Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why only one Designer
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 76 of 377 (612319)
04-14-2011 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by jar
04-14-2011 1:18 PM


Parsimony
jar writes:
Parsimony has nothing to do with reality
Our experience of reality indicates that the parsimonious conclusion is significantly more likely to be correct than not doesn't it?
Do you at least agree that the no designer conclusion is the most parsimonious? This much at least would seem incontrovertible. No?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 1:18 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by ringo, posted 04-14-2011 7:06 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 83 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 7:27 PM Straggler has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 77 of 377 (612321)
04-14-2011 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Straggler
04-14-2011 6:58 PM


Re: Parsimony
Straggler writes:
Our experience of reality indicates that the parsimonious conclusion is significantly more likely to be correct than not doesn't it?
Wouldn't it be parsimonious to suggest that there is only one zebra in Africa?

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 6:58 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 7:11 PM ringo has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 78 of 377 (612322)
04-14-2011 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by ringo
04-14-2011 7:06 PM


Re: Parsimony
Ringo writes:
Wouldn't it be parsimonious to suggest that there is only one zebra in Africa?
Not as I understand parsimony.
Can you parsimonioulsy explain how this zebra came to be the only zebra in Africa?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by ringo, posted 04-14-2011 7:06 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by subbie, posted 04-14-2011 7:15 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 04-14-2011 7:19 PM Straggler has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 79 of 377 (612323)
04-14-2011 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Straggler
04-14-2011 7:11 PM


Re: Parsimony
I think you took a couple of shortcuts in your statement that open it to pot shots. The more parsimonious of two explanations of equal explanatory power is generally preferred.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 7:11 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 7:17 PM subbie has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 80 of 377 (612324)
04-14-2011 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by subbie
04-14-2011 7:15 PM


Re: Parsimony
Sub writes:
I think you took a couple of shortcuts in your statement that open it to pot shots.
Fair point.
Sub writes:
The more parsimonious of two explanations of equal explanatory power is generally preferred.
Why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by subbie, posted 04-14-2011 7:15 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by subbie, posted 04-14-2011 7:24 PM Straggler has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 81 of 377 (612325)
04-14-2011 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Straggler
04-14-2011 7:11 PM


Re: Parsimony
As I understand parsimony, it has less to do with counting individual entities and more to do with counting "kinds" of entities. Given that zebras exist, parsimony doesn't suggest that one zebra is more likely than a thousand. Similarly for designers.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 7:11 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 7:28 PM ringo has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 82 of 377 (612326)
04-14-2011 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Straggler
04-14-2011 7:17 PM


Re: Parsimony
The fewer assumptions that a hypothesis relies on, the less likely it will be that one of the assumptions will turn out to be unsupportable.
Edited by subbie, : Tyop

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 7:17 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 7:36 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 83 of 377 (612328)
04-14-2011 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Straggler
04-14-2011 6:58 PM


Parsimony has nothing to do with reality.
It is totally irrelevant.
Parsimony is only a tool to be used, it has nothing to do with reality itself.
Sure it might be easier, perhaps even prettier, to take the simplest suggested item, but that is totally unrelated to what is actually true.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 6:58 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 7:34 PM jar has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 84 of 377 (612329)
04-14-2011 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by ringo
04-14-2011 7:19 PM


Re: Parsimony
My understanding is that parsimony stipulates the least number of assumptions.
On the basis that we know that the universe exists but have no evidential reason to think that any designer does the path of least assumptions would seem to be that the universe exists without the need to assume the prior existence of a designer.
No?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 04-14-2011 7:19 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by ringo, posted 04-14-2011 7:43 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 85 of 377 (612330)
04-14-2011 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by jar
04-14-2011 7:27 PM


Re: Parsimony has nothing to do with reality.
jar writes:
Parsimony is only a tool to be used, it has nothing to do with reality itself. Sure it might be easier, perhaps even prettier, to take the simplest suggested item, but that is totally unrelated to what is actually true.
So as far as you are concerned we might as well just randomly guess or role a dice as apply parsimony to a situation where competing but otherwise equal explanations are available?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 7:27 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 7:50 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 86 of 377 (612332)
04-14-2011 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by subbie
04-14-2011 7:24 PM


Re: Parsimony
Sub writes:
The fewer assumptions that a hypothesis relies on, the less likely it will be that one of the assumptions will turn out to be unsupportable.
Yep. That makes sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by subbie, posted 04-14-2011 7:24 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 87 of 377 (612333)
04-14-2011 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Straggler
04-14-2011 7:28 PM


Re: Parsimony
Straggler writes:
On the basis that we know that the universe exists but have no evidential reason to think that any designer does the path of least assumptions would seem to be that the universe exists without the need to assume the prior existence of a designer.
That isn't the topic though. The OP suggests that if the universe was designed, multiple designers are more likely than one. I'm saying that that isn't contrary to parsimony.
In fact, a single designer requires the extraneous assumption that an individual can exist without a supporting population, which is contrary to everything we know about reality. A population of Loch Ness monsters is more likely than one.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 7:28 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 7:52 PM ringo has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 88 of 377 (612335)
04-14-2011 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Straggler
04-14-2011 7:34 PM


Re: Parsimony has nothing to do with reality.
Straggler writes:
jar writes:
Parsimony is only a tool to be used, it has nothing to do with reality itself. Sure it might be easier, perhaps even prettier, to take the simplest suggested item, but that is totally unrelated to what is actually true.
So as far as you are concerned we might as well just randomly guess or role a dice as apply parsimony to a situation where competing but otherwise equal explanations are available?
Of course not and I doubt you will find that I said that, but enough of your childish games.
I'm going to play with the adults.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 7:34 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 8:00 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 89 of 377 (612337)
04-14-2011 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by ringo
04-14-2011 7:43 PM


Re: Parsimony
ringo writes:
That isn't the topic though. The OP suggests that if the universe was designed, multiple designers are more likely than one. I'm saying that that isn't contrary to parsimony.
OK. If we were discussing designers in isolation as opposed to first causes then what you say here would be very definitley true. But if we are talking about first causes then a single first cause must surely be more parsimonious than multiple first causes. Right?
ringo writes:
In fact, a single designer requires the extraneous assumption that an individual can exist without a supporting population, which is contrary to everything we know about reality. A population of Loch Ness monsters is more likely than one.
On the pure designer front everything you say here is true. But on the first cause creator front (which is surely what the underlying issue is here) parsimony would stipulate no designer at all, followed by a single designer, followed by two designers and so on and so forth.
Surely the less uncaused or self caused entities under consideration the less assumptions we require?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ringo, posted 04-14-2011 7:43 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by ringo, posted 04-14-2011 8:02 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 92 by subbie, posted 04-14-2011 8:04 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 90 of 377 (612339)
04-14-2011 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by jar
04-14-2011 7:50 PM


Re: Parsimony has nothing to do with reality.
As Subbie has pointed out - "The fewer assumptions that a hypothesis relies on, the less likely it will be that one of the assumptions will turn out to be unsupportable" So essentially the more parsimonious a proposal is the less likely it is to be wrong.
Do you at least agree that the no designer conclusion is the most parsimonious? This much at least would seem incontrovertible. No?
jar writes:
I'm going to play with the adults
Don't be evasive. If you have legitimate reasons for disputing that parsimony is a valid method of eliminating the most likely to be wrong proposals then let's hear your arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 7:50 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024