Detecting design or intent in nature

[bennyboy]

Pretty unambiguous situation here, though you're going to cry like a baby and run in circles until you've made yourself so dizzy that you think you've changed the world's spin, and not change the tag after all. Thought I'd give you a chance not to be a squirmy liar-- a chance which I predict you will voluntarily surrender in 3. . . 2. . . 1. . .

All non-triangle polygons is not all polygons. Remember the challenge is to find something true of all polygons which is not true for all triangles. Keep trying....if you ever do succeed, I will put "moron" next to my name. You don't have to do anything, the fact that you put so much effort into it so far was enough of a reward for me.

oic more semantics. Fine.

"All polygons" is a Big Set, by your definition of the workings of logic. It's a Big Set which includes squares. Triangles do not include squares. Therefore something that is true of the set of all polygons is not true of triangles. Except, that is, in Heywood Land, where every triangle is proof that all polygons are triangles.

[Chas]

Is biological evolution known to have been created by intellect? No.
It therefore cannot belong to the set of things known to have been created by intellect.

But that is not the only thing wrong with your argument.

Some how in your warped thinking you have come to the conclusion that the set of systems containing the elements of replication, heritable traits, change and selection is the same as the set of things known to have been created by intellect.

Chas, they are not the same. When you finally figure that out, perhaps you can start making some sense.

No, you are not paying attention.

Your Heywood set includes biological evolution and all of your examples. However, the set of Heywood systems has multiple pairs of disjoint subsets.

There is the subset of members that contain replicating replicators vs. the subset that does not.

There is the subset of members that are known to have been created by intellect vs. the subset of members that are not known to have been created by intellect.

There is the subset of members that are biological vs. the subset of members that are not.

And so on.

Of course something that applies to all members of the Heywood set applies to all members of all subsets. But it is not valid to conclude that something that applies to the members of any on subset applies to all the members of the parent set.

To conclude that the members of one disjoint subset must share the characteristics of another disjoint subset is not valid, regardless of how many members are in each subset.

If you can't independently demonstrate that biological evolution was created by intellect, you can't place it in that subset just because all the other members of the Heywood set are in that subset. That is you assuming the conclusion.

[robvalue]

Maybe Heywood would like to address this point:

Say you are correct, and some aliens flew by in a ship in the distant past, and used a laser to zap some primordial ooze and the first life form on earth started growing.

So what?

So nothing.

[IATIA]

Remember the challenge is to find something true of all polygons which is not true for all triangles.

If it is not true for all triangles, then it is not true for all polygons.

[downbeatplumb]

Ok I think I have it now, intellect can imitate or act like a naturally occurring thing. In Heywood world this means that the original required intellect despite science having a perfectly good and tested explanation as to how these things came about sans intellect and the potential presence of intellect actually posing more questions than it answers.

Is this close to what this mess of an argument boils down to or am I dreaming?

Heywood trying to win an argument by saying the last thing again is he?

[robvalue]

All "robvalue" polygons have at least 5 sides. Triangles only have 3.

I think he's hoping to carry on until everyone else gives up trying to explain it.

[Heywood]

There is the subset of members that are known to have been created by intellect vs. the subset of members that are not known to have been created by intellect.

Regarding photons. There is the set of all photons. Within that set are two disjointed subsets. Observed Photons, and Unobserved photons. If we applied your logic to photons, we could not draw conclusions about unobserved photons by observing photons.....yet that is exactly what we do. Is all of science wrong?

[downbeatplumb]

All "robvalue" polygons have at least 5 sides. Triangles only have 3.

I think he's hoping to carry on until everyone else gives up trying to explain it.

The Pythagoras theorem only works for triangles.

[Heywood]

All non-triangle polygons is not all polygons. Remember the challenge is to find something true of all polygons which is not true for all triangles. Keep trying....if you ever do succeed, I will put "moron" next to my name. You don't have to do anything, the fact that you put so much effort into it so far was enough of a reward for me.

oic more semantics. Fine.

"All polygons" is a Big Set, by your definition of the workings of logic. It's a Big Set which includes squares. Triangles do not include squares. Therefore something that is true of the set of all polygons is not true of triangles. Except, that is, in Heywood Land, where every triangle is proof that all polygons are triangles.

There is no semantics. Anything that is true of all polygons will be true of all triangles. Your daughter could probably figure this out. To be honest, I got a chuckle that you seriously took up the challenge. I hope you didn't waste too much time on it.

[robvalue]

My parrot smashed through the wall and escaped!

All I have is the hole he left, what shape was it? PolyGon.