Let's be epistemologically precise. There is nothing but "imaginary evidence" -that you are personally aware of-. Even if the statement weren't directly false (Google "NDE", for one, and understand "evidence" is not "proof"), you have no possible way of knowing what personal evidence others have received that isn't communicated, or communicable, to you. To suggest so is both a claim of personal omniscience on your part (you know all of all other people's experience throughout time), but an improper definition of "evidence". I absolutely would have "evidence" if I saw a hit-and-run, personally, that it occurred--and me proving that to you is in no way a requirement for it to be "evidence" in an epistemological sense. It simply may not be evidence you can, or will, share in awareness of.
Yep. "The center" is -arbitrary-. "Earth" can be picked as validly as any other point in the universe, generally depending on what one's practical intentions for the particular arbitrary model, i.e. the model's usefulness for a given domain.
Same with Euclidian "versus" Reimann geometry. Doesn't afford the same knee-jerk "science versus the church" false-dichotomy possibilities (along with historical revisionism) for the atheists, though. Guess in their case they know which model is the more practical for them, and it only requires they throw in a logical fallacy and direct historical falsehood or two to use it.
I think you left off the actual -rationale- to objecting to even the most extreme Islamic violence from Hitchens' worldview.
We simply don't know yet if the extremism will ultimately lead to better propagation of the Islamists' DNA, and that's the only basis for evaluation of the behavior Hitchens can bring to the table, other than purely subjective opinion disconnected from any metaphysical justification at all.
I'm not saying he isn't right in his overall conclusion. It's just that, for him, being right would be purely coincidental and logically underivable from his overall worldview, hence useless to actually resolve anything.
...are trying to figure out what has happened and how stuff works...
...and, sometimes, are defending their pet paradigm, or protecting their tenure, or claiming whatever results will get their company's product past the FDA...
So, if I had a sympathetic view toward ID, at any time, I am not entitled, somehow, to ask a purely scientific question?
Is it significant, from a purely scientific standpoint, if in 10 years Common Descent will no longer be true? YES.
Would it be useful and necessary, purely scientifically, to specify when that point occurred, that is, to have clear criteria on such questions as "what is 'descent'" and related scientific and definitional questions? YES.
Others actually contributed to these questions. I credited them as doing so, and/or responded with further constructive analytical narrowing. You are simply an AC troll, so afraid of simple questions you reflexively associate IN YOU OWN MIND to your fear, you need to reflexively and fallaciously "connect" the question to ID and jump into a spastic series of ad hominems. Really, this set of inferences and your motivations is crystal-clear. If you haven't noticed it's obvious, just letting you know.
I'm asking a question regarding science. I get to do that, here. Even if I previously advocated ID. Even if I currently advocate ID. Even if I was wrong on some historical post. Even if I was wrong on all of them.
And yes, I am a Mensa member. I'm sure, par for the course, you'll expect me to take your assertion of reality over what I directly know to be reality. If it makes you feel better, though, I never could compete well in the occasional Trivial Pursuit game at the meetings.
Um, no, I haven't been asking this question for weeks.
I have not the slightest idea what you mean by "ignoring" the answers. I found such answers as I received interesting, as I expressed. The answers I saw indicated a continuum of opinion--if simple genetic manipulation, no, if complete synthesis, perhaps. Now I'm inquiring on more views on that "perhaps", because that type of edge-case is where it's philosophically and scientifically interesting. I'm sorry you feel so defensive about what to me is an interesting question of science, apart from your ad hominem fantasies and clear defensiveness regarding why I'm asking. Same basic reason we have Slashdot marking "offtopic" something that is clearly and directly on-topic, as a matter of simple fact. Slashdot, though, has clearly devolved from years past. C'est la vie.
As for the last part, well, you're just incoherently babbling. In short, I don't believe the world is 6000 years old, and as for being "ignorant" or a "retard", well, I and Mensa know otherwise as clear fact.
And, of course, we have the "invisible pink unicorns" followup, parroting the source of the "burden of proof" criterion of Dawkins, who made it up as an epistemological requirement because he, like, felt like it.
Nice that the "origins" of the regurgitation are so obvious, and obviously not derived from any actual Philosophy or Philosophy of Science studies or history.
In point of fact, if design were evident, it would be evidence for invisible pink unicorns insofar as they could implement such a design. Among the arbitrary entities such as that that could be proposed, we'd need another differentiator to determine what was plausible among that set. Yours is disqualified by your own brain, chosen as something you find implausible to discredit something you find more plausible, the fact you consider there to be something more plausible directly demonstrated by your own statement and its obvious intent.
Similarly, I presume, since we haven't been able to unambiguously state whether the Copenhagen Interpretation or the Everett Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is not true, both ideas are useless to science. Perhaps we should have suppressed them being proposed up-front to ensure no testability method would ever be determined.
But that's not the case, not unless you made an individual up many different genetic sources.
And if I did?:)
Technologically, eventually, it's going to happen. Eventually, we'll synthesize the whole DNA custom to our desires. Will "common ancestry" then no longer be true? If not, what event will cause it to no longer be true, and how will we know?
Not to harp too much on this point, but I find this edge-case fascinating. Rather like the question of if you replaced every neuron in your brain with a synthetic equivalent, would you still be you?
The question may be of rather narrow interest, though, so I think I'll go ponder it myself...
Hmm... well, I'm not interested in a false dichotomy of "evolution" versus "religion", actually. "Evolution occurs" is clearly the case, I'm just not interested in the scientifically-invalid non-sequitur inference of "only evolution occurs".
Whatever my views (which, yes, I know you have to assert in the absence of any actual knowledge of what they are, to start your false-dichotomy argument), my question is interesting to me from a scientific standpoint apart from any religious question.
What precisely does "common ancestry" mean? If we continue with genetic engineering to extent N, at some point would common ancestry no longer be true? When would we know that that fundamental change had occurred?
No, because it would still be human. Many species of prokaryotes swap genes all the times, sometimes with other Prokaryotes of much different lineages. Even in eukaryotes, horizontal gene transfer can happen (very often due to retroviral infections, which can in fact act as a gateway for genes from different groups to get transplanted).
Given this, care to venture to offer a precise working definition of "common ancestry"? If it does not mean "reproductive descent" (which, technically, I agree with), and rather means something akin to "however it happened, by whatever means, it's common descent" then the term seems tautological, and rather meaningless.
Well, for one, the Cambrian Explosion would be such a "reason to think". But, given you apparently have the attribute of personal omniscience, and know not merely that this is "no reason to think" so, but personally contain all knowledge of all humans and can review that knowledge to verify a complete absence of any plausible "reason", I should probably find someone less... supernaturally epistemologically-challenged to debate.
Is it not the case that the reason this works is because you're running the -same blur algorithm- with the -same input- (the unblurred letters/pixels) and simply iterating through the letters and looking for equivalent output?
Presumably, the blur algorithm output could resolve such that multiple unblurred letters resolve to the same blurred pixels, but even if it is not this trivial to map the input state to output state, it still wouldn't seem to me to approach solving the general case of letters "blurred" by any arbitrary means, which is the real-world capability implied by the article.
Simple fact is, an extensive elaboration on, say, the Copenhagen Interpretation versus the Everett Interpretation, -even were one demonstrated false-, would not "promote stupidity", much less "demand" it. Simply having to follow the arguments to critically evaluate the question at hand, -even if 100% of the students thus rejected ID-, would do nothing but increase the students familiarity with the biological questions at hand, and challenge them to be able to analytically utilize them.
However, this last statement does strike me as fully representative of the overall politicalization of the question the reviewer engages in throughout (at least he explicitly states he's doing so, justifying it by saying it's "where ID started", even though that's false in ID's case, it started with Behe publishing a book on biochem and its implications on evolutionary theory), and the overall tinge of a kind of deep defensive bias the piece reeks of.
Particularly funny was the part where he chides the book for not anticipating evidence that he presumes of-course will be found, which is basically tantamount to concluding a particular sub-issue on the basis on -no present evidence-, something he'd never let ID get away with.
Standard straw-man of representing ID as simply the most easily-dismissed notion of "Creationism" of anyone on the planet, standard ignoring of the fact that "evolution happens" is not actually debated by anyone advocating ID, and his particular meaning equivocating it to "only evolution happens" is fully scientifically untestable, and will never change from being untestable, and that desire to conclude such causal exclusivity for the -actual- motivation at hand is simply a non-sequitur, even were it testable.
The main thing that bothers me is the cultural framework this creates of closing science into dogma. Since we currently can do genetic engineering, and there's some possibility that intelligent life will be discovered as having existed in the past nearby, maybe some civilization nearby visited Earth and, since we can already do it, went ahead and... oops. Can't propose that, and since I can't propose it, can't ever investigate it. Academic crimestop.
Anyway, I'm heading out for the weekend, so I doubt I'll be able to follow up to any replies right away. Since Natural Selection will inevitably take care of my response for me, though, I won't worry about it too much. Later.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's be epistemologically precise. There is nothing but "imaginary evidence" -that you are personally aware of-. Even if the statement weren't directly false (Google "NDE", for one, and understand "evidence" is not "proof"), you have no possible way of knowing what personal evidence others have received that isn't communicated, or communicable, to you. To suggest so is both a claim of personal omniscience on your part (you know all of all other people's experience throughout time), but an improper definition of "evidence". I absolutely would have "evidence" if I saw a hit-and-run, personally, that it occurred--and me proving that to you is in no way a requirement for it to be "evidence" in an epistemological sense. It simply may not be evidence you can, or will, share in awareness of.
Yep. "The center" is -arbitrary-. "Earth" can be picked as validly as any other point in the universe, generally depending on what one's practical intentions for the particular arbitrary model, i.e. the model's usefulness for a given domain.
Same with Euclidian "versus" Reimann geometry. Doesn't afford the same knee-jerk "science versus the church" false-dichotomy possibilities (along with historical revisionism) for the atheists, though. Guess in their case they know which model is the more practical for them, and it only requires they throw in a logical fallacy and direct historical falsehood or two to use it.
I think you left off the actual -rationale- to objecting to even the most extreme Islamic violence from Hitchens' worldview.
We simply don't know yet if the extremism will ultimately lead to better propagation of the Islamists' DNA, and that's the only basis for evaluation of the behavior Hitchens can bring to the table, other than purely subjective opinion disconnected from any metaphysical justification at all.
I'm not saying he isn't right in his overall conclusion. It's just that, for him, being right would be purely coincidental and logically underivable from his overall worldview, hence useless to actually resolve anything.
...are trying to figure out what has happened and how stuff works...
...and, sometimes, are defending their pet paradigm, or protecting their tenure, or claiming whatever results will get their company's product past the FDA...
It's dangerous to make such absolute categorical statements regarding anything involving human beings.
And, I should note, most "creationists" are looking for synthesis of science and their theological views.
The data's already been copied and reconstructed. The physical substrate is useless.
If we want to understand better why the substrate degrades, then, well, yeah.
So, if I had a sympathetic view toward ID, at any time, I am not entitled, somehow, to ask a purely scientific question?
Is it significant, from a purely scientific standpoint, if in 10 years Common Descent will no longer be true? YES.
Would it be useful and necessary, purely scientifically, to specify when that point occurred, that is, to have clear criteria on such questions as "what is 'descent'" and related scientific and definitional questions? YES.
Others actually contributed to these questions. I credited them as doing so, and/or responded with further constructive analytical narrowing. You are simply an AC troll, so afraid of simple questions you reflexively associate IN YOU OWN MIND to your fear, you need to reflexively and fallaciously "connect" the question to ID and jump into a spastic series of ad hominems. Really, this set of inferences and your motivations is crystal-clear. If you haven't noticed it's obvious, just letting you know.
I'm asking a question regarding science. I get to do that, here. Even if I previously advocated ID. Even if I currently advocate ID. Even if I was wrong on some historical post. Even if I was wrong on all of them.
And yes, I am a Mensa member. I'm sure, par for the course, you'll expect me to take your assertion of reality over what I directly know to be reality. If it makes you feel better, though, I never could compete well in the occasional Trivial Pursuit game at the meetings.
Um, no, I haven't been asking this question for weeks.
I have not the slightest idea what you mean by "ignoring" the answers. I found such answers as I received interesting, as I expressed. The answers I saw indicated a continuum of opinion--if simple genetic manipulation, no, if complete synthesis, perhaps. Now I'm inquiring on more views on that "perhaps", because that type of edge-case is where it's philosophically and scientifically interesting. I'm sorry you feel so defensive about what to me is an interesting question of science, apart from your ad hominem fantasies and clear defensiveness regarding why I'm asking. Same basic reason we have Slashdot marking "offtopic" something that is clearly and directly on-topic, as a matter of simple fact. Slashdot, though, has clearly devolved from years past. C'est la vie.
As for the last part, well, you're just incoherently babbling. In short, I don't believe the world is 6000 years old, and as for being "ignorant" or a "retard", well, I and Mensa know otherwise as clear fact.
See ya later!
So, to reprise a previous question, in an improved form...
If we synthesize a living organism in totality, does Common Descent become untrue?
If so, how will we know when Common Descent became no longer true?
If it hadn't been for cotton-eye Joe, I'd have been married a long time ago.
Or maybe it was Thomas Saying 79.
Or 23.
rlong@
Synchronicity happens.
And, of course, we have the "invisible pink unicorns" followup, parroting the source of the "burden of proof" criterion of Dawkins, who made it up as an epistemological requirement because he, like, felt like it.
Nice that the "origins" of the regurgitation are so obvious, and obviously not derived from any actual Philosophy or Philosophy of Science studies or history.
In point of fact, if design were evident, it would be evidence for invisible pink unicorns insofar as they could implement such a design. Among the arbitrary entities such as that that could be proposed, we'd need another differentiator to determine what was plausible among that set. Yours is disqualified by your own brain, chosen as something you find implausible to discredit something you find more plausible, the fact you consider there to be something more plausible directly demonstrated by your own statement and its obvious intent.
Both ideas are similarly useless to science.
Similarly, I presume, since we haven't been able to unambiguously state whether the Copenhagen Interpretation or the Everett Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is not true, both ideas are useless to science. Perhaps we should have suppressed them being proposed up-front to ensure no testability method would ever be determined.
Regarding your point 2), just doing my little part for Sexual Selection...
Hmm... we can agree up-front that Darwinian principle should still apply in 100 years, right...? ...personally?
But that's not the case, not unless you made an individual up many different genetic sources.
:)
And if I did?
Technologically, eventually, it's going to happen. Eventually, we'll synthesize the whole DNA custom to our desires. Will "common ancestry" then no longer be true? If not, what event will cause it to no longer be true, and how will we know?
Not to harp too much on this point, but I find this edge-case fascinating. Rather like the question of if you replaced every neuron in your brain with a synthetic equivalent, would you still be you?
The question may be of rather narrow interest, though, so I think I'll go ponder it myself...
Hmm... well, I'm not interested in a false dichotomy of "evolution" versus "religion", actually. "Evolution occurs" is clearly the case, I'm just not interested in the scientifically-invalid non-sequitur inference of "only evolution occurs".
Whatever my views (which, yes, I know you have to assert in the absence of any actual knowledge of what they are, to start your false-dichotomy argument), my question is interesting to me from a scientific standpoint apart from any religious question.
What precisely does "common ancestry" mean? If we continue with genetic engineering to extent N, at some point would common ancestry no longer be true? When would we know that that fundamental change had occurred?
You saw me in church last Wednesday? Must have been some biologically-enhanced clone.
Glad to hear so many Slashdotters nowadays have personal omniscience, though. Arguments depending on that implicit premise are so amusing!
No, because it would still be human. Many species of prokaryotes swap genes all the times, sometimes with other Prokaryotes of much different lineages. Even in eukaryotes, horizontal gene transfer can happen (very often due to retroviral infections, which can in fact act as a gateway for genes from different groups to get transplanted).
Given this, care to venture to offer a precise working definition of "common ancestry"? If it does not mean "reproductive descent" (which, technically, I agree with), and rather means something akin to "however it happened, by whatever means, it's common descent" then the term seems tautological, and rather meaningless.
Well, for one, the Cambrian Explosion would be such a "reason to think". But, given you apparently have the attribute of personal omniscience, and know not merely that this is "no reason to think" so, but personally contain all knowledge of all humans and can review that knowledge to verify a complete absence of any plausible "reason", I should probably find someone less... supernaturally epistemologically-challenged to debate.
nope.
Interesting. I thought words meant what they mean, like "ancestry" denoting biological descent.
not any more than a naturally occurring sequence of mutations
Well, self-evidently false. See the part about "words meaning what they mean".
The burden of proof is on you to show that it did.
I was hoping to hear an answer on more of a philosophy or philosophy of science level, rather than on Judge Judy fan level.
But thanks!
If a genetically-modified human were cloned today, would that clone be outside common ancestry?
Would it be designed?
Do we know this hasn't happened in the distant past?
Fun questions for your false dichotomy...
Which view uses the term "toolkit genes"? Which one validly can, logically?
Is it not the case that the reason this works is because you're running the -same blur algorithm- with the -same input- (the unblurred letters/pixels) and simply iterating through the letters and looking for equivalent output?
Presumably, the blur algorithm output could resolve such that multiple unblurred letters resolve to the same blurred pixels, but even if it is not this trivial to map the input state to output state, it still wouldn't seem to me to approach solving the general case of letters "blurred" by any arbitrary means, which is the real-world capability implied by the article.
What am I missing here?
Simple fact is, an extensive elaboration on, say, the Copenhagen Interpretation versus the Everett Interpretation, -even were one demonstrated false-, would not "promote stupidity", much less "demand" it. Simply having to follow the arguments to critically evaluate the question at hand, -even if 100% of the students thus rejected ID-, would do nothing but increase the students familiarity with the biological questions at hand, and challenge them to be able to analytically utilize them.
However, this last statement does strike me as fully representative of the overall politicalization of the question the reviewer engages in throughout (at least he explicitly states he's doing so, justifying it by saying it's "where ID started", even though that's false in ID's case, it started with Behe publishing a book on biochem and its implications on evolutionary theory), and the overall tinge of a kind of deep defensive bias the piece reeks of.
Particularly funny was the part where he chides the book for not anticipating evidence that he presumes of-course will be found, which is basically tantamount to concluding a particular sub-issue on the basis on -no present evidence-, something he'd never let ID get away with.
Standard straw-man of representing ID as simply the most easily-dismissed notion of "Creationism" of anyone on the planet, standard ignoring of the fact that "evolution happens" is not actually debated by anyone advocating ID, and his particular meaning equivocating it to "only evolution happens" is fully scientifically untestable, and will never change from being untestable, and that desire to conclude such causal exclusivity for the -actual- motivation at hand is simply a non-sequitur, even were it testable.
The main thing that bothers me is the cultural framework this creates of closing science into dogma. Since we currently can do genetic engineering, and there's some possibility that intelligent life will be discovered as having existed in the past nearby, maybe some civilization nearby visited Earth and, since we can already do it, went ahead and... oops. Can't propose that, and since I can't propose it, can't ever investigate it. Academic crimestop.
Anyway, I'm heading out for the weekend, so I doubt I'll be able to follow up to any replies right away. Since Natural Selection will inevitably take care of my response for me, though, I won't worry about it too much. Later.
If I was from Alexandria, would this post make more sense to me?
Probably.
But don't worry. Natural Deselection will sort it out for both of us.
You can tell by all the monkeys eating flying spaghetti.