|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: misc lexeme morpholgy and semantic theory | |||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Alas, poor topic! I knew him, Horatio.
Since Rob will be away on vacation this coming week, those who have an interest in the topic may want to take advantage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
PaulK:
And I don't think you enjoy being caught in contradictions at all. It's just a brave face you put on in your attempts to escape the truth. Really? Since when is science about truth? You're making some terrible blunders PaulK. You and Nosey are talking about 'truth' and 'good' design. Those are theological ie. moral inferences. I thought you were not a metaphysician. So, science is religion afterall. Don't feel bad... As I have said before, all philosophy is... because minus omnisience (that would be you and me), everything is philosophy. Everything is ultimately faith when we try to explain the emperical. Therefore we must make an inference to the best explanation. That is science. And science is theo. Paul Davies: “The worldview of a scientist, even the most atheistic scientist, is that essentially of Monotheism. It is a belief, which is accepted as an article of faith, that the universe is ordered in an intelligible way.
Now, you couldn’t be a scientist if you didn’t believe these two things. If you didn’t think there was an underlying order in nature, you wouldn’t bother to do it, because there is nothing to be found. And if you didn’t believe it was intelligible, you’d give up because there is no point if human beings can’t come to understand it. But scientists do, as a matter of faith, accept that the universe is ordered and at least partially intelligible to human beings. And that is what underpins the entire scientific enterprise. And that is a theological position. It is absolutely ”theo’ when you look at history. It comes from a theological worldview. That doesn’t mean you have to buy into the religion, or buy into the theology, but it is very, very significant in historical terms; that that is where it comes from and that scientists today, unshakably retain that worldview, as an act of faith. You cannot prove it logically has to be the case, that the universe is rational and intelligible. It could easily have been otherwise. It could have been arbitrary, it could have been absurd, it could have been utterly beyond human comprehension. It’s not! And scientists just take this for granted for the most part, and I think it’s a really important point that needs to be made.”
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Nosey:
Because I am waiting for you to explain why living things are the wrong kind of design. You mean they are not human in origin? I already answered this here: http://EvC Forum: misc lexeme morpholgy and semantic theory -->EvC Forum: misc lexeme morpholgy and semantic theory I don't know why you even asked this question in the other thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
removed out of place post
Edited by NosyNed, : wrong thread
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Sorry I seem to have missed this yesterday.
Good designs? What is good? I thought evolution was about change... not good and bad? When I am talking about "good" I am not talking about evolutionary outcomes. I am talking about human designs. We could spend sometimes developing a list of the characteristics. I wasn't aware that you knew nothing about design.
1. Do the algorithms violate the law and order of the computer system? 2. Do they have a choice to do so? 3. Are you saying that 'good' (an interesting word etymologically btw...) design is symmetrical and perfectly orderly? 4. Does the fact that human beings designed the computer have any bearing on the illustration? It is not clear that any of these questions have any relevance to the issue. We re talking about the output of design processes. You are discussing the process itself. 1) No the algorithms do not violate any law and order nor do evolutionary processes. 2) There is no choice involved in either process. I have no idea why you included this. 3) No, I am not saying that 'good'is symmetrical and "orderly" (whatever that is). Good designs (among other things, are only as complex as needed for the task, are modular, and use good ideas where ever they can be pulled from ) 4) No, the illustration is discussing the operation of the "design" process and the outcome not the establishment of the environment in which it works. The human beings in this case correspond to what a deists god is taken to be. They set up the situation and wait to see what comes out. There seems to be no relevant content in the rest of the post. You are also right that this is off-topic here. I will start a "design" topic for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
It is not clear that any of these questions have any relevance to the issue. We re talking about the output of design processes. You are discussing the process itself. Very right, good, and all... only it is you who are talking about output. I am talking about the process itself. A question you conveniently remove from the whole and take completly for granted. You might as well say that the processes 'are what they are'. Sounds a lot like 'I am that I am'. Just another example of how theory is very much related to theology. So, were not as off topic as you think... But thoery is an anti-theological position at the same time. Like the developed image from the negative photo. Distinguishable, but emerging from the same original image. And that image is assumed to be orderly and comprehensible. I think the implications are clear. Now your catching on... Perhpas you might consider that you are not the teacher, even if my teaching (as opposed to preaching) offends your arrogant assumptions about who actually has a grasp on reality here... We're all learning here Nosey, even you...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Very right, good, and all... only it is you who are talking about output. I am talking about the process itself. A question you conveniently remove from the whole and take completly for granted. On the contrary, YOU are talking about output. You say we can look at living things which are the output. From looking at those outputs you say we infer the process which produced them. I'm noting that there are two kinds of processes which we are aware of. I'm saying when we look at the outputs we can make a judgment about which type of process produced them. The rest of your post has nothing to do with anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
You're partially correct, i mis-spoke. I am talking both about the process and the output.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
You're partially correct, i mis-spoke. I am talking both about the process and the output. Actually you are correct. We are both talking about both process and output. Your thesis seems to be that we can look at output alone without knowing anything about process and make an inference about the process. Mine is that we know something about both output and process in a couple of cases and can make an inference about process from the characteristics of the output. In addition, we have evidence about the details of the process in the case of living things as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
We're not talking about science or big-T Truth. Just ordinary truth about the meanings and history of words. That's the topic. And you evade it because the truth is that you were wong.
And why is science "to run" ? Which is what the Greek word theo means.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024