From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Feb 16 2002 - 12:57:49 MST
[Kirk] I just sent them a similar response directly. Also I noted to them
that one of the responses to q13 was inconsistent with current KNOWLEDGE re
macro evolution, vis a vis recent repost of the UCSD article on macroEvo
posted here by (I forget who). I will repost their response here when I
receive it.
[hr]
[Hermit] I argue that it is worse than that (unless you view it as just a
witty amusement, but then it should not be taken seriously. Arguing that it
is meant to be taken at least semi-seriously (somebody put quite a lot of
work into it)), let's investigate. I didn't bother with the "moral"
questions as it is not an issue that particularly interests me.
[Hermit] Q3 "Any being which it is right to call God must be free to do
anything." A priori or ontological? Worth remembering Bertrand Russell's
observation that it is much easier to be persuaded that ontological
arguments are no good, than it is to say exactly what is wrong with them -
and that a priori are unarguable. Either way, it goes to the nature of what
the respondent would assert is a necessary characteristic of an entity that
they would regard as being "right to call God". It does not speak to the
probability that such a capability could exist outside of the realm of the
imaginary.
[Hermit] Q4 "Any being which it is right to call God must want there to be
as little suffering in the word as is possible." ditto
[Hermit] Q5 "Any being which it is right to call God must have the power to
do anything." ditto
[Hermit] Q8 "Any being that it is right to call God must know everything
that there is to know." ditto
[Hermit] Q12 "If God exists she could make it so that everything now
considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now
considered morally good becomes sinful." This may seem like a sensible
question, but is in fact very confused. Does it address the nature of gods,
or of morality, or of meaning? Or does it confabulate these issues?
Depending on the reply, it may well dramatically alter the validity and
applicability of the question. I would suggest that in the absence of
clarity on these issues, is hardly grounds for categorization of a response.
Q16 "If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square
circles and make 1 + 1 = 72." This may be a question about the nature of
gods, or it may be a question about the nature of the Universe. I suspect
that it is invalid for it to be both at once. While true that if the answer
is affirmative, it proves the impossibility of "any being that it is right
to call God" in this universe, it does not speak to the potential necessity
for an observer to consider such sleight of hand as a prerequisite for
consideration to calling some being a god. If negative, it accurately
describes the Universe, but does not necessarily speak to the nature of
imaginary concepts such as gods - or their apparently equally elusive
sexuality.
[Hermit] Q6 "Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but
it is essentially true." This question goes to the nature of Popperian
falsifiability regarding a theory, "Evolutionary theory," which purports to
explain an observation "evolution." Thus the only possible answer to this
(unless proposing a sustainable alternative theory) in our Universe is
"True".
[Hermit] Q7 "It is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external
world on a firm, inner conviction, even in the absence of any external
evidence for the truth of these convictions." Any answer other than "False"
results in the rejection of the requirement for Popperian falsifiability and
thus rejects the ability to use reason.
[Hermit] Q10 "If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument
has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational
to believe that such a monster does not exist." It is impossible to "prove a
negative," but in the absence of evidence diligently sought, and a multitude
of rational explanations for the assertions made, Ockham's little
snicker-snee points us in the direction of the appropriate provisional
response.
[Hermit] Q11 "It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable
proof that God exists." "God" is now defined by at least 3, 4, 5, 8 and 12,
and if any were answered affirmatively, is an extremely unlikely entity,
conflicting with what we know about the Universe and thus a very "strong
claim". At this point, given a rational response to 6, 7 and 10, it is
reasonable to assert that strong claims require strong evidence, and that
compelling evidence is required to sustain something which would invalidate
the ability to use the scientific theories affirmed in 6, 7, and 10 if the
respondent wishes to remain rational.
[Hermit] TPM's response to an affirmative is to assert a probable logical
contradiction (principally with 6). While they offer "Bite a bullet and
claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for
belief in evolution.", I would suggest that their argument is weaker than it
should be and that possibly not responding in the affirmative is the
response which should require the holder to "Bite the bullet".
[Hermit] Q 14 "As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that
show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not
rationality." The absence of any evidence for gods does not speak to the
nature of atheism. Thus the question itself is, I think, a non sequitur -
even if it is as we have seen here a fairly commonly held misconception
particularly in the US.
[Hermit] You see what I mean about "worse"?
[Kirk] Yes I started to map their mesh and found that all it is looking for
is inconsistency in critical discourse, not referent knowledge. How does one
encode a morphological error checking routine
[Hermit] I'm not at all sure that this would be the route to take as I think
that the use of a greater number of more tightly defined questions with
analogue responses (i.e. continua rather than discrete), would allow complex
probing of edge conditions (yielding more reliable referent checking), yet
still allow a fairly simple back-stepping mesh to provide plausible
"demonstrations" of why a particular memeplex results in a particular
analysis and conclusion.
[Hermit] If you want to look more into current use of morphology,
[url=http://www.cwi.nl/projects/morphology/]Morphology Digest[/url] provides
active discussion of current Morphological issues and
[url=http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/18235.html]Morphological Analysis of Shapes,
Lakshman Prasad T-DOT, Theoretical Division Los Alamos National
Laboratory[/url] provides an active bibliography of network oriented
approaches.
Kind Regards
Hermit
PS another interesting cloning discussion
[url]http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/112401ezzell/[/url]
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:43 MDT