Replies

Pick one:

A) Exclusivity cannot be supported only falsified. (post 3238
B) Any such instances in the future, if and when they occur, will serve to either support my assertion or falsify it. (post 3240)

Do you get it yet?

You can't really be this dense. Using the (meaningless) reconfiguration of your assertion, "Intelligence is THE mechanism by which life is assembled from lifeless matter," assume we observe an instance of intelligence assembling life. How does that lend support?

Going back in the thread, I posit that electrolysis of water is the only way to produce O2 gas. I set up an electrolysis rig and produce O2. What have I learned?

By the standard which you demand my assertion to be validated, you are unable to validate Newton's law. You would have to test every instance of gravity operating in order to do so.

Confirmation is different than proof. Validation for a single instance is not generalizable over a wide class of observations.

You are tacitly admitting this is not necessary for Newton. Why do you demand that it is necessary for my assertion?

Um, because a law is different that a hypothesis? Because Newton's Law has a wide population of observations from which to draw conclusions?

"Pick one:"

Exclusivity cannot be supported only falsified. TRUE.

Any such instances in the future, if and when they occur, will serve to either support my assertion or falsify it. TRUE AGAIN.

Any instances of life being assembled from lifeless matter will either support my assertion (if the assembly is intelligently directed), or falsify my assertion (if a self organizing principle is discovered and demonstrated).

Exactly the way the exclusivity of the law of gravity is only falsifiable not supportable, my statement is true. You said it yourself. We can observe many instances of gravity working which supports that the law of gravity is true. But there is no way to support that it is exclusively true. We can only assume this until proved otherwise. The general statement is supportable, but exclusivity cannot be verified.

"assume we observe an instance of intelligence assembling life. How does that lend support?"

The same way instances of gravity working SUPPORTS the law of gravity.

"Going back in the thread, I posit that electrolysis of water is the only way to produce O2 gas. I set up an electrolysis rig and produce O2. What have I learned?"

Answered already. Until some other way is found, your assertion is true. But since it can also be a product of fusion, we must modify the assertion to merely state that electrolysis is a common way for oxygen to form. You might even say it is the most common. But your first assertion is no longer valid. Likewise, when any instance of self assembly occurs, my assertion will be falsified.

"Confirmation is different than proof. Validation for a single instance is not generalizable over a wide class of observations."

And where did I claim proof for my assertion? Further, I do not have even a single instance. If, however, multiple instances are observed, they can be generalized to support my assertion.

"Because Newton's Law has a wide population of observations from which to draw conclusions"

As I said, my assertion is supportable not supported. If we eventually have thousands of instances wherein life is intelligently assembled from lifeless matter, and we have no instances of life self assembling, will you be prepared to concede that your standard has been met?