Refutation of the \"Language-Only\" Interpretation of Math (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, March 06, 2010, 15:17 (5374 days ago) @ dhw

MATT has commented on David's reference to fractals: "This ID argument operates under the notion that since we have to be intelligent in order to unravel the nature of nature, then nature itself must have been designed by intelligence. This parallels arguments used by dhw."
> 
> Let me once again register a protest against all your "parallel" arguments in which, as always, you insist on using the modal auxiliary "must". I don't recall even David using a "must", and I certainly haven't and wouldn't. My own argument is that the combination of materials necessary to create life and the mechanisms of reproduction and evolution is so complex that I find myself unable to believe in chance as a possible explanation, and therefore cannot discount design. If you want to pin me down to figures, I'd say 50/50 for each theory. So please banish this "must have" from your vocabulary! (At least now I reckon you will have learned something from me, because I'll bet you didn't know "must" was a modal auxiliary!)
> -Maybe it's just me, but when I hear the delineation "chance" OR "design," the structure of the claim is such that it will be one or the other and not both. I realize that you're a "fence-sitter;" (a good place to be) but you often argue the devil as do I. To me, a parralel argument isn't identical it is similar. Two lines can be parallel but reach different points. You don't use "must," and David hasn't publicly said "must," but it is implied via David's argument and my understanding of Adler's techniques. David clearly doesn't believe in chance, and since "OR" is exclusive--if it's not chance it "must" be: ___________! David has mentioned that he doesn't enjoy using a negative argument, but he does. So a "must" is a fitting word here. -I've mentioned before that there is a false dilemma, and it leads to logical hell. If we say "chance" AND "design," this technically covers all possibilities to the point of possibly being a tautology, but if we take similar interpretations as David's, that's precisely where the argument leads us--a creator that tinkers and surprises itself sometimes. But at least in your primary theses on this website, I don't recall you restating the hypothesis as such, it is still "chance" OR "design," something as difficult to prove, especially since OR is exclusive. So I recognize as still that you're "in league" as much as I am, but I see no reason to eliminate "must."

--
\"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.\"