Everything isn't natural, though. We do see designed things and this world fails the criteria for them.

Naturalism isn't a position on design, so the disjunct isn't useful in creating a troll argument. Womp womp.

(March 17, 2021 at 10:14 am)polymath257 Wrote: It seems that nobody is making an actual, evidence-based, argument here.

Replace evidence-based with falsifiable. And though we might not agree, we'll at least be on the same page speaking the same language.

Will we, though...? You had a bit of a disagreement over what falsifiability was before, iirc.

How does that saying go... When the law is against you argue evidence. When the evidence is against you argue law, when the law and the evidence are against you, argue over the meaning of words?

(March 17, 2021 at 12:37 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(March 17, 2021 at 10:14 am)polymath257 Wrote: It seems that nobody is making an actual, evidence-based, argument here.

Replace evidence-based with falsifiable. And though we might not agree, we'll at least be on the same page speaking the same language.

Not everything can neatly fit into falsiability criteria. Theories that are based on not agreed upon precise concepts like design cannot possibly have a falsiability. Because you can always say something follows a design while others may disagree it does. Falsifiable criteria are applicable to binary result based evidence (black vs white swans.)

(March 17, 2021 at 1:37 pm)Apollo Wrote:

(March 17, 2021 at 12:37 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Replace evidence-based with falsifiable. And though we might not agree, we'll at least be on the same page speaking the same language.

Not everything can neatly fit into falsiability criteria. Theories that are based on not agreed upon precise concepts like design cannot possibly have a falsiability. Because you can always say something follows a design while others may disagree it does. Falsifiable criteria are applicable to binary result based evidence (black vs white swans.)

In practice, such critters don't exist. See Thomas Kuhn's writing on scientific revolutions and also the Duhem-Quine Thesis.

(March 17, 2021 at 1:37 pm)Apollo Wrote: Theories that are based on not agreed upon precise concepts like design cannot possibly have a falsiability.

Consciousness is as vague as design. And yet there are many theories (e.g. Global Workspace Theory, Integrated Information Theory, etc.), which present sightly different definitions and perspectives on consciousness.

Falsification doesn't require agreement, only specificity and testability.

(March 17, 2021 at 1:47 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(March 17, 2021 at 1:37 pm)Apollo Wrote: Theories that are based on not agreed upon precise concepts like design cannot possibly have a falsiability.

Consciousness is as vague as design. And yet there are many theories (e.g. Global Workspace Theory, Integrated Information Theory, etc.), which present sightly different definitions and perspectives on consciousness.

Falsification doesn't require agreement, only specificity and testability.

Specificity comes from common understanding or clear understanding (agreement that I was talking about). Consciousness in terms of neurological phenomenon is not as vague as "design". We do see brain activity as some indication of consciousness existing in a live person vs no activity as no consciousness. We do not have such "specifity" when it comes to design.

---

(March 17, 2021 at 1:41 pm)Angrboda Wrote:

(March 17, 2021 at 1:37 pm)Apollo Wrote: Not everything can neatly fit into falsiability criteria. Theories that are based on not agreed upon precise concepts like design cannot possibly have a falsiability. Because you can always say something follows a design while others may disagree it does. Falsifiable criteria are applicable to binary result based evidence (black vs white swans.)

In practice, such critters don't exist.  See Thomas Kuhn's writing on scientific revolutions and also the Duhem-Quine Thesis.

I think falsifiablity provides and important way to arrive at a scientific conclusion when method of induction is not sufficient.

(March 17, 2021 at 1:47 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(March 17, 2021 at 1:37 pm)Apollo Wrote: Theories that are based on not agreed upon precise concepts like design cannot possibly have a falsiability.

Consciousness is as vague as design. And yet there are many theories (e.g. Global Workspace Theory, Integrated Information Theory, etc.), which present sightly different definitions and perspectives on consciousness.

Falsification doesn't require agreement, only specificity and testability.

Like the specific complexity id proposed, and was tested by, and failed?

(March 17, 2021 at 2:12 pm)Apollo Wrote: We do not have such "specifity" when it comes to design.

It seems to me that the forum arbitrarily decided that "design" is an obscure incomprehensible word. And yet I'm confident that if I were to say I'm a fashion designer, nobody would be confused about what I do.

I disagree that design is unspecifiable when it comes to experimentation. Although I agree such specificity is strictly scientific, meaning, it's not something anyone on the street would know. Design can nevertheless be operationally defined for research purposes.

I've attempted to do such a thing. For example, earlier I presented a definition by a philosopher which argued that design is "the intentional initiation of change."

I would add to his definition that design is also representational. It exists as a plan or model, either in the brain, or computer, etc. This would imply that design is spatial not propositional; it is episodic not semantic. In other words, creating a mental image of a dress, or extending that image unto paper, would be classified as "designing" a dress. In contrast, merely proposing a square circle, which cannot be represented spatially, would not be considered as designing such a shape.

Perhaps my definition and approach need work (I'm not exactly being paid to work on such a project) but at least it illustrates that merely saying "design is unfalsifiable and vague" has more to do with lack of effort than the actual nature of design.

(March 17, 2021 at 3:02 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(March 17, 2021 at 2:12 pm)Apollo Wrote: We do not have such "specifity" when it comes to design.

It seems to me that the forum arbitrarily decided that "design" is an obscure incomprehensible word. And yet I'm confident that if I were to say I'm a fashion designer, nobody would be confused about what I do.

I also disagree that design is unspecifiable when it comes to experimentation. Although I agree such specificity is strictly scientific, meaning, it's not something anyone on the street would know. Design can nevertheless be operationally defined for research purposes.

I've attempted to do such a thing. For example, earlier I presented a definition by a philosopher which argued that design is "the intentional initiation of change."

I would add to his definition that design is also representational. It exists as a plan or model, either in the brain, or computer, etc. This would imply that design is spatial not propositional; it is episodic not semantic. In other words, creating a mental image of a dress, or extending that image unto paper, would be classified as "designing" a dress. In contrast, merely proposing a square circle, which cannot be represented spatially, would not be considered as designing such a shape.

Perhaps my definition and approach need work (I'm not exactly being paid to work on such a project) but at least it illustrates that merely saying "design is unfalsifiable and vague" has more to do with lack of effort than the actual nature of design.

I believe you were arguing "designability," which is not the same thing.

---

(March 17, 2021 at 2:12 pm)Apollo Wrote:

(March 17, 2021 at 1:41 pm)Angrboda Wrote: In practice, such critters don't exist.  See Thomas Kuhn's writing on scientific revolutions and also the Duhem-Quine Thesis.

I think falsifiablity provides and important way to arrive at a scientific conclusion when method of induction is not sufficient.

That's nice. It doesn't make what you said correct.