27 Aug 10
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are essentially claiming that without absolutely complete knowledge, nobody can ever spot a flaw. That is clearly false.
simply shows if you don't grasp what everything is there for and why! Without
that understanding and information you could not tell me what is a flaw because
you don't understand the meaning behind it.
Kelly
27 Aug 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm beginning to think you don't read my posts. I have even pointed out to you
You are essentially claiming that without absolutely complete knowledge, nobody can ever spot a flaw. That is clearly false.
times that without a doubt you or anyone else could indeed see a "DESIGN" flaw,
you are changing the subject by now claiming just a flaw!
Kelly
27 Aug 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI also am not claiming 'without absolute' knowledge either! You do have to have
You are essentially claiming that without absolutely complete knowledge, nobody can ever spot a flaw. That is clearly false.
knowledge about what your talking about, to the point of understanding the
whys and hows things are done to grasp flaws. Without which you may end up
thinking something is a flaw, when in fact is it there for a very specific reason that
you do not grasp. Claiming you can make such claims without that level of
understanding is grasping at straws.
Kelly
27 Aug 10
Originally posted by KellyJaySo if you are NOT claiming that that without absolutely complete knowledge, nobody can ever spot a flaw, why cannot we spot a hypothetical silly and obvious design flaw in a CPU?
I'm beginning to think you don't read my posts. I have even pointed out to you
times that without a doubt you or anyone else could indeed see a "DESIGN" flaw,
you are changing the subject by now claiming just a flaw!
Kelly
27 Aug 10
Originally posted by KellyJaySo all you are saying is that no matter how obviously stupid a design feature may seem, there COULD be an intelligent reason for it that is currently unknown to us.
I also am not claiming 'without absolute' knowledge either! You do have to have
knowledge about what your talking about, to the point of understanding the
whys and hows things are done to grasp flaws. Without which you may end up
thinking something is a flaw, when in fact is it there for a very specific reason that
you do not grasp. Claiming you can make such claims without that level of
understanding is grasping at straws.
Kelly
But that doesn’t change the fact that if a design feature, even after careful analysis, is apparently an obviously stupid one, it is REASONABLE to assume that it is not only APPARENTLY an obviously stupid one, it PROBABLY IS stupid.
I suppose that despite such observations and strong evidence, ANYTHING COULD be possible –I COULD be just a brain in a nutrient tank being given nerve impulses to hallucinate the world around me so nothing I see is real etc and thus you could simply dismiss all apparent evidence and conclusions based on such evidence on that bases no matter how strong the evidence!
BUT, in exactly the same way it would only be REASONABLE to assume that apparent evidence of the world you see is PROBABLY as a result of the world actually existing, it would only be REASONABLE to assume that apparent evidence of a stupid flaw is PROBABLY as a result of the flaw being actually stupid, –because there is no other rational choice but to judge by the evidence of your senses you have and to draw conclusions on the bases of such evidence.
27 Aug 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonNo that is not what I said.
So all you are saying is that no matter how obviously stupid a design feature may seem, there COULD be an intelligent reason for it that is currently unknown to us.
But that doesn’t change the fact that if a design feature, even after careful analysis, is apparently an obviously stupid one, it is REASONABLE to assume that it is not only APPARENTLY ...[text shortened]... e by the evidence of your senses you have and to draw conclusions on the bases of such evidence.
Kelly
27 Aug 10
Originally posted by KellyJayReminder of what you said:
No that is not what I said.
Kelly
“…You do have to have
knowledge about what your talking about, to the point of understanding the
whys and hows things are done to grasp flaws. WITHOUT which you may end up
thinking something IS a flaw, when in fact is it there for a very specific REASON that
you do not grasp…..” (my emphasise)
-so you are clearly imping here that WITHOUT complete knowledge there COULD be a REASON ( which you refer to as a “very specific REASON” in the above ) for the apparent flaw that is NOT known to you ( as you implied by the words “specific REASON that you do not grasp” in the above) –yes?
28 Aug 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonExplain please I don't understand.
Reminder of what you said:
“…You do have to have
knowledge about what your talking about, to the point of understanding the
whys and hows things are done to grasp flaws. WITHOUT which you may end up
thinking something IS a flaw, when in fact is it there for a very specific REASON that
you do not grasp…..” (my emphasise)
-so you are clearly ...[text shortened]... to you ( as you implied by the words “specific REASON that you do not grasp” in the above) –yes?
You have never seen me say without complete knowledge there is no way you
could to see a design flaw. I have pointed out in earlier posts how people could
see design flaws, it is not something I have said we could not do. I have been
saying that if you don't know why or how something is done, you are not really
someone who can know what is or isn't a design flaw, since you don't know how
to do it yourself.
Kelly
28 Aug 10
Originally posted by KellyJayIf Kelly doesn't know evolution, he cannot say that the theory of evolution is wrong.
Explain please I don't understand.
You have never seen me say without complete knowledge there is no way you
could to see a design flaw. I have pointed out in earlier posts how people could
see design flaws, it is not something I have said we could not do. I have been
saying that if you don't know why or how something is done, you are not really
some ...[text shortened]... can know what is or isn't a design flaw, since you don't know how
to do it yourself.
Kelly
If Kelly doesn't know evolution, he should stay out of any debate involving evolution.
Because if he indded do debate evolution, saying that evolution theory is wrong, then he should realize that people not knowing how to design a motherboard can see flaws in it, and that non-biologist can see flaws in "god's perfect creation of life".
28 Aug 10
Originally posted by KellyJayYou seem to be see-sawing between two positions:
You have never seen me say without complete knowledge there is no way you
could to see a design flaw. I have pointed out in earlier posts how people could
see design flaws, it is not something I have said we could not do. I have been
saying that if you don't know why or how something is done, you are not really
someone who can know what is or isn't a design flaw, since you don't know how
to do it yourself.
Kelly
1) without any relevant knowledge you cannot spot a flaw.
2) without complete knowledge, you cannot spot a flaw.
You seem unable to accept the middle position ie:
3) with partial knowledge, you can spot what may be a flaw, and depending on your level of relevant knowledge you can estimate the likelihood of said observation really being a flaw.
I have some knowledge of CPUs, yet you have essentially claimed that I cannot ever spot a design flaw. Hence you must be saying there is a minimum knowledge that must be attained. What is that minimum?
Scientists have extensive knowledge of how life works, yet you claim that without actually having designed a living thing themselves, they cannot spot a design flaw. Why is the condition of having designed something equivalent the minimum knowledge required?
28 Aug 10
Originally posted by KellyJayI thought we were talking about design flaws throughout. When I say 'flaw' I mean 'design flaw'. (I really cant see what else I might possibly mean).
I'm beginning to think you don't read my posts. I have even pointed out to you
times that without a doubt you or anyone else could indeed see a "DESIGN" flaw,
you are changing the subject by now claiming just a flaw!
Kelly
28 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay“...You have never seen me say without complete knowledge there is no way you
Explain please I don't understand.
You have never seen me say without complete knowledge there is no way you
could to see a design flaw. I have pointed out in earlier posts how people could
see design flaws, it is not something I have said we could not do. I have been
saying that if you don't know why or how something is done, you are not really
some ...[text shortened]... can know what is or isn't a design flaw, since you don't know how
to do it yourself.
Kelly
could to SEE a design flaw. I have pointed out in earlier posts how people could
SEE design flaws, it is not something I have said we could not do....” (my emphasise)
What do you mean by “SEE” design flaws in the above?
Do you mean merely “perceive” regardless of whether it is real or not or do you mean “identify” it i.e. correctly identify an actual real flaw?
If what you mean by “SEE” is merely “perceive” then it is obvious that neither I nor twhitehead was talking about that; we were obviously talking about whether we can actually correctly identify a real design flaw and without complete knowledge.
So let me rephrase the question:
Is it possible to CORRECTLY and rationally IDENTIFY ( and that is IDENTIFY and NOT “SEE” or merely “perceive” ) a hypothetical obvious design flaw in a CPU without complete knowledge of the CPU?
( note that “complete knowledge” would include a vast amount of knowledge about the CPU that can be totally irrelevant to whether we have correctly identified a flaw such as exactly how many transistors it has and where are its registers etc.
also note that “rationally identify” means identify by using flawless reasoning )
If you answer “no” to this question, then what is stopping us from CORRECTLY and rationally identifying such a flaw?
If you answer “yes” to this question, then, if we can CORRECTLY and rationally identifying such a flaw in a CPU, what is stopping us from CORRECTLY and rationally identifying a flaw in the anatomy of a giraffe's neck?
28 Aug 10
1 edit
Kelly,
You have stated that you accept some amount of evolution. I believe you have stated before that you accept that all breeds of domestic dogs are related. So the poodle is related to the sausage dog, the grey hound and the great dane.
So if there was a breed of dog, with an unusually long neck, and that resulted in some rather odd wiring of the nerves in the dogs neck - which makes sense in a dog with a shorter neck, would that constitute a design flaw?
Do you believe that when God designed the first dog, that he planned for all the possible breeds it would evolve into, or did he just make it work for the first one?
Does he guide each change, or does he leave evolution to do its thing?
If we bread a dog with no legs that had to crawl around on its tummy, would that be Gods fault? Would it be a design flaw, or just a result of our breeding program?
29 Aug 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadAgain, going back to what is a flaw if it works and it continues to work why would
Kelly,
You have stated that you accept some amount of evolution. I believe you have stated before that you accept that all breeds of domestic dogs are related. So the poodle is related to the sausage dog, the grey hound and the great dane.
So if there was a breed of dog, with an unusually long neck, and that resulted in some rather odd wiring of the ner ...[text shortened]... , would that be Gods fault? Would it be a design flaw, or just a result of our breeding program?
it be a design flaw? If you cannot do it better or faster is that a design flaw? If one
X is able to go at 100 MPH and another at 90 MPH why would the 90 MPH be a
design flaw if it isn't a race but that fact that it functions where it is that matters?
Kelly
29 Aug 10
Originally posted by KellyJayThose are good questions. But they have already been answered.
Again, going back to what is a flaw if it works and it continues to work why would
it be a design flaw? If you cannot do it better or faster is that a design flaw? If one
X is able to go at 100 MPH and another at 90 MPH why would the 90 MPH be a
design flaw if it isn't a race but that fact that it functions where it is that matters?
Kelly
In the very first part of the thread, it was clearly stated that a better solution existed, and that the current solution had disadvantages.
Also you haven't answered my questions.