tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post7530246117438068714..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Thomas Nagel's New BookVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59188486423707842052012-04-18T11:05:31.036-07:002012-04-18T11:05:31.036-07:00BTW Zack Matt clearly equates ID with Creationism....BTW Zack Matt clearly equates ID with Creationism.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33850692150345820162012-04-18T11:03:48.328-07:002012-04-18T11:03:48.328-07:00Cut the shit Zack.
I never said, you said it was ...Cut the shit Zack.<br /><br />I never said, you said it was mere Creationism.<br /><br />I was backing up Crude's response to Matt. <br /><br />Against you I claimed you where engaging in projection with your "ome mix in intelligent discussion with their insults. You have been called out," crack.<br /><br />Give it a rest.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76782945116145394102012-04-18T07:37:21.497-07:002012-04-18T07:37:21.497-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6724373053288810872012-04-17T07:47:57.681-07:002012-04-17T07:47:57.681-07:00@Zack
Project much?
Crude is correct here. I ca...@Zack<br /><br />Project much?<br /><br />Crude is correct here. I can with ease envision being an Atheist like Nagel or Bradley Monton and think ID is respectable scientifically even if ultimately unconvincing. <br /><br />From the perspective of Thomistic Philosophy there is a lot to find fault with ID & a host of intelligent arguments on why it fails. <br /><br />But snarky claims that it is mere "Creationism" isn't one of them.<br /><br />That's just lame.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23724393285548526522012-04-17T05:45:50.915-07:002012-04-17T05:45:50.915-07:00What if it is just a good-faith attempt to struggl...<i>What if it is just a good-faith attempt to struggle with the issues?</i><br /><br />Well yeah, the charitable thing to do would be to assume that in advance of having actually ready the book.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07342391408412861663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38379316120873315862012-04-15T18:05:32.791-07:002012-04-15T18:05:32.791-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77442368344028759912012-04-15T11:11:53.042-07:002012-04-15T11:11:53.042-07:00Matt,
I've really got no interest in dealing ...Matt,<br /><br /><i>I've really got no interest in dealing with anonymous internet trolls, especially when they can't complete a sentence without hurling insults. Cheers.</i><br /><br />Matt, your performance here has been sad. I particularly loved the moving little aside about 'team games' and 'enemies', in the same comment where you endorse a post that explicitly knocks Nagel *precisely* because he emboldens the wrong 'team'. Between that and your mangled arguments and bad references - particularly your crappy understanding of ID - there just ain't much to you so far.<br /><br />And please. We all insult here, save for a very, very choice few. The difference is I'm explicit about it. You're more in the 'passive aggressive' style.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65820275380119480672012-04-15T10:59:37.690-07:002012-04-15T10:59:37.690-07:00Amir, you're certainly right that we ought to ...Amir, you're certainly right that we ought to be careful in demarcating between science and pseudoscience, but I think you're assuming that the denial of ID is a result of "baseless confidence" which simply isn't the case. It's not a serious debate anywhere but the pews of the church or the halls of the Discovery Institute. <br /><br /> In fact, the Hansson (SEP) article you cite on Psuedoscience reads:<br /><br />"The conflict between science and pseudoscience is best understood with this extended sense of science. On one side of the conflict we find the community of knowledge disciplines that includes the natural and social sciences and the humanities. On the other side we find a wide variety of movements and doctrines, such as creationism, astrology, homeopathy, and Holocaust denialism that are in conflict with results and methods that are generally accepted in the community of knowledge disciplines."<br /><br />Notice that it labels creationism as a psuedoscience, and rightly so. To further understand why it's widely dismissed, check out philosopher of Biology/Science Michael Ruse's article on the SEP about Creationism which also has a brilliant section on ID (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/#ComIrr). <br /><br />While the article points out difficulties in distinguishing between science and non-science, I think that if we look at the multi-critierial approaches of demarcation(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/#MulCriApp), we can see why ID is almost unanimously dismissed by philosophers and scientists alike as bunk. It fits the bill for (2)-(7).Matt DeStefanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408364244593519914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41990150798956343702012-04-14T22:32:34.872-07:002012-04-14T22:32:34.872-07:00Matt: "...his gross misunderstanding of what ...Matt: <i>"...his gross misunderstanding of what to demarcate as 'science' makes me hesitate in bothering to do so."</i><br /><br /><i>"I think we are certainly prepared to make proclamations about non-scientific propositions or claims." </i><br /><br />The problem, Matt, is that we currently can't without getting into conceptual difficulties that have yet to be resolved. The demarcation problem that I alluded to - the problem of separating science from non-science - in the philosophy of science is still a notorious problem to this day.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem<br /><br />http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/<br /><br />Of note is the concluding sentence of the latter entry (emphasis mine):<br /><br />"It is in a sense paradoxical that so much agreement has been reached in particular issues in spite of <i>almost complete disagreement on the general criteria that these judgments <b>should presumably be based upon</b></i>. This puzzle is a sure indication that there is still much important philosophical work to be done on the demarcation between science and pseudoscience."<br /><br /><br />It's with this in mind that I think we ought to be extremely cautious when labeling things as "science" or "pseudoscience," rather than doing so under a baseless confidence, and most <i>assuredly</i> to abstain from engaging in the intellectually worthless cultural attitude of <i>"only take as knowledge the verdicts of a system that follows a narrowly defined scientific method!"</i> <br /><br />Bottom line, we still aren't clear on what science - at a conceptual level - even is, and should conduct ourselves accordingly.AmirFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16617523408763281951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40844104663680608322012-04-14T16:53:42.665-07:002012-04-14T16:53:42.665-07:00@ Amir
"Last I checked, there isn't a cl...@ Amir<br /><br />"Last I checked, there isn't a clear consensus in the philosophy of science about what "science" even is."<br /><br />This is a bit of a vague statement, so I apologize if I don't quite catch your meaning. While there is significant debate about the ontology behind scientific statements, I think we are certainly prepared to make proclamations about non-scientific propositions or claims. <br /><br /><br />@ Crude<br /><br />I've really got no interest in dealing with anonymous internet trolls, especially when they can't complete a sentence without hurling insults. Cheers.Matt DeStefanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408364244593519914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65743374337937080872012-04-14T10:58:42.416-07:002012-04-14T10:58:42.416-07:00Crude self-refer much. lmao
Run away, little boy,...<i>Crude self-refer much. lmao</i><br /><br />Run away, little boy, run away. ;)Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51313572264415185752012-04-14T08:17:24.310-07:002012-04-14T08:17:24.310-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23473867420102401382012-04-14T02:40:39.425-07:002012-04-14T02:40:39.425-07:00Ben,
Nobody knows what you mean because it's ...Ben,<br /><br /><i>Nobody knows what you mean because it's clear you have no definitive opinions or position.</i><br /><br />Nobody knows what Zach means because he himself doesn't know. He loves to snark and bitch, but actually reading and comprehending? That takes too long, and is not nearly as fun.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55217689985544916822012-04-14T02:28:49.294-07:002012-04-14T02:28:49.294-07:00Matt,
This has nothing to do with Nagel being a &...Matt,<br /><br /><i>This has nothing to do with Nagel being a "non-materialist" (as you indicated earlier), and I don't even think it has to do with criticism of evolution (which, AFAIK, he hasn't offered) but his endorsement of ID as a "scientific disagreement" and his subsequent endorsement of obviously false claims about evolutionary theory.</i><br /><br />I said that non-materialists who keep their mouths shut are tolerated. What was the problem in Nagel's case, as well as Fodor, was this utter freakout over not just the claims they were making making, but the actually effects on discourse everyone was petrified it may have, coming from men like them. Obviously Fodor isn't even a 'non-materialist', but his book caught him hell.<br /><br />And why? Because 'it will be used by creationists!'<br /><br />Pathetic.<br /><br /><i>There's plenty more, and I highly suggest reading the whole post.</i><br /><br />Considering that your quoted snippet makes reference to 'divine intervention', as if that ID bills itself as a scientific theory about miracles in history, I'll spare myself witnessing the stupidity. (Not to mention other mistakes made there - 10 to 1 the bacterial flagellum claim is reference to evidence that parts of the flagellum existed in biological precursors, in completely different roles - an observation entirely compatible with ID's claims.) <br /><br />See, I disagree with ID and I don't think it's science - but I've bothered to actually read Behe, Dembski and others' writing on this. I don't run to the nearest atheist, tug their pantleg, and beg them to yell at the Scary Men who got Nagel to endorse one of their books.<br /><br />I also don't, like Leiter, yourself, and precious Zach over there, flip the fuck out just because someone happens to think the core ID arguments (which I highly doubt you could even give an accuracy summary of) have merit. I happen to believe people can reasonably disagree on many of these subjects. The problem is I have little patience for pretentious h-jobs who act like they know far, far more than they do.<br /><br />Which would be why you and Zach get on my bad side so damn easily. ;)Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73889232451315805262012-04-14T02:17:45.451-07:002012-04-14T02:17:45.451-07:00Crude your reading comprehension is bad, you misse...<i>Crude your reading comprehension is bad, you missed my point, assumed you didn't, assume the worst, and hurl insults based on such.</i><br /><br />Bud, you rolled in here with a post that you suggested would illustrate how Nagel has 'jumped the shark', how his imagination has failed, etc.<br /><br />All it was, was Leiter bitching and moaning about how Nagel endorsed a book he didn't like, and how that endorsement would embolden The Wrong Team.<br /><br />Then Matt showed up to whimper and gnash his teeth about how terrible it is that some people get tribal about these subjects - when the very post you linked was just one big display of tribalism. It couldn't be more clear.<br /><br /><i>What have you contributed insult monkey.</i><br /><br />Illustrating that you're full of shit, as usual. ;)<br /><br /><i>I am dumber having participated in this discussion with you.</i><br /><br />I admit you've gotten dumber, Zach. But don't blame me - that one's squarely on your shoulders.<br /><br /><i>Crude never chnages his position (i.e., learns) so don't bother.</i><br /><br />You don't even know my positions, or what changes I've made. All you know is that I've insulted you (deservingly) and exposed you as a blowhard multiple times in the past, and ow, it stings.<br /><br />Suck it up, kid. You can't be a crybaby forever.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59101794837223551532012-04-13T23:03:30.047-07:002012-04-13T23:03:30.047-07:00"...his gross misunderstanding of what to dem...<i>"...his gross misunderstanding of what to demarcate as 'science' makes me hesitate in bothering to do so."</i><br /><br />Last I checked, there isn't a clear consensus in the philosophy of science about what "science" even is.AmirFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16617523408763281951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47529747847212095702012-04-13T17:18:27.997-07:002012-04-13T17:18:27.997-07:00@BDK
Nobody's upset about Nagel's new boo...@BDK<br /><br />Nobody's upset about Nagel's new book, it's about his endorsement of Meyer's "hatchet job". Having said that, I'm not holding my breath that Nagel will contribute anything worthwhile.Matt DeStefanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408364244593519914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-31322854801869292262012-04-13T09:57:21.711-07:002012-04-13T09:57:21.711-07:00Good to see you still here Ben. Ella is almost two...Good to see you still here Ben. Ella is almost two now, a lot of fun to spend time with. Usually. :)Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77207507273383039332012-04-13T09:30:10.728-07:002012-04-13T09:30:10.728-07:00BDK once again the voice of sanity.
Hope the litt...BDK once again the voice of sanity.<br /><br />Hope the little one is good bro.<br /><br />cheers.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35702690052751901442012-04-13T06:47:23.842-07:002012-04-13T06:47:23.842-07:00Note my hope that Nagel offers a positive substant...Note my hope that Nagel offers a positive substantive view is not entirely genuine. Just consider the book's length (144 pages) and subtitle (Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False). <br /><br />But I would love to be wrong about that.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55743768661457210632012-04-13T06:36:24.136-07:002012-04-13T06:36:24.136-07:00The book isn't out, so people should probably ...The book isn't out, so people should probably relax a bit. What if it is just a good-faith attempt to struggle with the issues? <br /><br />Perhaps Nagel has something new. Maybe the focus will be on some cool new positive story about consciousness that explains the data of consciousness better than anything else. Maybe it won't just be a critique of "naturalism", but a substantive new way of thinking about the phenomenon.<br /><br />I understand the concern that his work will be used, and likely twisted, by Creationist-type evangelists. But that is a separate issue from the arguments and their merits. Having annoying consequences is not enough to make your arguments false.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57723685943247958312012-04-13T06:22:56.400-07:002012-04-13T06:22:56.400-07:00Who knows or cares? A God-of-the-gaps can't b...Who knows or cares? A God-of-the-gaps can't be the God of Abraham & Aquinas.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82071037001636901772012-04-13T01:12:57.998-07:002012-04-13T01:12:57.998-07:00Hip, hip hooray!
A new gap!
This raises the inte...Hip, hip hooray!<br /><br />A new gap!<br /><br />This raises the interesting question -<br /><br />If there is a gap, what can it be filled with?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46142310578973847552012-04-12T14:05:15.332-07:002012-04-12T14:05:15.332-07:00To put it another way I can with ease envision liv...To put it another way I can with ease envision living in a godless universe with ID(it was The Preservers from Star Trek who seeded out world with engineered proto-DNA that brought about life) as a scientific theory. Better than as a Thomist I can envision ID presently as a "religious theory". It's not any that jives with my Religious Tradition let me tell ya.<br /><br />True some Catholics have jumped on the ID band wagon but as Catholic Apologist Karl Keating once quipped we Catholics are a very open minded people but sometimes the openness goes all the way threw.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55129912511550263882012-04-12T13:51:37.404-07:002012-04-12T13:51:37.404-07:00@Matt
>but instead for misrepresenting ID as a ...@Matt<br />>but instead for misrepresenting ID as a scientific theory rather than some sort of religious speculation.<br /><br />If I deny God tomorrow why should I believe ID isn't a scientific theory?<br /><br />Nagel thinks it is thought no doubt not a very compelling or useful theory.<br /><br />Even Atheist philosopher Bradley Monton has defended it as a scientific theory & wrote a book about it.<br /><br />Is there some type of Scientific Atheist Pope who rules Ex Cathedra on these matters?<br /><br />As a Catholic Thomist who rejects the idea God is proven by some base Empiricism vs philosophical argument I wouldn't call the neo-Paley "deity" Id envisions "god".Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.com