"Obvious" Intent

[PsychoSarah]

OK. I think purpose is often not obvious. I could post a picture of any integrated circuit (designed, obviously) and its purpose will be unknown until its spec sheet is looked up using its part number. And I've seen part numbers purposely sanded off so that the chip's purpose is obfuscated.

Indeed, and this goes along another thought: a lot of people use perceived purpose as a justification for considering an item to be designed, but if purpose isn't intuitive consistently, that line of reasoning is invalid. The function of an item, thus, would not be a determinant for design.

 

[crjmurray]

Indeed, and this goes along another thought: a lot of people use perceived purpose as a justification for considering an item to be designed, but if purpose isn't intuitive consistently, that line of reasoning is invalid. The function of an item, thus, would not be a determinant for design.

Something can perform a function without being designed and something can be designed without having a perceived function.

A river can carry a log down a river
Not designed but does perform a function.

These Russian nesting dolls:

Are clearly designed but from what I can tell they are stupid dolls and perform no function.

 

[ChetSinger]

Are clearly designed but from what I can tell they are stupid dolls and perform no function.

Oh yes, they have a function: extracting dollars from tourists.

 

[juvenissun]

Source for it being an airplane part please.

Check manuals of airplane manufacture. It should be there.
If not, then it must be a part of an aircraft carrier.

Can you say it is not? I "believe" it is.

 

[bhsmte]

Can you say it is not? I "believe" it is.

No need to shift the burden.

You made the claim, so show us.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Check manuals of airplane manufacture. It should be there.
If not, then it must be a part of an aircraft carrier.

Can you say it is not? I "believe" it is.

-_- and here I thought you actually knew the answer, when it is in then end, just a guess.

I have no idea what it is, but I can say that your guess doesn't have a high enough probability of being right for me to go with it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You got it reversed. I am not trying to prove anything to you. So I have no burden of proof.

The concept of 'burden of proof' is not about trying to convince somebody.
It's about the justification you can give for accepting a claim.

She asked a question. I gave an answer. I am done. What's left is her problem, no mine.

If you don't like my answer, you may always ask another question.

I don't care about what you were asked, nore do I have a question for you.
I'm merely responding to your statements concerning the burden of proof.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Check manuals of airplane manufacture. It should be there.
If not, then it must be a part of an aircraft carrier.

Can you say it is not? I "believe" it is.

Unless you can meet your burden of proof, what you "believe" is completely irrelevant. Additionally, asking if the other party "can say that it isn't" reveals a second fallacy in your reasoning: the argument of ignorance.

"you don't know, therefor this random claim is correct".

You get fallacy combo-points for that one.

 

[juvenissun]

-_- and here I thought you actually knew the answer, when it is in then end, just a guess.

I have no idea what it is, but I can say that your guess doesn't have a high enough probability of being right for me to go with it.

Right or not, it is a possibility.
Therefore, your OP is answered.

 

[bhsmte]

Right or not, it is a possibility.
Therefore, your OP is answered.

That is, unless the OP wasn't looking for just "possibilities".

 

[PsychoSarah]

Right or not, it is a possibility.
Therefore, your OP is answered.

Negatory, it has to be correct.

 

[Resha Caner]

Caner's Obvious Axiom: Whatever I might think to be obvious, there will always be someone who argues it is not obvious.

 

[dad]

So, since people are floating around claiming that design and purpose is obvious in nature, that is, designed things are obviously designed and have equally obvious purpose, I present this:

now tell me, what is this thing's obvious purpose? I personally do not know the answer, I even tried looking it up. Perhaps my defect autistic mind cannot see it, whatever, but surely if purpose can be seen easily in all designed things, it shouldn't be a problem for most people.

Or maybe purpose isn't so intuitive after all.

And maybe the purpose seen in nature is just an illusion of the mind.

Putting pick up sticks in the holes and joinging them to other of these gizmos to build a toy castle?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Putting pick up sticks in the holes and joinging them to other of these gizmos to build a toy castle?

Funny, but I doubt it.

 

[bhsmte]

Caner's Obvious Axiom: Whatever I might think to be obvious, there will always be someone who argues it is not obvious.

Correct.

And when that happens, I put my money on the dude with the most objective evidence to support their position.

 

[crjmurray]

Putting pick up sticks in the holes and joinging them to other of these gizmos to build a toy castle?

Creepy

 

[dad]

Creepy

If tinkertoys are something you find creepy, good luck in the world.

 

[crjmurray]

If tinkertoys are something you find creepy, good luck in the world.

Not that. Just something I've picked up on has given me the heebies and some jeebies symptoms.

 

[dad]

Not that. Just something I've picked up on has given me the heebies and some jeebies symptoms.

I see. They ought to make that a treatable disease I guess. 'paranoidhebbiejeebiephobia'?