Re: Dennett / Ruse Tiff Continues

On 27 Mar 2006 09:08:46 -0800, "Chimp" <pan_paniscus1859@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

catshark wrote:
"Chimp" <pan_paniscus1859@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
catshark wrote:
On 25 Mar 2006 "Chimp" <pan_paniscus1859@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
catshark wrote:
Chimp wrote:

This is pretty much at the "dead horse" stage.


Then I don't understand what you meant when you said that supernatural
effects merely require "a great deal of data and statistical analysis to
detect (that may be beyond our current capabilities)". What do you mean
by "observables" other than observable by empiric means?

Yes, by "observable" I did mean empirically observable. [I was
just holding out the possibility that mere observability is not
sufficient to guarantee accessibility to science.]

Then you hold to scientism, IMO.


If that is what you mean, then you *do* assume that everthing
that is real is an "observable" of science.

Again, it is not an assumption, it is a definition of "real".

"A" being the operative word, and chosen on philosophical grounds, not
because it is a universal usage or because it is logically necessary.

[...]

A supernatural mutation is different in origin or cause than
a natural one, even if there is nothing even conceptually
observable by science to distinguish them.

That is an unsupported assertion. I am asserting the
opposite.

Exactly. It is an assertion that constitutes a religious proposition under
the Establishment clause every bit as much as the other assertion.

[...]

Try giving me an alternative definition of "real".

That which exists in any way, whether or not we can even
conceptually detect it.

Giving a synonym doesn't really answer. If something is
conceptually undetectable then in what way can it be
said to "exist" or "be real"?

It can be real if it is detectible by a being with different abilities than
ours. Or, to put it the other way 'round, what basis is there for
believing that empiricism can detect everything that is real?


What properties would it have that are consistent with the
fact that "it exists" and "it doesn't exist" are conceptually
indistinguishable?

Easy. If the "God-created-mutation" is, ex-hypothesis, not
random, then I can distinguish it from random mutations by
checking their randomness.

I am unaware of that test. How does it work?

Randomness and non-randomness give different
patterns. Indeed the meaning of "non-random" is
"different pattern than random". The test is simply
to check whether the pattern is random.

Really? Richard Dawkins seems to think the random process
of mutation, coupled with selection can result in apparent design.
If patterns of apparent design can emerge from stochastic processes,
how can you distinguish them from non-random patterns?

What is the problem? If I have a radioactive source that
gives random decays, followed by a selective filter (say,
rejecting all those that occur during night-time) then the
output of the filter is non-random. But that doesn't prevent
me checking whether the radioactive source is random.

How would you detect a pattern from a single non-random decay? Out of
billions of decays a minute in places unavailable to humans and in times
long before humans existed, how would you detect 10 or 100 non-random
decays? How could you ever be sure you had detected a pattern instead of a
nice run of flipping heads in a row? I can't see how anything less than
perfect knowledge could even begin to enable you to detect a pattern that
consisted of anything less than massive interference. But even with
massive interference, how would you distinguish such interference from an
unknown natural law? Again, you'd need perfect knowledge.


And just how do you reliably detect a pattern of design
without knowing the intent of the design and the attributes
of the designer?

In the usual way, by comparing differing hypotheses
for their explanatory success and predictive power.

No, that suffers from the very defect that we pummel the IDeologists with.
You can't test a hypothesis of a divine designer empirically, precisely
because nothing is beyond the ability of such a being. No result is
incompatable with that hypothesis. Now this is a good reason why the God
hypothesis can't be scientific . . . but that's what I am arguing . . . it
*can't* be scientific and, therefore, any claim about such a being,
including that it can't exist, based on science is a category error.

[...]

Things can be conceptually indistinguishable to humans
and other finite beings and still be not identical.

This sentence seems confused between:
A) "They are conceptually distinguishable, but we limited
humans are not up to the task", and
B) "They are conceptually indistinguishable, even to
an infinitely competent being".

I wasn't making that confusion. You perhaps have some problem with the
idea that infinitely competent beings are not necessarily limited to
empiricism.

[...]


Don't you think that demanding a "description* of an
existence rather assumes I, as a human, can observe it?

Err, yes. ;-)

And doesn't that beg the whole question, which is whether
only that which we can observe is real?

Again, it is really a matter of how we define "real".
You are asserting that something can be "real "
despite its existence being conceptually indistinguishable
from its non-existence. I'm just interested by what
_you_ mean by "real" in that usage.

"Being conceptually indistinguishable from its
non-existence" seems a pretty good definition
of "non-real" to me. In fact, I'm beginning to like it.

You are then assuming that anything a human can't observe is unreal. If God
is unobservable by empiric means, he/she/it doesn't exist?

--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

It is the mark of the marvelous toleration of the Athenians ...
that it wasn't till Socrates turned seventy that they
broke down and forced him to drink poison.

- Isaac Asimov -

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Name that physicist
    ... what we can observe." ... I'm not faulting Einstein for making mistakes. ... pure empiricism, not the infallibility of their results. ... rationalism contains and applies empiricism where appropriate, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Geology Quote
    ... geology, our experiment has run to its present state and is ... in astronomy, people observe the universe ... Develop a theory of stellar evolution explaining the pattern. ... deep well injection are well known. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Geology Quote
    ... geology, our experiment has run to its present state and is impossible ... Our common technique is to observe the results and infer ... The same thing is true of much of astronomy and biology. ... Plot a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram and notice a pattern - the main sequence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Geology Quote
    ... geology, our experiment has run to its present state and is impossible ... Our common technique is to observe the results and infer ... Plot a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram and notice a pattern - the main sequence. ... Popular American proverb: "Nothing ventured, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Geology Quote
    ... geology, our experiment has run to its present state and is impossible ... Our common technique is to observe the results and infer ... made between historical sciences and experimental sciences. ... Plot a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram and notice a pattern - the main sequence. ...
    (talk.origins)