There is no Watch-maker

[PolyHedral]

Because watches evolve, if you set them up right.
[youtube]mcAq9bmCeR0[/youtube]

 

[Willamena]

Funny how the videomaker talks of strawman when his video is one.

 

[Orbital]

Funny how the videomaker talks of strawman when his video is one.

You might be confused of what a 'straw man' argument actually is.

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

This video refuted the common 'watchmaker' or 'irreducible complexity' argument. By calling it a straw man you are saying it has not done this.


But nice video, must have been fun coding all that for him.

 

[doppelganger]

Why does the world as we understand it get more and more complex each year?

 

[Orbital]

Because there are more and more people, therefore society has cope with more people's needs and wants.

I'm just assuming that a societal structure containing 2 individuals would be less complex than one with more than 6.9 billion.

 

[doppelganger]

Because there are more and more people, therefore society has cope with everyones needs and wants.

How does that lead to a more complex understanding of the world? Was there a time when how humans understood their world to work was much less complicated? For example, how does modern Chemistry compare to how humans understood physical reactions they observed 200 years ago?

 

[Orbital]

How does that lead to a more complex understanding of the world?

I assumed that by 'world' you meant the societal structure that we build up.

Was there a time when how humans understood their world to work was much less complicated?

Maybe when they knew less about it? Maybe when mythological answers were viewed as an absolute certain answer to the things around us?

For example, how does modern Chemistry compare to how humans understood physical reactions they observed 200 years ago?

Well... we know a lot more now.

 

[doppelganger]

Well... we know a lot more now.

So would you say the relative "complexity" that appears in a system is a function of how particular or sophisticated the use of that information is?

 

[Willamena]

This video refuted the common 'watchmaker' or 'irreducible complexity' argument. By calling it a straw man you are saying it has not done this.

No - by calling it "strawman" I'm saying he has done this.

 

[PolyHedral]

So would you say the relative "complexity" that appears in a system is a function of how particular or sophisticated the use of that information is?

Reality has always been incredibly complicated. We've just not noticed until quite recently.

No - by calling it "strawman" I'm saying he has done this.

But the original watchmaker argument is a strawman, because the argument it is refuting is not the argument being made.

However, the watchmaker argument has seriously been made, so how can this video be a strawman?

 

[LuisDantas]

@Doppelganger: it is only natural for our models of reality to become ever more complex as available data and tools become more capable, isn't it?

 

[micrurus]

reality isn't complex, there are just ALOT of simple things.

 

[Willamena]

Edit: Nevermind this post. Obviously Blind Watchmaker is a different argument than the Watchmaker arguments I'm familiar with.

But the original watchmaker argument is a strawman, because the argument it is refuting is not the argument being made.

However, the watchmaker argument has seriously been made, so how can this video be a strawman?

Ideally arguments are not made to refute an opponent's side, but to support a proponent's side against an opponent's side. I believe the original watchmaker arguments do the latter (i.e. not a strawman). In essence, it states (from Wikipedia), "the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the entire universe) necessitates a designer." It assumes our capacity to recognize complexity in composition (implied in the ability to recognize artifice) and garner from it one similar to ourselves "who comprended [as we do] its construction and designed its use." To separate ourselves from the argument ignores an essential bit: "the necessity, in each particular case, of an intelligent designing mind for the contriving and determining of the forms which organized bodies bear."

The watchmaker argument relies on the image of an already-composed watch found in nature. "The main thrust of his argument was that God's design of the whole creation could be seen in the general happiness, or well-being, that was evident in the physical and social order of things." It is our ability to observe and our capacity to recognize that are at the heart of Paley's arguments. This argument is not properly illustrated by the image of pieces of watch put in a box, shaken up, and resulting in a watch, as is presented in the first frames of the video. That sounds like another argument entirely, one that relies perhaps on credulty.

Well, that's what I think, anyway.

 

[David M]

Reality has always been incredibly complicated. We've just not noticed until quite recently.

And we have lacked the technology to even look properly at many things until quite recently even when we did notice.