You are correct in saying that ID (in a biological science sense) is not discussed much outside of the US, but continental European philosophers began writing about it hundreds of years ago as a philosophy.
As to "It works the other way around", yes it does. However, I am not claiming my own credibility or authority on this matter, but the credibility of a very respected philosophy department. Feel free to write to some of U of M's philosphers and question their decision to include ID in their curriculum.
U of M and MSU are different schools, which some people don't realize, but that doesn't really matter. More importantly, having a philosphy professor take the time to write a paper attempting to refute a philosphical idea (in this case ID, per your example) does make it a philosophical idea worthy of discussion. Otherwise he would not have taken the time to write about it. Thanks for making my point. I'd bet every philosophy ever imagined has had someone write a paper refuting it; you can't claim that something is wrong simply because a paper has been written trying to discredit it.
Again, I am not writing to say that I agree with ID. I'm just saying that it is indeed a philosophy that merits discussion by some of the best philosophers in the world.
Feel free to question my credibility, but you haven't understood the point of my comment, which I believe was clearly written. You stated that I "risk being dismissed 'right off the bat' for not considering philosophical topics outside of the standard range of the University of Michigan classroom", which I never did. I simply hold that U of M, being a very respectable philosophy school, is a good program to poll in considering what philosophical topics are worthy of discussion. As to whether U of M has the #1 philosophy program, there will obviously be many points of view on this, but it has been rated as such at various times by multiple sources. High-profile professors such as Darwall, Loeb, and Curly (a noted atheist) add to department's credibility.
Second, I never said that I agree ID is a "good" argument, so I don't really care about your debate with Dembski or how much you think you "ate him alive" (for which we only have your word to believe). All I have claimed is that ID gets a huge amount of discussion among respectable philosophers, whether they agree with it themselves or not, and shouldn't be discounted as a philosophical topic.
For my own credibility, I don't have much to offer. Yes, I was a philosophy major. I'm not a PhD student, although I took some graduate level courses. I am quite familiar with the ID argument and have read extensive writings from both sides. However, I am able to read another person's comment and respond to what they wrote without imagining arguments and statements that were never made, which you seem unable to do. I'm sure you have some philosophical experience, and from that you will know that reading and clearly understanding what someone is saying is just as important as the statements you make for yourself. I suggest you work on this area.
I understand that you disagree with it and that you probably have good reasons and logic to support your stance, but if the philosophical community at large merits ID to be a system worthy of inclusion in a standard philosophical curriculum, then I will defer to their judgment instead of yours. You can say "I don't agree with this philosophy", but I don't think you have the authority to say "this doesn't deserve to be called a philosophy". Or maybe you can point me to some of your published works on the subject?
Actually, in terms of the arguments and evidence available, this is a topic much more suited to a philosophy classroom than to a science classroom.
That's just not true. I studied philosophy at the University of Michigan (our program is #1 in the country), and ID, as well as other God-related topics, came up in almost every class as legitimate arguments. You can't get into philosophy and avoid the subject. In fact, if you avoid talking about ID because you dismiss it right off the bat, you will be laughed at for having no knowledge of such an important subject. Don't speak with authority of things you know nothing about.
Knowing MS, they didn't pay what everyone else pays for these parts. They probably got a huge volume discount on the parts. The article mentions that it took into account that MS got a discount on some of the parts, but I wonder if they understand how much of a discount this kind of volume (and Microsoft's pull) gets you. I'm sure they still lose money on each unit, but not as much as the article indicates.
It seems like most of the advances that Firefox made vs. IE have now been neutralized (popup blocking, tabbed browsing, etc.). What new ideas/innovations are the Firefox team making these days to stand out in the browser wars?
Yes, it's true that the RIAA, MPAA, and related labels and studios are a bit excessive with the DRM stuff, but I don't think he should complain that they are treating their customers like criminals. Truth be told, many of their customers *are* criminals and are either downloading or distributing content illegaly.
i don't think you want this in geosynchronous orbit. to change the trajectory of an asteroid with this small mass you would need to get close to it at a much larger distance from earth. if it's close enough to have something geosynchronous affect it then it's already too late.
and this is why web applications are becoming so popular...it's much easier to make something written in PHP and distributed through the web available to everyone than to try to port something in C++ across a bunch of platforms. imho this trend towards AJAX and more web applications is a good thing and makes it easier on developers trying to deal with clients on multiple platforms. i don't want to have to deal with porting applications (although cross-browser compatibilities offer their own complications).
I started working w/ a graphic design group (I do web coding) about 10 months ago. All they had was Macs and I was forced to use one. I began the job having an intrinsic hatred for OSX, but within about a month I was hooked. I've found it to be a much easier system to navigate and get things done in, and now use it exclusively (except having to use a PC to work with a client's PPT file here and there).
Since then, I have also converted 8 friends to Macs. Apple should pay me a commission:)
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct in saying that ID (in a biological science sense) is not discussed much outside of the US, but continental European philosophers began writing about it hundreds of years ago as a philosophy.
As to "It works the other way around", yes it does. However, I am not claiming my own credibility or authority on this matter, but the credibility of a very respected philosophy department. Feel free to write to some of U of M's philosphers and question their decision to include ID in their curriculum.
U of M and MSU are different schools, which some people don't realize, but that doesn't really matter. More importantly, having a philosphy professor take the time to write a paper attempting to refute a philosphical idea (in this case ID, per your example) does make it a philosophical idea worthy of discussion. Otherwise he would not have taken the time to write about it. Thanks for making my point. I'd bet every philosophy ever imagined has had someone write a paper refuting it; you can't claim that something is wrong simply because a paper has been written trying to discredit it.
Again, I am not writing to say that I agree with ID. I'm just saying that it is indeed a philosophy that merits discussion by some of the best philosophers in the world.
Feel free to question my credibility, but you haven't understood the point of my comment, which I believe was clearly written. You stated that I "risk being dismissed 'right off the bat' for not considering philosophical topics outside of the standard range of the University of Michigan classroom", which I never did. I simply hold that U of M, being a very respectable philosophy school, is a good program to poll in considering what philosophical topics are worthy of discussion. As to whether U of M has the #1 philosophy program, there will obviously be many points of view on this, but it has been rated as such at various times by multiple sources. High-profile professors such as Darwall, Loeb, and Curly (a noted atheist) add to department's credibility.
Second, I never said that I agree ID is a "good" argument, so I don't really care about your debate with Dembski or how much you think you "ate him alive" (for which we only have your word to believe). All I have claimed is that ID gets a huge amount of discussion among respectable philosophers, whether they agree with it themselves or not, and shouldn't be discounted as a philosophical topic.
For my own credibility, I don't have much to offer. Yes, I was a philosophy major. I'm not a PhD student, although I took some graduate level courses. I am quite familiar with the ID argument and have read extensive writings from both sides. However, I am able to read another person's comment and respond to what they wrote without imagining arguments and statements that were never made, which you seem unable to do. I'm sure you have some philosophical experience, and from that you will know that reading and clearly understanding what someone is saying is just as important as the statements you make for yourself. I suggest you work on this area.
I understand that you disagree with it and that you probably have good reasons and logic to support your stance, but if the philosophical community at large merits ID to be a system worthy of inclusion in a standard philosophical curriculum, then I will defer to their judgment instead of yours. You can say "I don't agree with this philosophy", but I don't think you have the authority to say "this doesn't deserve to be called a philosophy". Or maybe you can point me to some of your published works on the subject? Actually, in terms of the arguments and evidence available, this is a topic much more suited to a philosophy classroom than to a science classroom.
That's just not true. I studied philosophy at the University of Michigan (our program is #1 in the country), and ID, as well as other God-related topics, came up in almost every class as legitimate arguments. You can't get into philosophy and avoid the subject. In fact, if you avoid talking about ID because you dismiss it right off the bat, you will be laughed at for having no knowledge of such an important subject. Don't speak with authority of things you know nothing about.
Knowing MS, they didn't pay what everyone else pays for these parts. They probably got a huge volume discount on the parts. The article mentions that it took into account that MS got a discount on some of the parts, but I wonder if they understand how much of a discount this kind of volume (and Microsoft's pull) gets you. I'm sure they still lose money on each unit, but not as much as the article indicates.
It seems like most of the advances that Firefox made vs. IE have now been neutralized (popup blocking, tabbed browsing, etc.). What new ideas/innovations are the Firefox team making these days to stand out in the browser wars?
Yes, it's true that the RIAA, MPAA, and related labels and studios are a bit excessive with the DRM stuff, but I don't think he should complain that they are treating their customers like criminals. Truth be told, many of their customers *are* criminals and are either downloading or distributing content illegaly.
i don't think you want this in geosynchronous orbit. to change the trajectory of an asteroid with this small mass you would need to get close to it at a much larger distance from earth. if it's close enough to have something geosynchronous affect it then it's already too late.
and this is why web applications are becoming so popular...it's much easier to make something written in PHP and distributed through the web available to everyone than to try to port something in C++ across a bunch of platforms. imho this trend towards AJAX and more web applications is a good thing and makes it easier on developers trying to deal with clients on multiple platforms. i don't want to have to deal with porting applications (although cross-browser compatibilities offer their own complications).
I started working w/ a graphic design group (I do web coding) about 10 months ago. All they had was Macs and I was forced to use one. I began the job having an intrinsic hatred for OSX, but within about a month I was hooked. I've found it to be a much easier system to navigate and get things done in, and now use it exclusively (except having to use a PC to work with a client's PPT file here and there). Since then, I have also converted 8 friends to Macs. Apple should pay me a commission :)