Inference and its role in NS (General)

by David Turell , Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 15:55 (4874 days ago) @ dhw


> As regards theories relating to life and the universe, the problem I have with your approach is not the two claims you make above. It's the following combination of statements and circumstances: you say that "to me only knowledge counts", and "it is intrinsically unreasonable to put belief in something when it is not supported by positive evidence". You go on to accept the theory of evolution by NS (which is not knowledge), presumably on the basis of what you regard as positive evidence, but you criticize David for accepting the theory of design (which is not knowledge) on the basis of what he regards as positive evidence. Doesn't this mean that 1) for you it is not just knowledge that counts, and 2) you are the one who decides what is or isn't positive evidence? -If I may interpose: Matt is primarily a mathematician at heart. Math is the only area of knowledge I know that can have exact proof of theorems. Natural selection is a conjecture. Logically to all of us it must occur. We see predation and competition. But how powerful is it,when compared to the adaptive Lemarkian mechanisms that are now being discovered under the term epigenetics. NS should be the final arbiter of rival combatants, but is only a passive part of the advance of evolution, creating nothing, only survivors. -Moral: mechanisms of creative variations is a positive effect. NS is passively positive, by eliminating the losers in the battles. It can operate only where there is competition within species, with other species, and with natural changes.