The Design Inference Game

03/03/03 | Moi

[general_re]

I thought a new thread was a good idea, and here seems to be a good place to put it, so as not to clutter up "News". The only topic available was "heated discussion", though. ;)

If any clarification about the pictures is needed, just say so, and I will try to at least highlight the part that I am interested in for you. Remember that I'm interested in the objects or structures or artifacts being represented, so don't be thrown off if the illustrations seem abstract.

[unspun]

That order also speaks more about the kinds of things being studied and how we should consider knowledge about those subjects.

When a discipline involves predicting the behavior of people, for example, it is not as often as dependable as when a discipline predicts the behavior of their atoms, eh?

[betty boop]

unspun, in this matter you are "preaching to the choir." :^)

[betty boop]

p.s.: Well, with the possible exception of PH. :^)

[unspun]

Also, this thread's whole subject seems to be an exercise in defeatism by the fact that all things and their processes, even the "mindless" ones, were at the essence of it all, created. If I understand that, the clues to the Creator are everywhere. If I don't understand that, how can I find bases for deciding such things?

If I outlaw God, then even if I create a model of Devil's Tower with my mashed potatoes, that process was just another act of nature. Nothing more.

[unspun]

...but of course it wouldn't be; that would be a lie, just as it is a lie to say one can outlaw God.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your post! I always treasure your views, betty boop! Hugs!!!

Something that concerns me very much is a seemingly growing tendency within the sciences -- more pronounced in the social and historical sciences than in the "hard" sciences, but sometimes present even in the latter -- for the creators of the various theories to so fall in love with their creations that they will defend them against any and all challenges "from outside."

Exactly! For instance, the timeline of Egyptology prohibits a more ancient Sphinx; its defense against late dating by Geologists can be called nothing less than hostile. We see the same hostilities in defense of abiogenesis and evolution during the Cambrian explosion. Both are “just so” stories of the past; challengers are met with great hostility.

In contrast, the many-world theories in Physics has many challengers – but the epistemological zeal is much greater in that discipline; the debate is brisk, but I see no personal hostility.

I mainly agree, though do feel a tad chagrined that you generally dumped philosophy on the lowest rung.

That was not meant to show any disrespect. To the contrary, the reason I put it on the bottom is that in contrast with geometry and math - there is no unassailable “rightness” or “wrongness” of philosophy. More than any of the other disciplines, Philosophy entertains the full smorgasbord of views.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post and for sharing your views!

My list was limited to science disciplines. In my view, science deals with facts whereas truth is the domain of the spirit. Truth is never threatened by inquiry.

[unspun]

And thank you for your thoughtfulness. (And I think you are generous, if you grant the term 'science' to any study of the behavior of subjects so self-directed, fickle, and unpredictable as us human beans. ;-)

[betty boop]

That was not meant to show any disrespect.

I know that, Alamo-Girl. I know why you put it where you did: Philosophy is just not an experimental science! So in a ranking of the disciplines of "science," it would definitely have to take last place. Still it did give us epistemology, a non-experimental science; and, arguably, so are math and geometry non-experimental.... So the "first" and the "last" somehow have a kind of "given" quality, beyond experiment....

...which may have something to do with the "designed" quality of the universe. Thanks so much for much for writing, A-G. Hugs!

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! In all of creation, humans are uniquely willful. Thank you so much for your post!

[Alamo-Girl]

Again, another great observation:

So the "first" and the "last" somehow have a kind of "given" quality, beyond experiment

So true, so very true. Without either, the disciplines in between would be meaningless. From your remark, I conclude the "first" and the "last" form the boundary for the utility of thought.

Thank you!!!

[unspun]

i.e., humans are spiritual. ;-`

[unspun]

Still it did give us epistemology, a non-experimental science; and, arguably, so are math and geometry non-experimental.... So the "first" and the "last" somehow have a kind of "given" quality, beyond experiment....

Sort of like reason and rhyme.

BTW, how did this thread get strewn across ancient Egypt? That's even farther than Robin Hood's barn.

PH: it was enough to ping you a couple times in the last few hours. It causes so much congnitive dissonance to type the letters "PatrickHenry" for you, my FRiend. ;-) I have to rest, now.

[betty boop]

From your remark, I conclude the "first" and the "last" form the boundary for the utility of thought.

I think so, A-G. Like you, I put mathematics -- though "non-experimental" -- in the first rung because without it you couldn't do any of the sciences occupying the lesser rungs for very long -- and the "harder" the science, the more I think this is true. Mathematics seems to have a kind of divine quality to it that is completely independent of and ulterior to any kind of human "construction." In some mysterious fashion, it seems to indicate the basic form or structure of what is. Epistemology belongs to the last rung, because it has to come in after the fact, as it were, to validate the integrity of any inquiry that claims to be valid or "true" with respect to our universe.

Arguably, mathematics is not a human construction; it is a human discovery. Likewise, I think that epistemology is not a human construction, but a discovery. Both of these discoveries were made in classical and pre-classical Greece. Epistemology as a formalized body is largely the work of Plato and Aristotle. The word itself tells us of its classical origin; episteme is the Greek (Koine) word for "true knowledge." It stands as the opposite of doxa, or "opinion." Its subject matter is the analysis and qualification of what can pass as truth: It constitutes the basic rules for tests of veracity.

First and last and at every point in between, we live in a marvelous universe, a world that is intelligible to us by virtue of these "first" and "last." They indeed (IMHO) constitute the "range of utility of human thought" in its openness to the universe. To try to function outside these bounds is to engage, not "utility," but futility -- from the practical standpoint.

Or so it seems to me, FWIW.

[betty boop]

BTW, how did this thread get strewn across ancient Egypt? That's even farther than Robin Hood's barn.

In my experience, one never knows where conversations are going to go, in these precincts. To me, that's part of the beauty of this forum, here at FR. People just bring their problems to the table. I would say without hesitation, this is a good thing. If you were to ask me.

[unspun]

Well, if that's the case betty blue jean, do you two Ladies ever get involved in discussions such as this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/886626/posts

It has to do with origins, too. (And what doesn't have to do with epistemology!) 8-o

I think I remember asking my father if I (he) could buy some "Silly String" at the Ben Franklin store. I think he said it was a waste of money and costly even for what it was. I don't recall ever buying, since; maybe not even ever using it. I've done other silly things, though.

[betty boop]

unspun, I don't understand the problem you've raised. Eisenhower. IMHO, was hardly an "innovator" in regard to the "change" of Pledge language. Unless you want to say that a person who makes explicit what is already implicit in our Founding documents is an "innovator."

Is this what you are saying?

[balrog666]

Joke bump for later.

[unspun]

You're right.

I see no problem there. Eisenhower was a pretty frank guy. I had to get my hair cut before that Rally for America that I attended and I found out that my barber came from "the Sudatenland" when he was 5, then helped to liberate it as a young man. Before Ike sent his buddies and him to Normandy, he told gathered them around and said something like, "Let's get this done and then get the Hell out of there." It's good to be forthright.

Let's see... what is the problem, then?

[betty boop]

Let's see... what is the problem, then?

Do we have one? I don't see it.