[totally OT] NYT Article about Intelligent Design

[Ernst Noch]

Thought some people here might be interested in this article by Daniel
C. Dennett about Intelligent Design

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html?pagewanted=1

Mainly just applying Popper, but a nice read nonetheless.

With some creativity, one might even be able to abuse his method of
reasoning for on topic stuff.

 

[Bill C]

Ernst Noch wrote:
> Thought some people here might be interested in this article by Daniel
> C. Dennett about Intelligent Design
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html?pagewanted=1
>
> Mainly just applying Popper, but a nice read nonetheless.
>
> With some creativity, one might even be able to abuse his method of
> reasoning for on topic stuff.
Thanks for that. As people have said "For those who believe no
explanation is necessary, for those who don't none is possible." And I
haven't seen any evidence of divine intervention. I have seen a handful
of people who are absolute geniuses at manipulating the public, and
creating power for themselves to the detriment of the world.
Bill C

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>, Ernst Noch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Thought some people here might be interested in this article by Daniel
> C. Dennett about Intelligent Design
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html?pagewanted=1
>
> Mainly just applying Popper, but a nice read nonetheless.
>
> With some creativity, one might even be able to abuse his method of
> reasoning for on topic stuff.

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Jeff Jones]

Ernst Noch wrote:
> Thought some people here might be interested in this article by Daniel
> C. Dennett about Intelligent Design
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html?pagewanted=1
>
> Mainly just applying Popper, but a nice read nonetheless.
>
> With some creativity, one might even be able to abuse his method of
> reasoning for on topic stuff.

RBR is proof that Intelligent Design is a load of bollocks. Discuss.

N.B. Alluding to the Helmet Thread earns 5 demerit points.

Jeff

 

[Bill C]

Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Ernst Noch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Thought some people here might be interested in this article by Daniel
> > C. Dennett about Intelligent Design
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html?pagewanted=1
> >
> > Mainly just applying Popper, but a nice read nonetheless.
> >
> > With some creativity, one might even be able to abuse his method of
> > reasoning for on topic stuff.
>
> http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Butter is love.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Here's another example of dangerous morons at work:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/28/AR2005082800019.html
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W164251BB

SMYRNA, Tenn. -- Members of a church say God is punishing American
soldiers for defending a country that harbors gays, and they brought
their anti-gay message to the funerals Saturday of two Tennessee
soldiers killed in Iraq.

I can't think of a whole lot that is more despicable or disgusting than
this, on so many levels. The term "lowest form of life" comes to mind.
Read the rest if you have the stomach. I'm surprised that this
administration didn't send an official envoy out with the protesters.
Bill C

 

[Robert Chung]

Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/08/19/pastafarianism_flyin.html

 

[Bill C]

Robert Chung wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
> >
> > http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2
>
> http://www.boingboing.net/2005/08/19/pastafarianism_flyin.html

http://www.ology.org/principia/
Bill C

 

[Philip Holman]

"Ernst Noch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thought some people here might be interested in this article by Daniel
> C. Dennett about Intelligent Design
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html?pagewanted=1
>
> Mainly just applying Popper, but a nice read nonetheless.
>
> With some creativity, one might even be able to abuse his method of
> reasoning for on topic stuff.

"Fortunately for physicists, there is no powerful motivation for such a
band of mischief-makers to form. They don't have to spend much time
persuading people that quantum physics and Einsteinian relativity really
have been established beyond all reasonable doubt".

A shaky foundation for a start. Quantum physics and relativity are
incompatible and there are large numbers of dissenters (mainly kooks)
who especially do not believe in relativity. Sci.phys prays for a
unifying theory real soon.

Phil H

 

[benjo maso]

"Jeff Jones" <jeff@cyclingnews-punt-com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ernst Noch wrote:
>> Thought some people here might be interested in this article by Daniel
>> C. Dennett about Intelligent Design
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html?pagewanted=1
>>
>> Mainly just applying Popper, but a nice read nonetheless.
>>
>> With some creativity, one might even be able to abuse his method of
>> reasoning for on topic stuff.
>
> RBR is proof that Intelligent Design is a load of bollocks. Discuss.


I'm not sure, although it must have been the devil who made the design.

Benjo

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Ernst Noch wrote:
>> Thought some people here might be interested in this article by Daniel
>> C. Dennett about Intelligent Design
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html?pagewanted=1
>>
>> Mainly just applying Popper, but a nice read nonetheless.
>>
>> With some creativity, one might even be able to abuse his method of
>> reasoning for on topic stuff.
> Thanks for that. As people have said "For those who believe no
> explanation is necessary, for those who don't none is possible." And I
> haven't seen any evidence of divine intervention. I have seen a handful
> of people who are absolute geniuses at manipulating the public, and
> creating power for themselves to the detriment of the world.

I spent all day climbing up a road in order to get to a downhill on which I
went 35 mph through a series of chicanes. There were several riders who
passed me near the top and several on the downhill but I passed them all
like they were standing still.

So did that happen accendently or through intelligent design?

 

[Peter Allen]

Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> I spent all day climbing up a road in order to get to a downhill on
> which I went 35 mph through a series of chicanes. There were several
> riders who passed me near the top and several on the downhill but I
> passed them all like they were standing still.
>
> So did that happen accendently or through intelligent design?

'I'm not fat, I'm just... intelligently designed'

 

[Tim Lines]

http://www.venganza.org/

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Philip Holman" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Ernst Noch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Thought some people here might be interested in this article by Daniel
> > C. Dennett about Intelligent Design
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html?pagewanted=1
> >
> > Mainly just applying Popper, but a nice read nonetheless.
> >
> > With some creativity, one might even be able to abuse his method of
> > reasoning for on topic stuff.
>
> "Fortunately for physicists, there is no powerful motivation for such a
> band of mischief-makers to form. They don't have to spend much time
> persuading people that quantum physics and Einsteinian relativity really
> have been established beyond all reasonable doubt".
>
> A shaky foundation for a start. Quantum physics and relativity are
> incompatible and there are large numbers of dissenters (mainly kooks)
> who especially do not believe in relativity. Sci.phys prays for a
> unifying theory real soon.

A theory of relativity describes the relationship between
the conclusions drawn by relatively moving observers.
Albert Einstein developed a theory of relativity based on
the presumption that anyone measuring the speed of light
will get the same value. As a young man he thought long
about light. He imagined a coherent beam of light with
himself traveling at the speed of that beam of light and
observing that beam. The immediate conclusion is that the
electric and magnetic fields that he would observed
utterly contradicts the laws of electricity and magnetism.
No experiment conducted has ever observed such a
configuration of electric and magnetic fields as one would
observe if traveling parallel with and at the speed of a
beam of light. The theory of relativity he developed and
the theory of electro-magnetism have never been falsified.

Now in the foregoing paragraph we imagined a "beam of
light" as a physical fact. However nobody has ever
observed a beam of light or a photon. Things are very much
more difficult to imagine than we ever thought. The
theories of electro-magnetism and Special Relativity do
not depend in any way upon "light" getting from here to
there. The entire edifice operates perfectly well by
considering an oscillator here, an oscillatory there, and
the two oscillators synchronously changing state. One
oscillator can be on a star in the night sky and the other
oscillator in the retina of your eye.

I grade theories on their capacity to take my breath away.

--
Michael Press

 

[amit]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Philip Holman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Ernst Noch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Thought some people here might be interested in this article by Daniel
> > > C. Dennett about Intelligent Design
> > >
> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html?pagewanted=1
> > >
> > > Mainly just applying Popper, but a nice read nonetheless.
> > >
> > > With some creativity, one might even be able to abuse his method of
> > > reasoning for on topic stuff.
> >
> > "Fortunately for physicists, there is no powerful motivation for such a
> > band of mischief-makers to form. They don't have to spend much time
> > persuading people that quantum physics and Einsteinian relativity really
> > have been established beyond all reasonable doubt".
> >
> > A shaky foundation for a start. Quantum physics and relativity are
> > incompatible and there are large numbers of dissenters (mainly kooks)
> > who especially do not believe in relativity. Sci.phys prays for a
> > unifying theory real soon.
>
> A theory of relativity describes the relationship between
> the conclusions drawn by relatively moving observers.

dumbass,

that's special relativity.

the previous posters conveniently only used the vague terms
"relativity" and "Einsteinian relativity".

 

[Jonathan v.d. Sluis]

"Ernst Noch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thought some people here might be interested in this article by Daniel C.
> Dennett about Intelligent Design
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html?pagewanted=1
>
> Mainly just applying Popper, but a nice read nonetheless.
>
> With some creativity, one might even be able to abuse his method of
> reasoning for on topic stuff.

I find the combination Dennett/Intelligent Design amusing in a way, since in
his book on evolution, Dennett actually emphasizes how evolution leads to
something like a design process. His point about the eye not being optimally
designed but bearing what one might call 'the scars of chance' is a bit too
Gouldian for him, but I suppose we can all make peace with our enemies if
the situation demands.

It goes to show that the debate on evolution vs. intelligent design is
really about metaphors and comparisons. ID is unable to give testable
theories because it relies only on the subjective judgement if we can
imagine something happening by chance or not. Even the ideas about
'irreducible complexity' rely on such imagination: can we imagine a function
for a 'reduced' organ or not? If we can, then we compare it to a dieroll, if
we can't then it's compared to a machine with a builder. Dennett uses the
metaphor of the machine too, but stresses that evolution built it anyway.

In addition, we cannot claim to know God, and most theology I know
acknowledges that we can only speak of Him in metaphors, like God the
Shepherd, God the Father, etc. God isn't the same as Frank Lloyd Wright, so
God the Designer has to be only a metaphor as well.

 

[Donald Munro]

Philip Holman wrote:
> Sci.phys prays for a unifying theory real soon.

To the Flying Spaghetti Monster presumably ?

 

[Donald Munro]

Tom Kunich wrote:
>> I spent all day climbing up a road in order to get to a downhill on
>> which I went 35 mph through a series of chicanes. There were several
>> riders who passed me near the top and several on the downhill but I
>> passed them all like they were standing still.
>> So did that happen accendently or through intelligent design?

Peter Allen wrote:
> 'I'm not fat, I'm just... intelligently designed'

Candidate for the Krispy Kreme/Pizza Hut Post of the Month.

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 23:25:53 +0200, "benjo maso"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Jeff Jones" <jeff@cyclingnews-punt-com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Ernst Noch wrote:
>>> Thought some people here might be interested in this article by Daniel
>>> C. Dennett about Intelligent Design
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html?pagewanted=1
>>>
>>> Mainly just applying Popper, but a nice read nonetheless.
>>>
>>> With some creativity, one might even be able to abuse his method of
>>> reasoning for on topic stuff.
>>
>> RBR is proof that Intelligent Design is a load of bollocks. Discuss.
>
>
>I'm not sure, although it must have been the devil who made the design.
>
>Benjo
>

Used to hear in Kansas when I was a kid that hail made you believe in
God and the government made you believe in the Devil. I guess rbr is
where you believe in both, butthat both really don't care all that
much. So you have Intelligent Design, but applied on a sporadic basis,
and by which ever side was bored that day.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Tim Lines]

amit wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Philip Holman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Ernst Noch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>Thought some people here might be interested in this article by Daniel
>>>>C. Dennett about Intelligent Design
>>>>
>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html?pagewanted=1
>>>>
>>>>Mainly just applying Popper, but a nice read nonetheless.
>>>>
>>>>With some creativity, one might even be able to abuse his method of
>>>>reasoning for on topic stuff.
>>>
>>>"Fortunately for physicists, there is no powerful motivation for such a
>>>band of mischief-makers to form. They don't have to spend much time
>>>persuading people that quantum physics and Einsteinian relativity really
>>>have been established beyond all reasonable doubt".
>>>
>>>A shaky foundation for a start. Quantum physics and relativity are
>>>incompatible and there are large numbers of dissenters (mainly kooks)
>>>who especially do not believe in relativity. Sci.phys prays for a
>>>unifying theory real soon.
>>
>>A theory of relativity describes the relationship between
>>the conclusions drawn by relatively moving observers.
>
>
> dumbass,
>
> that's special relativity.
>
> the previous posters conveniently only used the vague terms
> "relativity" and "Einsteinian relativity".
>

Right. General relativity, on the other hand, explains why everyone
rides a bit faster when I'm around. Or something.

 

[Donald Munro]

amit wrote:
>> dumbass,
>> that's special relativity.

Tim Lines wrote:
> Right. General relativity, on the other hand, explains why everyone
> rides a bit faster when I'm around. Or something.

Because your mass tends to infinity earlier than everyone elses ?