Argument from Ignorance
sc...@home.com
examples of what an argument from ignorance
looks like.
Example 1:
Your inability to proove that God does exist,
is evidence enough that God does not exist.
Example 2:
The tonsils have no apparent function and
therefore provide proof that intelligent design
is a fraud.
Scott
Chaver09
> Just thought I would provide a couple simple
> examples of what an argument from ignorance
> looks like.
>
>
> Example 1:
>
> Your inability to proove that God does exist,
Nope.
*Your* inability to prove that God exists...
> is evidence enough that God does not exist.
After all, it's YOUR claim.
[snip]
David Johnston
>
> Just thought I would provide a couple simple
> examples of what an argument from ignorance
> looks like.
>
> Example 1:
>
> Your inability to proove that God does exist,
However the correct formulation is "Your inability to
prove that God does exist is reason enough to refrain
from using God as a scientific explanation."
M4RV1N
claims:
>Just thought I would provide a couple simple
>examples of what an argument from ignorance
>looks like.
>Example 1:
>
>Your inability to proove that God does exist,
>is evidence enough that God does not exist.
False. The burden lies with the person making the assertion. If I make the
claim that there are nine foot tall green rabbits on Mercury, all you have to
say is "no there aren't," and you win. My option then is to provide evidence
or admit defeat. End of debate.
>
>Example 2:
>
>The tonsils have no apparent function and
>therefore provide proof that intelligent design
>is a fraud.
Let's use the tail bone in homo sapiens, instead. Suppose I claim it's
evidence of intelligent design because the the creator-god enjoys seeing people
break it when they fall while ice-skating. The claim is stuck with additional
suppositions about both the existence of a god and his motives, which I can't
support with evidence. Given the lack of evidence, it does not matter in any
way that my explanation of god's motives for human tail bones is different from
another theist's explanation of same; they're equal opinions that each lead to
many more suppositions.
You counter that it's just a reduction of the tail of our primate ancestors,
which was gradually lost over the last twenty million years as they left an
arboreal lifestyle behind them (so to speak). This claim is supported by a
massive array of disparate evidence.
These are competing explanatory hypotheses. The one that fits the available
evidence, and the one with the least "baggage"--additional suppositions to
support the initial claim--is the best answer.
Which one would you choose?
Mark Ervin
Bigdakine
>From: sc...@home.com
>Date: 2/26/00 5:28 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <38b89...@news1.prserv.net>
>
>Just thought I would provide a couple simple
>examples of what an argument from ignorance
>looks like.
>
>
>Example 1:
>
>Your inability to proove that God does exist,
>is evidence enough that God does not exist.
>
>
>The tonsils have no apparent function and
>therefore provide proof that intelligent design
>is a fraud.
With respect to the latter, design flaws in nature make it difficult if not
impossible to formulate a scientific theory of design..
That does not mean there were no designers. All I maintain is that there is no
scientific theory for them..
Stuart
>
>
>Scott
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
Dene Bebbington
>In <YCnWn+B2...@bebbo.demon.co.uk>, Dene Bebbington
><de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>sc...@home.com writes:
>>>Just thought I would provide a couple simple
>>>examples of what an argument from ignorance
>>>looks like.
>>>
>>>
>>>Example 1:
>>>
>>>Your inability to proove that God does exist,
>>>is evidence enough that God does not exist.
>>
>>
>>There are IC systems in nature.
>>Nobody has proved that these IC systems could have evolved gradually.
>>Therefore these IC systems are the result of intelligent design.
>>
>This does not constitute the fallacy.
>
>To be a fallacy, one would have to argue as follows:
>
>Nobody has proved that these IC systems could have evolved gradually.
>Therefore these IC systems could not have evolved gradually.
>
>See the difference?
Hells bells, can't you comprehend written English. Here's the definition
of the AaI fallacy that I gave previously:
"The argumentum ad ignorantiam is committed whenever it is argued that a
proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved
false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true."
How many times does this have to be explained to you. Behe is arguing
for ID because it hasn't been proved false - ie. by demonstrating how IC
systems could have arisen gradually.
This is still an instance of the AaI fallacy even if the argument isn't
couched in the way you say it would have to be. As someone else has
already pointed out, if fallacies were worded so obviously people would
spot them so much easier. You need to learn to be more sophisticated in
your approach to analysing arguments.
>>Positive grounds for intelligent design do not appear to be given, his
>>argument rests on the inability of contemporary science to demonstrate
>>that his IC systems arose gradually.
>>
>That's not the same thing.
It is. Did you not read the quote from Behe where he states what would
falsify his ID proposition.
>Here is the fallacy you are looking for:
>
>"No one has proven that these IC systems are not the
>result of intelligent design, Therefore these IC systems
>are the result of intelligent design."
>
>*This* is a fallacy.
>
>Your examples are not.
They most certainly are, the wording is different but the underlying
"logic" is the same.
--
Dene Bebbington http://www.bebbo.demon.co.uk
"These days are overgrown in truth" - Calum & Rory Macdonald (Runrig)
Chaver09
> In <k01u4.6032$t7.3...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com>, "Chaver09"
> >> examples of what an argument from ignorance
> >> looks like.
> >>
> >>
> >> Example 1:
> >>
> >> Your inability to proove that God does exist,
> >
> >
> >*Your* inability to prove that God exists...
> >
> >> is evidence enough that God does not exist.
> >
> >
> >[snip]
> >
Really!
Explain.
I'm not really impressed with text-byte, allegedly clever responses to
complex issues.
You raised this issue.
I'm challenging you.
It's YOUR claim.
I haven't tried to produce evidence for God because my "thesis statement,"
if you will, is that he does not exist. I have seen no "evidence" for him
(as presented by theists) that stands up to scrutiny - certainly no evidence
of the Christian god in which most Americans believe.
Assuming you are the prosecution (which has it's own irony - likely without
you understanding it), for what would you presume to prosecute me?
Look at your claim above that started this conversation.
"The inability to prove [minus one "o" from the original] that God exists is
evidence enough that God does not exist."
But I've never tried to "prove" anything either way. So there is no failure
or inability on *my* part.
In fact, all our lives, from the beginning to perception to now, it has
fallen to those who believe to present their evidence. Some of us might
then later presume to take on the task of "proving" the existence of God.
You appear to be one of those individuals.
You, as presenting the argument from the affirmative, must offer this
evidence.
So far, what we have seen is *your* inability to prove much of anything, let
alone that God exists.
So much for "prosecution's exhibit #1."
R Bishop
"Patrick Fisher" <pbfi...@seas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>
>"R Bishop" <bis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:89b4od$fbh$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>> In article <20000227000245...@ng-cm1.aol.com>,
>> m4r...@aol.com (M4RV1N) wrote:
><snip>
>>
>> Not exactly. If I say Big Foot is a myth and you say "no, he isn't", the
>> burden of proof is on you.
>>
>
>Great way to reduce this thread to drivel. Obviously, in your example, the
>other guy (saying "no, he isn't") is making the assertion that Big Foot does
>exist. Since science starts with nothing and builds through observation, it
>is not up to science to prove a negative. Rather, all things start out as
>being negatives. (There are no rabbits on mercury, there is no big foot,
>there are no other animals besides humans, humans will never speak, there is
>no god, etc. Obviously science has refuted several of these, and science has
>yet to refute others.)
>
>
>
I think you missed my point.
Sue
"Never trust anything that thinks for itself,
if you can't see where it keeps its brain."
J K Rowlings
sc...@home.com
>
><sc...@home.com> wrote in message news:38b96...@news1.prserv.net...
>> In <20000227000245...@ng-cm1.aol.com>, m4r...@aol.com (M4RV1N)
>writes:
>> >>Scott
>> >claims:
><snip>
>> How do you arrive at your conclusion,
>> "no their aren't"?
>>
>> Do you do so on the basis of my inability
>> to demonstrate that there are "nine foot
>> tall green rabbits on Mercury"?
>>
>> If so, you have committed the fallacy
>> as charged.
>>
>> scott
>>
>
>What?
>It's a hypothetical, in which he makes an absurd claim with no evidence. All
>anyone else has to do is say "no there aren't," and then, if he cannot
>produce some evidence of said claim, the argument is lost. That is all.
>There is no fallacy in not believing in something for which there is no
>evidence whatsoever. That's what science is. Science believes in or agrees
>with only that which is supported by evidence and observation.
>
When someone makes your hypothetical claim,
call it 'X' (there are nine foot tall green rabbits
on Mercury) and your response is "not X" (there
are not any "nine foot tall green rabbits on Mercury)
you are making an opposite claim.
"To argue from ignorance is to use the lack of evidence
against a claim as positive evidence for its opposite."
"The absence of evidence for a claim does not constitute
sufficient evidence for the opposite claim."
Thus, since the lack of evidence for the hypothetical
claim 'X' does not constitute sufficient evidence for
*your* claim of "not X," you have committed the fallacy
of arguing from ignorance.
You have insufficient grounds to claim 'not X' and if
you choose to assert 'not X' you have just taken on
the burden of proof for your claim.
"If you claim that since you have no reason to believe that
a claim is true, it is therefore false, you have actually made
a claim for which you now have the burden of proof."
"A careful distinction should be made between asserting that
"I have no reason to believe that X is true" and asserting
that "X is false.""
"The first does not entail the second. Each is a distinct claim.
The first explains why one is not now prepared to affirm or
deny that claim; the second is a negative claim for which one
must assume the burden of proof."
Quotes taken from:
: Attacking Faulty Reasoning
: T. Edward Damer
: (pp. 113-116)
Scott
David Johnston
>
> In <38B94E...@telusplanet.net>, David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> writes:
> >sc...@home.com wrote:
> >>
> >> Just thought I would provide a couple simple
> >> examples of what an argument from ignorance
> >> looks like.
> >>
> >> Example 1:
> >>
> >> Your inability to proove that God does exist,
> >
> >prove that God does exist is reason enough to refrain
> >from using God as a scientific explanation."
> >
> of arguing from ignorance?
No. But it would not constitute misrepresentation of what I believe
to be the most common perspective of people opposed to Creationism, or
"Intelligent Design", which appears to be Creationism in drag.
M4RV1N
writes:
>The burden lies with the person making the assertion. If I make the
>>claim that there are nine foot tall green rabbits on Mercury, all you have
>to
>>say is "no there aren't," and you win. My option then is to provide
>evidence
>>or admit defeat. End of debate.
>>
>How do you arrive at your conclusion,
>"no their aren't"?
>
That's "no there aren't," and in debate it is a superior stance to any
unsupported claim about the world around us.
One does not "arrive" at this counter claim, one uses it to force the opponent
to produce evidence.
>Do you do so on the basis of my inability
>to demonstrate that there are "nine foot
>tall green rabbits on Mercury"
I don't know about your ability or inability at that point. Because it does
not postulate anything, my position ("no there aren't") stands unassailed until
the proper evidence is produced.
>If so, you have committed the fallacy
>as charged.
Re-read my previous post and this one until you are clear about what you don't
understand. You have not identified a fallacy.
I notice you ignored the second part of my post regarding the human tail bone.
Do you agree with the more important point I was making there, or did you not
understand?
Mark Ervin
sc...@home.com
><sc...@home.com> wrote in message news:38b96...@news1.prserv.net...
><cahv...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> ><sc...@home.com> wrote in message news:38b89...@news1.prserv.net...
>> >> Just thought I would provide a couple simple
>> >> examples of what an argument from ignorance
>> >> looks like.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Example 1:
>> >>
>> >> Your inability to proove that God does exist,
>> >
>> >
>> >*Your* inability to prove that God exists...
>> >
>> >> is evidence enough that God does not exist.
>> >
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> Prosecution's Exhibit #1.
>
>Really!
>
>Explain.
>
>I'm not really impressed with text-byte, allegedly clever responses to
>complex issues.
>
>You raised this issue.
>
>I'm challenging you.
>
>It's YOUR claim.
>
My only claim is that the following constitutes
the argument from ignorance fallacy:
"Your inability to proove that God does exist,
is evidence enough that God does not exist."
What did *you* think I was claiming?
sc...@home.com
>In article <89bei3$imb$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
> "Patrick Fisher" <pbfi...@seas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>>
>>"R Bishop" <bis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>>news:89b4od$fbh$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>>> In article <20000227000245...@ng-cm1.aol.com>,
>>> m4r...@aol.com (M4RV1N) wrote:
>><snip>
>>>
>>> Not exactly. If I say Big Foot is a myth and you say "no, he isn't", the
>>> burden of proof is on you.
>>>
>>
>>Great way to reduce this thread to drivel. Obviously, in your example, the
>>other guy (saying "no, he isn't") is making the assertion that Big Foot does
>>exist. Since science starts with nothing and builds through observation, it
>>is not up to science to prove a negative. Rather, all things start out as
>>being negatives. (There are no rabbits on mercury, there is no big foot,
>>there are no other animals besides humans, humans will never speak, there is
>>no god, etc. Obviously science has refuted several of these, and science has
>>yet to refute others.)
>>
>
> I think you missed my point.
>
Scott
Paul J Gans
>Just thought I would provide a couple simple
>examples of what an argument from ignorance
>looks like.
>Example 1:
>Your inability to proove that God does exist,
>is evidence enough that God does not exist.
>Example 2:
>The tonsils have no apparent function and
>therefore provide proof that intelligent design
>is a fraud.
Those aren't the only ones. How about argument
by assertion, a slight modification of the
argument from ignorance.
Example A: God exists because God exists. We don't
need any more proof than that.
Example B: I know more about this than you do.
Example C: I used to think as you do, but then
I discovered that such thinking was wrong.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
sc...@home.com
>sc...@home.com wrote:
>>
>> In <38B94E...@telusplanet.net>, David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> writes:
>> >>
>> >> Just thought I would provide a couple simple
>> >> examples of what an argument from ignorance
>> >> looks like.
>> >>
>> >> Example 1:
>> >>
>> >> Your inability to proove that God does exist,
>> >> is evidence enough that God does not exist.
>> >
>> >prove that God does exist is reason enough to refrain
>> >from using God as a scientific explanation."
>> >
>> But would that then constitute the fallacy
>> of arguing from ignorance?
>
>No. But it would not constitute misrepresentation of what I believe
>to be the most common perspective of people opposed to Creationism, or
>"Intelligent Design", which appears to be Creationism in drag.
>
off-topic for this thread, which has to do with
what constitutes an argument from ignorance
fallacy.
scott
sc...@home.com
of your argument, which is, to put it simply
incorrect.
Your statement...
"I don't know about your ability or inability at that point."
..prooves my point that when you assert the negative
claim, "there are no nine foot tall green rabbits on
Mercury," you are making your claim in ignorance and
without justification and thus commit the fallacy of
argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Hiding it behind the garb of "science" doesn't change
the nature of the fallacy.
The fallacy exists in your negative claim, which is
a claim made without justification, based merely on
the fact that you have received no positive evidence
to counter the assertion.
You are quite mistaken when you say that your
claim does not postulate anything:
"Because it does not postulate anything"
It postulates that:
"there are no nine foot tall green rabbits on
Mercury"
When you make this statement, you now assume
the burden of proof for this statement.
Hiding it behind the garb of "no there aren't" doesn't
change the nature of the postulate."
No there aren't *what*?
"To ask others to accept your claim without any support or to shift the
burden of proof to them by suggesting that your position is true unless
they can provide otherwise is to commit the fallacy of arguing from
ignorance. For you are, in this way, making a claim based on no evidence
at all. Indeed, you are basing the claim on the absence of evidence, that
is, on IGNORANCE."
This is precisely what you are attempting to do
by means of your "no there aren't" device.
You are attempting to have your claim, "there are
no nine foot tall green rabbits on Mercury" accepted
as true unless your opponent can prove otherwise.
"In this way you fail to take responsibility for your own claims and even attempt to
get your opponents to do your work for you. Moreover, since negative claims are
notoriously difficult to establish, you are attempting to set yourself up for a "win"
by default. But in this game, there are no wins by default; the merit of any position
can be only as good as the argument given in support of it."
Quotes from:
: Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments (3rd. Ed.)
: T. Edward Damer
: Wadsworth, 1995.
Scott
Patrick Fisher
<snip>
>
> I think you missed my point.
>
>
Then what was your point?
You made the claim that the burden of proof was on the person who did not
believe Big Foot was a myth (or, that Big Foot exists.) That's exactly what
Mark said. The person making the assertion of a positive (Big Foot exists,
or the existence of green rabbits) has the burden of proof. You simply
restated this in such a way as to make it seem as though the person refuting
a claim may have the burden of proof. This is not the case. The burden of
proof, in science, always lies on that person asserting a positive (and not
just some spin on words - replacing "exists" with "is a myth." I hope that
wasn't the point of your post.)
Zeus Thibault
> sc...@home.com wrote:
> Just thought I would provide a couple simple examples of what an
> argument from ignorance looks like. Example 1: Your inability to
> proove that God does exist, is evidence enough that God does not exist.
>
> Pagano replies:
> This isn't really an "argument from ignorance," but a fallacious
> argument; that is, it is a non sequitur.
> *********************************
>
> Scott continues:
> Example 2: The tonsils have no apparent function and therefore provide
> proof that intelligent design
> is a fraud.
>
> Pagano replies:
> At one time modern secular theorists argued that: numerous organs had
> no apparent function, therefore they were vestigial. This would be a
> good example of an argument from ignorance. As far as I know of the
> 100+ vestigial organs claimed to exist 100 years ago all have been found
> to have functions. As an aside most (if not all) of the claims made by
> Scopes at his trial in the 1920s that organs were vestigial have been
> found to be false.
Whew! Talk about an argument from ignorance! Let's see a list of these
vestigial organs that Mr. Scopes mentioned at his trial.
Zeus
White Raven
sc...@home.com wrote:
> Just thought I would provide a couple simple
> examples of what an argument from ignorance
> looks like.
>
> Example 1:
>
> Your inability to proove that God does exist,
> is evidence enough that God does not exist.
The only error made by someone who would say this is in not
anticipating the response "Just because you can't prove it doesn't mean
it's not true." In other words, a rephrase is in order.
"The lack of evidence of god's existance or lack thereof preculdes us
from using god as evidence in any other endevor."
> Example 2:
>
> The tonsils have no apparent function and
> therefore provide proof that intelligent design
> is a fraud.
>
This is normally "apendix". Tonsils are a part of the lymph system.
They are thought to be part of the immune system, specially early in
life.
--
White Raven... _._ Fact: A state or an event.
\o_o/ Theory: Our explanation of a fact.
V Beliefe: What we wish the facts were.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
R Bishop
"Patrick Fisher" <pbfi...@seas.upenn.edu> wrote:
Well, actually I was pointing out that the sentence was actually based on
'positive' statement but the MEANING was negative. Had a big discussion with
a guy on another group who was convinced that ANY positive statement had to
be supported and the negative disproved. In other words, he said I had to
support my 'positive' statement that Big Foot was a myth and he didn't have
to support his response because his response was a negative.
It was a misunderstanding on his part of the logic of the statement. Sadly,
it seems that some college logic classes aren't making this clear.
sc...@home.com
>
>"R Bishop" <bis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:89c9r0$rk3$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net...
><snip>
>>
>> I think you missed my point.
>>
>>
>> Sue
>
>Then what was your point?
>
>You made the claim that the burden of proof was on the person who did not
>believe Big Foot was a myth (or, that Big Foot exists.) That's exactly what
>Mark said. The person making the assertion of a positive (Big Foot exists,
>or the existence of green rabbits) has the burden of proof. You simply
>restated this in such a way as to make it seem as though the person refuting
>a claim may have the burden of proof. This is not the case.
>
what it means to "refute" a claim.
Simple replying, "not X" when someone asserts
"X" is not a refutation, nor even a rebuttal.
Conversley, replying, "X" when someone asserts
"not X" is also not a refutation.
Asserting "not X" when confronted by a claim of "X"
is itself a claim that requires argumentation. You
assume the burden of proof when you assert "not X."
Asserting "not X" merely on the basis of no evidence
for "X" is a fallacy of arguing from ignorance.
> The burden of
>proof, in science, always lies on that person asserting a positive (and not
>just some spin on words - replacing "exists" with "is a myth." I hope that
>wasn't the point of your post.)
>
"Science can answer no question in the absence of evidence;
and scientists also remember that absence of evidence is not
equivalent to evidence of absence."
- Professor Ward B. Watt, Professor of Biology, Stanford University
This includes answering questions in the negative,
merely on the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Scott
sc...@home.com
>A Pagano wrote:
>
>> sc...@home.com wrote:
>> Just thought I would provide a couple simple examples of what an
>> argument from ignorance looks like. Example 1: Your inability to
>> proove that God does exist, is evidence enough that God does not exist.
>>
>> This isn't really an "argument from ignorance," but a fallacious
>> argument; that is, it is a non sequitur.
>> *********************************
>>
>> Scott continues:
>> proof that intelligent design
>> is a fraud.
>>
>> At one time modern secular theorists argued that: numerous organs had
>> no apparent function, therefore they were vestigial. This would be a
>> good example of an argument from ignorance. As far as I know of the
>> 100+ vestigial organs claimed to exist 100 years ago all have been found
>> to have functions. As an aside most (if not all) of the claims made by
>> Scopes at his trial in the 1920s that organs were vestigial have been
>> found to be false.
>
>Whew! Talk about an argument from ignorance! Let's see a list of these
>vestigial organs that Mr. Scopes mentioned at his trial.
>
I am trying to point out what precisely an
argument from ignorance is and you come
along and try to mess it up <g>.
Making a claim that has no factual basis
is not the same thing as an argumentum
ad ignorantiam fallacy, afaik.
Regards,
Scott
sc...@home.com
>In talk.origins sc...@home.com wrote:
>>Just thought I would provide a couple simple
>>examples of what an argument from ignorance
>>looks like.
>
>
>>Example 1:
>
>>Your inability to proove that God does exist,
>>is evidence enough that God does not exist.
>
>
>>The tonsils have no apparent function and
>>therefore provide proof that intelligent design
>>is a fraud.
>
>
>by assertion, a slight modification of the
>argument from ignorance.
>
>Example A: God exists because God exists. We don't
> need any more proof than that.
>
>Example B: I know more about this than you do.
>
>Example C: I used to think as you do, but then
> I discovered that such thinking was wrong.
>
these are indeed cases of argument by assertion,
therefore I conclude that they are not.
Regards,
Scott
sc...@home.com
>
>"R Bishop" <bis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:89c9r0$rk3$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net...
><snip>
>>
>> I think you missed my point.
>>
>>
>> Sue
>
>Then what was your point?
>You made the claim that the burden of proof was on the person who did not
>believe Big Foot was a myth (or, that Big Foot exists.)
>
read her post again.
> That's exactly what
>Mark said. The person making the assertion of a positive (Big Foot exists,
>or the existence of green rabbits) has the burden of proof.
>
This is true, until someone comes along and
asserts the negation of the claim.
1. There is no Bigfoot.
2. There are no nine foot tall green rabbits on Mars.
Once this assertion is made, the individual making
the assertion assumes the burden of proof for
his/her claim.
IOW, in an argument, there is no difference between
saying, "Bigfoot exists" and saying "Bigfoot does not
exist." Both claims require supporting argumentation.
Both claims have the burden of proof.
To assert that your claim wins in the absence of any
evidence for the contrary claim, commits an agument
from ignorance fallacy.
Regards,
Scott
Sherilyn
In article <89crak$9a8$2...@news.panix.com>,
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
> In talk.origins sc...@home.com wrote:
> >Just thought I would provide a couple simple
> >examples of what an argument from ignorance
> >looks like.
>
> >Example 1:
>
> >Your inability to proove that God does exist,
> >is evidence enough that God does not exist.
Appeal to ignorance.
>
> >Example 2:
>
> >The tonsils have no apparent function and
> >therefore provide proof that intelligent design
> >is a fraud.
Begging the question.
>
> Those aren't the only ones. How about argument
> by assertion, a slight modification of the
> argument from ignorance.
>
> Example A: God exists because God exists. We don't
> need any more proof than that.
Basically, appeal to ignorance.
>
> Example B: I know more about this than you do.
Argument from authority.
>
> Example C: I used to think as you do, but then
> I discovered that such thinking was wrong.
>
Special pleading.
Patrick Fisher
> In article <89d07d$tlm$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
<snip>
(and not
> >just some spin on words - replacing "exists" with "is a myth." I hope
that
> >wasn't the point of your post.)
>
> 'positive' statement but the MEANING was negative.
In other words, *as I said* above, you *were* just spinning words to be
pedantic and simple. We're saying the same thing, but you insist on being a
simpleton about it. The person asserting the existence of some thing or
principle has the burden of proof. Period.
Had a big discussion with
> a guy on another group who was convinced that ANY positive statement had
to
> be supported and the negative disproved.
Well, he's an idiot. Had you bothered to read my responses, you would know
that I'm not doing the same thing he is. Since you're simply providing
simpleton ideas where they aren't necessary, you've reduced this thread to
drivel.
In other words, he said I had to
> support my 'positive' statement that Big Foot was a myth and he didn't
have
> to support his response because his response was a negative.
> It was a misunderstanding on his part of the logic of the statement.
>Sadly, it seems that some college logic classes aren't making this clear.
Do I have to read far into this to interpret it as a personal jab?
<snip>
Patrick Fisher
<sc...@home.com> wrote in message news:38ba2...@news1.prserv.net...<snip>
> The confusion here seem to be in your idea of
> what it means to "refute" a claim.
If you were even paying attention, you would know there is no confusion.
We're arguing the same thing - that changing the words to reverse the
assertion does not switch the burden of proof. By both of YOUR logic, I can
make the claim that God does not exist, and it's up to YOU to prove me
wrong. Of course, that's obvious, since it's the same as you claiming that
God does exist - you'd still have the burden of proof.
>
> Simple replying, "not X" when someone asserts
> "X" is not a refutation, nor even a rebuttal.
>
Sure it is. Neither side has any evidence on their side, so it's
meaningless, but it's a valid logical opinion in any case. Especially since
we're dealing with religion, which is pure speculation and opinion anyway.
> Conversley, replying, "X" when someone asserts
> "not X" is also not a refutation.
>
Yeah yeah.
> Asserting "not X" when confronted by a claim of "X"
> is itself a claim that requires argumentation. You
> assume the burden of proof when you assert "not X."
>
No you don't. There is no NEED for me to provide evidence for "not X"
because you've not shown any reason to believe "X." Once *you* start
providing evidence, it's *then* up to me to provide evidence countering your
evidence.
<snip>
> "Science can answer no question in the absence of evidence;
> and scientists also remember that absence of evidence is not
> equivalent to evidence of absence."
>
> - Professor Ward B. Watt, Professor of Biology, Stanford University
Correct. However, we evolutionists aren't claiming, as part of our
evolutionary science, that there is no God. We each personally disbelieve in
God because we have SCADS of evidence showing that none of the traditional
interpretations of what God is or does are even possible. We have the
evidence. Where is yours? It's your turn now to refute our claim.
R Bishop
"Patrick Fisher" <pbfi...@seas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>
>"R Bishop" <bis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:89dpfs$sao$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net...
>> In article <89d07d$tlm$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
><snip>
> (and not
>> >just some spin on words - replacing "exists" with "is a myth." I hope
>that
>> >wasn't the point of your post.)
>>
>> Well, actually I was pointing out that the sentence was actually based on
>> 'positive' statement but the MEANING was negative.
>
>In other words, *as I said* above, you *were* just spinning words to be
>pedantic and simple. We're saying the same thing, but you insist on being a
>simpleton about it. The person asserting the existence of some thing or
>principle has the burden of proof. Period.
Do you always work so hard on being an asshole? I was just pointing out
that some people misunderstand how logic works.
>
>Had a big discussion with
>> a guy on another group who was convinced that ANY positive statement had
>to
>> be supported and the negative disproved.
>
>Well, he's an idiot. Had you bothered to read my responses, you would know
>that I'm not doing the same thing he is. Since you're simply providing
>simpleton ideas where they aren't necessary, you've reduced this thread to
>drivel.
Sigh. I Never Said You Were Doing The Same Thing. I AM saying that you
are being a rude jerk, though.
>
>In other words, he said I had to
>> support my 'positive' statement that Big Foot was a myth and he didn't
>have
>> to support his response because his response was a negative.
>> It was a misunderstanding on his part of the logic of the statement.
>
>
>>Sadly, it seems that some college logic classes aren't making this clear.
>
>Do I have to read far into this to interpret it as a personal jab?
No, that was not my original meaning at all. However, since you are being
so incredibly touchy and trying to find offense when none was ever intended,
I'm considering revising my original intent.
>
><snip>
Rick Forester
>ust thought I would provide a couple simple
>examples of what an argument from ignorance
>looks like.
>
>
>Example 1:
>
>Your inability to proove that God does exist,
>is evidence enough that God does not exist.
Very true! You gave the case with the tonsils, but I have recently listened to
a debate between a Creationist and an Evolutionist. The latter said, "...the
aer duct crosses the digestive duct in the pharinx. People are choking because
of this. Here is an example of bad design."
I think this is an example of good design. God made this because he wanted us
to shut up when we eat food. I really think this was genial. Everything has a
cause!
Rick Forester
Rick Forester
================================================
Sherilyn
sc...@home.com wrote:
> >
[...]
> When someone makes your hypothetical claim,
> call it 'X' (there are nine foot tall green rabbits
> on Mercury) and your response is "not X" (there
> are not any "nine foot tall green rabbits on Mercury)
> you are making an opposite claim.
Go back to your standard text on deductive reasoning and check this up:
_semper praesumitur pro negante_
If you assert a proposition, and others decline to accept until you
have proven your case, they are presuming the negative. You are making
the error of mistaking that presumption for a new claim. It is quite
different in nature, for a presumption is provisional (prevailing by
default until disproven) whilst a claim is assertive (must be proven).
It's up to the author of the proposition to demonstrate that the
presumption of the negative is invalid. This follows from the Law of
the Excluded Middle (any proposition must be either true or false), and
from the multiplicity of false propositions.
This doesn't mean that any such presumption is correct, so if someone
does claim on the basis of your failure to prove your case that the
opposite is true, you're perfectly correct to state that they are
appealing to ignorance. The presumption of the negative, however,
still applies until refuted.
sc...@home.com
I may have to revise my one on design.
It's not so clear that it takes the form,
X -> no evidence for X -> therefore not X
Of course, that may not be the only form the argument
from ignorance fallacy can take, but I haven't yet seen
anyone present another variation of it, therefore I
conclude that there is no other variation..
Scott
Michael
> Just thought I would provide a couple simple
> examples of what an argument from ignorance
> looks like.
>
> Example 1:
>
> Your inability to proove that God does exist,
> is evidence enough that God does not exist.
>
Example 1a:
Your inability to prove that a specified event
or object is likely is proof that it could not
have happened.
Mike
sc...@home.com
><sc...@home.com> wrote in message news:38ba2...@news1.prserv.net...
>> In <89d07d$tlm$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>, "Patrick Fisher"
><pbfi...@seas.upenn.edu> writes:
><snip>
>> The confusion here seem to be in your idea of
>> what it means to "refute" a claim.
>
>If you were even paying attention, you would know there is no confusion.
>
>We're arguing the same thing - that changing the words to reverse the
>assertion does not switch the burden of proof.
>
I didn't say it *switched* the burden of proof.
I said that *you* by making such a claim, assume
the burden of proof for *your* claim of "not X".
>By both of YOUR logic, I can
>make the claim that God does not exist, and it's up to YOU to prove me
>wrong. Of course, that's obvious, since it's the same as you claiming that
>God does exist - you'd still have the burden of proof.
>
If you make the claim "God doe not exist," the burden
of proof is upon you to support that claim. If I respond
to your assertion with "God most certainly does exist"
I have now assented to carry the burden of proof for
*my* claim. This does not however, absolve you of
*your* burden of proof for *your* claim.
>> Simple replying, "not X" when someone asserts
>> "X" is not a refutation, nor even a rebuttal.
>
>Sure it is.
>
[insert appropriate argument from incredulity]
> Neither side has any evidence on their side, so it's
>meaningless, but it's a valid logical opinion in any case.
>
By here admitting that you made your claim simply
on the lack of evidence for the opposing claim you
admit to committing an argument from ignorance
fallacy.
> Especially since
>we're dealing with religion, which is pure speculation and opinion anyway.
>
Irrelevant.
[insert appropriate fallacy here]
>> Conversley, replying, "X" when someone asserts
>> "not X" is also not a refutation.
>
>Yeah yeah.
>
Not a valid argument.
>> Asserting "not X" when confronted by a claim of "X"
>> is itself a claim that requires argumentation. You
>> assume the burden of proof when you assert "not X."
>
>No you don't.
>
I suggest that you go and consult some appropriate
sources on argumentation and logic.
> There is no NEED for me to provide evidence for "not X"
>because you've not shown any reason to believe "X."
>
If you make the claim "not X" there most certainly
is a NEED for you to provide evidence. If you don't,
it demonstrates that you are committing a fallacy
of arguing from ignorance.
Due to the lack of evidence for X, you assert not X.
This is a fallacy. Go look it up, since you seem to
be ignoring the evidence I cite in my posts.
> Once *you* start
>providing evidence, it's *then* up to me to provide evidence countering your
>evidence.
>
It's also up to you to provide evidence for *your*
claim of *not X*. Absent any such supporting
argument for your claim, you have committed
a fallacy of arguing from ignorance.
Go look it up, since you seem to be ignoring the
evidence I cite in my posts.
><snip>
>> "Science can answer no question in the absence of evidence;
>> and scientists also remember that absence of evidence is not
>> equivalent to evidence of absence."
>>
>> - Professor Ward B. Watt, Professor of Biology, Stanford University
>
>Correct. However, we evolutionists aren't claiming, as part of our
>evolutionary science, that there is no God. We each personally disbelieve in
>God because we have SCADS of evidence showing that none of the traditional
>interpretations of what God is or does are even possible. We have the
>evidence. Where is yours? It's your turn now to refute our claim.
>
Red Herring.
The argument is over whether you commit a fallacy
of arguing from ignorance by asserting "not X" in the
presence of a claim of "X" based upon a presumed
lack of evidence for "X."
Scott
Patrick B Fisher
: *What* is my claim?
: My only claim is that the following constitutes
: the argument from ignorance fallacy:
: "Your inability to proove that God does exist,
: is evidence enough that God does not exist."
: What did *you* think I was claiming?
Fine then. If that's all you're saying, you win.
However, it's irrelevant. There is plenty of evidence that God doesn't
exist. Every time such evidence is brought up, though, your handy dandy
God becomes something else. What's that? Our interpretation of how God
made man has been debunked by the fossil record? Well then, our God put
the fossils there to test faith! Hah! Hmm. Maybe your god exists, but has
no bearing on the real world, since all of your precious myths depicting
how he is manifest in the physical realm rely on miraculous responses the
the mounds of scientific evidence against them. In other words, what the
hell *do* you believe in? Unless there is evidence that he does impact
the world, why do you believe it matters to have faith in his existence?
It's ridiculous. No logical argument can possibly made as to the
existence of something which by its very nature and definition defies
logic. Logic has no place in a religious discussion.
Patrick B Fisher
: >
: >Then what was your point?
: >You made the claim that the burden of proof was on the person who did not
: >
: This was not the claim she made. Go back and
: read her post again.
You are a complete moron. This is *EXACTLY* what she said. She pointed
out, to be simple, that if you *assert* a positive, which is a negative
(is a myth), you aren't changing who the burden of proof falls on. This
is obvious. Extrapolating from what she said, I claim God is a myth. You
have the burden of proof now.
: > That's exactly what
: >Mark said. The person making the assertion of a positive (Big Foot exists,
: >or the existence of green rabbits) has the burden of proof.
: >
: This is true, until someone comes along and
: asserts the negation of the claim.
Yeah, but that person does *not* have to provide any evidence for the
lack of existence of whatever is in question, UNTIL the person claiming
the existence provides evidence of his or her own. THEN there is a burden
- namely, you must counter that evidence. There is NO REASON to believe
in something for which there is no evidence. By your own ignorance
argument, I may as well believe THERE ARE green rabbits on mars, and that
I am actually an enormous green rabbit myself, who has developed the
technology not only to mask my appearance to others, but to make myself
not know that I'm a leporid so that I may better behave as a human. It's
an argument from idiocy. The entire point of this thread is not to point
out an example of an argument from ignorance, but to *CLAIM* that we who
believe in no god are basing our claim on such an argument. This is
false. Therefore this thread is pointless.
: 1. There is no Bigfoot.
: 2. There are no nine foot tall green rabbits on Mars.
: Once this assertion is made, the individual making
: the assertion assumes the burden of proof for
: his/her claim.
Fine. All you're saying is that I can't claim there is no God simply on
the basis of a lack of evidence. I'll buy that. But by the same argument,
unless YOU can provide evidence, for your own benefit, of the existence
of God, you can't believe that, since it's also an argument from
ignorance. Basically, all you're pointing out is that Science cannot come
to conclusions without evidence, which is precisely why science does not
accept a miraculous god as an explanation for natural events. We can't
assume anything either way without some evidence. Well, there is plenty
of evidence that explainable natural forces are responsible for things
like weather. Therefore science concludes that weather is a natural
phenomenon, not a supernatural one resulting from the will of a god.
: IOW, in an argument, there is no difference between
: saying, "Bigfoot exists" and saying "Bigfoot does not
: exist." Both claims require supporting argumentation.
: Both claims have the burden of proof.
A) Such is not what R Bishop said.
B) The supporting argumentation in the claim of nonexistence is the lack
of evidence of his existence. The lack of evidence of the impact of a god
or a bigfoot is evidence that the creature/thing in question has not left
any evidence, which is, in turn, evidence that the creature/thing does
not exist. Additionally, you can't deny the existence of something
without being told the characteristics of the thing in question, which
requires the claim to be made by someone who does believe in the
existence of such a thing. Otherwise, we happy-go-lucky hell-bound
atheists could spend all day proving the non-existence of countless
possible gods. But it wouldn't do anyone any good unless such a god was
the exact god described by a believer. Hence, you can't have a
counter-argument without the positive assertion. Which means, finally,
that the *initial* burden of explanation (not necessarily proof or
evidence) is on you, the claimant, to demonstrate the characteristics of
your god.
: To assert that your claim wins in the absence of any
: evidence for the contrary claim, commits an agument
: from ignorance fallacy.
Since you've done absolutely nothing but repeat this stupid tid bit (and
consistently, despite correction, misspelled "prove"), I have no further
use for you.
Patrick B Fisher
: >In other words, *as I said* above, you *were* just spinning words to be
: >pedantic and simple. We're saying the same thing, but you insist on being a
: >simpleton about it. The person asserting the existence of some thing or
: Do you always work so hard on being an asshole? I was just pointing out
: that some people misunderstand how logic works.
Nah, it comes naturally when dealing with simple pedants. Your reply was
a *correction*, so what was the point unless you were pointing out a
misunderstanding?
: Sigh. I Never Said You Were Doing The Same Thing. I AM saying that you
: are being a rude jerk, though.
My apologies. Perhaps I'm overreacting. I still fail to see the point of
such a correction if you weren't stating that the error were made, or
simply being simple. Something akin to a 3rd grader saying "nobody saw me
take it" and a 3rd grade friend saying "Uh huh! You saw you take it!"...
(argument from the obvious?)
Mark Isaak
>Just thought I would provide a couple simple
>examples of what an argument from ignorance
>looks like.
>
>
>Example 1:
>
>is evidence enough that God does not exist.
I'm not sure what to call it, but that is not argument from ignorance. An
argument from ignorance would be, "I can't imagine God existing, therefore
God does not exist." Likewise, another argument from ignorance is, "I
can't imagine God not existing, therefore God exists." Guess which of
these I hear more often?
>Example 2:
>
>The tonsils have no apparent function and
>therefore provide proof that intelligent design
>is a fraud.
As stated, that is an argument for ignorance. It loses that status,
though, if you point out that people without tonsils live as long as
people with, so their lack of function is demonstrated, not apparent.
(There are still a lot of unstated premises, some of them debatable, but
those are another subject.)
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"My determination is not to remain stubbornly with my ideas but
I'll leave them and go over to others as soon as I am shown
plausible reason which I can grasp." - Antony Leeuwenhoek
leonardo dasso
<sc...@home.com> wrote in message news:38b96...@news1.prserv.net...
> >>
> >> Just thought I would provide a couple simple
> >> examples of what an argument from ignorance
> >> looks like.
> >>
> >> Example 1:
> >>
> >> Your inability to proove that God does exist,
> >> is evidence enough that God does not exist.
> >
> >prove that God does exist is reason enough to refrain
> >from using God as a scientific explanation."
> >
> of arguing from ignorance?
>
>
Yes, if you spell prove as 'proove', as you do.
leo
Mark Isaak
>But you have made the claim that there
>are design flaws, and in any normal
>argument you would be obligated to
>support the claim.
Extinctions. If Apatosaurus was a good design, why not keep it? Repeat
the same question for millions of other species. Conservative Christians
once denied the reality of extinctions because it didn't fit with their
idea of divine design. The issue remains, even if the extinctions are too
obvious to deny any more.
Patrick B Fisher
: R Bishop (bis...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
You know, I re-read my response here, and I must say, I am sorry. I
misunderstood your reply to be a counter-claim or nitpicking, where you
were simply providing a valid case where an assertion does not hold the
burden of proof (which Scott says is never the case). So, again, I'm
sorry for my demeanor and attitude in attacking you for such a benign
statement.
Patrick B Fisher
<major snip>
Well, I had a nice long itemized reply typed up when tin barfed on
sending... Unfortunately I don't feel like retyping it all again, so I'll
make this very brief.
Nobody is making or has made a claim of "god does not exist." Such a
claim is nonsensical. It is only valid as a counter claim to a believer's
argument that their god does exist. Nobody can argue for the non-existence
of an arbitrary god with the desired results. You can only argue as to
the existence of a god which *some believe* is asserting the existence
of. I could sit here all day and disprove various deities which I set up.
I can make straw men until the cows come home, and provide evidence for
their non-existence, but it is meaningless if not in response to a
believer's claim.
Additionally, in order to bring god and religion into the realm of
logical argument, you, the believer, must abide by certain ground rules.
First, you have to first provide your definition and framework for what
your god is. You must also establish what evidence we may *expect* to find
as supporting your theory. Finally, your god must be set in stone - it
must not simply be a non-descript force which reacts to counterclaims with
miraculous explanations. Once you establish this, only then can logic and
science begin to claim for or against the existence of that particular
god. So, in essence, we have no burden of proof, until you show us your
evidence. I don't have to believe, by any school of logic, in a god which
is not clearly defined to me. I cannot possibly provide evidence for my
claim of "your god doesn't exist" until you've made it clear what your god
is, and what kind of evidence would support claims of existence or
non-existence. With science and evolutionary theory, this is all there
for you. If you want to prove evolution wrong, it's already written out.
Science has provided you the method and instructions for disproving it.
You need only find conclusive observable evidence against the underlying
function of evolution, and you win. With religion, there is not that
luxury, because religion doesn't have its debunking process encoded within
it.
Until you decide to make god and religion a solid scientific
theory, your precious logic and all the science in the world can neither
prove nor disprove your god (or rather, provide very strong evidence for
or against...) Therefore, your sermon on fallacies is irrelevant to any
discussion of religion or god.
I don't have to prove your god doesn't exist until you provide a
framework for how I would find such evidence. Once you do - the lack of
evidence *for* your god, and the plethora of evidence suggesting
alternatives (not directly disproving god, but suggesting alternative
interpretations) is, in effect, evidence against the existence of your
god. If extensive searches for evidence for the existence of god, as your
framework predicts we would expect to find, turn up nothing, we may
conclude the nonexistence of god without commiting the argument from
ignorance fallacy. You are of course always free to revise your theory to
predict new sources of expected evidence, in effect defining and refining
your theory of god.
The fallacy only occurs when no search or attempt is made, and we
base our conclusion purely on a lack of knowledge either way. In effect -
the argument from ignorance fallacy is the definition of science and the
empirical method. We come to no conclusion until the evidence exists one
way or the other. Science is impartial, and has nothing against the
existence of a god.
Chaver09
> In <89crak$9a8$2...@news.panix.com>, Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> writes:
> >In talk.origins sc...@home.com wrote:
> >>Just thought I would provide a couple simple
> >>examples of what an argument from ignorance
> >>looks like.
> >
> >
> >>Example 1:
> >
> >>Your inability to proove that God does exist,
> >>is evidence enough that God does not exist.
> >
> >
> >>The tonsils have no apparent function and
> >>therefore provide proof that intelligent design
> >>is a fraud.
> >
> >
> >by assertion, a slight modification of the
> >argument from ignorance.
> >
> >Example A: God exists because God exists. We don't
> > need any more proof than that.
> >
> >
> > I discovered that such thinking was wrong.
> >
> these are indeed cases of argument by assertion,
> therefore I conclude that they are not.
Then you have a serious problem understanding the issue.
All three examples are CLEARLY assertions. What evidence would you require?
Chaver09
> In <dHhu4.7117$t7.4...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com>, "Chaver09"
<cahv...@yahoo.com> writes:
> ><sc...@home.com> wrote in message news:38b96...@news1.prserv.net...
> >> In <k01u4.6032$t7.3...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com>, "Chaver09"
> ><cahv...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >> ><sc...@home.com> wrote in message news:38b89...@news1.prserv.net...
> >> >> Just thought I would provide a couple simple
> >> >> examples of what an argument from ignorance
> >> >> looks like.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Example 1:
> >> >>
> >> >> Your inability to proove that God does exist,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >*Your* inability to prove that God exists...
> >> >
> >> >> is evidence enough that God does not exist.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >[snip]
> >> >
> >> Prosecution's Exhibit #1.
> >
> >Really!
> >
> >Explain.
> >
> >I'm not really impressed with text-byte, allegedly clever responses to
> >complex issues.
> >
> >You raised this issue.
> >
> >I'm challenging you.
> >
> >It's YOUR claim.
> >
> *What* is my claim?
>
> My only claim is that the following constitutes
>
> "Your inability to proove that God does exist,
> is evidence enough that God does not exist."
>
You snipped away a great deal that explained the situation, and you did so
without marking it.
[Restored text]
I haven't tried to produce evidence for God because my "thesis statement,"
if you will, is that he does not exist. I have seen no "evidence" for him
(as presented by theists) that stands up to scrutiny - certainly no evidence
of the Christian god in which most Americans believe.
Assuming you are the prosecution (which has it's own irony - likely without
you understanding it), for what would you presume to prosecute me?
Look at your claim above that started this conversation.
"The inability to prove [minus one "o" from the original] that God exists is
evidence enough that God does not exist."
But I've never tried to "prove" anything either way. So there is no failure
or inability on *my* part.
In fact, all our lives, from the beginning to perception to now, it has
fallen to those who believe to present their evidence. Some of us might
then later presume to take on the task of "proving" the existence of God.
You appear to be one of those individuals.
You, as presenting the argument from the affirmative, must offer this
evidence.
So far, what we have seen is *your* inability to prove much of anything, let
alone that God exists.
So much for "prosecution's exhibit #1."
[End restored text]
Why did you snip this away? It was dishonest and evasive.
That's par for the course for pseudointellecual types.
Your unstated claim is that there's a god.
Isn't it?
Your stated claim is that since WE who don't believe in a god haven't been
able to PROVE there's a god is an argument from ignorance.
As I explained, WE didn't try to "prove" anything.
The burden of such things falls to you - not us. We cannot prove that God
DOESN'T exist, but we can be sure he doesn't because you theists cannot
prove that he DOES.
We are not obligated to prove that he doesn't exist.
Frankly, I think your nonsensical meanderings, obfuscations, and evasions
are designed to actually avoid a discussion of whatever evidence you might
think you possess.
Assume for the moment that, fine, we are being ignorant by claiming that
because WE can't prove God exists, that must mean he doesn't.
Clear up our ignorance.
Prove he DOES exist.
How do you plan to do that?
John Segerson
Let's be fair about this. (I put entirely aside here whether any
named fallacy is invoked) Scott has been challenged on certain
of his claims (actually endorsement of Demski/Behe claims)
because they are argued from ignorance. Among these, for
example, is the claim that molecular IC systems can be inferred
to be designed because there are, presently, no explanations
deriving from deterministic or stochastic causes. What exactly
are the "frameworks for how to find the evidence" which will
demonstrate that these causes exist? Whether or not such
frameworks exist, if lack of evidence for such causes is not to
be invoked as evidence against their existence, then the same
must also be the case for the lack of "evidence" for his God. For
some things, it must be enough to say we cannot conclude either
way, and there is room for all kinds of conjecture.
John
Theophage
sc...@home.com wrote:
> In <89crak$9a8$2...@news.panix.com>, Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
writes:
> >In talk.origins sc...@home.com wrote:
> >>examples of what an argument from ignorance
> >>looks like.
> >
> >
> >>Example 1:
> >
> >>Your inability to proove that God does exist,
> >
> >
> >>The tonsils have no apparent function and
> >>therefore provide proof that intelligent design
> >>is a fraud.
> >
> >
> >Those aren't the only ones. How about argument
> >by assertion, a slight modification of the
> >argument from ignorance.
> >
> >Example A: God exists because God exists. We don't
> > need any more proof than that.
> >
> >Example B: I know more about this than you do.
> >
> >Example C: I used to think as you do, but then
> > I discovered that such thinking was wrong.
> >
> You have provided absolutely no evidence that
> these are indeed cases of argument by assertion,
> therefore I conclude that they are not.
>
>
> Scott
Ummm...perhaps I'm misunderstanding Scott? The three latter arguments
are arguments by asertion. Do you know what that means, Scott? It
means an argument whose sole support that it is correct comes from the
argument itself asserting that it is correct. This is clearly what
each of Paul's arguments do (See A especially).
Paul is not saying that the example arguments that you gave are
arguments by assertion, but that argument by assertion and arguments
from ignorance are related. Look at your example (1) and his example
(A), for instance. It would seem that one side gives nothing but an
argument from ignorance, and the other an argument from assertion; both
fallacious arguments.
Unfortunately, there is another fallacy at work here, that of the
strawman on Scott's part. His example (2) is a serious strawman;
nobody here would make that argument. Example (1) is a little more
tricky, because it is actually based on the principle of the Burden of
Proof. As it was pointed out by M4RV1N, the burden of proof lies with
the positive claimant for anything, not on the negative claimant; to
say that if there is no evidence for X is sufficient reason for
disregarding X.
I'm sorry if you don't like how that reasoning works, but your opinion
of it has no affect on its validity, and the burden of proof is valid
reasoning.
(Note: dismissal of X due to lack of evidence for X should _not_ be
confused with the idea that X is _disproven_ though lack of evidence.
Lack of evidence does not _prove_ a lack, but it is evidence of a lack)
--
Daniel "Theophage" Clark
Director, EAC Snack Foods Division a.a #1203
[theophage at geocities dot com]
http://members.theglobe.com/theophage
Mike Goodrich
Mark Isaak <at...@best.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:38bacca1$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> In article <38b96...@news1.prserv.net>, <sc...@home.com> wrote:
> >But you have made the claim that there
> >are design flaws, and in any normal
> >argument you would be obligated to
> >support the claim.
>
> Extinctions. If Apatosaurus was a good design, why not keep it?
Who can know? Who can say? Who can be sure what the Designer's
agenda is?
[snip]
-MG
John Wilkins
<tachy...@home.com> wrote:
Then what's the point in invoking a Designer in the first place, if it
doesn't help us to understand the things under investigation in any way?
--
John Wilkins
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
mel turner
tachy...@home.com wrote...
>Mark Isaak <at...@best.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
>news:38bacca1$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
>> In article <38b96...@news1.prserv.net>, <sc...@home.com> wrote:
>> >But you have made the claim that there
>> >are design flaws, and in any normal
>> >argument you would be obligated to
>> >support the claim.
>>
>> Extinctions. If Apatosaurus was a good design, why not keep it?
>
>Who can know? Who can say? Who can be sure what the Designer's
>agenda is?
"The Designer works in mysterious ways" really explains nothing.
Appealing to the incomprehensible isn't much of a substitute for an
explanation that actually makes sense to us.
cheers
Bigdakine
>From: "Mike Goodrich" tachy...@home.com
>Date: 2/28/00 1:14 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <FiDu4.1329$v7.1...@news.rdc1.va.home.com>
>
>
>Mark Isaak <at...@best.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
>news:38bacca1$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
>> In article <38b96...@news1.prserv.net>, <sc...@home.com> wrote:
>> >But you have made the claim that there
>> >are design flaws, and in any normal
>> >argument you would be obligated to
>> >support the claim.
>>
>> Extinctions. If Apatosaurus was a good design, why not keep it?
>
>
>Who can know? Who can say? Who can be sure what the Designer's
>agenda is?
Boy, Mark put you on the ropes rather quickly. In two seconds you admitted that
ID is not a scientific theory...
Stuart
>
>
>[snip]
>
>
>-MG
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
R Bishop
pbfi...@blue.seas.upenn.edu (Patrick B Fisher) wrote:
As I said, I had absolutely no intent to come across as insulting. However,
I've revised my stand and I revoke that intent.
David Johnston
> In <89crak$9a8$2...@news.panix.com>, Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> writes:
> >In talk.origins sc...@home.com wrote:
> >>Just thought I would provide a couple simple
> >>examples of what an argument from ignorance
> >>looks like.
> >
> >
> >>Example 1:
> >
> >>Your inability to proove that God does exist,
> >>is evidence enough that God does not exist.
> >
> >>Example 2:
> >
> >>The tonsils have no apparent function and
> >>therefore provide proof that intelligent design
> >>is a fraud.
> >
> >
> >Those aren't the only ones. How about argument
> >by assertion, a slight modification of the
> >argument from ignorance.
> >
> >Example A: God exists because God exists. We don't
> > need any more proof than that.
> >
> >Example B: I know more about this than you do.
> >
> >Example C: I used to think as you do, but then
> > I discovered that such thinking was wrong.
> >
> You have provided absolutely no evidence that
> these are indeed cases of argument by assertion,
> therefore I conclude that they are not.
That is not a logical conclusion to reach.
What evidence is required to reach the conclusion
that an assertion is an assertion?
Mark Isaak
>news:38bacca1$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
>> In article <38b96...@news1.prserv.net>, <sc...@home.com> wrote:
>> >But you have made the claim that there
>> >are design flaws, and in any normal
>> >argument you would be obligated to
>> >support the claim.
>>
>> Extinctions. If Apatosaurus was a good design, why not keep it?
>
>Who can know? Who can say? Who can be sure what the Designer's
>agenda is?
So you are saying that design means nothing. I thought as much.
leonardo dasso
<sc...@home.com> wrote in message news:38ba2...@news1.prserv.net...
> In <89d07d$tlm$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>, "Patrick Fisher"
<pbfi...@seas.upenn.edu> writes:
> >
> >
> the assertion assumes the burden of proof for
> his/her claim.
>
> saying, "Bigfoot exists" and saying "Bigfoot does not
> exist." Both claims require supporting argumentation.
> Both claims have the burden of proof.
>
> evidence for the contrary claim, commits an agument
> from ignorance fallacy.
>
>
>
> Scott
>
You are wrong. Statements on the existence of entities are not symmetrical.
Non existence is the default situation, until proof is provided about the
existence of a so far unknown entity. If you come up with some imaginary
being like unicorns, gods, pixies, elves, goblins, krakleks, prink-rams,
oophtsters, melphsters, or whatever, it's up to you to show these things
exist. It would be absurd for non-believers in all these imaginary beings to
start a pre-emptive campaign denying the existence of any potential
imaginary being some weirdo might dream up next week.
The situation is of course different when dealing with statements which are
not about existence of entities. That is, both the statement 'it's raining'
and 'it's not raining' carry the burden of proof.
leo
Chaver09
news:FiDu4.1329$v7.1...@news.rdc1.va.home.com...
>
> Mark Isaak <at...@best.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
> news:38bacca1$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> > In article <38b96...@news1.prserv.net>, <sc...@home.com> wrote:
> > >But you have made the claim that there
> > >are design flaws, and in any normal
> > >argument you would be obligated to
> > >support the claim.
> >
> > Extinctions. If Apatosaurus was a good design, why not keep it?
>
>
> Who can know? Who can say? Who can be sure what the Designer's
> agenda is?
Ding ding ding ding...
The loser in this match...
Design theory.
Not a theory.
Not science.
Goodrich has just thrown in the towel (and rather quickly, too!).
sc...@home.com
>>Subject: Re: Design flaws (was: Argument from Ignorance)
>>From: "Mike Goodrich" tachy...@home.com
>>Date: 2/28/00 1:14 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>Message-id: <FiDu4.1329$v7.1...@news.rdc1.va.home.com>
>>
>>
>>news:38bacca1$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
>>> In article <38b96...@news1.prserv.net>, <sc...@home.com> wrote:
>>> >But you have made the claim that there
>>> >are design flaws, and in any normal
>>> >argument you would be obligated to
>>> >support the claim.
>>>
>>> Extinctions. If Apatosaurus was a good design, why not keep it?
>>
>>
>>Who can know? Who can say? Who can be sure what the Designer's
>>agenda is?
>
>ID is not a scientific theory...
>
Like it would be considered "scientific" if it
*did* claim there was an agenda.
Evolution says there is no agenda, does
that make it non-science?
Scott
sc...@home.com
>In article <FiDu4.1329$v7.1...@news.rdc1.va.home.com>, "Mike Goodrich"
><tachy...@home.com> wrote:
>
> |news:38bacca1$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> |> In article <38b96...@news1.prserv.net>, <sc...@home.com> wrote:
> |> >But you have made the claim that there
> |> >are design flaws, and in any normal
> |> >argument you would be obligated to
> |> >support the claim.
> |>
> |> Extinctions. If Apatosaurus was a good design, why not keep it?
> |
>
is a part of God's design.
- William Blake
Bigdakine
>Date: 2/29/00 4:47 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <38bc8...@news1.prserv.net>
>
>In <20000228190546...@ng-de1.aol.com>, bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip
>(Bigdakine) writes:
>>>Subject: Re: Design flaws (was: Argument from Ignorance)
>>>From: "Mike Goodrich" tachy...@home.com
>>>Date: 2/28/00 1:14 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <FiDu4.1329$v7.1...@news.rdc1.va.home.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>news:38bacca1$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
>>>> In article <38b96...@news1.prserv.net>, <sc...@home.com> wrote:
>>>> >But you have made the claim that there
>>>> >are design flaws, and in any normal
>>>> >argument you would be obligated to
>>>> >support the claim.
>>>>
>>>> Extinctions. If Apatosaurus was a good design, why not keep it?
>>>
>>>
>>>agenda is?
>>
>>Boy, Mark put you on the ropes rather quickly. In two seconds you admitted
>that
>>ID is not a scientific theory...
>>
>ROTFL.
>
>Like it would be considered "scientific" if it
>*did* claim there was an agenda.
>
>Evolution says there is no agenda, does
>that make it non-science?
LOL. If there is no way to discern what the designer will do in any situation,
then the concept of designer has no predictive power. Evolution doesn't have an
agenda; the theory of evolution has predictive power though.
Stuart
>
>
>Scott
Bigdakine
>Message-id: <38bc8...@news1.prserv.net>
>
>In <wilkins-3160CF...@news.unimelb.edu.au>, John Wilkins
><wil...@wehi.edu.au> writes:
>>In article <FiDu4.1329$v7.1...@news.rdc1.va.home.com>, "Mike Goodrich"
>><tachy...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> |news:38bacca1$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
>> |> In article <38b96...@news1.prserv.net>, <sc...@home.com> wrote:
>> |> >But you have made the claim that there
>> |> >are design flaws, and in any normal
>> |> >argument you would be obligated to
>> |> >support the claim.
>> |>
>> |> Extinctions. If Apatosaurus was a good design, why not keep it?
>> |
>>
>is a part of God's design.
>
> - William Blake
Thats nice, what in your estimation would not be part of God's design?
Upside down retinas?
Stuart
sarah clark
sc...@home.com wrote:
<snip>
> To be an Error and to be Cast out
> is a part of God's design.
>
> - William Blake
deja vu all over again.
rotflmao.
Joe Knapka
> In <89d07d$tlm$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>, "Patrick Fisher" <pbfi...@seas.upenn.edu> writes:
> >
> >"R Bishop" <bis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >news:89c9r0$rk3$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net...
> ><snip>
> >>
> >> I think you missed my point.
> >>
> >>
> >> Sue
> >
> >Then what was your point?
> >
> >You made the claim that the burden of proof was on the person who did not
> >believe Big Foot was a myth (or, that Big Foot exists.) That's exactly what
> >Mark said. The person making the assertion of a positive (Big Foot exists,
> >or the existence of green rabbits) has the burden of proof. You simply
> >restated this in such a way as to make it seem as though the person refuting
> >a claim may have the burden of proof. This is not the case.
> >
> The confusion here seem to be in your idea of
> what it means to "refute" a claim.
>
> Simple replying, "not X" when someone asserts
> "X" is not a refutation, nor even a rebuttal.
>
> Conversley, replying, "X" when someone asserts
> "not X" is also not a refutation.
>
> Asserting "not X" when confronted by a claim of "X"
> is itself a claim that requires argumentation. You
> assume the burden of proof when you assert "not X."
>
So you're saying that, if you assert "X" (thereby taking upon yourself
the burden of proof), and then I say, in response, "not X", that
magically the burden of proof transfers to me, and you're off
the hook? That's just silly.
Also, please note that saying, "prove X" is not the same as
asserting "not X". Many ID advocates seem to believe that when a
nonbeliever says, "prove that a designer exists", they are somehow
asserting that a designer does -not- exist. But that's not the case;
they're simply asking for proof of the assertion of the designer's
existence. If evidence is not forthcoming, they are perfectly justified
in carrying on as if the assertion is false. If we had to act as if
every lame assertion about the universe was true until -proven-
false, no one would get anything done.
> Asserting "not X" merely on the basis of no evidence
> for "X" is a fallacy of arguing from ignorance.
Ummm, no. The argument from ignorance has the form, "I do
not know how X is possible, therefore not X." That is
obviously not a logical conclusion, especially when you
haven't bothered to investigate available evidence. An
argument of the form, "After searching high and low for
evidence of X, I find none; therefor (with a high degree of
certainty) not X," is perfectly reasonable.
> > The burden of
> >proof, in science, always lies on that person asserting a positive (and not
> >just some spin on words - replacing "exists" with "is a myth." I hope that
> >wasn't the point of your post.)
> >
> "Science can answer no question in the absence of evidence;
> and scientists also remember that absence of evidence is not
> equivalent to evidence of absence."
>
> - Professor Ward B. Watt, Professor of Biology, Stanford University
>
> This includes answering questions in the negative,
> merely on the absence of evidence to the contrary.
What, just on your say-so? The failure to find positive evidence
after a sincere attempt is itself a form of evidence.
Regards,
-- Joe Knapka --
> Scott
John Wilkins
|In <20000228190546...@ng-de1.aol.com>,
|bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) writes:
|>>Subject: Re: Design flaws (was: Argument from Ignorance)
|>>From: "Mike Goodrich" tachy...@home.com
|>>Date: 2/28/00 1:14 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
|>>Message-id: <FiDu4.1329$v7.1...@news.rdc1.va.home.com>
|>>
|>>
|>>Mark Isaak <at...@best.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
|>>news:38bacca1$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
|>>> In article <38b96...@news1.prserv.net>, <sc...@home.com> wrote:
|>>> >But you have made the claim that there
|>>> >are design flaws, and in any normal
|>>> >argument you would be obligated to
|>>> >support the claim.
|>>>
|>>> Extinctions. If Apatosaurus was a good design, why not keep it?
|>>
|>>
|>>Who can know? Who can say? Who can be sure what the Designer's
|>>agenda is?
|>
|>Boy, Mark put you on the ropes rather quickly. In two seconds you admitted
|>that
|>ID is not a scientific theory...
|>
|ROTFL.
|
|Like it would be considered "scientific" if it
|*did* claim there was an agenda.
Yes it would, particularly if the Designer's agenda were testable (eg, we
could look for similarities in related areas of the Designer's activities).
The whole point about it being nonscientific has nothing to do with the
claim there is a Designer as such - if one exists/ed then a scientific
hypothesis has to be informative and testable, but not necessarily
materialistic/mechanistic in the Enlightenment sense.
But saying that a Designer exists because there are regularities we can't
otherwise explain, and in a deep sense not being able to make claims
*about* that Designer is to make empty sentences that only have the
appearance of meaning and knowledge.
|
|Evolution says there is no agenda, does
|that make it non-science?
No, because it posits no Designer as the mechanism of evolution. So
Evolutionary Biology (as the reification of actual evolutionary biology) in
effect claims "there is no agenda required to explain apparent design,
because there is no Designer required to explain it either". If, on the
other hand it said ""Apparent design requires a mystical or unknowable
force" it would be nonscience.
John Wilkins
|In <wilkins-3160CF...@news.unimelb.edu.au>, John Wilkins
|<wil...@wehi.edu.au> writes:
|>In article <FiDu4.1329$v7.1...@news.rdc1.va.home.com>, "Mike Goodrich"
|><tachy...@home.com> wrote:
|>
|> |Mark Isaak <at...@best.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
|> |news:38bacca1$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
|> |> In article <38b96...@news1.prserv.net>, <sc...@home.com> wrote:
|> |> >But you have made the claim that there
|> |> >are design flaws, and in any normal
|> |> >argument you would be obligated to
|> |> >support the claim.
|> |>
|> |> Extinctions. If Apatosaurus was a good design, why not keep it?
|> |
|>
|To be an Error and to be Cast out
|is a part of God's design.
|
| - William Blake
|
|
'So careful of the type?' but no.
From scarpèd cliff and quarried stone
She cries, 'A thousand types are gone:
I care for nothing, all shall go.
Thou makest thine appeal to me: 165
I bring to life, I bring to death:
The spirit does but mean the breath:
I know no more.' And he, shall he,
Man, her last work, who seem'd so fair,
Such splendid purpose in his eyes, 170
Who roll'd the psalm to wintry skies,
Who built him fanes of fruitless prayer,
Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation's final law‹
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw 175
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed‹
Who loved, who suffer'd countless ills,
Who battled for the True, the Just,
Be blown about the desert dust,
Or seal'd within the iron hills? 180
No more? A monster then, a dream,
A discord. Dragons of the prime,
That tare each other in their slime,
Were mellow music match'd with him.
O life as futile, then, as frail! 185
O for thy voice to soothe and bless!
What hope of answer, or redress?
Behind the veil, behind the veil.
Stanza X, "In Memoriam AHH", Alfred Lord Tennyson.
John Wilkins
Wilkins <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote:
Oops... Section 56, not Stanza X
Bonz
<38b89...@news1.prserv.net> :
>Just thought I would provide a couple simple
>examples of what an argument from ignorance
>looks like.
>
>
>Example 1:
>
>Your inability to proove that God does exist,
>is evidence enough that God does not exist.
You are ahead of yourself. Since there is no evidence to
consider, the question of the existence of gods has not been
raised.
>
>Example 2:
>
>The tonsils have no apparent function and
>therefore provide proof that intelligent design
>is a fraud.
Yes, but not for the reason you think. There is no "design
theory". Anything and everything can be designated as "designed".
Or nothing. It is not a testable proposition.
い
Bonz alt.atheism #1497
Please deSPAM before sending Email
い
heb...@attglobal.net
Each individual has the burden of proof for their claim.
>Also, please note that saying, "prove X" is not the same as
>asserting "not X".
>
Agreed.
I thought I pointed that out.
> Many ID advocates seem to believe that when a
>nonbeliever says, "prove that a designer exists", they are somehow
>asserting that a designer does -not- exist. But that's not the case;
>they're simply asking for proof of the assertion of the designer's
>existence.
> If evidence is not forthcoming, they are perfectly justified
>in carrying on as if the assertion is false.
>
Here's where we disagree. There is no *justification*
in believing a claim to be false merely on the lack of
evidence that it is true.
> If we had to act as if
>every lame assertion about the universe was true until -proven-
>false, no one would get anything done.
>
>
>> Asserting "not X" merely on the basis of no evidence
>> for "X" is a fallacy of arguing from ignorance.
>
>Ummm, no. The argument from ignorance has the form, "I do
>not know how X is possible, therefore not X." That is
>obviously not a logical conclusion, especially when you
>haven't bothered to investigate available evidence. An
>argument of the form, "After searching high and low for
>evidence of X, I find none; therefor (with a high degree of
>certainty) not X," is perfectly reasonable.
>
>
>> > The burden of
>> >proof, in science, always lies on that person asserting a positive (and not
>> >just some spin on words - replacing "exists" with "is a myth." I hope that
>> >wasn't the point of your post.)
>> >
>> "Science can answer no question in the absence of evidence;
>> and scientists also remember that absence of evidence is not
>> equivalent to evidence of absence."
>>
>> - Professor Ward B. Watt, Professor of Biology, Stanford University
>>
>> This includes answering questions in the negative,
>> merely on the absence of evidence to the contrary.
>
>The failure to find positive evidence
>after a sincere attempt is itself a form of evidence.
>
Yes indeed.
Scott
sc...@home.com
>>Subject: Re: Design flaws (was: Argument from Ignorance)
>>Date: 2/29/00 4:47 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>Message-id: <38bc8...@news1.prserv.net>
>>
>>In <20000228190546...@ng-de1.aol.com>, bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip
>>(Bigdakine) writes:
>>>>Subject: Re: Design flaws (was: Argument from Ignorance)
>>>>From: "Mike Goodrich" tachy...@home.com
>>>>Date: 2/28/00 1:14 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: <FiDu4.1329$v7.1...@news.rdc1.va.home.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>news:38bacca1$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
>>>>> In article <38b96...@news1.prserv.net>, <sc...@home.com> wrote:
>>>>> >But you have made the claim that there
>>>>> >are design flaws, and in any normal
>>>>> >argument you would be obligated to
>>>>> >support the claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> Extinctions. If Apatosaurus was a good design, why not keep it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>agenda is?
>>>
>>>Boy, Mark put you on the ropes rather quickly. In two seconds you admitted
>>that
>>>ID is not a scientific theory...
>>>
>>ROTFL.
>>
>>Like it would be considered "scientific" if it
>>*did* claim there was an agenda.
>>
>>that make it non-science?
>
>then the concept of designer has no predictive power. Evolution doesn't have an
>agenda; the theory of evolution has predictive power though.
>
1. Design has no agenda.
Must not have any predictive power.
2. Evolution has no agenda.
But it hs predictive power.
Therefore evolution is true and design is false.
or
Therefore evolution is science and design is not.
Scott
sc...@home.com
>>
>>To be an Error and to be Cast out
>>is a part of God's design.
>>
>> - William Blake
>
>
>Upside down retinas?
>
And how do you know that it isn't the "right side up"
retinas that are actually "upside down"?
scott
sc...@home.com
>In article <38bc8...@news1.prserv.net>, sc...@home.com wrote:
>
> |In <20000228190546...@ng-de1.aol.com>,
> |bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) writes:
> |>>Subject: Re: Design flaws (was: Argument from Ignorance)
> |>>From: "Mike Goodrich" tachy...@home.com
> |>>Date: 2/28/00 1:14 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
> |>>Message-id: <FiDu4.1329$v7.1...@news.rdc1.va.home.com>
> |>>
> |>>
> |>>Mark Isaak <at...@best.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
> |>>news:38bacca1$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> |>>> In article <38b96...@news1.prserv.net>, <sc...@home.com> wrote:
> |>>> >But you have made the claim that there
> |>>> >are design flaws, and in any normal
> |>>> >argument you would be obligated to
> |>>> >support the claim.
> |>>>
> |>>> Extinctions. If Apatosaurus was a good design, why not keep it?
> |>>
> |>>
> |>>Who can know? Who can say? Who can be sure what the Designer's
> |>>agenda is?
> |>
> |>Boy, Mark put you on the ropes rather quickly. In two seconds you admitted
> |>that
> |>ID is not a scientific theory...
> |>
> |ROTFL.
> |
> |Like it would be considered "scientific" if it
> |*did* claim there was an agenda.
>
>could look for similarities in related areas of the Designer's activities).
>
to bring forth a being like man?
>The whole point about it being nonscientific has nothing to do with the
>claim there is a Designer as such - if one exists/ed then a scientific
>hypothesis has to be informative and testable, but not necessarily
>materialistic/mechanistic in the Enlightenment sense.
>
>But saying that a Designer exists because there are regularities we can't
>otherwise explain, and in a deep sense not being able to make claims
>*about* that Designer is to make empty sentences that only have the
>appearance of meaning and knowledge.
> |
> |Evolution says there is no agenda, does
> |that make it non-science?
>
>No, because it posits no Designer as the mechanism of evolution. So
>Evolutionary Biology (as the reification of actual evolutionary biology) in
>effect claims "there is no agenda required to explain apparent design,
>because there is no Designer required to explain it either". If, on the
>other hand it said ""Apparent design requires a mystical or unknowable
>force" it would be nonscience.
>
Sort of like the mystical and unknowable force
that holds the universe in existence?
Scott
Mark Isaak
>In <20000228190546...@ng-de1.aol.com>, bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) writes:
>>>> >But you have made the claim that there
>>>> >are design flaws, and in any normal
>>>> >argument you would be obligated to
>>>> >support the claim.
>>>>
>>>> Extinctions. If Apatosaurus was a good design, why not keep it?
>>>
>>>Who can know? Who can say? Who can be sure what the Designer's
>>>agenda is?
>>
>>Boy, Mark put you on the ropes rather quickly. In two seconds you
>>admitted that ID is not a scientific theory...
>
>*did* claim there was an agenda.
The topic was design. Mike Goodrich's response exposed the truth that
design doesn't mean anything when used by creationists.
>Evolution says there is no agenda, does
>that make it non-science?
It makes evolution non-design.
Bigdakine
>Date: 2/29/00 8:32 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <38bcb...@news1.prserv.net>
>
>In <20000229220328...@ng-de1.aol.com>, bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip
>(Bigdakine) writes:
>>>Subject: Re: Design flaws (was: Argument from Ignorance)
>>>Date: 2/29/00 4:47 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <38bc8...@news1.prserv.net>
>>>>>From: "Mike Goodrich" tachy...@home.com
>>>>>Date: 2/28/00 1:14 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>>>>Message-id: <FiDu4.1329$v7.1...@news.rdc1.va.home.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <38b96...@news1.prserv.net>, <sc...@home.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >But you have made the claim that there
>>>>>> >are design flaws, and in any normal
>>>>>> >argument you would be obligated to
>>>>>> >support the claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Extinctions. If Apatosaurus was a good design, why not keep it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Who can know? Who can say? Who can be sure what the Designer's
>>>>>agenda is?
>>>>
>>>>Boy, Mark put you on the ropes rather quickly. In two seconds you admitted
>>>that
>>>>ID is not a scientific theory...
>>>>
>>>
>>>Like it would be considered "scientific" if it
>>>*did* claim there was an agenda.
>>>
>>>that make it non-science?
>>
>situation,
>>then the concept of designer has no predictive power. Evolution doesn't have
>an
>>agenda; the theory of evolution has predictive power though.
>>
>Where's the logic here Stuart?
>
>1. Design has no agenda.
>
>Must not have any predictive power.
>
>2. Evolution has no agenda.
>
>But it hs predictive power.
>
>Therefore evolution is true and design is false.
>or
>Therefore evolution is science and design is not.
I realize you're having trouble here. ID doesn't have a mechanism, evolution
does. Hence since we know the mechanisms or at least several of them, of
evolution we can form a testable hypothesis based on those mechanisms.
Since ID doesn't have a mechanism, one needs to know some characteristics of
the designer...
Mark Isaak
>is a part of God's design.
>
> - William Blake
How about that. William Blake was an evolutionist.
You didn't say whether you agreed, Scott. Do you believe that design
flaws are part of God's design?
Ken Cox
> In article <38bc8...@news1.prserv.net>, sc...@home.com wrote:
> |To be an Error and to be Cast out
> |is a part of God's design.
> | - William Blake
> From scarpèd cliff and quarried stone
> She cries, 'A thousand types are gone:
> I care for nothing, all shall go.
> Stanza X, "In Memoriam AHH", Alfred Lord Tennyson.
Nice, but if you want poetic interpretations of science, there
is a much better literary form.
"There once was a lady from Venus..."
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Jeffrey A. Young
Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>sc...@home.com writes:
>>In <YCnWn+B2...@bebbo.demon.co.uk>, Dene Bebbington
>><de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>sc...@home.com writes:
>>>>Just thought I would provide a couple simple
>>>>examples of what an argument from ignorance
>>>>looks like.
>>>>
>>>>Example 1:
>>>>
>>>>Your inability to proove that God does exist,
>>>>is evidence enough that God does not exist.
>>>
>>>
>>>There are IC systems in nature.
>>>Nobody has proved that these IC systems could have evolved gradually.
>>>Therefore these IC systems are the result of intelligent design.
>>>
>>This does not constitute the fallacy.
>>
>>To be a fallacy, one would have to argue as follows:
>>
>>Nobody has proved that these IC systems could have evolved gradually.
>>Therefore these IC systems could not have evolved gradually.
>>
>>See the difference?
Yes. The former is simply a fallacy of non sequitur, not of AaI.
>How many times does this have to be explained to you. Behe is arguing
>for ID because it hasn't been proved false - ie. by demonstrating how IC
>systems could have arisen gradually.
"Arguing for" and claiming "evidence for" are two different things.
You are equivocating.
Practically and informally it makes sense to note that something
hasn't been proved false as a preliminary to arguing
that it is true. As long as everyone is clear that its not having
been proved false *only* supports a claim that the *possibility*
remains that it is true. Or a bit less formally, its not having
been proved false _suggests_ that it _may_ be true. If Behe is claiming
more than that, perhaps you can provide quotes?
>This is still an instance of the AaI fallacy even if the argument isn't
>couched in the way you say it would have to be.
Incorrect. Not AaI, but non sequitur. Still, a fallacy.
>As someone else has
>already pointed out, if fallacies were worded so obviously people would
>spot them so much easier. You need to learn to be more sophisticated in
>your approach to analysing arguments.
Rather, *you* need to learn to distinguish different types of fallacies
from one another, lest you lose your own credibility.
>>>Positive grounds for intelligent design do not appear to be given, his
>>>argument rests on the inability of contemporary science to demonstrate
>>>that his IC systems arose gradually.
>>>
>>That's not the same thing.
>
>It is. Did you not read the quote from Behe where he states what would
>falsify his ID proposition.
Showing what would falsify a proposition is not asserting that the
proposition itself is proved. If Behe says otherwise, perhaps you
can provide the quote again? From what you've said, it sounds like
Behe is simply defending the *possibility* that his proposition is
correct from his detractors.
Jeff
Jeffrey A. Young
Mark Isaak <at...@best.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>In article <38b89...@news1.prserv.net>, <sc...@home.com> wrote:
>>Just thought I would provide a couple simple
>>examples of what an argument from ignorance
>>looks like.
>>
>>Example 1:
>>
>>Your inability to proove that God does exist,
>>is evidence enough that God does not exist.
>
>argument from ignorance would be, "I can't imagine God existing, therefore
>God does not exist."
Incorrect. That is argument from incredulity, not from ignorance.
Have you perhaps confused the two words?
(And strictly speaking, the purely AaI form of Example 1 above
would be:
"The fact that it has not been shown that God does exist,
is evidence enough that God does not exist."
But Scott is essentially correct about AaI.)
Jeff
Dene Bebbington
>In article <F12h6aCw...@bebbo.demon.co.uk>,
>Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>sc...@home.com writes:
>>>In <YCnWn+B2...@bebbo.demon.co.uk>, Dene Bebbington
>>><de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>>>sc...@home.com writes:
>>>>>examples of what an argument from ignorance
>>>>>looks like.
>>>>>
>>>>>Example 1:
>>>>>
>>>>>Your inability to proove that God does exist,
>>>>>is evidence enough that God does not exist.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>There are IC systems in nature.
>>>>Nobody has proved that these IC systems could have evolved gradually.
>>>>Therefore these IC systems are the result of intelligent design.
>>>>
>>>This does not constitute the fallacy.
>>>
>>>To be a fallacy, one would have to argue as follows:
>>>
>>>Nobody has proved that these IC systems could have evolved gradually.
>>>Therefore these IC systems could not have evolved gradually.
>>>
>>>See the difference?
>
>Yes. The former is simply a fallacy of non sequitur, not of AaI.
Non-sequitur is not a fallacy AFAIK, it's just a phrase to describe the
case that a conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premises -
there several possible reasons for that. The argument Scott put forward
as an example of AaI is both a non-sequitur and an instance of the AaI
fallacy.
>>How many times does this have to be explained to you. Behe is arguing
>>for ID because it hasn't been proved false - ie. by demonstrating how IC
>>systems could have arisen gradually.
>
>"Arguing for" and claiming "evidence for" are two different things.
>You are equivocating.
>Practically and informally it makes sense to note that something
>hasn't been proved false as a preliminary to arguing
>that it is true.
Behe doesn't seem to have any argument for ID except that it hasn't been
proved false, IC systems are complex, and dubious analogy to a
mousetrap.
> As long as everyone is clear that its not having
>been proved false *only* supports a claim that the *possibility*
>remains that it is true. Or a bit less formally, its not having
>been proved false _suggests_ that it _may_ be true. If Behe is claiming
>more than that, perhaps you can provide quotes?
Behe even suggests that Intelligent Design is as revolutionary to
science as was quantum mechanics - this is no humble positing of mere
possibilities.
>>This is still an instance of the AaI fallacy even if the argument isn't
>>couched in the way you say it would have to be.
>
>Incorrect. Not AaI, but non sequitur. Still, a fallacy.
Non-sequitur is not a fallacy, it's a general term and can cover a
multitude of fallacies.
>>As someone else has
>>already pointed out, if fallacies were worded so obviously people would
>>spot them so much easier. You need to learn to be more sophisticated in
>>your approach to analysing arguments.
>
>Rather, *you* need to learn to distinguish different types of fallacies
>from one another, lest you lose your own credibility.
It's you having the problem distinguishing fallacies, not me.
>>>>Positive grounds for intelligent design do not appear to be given, his
>>>>argument rests on the inability of contemporary science to demonstrate
>>>>that his IC systems arose gradually.
>>>>
>>>That's not the same thing.
>>
>>It is. Did you not read the quote from Behe where he states what would
>>falsify his ID proposition.
>
>Showing what would falsify a proposition is not asserting that the
>proposition itself is proved. If Behe says otherwise, perhaps you
>can provide the quote again? From what you've said, it sounds like
>Behe is simply defending the *possibility* that his proposition is
>correct from his detractors.
No, he's put forward a proposition in a book, and has also defended it.
Besides the fallacious nature of his "reasoning" it's clear to me that
this modern incarnation of the argument from design has more to do with
religious belief than science, notwithstanding his efforts not to be
straightforward about it.
--
Dene Bebbington http://www.bebbo.demon.co.uk
"These days are overgrown in truth" - Calum & Rory Macdonald (Runrig)
sc...@home.com
>In article <38baca9c$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
>Mark Isaak <at...@best.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>>In article <38b89...@news1.prserv.net>, <sc...@home.com> wrote:
>>>examples of what an argument from ignorance
>>>looks like.
>>>
>>>Example 1:
>>>
>>>Your inability to proove that God does exist,
>>>is evidence enough that God does not exist.
>>
>>argument from ignorance would be, "I can't imagine God existing, therefore
>>God does not exist."
>
>Incorrect. That is argument from incredulity, not from ignorance.
>Have you perhaps confused the two words?
>
>(And strictly speaking, the purely AaI form of Example 1 above
>would be:
> is evidence enough that God does not exist."
>
Scott
chav...@my-deja.com
sc...@home.com wrote:
[Snip]
Scott, I don't seem to see an answer to this article:
<sc...@home.com> wrote in message news:38b9f...@news1.prserv.net...
> In <dHhu4.7117$t7.4...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com>, "Chaver09"
<cahv...@yahoo.com> writes:
> ><sc...@home.com> wrote in message news:38b96...@news1.prserv.net...
> >> In <k01u4.6032$t7.3...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com>, "Chaver09"
> ><cahv...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >> ><sc...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38b89...@news1.prserv.net...
> >> >> Just thought I would provide a couple simple
> >> >> examples of what an argument from ignorance
> >> >> looks like.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Example 1:
> >> >>
> >> >> Your inability to proove that God does exist,
> >> >
> >> >Nope.
> >> >
> >> >*Your* inability to prove that God exists...
> >> >
> >> >> is evidence enough that God does not exist.
> >> >
> >> >After all, it's YOUR claim.
> >> >
> >> >[snip]
> >> >
> >> Prosecution's Exhibit #1.
> >
> >Really!
> >
> >Explain.
> >
> >I'm not really impressed with text-byte, allegedly clever responses
to
> >complex issues.
> >
> >You raised this issue.
> >
> >I'm challenging you.
> >
> >It's YOUR claim.
> >
> *What* is my claim?
>
> My only claim is that the following constitutes
> the argument from ignorance fallacy:
>
> "Your inability to proove that God does exist,
> is evidence enough that God does not exist."
>
> What did *you* think I was claiming?
You snipped away a great deal that explained the situation, and you did
so without marking it.
[Restored text]
I haven't tried to produce evidence for God because my "thesis
statement," if you will, is that he does not exist. I have seen
no "evidence" for him (as presented by theists) that stands up to
scrutiny - certainly no evidence of the Christian god in which most
Americans believe.
Assuming you are the prosecution (which has it's own irony - likely
without you understanding it), for what would you presume to prosecute
me?
Look at your claim above that started this conversation.
"The inability to prove [minus one "o" from the original] that God
exists is evidence enough that God does not exist."
But I've never tried to "prove" anything either way. So there is no
failure or inability on *my* part.
In fact, all our lives, from the beginning to perception to now, it has
fallen to those who believe to present their evidence. Some of us
might then later presume to take on the task of "proving" the existence
of God.
You appear to be one of those individuals.
You, as presenting the argument from the affirmative, must offer this
evidence.
So far, what we have seen is *your* inability to prove much of
anything, let alone that God exists.
So much for "prosecution's exhibit #1."
[End restored text]
Why did you snip this away? It was dishonest and evasive.
That's par for the course for pseudointellecual types.
Your unstated claim is that there's a god.
Isn't it?
Your stated claim is that since WE who don't believe in a god haven't
been able to PROVE there's a god is an argument from ignorance.
As I explained, WE didn't try to "prove" anything.
The burden of such things falls to you - not us. We cannot prove that
God DOESN'T exist, but we can be sure he doesn't because you theists
cannot prove that he DOES.
We are not obligated to prove that he doesn't exist.
Frankly, I think your nonsensical meanderings, obfuscations, and
evasions are designed to actually avoid a discussion of whatever
evidence you might think you possess.
Assume for the moment that, fine, we are being ignorant by claiming
that because WE can't prove God exists, that must mean he doesn't.
Clear up our ignorance.
Prove he DOES exist.
How do you plan to do that?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
sc...@home.com
>In article <38b9f...@news1.prserv.net>,
> sc...@home.com wrote:
>
>[Snip]
>
>Scott, I don't seem to see an answer to this article:
>
"Your unstated claim is that there's a god."
Produce the *evidence* that I ever made
this unstated claim.
Alternatively, answer this question, and provide
*evidence* to support you answer.
*What* is my claim?
<Recommendation>
Stop wasting bandwidth challenging me on an assertion
that I never made.
</Recommendation>
Scott
Chaver09
> In <89kkq7$mec$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, chav...@my-deja.com writes:
> >In article <38b9f...@news1.prserv.net>,
> > sc...@home.com wrote:
> >
> >[Snip]
> >
> >Scott, I don't seem to see an answer to this article:
> >
> Your assertion:
>
> "Your unstated claim is that there's a god."
>
> Produce the *evidence* that I ever made
> this unstated claim.
I already did. Since you didn't snip it away this time, I'll leave it. It
appears below.
Are you not making this claim?
Are you saying there is no god?
If so, say it.
Say there's no god.
Or say, "I'm not saying there is a god."
Go ahead.
Make an atheistic statement.
Tempt the anger of God.
If you dare.
> Alternatively, answer this question, and provide
> *evidence* to support you answer.
Done below. Where is your answer?
You made the assertion. I challenged it. You ran.
You're still running.
> *What* is my claim?
See below. Do you have problems reading for comprehension?
> <Recommendation>
> Stop wasting bandwidth challenging me on an assertion
> that I never made.
> </Recommendation>
Refute that assertion, then. Say "there is no god" or, at least, "I am not
claiming there is a god."
Deny god.
I dare you.
Your argumentation is not impressive. It strikes me as elementary and
juvenile.
Robert Gotschall
So spake sc...@home.com:
> In <20000228190546...@ng-de1.aol.com>, bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) writes:
> >>Subject: Re: Design flaws (was: Argument from Ignorance)
> >>From: "Mike Goodrich" tachy...@home.com
> >>Date: 2/28/00 1:14 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
> >>Message-id: <FiDu4.1329$v7.1...@news.rdc1.va.home.com>
> >>
> >>
> >>Mark Isaak <at...@best.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
> >>news:38bacca1$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> >>> In article <38b96...@news1.prserv.net>, <sc...@home.com> wrote:
> >>> >But you have made the claim that there
> >>> >are design flaws, and in any normal
> >>> >argument you would be obligated to
> >>> >support the claim.
> >>>
> >>> Extinctions. If Apatosaurus was a good design, why not keep it?
> >>
> >>
> >>Who can know? Who can say? Who can be sure what the Designer's
> >>agenda is?
> >
> >Boy, Mark put you on the ropes rather quickly. In two seconds you admitted that
> >ID is not a scientific theory...
> >
> ROTFL.
>
> Like it would be considered "scientific" if it
> *did* claim there was an agenda.
>
> Evolution says there is no agenda, does
> that make it non-science?
>
>
> Scott
You however, are claiming design.
agenda n. a list, plan, outline, or the like, of things to be
done, matters to be acted or voted upon, etc.
Copyright © 1966-1994 by Random House Inc., All Rights Reserved.
Design 1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a
work to be executed) , esp. to plan the form and structure of: to
design a new bridge.
Copyright © 1966-1994 by Random House Inc., All Rights Reserved.
Unlike design, evolution has no agenda, no plan. Capiche?
--
Robert Gotschall
Everything looks bad if you remember it.
Homer Simpson
sc...@home.com
><sc...@home.com> wrote in message news:38bde...@news1.prserv.net...
>> In <89kkq7$mec$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, chav...@my-deja.com writes:
>> >In article <38b9f...@news1.prserv.net>,
>> > sc...@home.com wrote:
>> >
>> >[Snip]
>> >
>> >Scott, I don't seem to see an answer to this article:
>> >
>> Your assertion:
>>
>> "Your unstated claim is that there's a god."
>>
>> Produce the *evidence* that I ever made
>> this unstated claim.
>
>I already did. Since you didn't snip it away this time, I'll leave it. It
>appears below.
>
Please reproduce my "unstated claim" once more, for
the benefit of all skeptics.
>Are you not making this claim?
>
>Are you saying there is no god?
>
I am not saying there is or is not a god.
Prove I have said otherwise in the course
of this thread.
>If so, say it.
>
>Say there's no god.
>
Why?
>Or say, "I'm not saying there is a god."
>
>Go ahead.
>
Within the context of this thread I have
not claimed that there is a god.
>Make an atheistic statement.
>
<Begin atheistic statement>
One would have to be an idiot to be an atheist.
(I'm still looking for the cite on this.)
</End atheistic statement>
>Tempt the anger of God.
>
>If you dare.
>
>> Alternatively, answer this question, and provide
>> *evidence* to support you answer.
>
>Done below. Where is your answer?
>
You provided evidence that I made an
unstated claim? Amazing.
>You made the assertion. I challenged it. You ran.
>
>You're still running.
>
I always run from "unstated claims."
One can never tell where they are coming from.
>> *What* is my claim?
>
>See below. Do you have problems reading for comprehension?
>
I have a *specific* problem comprehending
unstated claims.
>> <Recommendation>
>> Stop wasting bandwidth challenging me on an assertion
>> that I never made.
>> </Recommendation>
>
>Refute that assertion, then. Say "there is no god" or, at least, "I am not
>claiming there is a god."
>
I have not claimed in this thread that there
is a god.
>Deny god.
>
>I dare you.
>
>Your argumentation is not impressive. It strikes me as elementary and
>juvenile.
>
<Begin juvenile statement>
Twit.
</End juvenile statement>
Ghostview
wrote:
> In <20000229220328...@ng-de1.aol.com>,
> bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) writes:
> >>Subject: Re: Design flaws (was: Argument from
> Ignorance)
> >>>>Who can know? Who can say? Who can be sure what
> the Designer's
> >>>>agenda is?
> >>>
> >>>Boy, Mark put you on the ropes rather quickly. In
> two seconds you admitted
> >>that
> >>>ID is not a scientific theory...
> >>>
> >>ROTFL.
> >>
> >>Like it would be considered "scientific" if it
> >>*did* claim there was an agenda.
> >>
> >>Evolution says there is no agenda, does
> >>that make it non-science?
> >
> >LOL. If there is no way to discern what the designer
> will do in any situation,
> >then the concept of designer has no predictive power.
> Evolution doesn't have an
> >agenda; the theory of evolution has predictive power
> though.
> >
> Where's the logic here Stuart?
> 1. Design has no agenda.
> Must not have any predictive power.
Does ID have predictive power, please explain
> 2. Evolution has no agenda.
> But it hs predictive power.
> Therefore evolution is true and design is false.
> or
> Therefore evolution is science and design is not.
So far design has done quite poorly in its attempts to
become a science.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Bernd Pichulik
Ghostview <ghostview31...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:08f6992b...@usw-ex0110-075.remarq.com...
> In article <38bcb...@news1.prserv.net>, sc...@home.com
> wrote:
> > In <20000229220328...@ng-de1.aol.com>,
> > bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) writes:
[snip]
> > Where's the logic here Stuart?
> > 1. Design has no agenda.
> > Must not have any predictive power.
>
> Does ID have predictive power, please explain
>
> > 2. Evolution has no agenda.
> > But it hs predictive power.
> > Therefore evolution is true and design is false.
> > or Therefore evolution is science and design is not.
>
> So far design has done quite poorly in its attempts to
> become a science.
That may be true or may not be true. Sofar many a reply you have come up
with in the past on a variety of matters (see example above), has "done
quite poorly in its attempts" to address itself head-on to whatever
subject matter was under discussion and, more relevant here, without
equivocation.
Bernd Pichulik
sarah clark
heb...@attglobal.net wrote:
> In <38BC932A...@netscape.invalid>, Joe Knapka <joseph...@transcore.com> writes:
<snip>
> > If evidence is not forthcoming, they are perfectly justified
> >in carrying on as if the assertion is false.
> >
> Here's where we disagree. There is no *justification*
> in believing a claim to be false merely on the lack of
> evidence that it is true.
<snip>
> >The failure to find positive evidence
> >after a sincere attempt is itself a form of evidence.
> >
> Yes indeed.
wow.
>
>
> Scott
sc...@home.com
>In article <38bcb...@news1.prserv.net>, sc...@home.com
>wrote:
>> In <20000229220328...@ng-de1.aol.com>,
>> bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) writes:
>> Ignorance)
>
>> >>>>Who can know? Who can say? Who can be sure what
>> the Designer's
>> >>>>agenda is?
>> >>>
>> >>>Boy, Mark put you on the ropes rather quickly. In
>> two seconds you admitted
>> >>that
>> >>>ID is not a scientific theory...
>> >>>
>> >>ROTFL.
>> >>
>> >>Like it would be considered "scientific" if it
>> >>*did* claim there was an agenda.
>> >>
>> >>Evolution says there is no agenda, does
>> >>that make it non-science?
>> >
>> >LOL. If there is no way to discern what the designer
>> will do in any situation,
>> >then the concept of designer has no predictive power.
>> Evolution doesn't have an
>> >agenda; the theory of evolution has predictive power
>> though.
>> >
>> 1. Design has no agenda.
>> Must not have any predictive power.
>
>Does ID have predictive power
>
>please explain
>
No.
Scott
sc...@home.com
>>Subject: Re: Design flaws (was: Argument from Ignorance)
>>Date: 2/29/00 8:32 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>Message-id: <38bcb...@news1.prserv.net>
>>
>>In <20000229220328...@ng-de1.aol.com>, bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip
>>(Bigdakine) writes:
>>>>Subject: Re: Design flaws (was: Argument from Ignorance)
>>>>Date: 2/29/00 4:47 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: <38bc8...@news1.prserv.net>
>>>>
>>>>In <20000228190546...@ng-de1.aol.com>,
>>bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip
>>>>(Bigdakine) writes:
>>>>>>Subject: Re: Design flaws (was: Argument from Ignorance)
>>>>>>Date: 2/28/00 1:14 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>>>>>Message-id: <FiDu4.1329$v7.1...@news.rdc1.va.home.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Mark Isaak <at...@best.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:38bacca1$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
>>>>>>> In article <38b96...@news1.prserv.net>, <sc...@home.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >But you have made the claim that there
>>>>>>> >are design flaws, and in any normal
>>>>>>> >argument you would be obligated to
>>>>>>> >support the claim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Extinctions. If Apatosaurus was a good design, why not keep it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>agenda is?
>>>>>
>>>>>Boy, Mark put you on the ropes rather quickly. In two seconds you admitted
>>>>that
>>>>>ID is not a scientific theory...
>>>>>
>>>>ROTFL.
>>>>
>>>>Like it would be considered "scientific" if it
>>>>*did* claim there was an agenda.
>>>>
>>>>Evolution says there is no agenda, does
>>>>that make it non-science?
>>>
>>>LOL. If there is no way to discern what the designer will do in any
>>situation,
>>>then the concept of designer has no predictive power. Evolution doesn't have
>>an
>>>agenda; the theory of evolution has predictive power though.
>>>
>>Where's the logic here Stuart?
>>
>>1. Design has no agenda.
>>
>>Must not have any predictive power.
>>
>>
>>But it hs predictive power.
>>
>>Therefore evolution is true and design is false.
>>or
>>Therefore evolution is science and design is not.
>
>does. Hence since we know the mechanisms or at least several of them, of
>evolution we can form a testable hypothesis based on those mechanisms.
>
>Since ID doesn't have a mechanism, one needs to know some characteristics of
>the designer...
>
not have a mechanism, and even then you could
be wrong.
The lack of a naturalistic mechanism does not mean
there is no mechanism.
Scott
sc...@home.com
>In article <38bc8...@news1.prserv.net>
>So spake sc...@home.com:
>
>> >>Subject: Re: Design flaws (was: Argument from Ignorance)
>> >>From: "Mike Goodrich" tachy...@home.com
>> >>Date: 2/28/00 1:14 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>> >>Message-id: <FiDu4.1329$v7.1...@news.rdc1.va.home.com>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Mark Isaak <at...@best.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
>> >>news:38bacca1$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
>> >>> In article <38b96...@news1.prserv.net>, <sc...@home.com> wrote:
>> >>> >But you have made the claim that there
>> >>> >are design flaws, and in any normal
>> >>> >argument you would be obligated to
>> >>> >support the claim.
>> >>>
>> >>> Extinctions. If Apatosaurus was a good design, why not keep it?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Who can know? Who can say? Who can be sure what the Designer's
>> >>agenda is?
>> >
>> >Boy, Mark put you on the ropes rather quickly. In two seconds you admitted that
>> >ID is not a scientific theory...
>> >
>> ROTFL.
>>
>> Like it would be considered "scientific" if it
>> *did* claim there was an agenda.
>>
>> Evolution says there is no agenda, does
>> that make it non-science?
>>
>>
>
>You however, are claiming design.
>
>agenda n. a list, plan, outline, or the like, of things to be
>done, matters to be acted or voted upon, etc.
>
>Copyright © 1966-1994 by Random House Inc., All Rights Reserved.
>
>Design 1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a
>work to be executed) , esp. to plan the form and structure of: to
>design a new bridge.
>
>Copyright © 1966-1994 by Random House Inc., All Rights Reserved.
>
>Unlike design, evolution has no agenda, no plan. Capiche?
>
Evolution does not involve "matters to be acted
or voted upon"?
What then, is "selection"?
Selection involves choice.
It amazes me how people can believe that
nature makes "choices."
Scott
sc...@home.com
>In article <38bc8...@news1.prserv.net>, <sc...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>To be an Error and to be Cast out
>>is a part of God's design.
>>
>> - William Blake
>
>
>flaws are part of God's design?
>
Define "design flaw."
Scott
Adam Noel Harris
[...]
:Hmm...
:
:Evolution does not involve "matters to be acted
:or voted upon"?
:
:What then, is "selection"?
:
:Selection involves choice.
:
:It amazes me how people can believe that
:nature makes "choices."
This is really curious, Scott. It amazes you how people can believe that
nature makes "choices." You also claim that "Selection involves choice."
This would seem to imply that you either don't believe that selection is a
real phenomenon or that something other than "nature" makes the choice.
Care to elaborate?
-Adam
--
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Stanford University.
PGP Fingerprint = C0 65 A2 BD 8A 67 B3 19 F9 8B C1 4C 8E F2 EA 0E
sc...@home.com
>sc...@home.com <sc...@home.com> wrote:
>[...]
>:Hmm...
>:
>:Evolution does not involve "matters to be acted
>:or voted upon"?
>:
>:What then, is "selection"?
>:
>:Selection involves choice.
>:
>:It amazes me how people can believe that
>:nature makes "choices."
>
>This is really curious, Scott. It amazes you how people can believe that
>nature makes "choices." You also claim that "Selection involves choice."
>This would seem to imply that you either don't believe that selection is a
>real phenomenon or that something other than "nature" makes the choice.
>
>Care to elaborate?
>
Of course, it could be possible that nature has
a "mind."
Perhaps the problem is with the term "selection,"
what with it being a carry-over from artificial
selection in which intelligent beings were *actually*
making a choice.
Sort of like Dawkins' biomorph program.
My reasoning I suppose goes something like this:
1. Only sentient beings can make choices.
2. Nature is not a sentient being.
Therefore nature does not make choices.
I suppose that one could disagree with either
of the premises <g>.
Scott
David Johnston
>
> In <MPG.1327a5ae2...@news.earthlink.net>, Robert Gotschall <restu...@theend.com> writes:
> >In article <38bc8...@news1.prserv.net>
> >So spake sc...@home.com:
> >
> >> In <20000228190546...@ng-de1.aol.com>, bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) writes:
> >> >>Subject: Re: Design flaws (was: Argument from Ignorance)
> >> >>From: "Mike Goodrich" tachy...@home.com
> >> >>Date: 2/28/00 1:14 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
> >> >>Message-id: <FiDu4.1329$v7.1...@news.rdc1.va.home.com>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>Mark Isaak <at...@best.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
> >> >>news:38bacca1$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com..
>
> Evolution does not involve "matters to be acted
> or voted upon"?
It has no one to vote or act.
>
> What then, is "selection"?
>
> Selection involves choice.
No it doesn't. It just involves outcomes.
David Johnston
>
> In <08f6992b...@usw-ex0110-075.remarq.com>, Ghostview <ghostview31...@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
> >In article <38bcb...@news1.prserv.net>, sc...@home.com
> >wrote:
> >> bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) writes:
> >> >>Subject: Re: Design flaws (was: Argument from
> >> Ignorance)
> >
> >> the Designer's
> >> >>>>agenda is?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Boy, Mark put you on the ropes rather quickly. In
> >> two seconds you admitted
> >> >>that
> >> >>>ID is not a scientific theory...
> >> >>>
> >> >>ROTFL.
> >> >>
> >> >>Like it would be considered "scientific" if it
> >> >>*did* claim there was an agenda.
> >> >>
> >> >>Evolution says there is no agenda, does
> >> >>that make it non-science?
> >> >
> >> will do in any situation,
> >> >then the concept of designer has no predictive power.
> >> Evolution doesn't have an
> >> >agenda; the theory of evolution has predictive power
> >> though.
> >> >
> >> Where's the logic here Stuart?
> >> 1. Design has no agenda.
> >> Must not have any predictive power.
> >
> >
> Yes.
No.
Chaver09
> In <5%lv4.14695$t7.8...@news1.rdc2.tx.home.com>, "Chaver09"
<cahv...@yahoo.com> writes:
> ><sc...@home.com> wrote in message news:38bde...@news1.prserv.net...
> >> In <89kkq7$mec$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, chav...@my-deja.com writes:
> >> >In article <38b9f...@news1.prserv.net>,
> >> > sc...@home.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> >[Snip]
> >> >
> >> >Scott, I don't seem to see an answer to this article:
> >> >
> >> Your assertion:
> >>
> >> "Your unstated claim is that there's a god."
> >>
> >> Produce the *evidence* that I ever made
> >> this unstated claim.
> >
> >I already did. Since you didn't snip it away this time, I'll leave it.
It
> >appears below.
> >
> Exactly *where* did you reproduce my "unstated claim"?
You CAN'T be this stupid.
But you CAN be disingenuous, as we saw in your thread with Wesley.
It was an UNSTATED claim but it is obvious by implication.
Your dancing and weaving doesn't fool anyone with a clue.
> Please reproduce my "unstated claim" once more, for
> the benefit of all skeptics.
Follow the thread...then show me I was wrong.
> >Are you not making this claim?
> >
> >Are you saying there is no god?
> >
> I am not saying there is or is not a god.
>
> Prove I have said otherwise in the course
> of this thread.
>
> >If so, say it.
> >
> >Say there's no god.
> >
> Why?
You can't do it, can you?
More evidence for your "unstated claim."
> >Or say, "I'm not saying there is a god."
> >
> >Go ahead.
> >
> Within the context of this thread I have
> not claimed that there is a god.
Within the context of the thread, you claimed that the atheist contention of
"no god" based on your understanding (i.e., a failure to find evidence for
god) was an argument from ignorance.
This implies that there is a god and there is evidence.
Where is it?
> >Make an atheistic statement.
> >
> <Begin atheistic statement>
>
> One would have to be an idiot to be an atheist.
> (I'm still looking for the cite on this.)
So, according to you, all atheists are idiots.
Are you sure you want to make that statement?
The fact is that you're dodging. You know precisely what is meant by all
this and don't have the courage even to make a statement your god likely
knows isn't heart-felt.
You're THAT afraid...aren't you?
> </End atheistic statement>
>
> >Tempt the anger of God.
> >
> >If you dare.
> >
> >> Alternatively, answer this question, and provide
> >> *evidence* to support you answer.
> >
> >Done below. Where is your answer?
> >
> You provided evidence that I made an
> unstated claim? Amazing.
Read it.
Show me I'm wrong.
> >You made the assertion. I challenged it. You ran.
> >
> >You're still running.
> >
> I always run from "unstated claims."
And stated ones, apparently, since that was part of it, too.
> One can never tell where they are coming from.
Your claims come from you. Even your subterfuge comes from you.
> >> *What* is my claim?
> >
> >See below. Do you have problems reading for comprehension?
> >
> I have a *specific* problem comprehending
> unstated claims.
You have a specific problem comprehending the entire argument.
> >> <Recommendation>
> >> Stop wasting bandwidth challenging me on an assertion
> >> that I never made.
> >> </Recommendation>
> >
> >Refute that assertion, then. Say "there is no god" or, at least, "I am
not
> >claiming there is a god."
> >
> I have not claimed in this thread that there
> is a god.
Actually, you did.
You just didn't do it directly.
But I saw through you and that's why you ran.
But I wouldn't let you run.
And you can't run now.
> >Deny god.
> >
> >I dare you.
> >
> >Your argumentation is not impressive. It strikes me as elementary and
> >juvenile.
> >
> <Begin juvenile statement>
>
> Twit.
>
> </End juvenile statement>
Impressive.
Now make an argument...if you can.
Respond to my criticisms of your claims - both stated and unstated.
Mark Isaak
To be an Error and to be Cast out.
Johnny Bravo
>Hmm...
>
>Evolution does not involve "matters to be acted
>or voted upon"?
>
>What then, is "selection"?
>
>Selection involves choice.
>
>It amazes me how people can believe that
>nature makes "choices."
Pretty amazing how you can believe otherwise.
Let's drop you a tank with a few hungry tiger sharks.
According to you, the sharks won't attack you because
they can't make a choice to.
However sharks are not stupid, and realize that the
awkward flailing thing is going to be pretty easy dinner.
--
Best Wishes,
Johnny Bravo
BAAWA Knight, EAC - Lovecraft Writing Division
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all it's contents." - HPL
Mike Goodrich
>Date: 2/28/00 6:23 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <wilkins-3160CF...@news.unimelb.edu.au>
>
>In article <FiDu4.1329$v7.1...@news.rdc1.va.home.com>, "Mike Goodrich"
> |news:38bacca1$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> |> In article <38b96...@news1.prserv.net>, <sc...@home.com> wrote:
> |> >But you have made the claim that there
> |> >are design flaws, and in any normal
> |> >argument you would be obligated to
> |> >support the claim.
> |>
> |> Extinctions. If Apatosaurus was a good design, why not keep it?
> |
> |
> |agenda is?
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |-MG
> |
>
>Then what's the point in invoking a Designer in the first place, if it
>doesn't help us to understand the things under investigation in any way?
>--
Well it all depends on what one is attempting to investigate, no?
-MG
Mike Goodrich
>Date: 3/1/00 12:55 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <38bd591f$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>
>
>In article <38bc8...@news1.prserv.net>, <sc...@home.com> wrote:
>>To be an Error and to be Cast out
>>is a part of God's design.
>>
>> - William Blake
>
>How about that. William Blake was an evolutionist.
>
>You didn't say whether you agreed, Scott. Do you believe that design
>flaws are part of God's design?
False dichotomy. Who is in a position to assert (without proof) that there are
any design flaws?
-MG
John Wilkins
(Mike Goodrich) wrote:
|>Subject: Re: Design flaws (was: Argument from Ignorance)
Certainly - if what you are investigating is one's own ability to lack
comprehension and discover the nature of things, then this is an excellent
assumption to make from the beginning. It practically *guarantees* that you
will find evidence of design everywhere, since nothing will be investigable.
--
John Wilkins
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
David Johnston
>
> In <20000301124954...@ng-xe1.aol.com>, bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip (Bigdakine) writes:
> >>Date: 2/29/00 8:32 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
> >>Message-id: <38bcb...@news1.prserv.net>
> >>>>Date: 2/29/00 4:47 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
> >>>>Message-id: <38bc8...@news1.prserv.net>
> >>>>
> >>>>In <20000228190546...@ng-de1.aol.com>,
> >>bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip
> >>>>(Bigdakine) writes:
> >>>>>>Date: 2/28/00 1:14 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
> >>>>>>Message-id: <FiDu4.1329$v7.1...@news.rdc1.va.home.com>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>news:38bacca1$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com..
> >>>>>>> >But you have made the claim that there
> >>>>>>> >are design flaws, and in any normal
> >>>>>>> >argument you would be obligated to
> >>>>>>> >support the claim.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Extinctions. If Apatosaurus was a good design, why not keep it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Who can know? Who can say? Who can be sure what the Designer's
> >>>>>>agenda is?
> >>>>>
> >>>>that
> >>>>>ID is not a scientific theory...
> >>>>>
> >>>>ROTFL.
> >>>>
> >>>>Like it would be considered "scientific" if it
> >>>>*did* claim there was an agenda.
> >>>>
> >>>>Evolution says there is no agenda, does
> >>>>that make it non-science?
> >>>
> >>>LOL. If there is no way to discern what the designer will do in any
> >>situation,
> >>>then the concept of designer has no predictive power. Evolution doesn't have
> >>an
> >>>agenda; the theory of evolution has predictive power though.
> >>>
> >>Where's the logic here Stuart?
> >>
> >>1. Design has no agenda.
> >>
> >>Must not have any predictive power.
> >>
> >>
> >>But it hs predictive power.
> >>
> >>Therefore evolution is true and design is false.
> >>or
> >>Therefore evolution is science and design is not.
> >
> >I realize you're having trouble here. ID doesn't have a mechanism, evolution
> >does. Hence since we know the mechanisms or at least several of them, of
> >evolution we can form a testable hypothesis based on those mechanisms.
> >
> >Since ID doesn't have a mechanism, one needs to know some characteristics of
> >the designer...
> >
> I think you meant to say that *creationism* does
> not have a mechanism, and even then you could
> be wrong.
>
> The lack of a naturalistic mechanism does not mean
> there is no mechanism.
Right. Sabrina's nose wiggle is the mechanism.
leonardo dasso
Mike Goodrich <hac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000302202150...@ng-cv1.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Design flaws (was: Argument from Ignorance)
False dichotomy? if the wheel of your car was under the seat, wouldn't you
feel intellectually authorized to suggest to the manufacturer that there is
a design flaw?
In the case of humans, just to mention a couple: hernias (caused by
inappropriate muscle protection in the abdomen), spine problems (caused by
the upright position) and allergies (caused by overreaction of the immune
system), can be labelled as design flaws.
leo