« Finally, someone who understands SF | Home | You’ll shoot your eye out—because you’re stupid »

How to structure an argument

Was talking with my buddy Jim tonight. He’d IM’d me to table a debate that cropped up while he was editing a friend’s thesis on an engineering project. The friend (of the friend’s group) had written something about “Using inspiration based on designs found in nature,” and Jim strongly objected to this phrasing, suggesting it should be revised as “Using inspiration stemming from phenomena found in nature.”

Now, no comments about the language skills of engineers. OK? Let’s play fair. Onward.

Jim obviously was trying to avoid having the paper be interpreted as drawing upon or otherwise endorsing “intelligent design.” I told him I thought the edit was ridiculous and he should have left the initial phrasing as it was. This launched a debate about definitions, he opting always for “pattern” and I for “design.”

For example, were I to be going on a stroll (IRL, not along the shoulder of the information superhighway) and pass a rock formation, with all sorts of strange swirls on the surface and between layers of the rocks, I’d probably say to a companion, “Man, check out those crazy designs on that rock over there.” Jim, of course, would say “check out those crazy patterns on the rock.”

Now, in my opinion, a pattern necessitates repetition across multiple instances, meaning that I’d have to see several rock formations before I’d be in a position to identify a pattern. But I understand Jim’s conviction that “design” requires forethought, and therefore nothing natural can be “designed,” given his lack of belief in an omnipotent creating (or designing) entity. Fair enough.

Basically our disagreement boiled down to how much credit we each were willing to bestow about the intelligent design camp. Jim thinks it’s worth fighting against, and actively pre-empting whenever possible. I, on the other hand, prefer the method of acting like it doesn’t exist, because it’s just so damn silly. I look at it like this: I wouldn’t be caught holding a debate on the logical merits of intelligent design, just like I would try very hard not to let anyone see me swatting at faeries as I walk to class every day. Sure, faeries are rad and everything, but, like, they don’t actually exist, and I’m not going to pretend in public that they do.

Jim called me out on grossly misinterpreting the demographics of the great nation of America, and maybe he’s right about that. At least he and I could agree that although the form of something, like a pine tree, with its branches, needles, trunk, and pinecones, might look designed or patterned, there certainly was no entity which said “it must be so” and then it was so. Atheism is in, after all.

While we’re at it, let’s examine some corollaries to this statement.

Well that one certainly holds true in most social circles. But let’s calibrate our testing mechanism, because we need to be sure of the accuracy of the results.

Boom, case closed. Can’t argue with that.