🚀 go-pugleaf

pbowles@aol.com, ye under-fertile pernicious caitiff, we may account
thee a whoremaster and knave, ye hullabalooed:

> On 30 Aug, 04:05, "Kadaitcha Man" <a...@no.email> wrote:
>> pbow...@aol.com, ye square-headed whoreson loggerhead, ye lispeth and
>> wear strange suits, ye writhed:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 29 Aug, 23:37, "Kadaitcha Man" <a...@no.email> wrote:
>>>> pbow...@aol.com, ye rough-hewn foul contending rebel, you put sharp
>>>> weapons in a madman's hands, ye castigated:
>>
>>> , and doing so through a set
>>> process. If something happens to be 'True' (as Ignis would no doubt
>>> put it with his love of random Capitals) but does not provide a
>>> useful or adequate explanation, it's of no relevance. Science is by
>>> its nature a simplifying abstraction of the real world. By and
>>> large we can expect that the assumption that if adding a feature
>>> (such as a god) to our models doesn't improve their predictive
>>> potential, then it probably doesn't exist in the real world or is
>>> of very minor importance, holds true.
>>
>>> All of which means that, regardless of whether or not evolution were
>>> to proceed by "intelligent design" as an abstract Truth, intelligent
>>> design is indeed unnecessary so long as hypotheses with greater
>>> explanatory power are better descriptors of the evolutionary
>>> process.
>>
>> Wow! All that those impressive-sounding, pompous, meaningless phrases
>> without once addressing the point being made.
>
> Then possibly you ought to clarify the point being made.

[QUOTE]
> > I'll point out
> > again that I made no claim that natural selection "precludes the
> > possibility of intelligent design". What it does do is render it
> > unnecessary.
>
> Not if evolution is by "intelligent design"...
[/QUOTE]

Look at that, complete with correct context, intact.

Natural selection does not preclude the possibility of intelligent design 
since it is plausible that evolution is, its very self, an intelligent 
design.

In other words, you leapt up the ladder of inference, missed a few rungs, 
and fell off the top, smashing your empty pumpkin-head on the concrete.

Capice?

> Your argument
> appeared to be that if intelligent design really happened, it would
> surely be relevant to the science in question. The above
> comprehensively addresses that point. Or were you trying to say
> something else?

I clarified my point to reinforce the point that your point is, at best, 
incomplete, and at worst, it is an outright logical fallacy of audiatur et 
altera pars.

Look it up sometime. Audiatur et altera pars, that is.

To put it another way, you failed to state that your operating assumption 
was that there is no intelligent design. Need proof? Here...

"What it does do [the idea of natural selection] is render it [intelligent 
design] unnecessary."

The above is true only if one assumes there is no intelligent design.

So, you thought I'd not notice, huh?

>> <aside>
>> k0oK material that one.
>
> You tried that on your last jaunt here, remember? I'm afraid you'll
> have no more luck this time unless you select your targets more
> accurately.

Target? You think you are a target? Your metalogik and only your metalogik 
is my target.

>>>>> Science is a standardised process that follows set rules.
>>>>> THypotheses that don't follow those rules - such as by not making
>>>>> testable predictions - or that fail the tests imposed by the
>>>>> scientific method, among them the requirement for parsimony, are
>>>>> discarded.
>>
>>>> There go the Big Bang, String and M theories, with most of the
>>>> rest of cosmology and quantum physics going with it. Oh! Look!
>>>> There goes Dark Energy and Dark Matter!
>>
>>> And guess what?
>>
>> And there goes the whole of science.
>
> Every one of your examples (except quantum physics, which says more
> about the limits of your knowledge regarding how well-supported that
> particular field is than anything else)

Logical fallacy of appealing to your own authority.

> comes from cosmology.
> Cosmology is hardly the "whole of science"

True, but then, I was referring to the word "guess".

>, and I'm neither the first
> scientist to question its scientific credentials nor to blame for its
> lack of them.

Posting a "Look at meeee!" message on the New Scientist website does not 
make you a scientist.

You are not a scientist. Period.

>>>>> let alone intelligent designers who apparently came from
>>>>> nowhere
>>
>>>> Where does consciousness come from? Hmmm?
>>
>>> At some level, it's clearly an emergent property of neural activity;
>>
>> Clearly, huh? Got proof for that? Or are you just unscientifically
>> speculating, you know, waffling?
>
> Read the odd book on neuroscience, or disorders that result from brain
> damage. It's very well-established that damage to components of the
> brain can destroy elements of conscious awareness; conversely,
> stimulating particular brain areas can stimulate awareness.

How about you quote a reference in the odd book as support for the idea that 
you are not merely speculating or waffling?

Good God, Bowles. Do you think I am as stupid as you? What kind of a nitwit 
are you to say, "read a few books" in the vain and ridiculous hope that I 
might read some unnamed books and miraculously come to the same idiotic 
conclusions that you did?

The unanswered question stands.

[QUOTE]
>>> At some level, it's clearly an emergent property of neural activity;
>>
>> Clearly, huh? Got proof for that? Or are you just unscientifically
>> speculating, you know, waffling?
[/QUOTE]

Answer it.

>>> regardless of exactly what it is,
>>
>> Oh, so you don't really know?
>>
>>> unless you're going to invoke mystic
>>> dualism, it clearly requires corporeal components.
>>
>> Got proof for that latter clause too? Hmmm?
>
> Tell you what, let's try an experiment to see whether consciousness is
> affected by the state of associated corporeal components. All I'll
> need is your head and a large club...

Invalid experiment, Mister-Self-Proclaimed-Scientist. You see, it's that 
damned logical fallacy of audiatur et altera pars again. Your assumption is 
that there is no consciousness after one is clubbed to death.

Tut! Tut! Tut!

Scientist, you say?

>>>>> On the contrary, the basic sequence is thought to be quite well-
>>>>> understood, to the extent that we know the kinds of environments
>>>>> in which life likely emerged
>>
>>>> And on that point, I charge you with rock-solid fuckwittery. If the
>>>> conclusion is "likely" then it is not the case that we "know" since
>>>> "know" implies fact.
>>
>>> The conclusion is likely; I never said we "knew" the conclusion.
>>
>> Well, yes you did. See...?
>>
>> "...to the extent that we know..."
>
> "...the kinds of environments in which life likely emerged..."

Focus that single, beady-eye sitting in the middle of your foirehead on the 
phrase "we know".

Your statement is emphatic. That would explain why you tried to move to 
cover your bare arse and change the meaning.

>> You can't now change the meaning of your gasseous assertion into
>> "...to the extent that we likely know...". That would be cheating.
>
> While removing a comment from its correct context is not, naturally.

The context is irrelevant on the grounds that the statement is emphatic.

HTH

>> If the statement is self-consistent then it cannot be logially
>> coherent because you have ascribed to it the property of
>> self-provability; you are claiming that the very sentence itself
>> contains absolutely no contradiction to be derived from within it.
>
> Find me a contraction

You mean contradiction, yes? And you want me to do that went the empirical 
evidence clearly shows that you cannot actually write what you mean?

Recall I had to correect your use of the word historical when you meant 
empirical? Hmmm?

Scientist, you say?

Tell me, why did you pose a challenge to me instead of addressing the 
logical point about you having ascribed to it the property of 
self-provability?

Just exactly who or what do you think you are dealing with here, Mister 
Self-Proclaimed Scientist?

> within it, then. "We know the kinds of
> environments in which life likely emerged" and "We know the kind of
> environment in which life emerged" are two entirely different
> statements, with different (and coherent) meanings. It's no fault of
> mine that you want me to have said the latter. If I were to say "I
> know it's likely to rain tomorrow", I'm telling you that I'm aware of
> a rough probability, not that I'm aware it's actually going to rain.
> This is precisely the same kind of statement.

It is correct to say, "We likely know the kinds of environments in which 
life emerged".

It is not correct to say, "We know the kinds of environments in which life 
likely emerged".

The first rendering of your claim is very precise. That would be my 
rendering, not yours. Whereas your stated claim is highly imprecise. London 
to a bucket of your mashed brains says you can't tell the difference.

And you claim you're a scientist, yes?

So, where did you get your degree? And when?

I see you snipped the reference to Novikov and Epimenides.

Why was that, Mister Metalogik-puking Self-Proclaimed Scientist? Hmmm? Also, 
I note that you do not dispute that you you moved to change the meaning of 
the statement.

-- 
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]

Hammer of Thor: February 2007.
Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005, April 2006, January 2007, August 2008.
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, Official owner
and trainer of Bucky Breeder, August 2008.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk

Member of:
   Usenet Ruiner List
   Top Assholes on the Net List
   Most hated usenetizens of all time List
   Cog in the AUK Hate Machine List

Find me on Google Maps: 24�39'47.13"S, 134�4'20.18"E

Join me for dinner. I'm cooking despicable earwax balls and apple
marinade accompanied with disintegrating cassowary intestines and sperm
whale mucus membrane vinegar garnished with burned used cat litter chips
accompanied by toasted puddings on top of disintegrated aborted feotus
and amphibian giblet marinade accompanied by pickled gumboil on top of
ghoulish crunchy handkerchief dregs and turnip sauce, served in a
steaming double boiler chock full of stringy particles of sea slug and
clam in festering bone marrow gravy, a side of fruit and a draught of
thickened salami extract.