From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sat Nov 13 2004 - 02:19:40 GMT
Hi Ian,
I'm glad to see you're still poking around the list. I've always
appreciated your insights.
And thanks for the moral support re my line of argument here. When I
first got involved with the list six months ago I was gung ho,
thinking everyone I met was really interested in discovering some MoQ
based consensus of "the truth." After numerous long discussions with
various people, discussions wherein it was obvious my point was made,
as my final arguments were left unanswered, I was dismayed to see the
same people, a few posts later, talking to someone new but starting
over spewing the same old shit. That's when I realized that most
folks here (there are exceptions and Scott is one of them) are
looking to promote one or another religious or political or anti-
intellectual agenda, and that their interest in "truth" is but a
convenient pose.
So.... I've been following your advice: I'm arguing to learn, not
win. I think of it as baseball batting practice (there's probably a
parallel in Cricket): I'll get hit with a lot of dirty pitches but
I'll be sharpening my swing.
Best,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
On 13 Nov 2004 at 1:13, Ian Glendinning wrote:
Mark, good luck with this line.
Pragmatically, you're completely correct, but I've given up on here.
Something like "evolution" is clearly not conclusively falsifiable in
any general sense, whether its "actually" true or not. The argument
you're having depends entirely on people's motivations for arguing
with (or against) you. No amount of "evidence" will "convince" people
who "want" to believe some fairy story or other. No reasonable person
should be arguing to "win", rather to learn I'd hope, but some people
seem hell-bent on preventing any useful or constructive synthesis,
and MD is doomed to stasis at ground zero so long as every mention of
evolution (which amply and pragmatically fits with MoQ) is greeted
with the "it's just a theory" mantra.
Madness is the only escape from this rational trap, as I thought
Pirsig's sad experience had taught us. There but for the grace of god
[sic], go we all. Let's not go there. Move on. Beyond maths and the
science lab, there are no axioms. What really winds me up, as I've
said so many times, are the fairy-story-believers who use use
rational argument when it suits their motives.
[Quote]
My axioms were so clean-hewn,
The joins of 'thus' and 'therefore' neat
But, I admit
Life would not fit
Between straight lines
And all the cornflowers said was 'blue,'
All summer long, so blue.
So when the sea came in and with one wave
Threatened to wash my edifice away -
I let it.
[Unquote]
by Marianne Jones
http://www.psybertron.org/2002_12_01_archive.html#90096806
Best wishes,
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Steven Heyman" <markheyman@infoproconsulting.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: RE: MD Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching
> On 12 Nov 2004 at 13:13, Charles Roberts wrote:
> [Scott:] ID is a theory of evolution.
>
> msh says:
> Sure. Just not a scientific theory. See below.
>
>
> scott:
> Evolution by chance and natural selection is a hypothesis on how
> this evolution comes about. ID is a different hypothesis. Neither
> can claim scientific conclusiveness. Both are assumed based on
> philosophical predispositions.
>
> msh says:
> Scientific conclusiveness? Of course not. There's nothing
> conclusive about the existence of quarks. Does this mean quantum
> mechanics shouldn't be taught in a physics class?
>
> The question is, which of the two hypotheses is scientifically
> viable? We see scientific evidence of the workings of chance
> mutations and natural selection every day. Just visit any neo-
natal
> ward at any hospital. In any species, any time a male defeats a
> weaker male (perhaps one with genetically inferior vision) for the
> right to procreate, you're seeing evidence of natural selection.
> There is so MUCH evidence for chance and natural selection as the
> mechanism of evolution that it is difficult to understand why
anyone
> would deny it. But maybe that's where one's "philosophical [or
> religious] disposition" comes in.
>
> >msh said:
> > BTW, ID is just a new name for an old argument for the existence
> > of God. The ID version has some highly questionable probability
> > calculations, but the theory itself hasn't overcome David Hume's
> > original arguments against it, as far as I can determine. FWIW,
> > I'm writing a longer piece on this, and hope to post it tonight.
>
> [Scott:] Nonsense. If the probability calculations happened to bear
> out, then Hume's arguments would be partially overcome.
>
> msh says:
> Well, maybe. But his most devastating argument remains in tact,
> regardless. Setting aside the fact that our observations of the
> evolution of life reveals a messy process that is not all that
> orderly, is what we humans "perceive" to be order in the universe
> sufficient to prove the existence of a universal designer? When
> someone rolls five dice and they come up sixes, is this evidence
> that the dice are loaded?
>
> As for the so-called probability calculations upon which ID hangs
> its hat, they seem to me to ignore important scientific background
> information, resulting in much lower probability estimates than
are
> fairly warranted. But I'll go into this more in a later post,
where
> I'll take a look at one of these probability filters.
>
> Best,
> msh
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 13 2004 - 02:28:21 GMT