The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[Angrboda]

Nevermind. I don't feel like pursuing it at this point.

[arewethereyet]

Nevermind.  I don't feel like pursuing it at this point.

Probably for the best.  Breezy just talks and talks and quotes and quotes and mentions that he studies Psychology repeatedly until people get worn out by his attempts to sound oh-so-intellectual.

Anyone who starts a conversation with him needs to know that's how he rolls.

[John 6IX Breezy]

What else am I supposed to do on a forum lol?

[possibletarian]

One could argue that Cajal's explanation was better, not because of simplicity, but because of consistency within a larger scope of theories, namely, biology's Cell Theory. And yet this approach quickly runs into the problem of induction. Experimentation alone is the only measure of a theory's worth.

I have a theory that ice cream trucks cause drownings.  If I observe ice cream trucks and drownings for several years, what do you think I'll find?

I get it, I usually use 'sand causes drowning' as my go to.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Actually, no you did NOT give a description in that link. You gave some rather vague fluff that could not be used to actually dstinguish any particular case. In particular, you make a logical claim that if everything in the universe was designed, then everything in the universe *could* be designed. But you don't say how to definitively say when something *cannot* be designed. What, precisely, would be something that we could use to conclude design is impossible?

Apologies for missing this. 

I described design as representational; spatial rather than propositional; episodic rather than semantic; intentional rather than accidental; all of which can coordinate an "initiation of change" in the world (as one philosopher puts it). And I presented the "square circle" example to illustrate what does not qualify as design. I'm not sure how any of that was vague fluff?  

ps. In fact, I'm in danger of over-specifying what design is. For example, people often use the term design to describe processes (e.g. an experimental design). That's a problem for my definition. One solution (which I think is right) is to argue that design in this sense is not design, but rather a metaphorical extension. But another option is to broaden my definition to include temporal aspects (such as music) not just spatial.

[Silver]

All of theism is a metaphor, for don't be so damn gullible.

[polymath257]

Actually, no you did NOT give a description in that link. You gave some rather vague fluff that could not be used to actually dstinguish any particular case. In particular, you make a logical claim that if everything in the universe was designed, then everything in the universe *could* be designed. But you don't say how to definitively say when something *cannot* be designed. What, precisely, would be something that we could use to conclude design is impossible?

Apologies for missing this. 

I described design as representational; spatial rather than propositional; episodic rather than semantic; intentional rather than accidental; all of which can coordinate an "initiation of change" in the world (as one philosopher puts it). And I presented the "square circle" example to illustrate what does not qualify as design. I'm not sure how any of that was vague fluff?  

ps. In fact, I'm in danger of over-specifying what design is. For example, people often use the term design to describe processes (e.g. an experimental design). That's a problem for my definition. One solution (which I think is right) is to argue that design in this sense is not design, but rather a metaphorical extension. But another option is to broaden my definition to include temporal aspects (such as music) not just spatial.

It's vague fluff because such a description cannot be used in any particular case to show design where it wasn't already known to exist.

You cannot, for example, turn this into a description on what *observations* are required to show something is designed.

For example, how to you prove intentionality if you didn't already know something to be intentional?

More to the point, how would you use this to determine that something is NOT designed?

So, yes, it is vague fluff. If you cannot actually use it to say whether things are designed or not, it isn't specific enough to be useful.

[John 6IX Breezy]

For example, how to you prove [emphasis added] intentionality if you didn't already know something to be intentional?

(We're taught not to use the P word in science, but its whatever at this point.)

Intentional is a great addition to my definition because it focuses on the aspect of intelligence that's most relevant to design. It allows us to draw some very important distinctions. To use my beaver analogy, we can conclude that a dam was designed because our hypothetical beaver intended to make it, but that a footprint it left behind was not designed because it did not intend to make that. Or perhaps it did intend to make a footprint but not the dam. As you know, my only focus is whether something can be designed, not whether it was designed (which you keep ignoring). I agree, intentions are hard to infer; but they can, however, be communicated. And I've argued that plans, models and simulations are observable representations of intentions.

ps. I wonder if you are confusing "being falsified" with being falsifiable? It is not enough for you that my definitions are specific, because you also want me to be wrong. So you will deny that my theory is falsifiable unless I falsify it.

You cannot, for example, turn this into a description on what *observations* are required to show something is designed.

The change clause in "intentional initiation of change" means that if you recreate, replicate, or duplicate a thing, then you have in effect "redesigned" that thing (reproduced a similar change in the world). In other words, you have shown it to be designable.

[The Grand Nudger]

Still babbling about whether or not your falsified theory is falsifiable.

Do you have any other tricks at all?

[John 6IX Breezy]

Still babbling about whether or not your falsified [emphasis added] theory is falsifiable.  

Half the forum says that my theory isn't falsifiable; the other half says it's already been falsified.