Zachriel
Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
kairosfocus | Quote | In short, we are NOT merely abstractly “postulating a designer” but reliably abductively inferring from FSCI to design and may then similarly infer from design to designer.
...
–> So, provisonally but confidently, we infer from design to agency as the most factually adequate explanation of design. (Those who would overturn this inference, need to provide observable cases of design that do not trace to agency as the underlying cause. Genetic Algorithms and the like, don’t count, for very obvious reasons tracing to the source of algorithms, the artificial languages and source code used to write them in machine readable form, and the mechanical means of their implementation.) |
No, kairosfocus. Not if you want your claim to have scientific validity. All you have done is come up with a hypothesis based on an analogy or perhaps an example. Now, you must treat your claim as a hypothesis, deduce empirical implications, and search for evidence. The most direct implication of design is the existence of a designer (and its characteristics) and a mechanism of implementing the design (and the marks it left behind).
kairosfocus | Quote | | PPS: This inference chain: FSCI –> Design –> Agent action pattern of reasoning also resolves the common, “science stopper” objection. |
No, it doesn't. You have reached your desired conclusion and don't feel it worth further investigation or skeptical inquiry. The scientific method is not an end-point, but a process of investigation.
--------------
You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.
|
