To: general_reGeneral_re, if the design inference consistently passes, you may be happy. But we may not, except by some other presumption, inductively reason whereby that particular consistency is turned into a universal. With or without Hume, consistency can only translate into universality on the basis of something else--in your case--the "useful position." The useful position has often enough devolved into historicism.your conditions are . . .
ah, those epic endeavors. "conditions for the possibility of" The architectural principle of the modern age might oblige to tip the hat to Aristotle. But to a Nietzsche or a Foucault grinning at us with sardonic smiles?
1256 posted on 03/03/2003 12:21 PM CST by cornelis
To: cornelis
Some say "is", some say "isn't". I say "let's find out". It is what it is, regardless of who likes it or dislikes it, who promotes it or dismisses it, or who takes comfort in it or is injured by it...
1257 posted on 03/03/2003 12:29 PM CST by general_re
To: general_re; Diamond
what it is
I don't know exactly what it you are going after. In any case, the conditions is what they are: particular. The result of discovery will be the same, particular.
A certain presumption--perhaps still tame and legitimate in Aristotle but certainly not after Kant--imagined that particular conditions could be generalized beyond themselves and raised to a universal status.
Of course they is what they are. A unified field theory is likewise limited. One of the joys of the press was the political hay they made with Einstein's theory of relativity. Perhaps they did not "universalize" the theory, but they certainly took great pleasure in extending and generalizing it into fields from which it did not originate. Hayek called this the abuse of reason.
1258 posted on 03/03/2003 1:01 PM CST by cornelis
To: cornelis
I don't know exactly what it you are going after. In any case, the conditions is what they are: particular. The result of discovery will be the same, particular.
If the design inference consistently passes or consistently fails such tests, we may then inductively reason our way to a conclusion about the worth of it. If we were so inclined, we could then take the next step into Humean skepticism and dismiss that conclusion for the simple reason that the inductive principle is unproven. But, since virtually everything we think we know is gained inductively, that does not strike me as a useful position to take.
1265 posted on 03/03/2003 2:36 PM CST by general_re
In short, your logical conclusion gives no right to make an existential conclusion extending beyond the particular inferences you begin with. Perhaps if the two mate well, the logical and existenial, you have a credible consistency, and perhaps widely applicable. However, you cannot end with universal conclusions without beginning with universal inferences.
Happy Trails.
I merely point out that by that logic, you have no rational basis for believing that the sun will rise tomorrow - after all, just because it has passed the test and risen on all the yesterdays we have experienced, that does not mean that one can generalize and declare that it will rise tomorrow. And yet I cannot help but suspect that you have an opinion on the subject regardless...
A very nice point, cornelis, re the constraints of logical constructs. It is, nonetheless, a stimulating exercise going on here and a pleasure to watch good minds work.
For myself, I cannot escape the belief, really a conclusion, that all of the Universe, all of reality, is a product of design and that we are exploring its modes, means and mechanics. "How?" is a fascinating question. "Why?" is more fascinating.
Excellent point, cornelis. Godel's incompleteness principle shows that the logical and the existential can and do diverge; and when they do, it is the existential on which we have to rely to get to the truth of the matter at hand.
general_re wrote: "If the design inference consistently passes or consistently fails such tests, we may then inductively reason our way to a conclusion about the worth of it." But it seems that the only objects to which we can apply such tests are the things around us in the here and now -- like basketballs (which are probably better described as artifacts than designs), ice crystals, or whatever the subjects of the pictures that general-re hasn't posted yet.
Would we then suppose that from such "logical tests" we are therefore in a position to "inductively" reason our way to the validation or falsification of an Intelligent Designer which is not bound to our finite timescale?
It seems to me we might learn a good deal about how and why human beings design things in the "game" general_re has proposed; perhaps we'll decide the creative act is a product of conscious will, and perhaps that would be a true generalization. But if my suspicion is correct that the Intelligent Designer is an infinite mind, unconstrained by the conditions applicable to finite human designing -- which conditions the Intelligent Designer has laid down as the laws and principles of the universal design, including humans.
We're "in the stream" of four-dimensional, finite existence; we cannot see either the beginning or the end, either of ourselves or of the universe as a whole. Building up a proof (or lack thereof) of a universal conscious designer on the basis of currently-available empirical evidence subject to falsification tests hardly strikes me as being adequate to the problem of deciding whether the universe is intelligently designed or not. All it can tell us about is ourselves -- or so it seems to me.
Rather than the experimental approach to accreting "proof" incrementally, it may be more fruitful to take the Aristotelian approach, and simply assume a Prime Mover or First Cause of everything that is, and then see if there's anything we come across that disconfirms or refutes our universal premise.
But this would be the very approach that is most strenuously avoided these days as thoroughly "unscientific." I gather that's because "phenomena that would not fit materialistic concepts have been made anathema and estranged," as Walker writes. "Science's investment in materialism has itself turned into a creed, with its own high priests ready to torment the unorthodox. Many phenomena have been ignored in the name of this materialism."
Thanks for the ping, cornelis -- and your provocative post.