(2018-01-08, 12:25 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]I like this example, as it seems to nicely illustrate the illusion of Irreducible Complexity. From a human perspective, scaffolding is deliberately introduced in order to achieve a result we otherwise would be unable to produce (the stone arch), which seems complex. Whereas, coming at it from the other direction shows that scaffolding (the erodible rock, in this case) is ubiquitous a priori.
Linda
I guess it just highlights a fundamental difference in approach between those who (want to?) see a guiding hand in the process, and those who (want to?) see nature slowly churning away with fluky, surprising outcomes that can test human credulity.
If one is convinced that ‘god’ (or ‘mind’) is ‘ubiquitous a priori’ it is bound to shift one’s perspective. But I’m not sure why the same god doesn’t get any credit for the hole in the rock?
(2018-01-08, 12:53 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]You seem to be missing the point as badly as is malf, if not more so. I won't repeat myself (nor Kamarling, who has admirably affirmed the (missed) point), except to ask: Linda, how exactly does the analogy hold? How does erodible rock involve scaffolding which is then dismantled?
Isn’t this just language? We just call the erodible rock ‘scaffolding’. (Possibly only after looking at a surprisingly shaped outcome.)
(2018-01-08, 06:29 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Isn’t this just language? We just call the erodible rock ‘scaffolding’. (Possibly only after looking at a surprisingly shaped outcome.)
No, it's not just language. It's a failed analogy. Scaffolding is supposed to be used to build something. Erosion isn't building, it's wearing away. A hole in a rock is not meaningfully analogous to a biological function, let alone one so complex that it could only have emerged from a - meaningful - scaffolding process.
(2018-01-08, 06:29 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Isn’t this just language? We just call the erodible rock ‘scaffolding’. (Possibly only after looking at a surprisingly shaped outcome.)
Ah come on, Malf. We've all been involved in discussions where someone belabours a point that anyone can see is untenable (it is no surprise that Linda joined in - she's the champion dead horse abuser) but the point is so obvious that you can only be playing games here.
To reiterate: a Roman arch (the original analogy) is constructed using a complex set of specially shaped arch stones. Scaffolding is required to hold the stones in place until the keystone is inserted at which point the scaffolding can be removed and discarded. Removing the scaffolding before the keystone would cause collapse. Removing the keystone (or any of the specially shaped arch stones) would also cause the arch to collapse. Hence its use as an analogy for IC.
Now your turn: please explain how your eroded hole likewise serves as an analogy? Your argument seems to ignore the complexity involving shaped stones and the resulting complexity of the arch and rely on the premise that the rock that is eventually eroded can be thought of as scaffolding. Nobody but you is arguing about the latter.
(2018-01-08, 06:57 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]No, it's not just language. It's a failed analogy. Scaffolding is supposed to be used to build something. Erosion isn't building, it's wearing away. A hole in a rock is not meaningfully analogous to a biological function, let alone one so complex that it could only have emerged from a - meaningful - scaffolding process.
Ok. I thought that whilst the word ‘scaffolding’ is used, the ‘neo-dawinist’ isn’t saying these structures were put in place with a specific end-goal ‘in mind’, but inadvertently helpful to what came after... In this respect the erodible stone turns out to be a similar ‘scaffold’.
(2018-01-08, 07:12 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Ok. I thought that whilst the word ‘scaffolding’ is used, the ‘neo-dawinist’ isn’t saying these structures were put in place with a specific end-goal ‘in mind’, but inadvertently helpful to what came after... In this respect the erodible stone turns out to be a similar ‘scaffold’.
Nevermind responding to me, malf. Kamarling's post was far more incisive than mine. Have at it, man!
(2018-01-08, 07:12 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Ok. I thought that whilst the word ‘scaffolding’ is used, the ‘neo-dawinist’ isn’t saying these structures were put in place with a specific end-goal ‘in mind’, but inadvertently helpful to what came after... In this respect the erodible stone turns out to be a similar ‘scaffold’.
Yes, I think we all saw that too but it wasn't the point of the analogy.
(2018-01-08, 07:06 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]Ah come on, Malf. We've all been involved in discussions where someone belabours a point that anyone can see is untenable (it is no surprise that Linda joined in - she's the champion dead horse abuser) but the point is so obvious that you can only be playing games here.
To reiterate: a Roman arch (the original analogy) is constructed using a complex set of specially shaped arch stones. Scaffolding is required to hold the stones in place until the keystone is inserted at which point the scaffolding can be removed and discarded. Removing the scaffolding before the keystone would cause collapse. Removing the keystone (or any of the specially shaped arch stones) would also cause the arch to collapse. Hence its use as an analogy for IC.
Now your turn: please explain how your eroded hole likewise serves as an analogy? Your argument seems to ignore the complexity involving shaped stones and the resulting complexity of the arch and rely on the premise that the rock that is eventually eroded can be thought of as scaffolding. Nobody but you is arguing about the latter.
Yes. I’m starting to see that the Roman Arch may be a poor analogy for what is going on in nature.
(2018-01-08, 06:22 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]I guess it just highlights a fundamental difference in approach between those who (want to?) see a guiding hand in the process, and those who (want to?) see nature slowly churning away with fluky, surprising outcomes that can test human credulity.
If one is convinced that ‘god’ (or ‘mind’) is ‘ubiquitous a priori’ it is bound to shift one’s perspective. But I’m not sure why the same god doesn’t get any credit for the hole in the rock?
Its complexity doesn't test human credulity. At least nowadays it doesn't. I imagine there were native american myths which attributed these kinds of arches to gods. And I have to admit (I've done a lot of road trips through the US Southwest) that some of these seemingly natural formations are a bit overwhelming - whether it's trying to conceive of the age of the rocks at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, or the profound eeriness in the company of hoodoos...
Linda