The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[Angrboda]

Your claim that it is an argument against evolution rather than an argument for design is false because it metonymously refers to both.  

I agree, as you point out, that it can refer to both of these arguments; I have not made a claim to the contrary.  What I am against, however, is the deductive argument that intelligent design predicts irreducible complexity. Keep in mind that you are responding to my response to Nudger, who forwarded such an argument: "It [intelligent design] posited an irreducible complexity which does not exist." He therefore concludes that intelligent design has "been falsified."

That is an invalid argument.

Please link me to the post where he says this.

As to whether you made a claim to the contrary, in post #516 you expressed skepticism over whether Nudger possessed an argument that demonstrated that "irreducible complexity" was an argument for design rather than against evolution. At this point, it's not clear whether you are claiming the opposite as at that point, your intent was ambiguous. You removed that ambiguity in post #518 when you declared that, "Irreducible complexity is specifically an argument against evolution. There's no debate here, so please don't waste my time." Your intent became clear at that point that you weren't merely suggesting that Nudger lacked the rhetorical acumen to prosecute the contrary but that he indeed was incapable of proving the contrary as it is not in fact true. That is a claim, and one which I've shown that you were wrong about due to the lack of specificity of your reference. You are refuted, sir.

[vulcanlogician]

@John 6IX Breezy

Would you mind stating your position concerning evolution? Sorry if you posted it before, I looked and couldn't find it stated. I don't mean to inconvenience you. I just want context.

If you think evolution is a good theory, which is what I assumed reading your earlier posts, why bring up irreducible complexity? To refute Nudger? If this is what you were doing, I recommend using GOOD arguments to refute him rather than horrible ones.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Would you mind stating your position concerning evolution? Sorry if you posted it before, I looked and couldn't find it stated. I don't mean to inconvenience you. I just want context.

I'm not an evolutionist—if such a term is helpful. I view theories as tools but have no commitments to them. I think evolution is a good theory in that it provides many unique perspectives. I also have no broad objections to its tenets—natural selection, genetic drift, etc. That said, I also recognize that the theory is imperfect and overextends itself. Many of its problems are widely recognized, such as Gould's critique of the adaptationist programme, or the untestability of phylogenetic inferences. Its overextensions are more widely critiqued in the field of evolutionary psychology. Many of these aforementioned critiques comes from within the proponents of the theory. But I also value arguments from without, such as irreducible complexity, because they pierce through the monotony of its echo chamber. Such critiques are needed to create growth and improvements in the theory. 

An addendum: 

One thing to notice is that I rarely argue for one perspective over an other—this is perhaps why you couldn't find my position on evolution. In other words, I am not interested in debunking evolution in order to mount an argument for design. This is in contrast with the forum, which seems to demand that only one theory be crowned "best explanation." I am of the opinion that science is a fertile land, with many theories being permitted to germinate thereon. Their only appraisal is by the data, not by each other.

[vulcanlogician]

And yet some theories fail to germinate because they are parched in regards to vital nutrients, like corroboration of the facts or general observation.

I like that you don't commit to theories (if you don't do so in a Socratic way... that you are holding out belief for something more true, so you suspend belief, and rather opt for disbelief).

But the same goes for religious prejudices. You can't assume Christianity is right just because you discover Christianity "is true for you in significant ways." If you aren't going to assume scientific theories, you need to dispense with "religious theories" too. And that's ALL dogmas.

Because if you are going to eschew all theories and (at the same time) assume some unfounded thing, what does your initial rejection of theories even amount to?

"I take it on faith," is a FAR better argument for theism than "the facts inevitably lead to this conclusion."

So stick to faith. And leave those "difficult attempts to make sense of the facts" to atheists or maybe anyone who cares deeply enough about the facts to accept them no matter what they are. I don't trust someone who has accepted "what the facts are" before saying "these are the facts" to give an accurate portrayal of the facts. A true Socratic position is an entirely unprejudiced position.

[John 6IX Breezy]

So stick to faith. And leave those "difficult attempts to make sense of the facts" to atheists....

No thanks.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your claim that it is an argument against evolution rather than an argument for design is false because it metonymously refers to both.  

I agree, as you point out, that it can refer to both of these arguments; I have not made a claim to the contrary.  What I am against, however, is the deductive argument that intelligent design predicts irreducible complexity. Keep in mind that you are responding to my response to Nudger, who forwarded such an argument: "It [intelligent design] posited an irreducible complexity which does not exist." He therefore concludes that intelligent design has "been falsified."

That is an invalid argument.

ID did, as a matter of public fact which anyone can look up for themselves, predict that they would observe specified complexities, and irreducible complexities.  Their claims to that observation were shown to be false, and worse, poorly constructed on top of that. Further, their very own claims and examples were evidence of the antithetical position.

You're studying science™.  Is there a word for what's happened when someone says they have a scientific theory, makes predictions, those predictions fail, and the evidence that would suggest their theory was inaccurate, instead, presents itself?

Would you like to argue over the meaning of words for a few more pages? I won't be here for it.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I won't be here for it.

Perfect; I look forward to your absence lol.

[polymath257]

OK, propose an observation. I'm certainly willing to listen.

What sort of observation would lead to the conclusion of design?

That is the basic question that has to be answered. Without that, no design claim can even get off the ground.

Firstly, if your inability to propose an observation isn't valid, why would my inability make a difference? Some propositions in science have taken years, if not decades, to observe. According to Wikipedia, gravitational waves were first proposed in 1893, more formally in 1905, and yet weren't possible to observe until 2016―that's a hundred year difference.

Secondly: Science is not a Courtroom. Your question places you squarely into the problem of induction and underdetermination. That is why I keep emphasizing falsification as the only logical approach. And I have already given the forum one approach to falsification using the following argument: A universe in which everything is designed, implies a universe in which everything can be designed; therefore, if anything in this universe cannot be designed, the universe is not designed. (I gave some descriptions of design here.)

Theories don't have to get off the ground, as you say, they have to be shot down. That is what is meant by conjecture and refutation.

Yes, gravitational waves were proposed long before they were observed. But, included in that proposal was a pretty clear description of the properties of those waves and what they would look like *if* they were observed. It was then a matter of technology to actually make the devices to detect them.

In the case of design, the description of what would distinguish design fron 'not-design' has not been give. It isn't a technological issue. It is a failure of the proposal to make a definite prediction about some observation.

Actually, no you did NOT give a description in that link. You gave some rather vague fluff that could not be used to actually dstinguish any particular case. In particular, you make a logical claim that if everything in the universe was designed, then everything in the universe *could* be designed. But you don't say how to definitively say when something *cannot* be designed. What, precisely, would be something that we could use to conclude design is impossible?

And no, before a theory can even reach the possibility of falsifiability, it needs to be given in enough detail to ALLOW for observations that *could* falsify it. For gravitational waves, it was very clear from the first proposal what would be required to detect them, what their properties were proposed to be, etc. Then, when we detected something with those properties and in the situations predicted, we could say we detected gravitational waves.

To 'get off the ground' means giving enough detail that the falsifiability criterion is met: *some* observation *could* show it to be wrong. If a theory cannot get to that level, it is simply not scientific at all.

So, what observation would allow us to conclusively determine that something could not be designed? Until that question can be answered, you do not have a scientific proposal at all,

[John 6IX Breezy]

Please link me to the post where he says this.

Also Angrboda: "Perhaps I missed it. I haven't been paying close attention."

[Angrboda]

Please link me to the post where he says this.

Also Angrboda: "Perhaps I missed it. I haven't been paying close attention."

I found the link in your previous post and he made no deductive argument in that post. He claimed that ID "posited" irreducible complexity, which it did. It posited that certain biological forms were irreducibly complex. He didn't say that it predicted irreducible complexity nor did he make a deductive argument, at least in that post. So you've once again misrepresented someone and ended up being wrong as a result.

Btw, posts like this last one do you no favors. I could speculate on what prompted you to reply thusly, but I'll leave that to the peanut gallery.