What has caused some mathematicians to reassess their views on intelligent design ?

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

farmerman wrote:

I used to love to give my students the requirements to compute all geophysical concepts in "furlongs per fortnight"

Clearly a case of computing by a geologist !

Just out of your league in a New York Second.

1 Reply

@Chumly,

Chumly wrote:

Are you an authority on what constitutes a so-called "widely accepted authority"? Why could it not be a somewhat less than a so-called "widely accepted authority"?

An argument from authority requires the existence of an accepted authority.

Quote:

Would you be willing to argue neither Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking have no authority in the consideration at hand?

There isn't any such thing as an authority on the efficacy of philosophy.

1 Reply

@parados,

george was engaging in Caliifornia snarkiness. We celebrate him as a member of our diverse community.

Even though engineers do not have a sense of humor that we are aware of.

1 Reply

@Tuna,

I suggest your argument by repetition has run its course so if you would like to do something more than repeat yourself, please do. However as things stand I see no good reason why your initial claim as per "There is no widely accepted authority on the efficacy of philosophy." discounts my view as per "Both Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking have criticisms of philosophy's efficacy and notwithstanding argument from authority, their assertions have merit!"

1 Reply

@Chumly,

If you want to press the point that Krauss and Hawking are authorities on the success or failure of philosophy to meet its goals, what you can do is present reasons we should see them in that light even though they don't hold any credentials that announce that authority.

Generally, it won't suffice to make a bald assertion and then invite people to prove you wrong. If your opinion is controversial, then the burden is on you.

2 Replies

@Tuna,

True; whoever makes a claim must provide evidence to support it.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Exactly!

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

"nothingness" seems to need to be redefined

Man forgive if this response is a rep; my page 4 seems to be screwed up

Of course this discussion entails the q, why should there be anything at all; matter, space, time, etc. Maybe future discoveries and theories will suggest there just hasta be a Universe

...as us apodictical existential pantheists maintain: Things are the way they are 'cause that's the way they hafta be. in other words She's a natural phenom. Everything is

0 Replies

@neologist,

Neo I think I mighta already responded, but my page 4 is gone haywire

Quote:

Does it seem reasonable that it has always existed in one form or another?

Precisely

Expand.Contract. KA BLAM!! Expand. Contract. Etc.?

Quote:

And. If that is so, is it fair to ask . . .
Is it conscious? Is it intelligent?

Neo, absolutely fair. As to ultimate truth, I can only appeal to intuition, which sometimes can come up with early answers

0 Replies

@anthony1312002,

anthony1312002 wrote:

What has caused some mathematicians to reassess their views on intelligent design ?

Ignorance of genetics, morphology, and bio-geography would be my guess --- if the mathematicians did indeed do that.

0 Replies

@anthony1312002,

Tony, in response to your #....350, I personally can't see how anything you've listed there is evidence of intelligent design, except possibly the assertion that all of it sticks together quite well. Maybe it's that, the intuitional you're indirectly citing

In any case I still can't see how math enters into your version

If i'm repeating myself it's because my page 4 is all fu

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I should have said "leagues per New York Second."

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

. . . If i'm repeating myself it's because my page 4 is all fu . . .

Yeah, right, Dale.

Snicker. . . .

1 Reply

@Tuna,

Hi Tuna,

You used the word "we", please identify the group you speak for as I understood I was chatting with you, and if you are speaking for others it would be interesting to know who they might be

First you used the phrase "widely accepted authority" then you changed it to "accepted authority". Since they have different meanings but you used them interchangeably I have concerns that you are trying to alter the timbre of your claims.

Kindly directly quote my so-called "bald assertion" as I question your assessment.

Kindly directly quote my so-called "opinion" as I question your assessment.

You appear to be claiming that due to an opinion being controversial, the burden is on the provider of said opinion. If indeed you are making that claim, then I dispute it thusly: the existence of an interventionist Christian god is controversial; by your argument if I deny the existence of an interventionist Christian god I must provide the burden of proof of it's non-existence.

You appear to be claiming that philosophy has goals, if this is the case I should remind you I made no such direct claim in using the word "efficacy".

1 Reply

@Chumly,

Chumly wrote:

You appear to be claiming that due to an opinion being controversial, the burden is on the provider of said opinion. If indeed you are making that claim, then I dispute it thusly: the existence of an interventionist Christian god is controversial; by your argument if I deny the existence of an interventionist Christian god I must provide the burden of proof of it's non-existence.

The skeptic never has the burden of proof.

Chumly wrote:

You appear to be claiming that philosophy has goals, if this is the case I should remind you I made no such direct claim in using the word "efficacy".

My criticism was that you suggested your argument was from authority. It wasn't.

I think we're done here?

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote:

Yeah, right, Dale. Snicker. . . .

No, yes, really, Neo

0 Replies

@Tuna,

Tuna wrote:

Chumly wrote:

You appear to be claiming that due to an opinion being controversial, the burden is on the provider of said opinion. If indeed you are making that claim, then I dispute it thusly: the existence of an interventionist Christian god is controversial; by your argument if I deny the existence of an interventionist Christian god I must provide the burden of proof of it's non-existence.

The skeptic never has the burden of proof.

Chumly wrote:

You appear to be claiming that philosophy has goals, if this is the case I should remind you I made no such direct claim in using the word "efficacy".

My criticism was that you suggested your argument was from authority. It wasn't.

I think we're done here?

I'll firstly respond to your above two points:

You made the sweeping claim "If your opinion is controversial, then the burden is on you" however your clam is false by obvious exception. Controversy is not necessarily an indicator of likelihood or lack thereof.

Irrelative of what you believe your criticism to be aimed at, the fact of the matter remains that you appear to have relied on the straw man when you responded as if I claimed philosophy had goals.

And then secondly I'll invite you to respond in kind to the aforementioned particulars repeated for your convenience:

You used the word "we", please identify the group you speak for as I understood I was chatting with you, and if you are speaking for others it would be interesting to know who they might be

First you used the phrase "widely accepted authority" then you changed it to "accepted authority". Since they have different meanings but you used them interchangeably I have concerns that you are trying to alter the timbre of your claims.

Kindly directly quote my so-called "bald assertion" as I question your assessment.

Kindly directly quote my so-called "opinion" as I question your assessment.

1 Reply

@Chumly,

So, I think we're thoroughly off topic at this point. Start a thread if you want to interrogate me further. Ask something worth discussing.

0 Replies

@Tuna,

As quoted below for your convenience and not to quell your unbridled enthusiasm, but if you read my initial post # 6,097,228 and your initial response #6,097,235, your initial response is notable for your use of both the straw man and non sequitur logical fallacies, thus my subsequent posts reflect this, sometimes in question form.

Chumly wrote:

Both Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking have criticisms of philosophy's efficacy and notwithstanding argument from authority, their assertions have merit!

Tuna wrote:

That's not an argument from authority.

0 Replies

Maybe some have seen how precise the math has to be in order for the universe to function

0 Replies

What has caused some mathematicians to reassess their views on intelligent design ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know