5 ms·

> It is not valid if your premises (e.g. all species on Earth were created by a divine intelligent designer) have been proven false. Sigh... http://en.wikiped

> It is not valid if your premises (e.g. all species on Earth were created by a divine intelligent designer) have been proven false. Sigh... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

dkokelley 14y ago
While I agree with the falsifiability comment, I think the "sigh" was unnecessary.
- ArbitraryLimits 14y ago
  I'm sure you're right. In my defense, I didn't write "sigh" the first hundred times I pointed out that error on the Internet.
Wintamute 14y ago
How is taking one isolated sentence and pedantically linking to a Wikipedia that highlights a subtle error while missing or ignoring the obvious thrust of the entire argument in any way adding to this discussion? Come on now.
- dmritard96 14y ago
  seems he/she should be able to take apart an argument in any way he/she wants. It contributes to the conversation by pointing out another poorly thought out/worded/constructed argument. True, there are bigger fish to fry and more important points to address, but that doesn't have to be everyone's prerogative.
  - Wintamute 14y ago
    Seems I should be able to contribute to the discussion in my own way too then, doesn't it? It contributes to the conversation by pointing out another poorly thought out/worded/constructed argument. True, there are bigger fish to fry and more important points to address, but that doesn't have to be everyone's prerogative.
- ArbitraryLimits 14y ago
  It's not a subtle error, and it's not peripheral to the argument either. The entire middle third of the comment is the standard engineer's fallacy that because the laws of physics are absolute and not relative, people's values should be also, and all conflict could be avoided if people were just rational. The main evidence offered is this aside about "science" "proving" the non-existence of god, so its fallaciousness is highly relevant. (There's also the fun of pointing out a fallacious and therefore irrational arugment in support of being rational, I'll admit it.) Every college student in a technical major who has to take a humanities class for general ed goes through this phase, it's understandable. But it's just as important to grow up and leave it. Values are not rational, but that doesn't mean you get to ignore them.
  - Wintamute 14y ago
    Nowhere in the "entire middle third of the comment" does he mention, or allude to, any of the following: - That people's values are absolute, or in anyway similar to the laws of physics. - The existence, or non-existence of god, proving it, or otherwise. - That values are irrational. - That you get to ignore people's values. You're putting words into his mouth. I think he's got quite interesting things to say about moral relativism, and his view point is hardly as naive as you think it is, but you're not hearing it.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

dkokelley 14y ago

While I agree with the falsifiability comment, I think the "sigh" was unnecessary.

ArbitraryLimits 14y ago
I'm sure you're right. In my defense, I didn't write "sigh" the first hundred times I pointed out that error on the Internet.

Wintamute 14y ago

How is taking one isolated sentence and pedantically linking to a Wikipedia that highlights a subtle error while missing or ignoring the obvious thrust of the entire argument in any way adding to this discussion? Come on now.

dmritard96 14y ago
seems he/she should be able to take apart an argument in any way he/she wants. It contributes to the conversation by pointing out another poorly thought out/worded/constructed argument. True, there are bigger fish to fry and more important points to address, but that doesn't have to be everyone's prerogative.
- Wintamute 14y ago
  Seems I should be able to contribute to the discussion in my own way too then, doesn't it? It contributes to the conversation by pointing out another poorly thought out/worded/constructed argument. True, there are bigger fish to fry and more important points to address, but that doesn't have to be everyone's prerogative.
ArbitraryLimits 14y ago
It's not a subtle error, and it's not peripheral to the argument either. The entire middle third of the comment is the standard engineer's fallacy that because the laws of physics are absolute and not relative, people's values should be also, and all conflict could be avoided if people were just rational. The main evidence offered is this aside about "science" "proving" the non-existence of god, so its fallaciousness is highly relevant. (There's also the fun of pointing out a fallacious and therefore irrational arugment in support of being rational, I'll admit it.) Every college student in a technical major who has to take a humanities class for general ed goes through this phase, it's understandable. But it's just as important to grow up and leave it. Values are not rational, but that doesn't mean you get to ignore them.
- Wintamute 14y ago
  Nowhere in the "entire middle third of the comment" does he mention, or allude to, any of the following: - That people's values are absolute, or in anyway similar to the laws of physics. - The existence, or non-existence of god, proving it, or otherwise. - That values are irrational. - That you get to ignore people's values. You're putting words into his mouth. I think he's got quite interesting things to say about moral relativism, and his view point is hardly as naive as you think it is, but you're not hearing it.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]