articulate person insist on spewing such blithering idiocy? It is a mystery to me. Can someone explain it to me?
Update:
The best answer so far comes from Vishnu: "I suspect it’s because he gets some sort of enjoyment by being a difficult jackass on pro-ID blogs."
Vishnu’s answer is parsimonious and accounts for the data admirably. |
RDFish:
| Quote |
Hi Barry Arrington,
I failed to notice that rather than respond to my arguments on the original thread, you decided to appeal to your echo chamber for support here.
I made a number of arguments that you failed to respond to, including the reductio examples that illustrated that just because a human being might use conscious reasoning to produce some phenomenon, that doesn’t mean that the same phenomenon will necessarily be the result of conscious reasoning when caused by something other than human action.
When I have time I’ll peruse the rest of your (and others’) comments here in this thread and explain why you’re mistaken.
In the meanwhile, the last fallacy you committed in the previous thread was argumentum ad populum, a tactic typically employed by people who are losing an argument. It of course makes no difference what other people agree or don’t agree with my arguments. What matters is that you cannot respond with valid counter-arguments.
Cheers,
RDFish/AIGuy
|
--------------
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray
[A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin
|
