Bridge Challenge

[DogmaHunter]

1. Addressing an Intelligent Design argument may actually do more to further science than not due to the fact that a good ID argument is going to illustrate a fundamental incompatibility between some scientific premises and the inferred conclusion.

No, fallacy infested arguments don't "expose" or "illustrate" anything of the sort.

Good Intelligent Design arguments may be few and far between, but in principle they aren't a threat to science so much as an opportunity, especially in an era when science and philosophy are estranged. The modern heretic is the science-stopper, and he is burned, but the ID theorist need not always fall into that category.

Show me one that doesn't fall in that category.

 

[zippy2006]

Who, exactly has been burned, rather than ignored for not having presented a coherent argument?

In my estimation the burning of heretics was based on eliminating threats. IDers get burned, some more deservedly than others. They are attacked, ostracized, and undermined often on the basis of ad hominem approaches. To borrow your spectacles, I don't really see scientists as any more farsighted or discerning than Inquisitors in this matter. Maybe ID is too steep a slope, but in general the point holds.

 

[essentialsaltes]

In my estimation the burning of heretics was based on eliminating threats.

That's why your analogy seemed so strange (even setting aside the lack of smoking stakes). ID presents no threat to science. It is some warmed over William Paley, and that was no longer a significant objection 150 years ago.

 

[zippy2006]

ID presents no threat to science.

It does in the form of a "science stopper." If you recall, that was sort of a central point of your post here.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It does in the form of a "science stopper." If you recall, that was sort of a central point of your post here.

Well, if we're talking about some rando saying that science should give up, I suppose that's a threat, but that's just a harmless crank yelling at the wind. If we're talking about ID, which is supposed to be a scientific hypothesis, then it's not a threat since at least in principle it's part of scientific inquiry, though it has been impotent to put up any evidence of significance.

 

[zippy2006]

Well, if we're talking about some rando saying that science should give up, I suppose that's a threat, but that's just a harmless crank yelling at the wind. If we're talking about ID, which is supposed to be a scientific hypothesis, then it's not a threat since at least in principle it's part of scientific inquiry, though it has been impotent to put up any evidence of significance.

Huh... this is such a strange conversation. If IDers achieve their goal then science will stop inquiring into certain phenomena. If that is not one basic reason why there is so much widespread dislike of IDers from the rest of the scientific community then color me surprised.

If their argument is valid then it applies to the current scientific premises and paradigms, thus occasioning a re-evaluation of those foundations.

(You seem somewhat preoccupied with the whole idea of 'scientific heresy'. I wanted to press a button but I wasn't looking to shut down the whole system. )

 

[essentialsaltes]

If IDers achieve their goal then science will stop inquiring into certain phenomena.

I don't see why. The goal of ID is to establish an alternative explanation for certain facts, namely to produce "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that is distinct from evolution. As far as I know, if they were to establish the existence of one or more designers to most everyone's satisfaction, this would open up continuing scientific investigation into demarcating the boundaries between what is designed and what isn't, which would require exactly the same sorts of investigations as those that are currently proceeding.

(You seem somewhat preoccupied with the whole idea of 'scientific heresy'

Curious that you should say so, since my one comment about it was to say that this was not how science operates (despite being characterized that way by others). You seem to have picked up the analogy and run with it. I think it's fair to say that you are far more preoccupied with the idea than I am.

 

[zippy2006]

I don't see why. The goal of ID is to establish an alternative explanation for certain facts, namely to produce "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that is distinct from evolution. As far as I know, if they were to establish the existence of one or more designers to most everyone's satisfaction, this would open up continuing scientific investigation into demarcating the boundaries between what is designed and what isn't, which would require exactly the same sorts of investigations as those that are currently proceeding.

That's a bit like saying that if a scientist proved that the oceans are not susceptible to scientific inquiry then scientific investigation would move into demarcating the boundaries between the oceans and the dry land, which would require exactly the same sorts of investigations as those that are currently proceeding (e.g. marine biology, deep sea research, etc.).

Curious that you should say so, since my one comment about it was to say that this was not how science operates (despite being characterized that way by others). You seem to have picked up the analogy and run with it. I think it's fair to say that you are far more preoccupied with the idea than I am.

I wrote a post, you picked out a tiny part about scientific heresy, and that's all we've talked about.

 

[Nithavela]

First rule of bridge challenge: Your first response to the bridge challenge is just to reply with your answer in terms of minutes, no other explanation of details. Other comments not directly related to your solution are okay.

Second rule of bridge challenge: later in thread, we'll open it up to larger discussion.

Third rule of bridge challenge: No this doesn't have much to do with Physical & Life Sciences, but I may be able to make an analogy later that will bring it closer to topic.

Bridge situation:

An improbably rickety bridge can only be crossed by at most two people at a time.
It is also dark and there may be grues on the bridge. You need a torch to cross the bridge (but both sides are safe).
There is only one torch. (so when it is carried across, someone will have to bring it back)

Four people need to cross the bridge (and all 4 start on the same side):
A speedy person who can cross the bridge in 1 minute.
A fit person who can cross the bridge in 2 minutes.
A soft person who can cross the bridge in 5 minutes.
An infirm person who can cross the bridge in 8 minutes.

When two people travel together, they can only go as fast as the slower person. (e.g. if speedy and infirm go together, it takes 8 minutes to cross).

Bridge challenge:

What is the shortest amount of time required to get all 4 people across the bridge?

Last rule of bridge challenge: See First Rule! First answers should only provide the time in minutes, not a detailed description of the solution.

15 minutes.

 

[essentialsaltes]

That's a bit like saying that if a scientist proved that the oceans are not susceptible to scientific inquiry

But that is not the goal of ID. The goal of ID is to use scientific inquiry to support a particular hypothesis on the origin of life. ID requires these questions to be susceptible to scientific inquiry.

I wrote a post, you picked out a tiny part about scientific heresy, and that's all we've talked about.

I simply asked you to back up your assertion with some details.

 

[zippy2006]

But that is not the goal of ID. The goal of ID is to use scientific inquiry to support a particular hypothesis on the origin of life. ID requires these questions to be susceptible to scientific inquiry.

If design is susceptible to scientific inquiry then why does it shift scientific investigation into "demarcating the boundaries between what is designed and what isn't"?

 

[essentialsaltes]

If design is susceptible to scientific inquiry then why does it shift scientific investigation into "demarcating the boundaries between what is designed and what isn't"?

If design were not susceptible to scientific inquiry, one could not possibly carry out that demarcation.



Even the most ardent Bible-thumping antievolutionists seem to agree that certain adaptations arise and are selected naturally. If ID were established on scientific grounds, I think the field would be interested to know which features of the natural world were designed, and which developed without the intervention of designers. Some people talk about the 'limits' of evolution; if ID replaces or modifies evolution, we would also have to talk about the limits of design.

 

[zippy2006]

If design were not susceptible to scientific inquiry, one could not possibly carry out that demarcation.

Whatever you say, bro. For some reason I didn't have you pegged as a sophist.

 

[Astrophile]

First rule of bridge challenge: Your first response to the bridge challenge is just to reply with your answer in terms of minutes, no other explanation of details. Other comments not directly related to your solution are okay.

Second rule of bridge challenge: later in thread, we'll open it up to larger discussion.

Third rule of bridge challenge: No this doesn't have much to do with Physical & Life Sciences, but I may be able to make an analogy later that will bring it closer to topic.

Bridge situation:

An improbably rickety bridge can only be crossed by at most two people at a time.
It is also dark and there may be grues on the bridge. You need a torch to cross the bridge (but both sides are safe).
There is only one torch. (so when it is carried across, someone will have to bring it back)

Four people need to cross the bridge (and all 4 start on the same side):
A speedy person who can cross the bridge in 1 minute.
A fit person who can cross the bridge in 2 minutes.
A soft person who can cross the bridge in 5 minutes.
An infirm person who can cross the bridge in 8 minutes.

When two people travel together, they can only go as fast as the slower person. (e.g. if speedy and infirm go together, it takes 8 minutes to cross).

Bridge challenge:

What is the shortest amount of time required to get all 4 people across the bridge?

Last rule of bridge challenge: See First Rule! First answers should only provide the time in minutes, not a detailed description of the solution.

Is it possible to throw the torch across the bridge, or does one of the people have to carry it across the bridge?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Is it possible to throw the torch across the bridge, or does one of the people have to carry it across the bridge?

The torch must be carried, and the people always travel the entire length of the bridge.

 

[durangodawood]

The torch must be carried, and the people always travel the entire length of the bridge.

Can you mount it to a helmet, or do you have to hold it with a hand???

 

[essentialsaltes]

Can you mount it to a helmet, or do you have to hold it with a hand???

I suppose you could, but this is not getting any closer to the solution, which is relatively straightforward. Two people can go across with the torch, and one person will have to go back with the torch. The torch is always required for every crossing.

No amount of acrobatics, synchronized dancing, setting clothing on fire, etc. will upset the basic nature of the challenge.

 

[Chesterton]

I suppose you could, but this is not getting any closer to the solution, which is relatively straightforward. Two people can go across with the torch, and one person will have to go back with the torch. The torch is always required for every crossing.

No amount of acrobatics, synchronized dancing, setting clothing on fire, etc. will upset the basic nature of the challenge.

Is it an African or European torch?

 

[durangodawood]

I suppose you could, but this is not getting any closer to the solution, which is relatively straightforward. Two people can go across with the torch, and one person will have to go back with the torch. The torch is always required for every crossing.

No amount of acrobatics, synchronized dancing, setting clothing on fire, etc. will upset the basic nature of the challenge.

Yeah I know.

Was just having fun with the ridiculous 'legal wrangling' by some people about this torch issue.

You made it perfectly clear you need to carry a torch across the bridge each time you cross.

 

[AV1611VET]

When I first read the title to this thread, I thought it was about something else.