tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546771888283065137.post906475630781221351..comments2023-05-05T07:36:12.109-04:00Comments on Notes from the Floating World: Famous Philosopher Comes Out for Intelligent Design Theory!Mohan Matthenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18412367867949250445noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546771888283065137.post-67762964881583545032011-03-06T07:26:45.071-05:002011-03-06T07:26:45.071-05:00Yes, and when we 'perceive' an unlikely oc...Yes, and when we 'perceive' an unlikely occurrence, shouldn't we ask whether it results from the method our brains have used to manage the data received? In other words 'unlikely occurrences' are just things we happen to be unable to simplify. <br />No designer, just limits to what we need to know in order to be successful animals. Of course we also derive a lot of pleasure and wonder from this fundamental shortcoming.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06110813354130494544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546771888283065137.post-57734660860181695522009-12-10T15:19:38.204-05:002009-12-10T15:19:38.204-05:00Bence, I know of at least one ID argument that doe...Bence, I know of at least one ID argument that doesn't misrepresent natural selection: the fine-tuning argument based on cosmological constants in physics. It has no assumptions whatsoever about natural selection! It's certainly an ID argument, though. It starts with a premise about some unlikely occurrence observable in science and concludes that we should find a designer likely as an explanation for that unlikely fact.Jeremy Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441308872350317672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546771888283065137.post-50657268537539367452008-11-25T19:42:00.000-05:002008-11-25T19:42:00.000-05:00All in all, I found Nagel's discussion more edifyi...All in all, I found Nagel's discussion more edifying than Mohan's. I don't know whether ID has been successful in its attempt to qualify as science, or whether they have offered any contribution to science. All Nagel is arguing is that ID is not somehow out of bounds by definition. It seems a modest point to me, but it sure gets a rise out of Darwinists.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546771888283065137.post-70722853217198264982008-09-16T17:11:00.000-04:002008-09-16T17:11:00.000-04:00Thank you for an excellent post on this pretty dis...Thank you for an excellent post on this pretty disturbing topic.<BR/><BR/>I can see why a philosopher might want to defend ID as an *idea* -- philosophers don't like to discard ideas unless they absolutely have to, and ID is just as valid as an "interesting idea" as aliens, ESP, afterlives, or whatever else.<BR/><BR/>What's disturbing about this is that even someone as eminent as Nagel doesn't seem to grok the difference between an idea and a valid scientific hypothesis. <BR/><BR/>ID certainly has its place in science fiction, coffeeshop conversations, and anywhere else that ideas get bounced around. But it cannot be tested by any valid scientific method, and so it does not belong in science curricula, period. <BR/><BR/>The only comforting thing here is that I'm betting Mr. Nagel is arguing for the idea purely because he's a philosopher and predisposed to ideas (and obviously a bit confused on the wider issues), <I>not</I> because he, like most others arguing for ID, is really pushing an agenda of sneaking hard-line Christian religious education into classrooms. It's not much comfort, but it's something.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again,<BR/>PDPureDoxykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03128974128252745710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546771888283065137.post-89736182390181579922008-09-16T07:52:00.000-04:002008-09-16T07:52:00.000-04:00we should feel obliged to engage in rational disco...<B>we should feel obliged to engage in rational discourse with them?</B><BR/><BR/>Because if you don't, they win.<BR/><BR/>The entire strength of intelligent design is based around the refusal of those who disagree with it to engage. That has created and given strength to an idea that otherwise would have faded long ago ... somewhat like Chariots of the Gods finally did.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00219023897626648057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546771888283065137.post-50710719382624043642008-09-16T02:27:00.000-04:002008-09-16T02:27:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Beckyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05957358850375701366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546771888283065137.post-86176780292686218222008-09-15T15:55:00.000-04:002008-09-15T15:55:00.000-04:00Mohan, I admire your patience with these ID people...Mohan, I admire your patience with these ID people, but could you explain to me why we should feel obliged to engage in rational discourse with them? As I don't think I should sit down and have a rational argument with Sarah Palin, I don't think at this point that I should do so with Thomas Nagel. I have not seen an argument for ID that did not misrepresent the theory of natural selection (although I have to admit that I have seen some arguments against ID that did the same). So why do we need to take them seriously? <BR/><BR/>Btw (re. the rest of the blog), you should publish a coffee table book on ceilings.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546771888283065137.post-87492358557784824382008-09-15T13:21:00.000-04:002008-09-15T13:21:00.000-04:00In response to John Turri: Nagel's article is ost...In response to John Turri: Nagel's article is ostensibly about the Dover School Board judgement, but the article is mostly about whether there can be scientific evidence for or against God-the-creator. <BR/><BR/>Two points about your other nice comment. <BR/><BR/>First, Nagel distinguishes between there being scientific evidence for or against ID, and ID explanations of specific phenomena. The kind of hypothesis you are thinking of would fall more into the first category, and I am conceding the distinction to Nagel.<BR/><BR/>Second, though, there are pieces of evidence one would look for in the "advanced civilization" (AC) hypothesis. For instance, obvious design maladaptations (such as the Panda's thumb) might count against AC, but not against God-as-creator, because we can't know what God wanted. Limitations due to imperfect materials might be consistent with AC -- but inconsistent with God. And so on. The two hypotheses are not necessarily symmetric. (Sober has some relevant observations about ID in the piece I reference in the article.)<BR/><BR/>In response to chris: I don't find Popper's thesis plausible, but his discussion is interesting. I just gave it as an example of somebody who denies and discusses the possibility that p might be scientific but not p.Mohan Matthenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18412367867949250445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546771888283065137.post-83062831750079179142008-09-15T13:01:00.000-04:002008-09-15T13:01:00.000-04:00If Nagel wants to include a philosophy of science ...If Nagel wants to include a philosophy of science component in high school science curricula, great. But why talk as if the issues were peculiar to biology?Michael Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06141593700908475896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546771888283065137.post-45615957857156843572008-09-15T12:21:00.000-04:002008-09-15T12:21:00.000-04:00"The question he should ask is this: would anybody..."The question he should ask is this: would anybody today turn to ID as a scientific program except for a belief in God-as-creator?"<BR/><BR/>Just curious, but couldn't an atheist seriously entertain the hypothesis that Earthling life was intelligently designed by an advanced civilization?<BR/><BR/>Also, I haven't read Nagel's original piece, so this is just a request for clarification, but when you quote him at the beginning, protesting the attempt to "rule intelligent design as beyond discussion," is he protesting the attempt to rule it out of <I>science classroom</I> discussion?John Turrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05429690464081693931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5546771888283065137.post-41960114163622680682008-09-15T11:05:00.000-04:002008-09-15T11:05:00.000-04:00"Popper, for example, held that universal statemen..."Popper, for example, held that universal statements were scientific because refutable by a counter-instance, but existentials not so."<BR/><BR/>But that's crazy, right? Discovering the existence of uranium, or Alpha Centauri, wasn't a scientific discovery? Madness!Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09864777037573757441noreply@blogger.com