Originally posted by twhitehead
There is nothing 'partial' about it. It is a strawman in its entirety. It essentially claims that scientists are asking you to believe that life came about through insurmountable odds. This is simply not true. It then attacks this position by basically saying: "look, this is so improbable it couldn't have happened by pure chance."
[b]So many scientists ...[text shortened]... ct this attribute, we cannot use it to predict how the object will fall.
The purpose of this thread is to define and illustrate a strawman, not reopen the discussion we were having in a previous thread. So initially I will restrict my responses initially to where you seek to be showing a strawman in my statements.
I state it is partial because some scientists DO theorize on spontaneous generation of RNA. My acknowledgement was that the Rabbis statement too simply asserted that this was the position of scientists in general.
You say, in recognition of this yourself, "So you admit that spontaneous formation is not the only possibility on the table". My answer is yes. The Rabbi was distorting what scientists in general theorize. I guess just by being a distortion it is a whole strawman, despite the fact, one that you acknowledge and implied in your question above, some do.And they do.
So lets just say this is a strawman by distortion of what all scientists are saying.
Your next comment involves a response to my clarified statement of opinion, in recognisoing the strawman of the Rabbi's assertion. Are you now saying that that clarified statement of mine is a strawman too. I don't think so. You are disagreeing and raising questions.
You may and do disagree with my clarified statement, but have I in anyway commited the "sin" of strawman in my clarified statement, at your suggestion, with which you disagree?
Though you disagree, am in some strange way misrepresenting my own position?
Am I misrepresenting someone else? No, they are my opinions.
Here I will leave the topic of strawman. I trust others who may be interested are clearer as to what it is.
To answer you briefly on the other matters and about my previous "cuckoo" speculation on gravity: I will probably open another thread shortly specifically on consciousness and it may be better to pursue it there, rather than confusing the simple intention of this thread on strawmans.
I have no argument at all with all scientific descriptions about gravity. So I agree with your first point and am happy you recognise we do not actually know what this "force" is, though we can label it, measure it use it etc.
I have a difficulty of referring to that which I am talking about. Both words "consciousness" and "awareness" I am not fully happy with, but must use them. This is why I sometimes refer to it as an awareness-like property. Our normal use of the term implies some mind that is aware or conscious, along with the added difficulty of the usual take on consciousness as being consciousness of something or other, rather than a state that exists even without an objective to be conscious of.
My understandig is that it exists as a "property" that is without previous cause, and is the underlying nature of existence. It sounds like "God", but again this implies usually a "Being separate from and "above" "his" creation. Too simplistic for me.
My understanding is much more aligned with Eastern mysticism, wherein such "Mind" is inherent in some way within the whole fabric of existence, which on examination and as a result of modern scientific knowledge is not as quite as solid nor locally unconnected as once thought.
There is a lot in it and I can only try to point you too a place where some interesting papers (many by scientists) and one particular proponent (a scientist) who will do a better job than me in describing a scientific examination of the problem of consciousness and how some scientists are now seeing it, not as an epiphenomenon upon matter, but rather as the "Ground of Being" from which everything arises.
He examines the mysterious nature of light and its so-called "speed", the space-time continuum of Einstein and the new quantum findings in relation to the issue.
If you care to read it I would appreciate any scientific criticism of wrong facts.
The set of consciousness papers etc are found here:
and the article by Peter Russell is found here:
My copy of that article is dogeared and I agree and am persuade by it greatly, so you will know something of my view from a scientific perspective if you wish to read it.
It is "Reality and Consciousness: Turning the Superparadigm inside out" It is an abridgement of his book "From Science to God" It is solid science he refers to and no religious references or Biblical quotes etc are found therein. It is not creationist stuff.
Good night I'm tired.