Answering the question (once and for all)

[Stephen]

Please pardon this top-posted comment:  Ray, thanks for taking a
second pass at answering my questions.  I have further

There is nothing wrong with so called "top posting."

"Please give an operational definition of "design," one
that we can use to distinguish those things in nature
that are designed and those that aren't?"
Answer: Concerning living things, past and present (and
only living things, past and present) design is a direct
product or effect of invisible Intelligence and power. It
is observed, not measured or inferred. Observation, of
course, is the main tool enabling scientific
investigation and the scientific method.
All living things were designed. How do we know?
Observation, we see the concept.

Observation of what?

The concept known universally as "design."

You are saying "We know all living things were
designed because we observe [in them] the concept [of
design]"

Yes, that's exactly what we are saying.

Well, I'm glad I can restate this, even though I don't really
understand it. :-)

-- a
fair restatement of your message, yes?

Yes.

What does that mean?  What do
you see when you "observe design"?  Please elaborate.

Where's the jargon causing misunderstanding?

The jargon causes misunderstanding (for most of us, apparently,
from reading this thread) for at least a couple of reasons.
 First, "design" has several meanings and is thus ambiguous.
 I'm assuming we can discount meanings of "design" along the
lines of "plans, drawings, schematics", but that still leaves
some ambiguity.  The second is, design is not just a simple
thing but has characteristics.  Everyone may not agree on all
(or even any) of the characteristics. So to understand what
"design" is in your understanding I want to know what is it in
your thought process that constitutes design?

But that's not the issue. The first issue is HOW design is
ascertained (by what method)? The answer is observation. It is
seen. Yet your fellow apes have refused to acknowledge this basic
fact. Until it is acknowledged there is really no reason to
attempt to discuss anything else (even though I have).

To have meaningful communication, both the asker of a question and
the answerer must have the same or similar understanding of context
out of which the question comes.  If one asks a questions from
within one contextual framework, and the other answers from a
different framework, that is a circumstance ripe for
misunderstanding; it's the essence of miscommunication. I don't
think we've yet reached common understanding on this point.  That's
why I'm asking to understand what "design" and "observe design" and
"what do you see when you 'observe design'" mean in your mind. Can
you help by giving explication?
how is design ascertained?  by observation
how is not-design ascertained?  by observation
how is my shoe ascertained?  by observation
how is the rose ascertained?  by observation
how is love ascertained?  by observation
"by observation" ... is trivially true and thus empty.

Observation is the first and main tool of the scientific method. Your
attempt to belittle indicates the non-scientific nature of evolution,
which is ascertained by inference, not observation.

Ray, when you respond this way, and I have no intention to belittle
anything, that tells me we don't have good communication.

What is it you think is an "attempt to belittle"?

what is it you think I mean when I say, "'by observation' ... is
trivially true and thus empty"?

Your "point" says that you can see everything listed except design in
nature, unlike Creationists. Either you are deluded or a liar or both
(in that order).

You miss the point.

The very
tiniest instant we get the least little bit beyond the most trivial
sense of this answer, we need specifics to give it substance.  Even
Paley gave detail of how he made his inference of "purpose".

Until you acknowledge that design is ascertained by observation, we
cannot address the Paleyan Intelligence inference.

Paley's inference is "purpose".

Ray

If all you're after is the trivial sense of the phrase, then let's
all declare hooray! and meet down at the corner pub for a couple of
pints.

Again, if all you're interested in as making folks "admit" observation,
then let's all declare hooray! and go for a beer.


However, I've come to the point where I'm curious as to what you think
"observation" is in addition to what you mean by "we know design
because we observe it".


Speaking of beer, there's one in the fridge calling my name ...

S


[trim rest]


--

[Stephen]

Post by Stephen

Please pardon this top-posted comment:  Ray, thanks for
taking a second pass at answering my questions.  I have

There is nothing wrong with so called "top posting."

"Please give an operational definition of "design," one
that we can use to distinguish those things in nature
that are designed and those that aren't?"
Answer: Concerning living things, past and present (and
only living things, past and present) design is a direct
product or effect of invisible Intelligence and power.
It is observed, not measured or inferred. Observation,
of course, is the main tool enabling scientific
investigation and the scientific method.
All living things were designed. How do we know?
Observation, we see the concept.

Observation of what?

The concept known universally as "design."

You are saying "We know all living things were
designed because we observe [in them] the concept [of
design]"

Yes, that's exactly what we are saying.

Well, I'm glad I can restate this, even though I don't really
understand it. :-)

-- a
fair restatement of your message, yes?

Yes.

What does that mean?  What do
you see when you "observe design"?  Please elaborate.

Where's the jargon causing misunderstanding?

The jargon causes misunderstanding (for most of us,
apparently, from reading this thread) for at least a couple
of reasons.  First, "design" has several meanings and is
thus ambiguous.  I'm assuming we can discount meanings of
"design" along the lines of "plans, drawings, schematics",
but that still leaves some ambiguity.  The second is, design
is not just a simple thing but has characteristics.  Everyone
may not agree on all (or even any) of the characteristics. So
to understand what "design" is in your understanding I want
to know what is it in your thought process that constitutes
design?

But that's not the issue. The first issue is HOW design is
ascertained (by what method)? The answer is observation. It is
seen. Yet your fellow apes have refused to acknowledge this
basic fact. Until it is acknowledged there is really no reason
to attempt to discuss anything else (even though I have).

To have meaningful communication, both the asker of a question and
the answerer must have the same or similar understanding of
context out of which the question comes.  If one asks a questions
from within one contextual framework, and the other answers from a
different framework, that is a circumstance ripe for
misunderstanding; it's the essence of miscommunication. I don't
think we've yet reached common understanding on this point.
 That's why I'm asking to understand what "design" and "observe
design" and "what do you see when you 'observe design'" mean in
your mind. Can you help by giving explication?
how is design ascertained?  by observation
how is not-design ascertained?  by observation
how is my shoe ascertained?  by observation
how is the rose ascertained?  by observation
how is love ascertained?  by observation
"by observation" ... is trivially true and thus empty.

Observation is the first and main tool of the scientific method.
Your attempt to belittle indicates the non-scientific nature of
evolution, which is ascertained by inference, not observation.

Ray, when you respond this way, and I have no intention to belittle
anything, that tells me we don't have good communication.
What is it you think is an "attempt to belittle"?
what is it you think I mean when I say, "'by observation' ... is
trivially true and thus empty"?

Your "point" says that you can see everything listed except design
in nature, unlike Creationists. Either you are deluded or a liar or
both (in that order).

You miss the point.

The very
tiniest instant we get the least little bit beyond the most
trivial sense of this answer, we need specifics to give it
substance.  Even Paley gave detail of how he made his inference
of "purpose".

Until you acknowledge that design is ascertained by observation, we
cannot address the Paleyan Intelligence inference.

Paley's inference is "purpose".

Ray

If all you're after is the trivial sense of the phrase, then let's
all declare hooray! and meet down at the corner pub for a couple
of pints.

Again, if all you're interested in as making folks "admit"
observation, then let's all declare hooray! and go for a beer.
However, I've come to the point where I'm curious as to what you think
"observation" is in addition to what you mean by "we know design
because we observe it".
Speaking of beer, there's one in the fridge calling my name ...
S
[trim rest]

Oops ... wrong group, as if you couldn't tell ...

My apologies.
S

--