Probably because he realizes that the opposing side is reasonable (perhaps even reasonably strong), so that even if he's not fully convinced he can recognize the strength of the position.

It's what intellectually honest people do.

He believes in young earth creationism which has even stronger reasonable opposition.

In my experience, this argument isn't actually a First Cause argument, though the person making it may also like FC arguments.

The argument says something like "atoms don't have the property of consciousness, so brains made up of atoms cannot have the property of consciousness," and the same for purpose, intelligence, etc. Not to put words in lagtight's mouth, but I'd be surprised if that's not what he's saying.

Is there that big of a gap between a first cause argument and an emergence argument?

+1

Yes, that's basically what I'm saying.

I also believe in a talking snake, which has even STRONGER reasonable opposition.

I'm not sure how large the gap is, because I don't know what measuring stick we're using, but I think I'd say the difference is important--if for no other reason than to avoid spending a bunch of time analyzing an argument only to find it wasn't really the argument.

That's fair.

Emergent properties are very difficult to argue about clearly and cleanly, whereas first cause arguments are usually fairly precise in their statements. But they are very similar in their underlying structure. It would be interesting to see this fleshed out, if possible.

What do you understand by the word 'reasonable'? If part of the definition you accept is ' sound judgement' then you're saying that a view that contradicts yours is formed with sound judgement. This doesn't present a problem for you? Can two contradictory views both be formed with ' sound judgement'?

Yes. This happens all the time.

There is no problem with believing that X is true while acknowledging that Y is making very good points. This happens in many complex situations involving human judgment.

I think they can be. The difference doesn't have to be a result of un/sound judgement, it might be because of slightly different data being considered, different interpretations of the same data, different weighting of the data, different "Bayesian priors," etc.

As you are a frequent proponent of science, I'm surprised at this question.

For example: Which one is unsound, general relativity or quantum mechanics? They often contradict each-other.

Both!

(Sorry, just trolling. )

As a long-time chess enthusiast (I once reached Expert level, which is one level below Master in the United States Chess Federation), a frequent debate topic among chess players is whether white has a theoretical forced win (with best play from both sides), or whether with best play black can hold the draw in every game.

Each side of the debate presents arguments that are logically valid, yet their conclusions are contradictory.

That being the case, the debate must center around the truth of the premises in each argument.

The point is, both sides are being reasonable in that both sides are being logically consistent, and both sides are basing their arguments on premises that are prima-facia [sic?] reasonable. Yet, one of the two sides is wrong, even though both sides are being reasonable.

Ok, so you're defining 'reasonable' at the very least as 'logically valid', and a logically valid counter is enough to make you shrug your shoulders, say 'well played' and walk away? Surely the next step is to attack the premises to show that the counter isn't sound, that they're not true. Logically valid doesn't mean correct, as you clearly understand. I can prove that you're from mars if a logically valid argument is all that you require to give up on disagreeing with me...?

Hence the requirement for adhering to strict principles. If you can't, then you have nothing more than a hypothesis no matter how complex or convincing. This is why the word 'theory' shouldn't be bandied around as if it has no meaning, no special status attached to it.

In any case, my issue is with the 'ah, you make a good point, I think I'll quit now' approach to debate being exhibited.

Changing the labels doesn't do anything. All you've done here is demonstrate that the word "theory" in your rendering of it shows that nothing is actually a theory.

In this case, which is the one that you're claiming is "not a theory"? Newtonian or quantum mechanics? What specific feature fails?

I'll note that of the list of randomly capitalized words that you've used at various points to define science, I don't recall any of them being to the effect of "does not contradict another theory."

This would also suggest that you are unwilling to accept that two distinct theories may be equally capable of explaining of phenomenon.

It's not strange that *you* would take issue with this. But it is a strange thing in general to take issue with. Recognizing that the other side has made a good point isn't strange at all when it comes to intellectual content.

Truth is not so easy to pin down.

Hi, Mightyboosh. Thanks for your response to my post.

1. I would say an argument is "reasonable" if it is both a)logically valid, and b)its premises are prima-facia[sic] true. (This doesn't mean that the premises are in fact actually true, but thoughtful analysis would be required to conclude that they are in fact actually false.)

2. As I explicitly said in my post, if two arguments are both logically valid and their conclusions are contradictory to each other, then the debate revolves around the truth value of the premises in each argument.

3. In several recent discussions, posters such as Aaron gave reasonable arguments against a couple of positions that I was advocating, and at the time I couldn't come up with what I thought was a convincing counter, so I freely acknowledged that fact and "walked away" (in your words) from further discussion on the point. Now, that doesn't mean I've "walked away" forever, but unless or until I have an intelligent counter to what they said, then continuing on would be rather disingenuous and counterproductive.

4. I actually want to learn things and have productive conversations (just as you do). Maybe I'm reading something into your responses to my "walking away" from the discussion that you're not intending, but you seem to suggest I'm doing something wrong by not pursuing the discussion further. Well, I WILL pursue the discussion further if I have something intelligent to say on the matter. Until then, I will, as they say, "remain silent and appear ignorant, rather than to say something and thereby remove all doubt."

Have a blessed day!

This is irrelevant here as general relativity and quantum mechanics are both accepted theories and among the most important models in science.

They do however, contradict each-other on important aspects.

Which one is unsound?

It's a rhetorical question of course. None of them are. They're models, not "truth". Empirical models, so they do align with observation, but they're not what we actually observe. And when accepted theories in the hardest of hard sciences can contradict each-other, then surely there must be room for some disagreement when debating esoteric issues.

It's also a bit of a misdirect. As the contradiction in these two titanic physics theories does lead pretty much every physicist out there to accept that there is more work to be done and that we're not at a solution yet. And that's a very reasonable approach.

We don't know, but since science makes no claim to objective truth, can we ever 'know'? What we can do though is have theories that meet certain criteria and can at least be regarded as more reliable than those that don't meet those criteria.



I don't disagree.

You're very polite, but it's really not necessary. Save yourself the time if you like.

2. doesn't go as far as 1.

If you agree that an argument is logically valid AND that it's premises are true (even with the prima-facia caveat), then it is also Sound, i.e. correct, and you are wrong. Contradictory conclusions can't both be sound, that's logically impossible.

So, when you say that TD's argument is reasonable, by your definition, you're saying that you're wrong. Or you're saying that you actually do doubt the truth value of his premises in which case your caveat is pointless, even a little disingenuous, since his argument can't be 'reasonable' if you doubt the truth value of the premises.


So you gave it your best shot but were unable to show why you're not wrong. One might wonder then how you are able to hold your beliefs since you don't appear to have good enough reasons to do so.

I would moderate this to stating that this is perhaps currently the best approach, but we can't lock it down to that. I think we as humans have a tendency to view ourselves as living in the final days, as if everything in history led up to this moment.But we're just a step on the ladder, and we can't even be sure in which direction. I think science will continue to trod on, and I suspect its paradigms are going to shift as more and more disciplines face limitations.

To borrow from the other thread, what you see as "non-scientific" about conjectures about multiverses and whatnot, I see as natural progression when we approach the limitations of experimental method. I don't think those views are going become the accepted norm, but they are the result of thinking outside the box and we'll likely need a fair bit off that in the future.

If I think I have a good reason to hold onto a belief, I do so. If I have a belief that I can't justify rationally, I might still doggedly hold onto the belief for some unknown (to me) psychological reason, but I won't attempt to justify that belief to someone else.

Like everyone else, I have many beliefs, and some of them I am more confident than others that the belief actually corresponds to reality.

I'm not trying to win a debate. If someone gives me a good reason to rethink my current position on something, I will do so.

In a larger context, I'm not exactly sure what you want from me. I attempted to defend a position, I heard what I thought was a valid criticism of that position, so I then said that I wouldn't pursue it any further (at least at that time, which I suppose I didn't make clear). I hope I'm just trying to be intellectually honest and to learn something.

Anyway, I hope you understand me better now.