Detecting design or intent in nature

[The Grand Nudger]

I snipped bits here and there, if you feel that they need to be addressed just point out where and why. That said.....heeeeere we go.

---

You called me a dick. I've matured over the past year so I'll let that slide.

I appreciate that, dick.

Rhythm, you claimed that I implied nipples are a female characteristic.

I sure did, because you did, and continue to do so......let's see what I said, exactly - just so we're on the same page. Is this what you're referring to?

If we're calling (or implying that) nipples are a feminine characteristic, useless or purposeless on a male...

That it, right there? Thought I set that out fairly well, even added a barebones definition of terms and statements as I was using them in case there might be confusion. Do you disagree that nipples are useless or purposeless on a male, and do you disagree that the implication here is that there are useful or purposeful on a female...that this is the metric by which you are making your decision and thus lactation/feeding children is the unspoken operator of "purpose" in toto?

Your logic is broken and I will explain: Humans that are blind have eyes and so do humans that can see. Because humans that are blind have no use for their eyes, they are a characteristic of seeing humans. This is not true because eyes are a characteristic of HUMANS blind or not blind. By your logic you say that it is implied that eyes are a characteristic of vision enabled humans and that's pathetic.

Correction. Useful or purposeful eyes.......so, what do you think, are useful or purposeful eyes a characteristic of blind human beings?

This is why I accused you of being intellectually dishonest because you can't have a brain and think that I implied nipples to be a female characteristic simply because they work. That's asinine!

Perhaps you ought to shine that light inward? In fairness, when you shine that light - I don't think you'll see dishonesty in your statements -I don't- I just see misapprehension.

I concede that my argument is not valid. However that does not mean that it does not have any use.

That's exactly what it means, given that in addition to being invalid a claim based upon these statements cannot even -suggest- something about purpose, for all of the reasons already mentioned. Inductive or deductive. Nipples are a part of a process, whether or not that process has a purpose is impossible to determine, and is not even hinted at in your statement unless you -declare your unspoken assertions-. When and if you ever do, I'll be around.

You seem to not be familiar with inductive reasoning so I'll include this post from another thread:

So, when you claimed that your argument was "sound and therefore valid", and that :

This is argument by negation.

you were speaking out of ignorance, or you just didn't have what you thought you had? Now you've found the hootzpah to lecture me about logic? What sort of results do you expect here? I'm going to jump it a bit and explain to you that you appear to be attempting to argue by -exclusion-, not -negation- (you'll run into all the same problems when you do).....but more on this in a minute.

Now moving on to validity. An argument is valid if the premises logically entail the conclusion. For example in the first argument with only one premise, falling off a building does not entail death. Perhaps Jane fell off the first floor and broke her arm. She still fell off the building but that does not necessitate death. So the argument is actually invalid.

An argument is not made invalid on those grounds...you're actually commenting on necessary and sufficient condition, btw -and as my lost post attempted to explain to you, when condition is left unconsidered a valid structure made of sound statements can still yield an unreliable conclusion (such as a report in the paper being a causal agent for shipwrecks the day before). It's true, nevertheless, but only trivially so, as the function of mechanics divorced from a requirement of reference to the world exterior to the argument or system. On the basis of our discussion, you might have strong inductive reasons to believe that I can tell the future and/or read your mid, huh?

(it's the latter, not the former, btw :fingers on temples: )

Unlike science, mathematics uses DEDUCTIVE reasoning. This means that if you construct your proof correctly your conclusion will ALWAYS be right no matter what.

It will be true, but not always right, que the sinking ships both in and out of this thread.

Next I want to deal with a syllogism. You asked me before if I know what would constitute a purpose in nature for me to be able to claim that it does not have purpose. Your post indicates to me that you don't really understand what a syllogism is by asking that question. When constructing a disjunctive syllogism it is not necessary for me to know the other thing so long as a can prove another which excludes the possibility of the undefined. This is how courts the world over work. More on that later.

Sue nipples for your grievance, if you want to talk about trials and courts? I'll be here if you want to talk logic.

[align=center] 1) P or Q
2) P
c) Therefore -not Q

...and if we plug in your statements using this structure:
-we'll still be running afoul of condition
-we'll still be leveraging a fallacy of composition,
-we'll still be working with unstated and nebulous assertions.

........Is this a recipe for a strong argument (inductive or otherwise), in your opinion?

This is proof by contradiction and is even used in mathematics.

It's an argument from exclusion, not contradiction (or negation). To establish contradiction....you'll need to satisfy necessary and sufficient condition. IOW, what about nipples on men is a necessary or sufficient condition to conclude that their presence on males is contradictory with nature having/not having a purpose? If you don't wish to invoke validity then our comp fallacy can be overlooked (but it's still there) - but this cannot.

My original argument on extinction and this one on nipples show that the idea of nature being goal oriented is unfeasible.

No, it does not, for all of the reasons I've explained at length. Fiat statements such as this one get ripped on a regular basis here, you should know better. Don't claim to have shown something, demonstrate that you have.

Oh and by the way I don't need any teaching on necessary and sufficient conditions.

You clearly do. Exhibit A, if it please the court: this thread. Your then negating, come exclusionary, claimed contradictory, wish-it-were reductio "argument" is being beaten against the rocks of condition, your every reply invokes condition, and you think it's relevance is in question? Maybe, just maybe, that's why you fucked it up, and continue to fuck it up, so brilliantly?

"I don't have to understand why logic works, how logic works, or what conditions might lead to unreliable conclusions in order to use it. Lets ignore all of that and just take my statements and operations as though - they work"

Food for thought.

---

Now, lets have some fun with that other "argument", shall we?

1) Nature has goals or nature does not have goals. Okay.
2) There have been many creatures that have come into existence. Agreed.
3) There have been many creatures that have since become extinct. Agreed
4) Extinction has no purpose. Agreed.

Therefore nature has no goals. Non-seq.

All that we could conclude with that, all we might have reason to accept even if we could not conclude, if we agreed with it(and we'd probably have to do a little work on it before we could even do that), is that extinction is not the/a goal of nature. IOW, it is not a valid deductive argument, nor is it a strong inductive argument. What do you think went wrong?