Heavily edited and revised with many names removed for safety (mine) and some might not be in order of time.
ME: It would seem that those calling themselves receptive skeptics might look for interesting turns and twists when looking at people who hold to theories of Intelligent Design..
My favorite is that view of the world as a creation. If we have a creation. then there is a creator, whatever principles. relations, powers, motives…. All that contributes to creation must by definition have a direct relation to its creator. Find that relation and you have an accurate and useful definition of the creator, however complicated or impossible that is.
There is also the logical tautology of survival of those who survive, a meaningless phrase which is revered by the side of the argument which is decidedly not the people “…inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.” (a dictionary definition of a skeptic).
Those of more of a technical bent might notice that there is a progression, a starting point and a present point and a direction that can be viewed as guided. Well, does nature guide? Is evolution responsible for art and science?
That seems to me a matter of opinion. Can anyone who is skeptical (see the definition above) entertain the notion that some order, good, bad, value, and wonder existin the world? Is that part of evolution? Did we not evolve to a point where we now experience art?
MV: Intelligent designer effects living thing? Is this your hypothesis?
ME: Do you actually believe that the Most Great Intelligent Designer affects living things? Is that your question? Is my hypothesis religion? Is that what you want to know?
MV: I’m being skeptical, and I want a hypothesis that is falsifiable I want to know how you got to the conclusion that an intelligent designer is effecting living things … a falsifiable hypothesis that demonstrates that you are right…
ME: You will have to explain that to me. Is there a skeptic rule book? Because I didn’t get a copy. My definition of skeptic comes from a dictionary “inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions”.
MV: I’m skeptical of a claim that can’t be tested and independently verified. Critical thinking science epistemology what ever means you have on demonstrating that your claim is true Evolution is a falsifiable hypothesis what will replace it must be a falsifiable hypothesis. Do you concede that you hypothesis is unfalsifiable?
ME: You win. I’m out.
John Kelly to Kent Johnson, there are rules for forms of methodological skepticism. MV is referring to basic methodological rules common to both Receptive Skepticism, and Scientific Skepticism. If you don’t have some criteria to falsify something, you are severely limited … I think you might be more interested in possibilities than what’s probable, but I think it’s better to nail down the most probable possibilities first. The methodological approach MV was looking at was also following that principle of nailing down the most probable.
MV: I think it’s fare to ask for evidence, a falsifiable hypothesis for claims… I’m not trying to be a dick… if we are willing to accept any claim without verifying claims then everything is true, even unicorns and magic fairies that created everything in this universe… the only way to distinguish claims is if you can test them to determine its validity … If you did not demonstrate ID by a falsifiable hypothesis then the null hypothesis is the conclusion , that x doesn’t effect y…
SS: Was there ever a definition of the word or concept of Intelligence as used in ID? This discussion is way too hard to dig through everything. (put the answer if there was one in the thread, not the reply so it doesn’t get lost please, thx)
ME: Intelligent Design, to my knowledge, is not a theory or a hypothesis. If that is all that interests you guys and nothing exists that does not have a falsifiable claim… I mean. if that is the test then intelligence doesn’t exist. Neither does creation or evolution or nature or selection. I understand scientific method. I have clearly explained that art is the product of evolution. Does art exist?
LP: What is the definition of art? I would include music in that…and humans are not the only ones that make original music.
ME: It is conditional. If you guys only accept things according to some rules you have a micro-world that I want no part of. I had no idea you can’t deal with art, life, intelligence and nobility.
KC: I love discussing opinions and emotions and art. But I don’t like acting like anything I feel or think is a fact. Those aren’t facts. And if people can remember that they aren’t facts, then it can lead to great conversations where everybody learns more about the other person.
MV: anything that is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence …If you or anyone has a claim the claim must be verified and demonstrated… if not you do not know if the claim is true… Evolution is a phenomenon and has a explanation f…
TB: Evidentialisim is not supported by evidence, should it also be dismissed ?
MV: (to ME) … If you can justify that this is claims is true without any reliable way of determining if the claim is true, then anything can be true under your “method of finding truth” An example is that pixies created the universe just like we see it, can you determine the validity of the claim? no, because it is not a falsifiable claim, and yet this claim is equally valid to your claim of ID… moreover. your claim is that ID produces a universe of intelligent beings but looks just like natural selection would look like, so how do you know the difference?
A good example of this is the simulation hypothesis that suggests that we and the universe is a simulation. Now a simulated universe that is indistinguishable from a universe that is not simulated is a unfalsifiable hypothesis, because there is no way to tell the universes apart. So what do we do? we go to the default position the Null hypothesis that X does not effect y. meaning that we have no reason to believe we are in a simulation until the day comes that a falsifiable hypothesis can demonstrate the claim is true… we might even be in a simulation but I have no way to tell so one must be reserve causation towards claims that are not true or cannot be demonstrated to be true, because time to believe is when we can verify if it true and not a moment before… that is skepticism… “evidentialisim” define please… non contradiction excluded middle, reason logic and evidence all matter to validate a claim… does non evidence get you anywhere closer to the truth and how would you know that??? reason and logic, science work… can you claim any other method of evaluating claims that can reliably works???
TB: evidentialism can be generally defined as the principle you outlined when you said ‘claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence’ More specifically it is the principle that you are justified in believing X only if there is evidence of X. The problem being of course that evidentialism is a self refuting principle as it is not supported by evidence.
MV: so how do you justify X???
TB: rationalism as opposed to empiricism could justify belief .. and belief in X could be justified pragmatically in the absence of evidence
MV: Its not self refuting how can you justify X without evidence of X ???
TB: evidentialism is self refuting by virtue of the fact that it is an unverifiable principle and thus by its own standards it should not me believed and in your words it should be dismissed Ask yourself, how can you justify belief in evidentialism without evidence of evidentialism ? I’m guessing your answer will be a pragmatic justification ..
MV: I think this is a straw man of my position I do not hold the position to evidentialism… evidence, logic and reasoning work together to inform if the claim is true. it works is one good argument, if evidence did not tell us anything about our surrou…See More non contradiction, excluded middle… do we need evidence for a claim that is a contradiction… no we dont… if it contradicts then it`s not true… evidence is not needed in all scenarios… if the the premises do not support the conclusion then the conclusion is not true or at least those premises do not show that the conclusion is true… Philosophy is awesome…
TB: Your position as outlined in your statement “anything that is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” epitomises evidentialism and you are mistaken if you think it is a straw man for me to cynicism your position as being self refuting.
MV: I just showed you that it`s not all evidence… non contradiction, excluded middle… How do you justify the believe in a claim? and evidence for evidence is that evidence gives you a frame work that can be tested to see if evidence gets you closer to truth… not self refuting at all.. demonstration that evidence works and lack of evidence get you nowhere in terms of reality… what is the alternative to finding what claims are true I`m open to changing my mind, based on evidence, logic and reasoning… After all, what’s the difference between an invisible, floating, non-corporeal, and completely undetectable dragon… and no dragon at all? …Science cannot explain everything and does not have all the answers.
This argument goes something like – as science cannot explain everything and does not have all the answers, it follows that:
1.science is limited; and
2.other answers from other knowledge systems could be true (belief-systems and pseudoscience). Or to put it another way, science is limited and those very limitations stop it from answering specific questions concerning certain issues. …
TB: My only point is that science operates on various metaphysical assumptions but it makes no claims as to the nature of reality that is the purview of metaphysics rather than science and to say differently is to conflate methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism
RD: If the claims made are not about the nature of reality, then what are they about? I feel like I’m overlooking something simple but idk what
MV: philosophical naturism is how you can ask the question and then you use the method to see if the philosophical naturist assumption is right… For example; first we need to assume that the phenomenon that is taking place is a natural process that can b…S a good example; is the big bang. what started the big bang? philosophical naturism will assume that what started the big bang is a natural process and methodological naturalism is the way (method) we use find and understand the mechanisms behind the phenomena… yes philosophical naturism makes assumptions that then need the method to verify the assumption… I do not see a conflict between the two…
John Kelly Receptive Skepticism holds that much like Sagan’s dragon in the garage word picture, that idea that we need to treat the metaphysical question as valid for consideration has not yet earned enough consideration. Something needs to earn consideration before being considered a serious contender to reality. Otherwise we are giving false weight to a potential we can’t make a serious probability call about.
MV: agreed…
So what about it? Is evolution responsible for art?