"Undefeated" Apologetic Argument

[Mudhammam]

What IS the difference between a good reductionist and a greedy reductionist? That's a new one to me.

First you need to understand the difference between cranes and skyhooks. All subsequent quotes are taken from Dan Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea:

"Cranes can do the lifting work our imaginary skyhooks might do, and they do it in an honest, non-question-begging fashion. They are expensive, however. They have to be designed and built, from everyday parts already on hand, and they have to be located on a firm base of existing ground. Cranes are no less excellent as lifters, and they have the decided advantage of being real."

Now you might have already deduced what a skyhook is:

"An imaginary contrivance for attachment to the sky; an imaginary means of suspension in the sky."

Dennett goes on to write: "Greedy reductionists think that everything can be explained without cranes. Good reductionists think that everything can be explained without skyhooks." Furthermore, good reductionism "is simply the commitment to non-question-begging science without any cheating or embracing mysteries or miracles at the outset."

[TaraJo]

Anyone else notice this? Every argumen he has for creationism is nothing more than some kind of issue with evolution; either a misinterpretation or something we don't yet understand or something along those lines. Which means, if we were to thow out every scrap of evidence we have for evolution and the big bang (and we have a LOT of evidence to throw out then), there STILL isn't anything that argues that the world was created in six days or anything else stated in Genesis.

Me, I say these dipshits are too stupid to understand real science, so put the emphasis on them to make their case instead of them insisting we make our case. If they're going to claim biblical creationism is correct, I say they need to offer up some evidence or stfu.

[Ryantology]

An undefeated argument in the sense that an infant is undefeated in the boxing ring. That doesn't make the infant equal to Floyd Mayweather, Jr.

[Neo-Scholastic]

What IS the difference between a good reductionist and a greedy reductionist? That's a new one to me.

First you need to understand the difference between cranes and skyhooks. All subsequent quotes are taken from Dan Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea:

"Cranes can do the lifting work our imaginary skyhooks might do, and they do it in an honest, non-question-begging fashion. They are expensive, however. They have to be designed and built, from everyday parts already on hand, and they have to be located on a firm base of existing ground. Cranes are no less excellent as lifters, and they have the decided advantage of being real."

Now you might have already deduced what a skyhook is:

"An imaginary contrivance for attachment to the sky; an imaginary means of suspension in the sky."

Dennett goes on to write: "Greedy reductionists think that everything can be explained without cranes. Good reductionists think that everything can be explained without skyhooks." Furthermore, good reductionism "is simply the commitment to non-question-begging science without any cheating or embracing mysteries or miracles at the outset."

Too bad Dennett doesn't follow his own advice.

[Odysseus]

You can't argue it, it takes time for the process of distancing one's identity from the positive affect achieved in childhood from familiar sights, sounds, images, feels.

[Mudhammam]

First you need to understand the difference between cranes and skyhooks. All subsequent quotes are taken from Dan Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea:

"Cranes can do the lifting work our imaginary skyhooks might do, and they do it in an honest, non-question-begging fashion. They are expensive, however. They have to be designed and built, from everyday parts already on hand, and they have to be located on a firm base of existing ground. Cranes are no less excellent as lifters, and they have the decided advantage of being real."

Now you might have already deduced what a skyhook is:

"An imaginary contrivance for attachment to the sky; an imaginary means of suspension in the sky."

Dennett goes on to write: "Greedy reductionists think that everything can be explained without cranes. Good reductionists think that everything can be explained without skyhooks." Furthermore, good reductionism "is simply the commitment to non-question-begging science without any cheating or embracing mysteries or miracles at the outset."

Too bad Dennett doesn't follow his own advice.

Have you read the book? If so, in what way?

[Ben Davis]

So if the first is a known falsehood and the second is nonsense, then what is the third theory?

There are a number of hypotheses but as far as I'm aware, there are no established theories. Simply, we don't know.

Its okay to say I don't know...but the unmoved mover / uncaused cause seems like a viable alternative.

Why?

and what gives a singularity the capacity to change? Or if the singularity embodies change what limits its creative expression to the form of this specific universe?

Once again, there are a number of hypotheses but no established theories.

[Genius Evil]

There's not really anything to refute in the argument, as the premises are invalid (and even if you accept the premises, you just get special pleading - that "Uncreated Creator" BS). In fact, you could replace "the universe" with "God" and conclude that Theists "are irrational, illogical, and have no evidence".

Anyway, What is up with the Wiki: ?

[Chas]

First you need to understand the difference between cranes and skyhooks. All subsequent quotes are taken from Dan Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea:

"Cranes can do the lifting work our imaginary skyhooks might do, and they do it in an honest, non-question-begging fashion. They are expensive, however. They have to be designed and built, from everyday parts already on hand, and they have to be located on a firm base of existing ground. Cranes are no less excellent as lifters, and they have the decided advantage of being real."

Now you might have already deduced what a skyhook is:

"An imaginary contrivance for attachment to the sky; an imaginary means of suspension in the sky."

Dennett goes on to write: "Greedy reductionists think that everything can be explained without cranes. Good reductionists think that everything can be explained without skyhooks." Furthermore, good reductionism "is simply the commitment to non-question-begging science without any cheating or embracing mysteries or miracles at the outset."

Too bad Dennett doesn't follow his own advice.

In what way does he not? In fact, is your 'witty' retort even meaningful?

[Alex K]

In fact, you could replace "the universe" with "God" and conclude that Theists "are irrational, illogical, and have no evidence".

See my post #6