RE: The Watchmaker: my fav argument
March 12, 2021 at 1:34 pm
(This post was last modified: March 12, 2021 at 1:35 pm by Mister Agenda.)
(March 12, 2021 at 1:26 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:(March 12, 2021 at 1:14 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: For falsifying something to have any scientific relevance, it must be falsifiable, at least in principle. There is no property a thing could have that would render it 'undesignable' in principle. It's not valid to make up a quality of 'undesignability' just to be able to make a coherent sentence that something with that quality would falsify design.
I disagree; science is the art of carving nature at her joints. We not only make up qualities all the time (e.g. Gender, Episodic Memory, Consciousness) as an attempt to describe something about the universe, we also come up with operational definitions to make abstract qualities measurable (e.g. Fear means heart rate above 130 bpm).
I've borrowed the "something-ability" concept from a popular theory in psychology about affordances and direct perception. And I've exemplified why "not designable" is a valid proposition, namely, because we frame things as "not-something-else" all the time. These is nothing in what I've said that is in anyway incoherent or unfalsifiable.
So what's the operational definition for undesignability?
(March 12, 2021 at 1:29 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:(March 12, 2021 at 1:08 pm)Angrboda Wrote: If you don't know what it would look like then in what way have you presented an observation which would be falsifying?
In many ways this is a benefit for your side not mine. There may be a multitude of ways in which things are not designable; just like there are a multitude of ways in which objects are not graspable (e.g. too big, too small, too slippery, too sharp, too spikey). The only general way to describe something as "not graspable," is quite literally to not be able to grasp it. Likewise, the only general way to describe something is "not designable" is quiet literally to not be able to design it.
(I'll look into the Heidegger being and time subject.)
Can you describe one of the possibly many ways something might be undesignable?
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.