Comments on: Shermer, Wells, and a Bit of Aristotle, Too http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/10/shermer-wells-and-a-bit-of-aristotle-too.html Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:51:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Jason Kuznicki http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/10/shermer-wells-and-a-bit-of-aristotle-too.html#comment-188890 Jason Kuznicki Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:35:40 +0000 http://positiveliberty.com/?p=1864#comment-188890 Roger -- Yes, there are intelligent agents. Yet no one entity designed law, language, or markets. They all developed through largely unconscious mechanisms. Add to this the examples from mathematics, such as the Game of Life, and the argument becomes considerably stronger. Roger –

Yes, there are intelligent agents. Yet no one entity designed law, language, or markets. They all developed through largely unconscious mechanisms. Add to this the examples from mathematics, such as the Game of Life, and the argument becomes considerably stronger.

]]> By: Roger Rabbitt http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/10/shermer-wells-and-a-bit-of-aristotle-too.html#comment-188619 Roger Rabbitt Sat, 11 Nov 2006 16:44:18 +0000 http://positiveliberty.com/?p=1864#comment-188619 <blockquote>If I looked at languages, markets, or law, I would go through the following mental procedure for each: –Can law explain them? Only very poorly, sort of like life. So no. –Can chance explain them? Certainly not. </blockquote> And each of your three examples have intelligent agents acting to produce the outcome. Your argument might be more persuasive if you could give us an example where intelligent agents weren't present.

If I looked at languages, markets, or law, I would go through the following mental procedure for each:

–Can law explain them? Only very poorly, sort of like life. So no.

–Can chance explain them? Certainly not.

And each of your three examples have intelligent agents acting to produce the outcome. Your argument might be more persuasive if you could give us an example where intelligent agents weren’t present.

]]> By: Jason Kuznicki http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/10/shermer-wells-and-a-bit-of-aristotle-too.html#comment-183500 Jason Kuznicki Thu, 02 Nov 2006 04:03:43 +0000 http://positiveliberty.com/?p=1864#comment-183500 The problem, though, is that many things are "designed," or at any rate have the very convincing appearance of design, through a cooperation between natural laws and chance. That the explanatory filter doesn't even consider this possibility is a serious flaw to my mind. The problem, though, is that many things are “designed,” or at any rate have the very convincing appearance of design, through a cooperation between natural laws and chance. That the explanatory filter doesn’t even consider this possibility is a serious flaw to my mind.

]]> By: macht http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/10/shermer-wells-and-a-bit-of-aristotle-too.html#comment-183490 macht Thu, 02 Nov 2006 02:25:45 +0000 http://positiveliberty.com/?p=1864#comment-183490 Well, as I said, he thinks design is whatever can't be explained by law and chance. IF something is designed and IF evolution was the method of design, then the need for a designer doesn't evaporate, it is merely pushed back. Well, as I said, he thinks design is whatever can’t be explained by law and chance.

IF something is designed and IF evolution was the method of design, then the need for a designer doesn’t evaporate, it is merely pushed back.

]]> By: Jason Kuznicki http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/10/shermer-wells-and-a-bit-of-aristotle-too.html#comment-183482 Jason Kuznicki Thu, 02 Nov 2006 01:24:41 +0000 http://positiveliberty.com/?p=1864#comment-183482 I guess I don't understand what he says design is. After all, if "design" can include "evolution," then the need for an intelligent designer evaporates. I guess I don’t understand what he says design is. After all, if “design” can include “evolution,” then the need for an intelligent designer evaporates.

]]> By: macht http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/10/shermer-wells-and-a-bit-of-aristotle-too.html#comment-183477 macht Thu, 02 Nov 2006 00:59:16 +0000 http://positiveliberty.com/?p=1864#comment-183477 Jason, I was not defending what Dembski says design is. All I was saying that you misunderstood what he actually does say design is. Jason,

I was not defending what Dembski says design is. All I was saying that you misunderstood what he actually does say design is.

]]> By: Jason Kuznicki http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/10/shermer-wells-and-a-bit-of-aristotle-too.html#comment-183434 Jason Kuznicki Wed, 01 Nov 2006 23:55:40 +0000 http://positiveliberty.com/?p=1864#comment-183434 macht -- If I looked at languages, markets, or law, I would go through the following mental procedure for each: --Can law explain them? Only very poorly, sort of like life. So no. --Can chance explain them? Certainly not. Thus, I would be forced to conclude that each had a designer. This is a factually incorrect inference, because languages, markets, and law are all the product of both law and chance, working together in ways that we cannot fully trace, but according to principles that are by no means totally mysterious. I submit that the same is true of life, that its "designer" was evolution, and that evolution likewise proceeds through combinations of law and chance. What am I missing? macht –

If I looked at languages, markets, or law, I would go through the following mental procedure for each:

–Can law explain them? Only very poorly, sort of like life. So no.

–Can chance explain them? Certainly not.

Thus, I would be forced to conclude that each had a designer. This is a factually incorrect inference, because languages, markets, and law are all the product of both law and chance, working together in ways that we cannot fully trace, but according to principles that are by no means totally mysterious. I submit that the same is true of life, that its “designer” was evolution, and that evolution likewise proceeds through combinations of law and chance.

What am I missing?

]]> By: macht http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/10/shermer-wells-and-a-bit-of-aristotle-too.html#comment-182662 macht Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:49:02 +0000 http://positiveliberty.com/?p=1864#comment-182662 I think you've misunderstood Dembski. The phrase "in the following order" is very important. According to Dembski, his filter is essentially an eliminative way to figure out if something is designed. Design, for Dembski, is basically the compliment of design-and-chance, which means that anything that can't be explained by design and/or chance is designed. In other words, if something can be explained by an amalgam of law and chance, then it won't make it past his second question. I think you’ve misunderstood Dembski. The phrase “in the following order” is very important. According to Dembski, his filter is essentially an eliminative way to figure out if something is designed. Design, for Dembski, is basically the compliment of design-and-chance, which means that anything that can’t be explained by design and/or chance is designed. In other words, if something can be explained by an amalgam of law and chance, then it won’t make it past his second question.

]]> By: Scott http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/10/shermer-wells-and-a-bit-of-aristotle-too.html#comment-182505 Scott Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:49:35 +0000 http://positiveliberty.com/?p=1864#comment-182505 The too long posts complaint also comes up on Hit and Run also and I don't get it. I read the blog to hear your thoughts- the more thoughts the better. It is a blog post I don't expect (or want) the organization or conciseness of an essay. As far as I can tell only one person has complained about them being too long? Please write as much as you want. The too long posts complaint also comes up on Hit and Run also and I don’t get it. I read the blog to hear your thoughts- the more thoughts the better. It is a blog post I don’t expect (or want) the organization or conciseness of an essay. As far as I can tell only one person has complained about them being too long? Please write as much as you want.

]]>