powered by Jerry Wickey
Key West
800 722 2280
jerry@jerrywickey.com
Jerry's Home Page
Saturday Apr 27, 2024
12:58 am
Create your own discussion page online instantly. To customize contact jerry@jerrywickey.net
Its free, easy and fun!
Key West
800 722 2280
jerry@jerrywickey.com
Jerry's Home Page
Saturday Apr 27, 2024
12:58 am
Its free, easy and fun!
 Share |  Tweet |  Status |
Evolution?
no comments
1 subscriber
9645 page views 647 mobile 3614 search bots
Socratic Method is one of the oldest and most respected forms of productive debate. There are many unproductive methods. All of which should be avoided. Socratic method is a very old and respected means to quickly and definitively resolve difficult issues by adhering to rules of conversation which are carefully designed to keep the discussion on track and drive it toward rapid and unreserved conclusion. Conclusion is reached when after carefully selecting questions designed to spotlight an affirmation's error, no one involved in the conversation is any longer willing to dispute the rationality of the affirmation.
Wikipedia on Socratic Method
SocraticMethod.net
In this way, conclusion is forced upon those who remain in disagreement, but have no rational reason for their disagreement. One remaining in disagreement is forced to admit "I still disagree, but fail to provide a reason for my disagreement which others perceive as rational." The irrationality of his or her position becomes obvious to those involved in the conversation.
For this reason Socratic Method is very unpopular with politicians who often desire to remain uncommitted on some issues.
How do I comment in Socratic Method if I disagree?
Do not pose an alternate position or attempt to show that there is a better way to handle the issue. This is the error most make in debate. Nothing ever ends up resolved because both sides continue supporting their respective and opposing views and neither view is refuted. Neither party has any reason to concede. Neither party finds it intellectually embarrassing to continue supporting their original position.
First, make sure you disagree. An argument is not won with fancy words, but by discovering the winning side before choosing your position. Is your position winnable? If not, accept it and change your mind, otherwise Socratic Method will reveal your irrationality to others. Once you've answered that, list the assumptions upon which the affirmed statement rests, and which if shown to be false, make the affirmed statement's error obvious to others.
Restate that assumption in language and terminology which make the affirmation's reliance upon the assumption obvious and ask those affirming if they agree with the assumption.
If the assumption is specious, wait to point out the assumption's flaw in your second question after those affirming answer their agreement with the assumption. Post "Considering that you agree with that particular assumption, do you also agree with its obviously erroneous implication, thus.....?
If you have difficulty finding an erroneous assumption or an error of conclusion implied by assumptions made in the affirmation, double check that you still disagree. You may find, to your surprise that you agreed with the statement all along. You just didn't think about it carefully enough at first.
1 subscriber
9645 page views 647 mobile 3614 search bots
Socratic Method is one of the oldest and most respected forms of productive debate. There are many unproductive methods. All of which should be avoided. Socratic method is a very old and respected means to quickly and definitively resolve difficult issues by adhering to rules of conversation which are carefully designed to keep the discussion on track and drive it toward rapid and unreserved conclusion. Conclusion is reached when after carefully selecting questions designed to spotlight an affirmation's error, no one involved in the conversation is any longer willing to dispute the rationality of the affirmation.
Wikipedia on Socratic Method
SocraticMethod.net
In this way, conclusion is forced upon those who remain in disagreement, but have no rational reason for their disagreement. One remaining in disagreement is forced to admit "I still disagree, but fail to provide a reason for my disagreement which others perceive as rational." The irrationality of his or her position becomes obvious to those involved in the conversation.
For this reason Socratic Method is very unpopular with politicians who often desire to remain uncommitted on some issues.
How do I comment in Socratic Method if I disagree?
Do not pose an alternate position or attempt to show that there is a better way to handle the issue. This is the error most make in debate. Nothing ever ends up resolved because both sides continue supporting their respective and opposing views and neither view is refuted. Neither party has any reason to concede. Neither party finds it intellectually embarrassing to continue supporting their original position.
First, make sure you disagree. An argument is not won with fancy words, but by discovering the winning side before choosing your position. Is your position winnable? If not, accept it and change your mind, otherwise Socratic Method will reveal your irrationality to others. Once you've answered that, list the assumptions upon which the affirmed statement rests, and which if shown to be false, make the affirmed statement's error obvious to others.
Restate that assumption in language and terminology which make the affirmation's reliance upon the assumption obvious and ask those affirming if they agree with the assumption.
If the assumption is specious, wait to point out the assumption's flaw in your second question after those affirming answer their agreement with the assumption. Post "Considering that you agree with that particular assumption, do you also agree with its obviously erroneous implication, thus.....?
If you have difficulty finding an erroneous assumption or an error of conclusion implied by assumptions made in the affirmation, double check that you still disagree. You may find, to your surprise that you agreed with the statement all along. You just didn't think about it carefully enough at first.
I'm beginning to feel sorry for the poor evolutionary sciences. Once again what was previously thought to be evolutionary adaptations of mammoth and rhinoceros to the modern colder climate turns out to be far more complicated. Learn more in Science Journal
Learn the minutia of the evolutionary process which can act on any complex system. Study how emergent processes produce order from disorder. Learn the limitations of such emergence with Jerry's software simulation of early RNA evolution
Many species were found with the very same adaptations. Owing to protein domain evolution math, I suspect further research will reveal that most species already have written into their DNA, constellations of epigenetic expression conferring successful adaptation to many different climate regimes. What looked like speciation from distinct visual presentations turns out to be a complex bag of epigenetic "tricks" inherent to each species. The species doesn't actually change. Biology was not the first place in which science discovered information which contains instructions affecting controlled arbitrary focus such as epigenetic events and even more complex, self alteration. Computer programmers have been writing recursive self focusing and self altering code since Turing in 1937.
The whole creation vs. evolution debate lacks reason on both sides of the argument. Both sides argue from a faith based point of view. "God must exist, therefore He must have created life." "God can not exist, therefore life must have arisen by natural processes only."
It is far simpler and far more definitive than that. While inventing the compression algorithms required by modern TV, cell phone and audio transmissions, computer scientists discovered that all information exists as either a product of emergent processes or is novel information. All the information describing the orbits of all particles making up a solar system, the immense complexities of the climate or the undulations of any coast line are all emergent information. Products of natural processes always produce emergent information.
The sequence of musical notes in a symphony, the written words of a novel, computer code authored by a programmer are all novel information. This distinction between emergent and novel information can be quantified by compression algorithms as a byproduct of their information compression activity. It turns out, the information contained in the sequence of nucleotides in DNA is novel information, not emergent.
email link to a friend
tweet
status
Share this discussion with your friends