Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site scgvaxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!scgvaxd!dan
From: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Absence of Thought
Message-ID: <376@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 7-Aug-85 21:36:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: scgvaxd.376
Posted: Wed Aug  7 21:36:58 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 20:59:25 EDT
References: <890@oddjob.UUCP>
Reply-To: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA
Lines: 116
Summary: 


>Somebody said I should take a look at net.origins.  I'm not sure
>whether to thank that person.  What I see here is quite a
>collection of atyles of argument.  Some people try to be careful
>about their deductive process but get involved in some v-e-r-y long
>arguments about their premises or evidence.  Others proceed from
>point to point with no regard whatsoever for any rules of inference
>and sometimes, it seems, without even understanding the words they
>use to demonstrate their ignorance.
>
>As an illustration, here are some samples from a few articles by a
>person I will call "Dan"  (because that is what he calls himself).
>Don't worry about the chance that these excerpts are taken out of
>context.  There is no context in which they would look good, except
>perhaps in the context of the National Lampoon.

>>   What is the difference between "described by" and "predicted by"? If the
>>   model "describes" a certain set of observable circumstances, wouldn't
>>   this also constitute "predicted by"?

>I have to hand it to this guy, he's not shy about his stupidity!
>The urge to form parodies is irresistable.  How about: "My model
>of the United States includes the fact that Ronald Reagan is the
>president.  Therefore I have predicted that Ronald Reagan is the
>president."

 This is utter nonsense! This in no way can be compared to a scientific
 model of origins. A more reasonable comparison would be: :My model of
 the United States system of government includes a Congress  according
 to a study of the constitution. Now we look at the United States and see
 that there is in fact a functioning Congress."


Dan says:
>>>>  I can just as easily say that I believe in creation because species
>>>>  seem to have a common design.
"Mike" replies:
>>>You can say it.  But that doesn't make it valid reasoning.
Dan answers:
>> Why isn't it valid reasoning?

>Let's suppose it were a valid argument.  In that case stars must
>have been created by god because they are all round in shape, and
>that watches are not created because different ones work on such
>different principles.

 More nonsense! First of all I said species have a common design! Not
 lifeless objects. Maybe you should read the article more carefully
 before criticizing it. Secondly, you can just as easily make a
 mockery of the evolutionary argument of common ancestry. For example:
 Since things have a common ancestry, basketballs must have evolved from
 baseballs, which evolved from tennis balls which evolved from ping pong
 balls. Of course, now we have the ultimate species - bowling balls!

 This is as ridiculous as your example because I used an example that had
 no relationship whatsoever to the argument just as you did!

>Here's another choice tidbit which I found amusing.
>> Wrong! My conclusion was this: Since there is nothing in the present
>> structure of natural law that can account for its own origin, the Universe
>> could not have created itself. Therefore, it must have had a supernatural
>> origin.

>Now Dan might mean one of two things by this, depending on how you
>interpret his phrase "present structure of natural law".  He could
>be saying that because we do not yet know a scientific cause for
>the the existence of the universe, there cannot be a scientific
>cause.  Or he could mean that he knows somehow that the laws of
>nature forbid the spontaneous origination of a universe.  Either
>way, he's wrong.  Dare I go into the reasons?  If I don't I will

 Or, I could be saying that since we DO NOT KNOW of any way NOTHING
 could have become SOMETHING through NATURAL PROCESSES, it is at least
 AS REASONABLE to conclude that "supernatural processes were the
 cause of origin" as it is to conclude that "we will someday discover
 the natural cause of origin"!!

 And, I might add that it is equally UNscientific and biased to rule
 out either _a priori_. So why shouldn't both be considered a valid
 hypothesis.

>probably be accused of "proof-by-assertion" and if I do I will
>probably get ridiculed by those who either can't understand the
>reasons or can't refute them.  That seems to be how this group
>runs.  Examples:
>> Ahhh! Now I understand what valid reasoning is! Quote a book title!
-----------
>>>Once again, a bald statement, with no reasoning.  (And where you have
>>>presented a case in the past, it has been shown to be bad, if not
>>>dishonest.)

>> Once again, an attack on my reasoning, with no explanation! Again, why
>> isn't it valid reasoning? Dishonest? Please explain!
--------
>>>Neither conclusion stems from rational thought.
>> Prove it!
>(I thought the last shows a good use of irony.)

   What is all of this suppose to prove? I do not make any sense of
   it. Is there supposed to be a point here?

>I hope I have captured the proper tone and style in this, my first
>and possibly last, contribution.  I will watch as long as it
>remains amusing but perhaps net.origins could be replaced by a
>linear combination of net.flame, net.religion, and net.bizarre.
>Anyone who is not offended may write to me for individual attention.
>_____________________________________________________
>Matt            University      crawford@anl-mcs.arpa
>Crawford        of Chicago      ihnp4!oddjob!matt

  What you have captured is a pointless and nonsensical contribution
  to this newsgroup! My suggestion is that you read net.nonsense for
  a while were you could make wonderful contributions.


					      Dan