Re: Paradoxes

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:
 

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
alternative
approach to guide research into the origins of life, one that
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)

 
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
(and others) have the capacity to engage with the topic at hand, but you
(and others) frequently torpedo a discussion virtually from the get-go.
>
Your responses here are a case in point, displaying disproportionate
disdain and invective, and little substance.
>
Is this incarnation of TO (post-GG meteorite impact) the last remnant of
jaded and cantankerous dinosaurs? Is there a general disregard/contempt
for creationists, or anyone with a differing viewpoint? Or pressure to
not break ranks and give any ground in debate? Or intrinsic ideological
suspicions animosities?
>
Often enough, frustration and a sharp response is understandable. I get
that (and I'm not guiltless, either way). But this forum can't be much
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.

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