KC

I wonder if the smartest guy in America would discuss his theory of reality here?

Cheers,

KC

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: KCdgw ]</p>

pz

Do we really need someone to compete with Vanderzyden for simultaneous titles as most pretentious and most vacuous poster?

KC

I think Langan has Vanderzyden beaten by a mile for that title It would be fun, however, to see just how long he lasts in a forum that refuses to kiss his ass. Aren't severely gifted people supposed to be persistent and have a sense of humor?

Cheers,

KC

pz

Gosh, that's right...and an acute sensitivity and empathy for others, and an openness to new ideas and experiences. He ought to love it here!

(Just curious...but am I the only one here tempted to hack into that goofy <a href="http://www.megafoundation.org/Giftedness.htm" target="_blank">"giftedness" page</a> and insert the line "- Has a very tiny penis" somewhere in the middle of the list?)

theyeti

If you do, please send him to the philosophy forum. Maybe they will enjoy deconstructing the semantic hooey.

theyeti

Bubba

pz, kc, theytei...We're talking about Chris Langan from ARN, right?

Bubba

pz

Of course. There can be only one Smartest Man in America.

Bubba

I have a hard time following these people.

Here's a quote from Chris from ARN.

<a href="http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000439" target="_blank">www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000439</a>

Take, for example, the fields of cosmology and biology. Cosmology is and always has been a branch of metaphysics in which mathematical logic has the final say, now and forever, while biology is a field in which developmental processes are expressed and supported by underlying physical and cosmological processes. Long ago, certain people working in these fields attempted to "concretize" them in denial of their logical roots. As long as they stuck to concrete, well-constrained problems, they were fine. But lately they've been getting ahead of themselves, tackling problems far beyond the reach of their concrete viewpoints and methodologies.
At this juncture, the only way they can possibly buy themselves a little time is by summarily excluding logic, AKA "philosophy", AKA "metaphysics", from discussions of their proposed "solutions" to these problems. Thus far, they've been getting away with it by linking arms and standing together against that implacable foe of science, logic! But you can't cheat logic, and in the end, logic will have its due.
This is especially true of not only cosmology, but ID. ID is an issue that absolutely cannot be rationally discussed without introducing logic to the discussion, and logic absolutely has a metaphysical, philosophical dimension.

Chris

Here are my questions...

1. Isn't metaphysics supposed to be knowledge beyond normal scientific inquiry? Isn't cosmolgy a science that makes testable predictions? Isn't Chris's post then an irrational statement?

2. By introducing a metaphysical dimension into Science via ID aren't they then violating methodological naturalism and making thier hypothesis untestable or unverifyable?

3. How are evolutionary biologists linking arms together against "that implacable foe of science, logic?"

4. What does any of this have to do (directly) with descent with modification, mutations, natural selection, speciation, the tree of life, etc.

5. In what way have any of these people ever shown that natural selection and mutation is an inadaquate mechanism to propel evolutionary change?

Either I'm misunderstanding something here or the ID movement is in a whole lot more intellectual trouble than I thought it was.

Comments, anyone?

Bubba

Albion

Why are these IDists so perishingly long-winded? Is it some sort of requirement? I've never seen the sort of verbiage that goes on at the ARN board other than in legal documents.

KC

I've been attempting to read Langan's 'theory'. I've also been following his posts on ARN. He isn't saying anything those of us who went to college haven't heard in dorm rooms over a bong.

Now he seems to be saying that natural selection is true, but 'trivial' (odd, subjective word for someone so infatuated with logic). He also, like so many other creationist/ID/Doodah theorists, obsesses over the idea of random mutations. Like many of them, he fails to understand that mutations are random wrt fitness, not random in a purely chaotic sense. Even when this has been patiently explained to him, he insists that pure randomness is the issue.

He has seen 'Good Will Hunting' so many times hey thinks it applies to him. Never having been actually trained in science, he seems to think it can be done from an armchair, armed with a dictionary and a library card. That is why he never discuss actual data, that dirty, messy, stuff from which theories are made. Being severely gifted, Langan could never be a scientist because, as his site says, severely gifted people cannot stand routine. The grunt work of science is beyond him. Working with real organisms instead of squeaky clean words would bore him to death. So in his arrogance he dismisses it as unimportant.


Cheers,

KC

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: KCdgw ]</p>