Posted: Jan 21, 2011 2:41 am
by Царь Славян
Tsar, you clearly don't get it. You pretend that you can infer design, but when pushed, you basically admit that nothing is impossible with regards to design, ergo, you cannot infer design.
No, it just means that we shouldn't infer design on what the designer would do. Which is what you proposed, and I said outright that that's wrong.

You alone have achieved precisely the same conclusion that others have arrived at - namely, the design hypothesis is neither scientific nor logical because it doesn't have a remit and is untestable.
No. We reached that your method is flawed, not mine. And the idea of a design hypothesis is scientific. Is it scientific to say that some archological find was designed? Obviously yes. Therefore, the design hypothesis is scientific.

The only question is how long it will take you to realise it.
Or for you to realize that your method is what is flawed.

An object 'designed' to inhibit its own purpose. How then can we falsify presumed design of an object if it can be entirely non functional and still be deemed design? How do we even infer design in the first place if it is non-functioning?
By deciding does it exhibit specified complexity. In otehr words, if the object conformas to an independently given pattern and is also improbable we can infer design.

You can't infer intentionality? Design IS intentionality. If you can't infer intentionality from an object, you can't infer design from an object.
But you can't infer what precisely the object that is designed, is designed FOR. And also, why it was designed.

Even an object that infers no design could still have been designed and its apparent design is lost due to being broken or worn down. Can you spell 'unfalsifiable'?
No, if we can't infer desgin, then we simply don't infer design. Which means that the design hypothesis for the object in question is falsified.

Non-functioning objects can still be designed. The reason design can be inferred is because you don't know the intention of the designer so it's possible that the designer intended it that way, yet in the last sentence you said that you can't use intention as an inferrence of the design in an object.

If you cannot infer intention, you cannot infer design. If no possible intention can be inferred for the purpose of the object, then it is not rational to infer to design, nor is it falsifiable.
Wrong. I can't infer intention, but I can infer design. Specified complexity is a reliable marker of design.

Maybe it was just designed to not function. Non-falsifiable and not even remotely rational to infer design from it then. Again, inferring intent, which you said you couldn't do - seems like you want to infer intent when it is convenient, but reject it when it's not.
No, I never said that I could infer intent in any case, just design. I can say that something is designed, but not why it was designed.

Maybe it serves some other purpose - inferring intent again, which you said is not inferrable from an object.
That's not inference! That's why I said MAYBE! If I don't say MAYBE then it would be inference. I didn't say that IT DOES serve another purpose, I said that MAYBE it does!

So, to recap this section. If you can infer intent from an object, it is plausible it is designed. If you cannot infer intent from an object, it is still plausible that it is designed. Ergo, inferring design by your metric is not scientific as there's never a means to falsify it. It's not rational, because your premise is your conclusion.
NO! That's YOUR metric, not mine! You are the one who proposed to infer design by intentionality, not me! I said from the start that that's flawed!

A designer that intentionally (there goes that intent that can't be inferred again) designs a non-functioning object? How then would you infer design if it is intentionally designed to look like it is not designed? Again, you are relying on the intent of the designer to make your claim about design, something you said was not your claim.
I wouldn't event take intentionality into the consideration! You bought it up in the first place, not me. I would use specified complexity which metntions no intentionality whatsoever.

Second, it's unfalsifiable - an object that has no appearance of design whatsoever can suddenly have design inferred because of the plausibility of a designer intending their design to look undesigned. You have gone way too far down the rabbit hole for this to remain even remotely rational.
No, that's your method. You brought up a method that you keep showing is flawed, and attributing it to me. I say that your method is flawed, and I'm not accepting it. My method is falsifiabel, becasue if an object whose design hypothesis is in question, can be shown to be accounted for by either natural law, or chance, then we do NOT infer design. Thus the design hypothesis for the said obejct is falsified.

We can't infer intent from design, yet that's precisely what you have done throughout to reject my points. Ergo, the design hypothesis is a failure on 3 fronts.
I didn't infer any intent I said it's impossible.

1) It's non-falsifiable and therefore unscientific. Under your claims, anything could be designed and we cannot reject the proposal of anything being designed because there's no means of inferring their design.
Wrong. As I said before, either show that an object can be accounted for by natural laws or chance, and the design hypothesis is falsified.

2) As there's no means of inferring their design, there's no reason to forward it as a valid hypothesis.
Yes there is. A reliable marker of design is called Specified Complexity.

3) As the only way that the hypothesis works is to insert the conclusion into the premise, it's rationally inept.
Obviously not.

Like I said Царь, you have single-handedly shown why a design hypothesis fails. You can't even maintain the appearance of a logical argument because the hypothesis is flawed and simply begs the question.
No, what I hav shown is that YOUR method of infering design by intention is illogical and therefore flawed.