Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 10-24-2002, 10:04 AM

Van has posted:

In order to maintain your position, you are apparently unwilling to distinguish between design flaw and externally imposed defects. If I introduce a corrosive agent into a system that wasn't designed to handle it, then resulting problems are operational defects, induced by out-of-specification usage.
...
Furthermore, I have already distinguished between externally-caused operational DEFECTS from design FLAWS. If you disagree, then make your case. Explain.

Van, this is an honest question I have about this argument, not a "criticism."

I would agree that if a designed system experiences external forces that were not foreseeable, defects could originate that aren't necessarily design flaws.

However, if a designer designs a system knowing that there may be external forces that could potentially cause defects, is it not a design flaw to not incorporate defenses against those forces (known or even unknown) into the system?

An optimally designed system would seem to have to require this resilience/reliability. (Our human bodies are actually amazingly resilient, but obviously not perfectly so.) For example, in software engineering, one learns that software reliability is a key element of software design. Insuring software reliability preferably includes designing systems for handling unforeseen circumstances (e.g. bad input, unexpected failures, etc.). The "optimally designed" system will not fail under any circumstances (a hard goal to achieve). Software systems are preferably rigorously tested in a variety of environments with a variety of unforeseen input to test for reliability.

So one might argue that failing to design for unforeseeable circumstances is in itself a design flaw.

Vibr8gKiwi · 10-24-2002, 10:11 AM

I agree--many threads with V's input become comedies of irony. Perhaps he should be ignored in the more formal and scientific forums though, as his discussions don�t exactly become examples of quality debate.

Ab_Normal · 10-24-2002, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:
So one might argue that failing to design for unforeseeable circumstances is in itself a design flaw.

I concur, Mageth - I design, develop, and support desktop software for a living, and the hardest part for me is anticipating all the possible ways it can break (or be broken by the end users - but that's a rant for another time). If I don't go through the effort, though, I cannot create a reliable product.

Vibr8gKiwi · 10-24-2002, 10:14 AM

Am I missing something or is Van essentially saying that any sort of still birth, birth defect, genetic abnormality, or whatever is always the fault of the parent?

pz · 10-24-2002, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:
Ok a quick recap of this thread

Um, well, OK..."thorough" might have been a better word choice than "quick", but hey, good job.

Quote:

My suggestion - put this guy on our ignore list and do something more efficient with our time.

I agree. Although he has elicited some interesting posts, he's proven himself to be an intransigent twit.

Ab_Normal · 10-24-2002, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vibr8gKiwi:
Am I missing something or is Van essentially saying that any sort of still birth, birth defect, genetic abnormality, or whatever is always the fault of the parent?

That's my reading of it as well. I'm keeping my comments to myself in the interest of maintaining decorum.

scigirl · 10-24-2002, 12:46 PM

Since I don't listen to my own advice, I gave Vanderzyden one more "chance" to prove that he really does want to learn about science, and discuss science. The challenge is - he picks one or two articles, we both get the articles, then we debate the science involved. No afterlife threats, no ad homs. Just pure science debate.

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001585" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001585</a>

What do you say, V?

scigirl

Vanderzyden · 10-24-2002, 05:09 PM

Scigirl,

Thank you for the offer to engage in yet another thread. I will pass, for now. I should also say that, on the face of it, the topic does not look very appealing since you are assuming trans-species evolutionary development of the heart. As you know, I do not agree with such assumptions, so there is no common ground from which we may begin (even if I did have time to engage in such a time-consuming journey).

Back to this thread, I want to say that you have not provided a fair characterization of the discussion, in general, nor have you represented my position well. I realize that you may have spent much time on it, but your summary is incomplete.

First, I note that you claim to have "rebutted" my first major response...

Quote:

scigirl:

From Moore's anatomy:
Because of abnormal folding of the embryonic heart, the position of the heart may be completely reversed so that the apex is directed to the right instead of the left - dextrocardia. Dexrocardia is associated with mirror image positioning of the great vessels...in dextrocardia with situs inversus, the incidence of accompanying cardiac defects is low and the heart usually functions normally; however, in isolated dextrocardia the congenital anomaly is complicated by severe cardiac anomalies such as transposition of the great arteries.

(JV snipped to keep post length to a minimum)

Congenital aortic stenosis refers to a group of anomalies that cdause obstruction of bloodflow from the left ventricle to the aorta. Although the stenosis usually occurs at the aortic valve, the lesion may be above or below the valve. Aortic stenosis causes extra work for the heart, resulting in left ventricular hypertrophy.

Again, these are not design flaws. They are defects, which result from ancestral abuses or inducement of toxic foreign substances. When I reminded you of this, you dismissed it categorically and went off on a God-doesn't-care tangent.

Quote:

Scigirl:

I wouldn't say that the human body is poorly designed, in general. It is quite amazingly "designed," and complex. However, I would say that it has the following features:
1) It is constrained by certain features of its biology. We just aren't as strong as, say, gorillas, or as fast as, say, cheetahs. These facts can be explained by our physiology.
2) These constraints, from our physiology, make sense in the light of evolution - and our evolutionary history. We would expect to have similar physiology, and similar constraints, as a chimp, than as a fish. And we do.
3) We have some evolutionary 'leftovers' which may or may not have new functions. The evolutionary relationships between these structures is confirmed through embryological studies.

This is a tangent, and therefore I didn't respond. Let me now do so briefly:

1. What life form isn't "constrained" by its biology? For that matter, what being isn't constrained by its nature? Humans aren't constrained. They rule the animal kingdom and the planet. How is that? They have MINDS. You and I have been over this ground before.

2. OK, humans are more similar to chimps than fish. So? Despite our similarities, our physiology is still significantly different. And, again, you know that the sensibility of Darwinism is the subject of much debate.

3. No, comparitive embryology provides no extant support for Darwinism. It, too, is just one more "icon" of that belief system. Again, homology is not de facto evidence of common descent. There are other explanations that are categorically rejected by the Darwinist. (This point also addresses lpetrich's "data").

You also noted some of Rick's comments:

Quote:

Rick:

Elimination of omphaloceles (massive umbilical herniation), nuchal strangulation (cord wrapping around the neck), intestinal incarcerations (entrapment), and umbilical torsions (cord twisting on itself) are just some of the problems the sub-optimal design causes that could be eliminated with thoughtful consideration.
...
It wouldn't be difficult at all if it was designed intelligently. The organs of the chest are no more compressed than the abdominal viscera, and they are better protected. An intelligent design would take advantage of the latter and place something as critical as the fetal "lifeline" in a position where the thoracic skeleton could protect against injury and herniation.

-- Omphaloceles is a defect.
-- How does an intestinal incarceration apply to the fetal circulatory system?
-- Here again is an indication that "thoughtful consideration" could prevent strangulation or torsion. Again, I would ask the author to tell us what could be done differently that wouldn't introduce other problems.
-- The thorax is not only packed more solidly than the abdomen, it is far more robust. It has a RIB CAGE. The heart is encased in the pericardium, etc. (I would not expect this error in judgment from a surgeon)
-- If the "fetal lifeline" were to be placed on a thoracic BOUNDARY, the thorax itself would offer no "protection" to the EXTERNAL cord. (I would not expect this error in judgment from a surgeon)

After this, scigirl posts MrD's design "improvements" and Rick's affirmation of them, followed by a short excerpt of my response. Then, she writes:

Quote:

scigirl:

Vanderzyden asks some more questions (and interestingly enough, continues to ignore a major portion of the scientific data presented to him, such as aortic arches.

What data? The comparitive embryology hand-waving. You call this data?

Quote:

scigirl:

What was Vanderzyden's amazing rebuttal to a physician discussing basic physiology about the heart?

Do you think I should be intimidated by a physician? Well, I will tell you that no one intimidates me. No one on this earth. I think this is your mistake. Now that I recall, you too have done this to me in other threads, scigirl. I do see similarities between your posts and those from Rick. You think, in essence, that I am unjustified in asking questions and posing challenges because I am not a "bonified" scientist or a physician. But then, I have shown you that there are many questions for which you have no answers. A small mistake here is the idea that medicine is too complex for non-physicians to understand. The big mistake is that you and Rick think that credentials matter in the search for truth. Well, I will tell you there is no greater error.

You go on to summarize more of Rick's comments:

Quote:

Rick:

This isn't even a minor issue; we doctors routinely and easily access the thoracic vasculature with trocars and catheters above and below the clavicles. The thorax is not solid, there are lots of avenues to access the vasculature, the heart and the lungs through it, including between the ribs and above the sternum.
We doctors don't have to redesign the thorax every time we insert a central line or catheter into the heart, lungs, subclavian vessels, or aorta; MrDarwin's intelligent design would not require any such reconfiguration, either....

I responded to Rick, at length. In fact, I had already addressed this before he posted. He simply replied with claims--assertions. He began throwing his credentials around, so I asked him to explain. But, he did not REFUTE my assessment of the design alternate, particular with respect to my detailed explanation of the altered pressure map.

Apparently, you missed this post:

Quote:

Vanderzyden:

Well, I will tell you that I know a little bit about pressure management. If you introduce an additional significant pressurized fluid source into the wrong (i.e. central) location in a pre-designed system, you will adversely affect pump equipment, pipe joints, and structural supports. For the heart-lung vasculature, if the placental discharge was introduced anywhere near the heart, then the heart would need to be redesigned. If placed upstream, then the additional placental pressure would act negatively, drawing the aortic (or pulmonary) valve superiorly. If introduced downstream, additional positive pressure comes to bear on one of the atrioventricular valves. Either of these configurations would cause the AV valves to leak. The valves and their ligaments would also need redesign. Minor adjustments would be required on the aortic and pulmonary valves. Also, the diameters and/or lengths of the arteries and veins would need adjustment, and additional ligaments would be required to handle the new pressure map.

...

There are no FLAWS in the system. Birth DEFECTS have other causes.

This Berkeley website briefly outlines other advantages, particularly in reference to the lungs:

Ductus arteriosus
� protects lungs against circulatory overload
� allows the right ventricle to strengthen
� hi pulmonary vascular resistance, low pulmonary blood flow

<a href="http://mcb.berkeley.edu/courses/mcb135e/fetal.html" target="_blank">http://mcb.berkeley.edu/courses/mcb135e/fetal.html</a>

I reiterated once more about the umbilical pressure:

Quote:

Vanderzyden:

Permit me to answer in your terse manner: False. The mother's blood pressure is indeed a factor in umbilical inflow pressure. The mother's and infant's blood pressure are somewhat correlated, as evidence by conditions such as preeclampsia. Anyway, it really doesn't matter. Most of my concerns are still valid, with or without additional umbilical pressure.

How does Rick answer?

Quote:

Rick:

You are wrong, and your answers and concerns are invalid. Circulatory fetal pressures are not driven by either placement of the umbilical vessels or the placenta. You asked me to educate you, so read the following carefully: placing the umbilical vessels in the thorax instead of the abdomen would have no affect on fetal circulatory pressures. There would be no change in the pressures, which are driven by a pump (the heart) whose effectiveness would not be compromised by moving the umbilical vessels into the thorax.
Thoracic umbilical vessels could access the thoracic vasculature by several different routes.

But surely this is in error. I explicity stated a condition, preeclampsia, which shows clearly that there is a direct correlation between the fetal blood pressure and that of the mother. The mother's blood pressure does indeed contribute to the umbilical pressure.

Here is the most important point that you overlook:

Indeed, I asked Rick to educate me about the problems with my analysis of pressure management in the design alternative. Yet, he does not. He simply says, in effect, "no, there would be no difference".
Despite my insistence that his claims and credentials will get us nowhere, I continued to observe the complete absence of a direct rebuttal to my explanation of pressure complications.

Also, he did not respond to my comments about major heart surgery. He went on to tell me that endoscopy was easy, and that he was qualified (and I am not). But he didn't affirm or deny my insistence that major heart surgery requires opening the chest. This consideration is appropriate when we are considering the placement of the umbilicus at any of the thoracic boundaries. Why? Because major redesign of the vasculature, and minor redesign of the heart, will be necessary.

Now that I have continued and corrected your characterization, I realize something else about Rick's responses. He does not make one concession whatsoever. It seems as though he will have the last word, and he will be right, even if it is only in his own mind.

Quote:

scigirl:

Hmm, insults were thrown around by both sides obviously. However, did we leave any of Vanderzyden's questions unanswered? No. He didn't like the answers, but we did answer them.

Did he answer our questions? Very rarely did he even attempt. The data is clear - Vanderzyden is not interested in having an enlightened science conversation. Instead, he is a 'question dodger,' a changer-of-the-subject, and when he can't put forward or defend a good science argument, he attacks the members of infidels.

You've got it backwards, scigirl. I do not have any questions. I am responding to the main topic of this thread, which is the preposterous suggestions that the spectacularly well-designed.

As for the question asked originally, it has not been demonstrated that the fetal CV system is poorly designed.

Oh, I challenge you to name one insult on my part.

John

MrDarwin · 10-24-2002, 05:27 PM

Vanderzyden is putting the most fascinating spin on his role in this discussion. For nearly a week I have been asking him to back up, or at least explain, two specific assertions he has made in this discussion. Despite his protestations, he has not yet done so.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
Also, with this configuration, how will you accomplish the management of fluid pressure, before and after the baby is born? In particular, how will you prevent the higher pressure of the umbilical flow from inflating the lungs?

Can tell me why blood coming from the placenta is under "higher pressure"? Higher than what? Precisely where and how is this pressure being generated?

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
And, despite my explicit mention of it, you have not avoided the mixing of oxygenated and deoxgenated blood, which still occurs in many places in your "redesigned" system.

Could you please point out precisely where this mixing will occur?

But at this point, I really don't expect any answers because I realize something about Vanderzyden's responses. He does not make one concession whatsoever. It seems as though he will have the last word, and he will be right, even if it is only in his own mind.

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]

scigirl · 10-24-2002, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Thank you for the offer to engage in yet another thread. I will pass, for now. I should also say that, on the face of it, the topic does not look very appealing since you are assuming trans-species evolutionary development of the heart.

No they don't - did you read all the abstracts? If the evidence shows something other than evolution, let's hear it. Most of the papers are simple descriptions of findings. Describing findings does not need to 'presuppose' anything.

Or - find another article yourself.

You keep saying you want to discuss science, but then you spend most of your time arguing semantics, or credentials, or "they had a typo in the abstract they must be wrong in their conclusions."

Have you ever asked yourself why so many science articles either 'assume' or 'prove' evolution? Is it because perhaps. . .evolution works as a theory? Did you ever consider that possibility as an answer??

Quote:

Again, these are not design flaws. They are defects, which result from ancestral abuses or inducement of toxic foreign substances.

Proof? References? Evidence?

You get mad when we make unsubstantiated claims, but then you go and do it. What do you mean by "ancestral abuses?" Could it be. . . you DO accept evolution? Hmm, think about your answer very carefully here...

Quote:

1. What life form isn't "constrained" by its biology? For that matter, what being isn't constrained by its nature? Humans aren't constrained. They rule the animal kingdom and the planet. How is that? They have MINDS. You and I have been over this ground before.

What are you talking about? First, humans have defects because of their ancestral abuses, but they are also unconstrained?

You think humans are unconstrained? All of them? Then what in the world are diseases? I do NOT remember talking about this specific issue with you before - maybe it was someone else? This is the FIRST I've heard you say this outrageous statement.

And what about death, which you remind us of all the time? We are clearly constrained by death, right?

Quote:

2. OK, humans are more similar to chimps than fish. So? Despite our similarities, our physiology is still significantly different. And, again, you know that the sensibility of Darwinism is the subject of much debate.

Two completely different subjects in that sentence. Oh well. . . sigh. Once again I will ask this: Why are the similarities between humans and other species, in terms of embryology and development, so closely related to evolutionary trees? If evolution was incorrect, you would not expect to see such correlations. Yet we see them time and again.

And no, I am not aware of any "sensible" darwinian debate in the scientific community. Sorry, but I just don't see it. I only see some people who refuse to believe in descent with modification because of their religion.

Quote:

3. No, comparitive embryology provides no extant support for Darwinism. It, too, is just one more "icon" of that belief system.

How is it an "icon?" I don't understand.

Quote:

Again, homology is not de facto evidence of common descent. There are other explanations that are categorically rejected by the Darwinist. (This point also addresses lpetrich's "data").

What other explanations? You mean this one from talkorigins?:

Quote:

from talkorigins:
According to this argument, then, we should expect phylogenies based on molecular sequences to be similar to phylogenies based on morphology even if organisms are not related by common descent. This argument is very wrong. There is no known biological reason, besides common descent, to suppose that similar morphologies must have similar biochemistry. Though this logic may seem quite reasonable initially, all of molecular biology refutes this "common sense" correlation. In general, similar DNA and biochemistry give similar morphology and function, but the converse is not true - similar morphology and function is not necessarily the result of similar DNA or biochemistry. The reason is easily understood once explained; many very different DNA sequences or biochemical structures can result in the same functions and the same morphologies (see predictions 4.1 and 4.2 for a detailed explanation).
...
As a close analogy, consider computer programs. Netscape works essentially the same on a Macintosh, an IBM, or a Unix machine, but the binary code for each program is quite different. Computer programs that perform the same functions can be written in most any computer language - Basic, Fortran, C, C++, Java, Pascal, etc. and identical programs can be compiled into binary code many different ways. Furthermore, even using the same computer language, there are many different ways to write any specific computer program, even using the same algorithms and subroutines. In the end, there is no reason to suspect that similar computer programs are written with similar code, based solely on the function of the program. This is the reason why software companies keep their source code secret, but they don't care that competitors can use their programs - it is essentially impossible to deduce the program code from the function and operation of the software. The same conclusion applies to biological organisms, for very similar reasons.

Care to discuss that, and other points I brought up here:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001553" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001553</a>

Quote:

The comparitive embryology hand-waving. You call this data?

You say hand-waving, I say solid evidence. Not only does embryological data show evidence that evolution occured as the fossil record and all the other evidence say it did, it also often explains how. I still don't see why you reject it - please explain further.

Quote:

Do you think I should be intimidated by a physician? Well, I will tell you that no one intimidates me. No one on this earth.

Give me a break, vander. Where did I say you should be intimidated by him? I'm just pointing out that you were asking pretty basic physiology and anatomy questions (basic that is to a physician), and even though Dr Rick took the time to answer, you still disagreed.

Vanderzyden - I'm not saying physicians are Gods (like you accused me of doing earlier - in fact you have erroneously accused me of doing this several times, without apology or evidence). I am saying - physicians are EXPERTS in anatomy. That's what they DO. Especially internists who operate or deal with the anatomy on a daily basis. Just like meteorologists are experts on clouds, and engineers are experts on whatever they build. That's all I was saying - and if you can't take a doctor's word about basic principles of anatomy, then well, I just don't know what to tell you.

Quote:

But then, I have shown you that there are many questions for which you have no answers.

So? I already could have told you that. Again, what is your POINT? Religion DOES have the answers? Or we shouldn't look for the answers? You have pointed this fact out a million times, but yet you failed to present the implications of this fact.

Quote:

The big mistake is that you and Rick think that credentials matter in the search for truth.

Vanderzyden, you were not asking glorious mysterious questions about the origins of the universe. You were asking basic phyisology questions for which we DO have an answer! Just because the answers were not to your liking - doesn't give you the right to accuse all medical professionals of arrogance.

I am not qualified to comment on the pressure thing, but I still don't see how it bears any relevance to the points at hand - that the human circulatory system appears to be constrained by evolution.

Quote:

Oh, I challenge you to name one insult on my part.

Posted by Vanderzyden in this thread:

Quote:

Tell us, MrDarwin, do you think you will stand before God with such pitiful defiance?

So, you're not a surgeon, correct? Then why do you spout off as you do?

Furthermore, your posts have all the indications of the snotty, snobby, demi-god doctors that I have encountered. This is the second medical person here at Infidels with this syndrome. Why is it that so many of you are so pompous? There is no basis for it. In the grand picture of life, your healing skills are only slightly more valuable than those of the farmer who grows food so that your body may have nourishment.

I can only assume that the "second" infidel you meant is me. I have called you on this in at least two different threads - I remember the first occasion very well. You accused me, very falsely, of elevating doctors to a higher status than everyone else. However, it was clear from a careful reading of my post (I was bitching about the 700 club) that I was upset that people thanked God but not humans. You did not respond to my explanation and continued to accuse me of thinking doctors are better than everyone else which was not the point of my 700 club rant. Anyone who takes the time to know me knows that I do NOT think that way.

In another thread I also addressed this, and you never ONCE apologized or even commented on it.

Here's some more:

Quote:

Such denial permits you to cling to your assertion that life systems weren't intelligently designed. In this way, you reassure yourself that you will be held accountable to no one, especially a so-called "Creator". It would seem however, that you stand on shifting sand.

Just because you shroud your insults in Calvinistic, pascal-wager like nonsense, doesn't mean they aren't insults. Your motive for posting them was clear.

I also found this whole post to be insulting to Dr Rick, because I didn't get the same impression at all when I read his replies:

Quote:

Mere claims, Rick. Claims, not explanations. You do not explain.
Here is a characterization of our exchange:

V: Explain, explain, explain....

R: Wrong. That's it. Goodbye.

V: Explain, explain...

R: You don't know what you're talking about.

V: Tell me specifically what's wrong.

R: How dare you question me? I am a surgeon. I cannot possibly be wrong on this.

V: Explain more. Indicate that doctors are not divine.

R: No, you don't understand, you are "unqualified". You are "beneath" me.

V: Explain more...

R: You are "deluded".

I thought we could have a discussion. Instead, I'm told that I have no business questioning a medical authority.

So, what's the use of proceeding?

Vanderzyden

Yes Dr Rick insulted you. I admit that. But he also answered your questions, and then kept answering them, when he could have simply ignored you. I also never saw a sign of arrogance - just his sheer incredulity that you won't even believe his answers to your very basic physiology questions!

If I asked an engineer about a simple question regarding bridge building, and he answered it, and I asked him another question, and he answered it too, then I said, "you are arrogant and you think you know everything because you are an engineer and you think you are God's gift blah blah blah" what is his response to that SUPPOSED TO BE?

I also found this comment of yours to be extremely amusing:

Quote:

You refuse to address my main concerns, and you again fail to justify your position on anything more than your credentials.

But the funny thing is...It was YOU who kept hounding him on his credentials!! You asked him first, 'aren't you a physician?" He replied yes. Then you asked him, "yeah but you don't do surgery do you," and he replied yes.

So he is arrogant because he answered YOUR questions about his credentials?

What would he be if he ignored your questions about his credentials?

I really really want to believe that all you want to do is make us think, and learn about science. But... I just don't see it. You can argue all you want, or you can simply prove me wrong. Here are several threads for you to have enlightening discussions about science - take your pick:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001583" target="_blank">new genetic information a loss of information. </a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001531" target="_blank">The urate oxidase pseudogene: the common ancestry of errors </a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001585" target="_blank">Pubmed Journal articles on the fetal circulatory system </a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001580" target="_blank">Language, etc</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001571" target="_blank">(thread about herbivore and carnivore evolution)</a>

scigirl

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-24-2002, 10:04 AM	#131
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Van has posted: In order to maintain your position, you are apparently unwilling to distinguish between design flaw and externally imposed defects. If I introduce a corrosive agent into a system that wasn't designed to handle it, then resulting problems are operational defects, induced by out-of-specification usage. ... Furthermore, I have already distinguished between externally-caused operational DEFECTS from design FLAWS. If you disagree, then make your case. Explain. Van, this is an honest question I have about this argument, not a "criticism." I would agree that if a designed system experiences external forces that were not foreseeable, defects could originate that aren't necessarily design flaws. However, if a designer designs a system knowing that there may be external forces that could potentially cause defects, is it not a design flaw to not incorporate defenses against those forces (known or even unknown) into the system? An optimally designed system would seem to have to require this resilience/reliability. (Our human bodies are actually amazingly resilient, but obviously not perfectly so.) For example, in software engineering, one learns that software reliability is a key element of software design. Insuring software reliability preferably includes designing systems for handling unforeseen circumstances (e.g. bad input, unexpected failures, etc.). The "optimally designed" system will not fail under any circumstances (a hard goal to achieve). Software systems are preferably rigorously tested in a variety of environments with a variety of unforeseen input to test for reliability. So one might argue that failing to design for unforeseeable circumstances is in itself a design flaw.

10-24-2002, 10:11 AM	#132
Vibr8gKiwi Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: CA, USA Posts: 543	I agree--many threads with V's input become comedies of irony. Perhaps he should be ignored in the more formal and scientific forums though, as his discussions don�t exactly become examples of quality debate.

10-24-2002, 10:14 AM	#134
Vibr8gKiwi Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: CA, USA Posts: 543	Am I missing something or is Van essentially saying that any sort of still birth, birth defect, genetic abnormality, or whatever is always the fault of the parent?

10-24-2002, 12:46 PM	#137
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Since I don't listen to my own advice, I gave Vanderzyden one more "chance" to prove that he really does want to learn about science, and discuss science. The challenge is - he picks one or two articles, we both get the articles, then we debate the science involved. No afterlife threats, no ad homs. Just pure science debate. <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001585" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001585</a> What do you say, V? scigirl

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.