Irreducible Complexity (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 06, 2010, 01:36 (5435 days ago) @ David Turell

David,-At last, some philosophical meat for these hungry bones!-While it is true that the judgment is reasonable "There is no evidence that such-and-such drug has the effects attributed to it," the fact that it is reasonable is why it qualifies as a fallacy when you attribute a judgment to it: "Therefore: the drug is ineffective." -The next section his argument collapses when he attributes the argument of "personal incredulity" to "walking to the moon." The danger here is the same danger in dismissing Carl Sagan's "Invisible Dragon." The danger is in engaging in the intuitional response of dismissing the claim offhand. NASA noting that no moon-targeted spaceflights isn't an offhand dismissal; this is information that is well-known to not just NASA, but to the entire space-faring community. So the person in his hypothetical is making a verifiably false claim. -Irreducible complexity suffers from the opposite issue: You can't verify that something is "irreducibly complex" because the very idea suffers from a subjectivity bar. What is "Too complex to happen by chance" when the very nature of the universe IS chance itself?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"