Now I am bent out of shape

OUCH! Brilliant! What wit! Touche, touche, TOUCHE!!!

Maybe he meant you are not in Dembski's league as a fraud and grifter. Your problem is that you are too honest to share the stage with the great man.

Biology is a cross between pipetting and stamp collecting.

Jack,

I find that the IDists, especially Dembski & Co., almost always claim my educational background is lacking just after I've zinged them with another question they cannot answer, or pointed out that their emperor has no clothes. I have observed they do that with everyone else, too. P. Z. Myers can't answer Dembski, they claim, because Myers doesn't have a math degree (on an issue of embryological development). A mathematician can't answer Dembski because, the DembskiIDists claim, the mathematician doesn't understand theology. Albert Einstein can't answer Dembski on radioactive decay because Einstein was just a physicist, not a nuclear physicist. Mother Theresa can't answer Dembski on theology because she was, after all, Catholic.

That's their way of saying "You scored, man, and I'm bleedin'."

But I can't provide you that translation because I don't have the DembskiDecoder Ring . . .

Im surprised that even in 2006 with all the advances in technology used help advance virtually all the areas of science & these evolutionary frauds wont admit they were wrong, have 0 facts to support their cause, pack up their suit case and run out of the country. I mean what will it take another George Bush ?

These guys really do have a problem with not confusing religion and politics. Bush seems to have become some kind of Southern Baptist saint, to whom prayers can be addressed and miracles attributed.

DaveScot and Dembski have a permanent, and all-important interest in convincing the world that knowledge of biology is irrelevant to understanding evolution. That's the only way they can win in the arena outside of fundamentalists. The fundamentalists can't be reasoned with.

How does that make one an expert on the nature of digital codes and automated machinery?

"Many Christian youth go off to college and then struggle with their faith. The apologetic value of ID is in defeating scientific materialism, the view that everything can be reduced to matter and explained by natural processes," Dembski said.

"Many Christian youth go off to college and then struggle with their faith. The apologetic value of ID is in defeating scientific materialism, the view that everything can be reduced to matter and explained by natural processes," Dembski said.

When churches are outlawed only outlaws will have churches.

Dembski even seems to be creating a metaphysical false duality. Since when are are materialism and ummm... (I don't think he ever defined the alternative in philosophical terms, but I'll call it) Christian mysticism the only two metaphysical viewpoints out there? There are plenty of others, like idealism, monadology, or skepticism a la Hume. I happen to subscribe to Hume's viewpoint, but it's simply a metaphysical stance, and doesn't change the fact that the universe sure as hell appears to act in a purely materialistic manner.

Furthermore, a scientist's view of what is "real" shouldn't have any effect on how they do their job, because as scientists, we do what works. Assuming that we live in a world of ideas doesn't help us make predictions any more than staunchly asserting that there's no way to know for sure what is real helps either.

From a practical, methodological viewpoint, naturalistic materialism is really the only way to go, because it's the only thing that works. I can't walk through a wall simply because I don't possess the idea of a wall being there, nor can I simply claim that my monad contains a more perfect description of the universe and subvert the will of the wall's monad to allow me to pass through it (I can tell you that from experience.)

I take it that DaveScott attends the University of Texas??? If that is indeed the case, it would explain why he is a pompous blowhard. My experience as a student(as well as the rest of the student body) at the University of Oklahoma can attest to this. ;)

You're saying an undergraduate degree in anthropology is more science than a PhD in math? There's a good laugh. How do credentials in biology qualify one to recognize design? I don't see the connection. Biology is a cross between pipetting and stamp collecting. How does that make one an expert on the nature of digital codes and automated machinery? At least the math guys know a digital code when they see one.

a cross between pipetting and stamp collecting, eh? Wonder if they hoped to ask "evolutionist Francis Crich" about that when they planned to invite him to speak in ID class.

Guys/ladies, DaveScot is a fascist and you know it. What kinds of "discussions" can one have with a fascist? They don't deserve a discussion.

I know Arden, I love it to death. These guys are comedy gold. But BTW, that dembski quote does Not mean that they abandoned that whole 'ID is science, not religion' strategy. They will say anything. They will tell you ID is John's Gospel rewritten, then in the next sentence tell you there's nothing biblical about ID.

Their followers will refuse to admit any inconsistency, and when you argue with them you generate the appearence of the 'controversy' they then want to teach.

Biology is a cross between pipetting and stamp collecting.

So Luskin is making excuses for Dembski not attending a debate. Maybe he didn't see the following comment that Dembski left on this very site:

"Come off it Matt. I've debated you guys in all settings, most of them quite hostile: Pennock and Miller at the American Museum of Natural History in 2002, Pigliucci at the New York Academy of Sciences in 2001, and Miller and Elsberry at the World Skeptics meeting in 2002 (at which some skeptics commended me for having the guts to show up). I'll take any of you on at any time in any venue."

Now Dembski appears to be deferring to his handlers at the DI.

On a slight tangent, did anyone else notice that Dembski says he's good buddies with Hugh Hefner? He mentioned it on another post on Uncommon Descent.

Now Dembski has every right to choose his own friends, but it does seem a little odd that someone who depends on his salary from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is bragging about being friends with someone whose lifestyle and businesses are considered to be morally depraved by his paymasters.

Whatever would Richard Land and Albert Mohler think, I wonder?

DaveScot says
How do credentials in biology qualify one to recognize design? I don't see the connection. Biology is a cross between pipetting and stamp collecting. How does that make one an expert on the nature of digital codes and automated machinery? At least the math guys know a digital code when they see one.

I guess he has never heard of bioinformatics, or mathematical modeling of biological systems. There are quiet a few biologists (especially in the neurosciences) who have extensive computer science and engineering backgrounds.

Just a note in passing:

Math *is* science. If you disagree, please present an example of math being performed without the empirical testing of hypotheses about and with a physical system.

This little bon mot would also suggest that the IDC crowd is psyching themselves up to completely burn their bridges with the scientific community once and for all. Giving up even pretending to try to win over scientists.

I have a fantasy of Dembski agreeing to debate Richard Dawkins on prime time TV. Wouldn't that be entertaining!

I don't know anything about this Caldonian guy, who I've just seen for the first time above, but he's so simultaneously wrong and certain, that I bet he's a creationist.

On a slight tangent, did anyone else notice that Dembski says he's good buddies with Hugh Hefner? He mentioned it on another post on Uncommon Descent.

I don't know anything about this Caldonian guy, who I've just seen for the first time above, but he's so simultaneously wrong and certain, that I bet he's a creationist.

Comment #71241 Posted by neuralsmith on January 13, 2006 02:45 PM (e) (s) DaveScot says How do credentials in biology qualify one to recognize design?

As far as I can determine, mathematics is a set of assertions made about logical operations. Those assertions are produced by constructing physical systems that represent those operations and observing the output of those systems.

Again: I've love to see anyone offering an example of mathematics taking place in any other way. Please, disprove me. Present just a single example of mathematics that doesn't involve physical computation. You can then apply for James Randi's million-dollar prize, as well as the Nobel Prize for demonstrating the existence of the supernatural.

Okay. Dembski is appearing in a neighborhood near me (imagine my excitement...I may get to touch his robe, or something!). Yes, he's appearing to give a talk at the Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, MO. The time: 10:00 AM. The date: Jan 24th.

I am sure this will not be a forum for questions or feedback, but I'll be attending anyway. I figure the least I can do is go and take notes so his comments can be fairly reproduced--I'm pretty sure there won't be anyone else in the audience who might do such a thing.

My question is, is anyone else going to be attending this auspicious event in Kansas City? I have a solid math and physics background, with some chem and (thanks to PT contributors) more biology than I used to. However, as I am a professional actor, I don't believe my credentials are very imposing. In the off-chance that audience questions may be accepted, it would be good to have experts (not that they'd be in the same league as The Carl F.H. Sofa of Irreducible Complex Mumbo Jumbo and Mathematics, but...)

What do you mean by "physical computation".

For instance I'm familiar with an entire branch of mathematics concerning complex veriables (i.e. equations using sqrt(-1) ). This type of math has no correlation to anything in the physical world.

It is, however, astoundingly useful for solving certain types of fluid flow problems, called potential flows. This involves transforms and such.

BILL: "Intelligent Design is science! It has nothing to do with Religion!"

SOMEONE SANE: "But that's not what you've been saying!"

BILL: Sure it is!

S.S.: Well, right here, I have a quote from you saying that ID is basically just the gospel of John recast in scientific terms. And here I have you on tape as saying that ID is religious apologetics designed to counter 'scientific materialism'.

BILL: See? That's why we should Teach the Controversy!

Comment #71254 Posted by steve s on January 13, 2006 02:59 PM (e) (s) 2 Not having the proper credentials to recognize design is like not having sensitive enough eyes to see N-rays.

make that "variables", ack! Where is my gromitical scells gone two?

What a surprise, DaveScot thinks poorly of biology---I guess because he knows none.

Perhaps, by "physical computation," Caledonian means that in order to do something as simple as add two numbers, we must first imagine two sets of discrete physical forms that then combine. That's all fine and dandy, but I think the many followers of Kant would have something to say about your denial of the existence of synthetic a priori concepts.

Damh -had to read up on nrays. But hey, you should see the things my wife will believe and she teaches science to middle schoolers. Scary. "I know I stink like beer and can't stand up but I really only had one. I swear." "Wow, that is strange. Maybe you'd better go to bed."
http://skepdic.com/blondlot.html

Math *is* science. If you disagree, please present an example of math being performed without the empirical testing of hypotheses about and with a physical system.

As far as I can determine, mathematics is a set of assertions made about logical operations. Those assertions are produced by constructing physical systems that represent those operations and observing the output of those systems. Again: I've love to see anyone offering an example of mathematics taking place in any other way. Please, disprove me. Present just a single example of mathematics that doesn't involve physical computation. You can then apply for James Randi's million-dollar prize, as well as the Nobel Prize for demonstrating the existence of the supernatural.

— Caledonian

The calculations have to be performed, Dave Mescher. Demonstrate to me that the calculations can be performed without referencing empirical observations of a physical system. (A supercomputer churning out the digits of pi to the Nth place is a physical system, Dave.)

Math *is* science. If you disagree, please present an example of math being performed without the empirical testing of hypotheses about and with a physical system.

— Caledonian

None of those are the examples I requested: of mathematics that can be performed without relying upon observations of the physical world.

There's a reason Einstein joked about his pencil being smarter than he was.

Cal, I'm not really sure what you're arguing for anymore. I can add 1 and 1 in my head by imagining two individual apples, and then combining them into one set with two apples in it. That was done purely conceptually. You could, of course, argue that my thoughts and concepts were just firing of neurons that are purely physical in nature, in which case you would be right, but only by defining the "physical world" to include thought.

I asked DS ever-so-gently why he would call Ed a hypocrite when he's now espousing what Dave considers the "right" (that it's wrong to out 'net handles) view in the past year. First time I got a minor bitch-slapping so I went back for more. Figured that DS would see me as an argumentative SOB.

I was hoping to get banned on my very first day and within 2 or 3 posts.

Okay. Dembski is appearing in a neighborhood near me...In the off-chance that audience questions may be accepted, it would be good to have experts (not that they'd be in the same league as The Carl F.H. Sofa of Irreducible Complex Mumbo Jumbo and Mathematics, but...)

> None of those are the examples I requested: of mathematics that can be performed without relying upon observations of the physical world.

The example is: mathematics. You're refuted.

and Miller and Elsberry at the World Skeptics meeting in 2002 (at which some skeptics commended me for having the guts to show up)

uberhobo said:
subvert the will of the wall's monad

I take it you are being ironic but that is a nice oblique way of describing the creationist world view

Caledonian: first read AND UNDERSTAND above line if you don't.... walk into a wall.... science describes the wall.... maths is thought.

Caledonian said:
As far as I can determine, mathematics is a set of assertions made about logical operations. Those assertions are produced by constructing physical systems that represent those operations and observing the output of those systems.

No mathematics does not construct physical systems or observe outputs it is a purely symbolic system that follows rules.
In very simple terms mathematics is an algorithm: A step-by-step problem-solving procedure.

The physical sciences can use mathematics to hypothesize models for nature and where it can performs tests of those models to build a useful description of nature that follows the scientific method.

In Fact you could paraphrase Dave Scott by saying Mathematicians don't do pipetting/butterfly collecting that's actual science.
OR
a Fundamentalist saying heaven is a physical place not in the here and now.

Albert Einstein can't answer Dembski on radioactive decay because Einstein was just a physicist, not a nuclear physicist. Mother Theresa can't answer Dembski on theology because she was, after all, Catholic.

How does a calculation of pi reference anything empirically observable, when the calculation in question is (currently) impossible to empirically verify?

Sure, I'll grant that initial approximations of pi were initially empircally derived, but anything accurate beyond a few digits was calculated, rather than derived empirically.

Merely performing computations of something does not bestow the characteristics of the computer upon what is being computed.

An intelligently-designed coin-flipping simulation does not bestow intelligence upon the fair flip of a fair coin.

Imaginary numbers have no physical equivalent, sqrt(-1) + sqrt(-1) = 2*sqrt(-1), but nothing empirical is referenced or used in computing it. Communicating the reason why i+i=2i, both in finding that reason, and distributing it to the world as a whole may require physical systems, but the computation itself is the same whether there is a physical representation of it or not.

I think someone else actually said the N-rays thing before me. But the cases are very similar. When a scientist couldn't see them, the N-ray people said he was missing a certain 'something'.

Dude, I'd forget about uncommondescent. Really, I would stop bothering. It serves absolutely no purpose except to waste time.

But then where would the fun be in that?

How extraordinary that logical computation is now considered beyond the scope of the physical world. I guess you and the IDists have something in common, hehe: you both believe in magic.

No wonder it's so easy for the Discovery Institute to get people to accept that "...and then, a miracle occurred..." is scientifically valid.

Dude, I'd forget about uncommondescent. Really, I would stop bothering. It serves absolutely no purpose except to waste time.

Imaginary numbers have no physical equivalent, sqrt(-1) + sqrt(-1) = 2*sqrt(-1), but nothing empirical is referenced or used in computing it. Communicating the reason why i+i=2i, both in finding that reason, and distributing it to the world as a whole may require physical systems, but the computation itself is the same whether there is a physical representation of it or not.

How does a calculation of pi reference anything empirically observable?

— Dave Mescher

Another example of pure mathematics that took many decades to be applied to a physical system is the use of complex numbers (the sum of a "real" number and an "imaginary" number, which is a real number multiplied by the square root of negative one). A According to the story I heard (and for which a Google search came up empty; refering to this as "imaginary algebra" as I was taught seems to be an EE thing), the fellow who first plotted complex numbers on a polar-coordinate plane was quite pleased that it was pure mathematics and bore no relationship whatesoever to the real world. It was much later that, to the chagrin of electrical engineering students everywhere, it was applied to three-phase power systems (which is why your home wiring [US standard] can be configured as 120V or 240V). BTW, you can always tell an EE from a mathematician, just ask for the symbol for sqrt-1.

Caledonian said:
No wonder it's so easy for the Discovery Institute to get people to accept that "...and then, a miracle occurred..." is scientifically valid.

No magic is.... when postmodernist Lacan describes the sqr root of minus one ....the imaginary number i ....

Thus the erectile organ comes to symbolize the place of jouissance [ecstasy], not in itself, or even in the form of an image, but as a part lacking in the desired image: that is why it is equivalent to the of the signification produced above, of the jouissance that it restores by the coefficient of its statement to the function of lack of signifier (-1).
OR
GOD did it.

Science says that the sqr root of minus one is a valuable concept that allows a model to be created for an electromagnetic wave impinging on an impedance transformation in a transmission line and the resultant real and "imaginary" voltage and current vectors can be converted to a readout on a measuring device to confirm the model.

For starters, that calculation is taking place within an electronic computer (at least, most of the time - other computational systems are sometimes used). Most scientists acknowledge that electronic systems set up to perform computations are in fact real and must therefore be observed empirically. To learn what the digits of pi are to a certain decimal place, we observe the behavior of that system - and alakazaam! we receive an answer.

— Caledonian

"How extraordinary that logical computation is now considered beyond the scope of the physical world. I guess you and the IDists have something in common, hehe: you both believe in magic."

What you seem not to understand is that we have mental capabilities which we are born with that produce models "of reality" that necessarily reduce perceptions down to our relationship with the world, and which do not fully derive from the world (except via evolution). This is why we can use Euclid's Fifth Postulate to survey the world, or we may discard it to do non-Euclidean geometry--to bring up a simple example (there are far more complicated examples, including the dimensions in string theory, which dimensions are presently not based upon observation, but which exhibit our ability to think beyond observation in order to anticipate and to predict (often to subsequently falsify) possibilities).

Kant is one who noted and expounded upon the fact that we "know" things without these things being strictly known or knowable via observation itself. More to the point, though, we hardly could begin to observe the world if we didn't have an a priori capacity for organizing and relating data in our mental representations. Evolution is what suggests that, unknown to Kant, our capacities must actually come via our evolution within our essentially Euclidean environment, although this does not prevent us from imagining non-Euclidean universes.

We are not tied slavishly to observation in mathematics or elsewhere. We can imagine, we can model "alternate realities", and we can work through unknown topographies and utilize mathematics operating according to alternate rules. Logic is more about our way of thinking than it is about "how the world works", since the world is limited to physics like three dimensions, and our experience of parallel lines not meeting. It is fortunate that we can do mathematics without directly referring to the world for its rules (the rules have evolved, but with an openness that might be expected for logical/spatial capacities which relate to disparate phenomena and to more than one sense), because otherwise we would not know that we live in essentially Euclidean space, and not in a Riemannian universe.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Caledonian said:
You will revolutionize psychology, mathematics, physics, engineering - there's not a single branch of science you won't affect, one way or another.

Too late its already been done, a literal physical GOD as a creator is obsolete as an idea.
The only designer is man.

If I write down 2+2=4, while the medium for communicating that fact is indeed empirically observable (last time I checked, communication required an empirically observable medium), I am not necessarily referencing anything empirical.

— Dave Mescher

Too late its already been done, a literal physical GOD as a creator is obsolete as an idea.

For more fun on empirical representation of non-empirical mathematics, I proffer the following statements:

* All snarks are boojums.
* I have a snark.
* Therefore, I have a boojum.

Since neither snarks nor boojums exist, I cannot possibly be referencing anything empirical, but they still form a logically correct set of statements.

To learn what the digits of pi are to a certain decimal place, we observe the behavior of that system - and alakazaam! we receive an answer.

I'm pretty sure you just referenced your neurons, Dave. (Maybe not the higher cortical areas - the spinal cord could probably have managed that response - but neurons just the same.)

If you think the biologists are having trouble with faith intruding into their domain, you should speak to the cognitive psychologists.

Caledonian:
Take away physics and nobody can do math.

Take away the world and there will be nobody to think ?

Cartesian duality "I am thus I exist"

No the world IS thought is not a metaphor.

Caledonian:

"Math *is* science. If you disagree, please present an example of math being performed without the empirical testing of hypotheses about and with a physical system."

Then Later:

"The calculations have to be performed, Dave Mescher. Demonstrate to me that the calculations can be performed without referencing empirical observations of a physical system. (A supercomputer churning out the digits of pi to the Nth place is a physical system, Dave.)"

I think what Caledonian is asserting is that calculations need someone or something (examples: pen and paper, calculators, neurons) to actually perform the calculations. What this has to do with making mathematics a science is unclear.

Even Later:
"Again, if you can offer even a single example of computation that doesn't require us to observe the behavior of a physical system, your name will go down the ages in glory. You will revolutionize psychology, mathematics, physics, engineering - there's not a single branch of science you won't affect, one way or another."

No matter how many clear examples are offered, I predict that Caledonian will accept none of them. (Why, yes, I *am* a psychic!) I anticipate some uninteresting twisted logic.

I'll keep in mind that your mind has nothing to do with the several pounds of fatty membranes and neurotransmitters inside your skull, then.

— Caledonian

Biological computational systems are just as physical as "electronic" ones. Heck, they're based primarily on the behavior of electrons, too. I think some of us are having trouble distinguishing between using a computational system to emulate some aspect of the physical world, and using some aspect of the physical world to emulate a computational system. Take away physics and nobody can do math.

Caledonian, if we hearken back to your original claim, you say mathematics is science because it makes hypotheses and is necessarily grounded in the physical world. Your first claim seems to have been trounced. For sure, group theory was created without anyone knowing how to use it before quantum mechanics came along, and made absolutely no claims. I haven't really seen you dispute that part.

What you're left with is the assertion that mathematics is grounded in the physical world. Even if that is true, simply because something relies on the existence of a physical world doesn't mean that it is scientific.

Science is a process above all else, and the scientific process isn't practiced in all of mathmatics. Math is used as a tool in performing science, but it is not science in and of itself, any more than a hammer is carpentry.

Caledonian:

I would ask this question:

Do the IDiots have valid scientific formulae?

It seems to me that I can formulate a conception of God in my brain. I can then assume he created everything. I can add the two thoughts together in my empirically verified computer brain. I therefore get the answer that God exists. It seems to me if your argument for math being an empirical science is correct, then we have to accept IDC as an empirical science.

But the existence (or lack thereof) of said empirical observations do not themselves confer truth or falsehood upon the statement.

— Dave Mescher

Arden Chatfield said

You mean no bearded old white man in white robes sitting on a cloud? Darn!

Caledonian said

If you think the biologists are having trouble with faith intruding into their domain, you should speak to the cognitive psychologists.

studies in children when asked if god or heaven are real yields interesting and revealing snapshots of how reality is created in adults. Children they know they are not real ideas.

A little girl whose mother died, answered when asked where her mother was " she was up in the clouds" and that on further thought said "she must be getting very tired standing up all the time so she must be sitting down" and she started looking at the clouds to see if her legs were dangling over the side.

Psychosis in adults is a childish/denial view of reality.

Caledonian who was it that said "If you can catch a Scotsman young enough you can make something out of him"
OR
"Give me the boy until he is 7 and I will give you the man"

Your first claim seems to have been trounced. For sure, group theory was created without anyone knowing how to use it before quantum mechanics came along, and made absolutely no claims. I haven't really seen you dispute that part.

> How extraordinary that logical computation is now considered beyond the scope of the physical world. I guess you and the IDists have something in common, hehe: you both believe in magic.

There is no magic involved. Maths is not science, maths is not done by physical observations, and you are a demagogue. These are the facts. :-)

Give me the children until they are seven, and anyone may have them afterwards. SAINT FRANCIS XAVIER

Perhaps Caledonian is offering a variation on the observer effect, "If a tree falls in the wilderness with no ear to hear it, does it make a sound?" or "Does a calculation exist absent the mind that conceives it?" Most mathemeticians, I believe, would argue that the calculation exists independent of the mind.

What exactly do you mean by "perform"? If by perform, you mean apply to a physical system, then your argument becomes just plain weird.

"I think some of us are having trouble distinguishing between using a computational system to emulate some aspect of the physical world, and using some aspect of the physical world to emulate a computational system. Take away physics and nobody can do math."

Not true. Even if there were no people to imagine the concept, 2+2 will always equal 4. This is true and it's truth "exists" in the complete absense of any physical reality.

Righteous Caledonian says

Mathematics doesn't give us some magical conduit to absolute universal truth- it can only deal with what it can demonstrate.

Ahh so now you have flushed yourself out.
Opinion (not what can be demonstrated) is truth is it ?
And why should your opinion count as a valid observation about nature ?

Caledonian's absolute universal truth^TM
is some moral judgment that he wants to impose (I suppose)

I fart in your general direction -wasn't that what Luther said to Rome ?

Even if there were no people to imagine the concept, 2+2 will always equal 4. This is true and it's truth "exists" in the complete absense of any physical reality.

— Scott

Math *is* science. If you disagree, please present an example of math being performed without the empirical testing of hypotheses about and with a physical system.

— Caledonian

To you, *everything* is science because all thoughts and ideas take place in physical beings/machines.

I think Caledonian's claim is this:
It takes a brain to do science;
It takes a brain to do math;
Therefore math is science. QED

But by that rational:
It takes a brain to do gardening;
Therefore gardening is math.
It takes a brain to do religion;
Therefore religion is math.
It takes a brain to do sex;
Therefore sex is math.
It takes a brain to do underwater basketweaving;
Therefore underwater basketweaving is math.
It takes a brain to do bicycling;
Therefore bicycling is math.

And of course other combinations are possible.

Science is sex, religion is basketweaving, gardening is bicycling. Ad nauseum.

Caledonian your reasoning is specious. Math and science have similar yet not identical methodologies and basic principles. The point made above is that this is what separates Dumbski from scientists.

Sincerely,
Paul

First of all, the argument does not require the presence of any people. Second of all, if you take away physical reality, there's no sense in which "2+2=4" is meaningful.

My first claim is not that "there is no mathematics that cannot be used to describe an empirical system". My first claim is that "there is no mathematics that does not rely upon our observations of a physical system to perform it".

— Caledonian

Your trouncing would be more impressive if you actually... y'know... comprehended what I was saying. These rebuttals are about as convincing as IDists who insist that evolution is "just a theory" without understanding what 'theory' means to a scientific endeavor.

> Math is the field of inquiry where concepts are studied. The only way those concepts *can* be studied is by an examination of systems that embody them. Every time a proof is examined, it's being tested for logical validity - and the testing is being undertaking by a physical system. It doesn't matter if it's a nervous system or a series of electronic gates.

Which doesn't make it science. Mathematical concepts still don't refer to anything in the physical world. And you're still a demagogue.

A science is a field of inquiry where hypotheses are generated from and tested by observations of the subject of inquiry, to make a very loose and colloquial definition. Art is not science. Studying what critics and artists call 'art' is. Comedy isn't science. Studying what makes people laugh (and how they laugh, and why they laugh) is science.

I think Caledonian's claim is this: It takes a brain to do science; It takes a brain to do math; Therefore math is science.

Scott wrote: Even if there were no people to imagine the concept, 2+2 will always equal 4. This is true and it's truth "exists" in the complete absence of any physical reality.

"First of all, the argument does not require the presence of any people."

It was your argument (not mine) that a biological or physical computation engine was required to imagine or render the calculation 2+2=4, and because a physical engine is required then mathematics is a description of physical observations. My point was that no physical reality is required for 2+2=4 to be true. "2+2=4" was true before the earth existed, and will be true long after it ceases to exist. (I can't say for sure if "2+2=4" was true before the universe existed. ;-)

"Second of all, if you take away physical reality, there's no sense in which "2+2=4" is meaningful."

Please explain this statement. What does a physical reality add to the "meaning" of the truth of "2+2=4"? The statement is either true, or it is not. How does a physical reality change that?

"Thirdly, that's metaphysics, which isn't mathematics. It's essentially religion."

But that's a circular argument. "Mathematics requires physical observations. Why? Because mathematics *is* physical observations."

Caledonian wrote: So what? Mathematics doesn't give us some magical conduit to absolute universal truth - it can only deal with what it can demonstrate.

hmm.

would most consider the realm of predictive hypotheses based on theory alone, rather than emipiricle observation, to be outside of the realm of science?

would we then consider much of cosmology to not actually be science, for example?

the hypothesis of black holes for example; would we consider that to NOT be scientific, because it was based on an analysis of theory, rather than on actual observation?

I think the discussion over the classification of mathematics is a quite interesting one.

In fact it leads of course to the larger discussion about the definition of science itself, which is not quite as consistent and accepted as some here seem to think.

there have been dozens (hundreds?) of books on the subject, and an exact definition of science and its purview remains elusive.

perhaps if one is to continue debating whether mathematics falls under the purview of science, we need to agree, at least temporarily on what definition of science we want to use here.

interestingly, just for an definition to start with, i tried finding the definition that AAAS uses by searching their website.

No luck! They have published books on the subject, but i can't find a definition actually published on the AAAS site anywhere.

anybody help me out here? they must have it published somewhere readily available.

You appear to be confusing representations of an object with the object itself.

Why do the precepts of mathematics require empirical observations? How does 1+1=2 require anybody to think of it, communicate it, etc.?

STJ
Black holes are being observed.
I heard recently they are beginning to measure gravity waves and the scientist being interviewed claimed they would be able to measure gravity waves from the gig Bang within 20 years. When converted to an audio sound they will probably be claimed by Carol and other twits as the sound of "God" or some such nonsense

You seem to be confused about what math actually studies. It studies those representations, Dave. It doesn't have access to anything else, and *cannot* have access to anything else.

"Math generates models - it doesn't deal with absolute reality, no more than any other kind of science deals with absolute reality."

Now you're arguing both sides. First you declare that math is science because it is strictly physical observations, now you're saying that neither math nor science deal with physical reality.

Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

k.e.,

Do you have any cites on measuring gravity waves--that's very cool.

Also, in the spirit of Caledonian's argument, I believe blackholes are still only being observed second hand. NASA has released several very nice pictures recently. However, it is still sort of "this is blackhole because of what we observe going on around it". So, Caledonian may, or may not, have a problem with observation of blackholes and cosmology as science.

I gotta say, this argument seems a little silly. ANd coming from me, well...
But it's getting good over where bling published at UD
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/658

All this started by being bent out of shape a little. See where that gets you? Nowhere. Don't worry, be happy.

Black holes are being observed.

Here is an interesting paper discussing whether math is science. It makes the point that it really depends on how you define science, and that with the common "understanding" of the word "science" as normally used by mathematicians and scientists, it is not.

But as others have pointed out, nailing down a precise, universal definition for "science" is not possible. Even so, I think Caledonian's arguments that math is science because our understanding of it comes from our activities and we are physical entities is quite a bizarre argument.

I do not see William Dembski as being afraid to debate anyone.

I do not see Jack Krebs as being afraid to debate anyone.

But honestly, a certain Mr. Krishtalka and two other Kansas University professors ARE afraid.

They could have accepted Mr. Brown's invitation. Krishtalka in particular apparently has time to snipe at ID from the media sidelines; he therefore has the time to bring his remarks to Dembski directly on the public stage, instead of hiding like a coward.

Btw, Mr. Krishtalka, if you are reading this, I'm talking about you. You're supposed to be a scientist, an evolution educator of long experience.
Dembski and ID are supposed to pose no challenge to you; you should be able to tear both of them to pieces in your sleep.

Public debate should not frighten an outspoken evolutionist such as yourself. Besides, you've been there before (Scopes Week event of past years, radio broadcast on Kansas public radio, the same Lied Center, Eugenie Scott was there with you, remember?)

So where are you, Mr. K? Why are you hiding now? Why are you afraid to accept Mr. Brown's invitation? Does the distinct possibility of Dembski being publicly perceived as making the stronger case in a debate encounter with yourself, scare you that much?

FL

way up at the beginning of this thread, somebody mentioned an upcoming "debate" involving dempski and a lackey in marietta, ga.

i've got four months before i get my elementary ed degree and teaching certification, and as a resident of the metro atlanta area, i've enjoyed that the cobb county nonsense (marietta is the heart and soul of cobb co) has died down, silly statements from judges notwithstanding.

if this debate is publicized well enough down here, it seems likely that it would fire up the whole can of worms, if you get my drift.

does anybody know if the DI has more plans for cobb co? are they making a move to resurrect the nonsense here?

just wondering if anybody knows what's going on.

Caledonian wrote: My first claim is that "there is no mathematics that does not rely upon our observations of a physical system to perform it".

somehow i'm convinced we knew 2+2=4 BEFORE priests counted goats. we should go with hands, eyes, ears... something like that.

But honestly, a certain Mr. Krishtalka and two other Kansas University professors ARE afraid.

Now you're arguing both sides. First you declare that math is science because it is strictly physical observations, now you're saying that neither math nor science deal with physical reality.

— Scott

As alien civilizations realize that the universe will recycle, galaxies recycle, stars recycle through super nova, they try to move as fast as they can to the outer edge of the universe towards their way to the Hyperspace. It is really a race for survival. The reason why extraterrestrial civilizations are not interested in us is because they are too busy trying to escape into the Hyperspace.

Bear in mind that this is the same William A. Dembski who in December accepted Patricia Princehouse's invitation to put up or shut up at Case Western and then somehow didn't appear. His excuses were made by Casey Luskin. It appears that the Disco Institute is keeping Dembski on a shorter leash than heretofore.

— RBH

Looking back now I think it was a mistake not to go. Our enemies are as incensed as ever, and we now have fewer potential allies because, by not going to Washington, I was unable to network with the very people who could actually help the Michael Polanyi Center. I see a dismal pattern emerging: Placating people who will never support us, and in the process either alienating or missing opportunities with people and groups who might benefit us. Tonight I re-read my contract. I was hired to make a go of the Polanyi Center. Instead I have found my hands increasingly tied. The atmosphere at Baylor continues to be highly charged and prejudicial. I've had no opportunity to speak and defend myself before accusers. And my academic freedom has been infringed in ways that will not withstand public scrutiny. I've described to colleagues outside Baylor the sorts of concessions I've been asked to make on behalf of the MPC, and the overwhelming reaction has been shock, disbelief, and outrage -- they simply could not imagine academics at other institutions putting up with the strictures that have been imposed on me. My decision, then, is this. I have the same right to academic freedom as any other academic, and I will make full use of it. I will not do things to needlessly exascerbate the difficulties of the administration with the faculty and board of regents. But I regard placating enemies at the expense of winning allies as a losing strategy, and I will henceforth have no part in it. I have a 5 and 1/2 year contract to make a go of the Polanyi Center. I will attempt to do that. I will henceforth pass up no opportunities to win powerful supporters, like members of Congress. As a research scholar and public intellectual on the faculty at Baylor, I will expect the same freedom from strictures that my Ivy league counterparts enjoy.

— William A. Dembski

Posted by Caledonian on January 13, 2006 05:37 PM (e) (s) I think Caledonian's claim is this: It takes a brain to do science; It takes a brain to do math; Therefore math is science.

I'll keep in mind that your mind has nothing to do with the several pounds of fatty membranes and neurotransmitters inside your skull, then.

I'm pretty sure you just referenced your neurons, Dave. (Maybe not the higher cortical areas - the spinal cord could probably have managed that response - but neurons just the same.)

Perhaps the key educational problem isn't that science isn't taught well, it's that literacy is at an all-time low. It doesn't matter how well textbooks present evolutionary biology if the students can't understand what they've read. Certainly many of the posters here seem to have such problems.

Additionally, placing the workings of the human mind outside of natural law, as several of them seem to, can account for a lot of the resistance to the scientific explanations for psychology and biology.

While what you say is true it is also trivial. Math is science in the same way that platyhelminthes(sp?) and homo sapiens are both animals. Technically true but it trivializes the world of difference between a flatworm and a human being.

Dre,
Touche.
Paul

Wes-

have you ever run across a defintion of science published by AAAS?

I'm having trouble locating it on their site.

thanks

> what are being observed, IIRC, are the results of black holes (accretion disks, radiation spikes, etc.), not black holes themselves (I'm not completely up to date, but I can't see how one could actually observe a black hole, er, because it's a black... hole... :)

What you observe now is not monitor. Rather it is photons emitted by it.

> and thinking requires too much effort.

This is surely true for you, judging by the fact you still "think" maths is science.

What you observe now is not monitor. Rather it is photons emitted by it.

would most consider the realm of predictive hypotheses based on theory alone, rather than emipiricle observation, to be outside of the realm of science? would we then consider much of cosmology to not actually be science, for example? the hypothesis of black holes for example; would we consider that to NOT be scientific, because it was based on an analysis of theory, rather than on actual observation?

— Sir_Toejam

what are being observed, IIRC, are the results of black holes (accretion disks, radiation spikes, etc.), not black holes themselves (I'm not completely up to date, but I can't see how one could actually observe a black hole, er, because it's a black... hole... :) moreover, the origninal hypothesis of black holes was not based on direct observations of their effects, but was originally based on aspects of what parts of relativity theory predicted should be there, and was MUCH later found to be so.

STJ
er take away the Black hole as a model and explain the actual observations and er ...I'll have to invent a light hole with a super dense core.
same as
My neighbor dug a huge hole to get a tree stump out and I had a lot of sand I wanted to get rid of and suggested I could help him, he refused because he had an excess of sand as well. I jokingly told him I could just fill it when he wasn't there and he would have trouble proving I filled it.
Now if it came to a court squabble I'm sure the lawyers would be trying to argue that I stole his hole.

> incorrect. i can easily observe the device emmitting the photons (a monitor), unlike a black hole.

No, you cannot observe the device itself, only the photons, i.e. the "result" of the device. Ditto for black holes.

A science is a field of inquiry where hypotheses are generated from and tested by observations of the subject of inquiry

I was going to make the same point quetzal but the problem goes way beyond creationists just denying the obvious they create fictional fantasies that are so far removed from reality that they think THEY ARE real.

Even though we will never actually observe the object or event in question.

I just wanted to weigh in on this whole "mathematics is/isn't a science" debate (and, by the way, de-lurk myself here at the Thumb). This is based on my understanding, YMMV, and so on...

The question isn't about whether calculations, done in a computer, are or are not physical representations; this is the question "is arithmetic a science." While this may be interesting, it's not the question that Caldonian raised.

The reason that mathematics isn't a science is that facts are provable in it. If you accept the postulates of the system that the mathematician is using, then you follow all of a the steps in the proof and say, conclusively, that the mathematician is right (or disagree with a point of logic in the mathematician's proof, and say he's wrong, but let's assume perfect mathematicians).

Take, as an example, that the sum of all interior angles in a triangle in euclidean space adds to 180 degrees. As long as you accept the whole arbitrary 360 degrees in a circle and the postulates of euclidean geometry, there's no way you can disagree with this. You don't have to measure a single triangle, because all of the steps of the proof are incontrovertible. The truth can be nothing but that.

(And don't bring up that you have to diagram the triangle with pen on paper or stick in dirt or chalk on chalkboard; that's freshman philosophy have-you-ever-really-looked-at-your-hand stuff. If your point is that trivial, why bother making it? The underlying logic is substrate neutral, so who cares?)

Science, on the other hand, is messier. Take, as an example, measuring the acceleration due to gravity. You can have no idea, no matter what assumptions you make, what it's supposed to be. You have to measure the force somehow, with lots of trials, and then average all your results to find your value, and then present it to people who have done the same sorts of experiments to see what they say, and they can just invalidate your results by saying "What? You didn't do this in a vacuum?"

There is some shading, especially now that we have computers, and people use arithmetic to test mathematics. If you have a mathematical theorem that isn't proven but is replicated on a computer, is it science or math? I'd say it's science until an actual proof is generated.

Science, on the other hand, is easier to define: if you can prove it, than it's not science; it's mathematics or theology.

Duke York

Wrong. What I said was: "Math generates models - it doesn't deal with absolute reality, no more than any other kind of science deals with absolute reality." Neither math nor science deal with "absolute reality". They deal in physical reality, which is point I made several times.

— caledonian

You've just made a strawman worthy of Intelligent Design itself. You're not William Dembski by any chance, are you?

"Neither math nor science deal with "absolute reality". They deal in physical reality, which is point I made several times."

Sorry, I'm getting a bit confused here. It's been a few decades since I took my last philosophy class. What is the distinction between "absolute reality" and "physical reality"?

"Second of all, if you take away physical reality, there's no sense in which "2+2=4" is meaningful."

Please explain this statement. What does a physical reality add to the "meaning" of the truth of "2+2=4"? The statement is either true, or it is not. How does a physical reality (or its lack) change that?

hehe wrote: No, you cannot observe the device itself, only the photons, i.e. the "result" of the device. Ditto for black holes.

@hehe

stop it already, your embarassing yourself.

KE and others concerned about black holes; I would prefer if you all would address the point of my post, rather than the particular subject used to make it. Like i said. the black hole hypothesis was not based on direct observation, or even indirect, of anything at all; it was a prediction based on parts of relativity theory, nothing more. go look it up if you don't believe me.

Now please address the real issue at hand, which is whether we can claim the purview of science includes predictions based purely on theory, rather than observation.

if it does, why does that preclude theoretical mathematics from the purview of science?

and, of course, all of this predicates we MUST agree on a definition of science to begin with.

so unless someone is willing to volunteer, i claim this whole debate is a waste of time.

It certainly looks like your asserting the only connection between science and math is the the fact that they both need data processors of some kind.

Take, as an example, that the sum of all interior angles in a triangle in euclidean space adds to 180 degrees. As long as you accept the whole arbitrary 360 degrees in a circle and the postulates of euclidean geometry, there's no way you can disagree with this. You don't have to measure a single triangle, because all of the steps of the proof are incontrovertible. The truth can be nothing but that.

(And don't bring up that you have to diagram the triangle with pen on paper or stick in dirt or chalk on chalkboard; that's freshman philosophy have-you-ever-really-looked-at-your-hand stuff. If your point is that trivial, why bother making it? The underlying logic is substrate neutral, so who cares?)

Most scientists I know say math is not a science because it's not based on observation and empirical data. All the rest is arguing.

It takes a brain to do sex; Therefore sex is math. Science is sex

— Paul Flocken

Physics is to math what sex is to masturbation. Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it. Mathematics is not real, but it feels real. Where is this place?

right. this goes back to what I was always taught about the purview of science, that it includes theory based on direct observation, as WELL as predictions arising from analysis of theory itself.

Now please address the real issue at hand, which is whether we can claim the purview of science includes predictions based purely on theory, rather than observation.

Physical systems (such as computers) instantiate, as best as they can, our formal models, but the models are still formal, and not physical.

Take, as an example, that the sum of all interior angles in a triangle in euclidean space adds to 180 degrees. As long as you accept the whole arbitrary 360 degrees in a circle and the postulates of euclidean geometry, there's no way you can disagree with this. You don't have to measure a single triangle, because all of the steps of the proof are incontrovertible.

Having studied Mathmatic to PhD level, can affirm that Mathematics in itself is not a scientific discipline, this is nothing to be particularly ashamed of it just simply isnt.

However that said many of those who work in the Mathematics departments at various univiersities do work within an empirical framework and context. So with respect to aspects of applied maths with applications in physics/geology/biology they are working scientifically following the scientific method and therefore can legitimately be called scientists.

In the case of dembski who clearly doesnt work in a empirical context and has produced no work as such there is no way one can call him a scientist.

I'd already explained it several times. Let's try it once more: Math involves the study of the relationships between concepts by observing their interactions.

— Caledonian

There is no way to perform mathematics without observing physical systems that embody those concepts.

You can use an electronic computer, or work it out on paper, or perform the logical operations in your head, but one way or another you have to observe the output of a computational system to draw conclusions.

A science is a field of inquiry in which hypotheses about the subject of study are both produced and tested through examination of the subject.

I think Duke York gave the best answer. Pure math isn't really a science, it's a formal logical system. Math can certainly be used to do science, but one doesn't really predict new mathematical observations. Mathematical relationships are either true or false, based on the postulates one chooses to start from.

— qetzal

I'm looking to get bill dembski on my science talk show in the coming months, someone here mentioned Dembski on tape saying that ID is religious apologetics designed to undermine scientific materialism.

I want that audio clip.

I want to know where it was said and when.

If I have to pay for shipping, I will, just drop me a message at my website. But it would be way better if someone had it in mp3 form.
Thanks,
Karl

Re: Black Hole observations

Black holes possess 3 observable characteristics: charge, spin, & gravity.

The gravity wave experiment (Einstein@Home) is actually looking for the emission of gravity waves during such events as black hole formations, supernovas, neutron star mergers, etc.

So it is as direct an observation as viewing photons from stars.

Concepts don't interact with each other, since a concept is not a tangible or measurable entity.

— Dave Mescher

As has been amply demonstrated, this is false.

Basic arithmetic generally corresponds to a physical system (and is easily implemented with a physical system), but arithmetic is not the entireity of mathematics, either.

One cannot usefully perform mathematics without being able to communicate, but the tool used for transmission of a message does not (well, should not) change the contents or characteristics of the message.

One can perform mathematics without testing or examining anything physical.

They're incontrovertible because the manifestations of concepts in our minds, due to the properties they have, lead inevitably to that conclusion... assuming perfect mathematicians. Except that there's no such thing as a "perfect mathematician".

— caledonian

A mathematician can err, and still be convinced his reasoning was correct. The human science of mathematics is still based off of inferences and observations - it's just much, much more reliable than many other fields in which experimentation is harder.

The human mind is not somehow separated from the rest of the universe. Not categorically, not empirically, not at all. It doesn't matter if we're observing the patterns of electricity running through logic gates or performing and observing a computational system within our own minds - either way, it's still empiricism. Our conclusions are not somehow absolute merely because they're ours.

Wrong. People have presented examples of using human neurology to manifest computational systems - they still have not given even a single example of math performed without a physical system to work with and observe.

One cannot usefully perform mathematics without being able to communicate, but the tool used for transmission of a message does not (well, should not) change the contents or characteristics of the message.

Math *is* science. If you disagree, please present an example of math being performed without the empirical testing of hypotheses about and with a physical system.

Why did so many people object?

Cal wrote in Comment #71460 Math involves the study of the relationships between concepts by observing their interactions. There is no way to perform mathematics without observing physical systems that embody those concepts. You can use an electronic computer, or work it out on paper, or perform the logical operations in your head, but one way or another you have to observe the output of a computational system to draw conclusions. ("People" are not required - whoever it was who started talking about "people" being necessary pulled that straight out of a hat.)

A science is a field of inquiry in which hypotheses about the subject of study are both produced and tested through examination of the subject.

Therefore, math is a science. It is subject to the same limitations as other sciences, and has the same powers as other sciences.

Many concepts in mathematics deal with things that do not and cannot actually exist. Lines of infinite length, for example.

A blind, quadriplegic mathematician can still prove all the interior angles of a triangle (in a Euclidean space) add up to 180 degrees, even though the poor mathematician is incapable of observing one.

Caledonian you have forgotten one important difference between science and maths

time

concepts are not observations of the real world they are memes and do not require a starting event outsideof the mind.

the big bang has been observed and proved.

Even a child knows about cause and effect
Produce your infinite line Sir
and I'll present god

By your twisted definitions, it would be impossible to present at all.

— Dave Mescher

This is pointless. It's clear you're not capable of grasping this, and I'm tiring of trying. Good evening, sir.

You mean, tiring of trolling don't you?

Stop feeding him, people.

Well, it must annoy DaveScot a great deal to be openly ridiculed --- that's always worthwhile.

— Arden Chatfield

Inoculated Mind Did you mean puerile? "Panties in a bunch" is a common American expression. I chose it for continuity with past comments where I called Dawkins a girly-man. Interestingly, I'm unsure if girly-man is a uniquely American expression. Girly-man was popularized about 20 years ago on Saturday Night Live, a very American comedy show, in a repeating parody skit of body-builder Arnold Schwartzeneggar. Ahnold is now the governor of California (truth is stranger than fiction). Anyhow, the Governator (a term coined to combine the word governor with Arnie's most famous movie roles as "The Terminator") is Austrian. And his father was a Nazi. So anyway, girly-man faded into relative disuse many moons ago. Possibly even a coon's age ago. But Ahnold recently resurrected it by publically calling the California state legislature in Sacremento "girly men" for not being able to reach some difficult decision. So what do you think, is girly-man an American expression or what? By the way, innoculated is spelled with two n's. How about if I go ahead and delete you so you can return using real words in your name and comments? Comment by DaveScot --- January 13, 2006 @ 7:14 pm

— DaveScot

k.e.:

thanks very much for the gravity wave links. I was aware of LISA project. I thought from your previous post that someone had already observed these waves. Still, thanx much for the specific links; i had not visited them before.

Every time you demonstrate that a conclusion follows from an argument, you're predicting that when the experiment is repeated (when someone else hears the argument, for example) they will reach the same conclusion. It's a prediction about a system of concepts, based on observations of your personal conceptual representations interacting.

— Caledonian

For crying out loud, would it kill you people to read Godel, Escher, Bach a few times?

Caledonian wrote: Yeah, that's the thing about tautologies - only fools try to argue against them

Caledonian wrote: If you think tautologies are meaningless, Mr. Flocken, well, let's just point out that every correct conclusion, when presented along with its premises, is tautological.

I think caledonian is coming from a position that the medieval scholastics would have called nominalism. He is denying the existence of a transcendant realm in which ideas can exist independantly, without needing people to think them or physical objects to display them. It is a classic way of dispensing with all those capitalized abstractions like Truth and Justice and is not at all such a bizarre notion. I do not, however, see how holding or denying it is particularly relevant to Jack Kreb's original post.

It's Mr. Kreb's second point - that math isn't science. I don't believe that position is defensible. It's not really a major point in his arguments, though.

Well, I have a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering, and I say Dembski's no scientist...

People seem to have been arguing about whether math is or is not a science for some time (both in this thread and in the parts of the world where such questions are important). It seems to degenerate into philosophical schools of thought and questions like whether a concept is a physical thing and if relationships can interact and what do we mean by "reality"

I do not know whether math is a science or metaphysics (according to the Kansas BOE the study of the supernatural is a science so I guess they are the ones who get to decide) but it seems likely to me that the question itself is philosophical. Let the philosophers of science hash this out. The rest of us should get back to our discussions on pipetting and stamp collecting.

Would modern medical research, like finding antibiotics and antivirals, developing nucleic acid tests for viruses and researching genetic diseases count as pipetting or stamp collecting? What about studying biofilms that clog medical devices? RNA interference research? I wonder if the Discovery Institute will start training medical students after today's generation of high school students have given up on boring old biology as taught in the creation states.

Would modern medical research, like finding antibiotics and antivirals, developing nucleic acid tests for viruses and researching genetic diseases count as pipetting or stamp collecting? What about studying biofilms that clog medical devices? RNA interference research?

Math is the field of inquiry where concepts are studied. The only way those concepts *can* be studied is by an examination of systems that embody them.

Math involves the study of the relationships between concepts by observing their interactions. There is no way to perform mathematics without observing physical systems that embody those concepts. You can use an electronic computer, or work it out on paper, or perform the logical operations in your head, but one way or another you have to observe the output of a computational system to draw conclusions

It's Mr. Kreb's second point - that math isn't science. I don't believe that position is defensible. It's not really a major point in his arguments, though.

Thanks Caledonian, for helping the cause of ID.

Except that there's no such thing as a "perfect theologian". A theologian
can err, and still be convinced his reasoning was correct.
The human science of theology is still based off of inferences and observations
- it's just much, much more reliable than many other fields in which
experimentation is harder. (Which is both simpler to operate and more abundant:
particle accelerators or human brains?)

Spirtual operation can be performed in any sufficiently complex physical system,
and ALL of our spiritual operations are performed in such systems that God gave us.
Electronic computers can be spirtual, just as we can.
We've even taught some of them to console the sick,
which is quite a bit harder than traditional forms of counseling.
Ultimately the distiction between "physical" and "informational" is arbitrary,
determined only by the relationship of the system to the system the observer
is embodied in, but I don't dare do more than mention that line of argument.

The human mind is not somehow separated from God or the rest of the universe.
Not categorically, not empirically, not at all. It doesn't matter if we're
observing the patterns of God's creation or performing and observing a
prayer within our own minds - either way, it's still empiricism.
Our conclusions are not somehow absolute merely because they're ours. Only God's conclusions are absolute and we can only approach them empirically.

When you're studying the bible and you produce conclusions about that
bible from observations of the world, and those conclusions can be tested
by further observations - that's what we call "science". And that is precisely
what religion is.

If you consider this "bizarre", well, you've got a lot of catching up to do.

Holy sh*t you're right!

I signed up for their comments, and commented something to the effect of above...mentioning that anyone with a passing familiarity with the Neyman-Pearson Lemma and Shannon-Kolmogorov theory would know where Dembski's coming from, so to speak.

Guess what?

Presto-change-o my comment ain't there this morming.

I'm trying to see how long I can keep in Uncommon Descent, for the first time in a while I have gotten them to try to justify the kind of "Viewpoint Discrimination" that they do there. They basically said, we can't talk about this anywhere else, so we get to ban all opposing viewpoints from here.

Now they're talking about how to make money off of ID since the NSF won't fund them.

My issue with that weblog is that it does nothing to further rational discussion of science, or issues, or anything for that matter. I'm going to be putting my first post on my blog talking about just that.

If anyone's interested this weekend, follow my name...!

I'm glad to see Paul Flocken take apart the claim Caledonian made and show why it's wrong. "about...a physical system" is Caledonian's big error, though a lot of people spent time letting him argue "with a physical system".

My issue with that weblog is that it does nothing to further rational discussion of science, or issues, or anything for that matter. I'm going to be putting my first post on my blog talking about just that.

Caledonian needs a better theory of reference.

That said, I had an interesting argument with Mario Bunge once about why he calls logic, mathematics, and a few other fields "formal sciences". The answer is that they fit the purely formal characteristics of his characterization of factual science, so it is sort of for that reason and by tradition (particularly in German). Incidentally, his characterization of science is multifaceted and not oversimplistic like most and is worth reading. (One current place it can be found is in his Finding Philosophy in Social Science.)

This is an argument over semantics, and thus impossible to "win"; people are free to adopt any definitions of the words "math" and "science" they choose, and even the most-widely-adopted definitions for these words are not fixed.

— Andrew McClure

Russians are notoriously paranoid conspiracy theorists and bald faced liars

I for one am very excited to see that DaveScot is one of the one's in charge of Dembski's blog. If Dembski sees DaveScot as one of the better people for the job, then it is safe t osay that they are admitting ID is a joke concept.

Anyway, I have a few interesting notes on DaveScot and my correspondance with him.

I made the claim that Dembski holds IC to be a special case of CSI, which Dembski does in Chapter 5 in his book NFL. Even though I presented the quote several times to DaveScot, all he could muster up was, "The flagellum is held out as an example in irreducible complexity not CSI" (Comment #12).

What I was trying to push for was that the ID proponents come up with a calculation for all of the IC entities that they think exist since, if they do not do the calculation (which is how they say ID is scientific), then all the are presenting are naive perceptions and intuitions. What is intersting though is why Dembski, since NFL, has not added on to the calculations that he did on the flagellum onto the blood clotting cascade. I will leave others who are more qualified in the mathematical parts of Dembski's work to see if his account in Chapter five are correct, but as far as his conceptual interpretations on complexity and specification are lacking credibility. A link from Murray Gell-Mann, researcher at the Santa Fe Institute, entitled [i]What is Complexity?: http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/mgm/complexity.html . Additionally, specification already, along with complexity, presupposes an intelligence (namely human intelligence) to be deemed scientific.

Anyway, it is hard to take DaveScot seriously that, after showing him several times what Dembski actually wrote, DaveScot spoke some inspiring words, "I independently arrived at most of Dembski's conclusions without reading his work. You know the expression "great minds think alike"? Since you have no way of knowing let me assure you now that the expression is true" (Comment #29).

Thus, DaveScot has not even read Dembski's work and I pointed this out to Dembski in an email. Thus, we come full circle to my first point, Dembski put a man in charge of his blog who has not even read his work. Are the ID proponents constantly complaining that Darwinists criticize ID without reading ID papers and books? Why didn't Dembski make a big deal when I brought it to his attention that even his own follower isn't reading his work? Thus, it makes one wonder how DaveScot can make this comment, "There's nothing religious in Bill's mathematical treatment of design detection nor in Behe's irreducible complexity" (Comment #9).

One last note, DaveScot cannot even be taken seriously as an independent scholar. On comment #64 DaveScot presents a "quote" from Prigogine, Gregair, Babbyabtz. However, after looking into the matter, I found that that exact quote is only found on creationist sites (it must be noted that DaveScot says he distances himself from creationists). I found the actual paper online and that quote was not in the paper. What it was was a paraphrase and then the author (not DaveScot) added the implication that the origin of life is improbable by natural causes, where in fact they argued that order occurs far-from-equlibrium. It was obvious that DaveScot did not read the article, but only took the quote (opps, I mean paraphrase depicted as a quote). Once again, he showed us that he did not read the topic in question, just as he has not read Dembski.

Furthermore, when confronted about this, DaveScot took an odd turn. He wrote, "Where on earth did you find me saying anything at all about some cat named Priogione? I don't know him from Adam and neither quoted him nor made any other comments about him. In fact I have no bloody idea who he is and quite frankly I'm not about to waste any more time indulging your juvenile maunderings in junk science. Adios" (Comment #87).

So he does not even know what he posts and what topics he is writing about. But his excuse was even more amazing, "
95, 87I'm bad with names. I was more interested in a two-time Nobel prize winner's words than his name and didn't recall it. I recalled the content of the quote immediately" (Comment #95). Unfortunately, later in that post he claims it is an accurrate paraphrase, even though I provided a quote by Prigogine, as mentioned above, that Prigogine says how order arises by natural means. He still did not get it why one should not present an idea as a quote, where it is a bad paraphrase, "BFD" (Comment #98).

Thus, it is safe to say that DaveScot has no credentials in this debate, even if he is an independent scholar, or even though, "Dell Computer Corporation paid me millions of dollars for my absurd thinking. The U.S. patent office doesn't think it's so absurd either" (Comment #35).

I am just curious why DaveScot thinks engineerers are better biologists than biologists. I know he thinks engineerers are better abled to detect design, but that is presupposing that detection is even necessary. One has to question the conceptual and mathematical tools in ID first, before one has an engineer in the biology lab, something DaveScot wants to ignore.

Sorry for the rant.

Brian

Basically, mathematics does not describe "reality" and this is, in fact, why it is useful. The constructs described in mathematical models are independent of any systems which may "embody" them. They live off in their own little universe of pure logic somewhere. They may or may not actually "exist" in any reasonable sense of that word. They do not need to. The point of mathematics is not to be "real" or "true". The point is to be consistent.

Sorry, here is the link for where all the comments DaveScot made can be found: http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/223#comments

Math can do work without any reference to the physical world at all, and I will give you an example later.

— Paul Flocken

It really sounds like all you're saying here is that no one would be studying math if no one existed to study math.

Now they're talking about how to make money off of ID since the NSF won't fund them.

Math has the "repeatable" or consistent component of science, but not the "observation" component. It is actually a language, with its own internal logic and consistencies, and not necessarily related to reality. Like English, it can express all kinds of imaginary concepts.

We cannot refer to or indicate mathematical concepts without referring to or indicating the physical systems in which they're emulated.

The things that the concepts are about are imaginary. The concepts themselves are perfectly real.

What kind of dualism claims that the world is composed of two elements: the physical, and the linguistic? Languages without physical manifestations do not exist.

@ Brian alias Sartre

On balance I think DaveScot is a huge asset for those who wish to debunk ID. I am amazed at your patience and eloquence, and I'm sorry I missed this when dipping in to Uncommon Dissent before. Presumably you were banned soon after. :)

Posted by Caledonian on January 13, 2006 02:45 PM (e) (s) Just a note in passing: Math *is* science. If you disagree, please present an example of math being performed without the empirical testing of hypotheses about and with a physical system.

Math *is* science. If you disagree, please present an example of math being performed without the empirical testing of hypotheses about and with a physical system.

— Caledonian

Sewing *is* science. If you disagree, please present an example of sewing being performed without the empirical testing of hypotheses about and with a physical system.

Alan,

Yes I was banned, but not for that thread. I got a little heated afterwards seeing the true nature behind these people. The sad thing is is that Dembski banned me, but not those who called me an idiot atheist. It makes one wonder want posts Dembski thinks are boring (the reason why he bans people).

Brian

We cannot refer to or indicate mathematical concepts without referring to or indicating the physical systems in which they're emulated.

Math *is* science. If you disagree, please present an example of math being performed without the empirical testing of hypotheses about and with a physical system.

Languages without physical manifestations do not exist.

What I'm saying there is that the world is not dualistically divided into abstract and concrete realities.

If we take the above quote, it would seem to indicate that mathematical concepts are separate from physical systems. If the concept is either emulated in or indicated by a physical system, then they are in some way different.

Simply put, the entirety of human experience would fall under the realm of science, since there will always be some implicit assumption (or hypothesis, if you prefer) you make about the consistency of the results of your actions, whether they be mechanical or mental (less obviously).

A = A.

— Andrew McClure

Category theory.

"Languages without physical manifestations do not exist." Turquoise bicycle shoe fins actualize radishes greenly.

The language {A => aA | bA | b} suggests no physical representation or significance. It contains strings of any length two or greater of symbol a's and symbol b's, so long as the string ends with a b. Do you plan on claiming that you can imagine a physical system which you can imagine that language describing, and therefore the language describes physical entities?

Um, I don't know where "the world" comes into it, but there are, in fact, abstract concepts in human thought. They aren't "reality", I wouldn't say--- that is after all what "abstract" means, that it doesn't really exist.

Sympathy or doom are not concrete entities. It is in no way unreasonable to refer to concrete and abstract as distinct concepts.

You seem here to be pushing some kind of extreme form of platonic philosophy as if it were objective fact.

"Languages without physical manifestations do not exist." Turquoise bicycle shoe fins actualize radishes greenly. The language itself is still a physical representation. Duh.

The language {A => aA | bA | b} suggests no physical representation or significance. It contains strings of any length two or greater of symbol a's and symbol b's, so long as the string ends with a b. Do you plan on claiming that you can imagine a physical system which you can imagine that language describing, and therefore the language describes physical entities? That statement refers to a series of concepts. Those concepts are physical.

ID blogs have nothing like that, because their ideas don't illuminate anything scientific, and they're usually not scientists. Can you imagine Casey Luskin or DaveScot writing anything like the above links?

Well, I dunno, Luskin recently had some interesting ideas concerning the human-chimp genome and the missing chromosome.

I hear PZ Myers and RPM gave it Two Thumbs Up!

Or did they? (/end snark)

then it is safe t osay that they are admitting ID is a joke concept.

Mathematics is about the interaction of concepts, and the one and only way concepts can be manipulated is within computational systems.

A = A.

Turquoise bicycle shoe fins actualize radishes greenly

But only insofar as green dreams sleep furiously!

Have to put my two cents in here. I think math is near the borderline of science vs. not science, so that slightly different definitions might put it on one side or the other. Pure math doesn't depend on physical properties of the systems doing the calculations (or relaying the results to other people), so if science means study of physical systems then math isn't science. And that being what I take "science" to mean, so imo math isn't science.

Otoh, if science is defined as a study involving experiments - well, development of new axiom systems does involve experiments, to figure out what's useful, and to check for inconsistencies. (On that last point, the history of development of transfinite set theory comes to mind. It started without use of axioms, until somebody discovered some really pesky paradoxes in it. )

Henry

A representation of something is not the thing itself, and this holds true even for concepts. Duh.

They are not physical and cannot be embodied.

Mathematics does not become a physical system because physical humans think about it, any more than "design" becomes present because Dembski percieves design. Your thoughts are physical entities in the sense that they're made up of electrical impulses and neuron structures and whatnot, sure, but thoughts about math aren't math, they're just a representation of math. You are confusing the representation of the thing for the thing itself, and yelling at anyone who doesn't want to do the same.

A representation of something is not the thing itself, and this holds true even for concepts. Duh. Yes, but the concepts ARE the representation. Duh.

Dualism...

math is physical.

If this is an accurate summary of your point, you're not even talking about mathematics, then. You're talking about mathematicians.

— Andrew McClure

Because of Kitzmiller v. Dover, school boards and state legislators may tread more cautiously, but tread on evolution they will --- the culture war demands it!

The idea that intelligent design is purely an "American thing" or an "evangelical Christian thing" can therefore no longer be maintained.

intelligent design still has much to accomplish in developing its scientific and intellectual program.

Instead of ruling narrowly on the actual Dover policy, Judge Jones saw his chance to enter the history books by assuming an activist role

Just as a tree that has been "rimmed" (i.e., had its bark completely cut through on all sides) is effectively dead even if it retains its leaves and appears alive, so Darwinism has met its match with the movement initiated by Phillip Johnson. Expect Darwinism's death throes, like Judge Jones's decision, to continue for some time. But don't mistake death throes for true vitality. Ironically, Judge Jones's decision is likely to prove a blessing for the intelligent design movement, spurring its proponents to greater heights and thereby fostering its intellectual vitality and ultimate success.

Posted by Ben on January 14, 2006 05:41 PM (e) (s) Anyone seen Dembski's latest fantasy? Here are some choice bits: ... I'm shocked, is that a rare bit of honesty I see from William "I lie for Jesus!" Dembski?...

After checking out their blog, which is akin to the weekly AV Club meeting,...I'm reminded of the old Wendy's commercial of the 80's..."Where's the Beef!"

"Where's the Science!"

Ah, the so word "green" is actually green. Thanks, I didn't know that.

Comment #71832 Posted by Red Right Hand on January 14, 2006 03:37 PM (e) (s) ID blogs have nothing like that, because their ideas don't illuminate anything scientific, and they're usually not scientists. Can you imagine Casey Luskin or DaveScot writing anything like the above links? Well, I dunno, Luskin recently had some interesting ideas concerning the human-chimp genome and the missing chromosome.

ID is like a restaurant that doesn't serve anything. You go in, and say, "What kind of food do you have?" and they say "Outback Sucks." And you say, "Well, do you have any food I can eat?" and they say "It's not our job to match Outback's pathetic quantity of Bloomin Onions."

And then later you find out their cooks are mechanics and woodworkers, because "Who says cooks have the credentials to cook food?"

Expect Darwinism's death throes

Darwinism has met its match with the movement initiated by Phillip Johnson. Expect Darwinism's death throes, like Judge Jones's decision, to continue for some time. But don't mistake death throes for true vitality.

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on January 14, 2006 06:18 PM (e) (s) ... Waterlo !!! Waterloo !!!! Waterloo !!!!!!!!! Too funny.

I get seriously nauseated when I read uncommon dissent. Dembski is such a knob. Usually his excuse for banning people is that they become "boring". His little blog troll DaveScot is now running that sad excuse for cybergarbage as if it is his little dictatorship. Soon, DaveScot's head just has to explode. I think his ego has nearly reached maximum capacity. Truly a sad spectacle over there. BTW, does anyone know what Dembski's annual income is? You know, ID has been very, very good to him!

And I get nauseated every time I see your dumb handle. Could you at least abbreviate: PSoTaS. Emphasis on aS(S).

I don't read UD. Don't know why anyone would. The best tidbits end up here anyway.

Lighten up, bro! We're all in this battle together, man. We are a team, remember?

yeah, you should change that disgusting name.

whoa, why all of the sudden negativity? Come on, we are all evolutionary brethren. We have to stick together!

What was wrong with describing it as Darwin's Waterloo? Don't forget Darwin was English.

for some reason i hear the quote as "ID been bery bery goo to me." i don't know why, but it makes me laugh.

I've complained about your name before. Creep.

Why the flaming? Have I insulted you like this? Geez, you're beginning to sound like a blog troll over at uncommon descent.

Mr Semen: Your screen name is so dirty and naughty and wrong, it's ruining my whole life. I was planning to go the rest of my years without reading, hearing or thinking the words "shaft" or "semen," and you've ruined everything. Now I am forced to just sit here and complain about how offended I am. You terrible person.

It's just inconsiderate.

yeah, that's just a terrible name.

nothing at all like mine, which of course comes from a rather famous song with a reference to playing barefoot football.

...

Otoh, if science is defined as a study involving experiments - well, development of new axiom systems does involve experiments, to figure out what's useful, and to check for inconsistencies.

— Henry J

Regarding the "math as science" discussion, I'll point out the following.

One, there are several distinct aspects of mathematics. One aspect is what I will refer to as "counting" which is used in accounting, etc.

Another is what I will refer to as a "language." I refer to it as "language" because it is used by scientists and others to succinctly describe and quantify their theories. They could do the same thing in verbal language, but it would take many more words than just presenting a few equations. Sometimes the equations can become quite esoteric--as is the case in Einstein's General Relativity, or Quantum Mechanics, but if one understands the language represented by the mathematics, he would understand what was being presented.

There are other aspects--I haven't studied topology enough to be able to classify it. But I haven't seen any aspect of mathematics that would lead me to classify it as a science--which I would consider to be a study of the natural universe.

How do credentials in biology qualify one to recognize design?

But I haven't seen any aspect of mathematics that would lead me to classify it as a science---which I would consider to be a study of the natural universe.

Caledonian:

scientific method: observe phenomenon, make hypothesis to explain it, test hypothesis by attempted falsifications.

This means ID and Alchemy are usually out. They start out with a desired end result (hypothesis) and skip observation. It is also why mathematics are out, to my knowledge. No observations are made.

Observations are made every time we feed the relevant data to a computational system and watch what results come out.

This is trivial. It shouldn't need to be openly stated, much less argued over.

All this talk of science/not science is killing me. Why is it even important? And don't refer me to Mr. Kreb's post or DaveScot's frothing. I read what they said, and I don't know why they're even bringing up whether or not math is science. In fact, this bickering over credentials is silly. It's the facts we're supposed to be bickering over, not who has taken the most classes possibly related to those facts. Can't we all just get along?

I'd say he unconsciously knows that LIVING THINGS ARE NOT DESIGNED

Tice Chill
I think it is helpful to "get inside" the Fundamentalist's thinking and try to see if their views are just plain cynical obscuring of the facts or if there is a flaw that can be exploded.

Caledonian
I started this a few days ago when I started to get to grips with your reasoning which I must say i have never come across before.

Dualism eh? Yes indeed the 'western' problem.
Hmmm me thinks your construction is a metaphysical method- a system of operations designed to to logically(or not) support a world view.
Generally a system that is constructed with some part of what may be factual taken into account and the rest is denied otherwise said system will "explode". Probable true for every world view BTW.

That Dualism you have correctly identified can quite easily be rationalized by have a theistic god and denying atheism and vice versa.

Theism
For the aware self/EGO What is known is known and what is unknown is god.
Taken to the extreme digestion would be equal to 'god'

Atheism
For the aware self/EGO What is known is known and what is unknown is not available to aware thought-reason(unknown)

Non Dualistic
Hinduism
What is known is IS GOD and what is unknown is IS GOD
The self... both the thinking abstract mind and that self's body IS PART OF THE WHOLE

However the Hindu 'god' is not your Yahweh or other SUN based sky daddy
The entire universe and all living things including the aware ego IS GOD
Consider the Hindu Greeting "Namatse".

Now as you are aware Kings and Priests get to set the agenda when setting the populations world view. Religions that grew up with invading infidels needed to make the outsiders ....well infidels. So having a vengeful god who can Holocaust the enemy (at the hands of the righteous of course) is well ....politically handy if not an absolute necessity. We are animals and everyone is going to have to get used to it. So for survival i.e. enlightened self interest a total neutrality to each others gods is a 'middle way'.

Buddhism is almost a Protestant version of Hinduism with the added kink the psyche is the creator of the world view and the various schools provide a metaphysics where the known and the unknown can be logically dealt with according to the way the individuals mind works with the known and the unknown, theists and atheists for "life long learning" "instant awakening" not necessarily in that order.

With all religions revealed knowledge(none of which is objective fact) is largely mundane everyday stuff, the really interesting bits (for me)are the bits that reveal what I don't already know and these are the dreams(unconscious revelation of desires and fears) and the modus operandi of those whose views I have not yet understood. Mostly religion reveals the desires and nature of the priests and kings who created them.

For me I need to be provoked to understand that and Caledonian you have provoked.

Caledonian your world view as with all others (including mine)reveals your desires and your fears nothing more....why? Because it is a projection of your persona, a mask that you(I) wear to tell the world what you(I) are acting out.
Note: this applies to all u other smug buggers as well :)

If "Caledonians Metaphysics^TM" is used to support a method for observing nature that reduces inner conflict then why would you need to tell others ?

That is begging the question :)

The Fundamentalist's worst enemy and our greatest ally.

I can see that your system would work fine ....if you didn't "think about it" and just BE that is almost Zen.

I collect quotes, with a section for whack-jobs, and I'd like to properly credit DaveScot for "Biology is a cross between pipetting and stamp collecting." Is his actual name and affiliation known?

Caledonian seems to be a one-issue crank with digital diarrhea, determined to impose his own dictionary or semantic scheme on the world, despite the distinctions made between math and science by vitually everyone. Reminds me of the IDiots redefinition and deliberate misunderstanding of "scientific theory," and I wonder whether that is coincidence or trolling.

In fairness to Caledonian dkew he seems to be genuine, using what appears to me, a unique metaphysics to support his world view that just happens to appear like some of the arguments the ID crowd use. His posts on other threads show he seems to understand the evolution evidence and the wackiness of the ID crowd , it takes all sorts.

All this talk of science/not science is killing me. Why is it even important?

From Wikipedia, which basically sums it all up well (not that it will convince Caledonia):

"Mathematics is often referred to as a science, but the fruits of mathematical sciences, known as theorems, are obtained by logical derivations, which presume axiomatic systems rather than a combination of observation and reasoning. Many mathematical methods have fundamental utility in the empirical sciences, of which the fruits are hypotheses and theories."

Math and science are fundamentally distinct and blurring that distinction serves no good purpose (unless one is, like Dembski, frying fish for some reason).

Just for the record, in response to a couple of comments early in this thread: Michael Ruse is neither a lightweight nor a crank. He's a distinguished philosopher of biology and a thoroughgoing supporter of evolution by natural selection. His book Darwin and Design makes this clear, and also sets the bar for Christian belief in a Darwinian world fairly high. In brief, a Darwinian Christian must believe, Ruse argues, that this is the best of all possible worlds: that is, that God works through evolution and that, despite extinction, parasitism, and that damn vermiform appendix, no other mode of creation would have been better. I find that a sterling example of the stark separation of science and faith, though I do not agree with Ruse's conclusion.

In brief, a Darwinian Christian must believe, Ruse argues, that this is the best of all possible worlds: that is, that God works through evolution and that, despite extinction, parasitism, and that damn vermiform appendix, no other mode of creation would have been better.

The above typos being, of course, evidence of an imperfect and naturally-arising universe...

Re "An ID supporter, on the other hand, has to believe that God considered parasitism such a wonderful idea that he took special trouble to independently add it in."
Yeah, that by itself would make me wonder about the I.D. advocates viewpoint - if everything really were "designed" the way they appear to want people to think, it says some bad things about the "designer" that I somehow don't think they're actually wanting to say (or wanting people to think). But they don't seem to think it through to the point of realizing what they're actually implying?

If it weren't for this point, I'd think their beloved conjecture were wishful thinking, but with this above point in mind, I'm puzzled as to what exactly it is they're wishing for. (Well, besides $ contributions and political power.)

Henry

Yeah, that by itself would make me wonder about the I.D. advocates viewpoint - if everything really were "designed" the way they appear to want people to think, it says some bad things about the "designer" that I somehow don't think they're actually wanting to say (or wanting people to think). But they don't seem to think it through to the point of realizing what they're actually implying?

DaveScot sent me an email with only two sentences, and he managed to completely prove the point I was making in one of my first posts at my blog, and at the same time show himself to be the egomaniac that he is:
"I modified it a bit so it strips your URL but leaves your name. That way the embarrassment factor is maximized while at the same time you don't get to plug your blog on mine."

He seems to think that Uncommon Descent is HIS blog.

Click on http://www.inoculatedmind.com/?p=10 to view the blog entry. I welcome comments.

We always knew Davey boy was nuts.

do we need to keep piling on the evidence?

mentally ill patients often don't see themselves as nuts.

eventually, someone has to force them to take medication, which I'm sure WD40 will do when he gets bored of having his own personal "axemaniac" running unleashed on his blog.

I've mentioned this before, but it appears obvious to me that these shenanigans started shortly after WD40's initial statement that he was shutting down his blog.

seems obvious to me that letting a crazy axe-murderer run around on your blog is a much more entertaining way of shutting it down.

I've managed to save up roughly $18431 in my bank account, but I'm not sure if I should buy a house or not. Do you think the market is stable or do you think that home prices will decrease by a lot?