The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[John 6IX Breezy]

He didn't say that it predicted irreducible complexity nor did he make a deductive argument, at least in that post.

And yet he's still presenting such an argument:

Nudger - "ID did... predict that they would observe specified complexities, and irreducible complexities."

[Angrboda]

He didn't say that it predicted irreducible complexity nor did he make a deductive argument, at least in that post.

And yet he's still presenting such a deductive argument.

Nudger: "ID did... predict that they would observe specified complexities, and irreducible complexities."

You've overlooked the ambiguity in the term 'ID', which is both a set of arguments and a social movement. Since he states that it's a matter of public fact and that they ("ID") did predict it, the phrase you reference could refer to either the intelligent design movement, or the arguments and theories. The principle of charity suggests that you take the most charitable interpretation which is that he was referring to the movement. He can clarify if he likes. Anyway, if he was referring to the movement, I suspect he would be wrong in that, but it's anybody's guess whether any prominent IDer made such a prediction. If he was referring to the theory, that's another story, which I'll explore when and if it becomes necessary.

ETA: Btw, I don't tend to read as closely these days as I once did, and the Nudger is neither rigorous nor concise in his arguments, but he's a smart guy, so while I don't always read his posts scrupulously, I generally cut him some slack knowing his proclivities.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Since he states that it's a matter of public fact and that they ("ID") did predict it, the phrase you reference could refer to either the intelligent design movement, or the arguments and theories.

In a petty attempt to win, and review some of my class notes, let’s take a dive into argument reconstruction:

(TL/DR - I'm right, he's wrong, and you've wasted my time.)
 
Step One: Close Analysis

“Intelligent design isn't [discounting term] about aliens and you know it [abusive assurance], lol. If you want people to take you seriously [abusive assurance], try taking yourself seriously [abusive assurance] first? At any rate, [discounting term] suppose [guarding term] that ID was about aliens...it's still [conclusion marker] been falsified. It posited [premise maker] an irreducible complexity which [premise marker] does not exist. I see you butchering sim theory [abusive assurance] - it's not actually [discounting term] an intelligent design theory, but go off, I guess? [negative evaluation]”
 
Step Two: Remove excess verbiage

“Intelligent design isn't about aliens and you know it, lol. If you want people to take you seriously, try taking yourself seriously first? [tangent] At any rate, suppose that ID was about aliens [road marker]

...it's still [conclusion marker] been falsified. It posited [premise maker] an irreducible complexity which [premise marker] does not exist.

I see you butchering sim theory- it's not actually an intelligent design theory, but go off, I guess?” [tangent]
 
Step Three: List explicit arguments in standard form

• P1: It posited an irreducible complexity
  
• P2: which does not exist
  
• C3: it's still been falsified
  

 
Step Four: Clarify

• P1: Intelligent Design posited an irreducible complexity
  
• P2: Irreducible Complexity does not exist
  
• C3: Intelligent Design has been falsified
  

In conclusion: There are several more steps that can be added to iron out the argument, but this is sufficient. In science we either formulate hypotheses inductively from previous data, or deductively from a theory. It is this second method, of deducting hypotheses from theories, that allows for falsification of a theory. And it is precisely this deduction that Nudger's first premise is built upon. Therefore it contains the following suppressed conditional: 

• If intelligent design is true, then irreducible complexity exists. 
  

To which I'll simply refute with your own words: 

• "Design doesn't necessarily imply irreducible complexity...."  -Angrboba, March 2021.
  

Addendum: Not only did he make an invalid deduction from intelligent design. It is obvious that intelligent design does not refers to a movement—which you comically suggested. It is incoherent to claim that a movement can be falsified. Only propositions can be true or false. Therefore, intelligent design here refers to the theory, not some movement. But we already knew that, didn't we? You were just hoping to save face.

I hereby declare this case closed. No further arguments shall be heard. Thank you.

[Angrboda]

Since he states that it's a matter of public fact and that they ("ID") did predict it, the phrase you reference could refer to either the intelligent design movement, or the arguments and theories.

In a petty attempt to win, and review some of my class notes, let’s take a dive into argument reconstruction:

(TL/DR - I'm right, he's wrong, and you've wasted my time.)
 
Step One: Close Analysis
“Intelligent design isn't [discounting term] about aliens and you know it [abusive assurance], lol. If you want people to take you seriously [abusive assurance], try taking yourself seriously [abusive assurance] first? At any rate, [discounting term] suppose [guarding term] that ID was about aliens...it's still [conclusion marker] been falsified. It posited [premise maker] an irreducible complexity which [premise marker] does not exist. I see you butchering sim theory [abusive assurance] - it's not actually [discounting term] an intelligent design theory, but go off, I guess? [negative evaluation]”
 
Step Two: Remove excess verbiage
“Intelligent design isn't about aliens and you know it, lol. If you want people to take you seriously, try taking yourself seriously first? [tangent] At any rate, suppose that ID was about aliens [road marker]

...it's still [conclusion marker] been falsified. It posited [premise maker] an irreducible complexity which [premise marker] does not exist.

I see you butchering sim theory- it's not actually an intelligent design theory, but go off, I guess?” [tangent]
 
Step Three: List explicit arguments in standard form

• P1: It [the intelligent design movement] posited an irreducible complexity [true]
  
• P2: which does not exist
  
• C3: it's still been falsified [true, the bacterial flagellum being a prominent example of such]
  

 
Step Four: Clarify

• P1: Intelligent Design posited an irreducible complexity
  
• P2: Irreducible Complexity does not exist
  
• C3: Intelligent Design has been falsified [all true]
  

There are several more steps that can be added to iron out the argument, but this is sufficient. In science we either formulate hypotheses inductively from previous data, or deductively from a theory. It is this second method, of deducting hypotheses from theories, that allows for falsification of a theory. And it is precisely this deduction that his first premise is built upon. Therefore it contains the following suppressed conditional: 

• If intelligent design is true, then irreducible complexity exists. 
  

To which I'll simply refute with your own words: 

• "Design doesn't necessarily imply irreducible complexity...."  -Angrboba, March 2021.
  

In conclusion: Not only did he make an invalid deduction from intelligent design. It is obvious that intelligent design does not refers to a movement—which you comically suggested. It is incoherent to claim that a movement can be falsified. [true, but a movement's arguments, as opposed to its theories, can be true or false; again, you're simply being uncharitable in your interpretation]  Only propositions can be true or false. [false, unless one includes the proposition that some argument is true] Therefore, intelligent design here refers to the theory, not some movement. But we already knew that, didn't we? You were just hoping to save face.

I hereby declare this case closed. No further arguments shall be heard. Thank you.

[my comments in red]

It wasn't a comical suggestion, as it was perfectly valid.  It's also a valid critique of your current analysis.  

falsification, n.
2. a. The showing (something) to be groundless.

As I pointed out, the principle of charity contradicts your analysis.  We haven't heard from Nudger, so your interpretation is just that, an uncharitable interpretation that makes you look like a twat.  At worst, Nudger is guilty of poor wording and grammar.  That doesn't make him wrong.  The intelligent design movement posited that certain things, such as the bacterial flagellum, displayed irreducible complexity.  The intelligent design movement's arguments, their premises, and conclusions  have been shown to be groundless.  That's falsification.

You fucked up. Get over it.  I can tell you're pretty butthurt over having been shown wrong.  I suggest you display some maturity and simply chalk it up to experience.

I'm noticing that understanding the English language is not your strong suit.  Is English not your first language?

Btw, you're running perilously close to breaking the rule about trying to limit thread participation.  That's twice that you've churlishly declared something over and done with.  Further asinine comments like this will be reported to the staff.

[John 6IX Breezy]

"Equivalently, a proposition is the non-linguistic bearer of truth or falsity which makes any sentence that expresses it either true or false." —Wikipedia

If propositions are what bear truth and falsity. And Nudger states that intelligent design has been falsified. You have to conclude that Intelligent design refers to a theory not a movement.

Saying a movement is falsified is as incoherent as saying apples are false. Or that Black Lives Matter is true.

---

Btw, you're running perilously close to breaking the rule about trying to limit thread participation.  That's twice that you've churlishly declared something over and done with.  Further asinine comments like this will be reported to the staff.

Be my guest lol. Let's see how quickly the moderators respond to call.

[Angrboda]

"Equivalently, a proposition is the non-linguistic bearer of truth or falsity which makes any sentence that expresses it either true or false." —Wikipedia

If propositions are what bear truth and falsity. And Nudger states that intelligent design has been falsified. You have to conclude that Intelligent design refers to a theory not a movement.

Saying a movement is falsified is as incoherent as saying apples are false. Or that Black Lives Matter is true.

Yes, but what matters here is what he meant. If his claim was just poor wording, then you're out to sea without a life preserver.

For a Christian, you seem to have some serious problem being charitable. Do as I say, not as I do, I guess.

[John 6IX Breezy]

For a Christian, you seem to have some serious problem being charitable. Do as I say, not as I do, I guess.

You're not asking me to be charitable lol. You want me to believe Nudger is neither rigorous nor concise. That he doesn't appear to be, but nevertheless is, a smart guy. That he should be cut some slack because his grammar and wording sucks lol.

That's rather insulting don't you think? I just think hes smart but his argument is wrong. But you want to defend his argument by bringing all his personal short comings and proclivities down with him.

[Angrboda]

For a Christian, you seem to have some serious problem being charitable.  Do as I say, not as I do, I guess.

You're not asking me to be charitable lol. You want me to believe Nudger is neither rigorous nor concise. That he doesn't appear to be, but nevertheless is, a smart guy. That he should be cut some slack because his grammar and wording sucks lol.

That's rather insulting don't you think? I just think hes smart but his argument is wrong. But you want to defend his argument by bringing all his personal short comings and proclivities down with him.

There you go misquoting me again. I said that I personally cut him some slack. What you should do is entirely up to you. Stop twisting my words to say something that I didn't say. And while you're at it, grow a fucking pair.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Yeah I'm sure everything is a misquote lol. You should probably report that too. Misquoting isn't allowed, remember?

[Angrboda]

Yeah I'm sure everything is a misquote lol. You should probably report that too. Misquoting isn't allowed, remember?

It's funnier watching you stomp all over your dick.