18650Re: [ai-philosophy] Re: [MAGIC-list] Re: An argument against intelligent design (the simulation argument)
- Feb 6, 2014Ok I understand, so you suggest that I emphasize this argument, which I think does clarify the common sense perception of the question, instead of delving into a bitter diatribe about positivism and its enemies?Regards,On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:17 PM, <calhorn@...> wrote:
It's wrong that your arguments against creationism require positivism. That's just a religious icing you throw on top of it. E.g.,1. There is no evidence that would favor creationism against evolution/cosmology theory.2. The a priori probabillity of creationism over evolution vanishes to zero.3. Therefore, the binary decision of creationism vs. evolution converges to evolution.is a compelling argument whether or not one agrees with Carnap regarding the analytic/synthetic distinction. I know you'd like to use some sort of reductio involving religion to prove that Quine or Putnam or Davidson or whoever your current baddie was wrong about everything, but (I'm sorry to tell you), all your arguments along those lines are very bad.
Eray Ozkural, PhD. Computer Scientist
Founder, Gok Us Sibernetik Ar&Ge Ltd.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>