Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - babyeatsdingo

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 17
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 23, 2007, 04:21:34 PM »
"Justified true belief" is a nonsense phrase that collapses in on itself. In any case, no-one today believes that JTB -- even if it were intelligible -- approximates knowledge.

Do you have a better definition of knowledge than justified true belief?

You doubt, so people should be skeptical.  Gotcha.

If my skepticism is warranted then, yes, others may or even should be skeptical as well.

General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 23, 2007, 10:23:05 AM »
Not true, actually.

What is the classical meaning of knowledge if not justified true belief? Doesn't Plato suggest that knowledge is akin to justified true belief in his Theaetetus dialogue?

The religious tend to be at odds with science over evolution.

Shouldn't they be? Though Scientific American et al. hope for our trust, I doubt very much that random mutation and natural selection are sufficient to completely explain the development of life from the simplest self-replicator to modern life. I am even more skeptical of the notion that the Archean earth produced so much as a nucleoside, never mind a self-replicator, in some purely natural and step-wise fashion.

Carrots and movie theater popcorn oil both provide Vitamin A.  At least here Vitamin A is the same in both examples.

I should say instead that the philosophy of religion/theology and science each provide knowledge.

General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 22, 2007, 11:05:01 PM »
Justified true belief is the classical meaning of knowledge, and is what I mean when I use the term. Do you have a better definition? Are you also saying a religious text like the Bible conveys no knowledge? Please clarify.

People write very brave things on the internet when they are anonymous.



Thinking is not for everyone.

I think it's generally accepted by all on this thread besides you that your criterion blows

Now there's a smart answer.

Well then, it's hard to figure out the basis of your defense of design as the organizing principle of the natural world.

Defense of design? I put forth a general criterion for detecting the probable existence of design in nature as part of a conversation I had with another on Hume. But on that point I don't see how his reading of Hume relates to said criterion which is why I asked him to give me a syllogism to respond to.

If a biochemical process was observed to produce RNA you are committed to saying that RNA is not the product of design. Correct?

I would say that such an event would count as evidence against the proposition: RNA was designed.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 17