Evidence Supporting Creationism

[Ray Martinez]

Paley: "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and
Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of
Nature" (1802).

Dawkins: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
appearance of having been designed for a purpose” (1986).

I contend Dawkins does not see or accept Paley's appearances. But
those who do see Paley's appearances cannot say evidence supporting
Creationism does not exist.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

As usual, you are wrong. It would only be evidence supporting
creationism if the appearance of design were to be shown to be the
result of actual design. The mere superficial appearance of design
does not count.

Ray, if you were to see a glass full of a clear liquid that appeared
to be water, would you drink it? What if some "atheist" chemist
told you it was really Sulfuric Acid?

Which would you believe, the visual evidence, or the "atheist"
scientist?

DJT

[Mike Dworetsky]

Dawkins undoubtedly accepts that the appearance of design is real enough,
but scientists do not accept Paley's 1802 theological explanation for the
appearance. Evolution is an explanation that works without the requirement
for supernatural actions ("Goddidit").

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[John Harshman]

It's only evidence supporting creationism if creation is a better
explanation than evolution. Paley didn't evaluate the possibility of an
evolutionary explanation for anything, and so is not, strictly speaking,
relevant.

[*Hemidactylus*]

The 21st century called asking where you had gone.

[Robert Camp]

So, your paradigm-shattering argument turns out to be nothing more
than a silly No True Scotsman fallacy, i.e., "Those who accept my
rhetoric are correct, and those who don't are lying or mistaken."

Of such logic are Chick tracts made, not scholarly treatises.

[Desertphile]

So, "design" means "it just looks designed." =YAWN!= That is evidence
that humans have imaginations--- not evidence the gods exist.


--
Nemo me impune lacessit.
"I support and defend science" did not used to be fighting words.

[Frank J]

Unfortunately that "evidence" does not support *your* creationism,
that old-earth-young-bioshere "kind," *or* the young-earth "kind" that
many creationism-peddlers, and ~20% of the public, swears by. Or even
Behe's "designed ~4 billion year old ancestral cell" one.

[Robert Carnegie]

Supposing that Professor Dawkins really uttered the words
that you put next to his name, one of those words is
"appearance".

I'm confident that Professor Dawkins has seen more of
the appearance of nature than Archdeacon Paley did.

[TomS]

"On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:06:56 -0600, in article
<qv7qj89kqdrfmj7gv...@4ax.com>, Desertphile stated..."

>
>On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 15:24:09 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
><pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Paley: "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and
>> Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of
>> Nature" (1802).
>>
>> Dawkins: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
>> appearance of having been designed for a purpose” (1986).
>>
>> I contend Dawkins does not see or accept Paley's appearances. But
>> those who do see Paley's appearances cannot say evidence supporting
>> Creationism does not exist.
>
>So, "design" means "it just looks designed." =YAWN!= That is evidence
>that humans have imaginations--- not evidence the gods exist.
>
>

And saying "that's the way it happens to be" is not an account for
"how did it turn out that way", nor an explanation for "why did it
turn out that way". Paley didn't tell us what happened or when or
where it happened. While he did discuss the pattern of the vertebrate
eye, he said nothing about the far more complex pattern of similarities
and differences of the tree of life - including such things as why
vertebrates have similar eyes (even when they are blind), different
from the eyes of octopuses and the eyes of insects.


--
---Tom S.

[Burkhard]

Mhh, are you sure about this? I agree of course that that theories are
evaluated comparatively - which of two competing theories explains the
evidence better is the typical question in science.
But that is a different question from: is there any evidence to be
evaluated in the first place?

If we assume hypothetically that nobody had ever looked at a
biological structure and said: "hey, the way these different parts
work together to perform a job looks a bit like things we design",
that is, of biological structures had not even the merest resemblance
to some designed things, making the case for ID would have been more
difficult. And that means that even the mere appearance of design is
"some" evidence for ID, just extremely weak once and for which we can
easily find an alternative explanation (mainly that it is a projection
from our ability to design things into the external world, "seeing
design in things" is an evolutionary efficient way for us to make
sense of the world).

That assumes however at least some restrictions on what we call
appearance of design, something along the "interlocking parts that
perform a function with a sufficient degree of standardisation" . Ray
of course kills this argument himself when he insists that everything
is not just designed (with the utterly ad hoc exemption, apparently,
of rocks on the beach) but also appears to be designed, which renders
the term empty. In tah case (and that case only) the appearance of
design is indeed not evidence for anything, but an empty term.

[TomS]

"On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 06:41:48 -0700 (PDT), in article
<4bb14508-944c-4bf2...@h9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>, Burkhard
stated..."

I'd be interested in an investigation of what sort of thing is
designed.

Perhaps we could start with a few examples of things which are
candidates for being designed:

* Penrose triangle.
* flying carpet.
* perpetual motion machine.
* Turing machine.
* random number generator.
* crackle glaze pottery.
* aeolian harp.
* proton.
* tree of life.
* sonnet.
* pi.
* Stonehenge.

Which of those are designed, and what do they have in common?


--
---Tom S.

[eridanus]

El domingo, 10 de marzo de 2013 23:50:25 UTC, Robert Camp escribi�:

> On Mar 10, 3:24�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Paley: "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and
>
> > Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of
>
> > Nature" (1802).
>
> >
>

> > Dawkins: �Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
>
> > appearance of having been designed for a purpose� (1986).

>
> >
>
> > I contend Dawkins does not see or accept Paley's appearances. But
>
> > those who do see Paley's appearances cannot say evidence supporting
>
> > Creationism does not exist.
>
>
>
> So, your paradigm-shattering argument turns out to be nothing more
>
> than a silly No True Scotsman fallacy, i.e., "Those who accept my
>
> rhetoric are correct, and those who don't are lying or mistaken."
>
>
>
> Of such logic are Chick tracts made, not scholarly treatises.

those that not accept Ray theories are not true Scottish.

Eridanus

[John Harshman]

On 3/11/13 6:41 AM, Burkhard wrote:
> On 10 Mar, 23:00, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 3/10/13 3:24 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> Paley: "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and
>>> Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of
>>> Nature" (1802).
>>

>>> Dawkins: �Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
>>> appearance of having been designed for a purpose� (1986).

We seem to have a matter of definitions here. I would consider something
evidence for ID only if ID is a better explanation than the
alternatives. You seem to consider it evidence for ID if it's something
an IDer might use. In which case, it would be possible for the same fact
to be simultaneously evidence both for ID and for evolution. And I think
that is a poor choice of definitions. Of course, that's just my personal
preference.

Or perhaps you're saying that Paley is relevant to the degree that he
brought up matters in need of explanation, even if he didn't consider
all the relevant explanations. I wouldn't argue with that. I would only
argue that Paley's treatment of those matters is irrelevant.

[Desertphile]

Meanwhile, still no evidence Creationism is true (i.e., no gods seen
or heard from yet).

--
Nemo me impune lacessit.

"It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant,
and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." -- H. L. Menckin

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 15:24:09 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

And once more you conflate observation and explanation. You
have a serious problem understanding (relatively) simple
concepts.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[TomS]

"On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:27:23 -0600, in article
<7e1sj856q6armk6hj...@4ax.com>, Desertphile stated..."

>
>On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 19:48:57 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
><ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 03/10/2013 06:24 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > Paley: "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and
>> > Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of
>> > Nature" (1802).
>> >
>> > Dawkins: �Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
>> > appearance of having been designed for a purpose� (1986).
>> >
>> > I contend Dawkins does not see or accept Paley's appearances. But
>> > those who do see Paley's appearances cannot say evidence supporting
>> > Creationism does not exist.
>
>> The 21st century called asking where you had gone.
>
>Meanwhile, still no evidence Creationism is true (i.e., no gods seen
>or heard from yet).
>
>

What would it look like if we saw gods, what would it sound like if
we heard from gods, what would count as evidence that creationism
is true (or false)?

As far as Young Earth Creationism, there is evidence about the age
of the Earth, but YECs don't seem to accept that evidence. As for
Old Earth Creationism or Intelligent Design, the age of the Earth
is not relevant.


--
---Tom S.

[Burkhard]

On 11 Mar, 16:24, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 3/11/13 6:41 AM, Burkhard wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10 Mar, 23:00, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net>  wrote:
> >> On 3/10/13 3:24 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> >>> Paley: "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and
> >>> Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of
> >>> Nature" (1802).
>

> >>> Dawkins: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
> >>> appearance of having been designed for a purpose” (1986).

Yep, more a terminology issue, but Ray might be using my meaning
As for your analysis, the second, I supose. I use the definition of
evidence form the FRE, - , professional blindness if you like ;o)
that is relevant evidence is anything that

(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it
would be without the evidence

That the same evidence can also make a competing hypothesis more
likely, or even more likely than the hypothesis advanced,
notwithstanding. That then is an issue of evaluating the evidence, the
second step.
And yes, Paley is irrelevant

[Desertphile]

On 11 Mar 2013 10:27:11 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> "On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:27:23 -0600, in article
> <7e1sj856q6armk6hj...@4ax.com>, Desertphile stated..."
> >
> >On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 19:48:57 -0400, *Hemidactylus*
> ><ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 03/10/2013 06:24 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> > Paley: "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and
> >> > Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of
> >> > Nature" (1802).
> >> >
> >> > Dawkins: �Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
> >> > appearance of having been designed for a purpose� (1986).
> >> >
> >> > I contend Dawkins does not see or accept Paley's appearances. But
> >> > those who do see Paley's appearances cannot say evidence supporting
> >> > Creationism does not exist.
> >
> >> The 21st century called asking where you had gone.
> >
> >Meanwhile, still no evidence Creationism is true (i.e., no gods seen
> >or heard from yet).

> What would it look like if we saw gods, what would it sound like if
> we heard from gods, what would count as evidence that creationism
> is true (or false)?

Of course it is not for me, nor for anyone who lacks belief in the
gods, to state what the evidence for the gods should be; it is the job
of believers in the gods to state what evidence they have, if any.

No evidence means I refuse to accept a claim.

> As far as Young Earth Creationism, there is evidence about the age
> of the Earth, but YECs don't seem to accept that evidence. As for
> Old Earth Creationism or Intelligent Design, the age of the Earth
> is not relevant.

Creationists have not been able to demarcate btween "designed" and
"not designed:" they just "feel it." Otch, well....

[Desertphile]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:09:03 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 15:24:09 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >Paley: "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and
> >Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of
> >Nature" (1802).
> >
> >Dawkins: �Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
> >appearance of having been designed for a purpose� (1986).
> >
> >I contend Dawkins does not see or accept Paley's appearances. But
> >those who do see Paley's appearances cannot say evidence supporting
> >Creationism does not exist.

> And once more you conflate observation and explanation. You
> have a serious problem understanding (relatively) simple
> concepts.

He also conflates "is" with "ought," but that's another subject.

[Ray Martinez]

On Mar 10, 4:00�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 3/10/13 3:24 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > Paley: "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and
> > Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of
> > Nature" (1802).
>

> > Dawkins: �Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
> > appearance of having been designed for a purpose� (1986).

>
> > I contend Dawkins does not see or accept Paley's appearances. But
> > those who do see Paley's appearances cannot say evidence supporting
> > Creationism does not exist.
>
> It's only evidence supporting creationism if creation is a better
> explanation than evolution.

Based on the fact that I've been studying the histories and
philosophies of Darwinism and Creationism since 2005, I find this
reply accurate and most interesting.

> Paley didn't evaluate the possibility of an
> evolutionary explanation for anything, and so is not, strictly speaking,
> relevant.

I can provide evidence that Paley 1802 was a reply to the undeveloped
idea or concept of evolution (species originating species) as opposed
to invisible Watchmaker originating species. If true, that is, if I
could provide such evidence, would you agree that your statement above
should be re-phrased?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not
to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or
wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)" (Richard Dawkins).

Ray (species immutabilist)

[Ray Martinez]

On Mar 10, 3:36�pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 10, 4:24�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Paley: "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and
> > Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of
> > Nature" (1802).
>

> > Dawkins: �Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
> > appearance of having been designed for a purpose� (1986).

>
> > I contend Dawkins does not see or accept Paley's appearances. But
> > those who do see Paley's appearances cannot say evidence supporting
> > Creationism does not exist.
>

> As usual, you are wrong. �It would only be evidence supporting

> creationism if the appearance of design were to be shown to be the
> result of actual design.

You're saying only if said appearance could be shown to have been
caused by invisible Creator, as opposed to natural process?

> The mere superficial appearance of design
> does not count.

By saying "superficial" you're saying "when one studies living things,
past and present, one comes to discover evolution, not design."

[snip....]

We see or observe design. "Observation of design" and "appearance of
design" are synonymous. Scientific evidence supporting Creationism
exists; therefore every statement ever uttered by an Evolutionist that
says evidence supporting Creationism does not exist, is false.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

On Mar 11, 1:09 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mar 10, 4:00 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > On 3/10/13 3:24 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > Paley: "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and
> > > Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of
> > > Nature" (1802).
>

> > > Dawkins: Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
> > > appearance of having been designed for a purpose (1986).

>
> > > I contend Dawkins does not see or accept Paley's appearances. But
> > > those who do see Paley's appearances cannot say evidence supporting
> > > Creationism does not exist.
>
> > It's only evidence supporting creationism if creation is a better
> > explanation than evolution.
>
> Based on the fact that I've been studying the histories and
> philosophies of Darwinism and Creationism since 2005, I find this
> reply accurate and most interesting.

You may have indeed been studying the above, but you show no sign of
actually understanding what you have read.
You also don't seem to grasp why creationism is NOT a better
explanation.

>
> > Paley didn't evaluate the possibility of an
> > evolutionary explanation for anything, and so is not, strictly speaking,
> > relevant.
>
> I can provide evidence that Paley 1802 was a reply to the undeveloped
> idea or concept of evolution (species originating species) as opposed
> to invisible Watchmaker originating species.

Not surprisingly, you have not provided any such evidence. If you
think that appearance of design is evidence for creationism, then your
whole idea of what is evidence is suspect.

> If true, that is, if I
> could provide such evidence, would you agree that your statement above
> should be re-phrased?

Since you will never produce the "evidence", the question is
pointless.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

So, which are you, Ray?

Also, Dawkins' point was not that those who don't accept his
rhetoric are lying or mistaken, but those who reject the evidence
are.


DJT

[Ray Martinez]

On Mar 10, 3:37�pm, "Mike Dworetsky"

<platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Paley: "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and
> > Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of
> > Nature" (1802).
>

> > Dawkins: �Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
> > appearance of having been designed for a purpose� (1986).

>
> > I contend Dawkins does not see or accept Paley's appearances. But
> > those who do see Paley's appearances cannot say evidence supporting
> > Creationism does not exist.
>
> Dawkins undoubtedly accepts that the appearance of design is real enough,
> but scientists do not accept Paley's 1802 theological explanation for the

> appearance. �Evolution is an explanation that works without the requirement

> for supernatural actions ("Goddidit").

Dawkins does not accept appearance of design existing in nature
(ArchDeacon Paley's main scientific claim).

His 1986 sub-title says: "Why The Evidence Of Evolution Reveals A
Universe Without Design," which corresponds to a negative statement
concerning appearance of design (non-existence).

His famous page one quote (1986:1) refers to those who claim to see
Paley's appearances, not him or his colleagues.

Ray

[John Harshman]

On 3/11/13 11:12 AM, Burkhard wrote:
> On 11 Mar, 16:24, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 3/11/13 6:41 AM, Burkhard wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 10 Mar, 23:00, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> On 3/10/13 3:24 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>>>> Paley: "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and
>>>>> Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of
>>>>> Nature" (1802).
>>

>>>>> Dawkins: �Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
>>>>> appearance of having been designed for a purpose� (1986).

Hard to tell what meanings Ray uses. But if I had to guess, I would
think that Ray's meaning is that he's right and you're wrong, and shut up.

> As for your analysis, the second, I supose. I use the definition of
> evidence form the FRE, - , professional blindness if you like ;o)
> that is relevant evidence is anything that

FRE?

> (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it
> would be without the evidence

Good, but that's just evidence, not "evidence for", which is what we
were talking about. You will agree that "for" makes a difference.

[John Harshman]

On 3/11/13 12:09 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

Yes. And I'll rephrase it in advance. Paley didn't evaluate the
possibility of natural selection as an explanation for anything, and so
is not relevant. He evaluated the possibility of "it just happened by
chance".

[Dana Tweedy]

On Mar 11, 1:32�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 3:36 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 4:24 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Paley: "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and
> > > Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of
> > > Nature" (1802).
>

> > > Dawkins: Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
> > > appearance of having been designed for a purpose (1986).

>
> > > I contend Dawkins does not see or accept Paley's appearances. But
> > > those who do see Paley's appearances cannot say evidence supporting
> > > Creationism does not exist.
>

> > As usual, you are wrong. It would only be evidence supporting

> > creationism if the appearance of design were to be shown to be the
> > result of actual design.
>
> You're saying only if said appearance could be shown to have been
> caused by invisible Creator, as opposed to natural process?

"Invisible" is your condition. What I'm saying is not only would you
have to show a supernatural being could produce design, you would have
to show, with physical evidence, that only a supernatural being is
capable of producing the appearance of design. Any example of the
appearance of design produced by a natural process would refute that
idea.

> > The mere superficial appearance of design
> > does not count.
>
> By saying "superficial" you're saying "when one studies living things,
> past and present, one comes to discover evolution, not design."
>

No, by superficial, I mean superficial. You are seeing only an
outward resemblance.

> [snip....]
>
> We see or observe design.

No, you don't. You see what only looks like design. It is your
mistake to assume design.

>"Observation of design" and "appearance of
> design" are synonymous.

No, they are not, because "observe design" implies you know what
produced that appearance of design. it is begging the question,
because you don't know that deliberate design is how the appearance
came about.

> Scientific evidence supporting Creationism
> exists;

you are missing a step. first you have to show that the appearance of
design can be caused by a supernatural being, and you need to show
that only a supernatural being can produce the appearance of design.
Until then, you only have an assumption.

> therefore every statement ever uttered by an Evolutionist that
> says evidence supporting Creationism does not exist, is false.

If, and only if you have the evidence to support your assumption.
You can begin by producing a single example of an observed real time
supernatural creation event, with proper documentation.

Until you have done that, the observation that no evidence to support
creationism stands.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On Mar 11, 1:41�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 3:37�pm, "Mike Dworetsky"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > Paley: "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and
> > > Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of
> > > Nature" (1802).
>
> > > Dawkins: �Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
> > > appearance of having been designed for a purpose� (1986).
>
> > > I contend Dawkins does not see or accept Paley's appearances. But
> > > those who do see Paley's appearances cannot say evidence supporting
> > > Creationism does not exist.
>
> > Dawkins undoubtedly accepts that the appearance of design is real enough,
> > but scientists do not accept Paley's 1802 theological explanation for the
> > appearance. �Evolution is an explanation that works without the requirement
> > for supernatural actions ("Goddidit").
>
> Dawkins does not accept appearance of design existing in nature
> (ArchDeacon Paley's main scientific claim).
>

On the contrary. Dawkins does accept the appearance of design, but
Paley's claim was not scientific.

> His 1986 sub-title says: "Why The Evidence Of Evolution Reveals A
> Universe Without Design," which corresponds to a negative statement
> concerning appearance of design (non-existence).

What it means is that although the world looks designed, it is not
really.

>
> His famous page one quote (1986:1) refers to those who claim to see
> Paley's appearances, not him or his colleagues.
>

The quote refers to a common illusion, ie the appearance of design.
No matter how much you want to lie about Dawkins, and hid colleagues,
you are still wrong.


DJT

[Burkhard]

On 11 Mar, 20:02, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 3/11/13 11:12 AM, Burkhard wrote:
>
>
>

> > On 11 Mar, 16:24, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:

> >> On 3/11/13 6:41 AM, Burkhard wrote:
>

> >>> On 10 Mar, 23:00, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> � �wrote:

> >>> from our ability to design things into the external world, �"seeing

> >>> design in things" is an evolutionary efficient way for us to make
> >>> sense of the world).
>
> >>> That assumes however at least some restrictions on what we call
> >>> appearance of design, something along the "interlocking parts that
> >>> perform a function with a sufficient degree of standardisation" . Ray
> >>> of course kills this argument himself when he insists that everything

> >>> is not just �designed (with the utterly ad hoc exemption, apparently,

> >>> of rocks on the beach) but also appears to be designed, which renders
> >>> the term empty. In tah case (and that case only) the appearance of
> >>> design is indeed not evidence for anything, but an empty term.
>
> >> We seem to have a matter of definitions here. I would consider something
> >> evidence for ID only if ID is a better explanation than the
> >> alternatives. You seem to consider it evidence for ID if it's something
> >> an IDer might use. In which case, it would be possible for the same fact
> >> to be simultaneously evidence both for ID and for evolution. And I think
> >> that is a poor choice of definitions. Of course, that's just my personal
> >> preference.
>
> >> Or perhaps you're saying that Paley is relevant to the degree that he
> >> brought up matters in need of explanation, even if he didn't consider
> >> all the relevant explanations. I wouldn't argue with that. I would only
> >> argue that Paley's treatment of those matters is irrelevant.
>
> > Yep, more a terminology issue, but Ray might be using my meaning
>
> Hard to tell what meanings Ray uses. But if I had to guess, I would
> think that Ray's meaning is that he's right and you're wrong, and shut up.
>
> > As for your analysis, the second, I supose. I use the definition of
> > evidence form the FRE, - , professional blindness if you like ;o)
> > that is relevant evidence is anything that
>
> FRE

sorry, Federal Rules of Evidence. Not my jurisdiction, but a
definition my group has been pushing also in the UK

>
> > (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it
> > would be without the evidence
>
> Good, but that's just evidence, not "evidence for", which is what we
> were talking about. You will agree that "for" makes a difference.

Ahh, good point, I think I concede

[Ray Martinez]

On Mar 11, 1:51 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 1:41 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 3:37 pm, "Mike Dworetsky"

>
> > <platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> > > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > Paley: "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and
> > > > Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of
> > > > Nature" (1802).
>

> > > > Dawkins: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
> > > > appearance of having been designed for a purpose” (1986).

>
> > > > I contend Dawkins does not see or accept Paley's appearances. But
> > > > those who do see Paley's appearances cannot say evidence supporting
> > > > Creationism does not exist.
>
> > > Dawkins undoubtedly accepts that the appearance of design is real enough,
> > > but scientists do not accept Paley's 1802 theological explanation for the

> > > appearance.  Evolution is an explanation that works without the requirement

> > > for supernatural actions ("Goddidit").
>
> > Dawkins does not accept appearance of design existing in nature
> > (ArchDeacon Paley's main scientific claim).
>
> On the contrary.  Dawkins does accept the appearance of design, but
> Paley's claim was not scientific.
>
> > His 1986 sub-title says: "Why The Evidence Of Evolution Reveals A
> > Universe Without Design," which corresponds to a negative statement
> > concerning appearance of design (non-existence).
>
> What it means is that although the world looks designed, it is not
> really.

"....Without Design" does not admit appearance of design; for that
would be quite illogical. It's a statement that says the exact
opposite: design, period, is not seen in the world. The sub-title is
the first clue that your understanding of the page one quote is
misunderstanding.

If "....Without Design" excludes "looks designed" then what type of
phraseology is inclusive?

"....Without Design" is a negative statement corresponding to non-
existence; "looks or appears designed" is a positive statement
corresponding to existence.

> > His famous page one quote (1986:1) refers to those who claim to see
> > Paley's appearances, not him or his colleagues.
>
> The quote refers to a common illusion, ie the appearance of design.

> No matter how much you want to lie about Dawkins, and hi[s] colleagues,

> you are still wrong.
>
> DJT

Sorry, Dana, you are dead wrong. You've completely misunderstood
Dawkins. His famous page one quote does not say what you and a lot of
other people think it says. Why don't you ask John Harshman? Guess
what Dana? (he agrees with me). Both Darwin and Dawkins (and the
modern scientific community) reject ArchDeacon Paley's main scientific
claim (appearance of design in nature).

The Darwinian Revolution says teleology does not exist in nature. If
design exists in nature, then evolution is superfluous. This is why
evolution is needed: design does not exist in nature.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

Nor does it deny appearance of design. Dawkins' earlier statement
"admitted" appearance of design.

> for that
> would be quite illogical.

It might be, if taken by itself, but in context, it is very much
logical. Dawkins said first, that there is an appearance of design,
then later says there is no actual design.

> It's a statement that says the exact
> opposite: design, period, is not seen in the world.

Correct, design itself is not seen, but the semblance of design is
seen. That was Dawkins' point. Remember, Ray, you have to read
things in context, not simple take statements out of context to mean
what you want.

> The sub-title is
> the first clue that your understanding of the page one quote is
> misunderstanding.

That it is a subtitle should give you a clue it's not the whole
statement. Again, Ray you have to include the context.

>
> If "....Without Design" excludes "looks designed" then what type of
> phraseology is inclusive?

the phrase "without design" does not exclude "looks design" because
"looks design" is not design.

>
> "....Without Design" is a negative statement corresponding to non-
> existence; "looks or appears designed" is a positive statement
> corresponding to existence.

No, Ray,. I can see you are confused here. Looks designed is a
statement of an appearance, not "existence". Actual design is what
you are assuming, rather than Dawkins' statement which was part of a
larger statement. Dawkins says that life looks like it was designed,
but "design" itself wasn't the cause.

>
> > > His famous page one quote (1986:1) refers to those who claim to see
> > > Paley's appearances, not him or his colleagues.
>
> > The quote refers to a common illusion, ie the appearance of design.
> > No matter how much you want to lie about Dawkins, and hi[s] colleagues,
> > you are still wrong.
>
> > DJT
>
> Sorry, Dana, you are dead wrong.

Sorry, Ray, but your assertion does not hold water.

> You've completely misunderstood
> Dawkins.

That's what you are supposed to be showing. Instead you just assert
it.

> His famous page one quote does not say what you and a lot of
> other people think it says. Why don't you ask John Harshman?

Why should I? John isn't any more an expert of Richard Dawkins that I
am.

> Guess
> what Dana? (he agrees with me).

Frankly, I doubt that, but if so, he's wrong. I find it much more
likely you misunderstood what John said. However, even if you were
correct that John agrees with you, you are still wrong.

> Both Darwin and Dawkins (and the
> modern scientific community) reject ArchDeacon Paley's main scientific
> claim (appearance of design in nature).

I've already given you citations from both Dawkins, and Darwin stating
that appearance of design is seen in nature. I see you've ignored, or
tried to deny both.

>
> The Darwinian Revolution says teleology does not exist in nature.

If you mean there is no evidence of teleology in nature, that was true
before Darwin. I never said there was. The superficial appearance
of design is not teleology.

> If
> design exists in nature, then evolution is superfluous.

That does not follow, as God could have used evolution to carry out
his designs. But there isn't any evidence that the appearance of
design is the result of deliberate, supernatural design. It's just
an appearance.

> This is why
> evolution is needed: design does not exist in nature.

Evolution is not "needed", it's a finding from the evidence.
Whether or not you think "design" exists, evolution remains a fact.


DJT

[Friar Broccoli]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

Following your:

>Ahh, good point, I think I concede

I want to ask some more questions since Harshperson's position looks
like saying that "evidence for" points only toward the truth, which is
fine if I know the truth, but seems problematic if I don't.

>On 11 Mar, 20:02, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 3/11/13 11:12 AM, Burkhard wrote:
>>
>>
>>

>> > On 11 Mar, 16:24, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net>  wrote:

>> >> On 3/11/13 6:41 AM, Burkhard wrote:
>>

>> >>> On 10 Mar, 23:00, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net>    wrote:

>> >>>> On 3/10/13 3:24 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Paley: "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and
>> >>>>> Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of
>> >>>>> Nature" (1802).
>>

>> >>>>> Dawkins: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
>> >>>>> appearance of having been designed for a purpose” (1986).

>>
>> >>>>> I contend Dawkins does not see or accept Paley's appearances. But
>> >>>>> those who do see Paley's appearances cannot say evidence supporting
>> >>>>> Creationism does not exist.
>>
>> >>>> It's only evidence supporting creationism if creation is a better
>> >>>> explanation than evolution. Paley didn't evaluate the possibility of an
>> >>>> evolutionary explanation for anything, and so is not, strictly speaking,
>> >>>> relevant.
>>
>> >>> Mhh, are you sure about this? I agree of course that that theories are
>> >>> evaluated comparatively - which of two competing theories explains the
>> >>> evidence better is the typical question in science.
>> >>> But that is a different question from: is there any evidence to be
>> >>> evaluated in the first place?
>> >>> If we assume hypothetically that nobody had ever looked at a
>> >>> biological structure and said: "hey, the way these different parts
>> >>> work together to perform a job looks a bit like things we design",
>> >>> that is, of biological structures had not even the merest resemblance
>> >>> to some designed things, making the case for ID would have been more
>> >>> difficult. And that means that even the mere appearance of design is
>> >>> "some" evidence for ID, just extremely weak once and for which we can
>> >>> easily find an alternative explanation (mainly that it is a projection

>> >>> from our ability to design things into the external world,  "seeing

>> >>> design in things" is an evolutionary efficient way for us to make
>> >>> sense of the world).
>>
>> >>> That assumes however at least some restrictions on what we call
>> >>> appearance of design, something along the "interlocking parts that
>> >>> perform a function with a sufficient degree of standardisation" . Ray
>> >>> of course kills this argument himself when he insists that everything

>> >>> is not just  designed (with the utterly ad hoc exemption, apparently,

>> >>> of rocks on the beach) but also appears to be designed, which renders
>> >>> the term empty. In tah case (and that case only) the appearance of
>> >>> design is indeed not evidence for anything, but an empty term.

.

>> >> We seem to have a matter of definitions here. I would consider something
>> >> evidence for ID only if ID is a better explanation than the
>> >> alternatives. You seem to consider it evidence for ID if it's something
>> >> an IDer might use. In which case, it would be possible for the same fact
>> >> to be simultaneously evidence both for ID and for evolution. And I think
>> >> that is a poor choice of definitions. Of course, that's just my personal
>> >> preference.

I consider my sense that the earth is solid and fixed, combined with my
observation that the sun rises and moves across the sky as evidence
*for* (in support of) the proposition that the sun orbits the earth.

Similarly the evidence for phlogiston and the aether doesn't just go
away because our world view has changed.

>> >> Or perhaps you're saying that Paley is relevant to the degree that he
>> >> brought up matters in need of explanation, even if he didn't consider
>> >> all the relevant explanations. I wouldn't argue with that. I would only
>> >> argue that Paley's treatment of those matters is irrelevant.
>>
>> > Yep, more a terminology issue, but Ray might be using my meaning
>>
>> Hard to tell what meanings Ray uses. But if I had to guess, I would
>> think that Ray's meaning is that he's right and you're wrong, and shut up.
>>
>> > As for your analysis, the second, I supose. I use the definition of
>> > evidence form the FRE, - , professional blindness if you like ;o)
>> > that is relevant evidence is anything that
>>
>> FRE
>
>sorry, Federal Rules of Evidence. Not my jurisdiction, but a
>definition my group has been pushing also in the UK
>
>
>>
>> > (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it
>> > would be without the evidence

.

>> Good, but that's just evidence, not "evidence for", which is what we
>> were talking about. You will agree that "for" makes a difference.
>
>Ahh, good point, I think I concede

My problem with this view is that "evidence for" every scientific
proposition suddenly changes to just "evidence" every time our world
view changes.

At the very least, while we are deciding some issue, we have evidence
"for" X and Y etc. That evidence "for" does not disappear when new
evidence or lines of reasoning show that X is probably correct.

>> > That the same evidence can also make a competing hypothesis more
>> > likely, or even more likely than the hypothesis advanced,
>> > notwithstanding. That then is an issue of evaluating the evidence, the
>> > second step.
>> > And yes, Paley is irrelevant
>

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[John Harshman]

Is it evidence for X if it's also what we expect in the absence of X?
Can the same fact simultaneously be evidence for two contradictory
claims? That seems to me to be a problem. Rather than any absolutes of
evidence, I prefer the model in which hypotheses are examined in
competition. Some fact may be evidence for X if you compare X and Y, but
evidence against X if you compare X and Z. So if you compare a fixed
earth to a moving earth in the absence of Galilean relativity, your
sense of solidity is evidence for the fixed earth. If we add Galilean
relativity, it's no longer evidence for anything, since we expect the
same observation whether the earth is moving or still. If we compare
phlogiston to nothing, then I suppose there is evidence for phlogiston.
But if we compare phlogiston to oxidation, that evidence becomes
evidence against phlogiston.

It isn't a matter of knowing the truth in advance, but of comparing
hypotheses.

>>>>> Or perhaps you're saying that Paley is relevant to the degree that he
>>>>> brought up matters in need of explanation, even if he didn't consider
>>>>> all the relevant explanations. I wouldn't argue with that. I would only
>>>>> argue that Paley's treatment of those matters is irrelevant.
>>>
>>>> Yep, more a terminology issue, but Ray might be using my meaning
>>>
>>> Hard to tell what meanings Ray uses. But if I had to guess, I would
>>> think that Ray's meaning is that he's right and you're wrong, and shut up.
>>>
>>>> As for your analysis, the second, I supose. I use the definition of
>>>> evidence form the FRE, - , professional blindness if you like ;o)
>>>> that is relevant evidence is anything that
>>>
>>> FRE
>>
>> sorry, Federal Rules of Evidence. Not my jurisdiction, but a
>> definition my group has been pushing also in the UK
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it
>>>> would be without the evidence
>
> .
>
>>> Good, but that's just evidence, not "evidence for", which is what we
>>> were talking about. You will agree that "for" makes a difference.
>>
>> Ahh, good point, I think I concede
>
> My problem with this view is that "evidence for" every scientific
> proposition suddenly changes to just "evidence" every time our world
> view changes.

It isn't clear to me what you mean here. What's "just evidence"? It
seems to me that evidence must at any moment be either evidence for or
evidence against, or it isn't evidence at all. But it's certainly true
that evidence for can change to evidence against or to irrelevancy
depending on what hypotheses we choose to compare.

> At the very least, while we are deciding some issue, we have evidence
> "for" X and Y etc. That evidence "for" does not disappear when new
> evidence or lines of reasoning show that X is probably correct.

Still unclear what you're saying.

[John Harshman]

On 3/12/13 6:37 AM, Friar Broccoli wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> Following your:
>
>> Ahh, good point, I think I concede
>
> I want to ask some more questions since Harshperson's position looks
> like saying that "evidence for" points only toward the truth, which is
> fine if I know the truth, but seems problematic if I don't.

I've had further thoughts, so let me elaborate. I really think the
comparative model of science is highly useful, and evidence can only be
evidence if there is comparison. Evidence, if it is to be considered
evidence, must be for one hypothesis and against another. If it's for
both hypotheses, in that context at least it isn't evidence at all,
since evidence is what we're supposed to use to choose one alternative
over another. Change the context, i.e. change the hypotheses considered,
and you change the meaning of a fact, among evidence for, evidence
against, and irrelevant non-evidence regarding some hypothesis.

[Kermit]

On 10 Mar, 15:24, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Paley: "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and
> Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of
> Nature" (1802).
>

> Dawkins: �Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
> appearance of having been designed for a purpose� (1986).

>
> I contend Dawkins does not see or accept Paley's appearances. But
> those who do see Paley's appearances cannot say evidence supporting
> Creationism does not exist.
>

> Ray

Pareidolia is not evidence.

kermit

[John Harshman]

True, but this is by no means pareidolia. There is a definite pattern
and a real phenomenon going on. We are merely arguing about the
explanation. Specifically, whether adaptation results from natural
selection or divine intervention.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:41:34 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Mar 10, 3:37�pm, "Mike Dworetsky"

><platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > Paley: "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and
>> > Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of
>> > Nature" (1802).
>>

>> > Dawkins: �Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
>> > appearance of having been designed for a purpose� (1986).

>>
>> > I contend Dawkins does not see or accept Paley's appearances. But
>> > those who do see Paley's appearances cannot say evidence supporting
>> > Creationism does not exist.
>>
>> Dawkins undoubtedly accepts that the appearance of design is real enough,
>> but scientists do not accept Paley's 1802 theological explanation for the

>> appearance. �Evolution is an explanation that works without the requirement

>> for supernatural actions ("Goddidit").
>
>Dawkins does not accept appearance of design existing in nature
>(ArchDeacon Paley's main scientific claim).
>
>His 1986 sub-title says: "Why The Evidence Of Evolution Reveals A
>Universe Without Design," which corresponds to a negative statement
>concerning appearance of design (non-existence).

No, it does not. When are you going to get it through your
head that "design" and "appearance of design" are *not* the
same thing, and that acknowledging the second has nothing to
do with the reality (or lack of reality) of the first?

>His famous page one quote (1986:1) refers to those who claim to see
>Paley's appearances, not him or his colleagues.

No, it refers to the source of (or if you prefer, the reason
for) the appearance; the appearance is not denied.

Ray, are you *really* so logic-challenged you can't see the
difference?

[TomS]

"On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:44:35 -0700, in article
<qpOdncmeCLn...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."

What would count as evidence *against* design? "Intelligent design"
is capable of doing anything. ID not only is consistent with any
actual state of affairs, it is also consistent with things which
do not happen, and it is even consistent with things that *cannot*
happen. (Example: a Penrose triangle is intelligently designed.)
(Unless someone wants to tell us about constraints on what the
designer(s) are willing and able to do.)

How can there be any comparison, when one of the hypotheses in
the comparison is not subject to the rules of evidence?


--
---Tom S.

[Desertphile]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:09:41 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mar 10, 4:00�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > On 3/10/13 3:24 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >
> > > Paley: "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and
> > > Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of
> > > Nature" (1802).
> >

> > > Dawkins: �Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
> > > appearance of having been designed for a purpose� (1986).

> >
> > > I contend Dawkins does not see or accept Paley's appearances. But
> > > those who do see Paley's appearances cannot say evidence supporting
> > > Creationism does not exist.
> >
> > It's only evidence supporting creationism if creation is a better
> > explanation than evolution.

> Based on the fact that I've been studying the histories and
> philosophies of Darwinism and Creationism since 2005, I find this

Darwinism ceased to exist in the 1930s.

Meanwhile, still no evidence Creationism is true anywhere. Golly.

[John Harshman]

On 3/12/13 11:43 AM, TomS wrote:
> "On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:44:35 -0700, in article
> <qpOdncmeCLn...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
>>
>> On 3/12/13 6:37 AM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Following your:
>>>
>>>> Ahh, good point, I think I concede
>>>
>>> I want to ask some more questions since Harshperson's position looks
>>> like saying that "evidence for" points only toward the truth, which is
>>> fine if I know the truth, but seems problematic if I don't.
>>
>> I've had further thoughts, so let me elaborate. I really think the
>> comparative model of science is highly useful, and evidence can only be
>> evidence if there is comparison. Evidence, if it is to be considered
>> evidence, must be for one hypothesis and against another. If it's for
>> both hypotheses, in that context at least it isn't evidence at all,
>> since evidence is what we're supposed to use to choose one alternative
>> over another. Change the context, i.e. change the hypotheses considered,
>> and you change the meaning of a fact, among evidence for, evidence
>> against, and irrelevant non-evidence regarding some hypothesis.
>>
>
> What would count as evidence *against* design?

Depends on what you mean by "design". The word itself is too vague to
make a proper hypothesis.

> "Intelligent design"
> is capable of doing anything. ID not only is consistent with any
> actual state of affairs, it is also consistent with things which
> do not happen, and it is even consistent with things that *cannot*
> happen. (Example: a Penrose triangle is intelligently designed.)
> (Unless someone wants to tell us about constraints on what the
> designer(s) are willing and able to do.)

Exactly. Without constraints there is no *scientific* hypothesis.

> How can there be any comparison, when one of the hypotheses in
> the comparison is not subject to the rules of evidence?

There can't. But Occam's razor is a useful tool in such cases.

[Ray Martinez]

On Mar 12, 11:31�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:41:34 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:

>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 10, 3:37 pm, "Mike Dworetsky"
> ><platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> > Paley: "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and
> >> > Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of
> >> > Nature" (1802).
>
> >> > Dawkins: Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
> >> > appearance of having been designed for a purpose (1986).
>
> >> > I contend Dawkins does not see or accept Paley's appearances. But
> >> > those who do see Paley's appearances cannot say evidence supporting
> >> > Creationism does not exist.
>
> >> Dawkins undoubtedly accepts that the appearance of design is real enough,
> >> but scientists do not accept Paley's 1802 theological explanation for the
> >> appearance. Evolution is an explanation that works without the requirement
> >> for supernatural actions ("Goddidit").
>
> >Dawkins does not accept appearance of design existing in nature
> >(ArchDeacon Paley's main scientific claim).
>
> >His 1986 sub-title says: "Why The Evidence Of Evolution Reveals A
> >Universe Without Design," which corresponds to a negative statement
> >concerning appearance of design (non-existence).
>
> No, it does not. When are you going to get it through your
> head that "design" and "appearance of design" are *not* the
> same thing, and that acknowledging the second has nothing to
> do with the reality (or lack of reality) of the first?

Completely false, Bob, completely false!

I **ask** that you slow down and consider what I say?

"Design" and "appearance of design" are the exact same thing; your
contentions are logically invalid. No scholar would dare to even so
much as suggest otherwise. You are putting words, via your illogical
assumptions and thinking, into Dawkins's mouth and book that aint
there. The first and second, concerning **existence,** CLAIM
existence. The second ("appearance of design") is the formal Paleyan
claim based on observation (living things appear designed).
"Appearance" presupposes existence, or in this particular case a
CLAIM of existence. The next or real issue: Is said appearance genuine
or counterfeit? If appearance doesn't presuppose existence then the
real issue, whether caused directly by God or natural processes, would
not be pursued. If the appearance is caused by natural processes then
it is counterfeit----but it still exists. All I'm really saying is
that your view is logically misconceived. Please don't defend it for
the sake of ego. Go recruit an Aristotelian to come here and examine
what I just said. You'll obtain independent verification.

> >His famous page one quote (1986:1) refers to those who claim to see
> >Paley's appearances, not him or his colleagues.
>
> No, it refers to the source of (or if you prefer, the reason
> for) the appearance; the appearance is not denied.

The quote only makes sense when you understand that Dawkins is talking
to those who claim to see the appearance.

> Ray, are you *really* so logic-challenged you can't see the
> difference?

That's EXACTLY what I've said concerning your claims.

Since there is nothing complicated in what I said, you can have the
last word. I'll read your message if you so choose to respond.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

This universal denial usually signals that Ray knows he's wrong, but
can't admit it.

>
> I **ask** that you slow down and consider what I say?

As long as you consider the evidence shows you are wrong.

>
> "Design" and "appearance of design" are the exact same thing;

No, they are not. Design is an action. Appearance of design is
judgement.

> your
> contentions are logically invalid.

OH, boy, Ray and logic are like sodium and water.... they react
violently with each other.

> No scholar would dare to even so
> much as suggest otherwise.

In reality, not a single "scholar" worthy of the name would ever accept
such a bizarre assertion that you just made. If you can find a single
"scholar" who says that appearance of design, and actual design are the
same thing, I would be greatly surprised. So, here's your chance to do
that.

Find one sane person who claims that appearance of design is the same
thing as confirmed design. Can you do it?

> You are putting words, via your illogical
> assumptions and thinking, into Dawkins's mouth and book that aint
> there.

Your problem Ray is Dawkins actually said what he said. You are trying
to deny that, by asserting he didn't really mean that. You would have
to produce some evidence that Dawkins denies that an appearance of
design can be seen. Saying that it's not actually designed is not the
same as saying the appearance does not exist.

> The first and second, concerning **existence,** CLAIM
> existence.

No, saying "x is designed" is a claim to know how x came about. Saying
"x looks designed" is a mere statement about x's appearance. It says
nothing about how it actually came about.

> The second ("appearance of design") is the formal Paleyan
> claim based on observation (living things appear designed).

Paley's "claim" was that the superficial appearance of design
establishes the probability that life was designed in fact. Paley's
claim that he knew of a designer was a religious belief, not a
scientific conclusion.

> "Appearance" presupposes existence, or in this particular case a
> CLAIM of existence.

No, Ray. Appearance "presupposes" appearance, nothing else. A claim of
existence would mean one has positively identified the being involved.
Paley did not positively identify his designer, and he did not
positively demonstrate that the appearance of design came from actual
manufacture. He assumed his religious belief as an explanation for a
known phenomena. That is not science.

> The next or real issue: Is said appearance genuine
> or counterfeit?

The appearance is genuine, but the cause of that appearance is not what
you claim it was. "Counterfeit" suggests deliberate deception. The
real cause of the appearance of design is a natural process, which
produces an effect similar to what is deliberately designed.

> If appearance doesn't presuppose existence then the
> real issue, whether caused directly by God or natural processes, would
> not be pursued.

The difference is that natural processes can be studied. One may
legitimately propose testable hypotheses about what a natural process
can, or cannot do. You can then run tests to see if one's hypothesis
is supported by the evidence. They hypothesis can be then either
discarded, modified, or be confirmed.

Assuming a supernatural cause does not allow any of that. That's why
it's intellectually pointless.

> If the appearance is caused by natural processes then
> it is counterfeit----but it still exists.

No, the appearance is not counterfeit, it's just something other than
what you expected. The appearance of design still exists, even though
it's now known to be caused by natural processes.

> All I'm really saying is
> that your view is logically misconceived.

But that's not what you have been able to demonstrate. It may be what
you WANT to show, but you have failed, mostly because you don't
understand even the most simple logic.

> Please don't defend it for
> the sake of ego. Go recruit an Aristotelian to come here and examine
> what I just said. You'll obtain independent verification.

Ray, Aristotle died long ago. Anyone who is familiar with logic can
see you've piled up a huge set of illogical assumptions, and unsupported
assertion.

>
>>> His famous page one quote (1986:1) refers to those who claim to see
>>> Paley's appearances, not him or his colleagues.
>>
>> No, it refers to the source of (or if you prefer, the reason
>> for) the appearance; the appearance is not denied.
>
> The quote only makes sense when you understand that Dawkins is talking
> to those who claim to see the appearance.

That is your own twisted, paranoid assumption, Ray. There's no reason
why Dawkins would be saying one thing, and meaning another.

>
>> Ray, are you *really* so logic-challenged you can't see the
>> difference?
>
> That's EXACTLY what I've said concerning your claims.

The difference is that Bob knows logic, and you don't.

>
> Since there is nothing complicated in what I said, you can have the
> last word. I'll read your message if you so choose to respond.

This is just Ray's way of running away from a losing argument.

DJT

[Friar Broccoli]

I had a *lot* of trouble with "change the meaning of a fact". Here is
my line of reasoning to reach the same conclusion - that "evidence for"
changes with context:

There can be "evidence for" a false conclusion. The fact that the
conclusion is false may be unknown either temporarily or permanently.
If the conclusion was false how could there EVER have been any "evidence
for" that conclusion? There could not have been except as an
interpretation. Thus "evidence for" is not a fact in the world, it is
an interpretation. Since it is an interpretation it is not immutable as
is a fact, it can change from being "evidence for" to "evidence against"
in time.

Thus "evidence for" has the same ontological status as an opinion and
can change without contradiction.

However, if "evidence for" is simply a securely rooted opinion, its
value seems diminished.

[Ray Martinez]

Dana indicates that he will concede nothing, no matter what. But I
will answer for the sake of the audience.

> > "Design" and "appearance of design" are the exact same thing;
>
> No, they are not.  Design is an action.  Appearance of design is
> judgement.

Design is both a verb and a noun.

> > your
> > contentions are logically invalid.
>
> OH, boy, Ray and logic are like sodium and water.... they react
> violently with each other.
>
> > No scholar would dare to even so
> > much as suggest otherwise.
>
> In reality, not a single "scholar" worthy of the name would ever accept
> such a bizarre assertion that you just made.   If you can find a single
> "scholar" who says that appearance of design, and actual design are the
> same thing, I would be greatly surprised.   So, here's your chance to do
> that.

Dana changes the claim of fact from "design" and "appearance of
design" TO "appearance of design" and "actual design." What he doesn't
understand is that the word "design," in these context, however
"prefixed," or by itself, is claiming, by logical presupposition,
"actual design." The issue here is RUDIMENTARY logic.

In no particular order:

1. design

2. appearance of design

3. apparent design

4. actual design

5. illusion of design

6. deliberate design

When a Darwinian authority uses #3 or #5 the whole purpose is to
indicate that they reject #1 and #2 as existing in nature. When the
same uses #2, #4, and #6 the whole purpose is to indicate that they
are not talking about their rejection. When #2 is used it could,
depending on context, mean one (first sentence) or the other (second
sentence) or both sentences.

> Find one sane person who claims that appearance of design is the same
> thing as confirmed design.   Can you do it?

Claim changed from "design" and "appearance of design" TO "appearance
of design" and "confirmed design."

> > You are putting words, via your illogical
> > assumptions and thinking, into Dawkins's mouth and book that aint
> > there.
>
> Your problem Ray is Dawkins actually said what he said.  You are trying
> to deny that, by asserting he didn't really mean that.  You would have
> to produce some evidence that Dawkins denies that an appearance of
> design can be seen.    Saying that it's not actually designed is not the
> same as saying the appearance does not exist.

No where does Dawkins use the phrases "real design," "actual design,"
or any prefixed phrase. So YOU are putting words in his text that aint
there. And again, he is not contradicting his master, Darwin, who
rejected Paley's main scientific claim (appearance of design). He's
talking to those who accept Paley's appearances. When read that way it
then makes sense in the context of his sub-title.

> > The first and second, concerning **existence,** CLAIM
> > existence.
>
> No, saying "x is designed" is a claim to know how x came about.  Saying
> "x looks designed" is a mere statement about x's appearance.  It says
> nothing about how it actually came about.

Again, you've changed the conception; and we are not talking about
cause, here.

I'll finish replying ASAP....

Ray

[Harry K]

I can assure you that members of the audiance consider you and your
logic to be
an embarassment to the human race.

Harry K.

[Dana Tweedy]

I am willing to concede, as long as someone shows me to be wrong. In
this case, you are wrong, and won't admit your error.

> But I
> will answer for the sake of the audience.

You will answer what, Ray?

>
>>> "Design" and "appearance of design" are the exact same thing;
>>
>> No, they are not. Design is an action. Appearance of design is
>> judgement.
>
> Design is both a verb and a noun.

Many words can be used as both a verb, and a noun. That's not what is
being discussed here. You are assuming "design" (the noun), when the
evidence only indicates an appearance of design.

>
>>> your
>>> contentions are logically invalid.
>>
>> OH, boy, Ray and logic are like sodium and water.... they react
>> violently with each other.
>>
>>> No scholar would dare to even so
>>> much as suggest otherwise.
>>
>> In reality, not a single "scholar" worthy of the name would ever accept
>> such a bizarre assertion that you just made. If you can find a single
>> "scholar" who says that appearance of design, and actual design are the
>> same thing, I would be greatly surprised. So, here's your chance to do
>> that.
>
> Dana changes the claim of fact from "design" and "appearance of
> design" TO "appearance of design" and "actual design."

That's not a change, Ray. "Design" is only meaningful if you mean
actual design".

> What he doesn't
> understand is that the word "design," in these context, however
> "prefixed," or by itself, is claiming, by logical presupposition,
> "actual design." The issue here is RUDIMENTARY logic.

There is no "logical presupposition" here at all. You have assumed
"actual design" because it can't be demonstrated. Furthermore, you
would not know rudimentary logic if it bit you. Assuming your
conclusion is not logical, no matter how much you want it to be.

>
> In no particular order:
>
> 1. design
>
> 2. appearance of design
>
> 3. apparent design
>
> 4. actual design
>
> 5. illusion of design
>
> 6. deliberate design
>
> When a Darwinian authority uses #3 or #5 the whole purpose is to
> indicate that they reject #1 and #2 as existing in nature.

Again, Ray, this is what YOU ARE ASSUMING, not what is true. There's
no reason any "authority" would do that.

> When the
> same uses #2, #4, and #6 the whole purpose is to indicate that they
> are not talking about their rejection.

"Their rejection" is what you need to be showing, not just assuming.
I've provided plenty of evidence that scientists who study evolution do
not, by and large, reject there is an appearance of design. You keep
saying they do, but you have not provided anything to back up that
assertion.

> When #2 is used it could,
> depending on context, mean one (first sentence) or the other (second
> sentence) or both sentences.

Or, it's all your paranoia talking. Have you considered that?

>
>> Find one sane person who claims that appearance of design is the same
>> thing as confirmed design. Can you do it?
>
> Claim changed from "design" and "appearance of design" TO "appearance
> of design" and "confirmed design."

I see Ray is already trying to weasel out of the challenge. You are
trying to equate "design", and "appearance of design", when the two are
separate things. Scientists widely accept there is an appearance of
design, but that appearance is misleading, because the process that
produces that appearance is not deliberate design.

If you did not mean "confirmed design" by the term "design", your
statement is meaningless.

>
>>> You are putting words, via your illogical
>>> assumptions and thinking, into Dawkins's mouth and book that aint
>>> there.
>>
>> Your problem Ray is Dawkins actually said what he said. You are trying
>> to deny that, by asserting he didn't really mean that. You would have
>> to produce some evidence that Dawkins denies that an appearance of
>> design can be seen. Saying that it's not actually designed is not the
>> same as saying the appearance does not exist.
>
> No where does Dawkins use the phrases "real design," "actual design,"
> or any prefixed phrase.

Because he knows the difference between real design, and appearance of
design. He's stated quite clearly that nature looks like it was
designed, but is not truly designed. You are trying to take the second
part of the statement, without acknowledging the context of the first
part.

> So YOU are putting words in his text that aint
> there.

For the purpose of clarity. Here ambiguity is your ally, so I'm trying
to be specific in what I mean.

> And again, he is not contradicting his master, Darwin, who
> rejected Paley's main scientific claim (appearance of design).

First of all, I highly doubt Dawkins considers Charles Darwin to be his
"master".

Second, Darwin himself stated there was an appearance of design. I
provided the statement from Darwin where he discusses how the 'tangled
bank' looks like it was assembled, when it in fact evolved. Like
usual, you tried to ignore it.

Third, Paley's claim was not scientific, it was religious. I've
explained these three points over, and over, and you keep ignoring them.

> He's
> talking to those who accept Paley's appearances. When read that way it
> then makes sense in the context of his sub-title.

Ray, your claim can only work if you ignore the context of Dawkins'
statement. You ignore that Dawkins states plainly there is an
appearance of design, but that design is an illusion. There's no
evidence that Dawkins himself does not accept that life looks designed.
Trying to suggest that Dawkins is talking in code is just silly.

>
>>> The first and second, concerning **existence,** CLAIM
>>> existence.
>>
>> No, saying "x is designed" is a claim to know how x came about. Saying
>> "x looks designed" is a mere statement about x's appearance. It says
>> nothing about how it actually came about.
>
> Again, you've changed the conception; and we are not talking about
> cause, here.

Ray, once again, I'm trying to be clear, and you are complaining that
I'm negating your smoke screen. If you want to claim the appearance of
design as evidence for creationism, you MUST talk about cause. That is
because what produces the appearance of design is central to whether or
not that appearance is evidence of anything. It is only evidence for
creationism if, and only if that appearance was produced by an actual
designer. The superficial resemblance with design tells you nothing.

>
> I'll finish replying ASAP....

Ray runs away again....

DJT

[alias Ernest Major]

On 13/03/2013 01:00, Ray Martinez wrote:
> "Design" and "appearance of design" are the exact same thing

Do you consider that "evolution" and "appearance of evolution" are also
the exact same thing? If not, why not?

--
alias Ernest Major

[TomS]

"On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:19:36 -0700, in article
<cuqdncm8qY1...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."

I'd say that without constraints there is no hypothesis. No scientific,
historical, esthetic, legal, mathematical, ... no hypothesis whatsoever.

>
>> How can there be any comparison, when one of the hypotheses in
>> the comparison is not subject to the rules of evidence?
>
>There can't. But Occam's razor is a useful tool in such cases.
>

--
---Tom S.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Wednesday, 13 March 2013 01:00:35 UTC, Ray Martinez wrote:
> "Design" and "appearance of design" are the exact same thing;
> your contentions are logically invalid.

I disagree. The Moon is round. Therein it has the appearance
of design, a beautiful circle (very nearly a circle).
But the Moon was not designed round. It just is round.
Design means "done on purpose".

[Klaus Hellnick]

Ray, your entire argument seems to be:
1. Many things in nature, especially life forms, are complex and made of
many parts working together.
2. Many objects designed, and built, by humans are complex and made of many
parts working together.
Therefore:
3. Life forms were magically designed and created by an invisible
supernatural being.

Is this a fair summary?
Klaus

[Burkhard]

On 12 Mar, 16:44, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 3/12/13 6:37 AM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>

> > On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard<b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>

OK, I still think there are a couple of different things going on that
I would like to keep apart. As a Bayesian, you are running in open
doors with me when you say that evidence is always evaluated
comparatively. I would still want to separate the question of "what is
the evidence" from "is the evidence relevant?", "what is the
evidential weight of the evidence?" and "is the theory supported by
the evidence true?".

To some extend that's semantics, but I don't think the expressions
"irrelevant evidence" and "misleading evidence" are contradiction in
terms. For relevance and weight, the comparative approach is indeed
crucial, and as you say, here a comparative approach is crucial and
can change the status of the evidence. the example I give my students
is a DNA match of semen traces recovered from an alleged rape victim
and a suspect. For me (and in line with the normal treatment in books
such as Aitken's "Forensic Statistics", or the "hierarchy of
propositions" used by the FSS, the evidence in this case is simply the
physical object, the semen sample and the sample taken from the
suspect. From this, we get a statement submitted in evidence, that
says the two match, and gives a match probability. (sometimes we can
also call this statement the "evidence". ) Whether the evidence is
relevant, and what weight is has, then depends indeed on the different
hypothesis. If the defence hypothesis is that their client never met
the victim before, and it is a case of mistaken identity, the evidence
is highly relevant. If the defence hypothesis is that there was
intercourse, but consensual, it is close to irrelevant. If in the
first scenario, we later learn that the accused did in fact not do it,
then it is still evidence, and even relevant evidence, but in this
case relevant and factually misleading evidence. (the differences
matter when it comes to appeals)

For the same reason , if this schema is used in a historical
context, it prevents us from rewriting history, and also allows us to
make distinctions we might want to make. There is a difference between
"X adopted his position even if he had no evidence" - say because he
decided out of gut feeling, or by unthinkingly following authority,
and "X adopted his position on the basis of evidence Y" even if we
later learn that Y was misleading, or when we find that there is
another, better explanation for Y.

The other thing is that the comparative evaluation issue becomes to
some extend trivial, since the alternative can always be formulated
as negation of the proposed hypothesis. In this sense, Paley _would_
have had the required competitive proposition, even though one of them
is not of course a fully fledged theory like the ToE. The two
conditional probabilities are simply: how likely are we to find the
appearance of design of the design hypothesis is true, and how likely
are we to find the appearance of design if the design hypothesis is
false. He simply assigns a very high value to the first proposition,
and a very low one to the second proposition, in the absence of a (to
him) known mechanism that can generate the appearance of design. That
this later turns out to be wrong does not change the fact that given
his background knowledge, the assignation of comparative probabilities
was not implausible.

All this assumes of course for the sake of the argument that we
actually do observe in nature things that we otherwise observe
typically in human design/manufacturing, and that we do not observe
this always (which would make even the trivial alternative hypothesis
above as well supported by the evidence as the proposition under
discussion). We can have serious doubts on this, and indeed if it is
posisbel to formulate the idea consistently (Ray persistently fails in
this task, e.g.and I'm not sure if paley fares tha much better - at
least if he also tries to maintain that the world was ultimately
created by God, which I think we can assume in his case),

[Roger Shrubber]

Ray Martinez wrote:

> "Design" and "appearance of design" are the exact same thing; your
> contentions are logically invalid. No scholar would dare to even so
> much as suggest otherwise.

As a matter of pure logic, X and appearance of X appear to be
distinct.

To break it down,
appearances are the same as the real thing.
So appearing to be X is the same as being X.
However, the statement that the appearance of X
is the same as the same as X has the appearance
of a contradiction and so it is a contradiction
according to the premise and so the whole of
this syllogism collapses as being internally
inconsistent.

Granted, Ray will dispute that the statement
that X is the same as the appearance of X
appears to be a contradiction. I willingly
concede that it does not appear to be one to him.

So now we have that appearances differ from
observer to observer. But what is being observed
does not change from observer to observer. This
again makes it appear that appearances are distinct
from the actual thing.

But this is abstract. Let's get specific.
I've heard people look at something and say that
it looks _solid_. That seems equivalent to saying
that it has the appearance of being solid. If that's
not true that _appearance_ has a special meaning
in the context that Ray has in mind and it is different
from standard English usage. But clearly something
can look solid yet be hollow, or at least observers
can proclaim that something looks solid and it turn
out to be hollow.

All of this is consistent with the trite saying
that "appearances can be deceiving".

So I wonder what in particular it is that I've
confused about Ray's meaning about appearances that
rescues the statement quoted at the top.

[John Harshman]

I wouldn't say that. A vague and untestable, even incoherent hypothesis
is still a hypothesis.

[John Harshman]

I agree with you on the second but not the first. Perhaps the legal
definition of "evidence" is and should be different from the scientific
definition.

That may indeed be true, but times have changed. We now compare
different hypotheses than Paley did, and what was evidence then is not
evidence now. I would say that "not design" is a poorly formed
hypothesis; Paley's true alternative hypothesis was "it just happened
randomly", and we can agree that if design and randomness are compared,
the evidence favors design. We now realize, though, that there is
another relevant comparison. Unless we're creationists, that is.

> All this assumes of course for the sake of the argument that we
> actually do observe in nature things that we otherwise observe
> typically in human design/manufacturing, and that we do not observe
> this always (which would make even the trivial alternative hypothesis
> above as well supported by the evidence as the proposition under
> discussion). We can have serious doubts on this, and indeed if it is
> posisbel to formulate the idea consistently (Ray persistently fails in
> this task, e.g.and I'm not sure if paley fares tha much better - at
> least if he also tries to maintain that the world was ultimately
> created by God, which I think we can assume in his case),

Was that comma intentional, or was it supposed to be a period? I can't
tell if you were really done.

[John Harshman]

On 3/12/13 7:50 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:44:35 -0700, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/12/13 6:37 AM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Following your:
>>>
>>>> Ahh, good point, I think I concede
>>>
>>> I want to ask some more questions since Harshperson's position looks
>>> like saying that "evidence for" points only toward the truth, which is
>>> fine if I know the truth, but seems problematic if I don't.
>>
>> I've had further thoughts, so let me elaborate. I really think the
>> comparative model of science is highly useful, and evidence can only be
>> evidence if there is comparison. Evidence, if it is to be considered
>> evidence, must be for one hypothesis and against another. If it's for
>> both hypotheses, in that context at least it isn't evidence at all,
>> since evidence is what we're supposed to use to choose one alternative
>> over another. Change the context, i.e. change the hypotheses considered,
>> and you change the meaning of a fact, among evidence for, evidence
>> against, and irrelevant non-evidence regarding some hypothesis.
>
> I had a *lot* of trouble with "change the meaning of a fact".

Sorry. "Change the significance of a fact"?

> Here is
> my line of reasoning to reach the same conclusion - that "evidence for"
> changes with context:
>
> There can be "evidence for" a false conclusion. The fact that the
> conclusion is false may be unknown either temporarily or permanently.
> If the conclusion was false how could there EVER have been any "evidence
> for" that conclusion? There could not have been except as an
> interpretation. Thus "evidence for" is not a fact in the world, it is
> an interpretation. Since it is an interpretation it is not immutable as
> is a fact, it can change from being "evidence for" to "evidence against"
> in time.

I don't like that very much, but that's just me.

> Thus "evidence for" has the same ontological status as an opinion and
> can change without contradiction.
>
> However, if "evidence for" is simply a securely rooted opinion, its
> value seems diminished.

I like mine (the comparative approach) a lot better.

[Burkhard]

On 13 Mar, 12:51, Roger Shrubber <rog.shrub...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> So I wonder what in particular it is that I've
> confused about Ray's meaning about appearances that
> rescues the statement quoted at the top.

Ray simply uses a non-standard meaning of appearance, or rather, he
uses a standard meaning outside its proper grammatical context:
"At this point in the play, Laurence Olivier appeared on stage"
does indeed allow to infer that Laurence Olivier was indeed on
stage.

However, the sentence is not equivalent to
"At this point, Laurence Olivier appeared to be on stage"
which if anything implies that he is NOT, actually, on stage, it just
looks as if he is.

For some strange and unfathomable reason, Ray reads the second
sentence as if it had the grammatical from of the first, and
therefore misinterprets systematically the logic of "appears to be" -
despite all the evidence he has been given, from dictionaries to
examples of writing through the centuries.

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/12/13 6:00 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> "Design" and "appearance of design" are the exact same thing; your
> contentions are logically invalid. No scholar would dare to even so
> much as suggest otherwise.

Thank you for your uninformed opinion, but I have seen otherwise with my
own eyes.

To return to questions you have been trying to avoid:

Are arbitrariness and the appearance of arbitrariness exactly the same
thing?
Are flying saucers and the appearance of flying saucers exactly the same
thing?
Are the Wicked Witch of the West melting in water and the appearance of
the Wicked Witch of the West melting in water exactly the same thing?
(and thanks to Ernest, I'll add:)
Are evolution and the appearance of evolution exactly the same thing?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Friar Broccoli]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 07:11:07 -0700, John Harshman

My argument does not (as far as I can tell) in any way contradict your
comparative approach which I like and usually use when communicating
with creationists. I was trying to figure out how "evidence for" could
just vanish.

It has crossed my mind that "evidence for" might not be a personal
subjective state, it might be a shared social state, perhaps held within
the language or something like that. I don't know how to think about
such issues.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 05:29:52 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

When tracking this down I found:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3b3861922c2e921f

which includes:

"That means that if your fingerprint is on a knife, we can directly
infer that you handled it (but of course not whether you stabbed the
victim or removed it to give first aid). "

which looks like a case that contradicts Harshman's model where evidence
cannot support two opposing propositions here that the accused tried to
kill/save the victim.

As I recall *part* of the gorilla genome contains a completely different
type of contradictory evidence: showing that they are more closely
related to humans than chimps are. That evidence was of course
reinterpreted.

[TomS]

"On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 07:01:53 -0700, in article
<-MadnWdkwsZM...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."

Before going on with this, I want to make it clear that I do not have
any substantial dispute with what you have been arguing. It is a minor
side issue, possibly of interest only to me.

Here is an example outside of the domain of science.

Consider the infield fly rule in baseball (I don't know anything about
cricket, but maybe "leg before wicket", whatever that is, may be
something as comparable in complexity).

If I propose the "hypothesis" that "intelligent design" accounts for
the infield fly rule - I say that that "hypothesis" tells me so little
that it is an unwarranted dignity to call it a "weak hypothesis", or
an "untestable/vague/incoherent hypothesis". It isn't only science
that has standards for its hypotheses. "Intelligent design of the
infield fly rule" is not a hypothesis. Actually, of course, there
are reasons for the infield fly rule (I suppose that Wikipedia
explains why), and there were authorities who designed it. But
merely telling us that it was designed tells us so little that no
reasonable person would ever stop at saying, "the infield fly rule
was intelligently designed".

That is my justification for saying that "intelligent design (of the
infield fly rule)" is not a hypothesis.


--
---Tom S.

[Burkhard]

On 13 Mar, 15:05, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 05:29:52 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>

It seems indeed that John would not call this evidence for the murder
hypothesis, or evidence for the saving hypothesis, as long as these
are the only 2 hypothesis under consideration. In a trial setting,
they would still considered to be evidence - because their absence
would disprove _both_ accounts (maybe the suspect lied about handling
the knife to protect his wife who really did it)

But that would introduce a third hypothesis, and the evidence does
distinguish between _them_.

Which is why I think it is ultimately an issue of semantics, not
substance. However, the above example illustrates I think the
advantages of my use - it seems intuitive to call something "evidence
for" a proposition if the proposition can't be true without it. And
htis is even then the case where the propositions under actual
consideration both require this bit of evidence.

[John Harshman]

So we disagree slightly on the useful meaning of a word.

[John Harshman]

I don't think it has to be anything so complicated or subjective. It's
merely that given a comparative situation, evidence for hypothesis A in
preference to hypothesis B may become evidence for hypothesis C in
preference to hypothesis A. All that's required is that A fit the
evidence better than B, and C fit the evidence better than A. No magic
change, just a change in context.

[John Harshman]

I think you are confused. The evidence supports neither, as it doesn't
serve to distinguish them. It supports the hypothesis that you touched a
knife against the hypothesis that you were not in the area.

> As I recall *part* of the gorilla genome contains a completely different
> type of contradictory evidence: showing that they are more closely
> related to humans than chimps are. That evidence was of course
> reinterpreted.

Now there you have a genuine example of evidence for an incorrect
hypothesis, if we accept the simple alternatives that humans are closest
to chimps vs. humans are closest to gorillas. That piece of evidence,
taken alone, supports the latter. If we add information from the rest of
the genome, we find that all the evidence better supports a hypothesis
that the gene in question records its own true history but not that of
the species, probably due to lineage sorting. But the gene by itself
doesn't support lineage sorting; it can't distinguish lineage sorting
from species descent.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 18:00:35 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

This is the basis of your error. Things can appear to be
designed which are the result of natural processes. Until
you acknowledge this you will remain in error.

>; your
>contentions are logically invalid. No scholar would dare to even so
>much as suggest otherwise. You are putting words, via your illogical
>assumptions and thinking, into Dawkins's mouth and book that aint
>there. The first and second, concerning **existence,** CLAIM
>existence. The second ("appearance of design") is the formal Paleyan
>claim based on observation (living things appear designed).
>"Appearance" presupposes existence, or in this particular case a
>CLAIM of existence. The next or real issue: Is said appearance genuine
>or counterfeit? If appearance doesn't presuppose existence then the
>real issue, whether caused directly by God or natural processes, would
>not be pursued. If the appearance is caused by natural processes then
>it is counterfeit----but it still exists.

And that is exactly what everyone has told you, with your
choice of "counterfeit" equivalent to "appears to be
designed but is not designed". Whether or not *actually*
designed, the appearance remains.

> All I'm really saying is
>that your view is logically misconceived. Please don't defend it for
>the sake of ego. Go recruit an Aristotelian to come here and examine
>what I just said. You'll obtain independent verification.
>
>> >His famous page one quote (1986:1) refers to those who claim to see
>> >Paley's appearances, not him or his colleagues.
>>
>> No, it refers to the source of (or if you prefer, the reason
>> for) the appearance; the appearance is not denied.
>
>The quote only makes sense when you understand that Dawkins is talking
>to those who claim to see the appearance.

No, Dawkins is talking to those who not only "see the
appearance" but who claim the appearance is due to actual
design by a conscious designer (or in your terms, is
"real"). No one, including Dawkins, denies that some things
in nature *appear* to be designed.

>> Ray, are you *really* so logic-challenged you can't see the
>> difference?
>
>That's EXACTLY what I've said concerning your claims.

Yep. And in keeping with most of your posts, you were wrong.

>Since there is nothing complicated in what I said, you can have the
>last word. I'll read your message if you so choose to respond.

--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[James Beck]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:07:52 -0700, John Harshman

Do you really want to claim that probability is transitive?

[Kermit]

On 12 Mar, 10:59, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 3/12/13 10:53 AM, Kermit wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10 Mar, 15:24, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> �wrote:

> >> Paley: "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and
> >> Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of
> >> Nature" (1802).
>
> >> Dawkins: Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
> >> appearance of having been designed for a purpose (1986).
>
> >> I contend Dawkins does not see or accept Paley's appearances. But
> >> those who do see Paley's appearances cannot say evidence supporting
> >> Creationism does not exist.
>

> >> Ray
>
> > Pareidolia is not evidence.
>
> True, but this is by no means pareidolia. There is a definite pattern
> and a real phenomenon going on. We are merely arguing about the
> explanation. Specifically, whether adaptation results from natural
> selection or divine intervention.

Of course pareidolia responds to real perceptions; it's not
hallucination.

Part of the reason why we see a face when we look at this:
:)
is not only an accidental association of real patterns with ingrained
or inborn facial recognition skills but also cultural familiarity with
the concept. Surely such cultural conditioning strongly affects one's
tendency to see deliberate creation where there is simply the result
of *some process? Perhaps my opinion is tainted by my childhood raised
by Creationists, who often said things like "It's obviously the Hand
of God at work here."

Curious that those folks saw the Hand of god in the appearance of
human beings, but not in the clouds of a storm or the flow of water
downhill in a stream.

OK. So it's another explanatory model, just not scientific (testable,
and fits all the data).

kermit

[John Harshman]

That wasn't my intention. But it is, you know. If A is more probable
than B, and B is more probable than C, then A really is more probable
than C.

[John Harshman]

On 3/13/13 1:10 PM, Kermit wrote:
> On 12 Mar, 10:59, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 3/12/13 10:53 AM, Kermit wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 10 Mar, 15:24, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Paley: "Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and
>>>> Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of
>>>> Nature" (1802).
>>
>>>> Dawkins: Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
>>>> appearance of having been designed for a purpose (1986).
>>
>>>> I contend Dawkins does not see or accept Paley's appearances. But
>>>> those who do see Paley's appearances cannot say evidence supporting
>>>> Creationism does not exist.
>>
>>>> Ray
>>
>>> Pareidolia is not evidence.
>>
>> True, but this is by no means pareidolia. There is a definite pattern
>> and a real phenomenon going on. We are merely arguing about the
>> explanation. Specifically, whether adaptation results from natural
>> selection or divine intervention.
>
> Of course pareidolia responds to real perceptions; it's not
> hallucination.

Which isn't relevant, really. The question is whether it's really a
face. I would say that adaptation is "really a face" in a way that Jesus
in a grilled cheese sandwich is not.

> Part of the reason why we see a face when we look at this:
> :)
> is not only an accidental association of real patterns with ingrained
> or inborn facial recognition skills but also cultural familiarity with
> the concept. Surely such cultural conditioning strongly affects one's
> tendency to see deliberate creation where there is simply the result
> of *some process? Perhaps my opinion is tainted by my childhood raised
> by Creationists, who often said things like "It's obviously the Hand
> of God at work here."
>
> Curious that those folks saw the Hand of god in the appearance of
> human beings, but not in the clouds of a storm or the flow of water
> downhill in a stream.

Careful. Ray sees the hand of god in clouds and streams too.

[Ray Martinez]

No evo authority would disagree with my claims of logic.

If it were to happen, then I could, and eventually would, pounce with
the intent to embarrass.

What's occurring in this topic is a handful of non-authorities are
revealing their anti-Aristotelian thinking and ignorance.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

Can you cite even on "evo authority" who would agree with your
assertion? There is no logic in your claim. That's why you still
haven't addressed my challenge.

>
> If it were to happen, then I could, and eventually would, pounce with
> the intent to embarrass.

You would just end up embarrassing yourself, like usual.

>
> What's occurring in this topic is a handful of non-authorities are
> revealing their anti-Aristotelian thinking and ignorance.

Ray, whether or not one is an "authority", your assuming your conclusion
is not logical. You invoke Aristotle without any inkling of the logic
involved.


DJT

[Ray Martinez]

On Mar 13, 2:21�am, alias Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.ukl>
wrote:

> On 13/03/2013 01:00, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > "Design" and "appearance of design" are the exact same thing
>
> Do you consider that "evolution" and "appearance of evolution" are also
> the exact same thing? If not, why not?

Good question.

Of course both are the exact same thing. I have always said, for
example, that IF the mere concept of natural selection exists in
nature then Paley 1802 and myself are falsified. Let me borrow an idea
and terms from Dana: If a faint superficial appearance of natural
selection exists in nature Paley 1802 and myself are COMPLETELY
FALSIFIED. This is so because I have always said that if natural
selection exists in nature we are falsified.

What a handful of evos in this thread don't understand is the fact
that the words preceding natural selection, in this case, "faint
superficial appearance," are all positive in the sense of presupposing
and describing some sort of existence. Straight thinkers understand
that these descriptive terms do not jeopardize existence of the noun,
in this case, "natural selection."

Once it's admitted that X exists in nature (in this case natural
selection) then defenders have every right to say existence is just
the opposite of "faint superficial appearance." The same is true with
the existence of Y in nature (in this case design). If design exists
in nature then defenders have every right to say existence is just the
opposite of "faint superficial appearance."

At this point I only wish to be understood.

Ray

[Paul J Gans]

John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>On 3/13/13 11:25 AM, James Beck wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:07:52 -0700, John Harshman
>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

[giant snip]

>>> I don't think it has to be anything so complicated or subjective. It's
>>> merely that given a comparative situation, evidence for hypothesis A in
>>> preference to hypothesis B may become evidence for hypothesis C in
>>> preference to hypothesis A. All that's required is that A fit the
>>> evidence better than B, and C fit the evidence better than A. No magic
>>> change, just a change in context.
>>
>> Do you really want to claim that probability is transitive?
>>
>That wasn't my intention. But it is, you know. If A is more probable
>than B, and B is more probable than C, then A really is more probable
>than C.

We have to be a bit careful here. We have versions of the
children's game rock/paper/scissors as examples of the
non-transitivity of complex statements.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[alias Ernest Major]

On 13/03/2013 22:50, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2:21 am, alias Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.ukl>
> wrote:
>> On 13/03/2013 01:00, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> "Design" and "appearance of design" are the exact same thing
>>
>> Do you consider that "evolution" and "appearance of evolution" are also
>> the exact same thing? If not, why not?
>
> Good question.
>
> Of course both are the exact same thing. I have always said, for
> example, that IF the mere concept of natural selection exists in
> nature then Paley 1802 and myself are falsified. Let me borrow an idea
> and terms from Dana: If a faint superficial appearance of natural
> selection exists in nature Paley 1802 and myself are COMPLETELY
> FALSIFIED. This is so because I have always said that if natural
> selection exists in nature we are falsified.

Ok, then, according to your criteria, you are falsified. Industrial
melanism has the appearance of evolution (and of natural selection), and
you therefore conclude that it is evolution by natural selection.
Welcome to the ranks of evolutionists.

>
> What a handful of evos in this thread don't understand is the fact
> that the words preceding natural selection, in this case, "faint
> superficial appearance," are all positive in the sense of presupposing
> and describing some sort of existence. Straight thinkers understand
> that these descriptive terms do not jeopardize existence of the noun,
> in this case, "natural selection."
>
> Once it's admitted that X exists in nature (in this case natural
> selection) then defenders have every right to say existence is just
> the opposite of "faint superficial appearance." The same is true with
> the existence of Y in nature (in this case design). If design exists
> in nature then defenders have every right to say existence is just the
> opposite of "faint superficial appearance."
>
> At this point I only wish to be understood.
>
> Ray
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[John Harshman]

Complex statements != probability. That much should be clear. This isn't
difficult. Probability is a linear, numerical scale from 0 to 1. Saying
probability is transitive is like saying the greater-than relationship
for real numbers from 0 to 1 is transitive. How is this in any way
controversial, even on TO?

[Mark Isaak]

Let's consider a similar scenario which is possible to quantify. I have
three identical urns. Into each I put two marbles: black+red in one,
black+green in another, white+topaz in a third. The urns are then
switched about so I can't tell which is which.

Hypothesis A: The urn in front of me (which I just marked with an X)
contains a red marble. Initial probability of hypothesis A: 1/3.

Hypothesis B: Urn X contains a green marble. Initial probability: 1/3.

Someone reaches into X and pulls out a black ball. With that new
evidence, Hypothesis A and Hypothesis B now both have probability 1/2.
The evidence has supported both hypotheses, even though they are (given
what we know of the set-up) mutually contradictory.

(To make explicit the connection with the fingerprints on knife
scenario, black marble = fingerprints on knife; white = no fingerprints;
red = stabbed the bloke; green = pulled out the knife; topaz = was at
the pub with a dozen witnesses.)

[John Harshman]

OK, that works. But I wouldn't say that it supports both hypotheses. I
would say that it supports the combined hypothesis that there's either a
red or a green ball left in the urn.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 3/13/13 4:50 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2:21 am, alias Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.ukl>
> wrote:
>> On 13/03/2013 01:00, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> "Design" and "appearance of design" are the exact same thing
>>
>> Do you consider that "evolution" and "appearance of evolution" are also
>> the exact same thing? If not, why not?
>
> Good question.

and as usual, we get a bad answer...

>
> Of course both are the exact same thing.

No, they are not. The "look of" something is not the same as the thing
itself. Something deliberately designed can have the look of something
that came about by natural selection. One such example is a stuffed
tiger. It was deliberately designed to look like something that came
about by natural selection.

I have always said, for
> example, that IF the mere concept of natural selection exists in
> nature then Paley 1802 and myself are falsified.

As Ernest has pointed out, you seem to be admitting your claims have
been falsified. Natural selection does exist.

> Let me borrow an idea
> and terms from Dana: If a faint superficial appearance of natural
> selection exists in nature Paley 1802 and myself are COMPLETELY
> FALSIFIED.

Then you are falsified. Natural selection has been directly observed.
Game over.

> This is so because I have always said that if natural
> selection exists in nature we are falsified.

Of course, you then ignore all examples of natural selection that have
been observed.

>
> What a handful of evos in this thread don't understand is the fact
> that the words preceding natural selection, in this case, "faint
> superficial appearance," are all positive in the sense of presupposing
> and describing some sort of existence.

Ray, everyone understands what you are trying to claim, but what you are
claiming is absolute nonsense. Saying something looks a particular way
is not the same as saying it must have been produced by a particular
process.

> Straight thinkers understand
> that these descriptive terms do not jeopardize existence of the noun,
> in this case, "natural selection."

Ray, once again, you don't have any right to say what "straight
thinkers" understand. If one claims something was produced by a
particular process, you must be able to show that process exists. You
can't simply assume it exists.

If I were to claim that it looks like natural selection produced the
Empire State Building, that would not be evidence that natural selection
played a part in it's construction. I would have to show that natural
selection can produce buildings, and give some examples of buildings
that were established by natural selection.

In the same way, if you want to assert that the superficial
appearance of design was produced by a supernatural being using actual
design, you would have to show that a supernatural being is capable of
making living things. Then you'd have to show some examples of living
things that were produced by a supernatural being.

I've asked you to produce such a thing, and you first said "Of course".
Then you backpedaled so fast it left a sonic boom.

>
> Once it's admitted that X exists in nature (in this case natural
> selection) then defenders have every right to say existence is just
> the opposite of "faint superficial appearance."

Actually, what makes natural selection more than a faint superficial
appearance" is actual observation of natural selection in action. There
are plenty of examples of that in the scientific literature.

Where are there any examples of a supernatural designer producing
anything, anywhere, at any time?

> The same is true with
> the existence of Y in nature (in this case design). If design exists
> in nature then defenders have every right to say existence is just the
> opposite of "faint superficial appearance."

Not when all you have is a faint superficial appearance. That's what
you refuse to admit.

>
> At this point I only wish to be understood.

your claims are understood, but are understood to be a bunch of wishful
thinking, and illogical assumptions.


DJT

[James Beck]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:40:19 -0700, John Harshman

You're mistaken.

[James Beck]

Good for you. It is also simple to construct a non-transitive dice
game. Add all the problems in second-or-higher order stochastic
dominance where statements are true in some states but not in others.
I expect that we can come up with many counterexamples.

[Ray Martinez]

Your reply completely evades my overall argument and each point.

Your position, contrary to what you say, is not open to change.

My argument remains unaddressed, sound, and true.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

Ray, your "overall argument" is a bust. It doesn't hold up. I did not
"evade" anything. I directly, and completely addressed each point, and
showed your "arguments" were tissues.

>
> Your position, contrary to what you say, is not open to change.

My position is open to change if, and when you present evidence, or a
logically consistent argument. If you just keep repeating the same
silly, illogical, and unsupported claims you have been making, there is
no reason for me to change my position. Why would you expect a change
when you've been using the same weaksauce assertions that I've shot down
over, and over?

>
> My argument remains unaddressed, sound, and true.

You really aren't fooling anyone by that. I addressed, and shredded
your arguments. Trying to pretend that your claims are "unaddressed"
just shows how self deluded you continue to be. More evidence is that
you did not attempt to refute any of my statements above.

Face it, Ray. Your position is untenable, and you are just running away.


DJT

[Harry K]

I can only assume you are simply trolling. No sane person would
believe any of that.

Harry K

[John Harshman]

I'd just be happy if you came up with one. What do you have? You need a
case in which A is more probable than B, B is more probable than C, and
A is not more probable than C.

[John Harshman]

That may well be. But I would like to see an explanation or an example
or both.

[James Beck]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:14:26 -0700, John Harshman

You set a very low bar. Why not just google for the wiki pages on
non-transitive probability and stochastic dominance? That way you'll
learn sort of painlessly that you were mistaken and possibly open up
new vistas for yourself. Think of the excitement you'll be missing.

[Stewart Robert Hinsley]

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

[TomS]

"On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:04:05 -0700, in article
<h7mdnfVRDeM...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
>
>On 3/13/13 9:39 AM, TomS wrote:
>> "On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 07:01:53 -0700, in article
>> <-MadnWdkwsZM...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
>>>
>>> On 3/13/13 4:33 AM, TomS wrote:
>>>> "On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:19:36 -0700, in article
>>>> <cuqdncm8qY1...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/12/13 11:43 AM, TomS wrote:
>>>>>> "On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:44:35 -0700, in article
>>>>>> <qpOdncmeCLn...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/12/13 6:37 AM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Following your:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ahh, good point, I think I concede
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I want to ask some more questions since Harshperson's position looks
>>>>>>>> like saying that "evidence for" points only toward the truth, which is
>>>>>>>> fine if I know the truth, but seems problematic if I don't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've had further thoughts, so let me elaborate. I really think the
>>>>>>> comparative model of science is highly useful, and evidence can only be
>>>>>>> evidence if there is comparison. Evidence, if it is to be considered
>>>>>>> evidence, must be for one hypothesis and against another. If it's for
>>>>>>> both hypotheses, in that context at least it isn't evidence at all,
>>>>>>> since evidence is what we're supposed to use to choose one alternative
>>>>>>> over another. Change the context, i.e. change the hypotheses considered,
>>>>>>> and you change the meaning of a fact, among evidence for, evidence
>>>>>>> against, and irrelevant non-evidence regarding some hypothesis.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>

>>>>>> What would count as evidence *against* design?
>>>>>
>>>>> Depends on what you mean by "design". The word itself is too vague to
>>>>> make a proper hypothesis.
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Intelligent design"
>>>>>> is capable of doing anything. ID not only is consistent with any
>>>>>> actual state of affairs, it is also consistent with things which
>>>>>> do not happen, and it is even consistent with things that *cannot*
>>>>>> happen. (Example: a Penrose triangle is intelligently designed.)
>>>>>> (Unless someone wants to tell us about constraints on what the
>>>>>> designer(s) are willing and able to do.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly. Without constraints there is no *scientific* hypothesis.
>>>>
>>>> I'd say that without constraints there is no hypothesis. No scientific,
>>>> historical, esthetic, legal, mathematical, ... no hypothesis whatsoever.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't say that. A vague and untestable, even incoherent hypothesis
>>> is still a hypothesis.
>>>
>>
>> Before going on with this, I want to make it clear that I do not have
>> any substantial dispute with what you have been arguing. It is a minor
>> side issue, possibly of interest only to me.
>>
>> Here is an example outside of the domain of science.
>>
>> Consider the infield fly rule in baseball (I don't know anything about
>> cricket, but maybe "leg before wicket", whatever that is, may be
>> something as comparable in complexity).
>>
>> If I propose the "hypothesis" that "intelligent design" accounts for
>> the infield fly rule - I say that that "hypothesis" tells me so little
>> that it is an unwarranted dignity to call it a "weak hypothesis", or
>> an "untestable/vague/incoherent hypothesis". It isn't only science
>> that has standards for its hypotheses. "Intelligent design of the
>> infield fly rule" is not a hypothesis. Actually, of course, there
>> are reasons for the infield fly rule (I suppose that Wikipedia
>> explains why), and there were authorities who designed it. But
>> merely telling us that it was designed tells us so little that no
>> reasonable person would ever stop at saying, "the infield fly rule
>> was intelligently designed".
>>
>> That is my justification for saying that "intelligent design (of the
>> infield fly rule)" is not a hypothesis.
>
>So we disagree slightly on the useful meaning of a word.
>

I don't want to drag this out, but I can't let it end with my
leaving the appearance of disagreement, even such a small one. I
realize that it is my fault for not expressing myself more clearly,
but I agree with you. Let me try one more time.

My response was to your statement:

>>>>> Exactly. Without constraints there is no *scientific* hypothesis.

And I was trying to *agree* with you, only pushing it further to say
that there was *no* hypothesis, whether scientific or otherwise. I
suggested that unconstrained "intelligent design" did not work as a
hypothesis even in something as far from science as the game of baseball.


--
---Tom S.

[Burkhard]

On 14 Mar, 05:14, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 3/13/13 6:33 PM, James Beck wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:55:37 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> > <gan...@panix.com>  wrote:
>

> >> John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net>  wrote:

The clostes I get woudl be the well known non-transitive games, such
as Penney's coins or Efron's dice - a sort of probabilistic rock
paper scissors, but it does not really match what you describe
(because it is about the chance of winning, not the probability that
something is the case)

That "more probable than" is indeed transitive is stated as axiomatic
in two classical works of probability theory that I know, in Carnap's
classical "Logical foundations of probability", and in de Finetti's
"Foresight, It's logical laws, i's subjective sources (1937) and for
the empirical sciences, it is discussed in Harold Jeffreys's book
Scientific Inference on p. 26.

So I'm not sure what James has in mind. One of the more counter-
intuitive properties of "more probable than" is that it is not a
linear ordering.

[John Harshman]

Yes, and I disagree. Slightly. It's a hypothesis even if it doesn't work.

[John Harshman]

Painlessly is you spoon-feeding me an example.

[John Harshman]

It isn't? Then can you give me an example? I don't understand how your
last paragraph can be compatible with the previous paragraph.

[John Harshman]

There is no page on non-transitive probability. The page on stochastic
dominance doesn't mention non-transitive probability. I agree that
rock-paper-scissors is a non-transitive game, but it doesn't involve any
non-transitive probabilities. I seem to have missed the excitement anyway.

[Friar Broccoli]

.

>OK, that works. But I wouldn't say that it supports both hypotheses. I
>would say that it supports the combined hypothesis that there's either a
>red or a green ball left in the urn.

I just read this - but my initial take is that you are moving the goal
posts to support a pre-existing preferred model.

You might not "say it", but it can be said, supporting Burkhard's view
that it is an issue of semantics.

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[Friar Broccoli]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:07:52 -0700, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 3/13/13 7:49 AM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 07:11:07 -0700, John Harshman
>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/12/13 7:50 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:

>>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:44:35 -0700, John Harshman
>>>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/12/13 6:37 AM, Friar Broccoli wrote:

>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:08:52 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>

>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Following your:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ahh, good point, I think I concede
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I want to ask some more questions since Harshperson's position looks
>>>>>> like saying that "evidence for" points only toward the truth, which is
>>>>>> fine if I know the truth, but seems problematic if I don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've had further thoughts, so let me elaborate. I really think the
>>>>> comparative model of science is highly useful, and evidence can only be
>>>>> evidence if there is comparison. Evidence, if it is to be considered
>>>>> evidence, must be for one hypothesis and against another. If it's for
>>>>> both hypotheses, in that context at least it isn't evidence at all,
>>>>> since evidence is what we're supposed to use to choose one alternative
>>>>> over another. Change the context, i.e. change the hypotheses considered,
>>>>> and you change the meaning of a fact, among evidence for, evidence
>>>>> against, and irrelevant non-evidence regarding some hypothesis.
>>>>

.

>I don't think it has to be anything so complicated or subjective. It's
>merely that given a comparative situation, evidence for hypothesis A in
>preference to hypothesis B may become evidence for hypothesis C in
>preference to hypothesis A. All that's required is that A fit the
>evidence better than B, and C fit the evidence better than A. No magic
>change, just a change in context.

Magic change?

All I am saying (assuming a binary choice between: things are
facts_in_the_world [like the nested hierarchy] and ideas [like
opinions]) is that facts_in_the_world cannot change (only our knowledge
of them) while ideas can change in response to new information,
consequently evidence must belong in the idea category.

You may not want to think about this for some reason, but it seems
straight forward and unavoidable.

Irrelevant aside: I am being driven to this type of thinking by trying
to work out the ontological status of the tautology argument which is a
messy mix of mostly semantic and fact_in_the_world considerations.

My understanding of the "transitivity" discussion is near zero.

[John Harshman]

I think it involves semantic confusion. Facts don't change. Evidence
doesn't change, exactly. The context of facts changes, and when it does,
we give the facts different labels. One of those labels is "evidence".

[John Harshman]

Sure, it can be said. Any string of words can be said (except for
"unique New York" three times fast). The question is whether it's a
useful thing to say. I think not. It's pretty clear when you consider
only two hypotheses. If you consider three hypotheses at once, it seems
that you should say that the evidence is for either the red or green
ball against the topaz. But for both? Don't think so.

[Burkhard]

That should be obvious (the consistency part) shouldn't it? By
finding a property other than transitivity that "more probable than"
does not have, and which is required for a linear ordering.

In this case, it is something that Keynes spotted first (I think) in
"A treatise on probability". The axioms permit to have propositions A
and B such that none of the following holds:
A is more probable than B.
B is more probable than A.
A and B are equally probable.

and that means no liner ordering.

I think I 've seen a rather neat prove on a website recently, will try
to find it.