|
I guess my point was just that calling him out, while strictly correct, is doing nothing to refute whatever statements he may have made on the singularity, nor is it doing anything to promote the idea of the singularity. Replying to "evil exists, therefore God does not," with, "that argument has been made before," doesn't say anything about whether God does or doesn't exist, and it doesn't do anything to refute the argument. The point of PG's How To Disagree is that the point of disagreeing is to address the truth or falsehood of a proposition, not the way the proposition is presented. The DH# levels (at least DH0-2) can be restated something like this: DH0: I don't like the author, therefore his argument is false. DH1: The author has a relevant fault or weakness, therefore his argument is false. DH2: The author didn't present his argument well, therefore his argument is false. While it's nothing against him personally, the first three paragraphs of Kurzweil's reply read like "the author didn't present his argument well, therefore it is false." He recovers later, sure. He easily reaches 5-6 on the DH scale, but the rebuttal would be stronger without the first three paragraphs, and they certainly aren't the best, or most praiseworthy, part of it. |