Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Except it is not the ID proponents that claim it looks designed.
I am not wrong. You apply parsimony to every decision you make and your brain applies parsimony to every interpretation it makes about your sensory input. When you cross with the green light in the middle of the night you are making the parsimoniously-justified assumption that there is not a silent, invisible truck hurtling towards the intersection. When you hear footsteps in your house you likely assume it is your girlfriend rather than an intruder. When you see your girlfriend you assume that it is her and not a gun-toting murderer who looks exactly like her. When you choose to take pills for your headaches, you are assuming that you are experiencing a minor ailment rather than the beginning of a brain aneurysm for which you should seek immediate medical care. That doesn't fit your decision theory rational; the potential cost of having an aneurysm far outweighs the cost of going to the doctor with what turns out to be a headache (I don't know what Peruvian healthcare is like, so let's imagine that you live in Canada where such a trip would be free). Same for a what seems to be a cold or flu. You could have these minor ailments, or you could have something much more dangerous (many very serious conditions have symptoms similar to cold or flu). According to decision theory as you've outlined it, you should be going to the doctor in case you are suffering from something very serious and the cost of going to the doctor is negligible. But you don't. Why? Because you are aware that a headache is unlikely to signal an aneurysm and that flu-like symptoms are more likely to be the flu than something very serious.
And to address your postscript, I am not arguing that parsimony is a valid way to approach things because people do it literally all the time, I'm saying that it is a valid way to approach things because people do it all the time and it works quite well.
You reject the scientific method as well?
I've heard of this theory, though admittedly I'm not very familiar with it.Zosimus said:
Yes, just as the pig cloud looks designed.
Not at all, I just don't hold it in reverence.
I guess you missed that whole evidenced-based science stuff that the theory of evolution has behind it?
Or are you once again claiming that the scientific method is faith?
Yes, just as the pig cloud looks designed.
I am sorry but your ignorance of the fine tuning argument is showing in your responses.
Do you think Francis Crick equates DNA to fluffy clouds?
Sure lots of things about humans seem sub-optimal. Dios mío humans come with two lungs, when you only need one. They come with six eye muscles, when you only need four.
Of course by this argument you can demonstrate that no V8 engine is designed. After all, cars run just fine on 4 cylinders. In fact, 3 cylinder cars work well, too. I refuse to believe, therefore, that the Dodge Challenger was designed. It must have occurred naturally through millions of years of natural selection.
No, I'm just unconvinced by logical fallacies.
Oh, please. Enough with the fake religiosity.
Zosimus has to reject the entire scientific method in order to get rid of the theory he doesn't like. You are cheering him on. Why shouldn't we assume that you are in the same anti-intellecutal school as Zosimus is?
I am showing my appreciation for his arguments. I don't necessarily agree with him on all points but I have enjoyed his discourse.
You appreciate an argument that rejects the scientific method? Why?
Perhaps but, why? I'm not defending his arguments, I'm just saying that if Zosimus genuinely is an agnostic, we can't really accuse him of denying evolution because it threatens his faith. So what other reason is there to doubt evolution?Loudmouth said:You are unconvinced by a scientific theory with 150 years of solid science behind it. You remain unconvinced because you don't want it to be true.
I was thinking more along the lines of us breathing and eating through the same hole making it possible to choke.
Or the laryngeal nerve taking a 14 foot detour in giraffe.
Or Ectopic pregnancies
Or the appendix
Or the development of the male testes
The narrow birth canal meaning babies skulls must be in three parts prior to birth leaving weak spots for 12 months
Just off the top of my head
You don't accept the findings of science because you have declared the scientific method to be a logical fallacy. That goes way beyond any normal level of skepticism.
It's not just me. A Google search for: scientific method logical fallacy yields 1.43 million hits.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?