Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Neocon's Seminar Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gao seng who wrote (587)	5/12/2001 1:10:36 AM
From: Mitch Blevins	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1112

Demski's short version of argument is as follows: If we come upon an artifact, we can ask ourselves three questions: 1) Does a law explain it? 2) Does chance explain it? 3) Does design explain it? His assertion is that if both 1 and 2 cannot offer an explanation, and 3 can, then we must assume that it is designed. He goes further to argue that for living things, his criteria for design is met, while 1 and 2 are insufficient. My bullshit detectors always go off when I am given a multiple choice question. If I apply a similar filter to try to explain why I am always missing one sock in my laundry, I will come to the conclusion that there is a design or conspiracy behind my missing sock. (there I go with the socks again!) You might claim that either a law or chance is responsible for my missing sock, but likewise many scientists will assert that a mixture of laws and chance can account for living things. But, back to multiple choice. If I create a "mathematical explanatory filter" to determine how people get into my back yard, it might be phrased as so... First, ask yourself these questions? A) Could it have come in by my house back door? B) Could it have come in thru the fence gate? If (A) is impossible, and (B) can provide an explanation, then (B) must be true. Of course my new filter gives a false reading when somebody jumps over the fence, and I cannot verify that the gate was unpassed. Likewise, if we demand an "explanation" for everything, where the explanatory criteria is defined only by past experiences, then new experiences might fall outside of our constructed filter.