Article <7v9spjtddb7i3t1mf3pp5hj9bcbv4r1cbe@4ax.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<7v9spjtddb7i3t1mf3pp5hj9bcbv4r1cbe@4ax.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!news.nobody.at!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.xs3.de!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Paradoxes
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2025 08:59:09 -0500
Organization: What are you looking for?
Lines: 89
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <7v9spjtddb7i3t1mf3pp5hj9bcbv4r1cbe@4ax.com>
References: <vlt8mu$h46e$1@dont-email.me> <8e030e55b2e485b9da37c2143a571915@www.novabbs.com> <vmage2$3e6d8$1@dont-email.me> <a8823f5b535c6ac8cbb532b1a5c05ce7@www.novabbs.com> <vnhdu8$37j5e$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="88557"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1Vsv3hRe+QolQ9GclHazex4E9G4=
Bytes: 6109

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 13:52:53 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 31/01/2025 2:03 am, LDagget wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 8:35:59 +0000, MarkE wrote:
>>=20
>>> On 16/01/2025 8:19 am, LDagget wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 8:04:55 +0000, MarkE wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Potential paradoxes are of particular interest because if =
unresolved,
>>>>> they may indicate not just difficultly but impossibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> Benner's framing remark is noteworthy: "Discussed here is an=20
>>>>> alternative
>>>>> approach to guide research into the origins of life, one that=20
>>>>> focuses on
>>>>> 'paradoxes', pairs of statements, both grounded in theory and
>>>>> observation, that (taken together) suggest that the 'origins =
problem'
>>>>> cannot be solved."
>>>>
>>>> Seems to me that framing things as paradoxes is a transparently
>>>> deceptive sophistry.
>>>>
>>>> It displaces the actual argument's details to a categorical that
>>>> pretends
>>>> to be a fundamental problem. Thus we get chicken and egg paradoxes.
>>>> Can't
>>>> get one without the other --- see it's a paradox. Or you get =
sophistry
>>>> like
>>>> zeno's paradox, or the liar's paradox. They are games on sets up by
>>>> language
>>>> that superficially sounds fair and reasonable but ultimately embed a
>>>> hidden
>>>> absurdity in their premises.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting that you go directly to pejorative and dismissal.
>>>
>>> And yet, for example, Eigen's paradox "is one of the most intractable
>>> puzzles in the study of the origins of life,"* which rightly =
identifies
>>> "a fundamental problem" and is decidedly not "transparently deceptive
>>> sophistry". A similar assessment holds for other OoL paradoxes named =
by
>>> Benner and others.
>>>
>>> Your haste to categorise Benner's statement as such seems to me to =
be,
>>> ironically, transparent sophistry.
>>>
>>>
>>> * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_threshold_(evolution)
>>=20
>> Nothing in this thread salvages your initial post from my criticism.
>> There's nothing but sophistry to support your criticism. Nothing.
>> And you have no sense of shame.
>
>Why do so many exchanges here devolve so rapidly into trading insults?
>
>TO has always been a flame-zone, even within tribes. But I know that you=
=20
>(and others) have the capacity to engage with the topic at hand, but you=
=20
>(and others) frequently torpedo a discussion virtually from the get-go.
>
>Your responses here are a case in point, displaying disproportionate=20
>disdain and invective, and little substance.
>
>Is this incarnation of TO (post-GG meteorite impact) the last remnant of=
=20
>jaded and cantankerous dinosaurs? Is there a general disregard/contempt=20
>for creationists, or anyone with a differing viewpoint? Or pressure to=20
>not break ranks and give any ground in debate? Or intrinsic ideological=20
>suspicions animosities?
>
>Often enough, frustration and a sharp response is understandable. I get=20
>that (and I'm not guiltless, either way). But this forum can't be much=20
>value or fun for anyone.


It's remarkable how often you and Harran go round and round over the
same points, only to end up in the same place, and yet never once does
he even hint at KFing you;  yet another case of not what is said but
who says it.

--=20
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge