In recent days, objector ES has been twisting the concept of Wickensian functionally specific information-bearing complex organisation into post-modernist deconstructionist subjectivist pretzels, in order to obfuscate the plain inductive argument at the heart of the design inference and/or explanatory filter.
For example, consider these excerpts from the merry go round thread:
ES, 41: . . . If a conscious observer connects some observed object to some possible desired result which can be obtained using the object in a context, then we say that the conscious observer conceives of a function for that object . . . . In science, properties of the material just are, without purpose, because everybody knows purpose is subjective. Functionality comes in when you get engineerial, and then it’s more up to the “objective functionality” of the engineer than of the material . . .
KF, 42: When one puts together a complex composite such as a program or an electronic amplifier ckt or a watch or an auto engine or many other things, function is not projected to it by an observer. I wuk, or i nuh wuk, mon. Was that a bad starter motor, a run down battery, out of gas, dirty injector points and more. Was that a bug in syntax or in semantics. Was that a BJT miswired and fried, did you put in the wrong size load resistor so it sits in saturation when it was meant to be in the middle of the load line, did you put in an electrolytic cap the wrong way around, etc. Is this a heart attack triggered by a blood clot etc. Function is not a matter of imagination but observation. And you full well know that or should.
Joe, 44: Earth to E. Seigner- functionality, ie a function, is an OBSERVATION. We observe something performing some function and we investigate to try to figure out how it came to be the way it is. Within living organisms we observe functioning systems and subsystems. As for “information”, well with respect to biology ID uses the same definition that Crick provided decades ago. And we say it can be measured the same way Shannon said, decades ago.
ES, 46: To an observer it looks like cars take people to work and shopping. But most of the time cars stand in garage motionless, and sometimes they fail to start. If the observer is truly impartial, then it’s not up to him to say that the failure to start or mere standing is any less of the car’s function than the ability of being driven. The car’s function is what the car does and when the car fails to start then that’s what it does and this is its function. Of course this sounds silly, but it’s true . . .
BA, 48: It is clear to me now. You have drunk deeply from the post-modernist/constructivist Koolaid. Kairosfocus and gpuccio be advised — attempting to reason with such as E.Seigner is pointless.
Let’s first remind ourselves as to what the glorified common-sense design inference process actually does as an exercise in inductive, inference to the best current explanation on empirically observed evidence:
. . . and also, of the significance of Wickensian functionally specific, complex information and Orgellian informational specified complexity for a blind, needle in haystack search; as highlighted by Dembski et al:
While we are at it, let us remind ourselves of what FSCO/I looks like in the form of functionally specific organisation in the technological world:
Fig 6: An exploded view of a classic ABU Cardinal, showing how functionality arises from a highly specific, tightly constrained complex arrangement of matched parts according to a “wiring diagram.” Such diagrams are objective (the FSCO/I on display here is certainly not “question-begging,” as some — astonishingly — are trying to suggest!), and if one is to build or fix such a reel successfully, s/he had better pay close heed.. Taking one of these apart and shaking it in a shoe-box is guaranteed not to work to get the reel back together again. (That is, even the assembly of such a complex entity is functionally specific and prescriptive information-rich.)
. . . and, in the life of the cell, as the Ribosome constructs a protein (which is a functionally specific string structure) based on the coded algorithmic information in the mRNA tape:
Step by step protein synthesis in action, in the ribosome, based on the sequence of codes in the mRNA control tape (Courtesy, Wikipedia and LadyofHats)
. . . not to mention, the parallel in the punched paper tape reader used for older computers and NC machines:
Punched paper Tape, as used in older computers and numerically controlled machine tools (Courtesy Wiki & Siemens)
(When things have been strawmannised and twisted into pretzels, it helps to straighten them back out again. Where also, a picture is worth a thousand words.)
However, Mr Arrington has a point.
While those caught up in po mo deconstructionist schemes are hardly likely to have a sudden change of heart on the strength of a mere blog comment or even a headlined post, the rest of us can draw lessons from what we see laid out before us. I therefore crave the indulgence of a promoted comment to headlined status, including a snippet of intensely personal history of my homeland. For, comments get buried and forgotten within hours, but a headlined post is for the record:
It may be entertaining to play semantics games with terms like function, but that simply reveals that your problem is not with science, it is with common sense reality tracing to some of the sillier bits of post-modernist radical subjectivism and deconstructionism.
Perhaps, it has not dawned on you that survival of the fittest or hill-climbing algorithms or natural selection or the like pivot on the objectivity of function. Have you gone to Panda’s Thumb, TSZ, ATBC or the like Darwinist agitator sites to challenge the core concepts of evolution based on differential reproductive success pivoting on functional differences of life-forms? I safely bet not, you are reserving such talking-points for those you object to, regardless of inconsistencies or outright incoherence.
[Ill-]Logic with a swivel.
Patently, revealingly, sadly, you have indulged in incoherent selective hyperskepticism.
And if you genuinely imagine that a stalled car with a dead engine, or a leaky roof, or a crashed computer, or a PA system that distorts sounds horribly are functionally distinct as a mere matter of subjective opinion, your problem is a breach of common sense.
Do you — or a significant other — have a mechanic? Are you a shade-tree mechanic? Do you have even one tool for maintenance? Do you recognise the difference between sugar, salt and arsenic in your cup of coffee? Between an effective prescription correctly filled and faithfully carried out when you get sick and a breakdown of that process? Etc?
I put it to you that you cannot and do not live consistent with your Lit class seminar-room talking points.
And, your evasive resort to clinging to such absurdities to obfuscate the issue of functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information, speaks loudest volumes for the astute onlooker.
Own-goal, E-S.
The bottom-line of the behaviour of several objectors over the past few days, speaks inadvertent volumes on the real balance on the merits of the core design theory contention that there are such things as reliable empirical markers — such as Wickensian FSCO/I — that are strong signs of design as key causal process.
But, many are so wedded to the totalising metanarrative of a priori Lewontinian evolutionary materialism that they refuse to heed the 2350 year old warning posed by Plato on where cynical radical relativism, amorality opening the door to might makes right nihilism and ruthless factions points to for a civilisation. Refusing to learn the hard-bought, paid for in blood lessons of history, they threaten to mislead our civilisation into yet another predictably futile and bloody march of folly. As the ghosts of 100 million victims of such demonically wicked deceptions over the past century warn us.
The folly on the march in our day is so arrogantly stubborn that it refuses to learn living memory history or the history passed on first hand to our grand parents.
Here is Sophia (personification of Wisdom), in the voice of Solomon echoing hard-bought, civil war triggered lessons in Israel c 1,000 BC:
Prov 1:20 Wisdom [Gk, Sophia] cries aloud in the street,
in the markets she raises her voice;
21 at the head of the noisy streets she cries out;
at the entrance of the city gates she speaks:
22 “How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple?
How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing
and fools hate knowledge?
23 If you turn at my reproof,[a]
behold, I will pour out my spirit to you;
I will make my words known to you.
24 Because I have called and you refused to listen,
have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded,
25 because you have ignored all my counsel
and would have none of my reproof,
26 I also will laugh at your calamity;
I will mock when terror strikes you,
27 when terror strikes you like a storm
and your calamity comes like a whirlwind,
when distress and anguish come upon you.
28 Then they will call upon me, but I will not answer;
they will seek me diligently but will not find me.
29 Because they hated knowledge
and did not choose the fear of the Lord,
30 would have none of my counsel
and despised all my reproof,
31 therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way,
and have their fill of their own devices.
32 For the simple are killed by their turning away,
and the complacency of fools destroys them;
33 but whoever listens to me will dwell secure
and will be at ease, without dread of disaster.”
A grim warning, bought at the price of a spoiled, wayward son who fomented disaffection and led rebellion triggering civil war and needless death and destruction, ending in his own death and that of many others.
Behind the Proverbs lies the anguished wailing of a father who had to fight a war with his son and in the end cried out, Oh Absalom, my son . . .
History sorts out the follies of literary excesses, if we fail to heed wisdom in good time.
Often, at the expense of a painful, bloody trail of woe and wailing that leads many mothers and fathers, widows and orphans to wail the loss of good men lost to the fight in the face of rampant folly.
But then, tragic history is written into my name, as George William Gordon’s farewell to his wife written moments before his unjust execution on sentence of a kangaroo court-martial, was carried out:
My beloved Wife, General Nelson has just been kind enough to inform me that the court-martial on Saturday last has ordered me to be hung, and that the sentence is to be executed in an hour hence; so that I shall be gone from this world of sin and sorrow.
I regret that my worldly affairs are so deranged; but now it cannot be helped. I do not deserve this sentence, for I never advised or took part in any insurrection. All I ever did was to recommend the people who complained to seek redress in a legitimate way; and if in this I erred, or have been misrepresented, I do not think I deserve the extreme sentence. It is, however, the will of my Heavenly Father that I should thus suffer in obeying his command to relieve the poor and needy, and to protect, as far as I was able, the oppressed. And glory be to his name; and I thank him that I suffer in such a cause. Glory be to God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; and I can say it is a great honour thus to suffer; for the servant cannot be greater than his Lord. I can now say with Paul, the aged, “The hour of my departure is at hand, and I am ready to be offered up. I have fought a good fight, I have kept the faith, and henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge shall give me.” Say to all friends, an affectionate farewell; and that they must not grieve for me, for I die innocently. Assure Mr. Airy and all others of the truth of this. Comfort your heart. I certainly little expected this. You must do the best you can, and the Lord will help you; and do not be ashamed of the death your poor husband will have suffered. The judges seemed against me, and from the rigid manner of the court I could not get in all the explanation I intended . . .
Deconstruct that, clever mocking scorners of the literary seminar room.
Deconstruct it in the presence of a weeping wife and mother and children mourning the shocking loss of a father and hero to ruthless show-trial injustice ending in judicial murder.
Murder that echoes the fate of one found innocent but sent to Golgotha because of ruthless folly-tricks in Jerusalem c. 30 AD.
(How ever so many fail to see the deep lesson about folly-tricks in the heart of the Gospel, escapes me. New Atheists and fellow travellers, when you indict the Christian Faith as the fountain-head of imagined injustice, remember the One who hung between thieves on a patently unjust sentence, having been bought at the price of a slave through a betrayer blinded by greed and folly. If you do not hear a cry for just government and common decency at the heart of the Gospel you would despise, you are not worth the name, literary scholar or educated person.)
And in so doing, learn a terrible, grim lesson of where your clever word games predictably end up in the hands of the ruthless.
For, much more than science is at stake in all of this.
GEM of TKI >>
_________________
I trust that the astute onlooker will be inclined to indulge so personal a response, and will duly draw on the hard-bought lessons of history (and of my family story . . . ) as just outlined. END
PS, Sept 30: ES has been making heavy weather over the idea of a primitive tribe encountering a can opener for the first time and not understanding its function (which he then wishes to project as subjective):
A rotating cutter can opener in action
And, a modern development showing meshing serrated gears:
modern rotary action can opener with meshing gears (Both images HT Wiki)
However, this is both incorrect and irrelevant to recognising from aspects of the can opener that exhibit FSCO/I, that it is designed:
1 –> Whether or not the primitive seeing an opener for the first time can recognise its purpose and contrivance that integrates materials, forces of nature and components into a functioning whole, that functionally specific, complex organisation for a purpose exists and is embedded in how the opener is designed.
2 –> Just by looking at the evident contrivance manifested in FSCO/I that is maximally unlikely to obtain by blind chance and mechanical necessity — as with the fishing reel above, the primitive is likely to perceive design.
3 –> The rotating gears with matched teeth set to couple together alone implies highly precise artifice to build centred disks, cut matching gearing, mount them on precisely separated and aligned centred axes, with other connected parts already demonstrates design to a reasonable onlooker.
4 –> The precisely uniformly thick handles joined in a pivot, and reflecting rectangle-based shapes would be equally demonstrative.
5 –> Where, actual intended function has not been brought to bear. (And note, we see here again the implicit demand that the design inference be a universal decoder/ algorithm identifier. That is a case of setting up and knocking over a strawman, where . . . just on theory of computation, such a universal decoder/detector is utterly implausible. The point of the design inference is that on inductively confirmed reliable signs such as FSCO/I we may confidently identify design — purposefully directed contingency or contrivance — as key causal factor. It seems that any number of red herrings are led away from this point to convenient strawman caricatures that are then knocked over as though the actual point has been effectively answered on the merits. It has not.)
6 –> But of course, that functionality dependent on specific components and an arrangement otherwise vanishingly improbable, reeks of design and the function can be readily demonstrated, as the patents diagram shows.
7 –> Where, again, it must be underscored that, per my comment 49 to ES:
[the] ultra-modernist, ugly- gulch- between- the- inner- world- and- the outer- one [of] sophomorised Kantianism fails and needs to be replaced with a sounder view. As F H Bradley pointd out over a century ago, to pretend to know that the external world is un-knowable due to the nature of subjectivitiy . . . the denial of objective knowledge . . . is itself a claim to objective knowledge of the external world and a very strong one too. Which therefore is self-referentially incoherent. Instead, it is wiser to follow Josiah Royce’s point that we know that error exists, undeniably and self evidently. Thus, there are certain points of objective knowledge that are firm, that ground that objective truth, warrant and knowledge exist, and that schemes of thought that deny or denigrate such fail. Including post modernism, so called. Of course, that we know that error exists means we need to be careful and conservative in knowledge claims, but the design inference is already that, it is explicitly inductive on inference to best explanation on observed patterns and acknowledges the limitations of inductive knowledge including scientific knowledge. [A Po-Mo] selectively hyperskeptical focus on the design inference while apparently ignoring the effect of that same logic on science as a whole, on history, on common sense reality and on reason itself, simply multiplies the above by highlighting the double standard on warrant.
8 –> In short, we have here a case of clinging to an ideological absurdity in the teeth of accessible, well-warranted correction.
Comments
ES: From the OP and discussion above, we have seen that your ultra-modernist, ugly- gulch- between- the- inner- world- and- the outer- one sophomorised Kantianism falis and needs to be replaced with a sounder view. As F H Bradley pointd out over a century ago, to pretend to know that the external world is un-knowable due to the nature of subjectivitiy . . . the denial of objective knowledge . . . is itself a claim to objective knowledge of the external world and a very strong one too. Which therefore is self-referentially incoherent. Instead, it is wiser to follow Josiah Royce's point that we know that error exists, undeniably and self evidently. Thus, there are certain points of objective knowledge that are firm, that ground that objective truth, warrant and knowledge exist, and that schemes of thought that deny or denigrate such fail. Including post modernism, so called. Of course, that we know that error exists means we need to be careful and conservative in knowledge claims, but the design inference is already that, it is explicitly inductive on inference to best explanation on observed patterns and acknowledges the limitations of inductive knowledge including scientific knowledge. Your selectively hyperskeptical focus on the design inference while apparently ignoring the effect of that same logic on science as a whole, on history, on common sense reality and on reason itself, simply multiplies the above by highlighting the double standard on warrant. Game over, fail. Please reboot and refresh your thinking on a sounder footing. KFkairosfocus
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
TB: How design is carried out is separate from recognising that it has been carried out on signs. If you are genuinely interested in the matter, I suggest a glance at TRIZ which give a useful perspective on innovative non-routine, creative design or invention. Beyond, we already have in hand the work of Ventner et al on the world of micro-biology which already shows feasible ways to effect biological designs. KFkairosfocus
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
E. Seigner:
But I have never said that the "definition" in itself is objective in some absolute sense. What I mean is that the definition must be explicit and objective in a procedural sense.
IOWs, I define a function (and there is no pretense at all that the function itself is "objective" in any philosophical sense). Let's say that the function definition is a procedural convention we adopt. I define explicitly the kind of result which corresponds to an assessment of the function as present or not present.
You see, the function in itself is not important. That's why any observer can define any possible function, and give any possible procedure to assess its presence when the object is used in a specific context.
This is probably the reason why many don't understand my reasoning: they think that the function is important. No. What is important is the complexity necessary to implement the function.
So, let's say we have a computer program which can do something. I define that something, so that I can for any possible computer program verify if the function is present or not. It is not important what the function is: it could be ordering a list, or answering some mathematical problem given in input, or printing excerpts from a book. It's not important.
What is important is: how many bits do I need, at least, to have that result in my computer environment?
So, I may have a 20 bit program which makes something very important (like giving a key to open a database) or a 1 million bit program which make something very trivial (like ordering a simple list). What is important is the minimal complexity of a program which can do what I have defined.
The idea is that no sequence which can do something which requires a minimum complexity of n bits (let's say 500, to stay in the UPB) will ever arise spontaneously in a real system by a random search/walk.
So, the functions that we can subjectively conceive can be divided into "simple" and "complex" according to the number of bits that are required to minimally implement them according to an explicit assessment procedure.
Objects which have a configuration of matter which conveys the bits necessary for a complex function are always designed (this is an empirical observation).
Therefore, we can use functional complexity to infer that an object is designed.
It's very simple, as you can see. Empirical and simple.
So, to sum up: the function definition and the procedure to assess it are subjective. That's fine. But the observation that:
"any function, assessed by any procedure, which requires more than n (let's say 500) bits to be implemented is a reliable marker of design in an object that can be used to implement it"
is an objective and reproducible observation.
That empirical observation is the basis to use the dFSCI tool to infer design.gpuccio
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
the bystander:
I have zero problem in inferring that not all Evolutionary process can be unguided, but I wouldn’t be satisfied with ID till some theory and explanation of how ID agent works is put up.
So we couldn't say that Stonehenge was designed until we knew how it was constructed?Joe
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT
@gpuccio
We have an agreement here:
A procedure which is explicit[ly defined] and reproducible is “objective” in science. We can rely on it, because it will give the same results ...
But on both philosophical and scientific grounds I still have quibble with this:
So, to sum up: the function is subjective. But, if we give an objective definition of it and how to assess it, the answer to the question: “Can this object be used in this specific context to implement that function?” is definitely objective, at least in the measure that is useful in science.
Definitions are not objective. They are just definitions. Definitions and methodology are used to frame the situation so that it would become impartially experimental and empirically testable, and when this is achieved, yes, it's called "objective" in science. However, all this defining and framing doesn't make the procedure of defining and framing itself magically objective. The procedure itself remains subjective, but its measurable results are called scientifically objective inasmuch as they are reliably reproducible by other scientists.E.Seigner
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
the bystander:
"I have zero problem in inferring that not all Evolutionary process can be unguided, but I wouldn’t be satisfied with ID till some theory and explanation of how ID agent works is put up."
I have suggested many times my possible scenario: some conscious intelligent purposeful agent, probably not physical, interacts with biological matter exactly in the way that our consciousness interacts with our body and brain: through a consciousness / matter interface, probably implemented at quantum level, so that no natural laws needs to be violated.
It's only a suggestion, but I find it believable and subject to inquiry.gpuccio
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT
E. Seigner:
Thank you for the comments. I think we are getting to something, not much, but something.
Yes, I completely understand that you want to make it appear that you have avoided philosophical implications, but the fact is that you haven’t. In philosophy of science it’s recognized beyond question that science always derives at least from some philosophical presuppositions. You may want to minimize the presuppositions, and it’s okay to try, but you can never eliminate them. Moreover, the minimal set of assumptions embedded in your method had better be impeccably consistent. Otherwise the theory goes awry at its very foundation.
I don't want to avoid philosophical implications. It's an essential part of my philosophy of science tha they cannot be avoided, and I have defended that position many times here.
I just want to avoid some philosophical implication that are not appropriate, in the parts of the scientific discussion where they are not pertinent.
I agree with the rest that you say here. However, I am convinced, without any false modesty or pride, that "the minimal set of assumptions embedded in my method" are "impeccably consistent". You are free to think differently, and possibly to try to explain why.
When you use terms like objective and subjective, you are inevitably treading the philosophical ground. You have nowhere to hide from this fact.
Yes and no. I don't want to hide form anything. But for me "subjective" and "objective" have a very definite empirical meaning. "Subjective" is anything that is experienced by the I in consciousness. "Objective" is all that we assume exists outside consciousness, and interacts with it.
In my view, empirically, all that we experience is subjective. But I am not a solipsist, so I happily accept the inference, vastly shared by all, that objects and other subjects exist. So, my map of reality includes both subjects and objects. Those assumptions are not negotiable, for me, but I understand that some people can well refute them. Our approaches to science will therefore be different As you say, "science always derives at least from some philosophical presuppositions". I agree, and definitely stick to mine.
“Objective functionality” is a philosophically suspicious concept already on the face of it. And when you want to make it appear categorically objective, it only gets more suspicious. Something like “behavior” or “operation” may be objective in the sense of “out there for everyone to see”, but *function* is what the thing does in relation to other things, and what the other things are depends on *context* where the thing happens to be. And the scope of the *context* depends on how the observer frames it. Therefore function (along with functionality, which is essentially the same thing) is not in the object and not objective. It is contextual and inevitably includes the subjective aspect.
This is simply bad reasoning, or simply you don't understand my point. You may keep your suspicions, but in case it is only a misunderstanding, I will explain it again.
The function is completely subjective. I, as an observer, see the object and conceive a function. Any function. I am completely free. It is a purely subjective choice. So, I see ATP synthase in bacteria and I conceive a function for it: it generates biochemical stored energy in the form of ATP from a gradient of protons. OK, I conceive that function because I see what happens in the cell, but that is not really the point. The point is: I conceive subjectively that function for that molecule.
The second step is very important: I define the function and a way to assess it. Here, my conception is transormed in something objective. I come out with a definition like:
"My function" consists in the ability of any molecule to generate ATP from a proton gradient in a specific cellular environment (let's say bacteria) with a minimum efficiency of x molecules per hour per gradient unit". Or something like that: I am not a biochemist, so I apologize for any gross imprecision in the language.
Now, that is objective, because it is a verbal definition with objective procedures. It can be shared, used and reproduced by all. It's what in a scientific paper would be part of the methods section: "We define as "my function" the ability of any molecule..."
The third step is: I verify that the molecule I observe implements that function. That is easy. We already knew that.
The fourth step is: I evaluate how many bits of the sequence in the protein are really necessary to implement the function (the target space) and compute the target space / search space ratio. We so that by the Durston method, or by other simple approximations. For example, for ATP synthase I have computed that the functional information is at least 1600 bits, even considering only two sequences (the alpha and beta subunit) and only the identities in AA positions. The true functional complexity of the whole molecule is probably much higher.
The fifth step is: I choose an appropriate threshold. For biological molecules on our planet, I have suggested 150 bits as a very reasonable threshold to categorize functional information as complex or not complex. However, here with more than 1600 bits we are well beyond Dembski's UPB of 500 bits, which is enough for any object in the whole universe.
The sixth step is: we seriously wonder: are there any algorithmic necessity mechanisms in the system and the time span which could explain the generation of that sepcific functional molecule, beyond probability barriers.
The easy answer for ATP synthase is: no. I will not debate the details here, because in general I see that you are not much interested in biological details. But I can do it if you request it.
The seventh step is: I infer design as the best scientific explanation available for ATP synthase.
That's all. These are the facts and procedures that you must criticize. Concretely. With understandable and specific arguments.
So, to sum up: the function is subjective. But, if we give an objective definition of it and how to assess it, the answer to the question: "Can this object be used in this specific context to implement that function?" is definitely objective, at least in the measure that is useful in science.
Right there “objective” (the penultimate word in the quote) misplaced again. This is a philosophical category error, seriously. When you do an equivalent systemic error in computing, the program fails to run.
See previous point. A procedure which is explicit and reproducible is "objective" in science. We can rely on it, because it will give the same results (allowing for the inevitable and acceptable errors which are always possible in any procedure) whenever we use it in controlled conditions. All empirical science is base on that kind of "objectivity".
For example, if I want to know if a drug is useful in healing a disease, I make experiments and record the results and analyze them. And infer conclusions which have scientific validity.
Measuring a biochemical function in a lab in controlled conditions is much more reproducible than that.
It should be clear to everyone by now that my philosophy has nothing to do with wishy-washy relativist pomo as implied in the OP. Objective and subjective are clearcut absolute metaphysical categories in philosophy that shall not be infringed.
I have no problems with your philosophy. I think that you use it inappropriately in a scientific context.gpuccio
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT
I have zero problem in inferring that not all Evolutionary process can be unguided, but I wouldn't be satisfied with ID till some theory and explanation of how ID agent works is put up.the bystander
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT
E Seigner:
It should be clear to everyone by now...
The only thing that is clear to everyone by now is that you don't know jack about science.Joe
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT
gpuccio
When I say that the design detection based on dFSCI is context independent, I mean a very specific technical thing, and not a general philosophical principle.
Yes, I completely understand that you want to make it appear that you have avoided philosophical implications, but the fact is that you haven't. In philosophy of science it's recognized beyond question that science always derives at least from some philosophical presuppositions. You may want to minimize the presuppositions, and it's okay to try, but you can never eliminate them. Moreover, the minimal set of assumptions embedded in your method had better be impeccably consistent. Otherwise the theory goes awry at its very foundation.
By the way, not just science, but also philosophy is very specific and technical, and therefore requires training. Plus it's categorical and imperative too. As a matter of principle, philosophical principles have no exceptions, only nuances. When you use terms like objective and subjective, you are inevitably treading the philosophical ground. You have nowhere to hide form this fact.
"Objective functionality" is a philosophically suspicious concept already on the face of it. And when you want to make it appear categorically objective, it only gets more suspicious. Something like "behavior" or "operation" may be objective in the sense of "out there for everyone to see", but *function* is what the thing does in relation to other things, and what the other things are depends on *context* where the thing happens to be. And the scope of the *context* depends on how the observer frames it. Therefore function (along with functionality, which is essentially the same thing) is not in the object and not objective. It is contextual and inevitably includes the subjective aspect.
I have given another read to your post about functional information. In addition to what we've discussed, it says:
c) Specification. Given a well defined set of objects (the search space), we call “specification”, in relation to that set, any explicit objective rule ...
Right there "objective" (the penultimate word in the quote) misplaced again. This is a philosophical category error, seriously. When you do an equivalent systemic error in computing, the program fails to run.
It should be clear to everyone by now that my philosophy has nothing to do with wishy-washy relativist pomo as implied in the OP. Objective and subjective are clearcut absolute metaphysical categories in philosophy that shall not be infringed.E.Seigner
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
02:35 AM
2
02
35
AM
PDT
E. Seigner:
I don't understand where you want to arrive. ID is science. Science is subjective, dependent on background information based on which we evaluate. Always. So is ID.
When I say that the design detection based on dFSCI is context independent, I mean a very specific technical thing, and not a general philosophical principle. What I mean is:
"We detect design because of properties of the object"
as opposed to:
"We detect design because of properties of the object and other information coming form other sources"
For example, we could infer that an object is designed because we have a movie of the designer while he designs it, or because a book written by the designer tells us that he designed it.
That would be design detection, but the inference of the design would be based on information which is not in the object.
In ID, design detection is based on properties of the object itself: the functional complexity it exhibits.
That is what I meant by "context independent". I apologize if I was not more explicit, sometimes I probably confide too much in the creative intuition of my interlocutors, or simply in the strength of the context! :)gpuccio
September 29, 2014
September
09
Sep
29
29
2014
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT
gpuccio
I suppose Dionisio has clearly answered you in #35.
Okay. So let's recap:
gpuccio: Try to understand. When we evaluate is an object exhibits dFSCI, we have only one thing: the object. That’s why I say that the design inference from dFSCI is context independent.
Dionisio: Isn’t it obvious from reading the above text that we are the evaluators?
ES: It was indeed obvious to me too and that's why I asked about it. Therefore we don't have only one thing, the object. We also have ourselves the evaluator. Therefore the design inference is not context independent, as we always carry background information in ourselves that enables evaluation. The subjective background information is always part of the context. Elsewhere you have said this about context: "As I have said many times, meaning is neither in the numbers nor in the context, but only in the consciousness of a cognizer. However, both numbers and context can generate meaning in a consciousness." If it's in the cognizer's consciousness, then it's subjective, dependent on background information based on which we evaluate.E.Seigner
September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT
E. Seigner at #33:
I suppose Dionisio has clearly answered you in #35. (Grazie, amico mio! :) ).gpuccio
September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT
Box:
Thank you for your comments.I think I have clarified my perspective.
Regarding #32, I simply mean that a conscious observer is needed to recognize and understand a function, define it, and then objectively verify that the object can be used to implement it. Without the function definition by the observer, the functionality of the object and the complexity needed for that functionality cannot be objectively assessed, because they are relative to a defined function.
DNA is objectively functional, but to evaluate dFSCI for its function we must define that function and make the computation of complexity. There are various functions which can be defined for DNA (covey the information for individual proteins, convey specific regulatory information, and so on). For each of them, different complexities can be computed.gpuccio
September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT
#31 gpuccio
When we evaluate if an object exhibits dFSCI, we have only one thing: the object.
#33 E.Seigner
So, we only have one thing, the object, not the evaluator. How are we supposed to get to an evaluation of the object then? Trying hard to understand…
Isn't it obvious from reading the above text that we are the evaluators?
Are both sides in this discussion really interested in what is being discussed?
Are both sides serious about this discussion?
It doesn't look like that's the case. :(Dionisio
September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
Gpuccio:
I do appreciate your post #31. Thank you. And I believe I understand the points you are making there.
Based on my (personal) metaphysics I prefer a distinction between internal (e.g.DNA) objects and outward objects (e.g. a car) with respect to objective and subjective functionality. It follows from a huge divide between organisms and artifacts in my metaphysics. However this is of no interest to ID's scientific ambitions. So let's leave at that.
I'm not quite happy with the way I worded my question in post #32. If it comes across as cynical I must inform you that this is most definitely not my intention.Box
September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
gpuccio
Try to understand. When we evaluate is an object exhibits dFSCI, we have only one thing: the object.
So, we only have one thing, the object, not the evaluator. How are we supposed to get to an evaluation of the object then? Trying hard to understand...E.Seigner
September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
Gpuccio:
Objective functionalities, instead, are properties of material objects. But we need a conscious observer to connect an objective functionality to a consciously defined function.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that we need a certain activity by a conscious observer for DNA to be objectively functional?
BTW I do hold that parts of an organism (e.g. DNA) are objectively functional to the concerning organism.Box
September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
Box (and E. Seigner):
No. I am not in accord.
Try to understand. When we evaluate is an object exhibits dFSCI, we have only one thing: the object. That's why I say that the design inference from dFSCI is context independent. We know nothing of the designer. We don't even know if the object is a designed object. That's exactly what we want to infer about.
So, how can we know what the designer intended, is we don't even know if the object is designed?
Again, try to understand. My definition is completely empirical. We have an object. We, as observers, think of one or more functions for which we can use the object.
In my post I made the example of a tablet, for which we define a function as a paperweight. Why not? let's say that it has the correct weight ans dimensions to be used for that.
Then, for the same object, we define the function of using it to execute a spreadsheet program and create a digital list of values on which we automatically make computations.
This is another function fro the same object.
Now, remember, we don't know if the object was designed, and we don't know, if it was designed, what it was designed for. We have only the object.
We check, and we see that we can use well the object (the tablet) for both the functions we have defined.
So, what can we say now? We have to compute the functional complexity fro each separate function.
The functional complexity for a paperweight (if we define with precision which weight and range of forms we consider appropriate for the function) is not very high. IN a natural system (which we can well define, if we want to be precise) many objects can have those characteristics: a stone, for example. IOWs, we cannot infer design for a paperweight which can implement its function, because the function implies low functional information to be implemented.
For the computer / spreadsheet function, instead, it's all another matter. The functional complexity implied is very high. We don't find non designed electronic computers / spreadsheets in nature. So, we can probably infer design for that kind of function, if we find an objects (the tablet) which implements it.
As you can see, the intentions of the designer have no role in this reasoning. We can inquire about them after we have made a design inference for the object. That is perfectly correct.
This example is very general, and includes functional specifications which are both analogic and digital, to give you an idea of the general concepts. More specific examples, with real computations, are much easier for strictly digital information. That's why I usually debate dFSCI, and in particular its application to proteins. But, if the general ideas are clear, I can go on with digital examples.gpuccio
September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
gpuccio
According to my definition (see previous post), the heart has the objective functionality of pumping blood if it can effectively pump it (in the right context). If it fails, it fails.
So, a working heart has the objective functionality of pumping blood, a damaged one doesn’t.
It is rather simple and pragmatical. And we can avoid all the philosophical questions about whether the function is in the object, or not.
Actually, we cannot avoid the philosophical questions. When you label it "objective functionality" rather than mere "functionality" you are actively calling for philosophical debate on it.
And I think Box's question to you is intriguing :)E.Seigner
September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
GPuccio:
Thank you for your elucidation. I would like to make sure that I understand it correctly. Are you in accord with:
b) If an object can objectively be used by a conscious observer to obtain some specific desired result in a certain context, according to the conceivedintended function by the designer, then we say that the object has objective functionality, referred to the specific conceived function.
?Box
September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic:
According to my definition (see previous post), the heart has the objective functionality of pumping blood if it can effectively pump it (in the right context). If it fails, it fails.
So, a working heart has the objective functionality of pumping blood, a damaged one doesn't.
It is rather simple and pragmatical. And we can avoid all the philosophical questions about whether the function is in the object, or not.gpuccio
September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
Box:
If you look at my complete definitions here:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/functional-information-defined/
you will see that what I call "objective functionality" is a property of the object otself. It is the answer to the questio: "Can this object be used to effectively implement the function I have defined?" There is nothing subjective in that answer.
Here are some of my definitions, for your convenience.
That said, I will try to begin introducing two slightly different, but connected, concepts:
a) A function (for an object)
b) A functionality (in a material object)
I define a function for an object as follows:
a) If a conscious observer connects some observed object to some possible desired result which can be obtained using the object in a context, then we say that the conscious observer conceives of a function for that object.
b) If an object can objectively be used by a conscious observer to obtain some specific desired result in a certain context, according to the conceived function, then we say that the object has objective functionality, referred to the specific conceived function.
The purpose of this distinction should be clear, but I will state it explicitly just the same: a function is a conception of a conscious being, it does not exist in the material world outside of us, but it does exist in our subjective experience. Objective functionalities, instead, are properties of material objects. But we need a conscious observer to connect an objective functionality to a consciously defined function.
gpuccio
September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
The heart doesn't objectively have the function of pumping blood?
Of course, we project the idea that anything is "an object" since everything is connected to the universe, thus there are no independent objects - just a universe (there is nothing objective about the heart being separate from veins, from cells, from molecules), which is connected to an infinite multiverse, thus no independent universe.
In a pantheist view, everything is connected to Spirit and thus there is no material universe - only Spirit.
That certainly makes discussions a lot easier.Silver Asiatic
September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
E.Seigner:
If a conscious observer connects some observed object to some possible desired result which can be obtained using the object in a context, then we say that the conscious observer conceives of a function for that object.... In science, properties of the material just are, without purpose, because everybody knows purpose is subjective.
I tend to agree with E.Seigner here. Functionality is subjective and not an objective part of an object like a car, watch, electronic amplifier or whatever.
However it is glaringly obvious to me that these artifacts are designed and that we are capable of inferring design. "Being designed" is an objective part of these artifacts.Box
September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
E Seigner:
Both ID theory and Dawkins project design onto the organism.
That is your opinion and it is only an opinion.Joe
September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
ES:
Your diagram is an inadvertent example of indoctrination in action.
You have four circles with v-nicks that just happen to be right angles and by chance happen to be perfectly aligned with the vertices and straight-line sides of a square, which our crotchety, buggy brain circuits and visual system just happen to project into a square.
NOT!
The odds that four equal-sized circles with right angled notches will pop up out of noise and magically find themselves perfectly aligned with the geometry of a square by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity are vanishingly small.
The visual system, designed to spot patterns, is not being fooled, it is not projecting what is not really there, it is properly identifying a square aligned pattern and inferring the presence of a square. Actually, recognising.
Why do I say that?
Because I was classically trained in geometry, and so was taught that the sketches we use on paper, on chalk boards and in textbooks etc are representative.
A point is a location, it has no size (the blob suggests the point, it is not the point). A line has length but no thickness, indeed it is the locus of a point constrained to "move" spatially based on a rule, or in more strict terms, a set of points conforming to a rule.
So, nope, the square is there, and its presence was used to define the figure presented to us.
But, because of dogmatic indoctrination induced resistance to recognition of design, you have mistaken the situation for an illusion.
There are illusions that exploit the visual system's processing through insights from Gestalt Psychology. There are after-images that can even lead to spotting coloured flags etc. There is a blind spot, covered over with a smoothing process.
None of these suffices to support the notion that designs cannot be embedded in objects, and "read" out from them.
Please wake up from your dogmatic slumbers.
KFkairosfocus
September 28, 2014
September
09
Sep
28
28
2014
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PDT
Mung
There’s nothing to see at that link. I don’t understand. =P
It's an image of pacman shapes placed so that you will be hard-pressed not to "see" a square in it. But the square is not drawn in the picture, is it? If it's not really drawn there, but you see it, then you are projecting it. Any other optical illusion conveys the same point.
Mung
Is that your point, that there’s nothing out there, that everything is just a projection of the human mind?
Of course not, as should be evident from my previous comment. My point is a rather modest and common sense fact that our preconceived notions color our observations and this is something to be seriously reckoned with. For example, you might want to argue that something called "English" is objectively here on the webpages, but to determine this, one must learn the thing called "English" (it's not my first language, by the way), so already this fairly low-profile observation depends on the background information of the observer - if the observer doesn't know English, he will be unable to "detect" English here, so how can you say that English is *objectively* here? That we speak English here is properly called a contextual intersubjective fact rather than objective.
Mung
Are you projecting the content of the posts you read here at UD? Is that why you seems to not read the same text that I thought I wrote? But then how is it that you have any expectation that I am actually reading what you wrote?
Given such a “projectionist” view of things how is communication even possible?
Tone down your assumptions and communication becomes possible.
Mung
If I have to project some structure or pattern to see what you write and you have to project some structure or pattern to see what I write, how is communication possible?
There has to be some structure or pattern or “form” that exists independently of what we project else how can we communicate?
When we both project something we have in common, say English grammar, then communication is possible. When the text is replete with something we don't share, such as ID-ese which is a stumbling block for me or the facts of cognitive sciences which you seem oblivious of, communication is obstructed.
Mung
What do you mean when you say “projecting some structure or pattern”?
Do you mean imagining some structure or pattern that isn’t really there?
Take a look at the image again http://www.tanveernaseer.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Kanizsa-Square-optical-illusion.jpg Is the square really there? What I'm saying is not that the square isn't there, but that projection is real and even necessary for basic communication. English grammar isn't objectively or physically real, but it's intersubjectively real and really enables communication. Spaces between words are just thin air, but they really help communication.
Mung
But it is your claim that the pattern or structure or shape of whatever it is that is out there that is being perceived is not really present in the thing being sensed?
Are you completely unfamiliar with, for example, the claim of physics that in the nanolevel we are just atoms that constantly enter and leave the "body", atoms who have lots of space between them so that on that level we are basically transparent and the "body" is just a higher-level construct that *seems* solid due to chemical and magnetic cohesion, but "fundamentally at the basic level" is not solid? It's not postmodernism that came up with these things. If you are unfamiliar with this, then I must doubt if people here have seriously thought through a single scientific claim. And no, this physicalist claim is not my ultimate thesis, but it's definitely something you should be familiar with, if *you* don't want to seem outlandish. This physicalist claim emphasizes how profoundly mind is involved in perception, and this mental involvement is a real fact to be reckoned with, not imaginary. It's a basic fact of cognitive sciences.
Everything said about my connection to postmodernism in the OP is purely KF's hallucination. Based on the few quotes he has from me there, it takes quite a leap and deliberate *projection* to draw the connection he draws. The world is not so small. My views can have totally different background connections and in fact they do.E.Seigner
September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT
ES,
There's nothing to see at that link. I don't understand. =P
Is that your point, that there's nothing out there, that everything is just a projection of the human mind?
You're not a realist?
Are you projecting the content of the posts you read here at UD? Is that why you seems to not read the same text that I thought I wrote? But then how is it that you have any expectation that I am actually reading what you wrote?
Given such a "projectionist" view of things how is communication even possible?
In fact, to get back to the original issue:
Projecting some structure or pattern is a necessary precondition to make any sense of anything.
If I have to project some structure or pattern to see what you write and you have to project some structure or pattern to see what I write, how is communication possible?
There has to be some structure or pattern or "form" that exists independently of what we project else how can we communicate?
I'll ask again, in case I just don't understand what you mean:
What do you mean when you say “projecting some structure or pattern”?
Do you mean imagining some structure or pattern that isn't really there?
Projection of patterns has nothing to do with postmodernism. It’s a well-studied fact of sense-perception.
Well, thank God you don't deny sense-perception. Whew!
So we agree that there really is something there that can be perceived by the senses.
But it is your claim that the pattern or structure or shape of whatever it is that is out there that is being perceived is not really present in the thing being sensed?
I have to be completely misreading you. You have someone here who isn't out to misrepresent you, who wants to hear what you have to say and understand it on your terms. Help me out here.Mung
September 27, 2014
September
09
Sep
27
27
2014
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT
Mung
Plants and animals really do exist. They are not projections of the human mind.
Do you think their taxonomy is objectively real or is it man-made? Plants and animals are empirically real, but the way we categorize and classify them is open to interpretation. It has changed significantly over the millennia and still displays marked cultural differences. For example the bat is called Fledermaus in German, because it was evidently understood as a kind of mouse or mouse-like animal in the past.
Mung
What are these projections based on? From whence do they arise? We must rule out that they arise from observation, because observation is projection.
We inevitably observe and perceive as we grow up, and we cannot simply store all the sense-data as it hits us. We must categorize, generalize, abstract, sort, explain, etc. All these mental actions are really subjective. Only general education keeps a kind of cohesion in place within the boundaries of one culture. Meet a person of another culture, face a different world view.
Mung
Further, if there is nothing there to be sensed, what triggers the act of projection?
Assuming boldly that I understand the question, try the following. Sit in a silent pitchdark room without moving, eyes closed, for a while. Within a minute you will begin to see shapes, memories arise, you begin to plan stuff, and sitting still becomes intolerable. In a silent dark room there's objectively nothing to hear and see, but within a minute we conjure up stuff for ourselves to perceive. What triggers this? This is what the mind is used to do. It actually requires serious practice to undo mental habits. Now, instead of denying these mental habits, it's rational to acknowledge and study them. It helps to face reality with a clearer head.
Mung
What do you mean when you say “projecting some structure or pattern”?
Come on, I even illustrated this with a picture in #9 http://www.tanveernaseer.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Kanizsa-Square-optical-illusion.jpgE.Seigner
It may be entertaining to play semantics games with terms like function, but that simply reveals that your problem is not with science, it is with common sense reality tracing to some of the sillier bits of post-modernist radical subjectivism and deconstructionism.
Perhaps, it has not dawned on you that survival of the fittest or hill-climbing algorithms or natural selection or the like pivot on the objectivity of function. Have you gone to Panda’s Thumb, TSZ, ATBC or the like Darwinist agitator sites to challenge the core concepts of evolution based on differential reproductive success pivoting on functional differences of life-forms? I safely bet not, you are reserving such talking-points for those you object to, regardless of inconsistencies or outright incoherence.
[Ill-]Logic with a swivel.
Patently, revealingly, sadly, you have indulged in incoherent selective hyperskepticism.
And if you genuinely imagine that a stalled car with a dead engine, or a leaky roof, or a crashed computer, or a PA system that distorts sounds horribly are functionally distinct as a mere matter of subjective opinion, your problem is a breach of common sense.
Do you — or a significant other — have a mechanic? Are you a shade-tree mechanic? Do you have even one tool for maintenance? Do you recognise the difference between sugar, salt and arsenic in your cup of coffee? Between an effective prescription correctly filled and faithfully carried out when you get sick and a breakdown of that process? Etc?
I put it to you that you cannot and do not live consistent with your Lit class seminar-room talking points.
And, your evasive resort to clinging to such absurdities to obfuscate the issue of functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information, speaks loudest volumes for the astute onlooker.
Own-goal, E-S.
The bottom-line of the behaviour of several objectors over the past few days, speaks inadvertent volumes on the real balance on the merits of the core design theory contention that there are such things as reliable empirical markers — such as Wickensian FSCO/I — that are strong signs of design as key causal process.
But, many are so wedded to the totalising metanarrative of a priori Lewontinian evolutionary materialism that they refuse to heed the 2350 year old warning posed by Plato on where cynical radical relativism, amorality opening the door to might makes right nihilism and ruthless factions points to for a civilisation. Refusing to learn the hard-bought, paid for in blood lessons of history, they threaten to mislead our civilisation into yet another predictably futile and bloody march of folly. As the ghosts of 100 million victims of such demonically wicked deceptions over the past century warn us.
The folly on the march in our day is so arrogantly stubborn that it refuses to learn living memory history or the history passed on first hand to our grand parents.
Here is Sophia (personification of Wisdom), in the voice of Solomon echoing hard-bought, civil war triggered lessons in Israel c 1,000 BC:
A grim warning, bought at the price of a spoiled, wayward son who fomented disaffection and led rebellion triggering civil war and needless death and destruction, ending in his own death and that of many others.
Behind the Proverbs lies the anguished wailing of a father who had to fight a war with his son and in the end cried out, Oh Absalom, my son . . .
History sorts out the follies of literary excesses, if we fail to heed wisdom in good time.
Often, at the expense of a painful, bloody trail of woe and wailing that leads many mothers and fathers, widows and orphans to wail the loss of good men lost to the fight in the face of rampant folly.
But then, tragic history is written into my name, as George William Gordon’s farewell to his wife written moments before his unjust execution on sentence of a kangaroo court-martial, was carried out:
Deconstruct that, clever mocking scorners of the literary seminar room.
Deconstruct it in the presence of a weeping wife and mother and children mourning the shocking loss of a father and hero to ruthless show-trial injustice ending in judicial murder.
Murder that echoes the fate of one found innocent but sent to Golgotha because of ruthless folly-tricks in Jerusalem c. 30 AD.
(How ever so many fail to see the deep lesson about folly-tricks in the heart of the Gospel, escapes me. New Atheists and fellow travellers, when you indict the Christian Faith as the fountain-head of imagined injustice, remember the One who hung between thieves on a patently unjust sentence, having been bought at the price of a slave through a betrayer blinded by greed and folly. If you do not hear a cry for just government and common decency at the heart of the Gospel you would despise, you are not worth the name, literary scholar or educated person.)
And in so doing, learn a terrible, grim lesson of where your clever word games predictably end up in the hands of the ruthless.
For, much more than science is at stake in all of this.
GEM of TKI >>