tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post7269603024382392420..comments2024-03-26T12:23:29.784-04:00Comments on Philosoraptor: Winston Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-32442607811158239782007-11-18T17:14:00.000-05:002007-11-18T17:14:00.000-05:00I had a boat once which sunk at the dock. It too, ...I had a boat once which sunk at the dock. It too, succumbed to pier pressure!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-25912677348030091882007-11-17T22:15:00.000-05:002007-11-17T22:15:00.000-05:00We know trees are there from our birth. When the w...We know trees are there from our birth. When the wind blows they move and whisper to us. When they fall we hear them, feel them, burn them. We name them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-47683634507523341992007-11-17T22:07:00.000-05:002007-11-17T22:07:00.000-05:00If you're referring to the Barnes & Bloor article ...If you're referring to the Barnes & Bloor article in Hollis & Lukes, ed., <I>Rationality and Relativism</I>, then its title is "Relativism, Rationalism, and the Sociology of Knowledge," not "Rationalism, Realism, ...". (In case someone searches for it.) Good collection btw.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure you're being *quite* fair to the SSK position; but eh, close enough.Duckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11349267352262603510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-58428603581482141502007-11-17T18:51:00.000-05:002007-11-17T18:51:00.000-05:00Thanks for the peer review, Mr. Marjanović.Thanks for the peer review, Mr. Marjanović.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-61007693397196923092007-11-17T16:52:00.000-05:002007-11-17T16:52:00.000-05:00Still, why does the carbon atom behave so uniquely...<I>Still, why does the carbon atom behave so uniquely?</I><BR/><BR/>Remember that the Anthropic Principle is currently indistinguishable from the Lithic Principle. An interesting suggestion is that it's actually all about maximizing the number of black holes...<BR/><BR/><I>"Transitional form." That has to be one of the funniest fucking comments I've ever seen. Thanks. Now I have to clean all the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-66457905909444927812007-11-17T16:34:00.000-05:002007-11-17T16:34:00.000-05:00TVD, I've attempted to point out the limitations o...TVD, I've attempted to point out the limitations of using science and scientific methods to answer the question "Why?".<BR/><BR/>My training was in "What?", and you seem to have some idiosyncratic inclination against peer review, which I gladly concede isn't a method that should be applied to the questions of "Why?". <BR/><BR/>Aside from "Hoyle didn't think much of peer review", you haven't Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-48930379029302957962007-11-17T15:07:00.000-05:002007-11-17T15:07:00.000-05:00DA, you ask what, I ask why. We're not sharing th...DA, you ask what, I ask why. We're not sharing the same inquiry.<BR/><BR/>I'm comfortable with my response to Haldane. Cheers.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-40149788811071306382007-11-17T13:33:00.000-05:002007-11-17T13:33:00.000-05:00Still, why does the carbon atom behave so uniquely...<I>Still, why does the carbon atom behave so uniquely? An education that does not muse on the important things is no education at all.</I><BR/><BR/>I think Fuller would be obligated to answer that the carbon atoms are responding solely to peer pressure.Ed Darrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10056539160596825210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-60516437136363809452007-11-17T12:39:00.000-05:002007-11-17T12:39:00.000-05:00"Transitional form." That has to be one of the fu..."Transitional form." That has to be one of the funniest fucking comments I've ever seen. Thanks. Now I have to clean all the Diet Dr. Pepper off my monitor...Milo Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07951415814042528213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-59727207338542100332007-11-17T11:41:00.000-05:002007-11-17T11:41:00.000-05:00But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg's wo...<B>But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg's wonder at our well-tuned universe.</B><BR/><BR/>That's not even the start of it. Weinberg uses the triple alpha process as an example of a fine-tuning that isn't so fine when you actually look closely.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-74574543104243600992007-11-17T11:00:00.000-05:002007-11-17T11:00:00.000-05:00"creaintelligent designtionism."In case you care, ...<I>"creaintelligent designtionism."</I><BR/><BR/>In case you care, that transitional form was "cdesign proponentsists".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-68565561930210307072007-11-17T10:48:00.000-05:002007-11-17T10:48:00.000-05:00I think The Dark Avenger and Mr. Van Dyke are the ...I think The Dark Avenger and Mr. Van Dyke are the same person.dveejhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11470891264397433797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-65629240199384370912007-11-17T10:35:00.000-05:002007-11-17T10:35:00.000-05:00"I'm at least interested in--and even to some exte..."I'm at least interested in--and even to some extent sympathetic to--the view that something like intelligence is a real force in the universe, and that there might be some tendency toward order in the world."<BR/><BR/>Philosophically, I don't know what arguments could be valid for intelligence being "a real force in the universe." Commonsense tells us that stupidity, rather than intelligence, Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-80976361419892052352007-11-17T10:07:00.000-05:002007-11-17T10:07:00.000-05:00Sorry TVD, but making vague remarks and not explai...Sorry TVD, but making vague remarks and not explaining them doesn't cut the mustard with me. That's not Socratic dialog, although it might come in handy for the fictitious defense lawyers one finds on L&O.<BR/><BR/><B>In between, it seems you're merely arguing.</B><BR/><BR/>And again, you remind me of the <A HREF="http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm" REL="nofollow">Argument Clinic</A>:Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-82658218328372422682007-11-17T04:15:00.000-05:002007-11-17T04:15:00.000-05:00Breaking News: There is a God, to whom we all shou...Breaking News: <A HREF="http://asecondhandconjecture.com/?p=1854" REL="nofollow">There is a God</A>, to whom we all should be grateful.<BR/><BR/>Case closed.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-57196441577308607212007-11-17T02:26:00.000-05:002007-11-17T02:26:00.000-05:00true progress can only be made by helping out with...<I>true progress can only be made by helping out with the back end.<BR/><BR/>I really don't know what you mean by that, as it sounds better than it actually is, as Mark Twain observed about Wagners' music.</I><BR/><BR/>Not atall. I'll be happy to help you out with your argument as soon as you come up with one.<BR/><BR/>In between, it seems you're merely arguing. There's a difference between Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-84388871301793175042007-11-17T01:44:00.000-05:002007-11-17T01:44:00.000-05:00TVD, you have a bee in your bonnet about peer revi...TVD, you have a bee in your bonnet about peer review. It's a good tool, but like any good tool, it has its' limitations, and to term it 'housekeeping' demonstrates a misunderstanding about how peer review works. <BR/><BR/>Keep in mind that E=M(C squared) was peer reviewed, hardly a case of housekeeping at work.<BR/><BR/>As for abduction, that leads to scientific realism, hardly a philosophy I'd Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-6622309294578845152007-11-16T17:58:00.000-05:002007-11-16T17:58:00.000-05:00I hope we're understanding each other. Of course ...I hope we're understanding each other. Of course peer review has its role---the mistake is accepting it as the final word. One can be correct about something, although the explanation may be faulty. I think of acupuncture that way---the "meridians" stuff is pretty mumbo-jumbo; still it seems to work. We should not reject it because the explanation is bad.<BR/><BR/>WS inspired me to survey CS Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-88887790332153613042007-11-16T17:21:00.000-05:002007-11-16T17:21:00.000-05:00Neither was he solely a scientist, so to judge him...<I>Neither was he solely a scientist, so to judge him solely that way is to miss out on what made him great.</I><BR/><BR/>As an astrophysicist, he was great and never got the Nobel Prize he deserved in Physics.<BR/><BR/>As a biologist, not so much. That's the problem with the "Scientist Celebrity" who pontificates about matters outside their primary field, vide Dr. Watson, late of Cold Spring Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-45004514780757662842007-11-16T16:04:00.000-05:002007-11-16T16:04:00.000-05:00It is by default, since what is taught is a mechan...It is by default, since what is taught is a mechanical view of reality. But Haldane seems like my kinda guy.<BR/><BR/>Keep in mind I'm not trying to "prove" anything. But fallibilism, properly understood---if I properly understand it---is anything but nihilistic. It opens to possibilities, not closes.<BR/><BR/>As for Hoyle, I already noted some or even most of his work was flawed. Neither was Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-42223830056638665762007-11-16T06:20:00.000-05:002007-11-16T06:20:00.000-05:00It should be remembered that Hoyle also advocated ...It should be remembered that Hoyle also advocated the idea of panspermia, which only begs the question of the origin of life:<BR/><BR/><B>One critic [7] argues that Hoyle's line of reasoning in this case incorporates a number of clear logical mistakes and omissions, such as assuming that the spontaneous creation of life must occur simultaneously, that the life thus created would be as complex as Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-32182355961658871672007-11-16T01:06:00.000-05:002007-11-16T01:06:00.000-05:00Now yer cookin'. Hoyle was likely wrong about mos...Now yer cookin'. Hoyle was likely wrong about most things, but so what? He gravitated toward the crazy, and the world is grateful. [Which is why he was no fan of peer review---who were his peers? They're still catching up to CS Peirce, and he's been dead 80 years.]<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry to see the Bible account of creation being so rigorously defended, as aside from apparently being right aboutTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-80875035629777135972007-11-15T22:55:00.000-05:002007-11-15T22:55:00.000-05:00The physicist Niels Bohr, in response to a questio...The physicist Niels Bohr, in response to a question about a student's theory:<BR/><BR/><B>We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough.</B>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-71830591137874658932007-11-15T22:18:00.000-05:002007-11-15T22:18:00.000-05:00We're agreed. I just want people to ask why. Tha...We're agreed. I just want people to ask why. That is the inquiry. All answers are provisional.<BR/><BR/>And I think the carbon atom is interesting. It was enough for Fred Hoyle to rethink his atheism.<BR/><BR/>It's the rethinking that's the inquiry, the soul of philosophy.<BR/><BR/>As for science, I myself don't hold any unorthodox views.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-59500109918338360622007-11-15T22:06:00.000-05:002007-11-15T22:06:00.000-05:00I should have clarified that I meant imagining a r...I should have clarified that I meant imagining a real silicon life form, or speculative exobiology at best. I myself don't have the knowledge of chemistry or the imagination for such a project, so the line forms to the left............<BR/><BR/><I>if you claim they're conclusive on the greatest question of all</I><BR/><BR/>No, that would be scientism,and I wouldn't claim conclusive proof that Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com