Detecting design or intent in nature

[BlackMason]

Rhythm, you're intellectually dishonest and that's where I lose interest.

[The Grand Nudger]

Point out where, dick. Meanwhile, because it's a subject of interest for me and I have occasion to elaborate (not that I haven't a few times before....but this time I got off my lazy ass)- here's what I'm always harping on about when I refer to condition:

A ship sinks off the coast of your town. There is a report in the paper the next day. What logical statements can we make about this, and how might they help us to understand the importance of necessary and sufficient conditions?

If [shipwreck] then [report in the paper]
[report in the paper]
therefore [shipwreck]

If not [report in the paper] then not [shipwreck]
not [report in paper]
therefore not [shipwreck]

Notice the implications for causality when we express the mp-mt transition on this statement. In the first, it implies that the shipwreck was the casual agent for a report in the paper, which generally conforms to our experience of how these things figure temporally and with reference to cause. In the second, it implies that the lack of a report in the paper was a causal agent for the lack of a shipwreck. Which -does not- conform to our experience of how these things figure temporally or with reference to cause. So what gives, why has this happened? Both are valid, if the statements are true (which we're assuming they are for the sake of convenience but also because they can be and often are in our experience) the argument must be sound in both cases...but do reports in the paper cause ships to wreck?

Kind of interesting to ponder, imo.

Now back to you Mason. I'm trying to -help you- form a good argument for nature lacking purpose. I'm not sure what you think I'm trying to do, other than this.

[bennyboy]

Rhythm, you're intellectually dishonest and that's where I lose interest.

And. . . there it is. The intellectual mating call of the soundly-defeated debater.

[Chili]

So you're saying that Catholics are so dumb that they can't follow something as simple as a recipe?

To be fair to catholics for centuries everything was in latin which no-one but the priests spoke so their faith was whatever their particular priest told them it was.

It's only recently that they all knew what the hell the bible said.

That is they whole point, the bible is not for Catholics.

Just so you know, the Gospels begin where Catholicism ends, and therefore only a couple passages are read to re-enact the Rich man and Lazarus parable, where the scraps where the only food needed to get the job done.

And I am talking "Church Militant" here where the confessionals are at.

[Chili]

Here's another point against goal driven nature:

1) Women have nipples for the purpose of breast feeding.
2) Unlike women, men have nipples for no reason.
3) Nipples come from nature.
C) It is not the case that nature is purpose driven.

I don't think that makes sense. It's true that men don't make milk, but a) it could have been that some early mammals' males DID make milk; b) there may be added efficiency in not differentiating body parts. For example, many parts of the penis and vagina are actually shared structures, and they differentiate as the fetus develops; this saves energy during the crucial early development of the fetus.

It's just that evolutionary purpose is one about statistical persistence-- not necessarily the apparent outer "purpose" of an adult organisim.

Huh? Our sex is an illusion and is that not why early stage embryos are all female?

It is not my ambition to prove this here but as I understand it the actual sex cell division begins later. So obviously our sex is an add-on, or not.

---

To be fair to catholics for centuries everything was in latin which no-one but the priests spoke so their faith was whatever their particular priest told them it was.

It's only recently that they all knew what the hell the bible said.

That is they whole point, the bible is not for Catholics.

Just so you know, the Gospels begin where Catholicism ends, and therefore only a couple passages are read to re-enact the Rich man and Lazarus parable, where the scraps where the only food needed to get the job done.

And I am talking "Church Militant" here where the confessionals are at.

Let me make this is an add-on as I did not have time to finish this earlier, or, maybe more should be added to make this clear (regardless how controversial it will be).

The Gospels typically begin where Paul's race is ran, and this began when Paul fell off the high horse he was riding while taxing religion as if his shepherds were also herding sheep in the middle of a midwinter night. It can be called 'insights on the run' that first began with 'our soul on the run' to form telic visions that become insights for us. It therefore is that they are always local, they are current, and they are personally ours and that is why woman is universal and 'the' woman personal to make 'the man' in us.

So the gospels have nothing to do with religion but with how to work out your own salvation, and that would be after the fact.

Sorry, I should maybe add that to ride a high horse you must have stripes on your collar, and then if you need 12 of those it would follow that many may be called but not many are chosen, which so now makes it a midlife event, and hence 38-40 is peculiar for this. This then is where my earlier MENO-pause would serve us well.

[bennyboy]

I don't think that makes sense. It's true that men don't make milk, but a) it could have been that some early mammals' males DID make milk; b) there may be added efficiency in not differentiating body parts. For example, many parts of the penis and vagina are actually shared structures, and they differentiate as the fetus develops; this saves energy during the crucial early development of the fetus.

It's just that evolutionary purpose is one about statistical persistence-- not necessarily the apparent outer "purpose" of an adult organisim.

Huh? Our sex is an illusion and is that not why early stage embryos are all female?

It is not my ambition to prove this here but as I understand it the actual sex cell division begins later. So obviously our sex is an add-on, or not.

I feel like you are working toward some kind of point, but I cannot see what it is.

[Chili]

Huh? Our sex is an illusion and is that not why early stage embryos are all female?

It is not my ambition to prove this here but as I understand it the actual sex cell division begins later. So obviously our sex is an add-on, or not.

I feel like you are working toward some kind of point, but I cannot see what it is.

If created androgyne to become male or female (or somewhere in between) the potential of becoming either male or male is present in the embryo first. From here it follows that the default sex is female or nipples would not be there.

[BlackMason]

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

Rhythm, you claimed that I implied nipples are a female characteristic. I said I did no such thing and you did not yield. Why? In order to have a progressive discussion is it not wise to have consensus? Law of contract works that way. If it can be established that the two contracting parties did not have consensus at the time of contracting, the judge can set aside the contract rendering it null and void. Yet you persisted when I told that is not what I meant.

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. 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!

I concede that my argument is not valid. However that does not mean that it does not have any use. You seem to not be familiar with inductive reasoning so I'll include this post from another thread:

Interesting. Can you elaborate on what this distinction means in our case here? I don't see how your use of these words adds anything except needlessly simplistic jargon to our understanding of the issue.

Yeah sure. I think it's of fundamental importance to actually understand what science is if you're going to talk about it. First, science is tentative. This means that if we find new information in the future it could turn our previous conclusions on their head. Science does not make absolute claims. Most of the arguments that science makes are actually invalid. But what they lack in validity they more than make up for in inductive strength. What is this inductive reasoning you ask? Read on if you're interested

Inductive reasoning and validity:
The best way to explain inductive reasoning is by way of example:

1) Jane fell off a building.
C) Jane is dead

The premise "Jane fell off a building" is strong enough for us to accept the conclusion that "Jane is dead". But watch this:

1) Jane fell off a building
2) She landed in a swimming pool
C) Jane is dead

Notice that the inclusion of the second premise makes us believe the conclusion less than in the first example. This notion of changing our willingness to accept the conclusion given the premises is known as inductive strength.

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. This is the same for the second argument with the swimming component added.

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 doesn't matter if the pope becomes black or new discoveries come into play. If you constructed your proof correctly your conclusion will always be right! This is the power of maths!

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.

My disjunctive syllogism is:

1) P or Q
2) P
c) Therefore -not Q

Courts use a similar syllogism methodology because the focus in ONLY on guilt. They do not address the question of innocence. Not addressing the issue of innocence is tantamount to me not needing to define what would constitute a purpose. Capisce?

Now let me deal what a reductio ad absurdum is. This is also linked to my overall argument. The first step in a reductio is to hold that a certain statement is true. The next step is showing why it is not feasible with examples that lead to the conclusion that the original statement cannot be true. This is proof by contradiction and is even used in mathematics.

My original argument on extinction and this one on nipples show that the idea of nature being goal oriented is unfeasible. Sorry bro, but I'm taking this one.

Oh and by the way I don't need any teaching on necessary and sufficient conditions. The relevance of that discussion is deeply in question.:
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...se+problem

---

Rhythm, you're intellectually dishonest and that's where I lose interest.

And. . . there it is. The intellectual mating call of the soundly-defeated debater.

Bench players talking like starters I hate it. Wow you must feel real proud of yourself.

[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?

[BlackMason]

It's funny because I've actually taken a course on this stuff and here's this youtube logic guy that thinks he knows this shit better than me. Some of the stuff I've written here come almost straight out of my course pack and you're disagreeing. Interesting.

Buddy, you don't know what you're talking about.