Pissing off the atheists/naturalists

[Will Bouwman]

You're an idiot. I am not claiming falsehood.

Then you must be claiming truth! How many times must I remind you of the Excluded Middle?

You still don't understand underdetermination then.

Why do you believe a successful reduction will ever be produced even with infinite time?

Yep, no idea about underdetermination.

Lets say that irreducible complexity is an oevrdetermined hypothesis unless a successful reduction is produced.

No idea about overdetermination either.

[Skepdick]

You're an idiot. I am not claiming falsehood.

Then you must be claiming truth! How many times must I remind you of the Excluded Middle?

You still don't understand underdetermination then.

Why do you believe a successful reduction will ever be produced even with infinite time?

Yep, no idea about underdetermination.

Lets say that irreducible complexity is an oevrdetermined hypothesis unless a successful reduction is produced.

No idea about overdetermination either.

I'm getting the feeling it's you who doesn't understand what those words mean in the context of science.

Within the formal sciences those are well-understood Mathematical notions. Do they even cover such technical/Mathematical stuff in philosophy-school?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermined_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdetermined_system

[Will Bouwman]

I'm getting the feeling it's you who doesn't understand what those words mean in the context of science.

Well, a feeling is a perfectly good starting point for science. Now all you need is some evidence.

Within the formal sciences those are well-understood Mathematical notions. Do they even cover such technical/Mathematical stuff in philosophy-school?

You are that bumpkin tourist who, mystified by the local language, believes that shouting will make him understood. And when that doesn't work, it's everyone else at fault:

Fit in, or fuck off.

You are a special case, Skepdick - mad as a box of frogs.

[Skepdick]

I'm getting the feeling it's you who doesn't understand what those words mean in the context of science.

Well, a feeling is a perfectly good starting point for science. Now all you need is some evidence.

As presented. Numerous times - the entire history of reductionism. Trying to; yet failing to produce a reduction.

Trying to; yet failing to bridge the reductionist paradigms of physics/chemistry with the emergent paradigms of biology/life.

The failure of science to explain how the paradigm of physics (which has the no-cloning theorem and conservation of quantum information) becomes the classical (which has self-assembling self-replicators and copying of genetic material)

You are a special case, Skepdick - mad as a box of frogs.

Naaah, you definitely have it backwards...

Now all you need is some evidence.

you 'law' is not a law.

Shut up and violate.

[Will Bouwman]

I'm getting the feeling it's you who doesn't understand what those words mean in the context of science.

Well, a feeling is a perfectly good starting point for science. Now all you need is some evidence.

As presented. Numerous times - the entire history of reductionism. Trying to; yet failing to produce a reduction.

Which has nothing to do with:

Within the formal sciences those are well-understood Mathematical notions. Do they even cover such technical/Mathematical stuff in philosophy-school?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermined_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdetermined_system

Lost the thread and lost the plot.

[Skepdick]

Well, a feeling is a perfectly good starting point for science. Now all you need is some evidence.

As presented. Numerous times - the entire history of reductionism. Trying to; yet failing to produce a reduction.

Which has nothing to do with:

Within the formal sciences those are well-understood Mathematical notions. Do they even cover such technical/Mathematical stuff in philosophy-school?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermined_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdetermined_system

Lost the thread and lost the plot.

I can only explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.

If it's beyond your level of comprehension as to why irreducible complexity is an overdetermined hypothesis - that's fine. For all practical purposes the only thing that matters is the intersection between under and overdetermination.

the critical case (between overdetermined and underdetermined) occurs when the number of equations and the number of free variables are equal

You don't need to understand it to falsify it...

Shut up and violate.

[Will Bouwman]

I can only explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.

If it's beyond your level of comprehension as to why irreducible complexity is an overdetermined hypothesis - that's fine. You don't need to understand it to falsify it...

Well, you explain it, and I'll do my best to understand.

[Skepdick]

Well, you explain it, and I'll do my best to understand.

The entire human industrial complex responsible for "truth and understanding of reality" is a giant divide and conquer algorithm! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide-an ... _algorithm

Part of the mandatory dialectic. Socially useful framing! Manufacture a fault line in the social psyche/episteme - some people go left of the fault line, some people go right of the fault line. They attack the problem from different perspectives - starting with their own corresponding biases/philosophies.

You under-estimate (bottom-up) - I over-estimate (top-down). We meet in the middle.

Under-correction and Over-correction = Correction.

Under-determination and Over-determination = Determination.

Under-fitting and Over-fitting = Fitting.

Under-prediction and Over-prediction = Prediction.

Under-simplification and Over-Simplification = Simplification.

Under-philosophising and Over-philosophising = Philosophising.

- and + = 0

Thesis and Antithesis = Synthesis

That's how convergence works. That's how self-organizing systems work!

Abiogenesis is not even wrong. It's a hypothesis - not a theory. There's no evidence for it. It's a non-explanation.
There's tons of evidence for irreduced complexity. Assuming the irreduced is irreducible is a valid scientific theory. Falsifiable upon successful reduction.

We know how to manipulate matter. We have reasonable ideas on how to engineer complex machinery top-down (nanotechnology etc.)
We have absolutely no idea what abiogenesis is. We have no idea where to even begin synthesis bottom-up; or what the next steps are.

My theory leads to convergent behaviour; and if I am wrong - I'll be wrong in the right way.
Your open-ended "sit and wait" theory leads to divergence. It's not even wrong - we don't even know where to begin learning; or how long to wait for. It's unbounded and unfalsifiable.

Irreducible complexity is a better scientific theory - it a better scientific strategy that's more likely to succeed at obtaining knowledge; so it makes more sense to engineer my mind this way than the way atheism/naturalism proposes.