a reply to: Barcs
I don't use the word "inference" unless it's in response to someone bringing up the word such as I'm doing in this comment.
I find no need for it. The terminologies "conclusion (from experiments and observations) by induction" and "argument of induction" (which is also
Isaac Newton's terminology regarding the topic that became known as "modern science" in my quotations of him) work just fine for me. Of course I tend
to use these terminologies after I've given a little bit more information about the topic of inductive reasoning. I find Michael Behe's explanation
with the duck quite appropiate to remind people of the important aspects of inductive reasoning vs wishful speculation (wishful thinking, 'just-so'
stories, 'maybe-so' stories, 'most likely-so' stories, etc.). Since the presentation from Michael Behe about inductive reasoning is not directly
linked in this thread (it is indirectly in the playlist I linked before):
Evidence of Design from Biology. A Presentation by
Dr. Michael Behe (see 2:40-17:44 + 25:49-28:55 + 29:19-39:28)
Those timeframes are for the main points regarding inductive reasoning, skipping past anything that might distract from that because of the way you've
been taught to think and argue about these subjects (especially in response to distracting terminologies such as "irreducible complexity" for which
there is a popular straw man argument being refuted because that terminology when used just like that without further specification what one is
talking about, such as is being done by those responding to that terminology with a straw man version of it, is conducive for it just like using the
term "complexity" without an accurate specification and appropiate or relevant explanation what specific kind
of complexity we're talking about
here, machinery and technology that demonstrates a level and type of complexity that surpasses the current level of technological advancement in human
technology, and conflating that complexity with another type of complexity or misapplying the concept of complexity to things that aren't even all
that complex; again, the concept of "complexity" in this sense works as a distraction and I probably shouldn't have even brought up the word to assist
in that or trigger that distraction. Complexity is not the main point or argument and neither is "irreducible complexity"; besides if you want to make
an argument or point with just 1 word or term making it slightly harder to twist it into a straw man version of the point, it would have been better
to go with "interdependency" or "interdependent cofunctionality" when talking about some attributes of the machinery and technology in living cells in
living procreating organisms; but again, I guess if you leave out that this functionality is geared towards the preservation and procreation of life,
any terminology like that can be twisted to distract from the real issues this subject of interdependent cofunctionality causes for any
proposed/suggested gradual multi-generational process of development or cause for the emergence of this interdependent machinery that cannot function
properly, as in pass on anything to a next generation, when the other machines they are interdependent with aren't around yet in their complete
interdependent cofunctional form, and again, this function is related to being able to pass on anything to a possible next generation).
Below I'm going to break my own rule (or preferred intention) to not use the verb "evolve" in a manner that can be easily misinterpreted compared to
what I'm actually talking about. I'm just going to hope some people will understand what concept I'm talking about and what I'm referring to with
"evolve"; as explained by my previous commentary about the common denominators in evolutionary philosophies, 'nature did it' or natural processes are
the sole cause excluding the process of designing and creating by an intelligent being or beings, including humans, i.e. with this usage of the term,
a human designing and creating the type of machinery displayed in the first video in this thread is not a "natural process", not caused by nature
alone/exclusively). The concept below also relates to the topic of the interdependent cofunctionality of the machinery and technology in living
procreating cells and organisms (organisms procreate, cells&organisms live, just to be clear; this is all about being able to pass anything on that
might change in a next generation of living organisms):
If you can't retain you can't evolve. Or you can't evolve when you can't retain.
This is thinking about biology or multiple generations of lifeforms, living organisms as well as the process of going from nonliving to living and the
suggested* multiple generations in this process by those willing to respond to the subject of "chemical evolution" a.k.a. "abiogenesis". *: illogical
suggestion cause they are not alive and it is not explained how they are able to pass anything on in the storylines, such as the so-called "RNA world
hypothesis" where a mythological purely RNA based lifeform is suggested, btw, in my playlist there's a definition given from a biology course about
what can be considered "alive", this definition appropiately does not include viruses, but I don't really want to get into that now, it's slightly
besides my point; what is nice though is that the video also talks about the subject of interdepency, which is a good combination of subjects to think
about when thinking about the evolutionary myths being spread as "science" under the banner of "chemical evolution" and "the chemical evolution theory
of life" (quoting Haldane&Oparin and the wikipedia page on abiogenesis) or just using the word "evolved" a lot in the storylines carrying the meaning
connected to those philosophies of 'nature dd it'.
The reason why I don't just keep my comment short and say:
If you can't retain you can't evolve.
Is because it then gets easily misinterpreted or twisted into s straw man version or red herring argument to distract from what I'm really talking
about when I say something like that. And that counts for most of my elaborations regarding things I say cause the pattern of twisting what someone is
really talking about and then responding to that instead (or avoiding the main points or important considerations that conflict with one's beliefs and
strong biased way of reasoning) is quite popular and I don't feel like opening up the door further, I like to move that door the other way, as closed
off as I can make it.
edit on 7-3-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)