"The biological facts....will be explained as purely Darwinian processes driven by the second law of thermodynamics..... "
There really is nothing more specifically absurd - that is believed by so-called intelligent people - than this. That is, that the eyes, the nervous system, beauty, love, clarinets and symphonies, PCs containing RAM that refreshes every millisecond, DNA error-correction and horizontal gene transfer etc. all happened because molecules bumped into each other according to the laws of thermodynamics and then carried on doing this for a long time. It's like someone jumps an inch into the air and then infers that Boeing 747s are inevitable. It's just preposterous.
"Why" is not a question scientific inquiry can answer, even in principle. What, where, when, who, and especially how are quite readily answered scientifically, but why implies formal causes, it assumes intent. Science does not even attempt to answer why; it simply sidesteps the question by declaring it invalid. Whereas the natural philosophers who got the ball rolling would have acknowledged that science is not a suitable tool for answering why, and that one must step outside science in order to even ask it, their inheritors have forgotten the question even exists.
"When contemplating anything made, says Augustine, we should ask three questions: who made it, by what means he made it, and why he made it. That is a simple and salvific art, proper to all who care about truth."--From Douglas Farrow's essay that was posted today.
I had to run an Amazon search on "Scientism: Prospects and Problems"; I could not believe such "arguments" existed. I apologize for doubting you, Sir Briggs.
Another turtles explanation is used in the lack of free will argument - all "force" is found external to people, it exists in non-people things which have force due to being made up of smaller things which have force due to even smaller...etc. All forces are external to people and we are simply beings battered by external forces to be found in some miniscule entity to be named later. Enjoy the ride.
Exactly what is foolish about the turtles? I can't come up with anything that makes more sense. Maybe if you close your eyes and listen caefully in a quiet moment you can hear them sing.
The best illustration that I can think of for the Second Law of Thermodynamics is my 1 year old son left alone with some building blocks that have been stacked up. The blocks will wind up all knocked down and chewed on. If you do the experiment again they will be knocked down and chewed on in a different pattern. If, hypothetically he never gained experience but could repeat the experiment the same a billion times, then every time the blocks would be knocked down and chewed on.
Evolution by the Second Law of Thermodynamics is the claim that if you leave him alone in the room long enough, still positing that he is unable to learn or gain any knowledge or experience during the experiment or successive experiments, that eventually he will build a robot out of the blocks. He will arrange the blocks into gearsets, I can't imagine how. He will arrange the blocks into logic gates and actuators, all of this without learning or gaining any experience. Just by grabbing the block that takes his fancy aimlessly his chewing and throwing will construct these things. Now note that this is the pure thermodynamic bridge that must be crossed successfully billions of times before we can even begin to discuss 'natural selection'. Do you believe that any number of runs of the experiment for any length of time will result in a robot? Does anybody?
The why of sicence! has always been and will always be the disenchantment of man and his world. There is no war of the Christian religion upon science! But there should be.
I was reading Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov as a child, and after decades of exposure to scientism's bullshit, I've decided that I would rather burn civilization to the ground than cede it to nihilist filth. This may be the preeminent flaw in Rosenberg's logic: any society built on Bertrand Russell's unyielding despair is destined to end badly.
(As it turns out, our society is ruled by nihilists already. The good news is that it's burning down and all I have to do is provide the marshmallows.)
"The biological facts....will be explained as purely Darwinian processes driven by the second law of thermodynamics..... "
There really is nothing more specifically absurd - that is believed by so-called intelligent people - than this. That is, that the eyes, the nervous system, beauty, love, clarinets and symphonies, PCs containing RAM that refreshes every millisecond, DNA error-correction and horizontal gene transfer etc. all happened because molecules bumped into each other according to the laws of thermodynamics and then carried on doing this for a long time. It's like someone jumps an inch into the air and then infers that Boeing 747s are inevitable. It's just preposterous.
"Why" is not a question scientific inquiry can answer, even in principle. What, where, when, who, and especially how are quite readily answered scientifically, but why implies formal causes, it assumes intent. Science does not even attempt to answer why; it simply sidesteps the question by declaring it invalid. Whereas the natural philosophers who got the ball rolling would have acknowledged that science is not a suitable tool for answering why, and that one must step outside science in order to even ask it, their inheritors have forgotten the question even exists.
"When contemplating anything made, says Augustine, we should ask three questions: who made it, by what means he made it, and why he made it. That is a simple and salvific art, proper to all who care about truth."--From Douglas Farrow's essay that was posted today.
https://douglasfarrow.substack.com/p/delivering-an-answer?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=619727&post_id=136443893&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=fb231&utm_medium=email
What I love about philosophy is that we can take all those who, what, when, where, and how questions and ask why to each of them to gain deeper truth.
Well put.
All scientists have to believe in one miracle, and it’s a big, banging one.
I had to run an Amazon search on "Scientism: Prospects and Problems"; I could not believe such "arguments" existed. I apologize for doubting you, Sir Briggs.
Another turtles explanation is used in the lack of free will argument - all "force" is found external to people, it exists in non-people things which have force due to being made up of smaller things which have force due to even smaller...etc. All forces are external to people and we are simply beings battered by external forces to be found in some miniscule entity to be named later. Enjoy the ride.
Life is just Brownian motion.
God = turtles. As a Terry Pratchett fan, I can totally get behind that.
People like you need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Century of the Fruitbat
Exactly what is foolish about the turtles? I can't come up with anything that makes more sense. Maybe if you close your eyes and listen caefully in a quiet moment you can hear them sing.
May I ask if there is a compact list of fallacies you speak of somewhere?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1087987156/
The best illustration that I can think of for the Second Law of Thermodynamics is my 1 year old son left alone with some building blocks that have been stacked up. The blocks will wind up all knocked down and chewed on. If you do the experiment again they will be knocked down and chewed on in a different pattern. If, hypothetically he never gained experience but could repeat the experiment the same a billion times, then every time the blocks would be knocked down and chewed on.
Evolution by the Second Law of Thermodynamics is the claim that if you leave him alone in the room long enough, still positing that he is unable to learn or gain any knowledge or experience during the experiment or successive experiments, that eventually he will build a robot out of the blocks. He will arrange the blocks into gearsets, I can't imagine how. He will arrange the blocks into logic gates and actuators, all of this without learning or gaining any experience. Just by grabbing the block that takes his fancy aimlessly his chewing and throwing will construct these things. Now note that this is the pure thermodynamic bridge that must be crossed successfully billions of times before we can even begin to discuss 'natural selection'. Do you believe that any number of runs of the experiment for any length of time will result in a robot? Does anybody?
The why of sicence! has always been and will always be the disenchantment of man and his world. There is no war of the Christian religion upon science! But there should be.
When that war arises my faith will not be shaken. My Christianity would be.
Thank you for the "Someday My Prince Will Come Fallacy".
This phrase aptly sums up much of what passes for thought in today's world.
This reminds me very much of my French teacher in high school who always responded “Because the Romans did it that way!”😅
When it comes right down to it, facts are a matter of faith.
Jim Bob? Awesome…
I could be wrong. Maybe there are TWO Jims in Alaska on social media 😄
Probably so, Jim Bob I ain't.
ah well. Heckuva guy he is.
The limits of science need to be more clearly recognized.
Hopes dreams, love hate, like dislike, artistic or political views cannot be seen under a microscope, and have no weight or mass, but are still real.
I was a conservative before I even knew it and inexplicably voted for Nixon in 1968, so I've probably been a mystical boson since high school.
Drat the curse of destiny.
I was reading Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov as a child, and after decades of exposure to scientism's bullshit, I've decided that I would rather burn civilization to the ground than cede it to nihilist filth. This may be the preeminent flaw in Rosenberg's logic: any society built on Bertrand Russell's unyielding despair is destined to end badly.
(As it turns out, our society is ruled by nihilists already. The good news is that it's burning down and all I have to do is provide the marshmallows.)
I wonder what century technology would be in, if all of you science objectors had your way.
It is a fundamental error to lump all of those who seek to understand the nature of things into a single group of only one sort.