I wrote this a little while ago, tucked away as a comment. The ever-alert Lexifab picked it up, but otherwise there was the grim waiting-room silence of the outer suburbs of the blogosphere. Here it again:
I get so tired of batting ineffectively at the air... Obviously I disagree with other people, and obviously I don't want to believe anything that's not true, so I feel depressed that nobody ever seems to try and change my mind about anything. So, do you fancy making an attempt to logically outline your position- the what and why of it, starting from foundation axioms- sometime? Consider this an open invitation on all topics... for anyone who is out there. If you believe there is such a thing as truth... if you don't want to see me sunk in hopeless error... please, please, refute what I have written. Give me a more self-consistent, more logical worldview that is more consistent with experimental observations. I haven't got much longer to figure things out. Maybe fifty years max.
10 comments:
Sure - at this point I find I have no clear geopolitical obsession - nor anything new I can think of regarding the universe. I do have raging fanatical obsessions against the biological/evolutionary science orthodoxy embodied perhaps by some of what Klause Rohde delves into as an occupation. I'll have to go with that:)
Innovations in scientific thought are not made by those with raging fanatical obsessions against orthodoxy, but by those who struggle with every fibre of their being to fit an inconvenient fact into the orthodox worldview- and fail. :P
Hey guys - apologies for not posting for so long.
Completely off topic, but one of our peers from Year of 1987 is organising a 21st reunion in Townsville either last Saturday in April or first in May.
If you're keen, contact Tracey O'Connell - tracey@tradetravel.com
I think Versace, Marcus Hassall, Scott McSwan, Cameron Beh, Cam Holmes, Jenny Whittle, Chris Loos & Astley were all yeses.
Not a big group (15-20), but would be good.
I'm trying to track down Eldridge, but he's now working for the evil Gates empire (Microsoft), and I haven't yet connected.
Any interest?
You've shown your head above the trenches, Mato, and now we will harass you night and day for your book report on the Qur'an! :) Unfortunately, I need a much longer lead time, given my single income, work responsibilities, and long way to go... :( Sing a rousing chorus of "Qui alios diligit..." for me, amigos mios!
Me and Kylie will be in town. A gathering in a child-friendly environment without too many crowds at about that time would be ok. The semi-formal dinner/drinkfest is completely out of the question for us at this time.
As I believe I may have mentioned, I won't be able to make it.
To get this discussion back on topic - sort of - I am in an interesting period of reassessment, to whit: will being a parent fundamentally change my perspective on various things?
I believe the answer is no, because I have formulated much of my personal perspective from the fragmental assertion that "I wouldn't want to be responsible for bringing another child into this world because of [blank]" - but since I have clearly compromised that basic principle, everything else is up for grabs.
Well, except God, because I fundamentally can't move past the idea that I think the whole idea is a bit embarrassing, really.
I am in a strange quandary. I cannot believe how much time I spend just avoiding stressful thoughts. However, there is one aspect of Dr. Clam's philosophy that I have discovered is completely wrong. Admittedly it is only a technical aspect of evolutionary biology, and he is in more of a situation to research experiments that would decide it one way or another. My ideas are completely revolutionary if there was but one biological scientist ready to test my assertions.
What aspect of my philosophy is completely wrong? Tell me more!
Well, it pretty well involves Marconomic principle no.4. Now most of my basic axioms are compatible with yours, but this one appears to contradict yours heavily. I insist that design (over the same complexity gradient as) and evolution are extremely analogous. Thus biological systems that result in complex systems must have very analagous properties to design evolution in complex human artefacts. I think the biological science orthodoxy has been so determined to distance itself from "Intelligent design" that it is ignoring facets that are analogous to engineering without needing the engineer.
Not only that, but I believe this principle to be Universal (with a capital U) This makes my views quite incompatible with your concept of God.
Okay, have a go then! Unpack principle 4 in words of one syllable or less and convince me that it gives rise to a better description of the Universe than my concept of God.
Post a Comment