From: Jim Armstrong (jarmstro@qwest.net)
Date: Fri Jul 25 2003 - 23:32:43 EDT
Unless I'm missing something here, your approach seems to the classic
negative proof, about which Wikipedia (for example) says:
"The fallacy of negative proof is a type of logical fallacy of the
following form:
"No one has produced an example of one; therefore it doesn't exist."
While the assertion has some strength as an epistemic directive,
logically it has none. Logically one may argue that just because we have
not observed a particular phenomenon, that is no reason to exclude its
possibility. The epistemological slant though is to require a
demonstration, before one admits that one is compelled to admit the
phenomenon as real."
That seems to fairly capture the essence of the discussion here. You
appear to have taken the "epistemological slant". That's OK. That has to
do with where you set the bar for yourself. Just recognize that the
logical case per se is not made in this argument.
richard@biblewheel.com wrote:
> (snip)
>
> My argument has nothing
>to do with our ability to "understand a natural phenomena" per se. It has to
>do with what we mean by *phenomena* in the first place, which I define as
>events we can directly observe or infer from direct observation.
>
(snip)
>The key to it all is what is actually observed - and this seems to be what
>is lacking in the question of abiogenesis. You seem to be doing exactly what
>Howard Van Till, George Murphy, and (most elaborately) Jim Armstrong have
>done, which is to reframe my assertion that we lack evidence for the *event*
>of abiogenesis as a natural phenomenon into the assertion that we lack the
>ability to explain a known physical phenomenon.
>
No, not really. It's more about ordering the observables and making
plausible speculations about how to connect the dots despite the
existence of segments which have not been directly observed. That's sort
of essential science.
>The reason for this confusion seems to be that methodological materialists
>are so enmeshed in their philosophic presuppostions as to be unable (or
>unwilling) to recognise that their assertion that we *know* abiogenesis
>happened at least once in the past is false.
>
(snip)
No - I expect most would be humble enough to avoid an assertion of
"knowing" because "knowing" cries out for proof, but proof is absent in
absolute (your) terms here because that particular transition has
arguably not been observed. [I think it would be a whole different and
challenging argument about what would have to be observed to constitute
the "phenomenon" you mention.] But given that, recognize that proof is
just another way of saying "sufficiently persuasive". What persuades me
sufficiently is different from what persuades you sufficiently because
our presuppositions/worldviews are idiosyncratic.
One might also observe that the statement, "...methodological
materialists are ... unable (or unwilling) to recognise that their
assertion that we *know* abiogenesis happened at least once in the past
is false." is likewise an assertion.
(snip)
>The error becomes quite obvious when we carefully define the question.
>
>The proper question is not if Life started (Biogenesis), since that is
>obvious to all. The real question is about Abiogensis, which is defined as
>the rise of Life from inaminate matter through natural processes.
>
But that's an interesting distinction, but it seems to claim victory by
definition. Why is it necessary to make that distinction? I think what
you are implying in these distinctions is that Biogenesis is
God-performed and Abiogenesis is God-less. I dare say that's not the
picture held by the "methodological materialists" involved here in this
discussion.
>(snip)
>There are no scientific observations supporting abiogenesis.
>
Not so, but arguably not unambiguously.
>This has nothing to do with our inability to explain known phenomena, which
>is what the "God of the gaps" is really all about.
>
The gaps business is not about the inability to explain known phenomena,
but about the inability to describe in sufficient and verifiable detail
an unobserved phenomena the would connect the dots, and asserting that
this inability defines the negative space where an act of God occurred.
>My point is that abiogensis is not known to be a phenomenon in the first
>place. There is no evidence it ever happened.
>
I've addressed these items, but there is one more point I'd like to offer.
It seems to be pretty common wisdom that whatever happened when life
first appeared on the scene was a fairly (or perhaps completely?) unique
event. Some calculate probabilities to make the case. I've speculated
that it might even be the reason for the immensity of the universe, to
make sure that it did happen. Accordingly, it might be understandable if
we haven't just yet stumbled across quite the right way to reproduce the
sequence and circumstance of events to any degree of satisfaction that
might give insight into how it might have occurred by natural means
under the providence of the Creator.
I close with a return to the bracketed item earlier, what might be the
nature of a phenomenon which if observed would satisfy your definition
of abiogenesis? [By the way, does everyone agree with that definition?]
We are pretty quickly going to get down to a discussion of a basic
definition of life in thinking about this question. I guess I would
forgive you if you dismiss this question by responding that one cannot
describe that which doesn't exist. But I think it's a meaningful question.
Jim Armstrong
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jul 25 2003 - 23:35:20 EDT