Introduction: The Illusion of Design [Richard Dawkins]

Natural History Magazine ^ | November 2005 | Richard Dawkins

[hosepipe]

[ Do you have not even an ounce of respect anywhere in your body for the idea of evidence? You're telling a fairy story as if it were settled fact, but there's just no evidence for it. And even if it were true, how could you possibly know that it's true? Wake up...hone your critical faculties a bit...ask for a little evidence before you commit yourself to believing something... ]

Science is known for past and fairly current fairy storys.. A mere one hundred years ago and after that.. medical doctors gave ladinum(opium and mercury(ous) compounds) as "healing agents".. And today if people got cured it would hurt the Pharm industry bottom line..

Honeing spiritual skills might be more useful to both of us.. But then you have no idea of my critical faculties.. we just met, kinda.. A little more honeing could never hurt though all around... point accepted..

I stand by what I said.. on WHY you were born.. mee too..

[snarks_when_bored]

But then you have no idea of my critical faculties..

You are correct about that. I was responding simply to the few words you'd addressed to me in your previous posts.

But, again, you might well be correct in your assessment that humans were placed here on Earth to fulfill some sort of spiritual testing purpose, but the fact remains that there is not a scintilla of empirical evidence to support that view, and so to believe it is to believe something for which there is no empirical evidence.

A story may be coherent without being true.

[hosepipe]

[ But, again, you might well be correct in your assessment that humans were placed here on Earth to fulfill some sort of spiritual testing purpose, but the fact remains that there is not a scintilla of empirical evidence to support that view, and so to believe it is to believe something for which there is no empirical evidence. ]

I Spent a lifetime chaseing empirical evidence.. What did I find.?. More questions.. Questions seem to generate more questions..

Made me feel like Sysephus(googleable data)..
Thats simply not good enough for a fullfilled human life..

Comes a time in a persons life when they need answers.. and questions are acidic..
Hopefully sooner than later..

Life cannot be reduced to cute couplets.. Reality don't ride on questions or answers..
Reality is simple.. and sometimes not intelligent..

[snarks_when_bored]

Hey, what is that hosepipe connected to, anyway?? (laugh)

[betty boop]

A story may be coherent without being true.

Then again, a story might be true without its being coherent -- from our point of view.

When that sort of thing happens, that ought to tell us we are in dire need of a larger context, leading to a deeper perspective, from which we might safely and truthfully regard the merits of the contending arguments.

To sound an old theme here: The scientific method can only take us so far WRT the "larger context."

I've so much enjoyed your recent posts, snarks. You do great work. (IMHO FWIW)

[betty boop]

Hey, what is that hosepipe connected to, anyway?? (laugh)

You might be surprised, snarks. But 'til you know for sure, I'd suggest a little more "reticence" on your part.

Kindness, courtesy, and civility to our fellow man are still all virtues in my book.

But then I'm so "old-fashioned" that you'd probably regard me as some species of dinosaur. Truly, I am "paleo-" in certain regards....

Or you could say: orthodox.

Whatever. Please "make nice" with my friends?

[snarks_when_bored]

bb, when I wrote to hosepipe that "a story may be coherent without being true", I intentionally omitted the converse ("a story may be true without being coherent"). Why? Because religious stories are for the most part quite coherent (hence their wide appeal). The problem with religious stories is not their coherence but rather their truth.

In the search for what's going on around us, I prefer the bottom up method, beginning from what we can experience (and experiment with) and moving outwards from there as best we can at a measured pace. Many people aren't satisfied with such a procedure; it doesn't give them the answers to the 'big' questions that they crave to have answered. For my part, I'd prefer to say "I don't know" rather than to try to manufacture belief in an answer for which there's little or no evidence.

With regard to your closing comment, you're much too kind (blush). Take care...

[hosepipe]

[ Hey, what is that hosepipe connected to, anyway?? (laugh) ]

MoonEagle Central.. we eat Moonbats.. they be good..

[snarks_when_bored]

hosepipe and bb: lighthearted fun, please be assured! But I'll confess that my sense of humor sometimes gets away from me. No offense intended, ever. (If I ever intend to offend, the recipient rarely fails to notice.)

Best regards in all ways...

[snarks_when_bored]

That explains it all! (laugh)

[hosepipe]

[ I prefer the bottom up method, beginning from what we can experience (and experiment with) and moving outwards from there as best we can at a measured pace. ]

Me too snarks.. I lived my life that way, and made a living that way too.. and more..

THEN, one dark stormy night, the wind screamed like a Harpy Eagle killing a Howler Monkey.. I addressed God, or what I thought might be God if there was one.. And challenged "it" (surely god has no gender).. to make itself known to me.. NOTHING HAPPENED.. immediately.. so I went on my way considering myself stupid and weak (in that moment)..

{snip}

To wit, the drooling MoonEagle you see before you..
CAUTION: Don't do the same.. Starting all over again can be a scary thing..

[grey_whiskers]

But if we observe that lower order expression, it is nearly impossible to discern the higher order algorithm that generated it even in toy cases where very little information is involved.

As a "practical" example, trying to discern the hyperspatial expression for the interaction potential for two molecules, solely from the experiemental scattering information, can be a pain in the ass to say the least...

...even aside from the difficulties of fitting a functional form that behaves in the way you want.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

There are also observations that don't disturb the object.

OK, I'll bite. Like when Schrödinger's Cat looks at it?

Seriously, though, I've imbibed some Pumpkin Ale (left over from Thanksgiving) and it's slowed my recall. Examples of this on a quantum scale object?

[grey_whiskers]

From PDQ Bach's "The Seasonings" Schickle Number 1/2 tsp.

...If you wish to hear how your composition would sound if the composer knew that Brahms had the hots for his wife, press six. :-)

[grey_whiskers]

Some true theorems can never be proven true and they are called BELIEVE IT OR NOT - Supernatural Theorems.

Thanks for that post.

Time to throw some Belloc into the mix.

"...the absolute powers ascribed to reason [would] lead to the exclusion of truths which the reason might accept but could not demonstrate."

From The Great Heresies, IIRC.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Duh. I meant a polarizer oriented at 45 degrees - obviously the horizontal polarizer will block the light.

I sentence you to go read Dorothy L. Sayers' superb mystery The Documents in the Case.

A mureder mystery involving a racemic mixture of muscarine instead of the expected L-rotatory form.

All wrapped up with a portrait painter, a demented spinster, a newlywed couple, and old school chums.

And published in 1930.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

in fact, any algorithm that purported to predict the result to better than 50% accuracy would violate the uncertainty principle.

...slightly confusing choice of words to this beer drinker tonight, given that there is a 50% chance for either slit.

But after reading it three times and having another swig I figured it out. :-)

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

There is neither form nor autonomy in the void. There is only existence, and (because there is no autonomy in the void) - only the single existence, which can only be God. We know there must be existence because there was a first cause that was not caused. Thus we know God is transcendent.

This is frightenly reminiscent of what I have been reading recently in a translation of Aquinas' Shorter Summa: "...From all this it is evident that God exists always. For whatever necessarily exists, always exists; it is impossible for a that that has no possibility of not being, not to be. Hence such a thing is never without existence. But it is necessary for God to be, as has been shown. Therefore God exists always. Again, nothing begins to be or ceases to be except through motion or change. But God is absolutely immutable, as has been proved. Therefore it is impossible for Him ever to have begun or to cease to be. Likewise, if anything that has not always existed begins to be, it needs some cause for its existence. Nothing brings itself forth from potency to act or from non-being to being..."

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

The assumption that all things have causes is based on experience. It holds true at the ordinary level of perception, but fails at the quantum level. So the shoe is on the other foot. Our very best and most careful observations contradict the assumption of causation. We cannot reasonably assert that causation is axiomatic.

Just to stir the pot; feel free to chime in, everyone.

How do you tie this in with the Complementarity Principle?

[grey_whiskers]

Experience at the quantum level diverges from experience at the macro level.

And by the way, we don't experience at the quantum level anyway, Isaac Asimov's Fantastic Voyage and the Fairly Oddparents climactic battle between Timmy and Mr. Crocker in Abracatastrophe! notwithstanding.

Just to cheese you off, we don't OBSERVE quantum effects, either. We infer them from observations of macroscopic instruments. ;-)

Cheers!