The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[The Grand Nudger]

No one thinks that design is unfalsifiable and vague, and you certainly aren't coming up with arguments worth paying for at any rate.

People are criticizing god botherers use of the term design as unfalsifiable and vague - which is manifestly clear..if you read any of their responses. You might even say that their responses were designed to communicate precisely that.

[John 6IX Breezy]

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

It's not exactly a different thing either; it's just a suffix.

[Apollo]

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.

It is an obscure and incomprehensible concept when you assign it as a product of an almighty designer that you have not even proven even exists.  In that context, you can simply point to anything in the universe and say, "that's by design of the almighty".

If you keep it within the scope of the known design patterns of nature and human societies we are familiar with then there is little disagreement.

Our conversation has be focused on the designer and its "design" and hence not all argument of human based design will fit.

[John 6IX Breezy]

It is an obscure and incomprehensible concept when you assign it as a product of an almighty designer that you have not even proven even exists.

I assigned it as a product of intelligence not God. I don't particularly think you need gods to show the universe can be designed. We design many worlds ourselves—have you played RDR2 recently?

But I agree the conversation does eventually have to focus on a particular designer.

[Angrboda]

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

It's not exactly a different thing either; it's just a suffix.

Yes, in fact, that's exactly what it is.

[Apollo]

It is an obscure and incomprehensible concept when you assign it as a product of an almighty designer that you have not even proven even exists.

I assigned it as a product of intelligence not God. I don't particularly think you need gods to show the universe can be designed. We design many worlds ourselves—have you played RDR2 recently?

But I agree the conversation does eventually have to focus on a particular designer.

Please. For the love of the god. Don't bring intelligence into it. We have had enough with "designer" already. Now you're introducing another loaded term. Is intelligence something that exists without the agent who possess it (living organism)? No.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Please. For the love of the god. Don't bring intelligence into it. We have had enough with "designer" already. Now you're introducing another loaded term. Is intelligence something that exists without the agent who possess it (living organism)? No.

These are not loaded terms lol. And no I don't necessarily think intelligence can exist without an agent; but I disagree it needs to be a living organism, since virtual agents and other forms of A.I. might be possible.

[Apollo]

Please. For the love of the god. Don't bring intelligence into it. We have had enough with "designer" already. Now you're introducing another loaded term. Is intelligence something that exists without the agent who possess it (living organism)? No.

These are not loaded terms lol. And no I don't necessarily think intelligence can exist without an agent; but I disagree it needs to be a living organism, since virtual agents and other forms of A.I. might be possible.

AI or virtual intelligent agents are manifestations of intelligent beings with agency (humans) - it's implied.

[polymath257]

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.

Since falsifiability is based on being able to make observations that affect the probability that a position is correct, this seems to be a terminological distinction with no actual substance.

OK, so what criterion has been presented that is falsifiable and can reasonably be linked to design?

---

If everything is designed, with nothing to compare it to(so we don't know what not designed looks like) then what actual evidence do we have of design?

Notice the reverse argument can be inserted into your question: If everything is natural with nothing to compare it to, then what evidence do we have for naturalism?

Are there things within the universe that are NOT designed? Most people would say that there are. So, by what crietia do we distinguish between those things that are not designed and those that are?

---

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.)

This is a common issue in some areas of science and it isn't a fundamental problem. In practice, there *are* differences between things that are designed and those that are not, at least when dealing with designers from the Earth's biosphere. Some things happen naturally without the intervention of life and others do not. Some can happen both ways---in such cases, it can be more a judgement call or simply left undecided.

It is a *good* thing that things can be fit into binary criteria. That is how knowledge is separated from mere fancy.

So, the goal should be to make design more precise so it becomes falsifiable. In those situations where it cannot, it should not be the default assumption.

---

It is an obscure and incomprehensible concept when you assign it as a product of an almighty designer that you have not even proven even exists.

I assigned it as a product of intelligence not God. I don't particularly think you need gods to show the universe can be designed. We design many worlds ourselves—have you played RDR2 recently?

But I agree the conversation does eventually have to focus on a particular designer.

And, more precisely, on characteristics that separate those things that are products of intention and those that are not. For *human* designers 9or creatures related to humans), this can be done in a great many situations.

The problem is that if we use the human criteria, the answer is that the vast majority of the universe is NOT designed. And that seems to both many people.

But those *wanting* to find design can give no criteria that can distinguish designed from non-designed artifacts outside of the few things related to the Earth's biosphere.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If God is the divine watchmaker, why doesn’t he make watches?

Checkmate.

Boru