= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Rationality Quotes Thread March 2015 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (233)
I don't think so, though it's possible to quibble about the definition of "religious premises". Intelligent design necessary implies an intelligent designer who is, basically, a god, regardless of whether it's politically convenient to identify him as such.
Supporters of intelligent design may end up basically having a god as their conclusion, but they won't have it as one of their premises.
And they have to do it that way. If God was one of their premises, teaching it in government schools would be illegal.
I think you're confusing the idea of intelligent design and cultural wars in the US.
The question was whether you can construct "a coherent argument for intelligent design", not whether you would be willing to play political games with your congresscritters and school boards.
No, the question was whether the "rationality quote" makes sense. I offered intelligent design as a counterexample, a case where it doesn't. Telling me that you don't think that what I described is intelligent design is a matter of semantics; its usefulness as a counterexample is not changed depending on whether it's called "intelligent design" or "American politically expedient intelligent-design-flavored product".
And I disagree, I think it does perfectly well.
The quote applies to actual positions, not to politically-based posturing.
That dilutes the quote to the point of uselessness. Probably most positions that people take involve posturing.
But if you really want a different example, how about homeopathy? I can't construct an argument for that which is coherent in the sense that was probably intended, although I could construct an argument for that which is grammatically correct but based on falsehoods or on obviously bad reasoning.