Trouble in the “belief enforcement” science world gets noticed even in the New York Times

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 3, 2010

Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Who would have thought so? Have the Times people actually started connecting with the public again?

Here Virginia Heffernan comments on

The stilted and seething tone of some of the defection posts sent me into the ScienceBlogs archives, where I expected to find original insights into science by writers who stress that they are part of, in the blogger Dave Munger’s words, “the most influential science blogging network in the world.” And while I found interesting stuff here and there, I also discovered that ScienceBlogs has become preoccupied with trivia, name-calling and saber rattling. Maybe that’s why the ScienceBlogs ship started to sink.

Recently a blogger called GrrlScientist, on Living the Scientific Life (Scientist, Interrupted), expressed her disgust at the “flock of hugely protruding bellies and jiggling posteriors everywhere I go.” Gratuitous contempt like this is typical.

– Unnatural science, The New York Times

The whole article is worth reading. Frankly, anyone interested in the intelligent design controversy or – for example – concerned about tax-based mismanagement of public issues like climate change or conservation – would do well to support Heffernan’s main point.

In my personal view, too many scientists are tax mooches. They do not need to be reasonable, because they are not doing anything that is obviously useful.

Let’s say you hire a mechanic to fix your car. Well, he either does fix it or he doesn’t, right? If you use public transit, either the system works or it doesn’t.

But the guy raising heck about the far past or the far future … ? How much do you really want to pay for that?

Comments

Aiguy,
The Big Bang has a rigorous mathematical formulation (several, actually) that astrophysicists use to generate and test their predictions. If they didn’t characterize the Big Bang carefully, they could not have predicted the temperature of the microwave background radiation, for example. In contrast, ID refuses to characterize the Designer at all, and so it remains impossible for anyone to decide if the designer that ID is talking about exists or not.
Background radiation is an effect of the Big Bang, it is not the cause. Studying the background radiation is a study of the effect of the Big Bang, not a study of the of the cause. The difference is not particularly subtle.Upright BiPed_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

Aiguy,
“I don’t object to anything you’re saying, but I hope you agree that this is like the various speculations in physics regarding what caused the Big Bang itself.
I think this is exactly the point that CY and others have repeatedly been trying to get you to acknowledge. Just because we do not have an explanation for onset of the Big Bang, does not mean we throw out what we, in fact, can observe. You then go on to say...
I see a huge difference: Big Bang theory had a number of testable predictions, and those predictions were found to hold true. Nobody has any idea how we might go about trying to decide among these speculations about first cause of mind/mechanism, however.
And this is where you make the jump, or, as has been said before “smuggled in” your argument. It is not the mechanism of the design that ID focuses on, it is the artifacts of the design itself – just as it is not the mechanism of the Big Bang that the BB Theory focuses on, it is the artifacts of that event itself.
It really is like to trying to explain the cause of the Big Bang, rather than just inferring that the Big Bang happened.
You just did it again. :)
The inference to the Big Bang is based on observations in the present and within our uniform and repeated experience.
Which is exactly Meyer’s point you wish to refute. The inference to the presence of DESIGN is based upon our universal observations “in the present and within our uniform and repeated experience”. The inference is to the presence of design and is based upon our universal experience. Your argument that it must answer the method of implementation doesn’t hold water in the either the Big Bang or ID. Cheers...Upright BiPed_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

CJYMan,
I’m not sure of why people use this “unspecified” notion … do you want a name of the designer or something?
No, but I'd like to know why you think the Designer is something that would have a "name". In our experience, only human beings (and our pets) have "names". What we mean by "unspecified" is of course that nobody dares to say anything whatsoever about what it is ID is actually talking about. You are very unusual in that you posit the Designer has a material body; most ID folks hold that the Designer is immaterial or refuse to entertain the question altogether. Beyond saying the Designer is a "designer", ID says not one single thing about what it is we're talking about. That's why we say it "unspecified".
IMO, applying this notion of “unspecified” as some type of argument against ID Theory is akin to saying that the Big Bang is unspecified because you can’t give me its address and then using that as an argument against the Big Bang.
The Big Bang has a rigorous mathematical formulation (several, actually) that astrophysicists use to generate and test their predictions. If they didn't characterize the Big Bang carefully, they could not have predicted the temperature of the microwave background radiation, for example. In contrast, ID refuses to characterize the Designer at all, and so it remains impossible for anyone to decide if the designer that ID is talking about exists or not.aiguy_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

CJY: One of the half-funny, half-sad things above is that all of us have as FIRST fact, our experience of the world as conscious, minded, purposing, foresighted, intelligent, enconscienced creatures living in a common space-time reality. In fact, without that first fact, we are not in credible contact with the observables that we claim to be seeing and measuring, nor are we credibly able to think about them. In short, these points are preconditions of the very praxis of science that is so vaunted today as the paradigm of objective knowledge. Underlying all of this, is the pernicious impact of evolutionary materialism and its self-referential incoherences that undermine mind and reason. Cf my remarks on origin of mind etc here. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

CJYMan,
Since FSCI and intelligence can not exist independent of each others’ (akin to the relationship between matter and energy) causal influence, ...
I'm with you about interdependence of mechanism/mind here, but I don't think it is analogous to matter/energy. Matter and energy are two aspects of the same thing and can be converted one into the other. Mind and mechanism aren't the same thing, but apparently require each other in order to exist.
...then the first thing to get it all going would have been described in terms of both FSCI and intelligence. So yes, IMO, the best scientific explanation from inference of presently acting cause that we uniformly and repeatedly experience would be that a physically complex (FSCI — call it living if you wish) intelligent system “got the ball rolling” in relation to all subsequent FSCI and intelligent systems. This is like stating that the Big Bang got the universe rolling. There is no need to provide a causal account of the Big Bang or this initial FSCI based intelligence in order to argue for it as a causal factor.
I don't object to anything you're saying, but I hope you agree that this is like the various speculations in physics regarding what caused the Big Bang itself. I think it's clear that however imaginative those ideas are, there is (at least currently) no science behind them at all. You like the idea of a material intelligence as first cause, others believe in a material universe with an implicit order that somehow gave rise to mind, and still others believe in a transcendent intelligence that somehow gave rise to mechanism. I say... who knows?
IMO, I see no significant difference between making that inference and making an inference to the Big Bang.
I see a huge difference: Big Bang theory had a number of testable predictions, and those predictions were found to hold true. Nobody has any idea how we might go about trying to decide among these speculations about first cause of mind/mechanism, however. It really is like to trying to explain the cause of the Big Bang, rather than just inferring that the Big Bang happened.
.Neither can be observed directly in the past, yet the Big Bang, *something never experienced as I’ve already discussed earlier*, is a logical result of many other observations and reasoning being put together.
The inference to the Big Bang is based on observations in the present and within our uniform and repeated experience. The physical processes that scientists study in laboratories in the present form the understanding that allowed them to predict the background microwave radiation and other things from this hypothesized event in the past.
And when we look at foresight, the inference is even stronger since we actually *do experience* foresight on a daily basis and engineers to use it to generate FSCI.
We observe that engineers use their brains to generate FSCI, but we don't know what else they use. Perhaps they use immaterial minds too, but we don't observe that happening.
And yes, I do agree that we can not yet separate the *direct* patterns caused by AI from the *direct* patterns caused by true conscious intelligence. But, if the ID argument that I’ve provided is solid and not yet falsified, then the AI would most likely have had an intelligence in its causal chain, so detecting the effects of AI would be indirectly detecting the effects of intelligence (foresight).
You lean toward an undesigned designer (conscious mind) as first cause, while others lean toward an unprogrammed (unconscious) program. Philosophers have argued about this for thousands of years without resolution. Can you think of a way to appeal to our uniform and repeated experience to empircally resolve the issue, or do you think (like I do) that it will remain in the realm of philosphical speculation?
Anyhow, now I’m pretty much just covering ground I’ve already covered, so it appears that alas we will have to agree to disagree for the moment on some of these key issues — although I do have my reasons for my position which I believe are solid and I believe I have explained to the best of my ability, and I’m sure you would say the same as it pertains to your position. Have a good day, aiguy, and I look forward to our next discussion
I agree. Cheers, CJYMan! * * * KF,
In any case, that AI’s are based on very careful design and implementation of FSCI-rich technologies is a given.
So you say, based on our experience. And indeed that it is the case. All complex functional mechanism invariably arises from conscious designers (although it remains possible that they arise in other ways unknown to our experience). And based on our experience, the fact that intelligence is based on FSCI-rich mechanism is a given. All conscious designs arise from complex mechanism (although it remains possible that they arise in other ways unknown to our experience).
So, that running an explanatory filter on the result of an AI’s action and detecting that underlying intelligence is not a failure, no more than it is a failure to detect that the original behind a mould of a statue is designed.
In this way every observation of mechanism is a detection of mind, and every detection of mind is a detection of mechanism. You would dearly love to make mind primary to mechanism, but (as CJYMan and I both agree) both are in our experience quite dependent on one another.
AI’s are not exceptions to the observation that when we directly and independently know the cause through empirical means [i.e. this is empirical testing], reliably the source of FSCI is design, and so we have an empirical observation base to regard FSCI as a credible sign of design.
AI's are not exceptions to the observation that when we directly and independently know the cause through empirical means, reliably all design emanates from FSCI, and so we have an empirical observation base to regard design as a credible sign of FSCI.
So, now when we turn to such FSCI all over cell based life, that empirically warranted inductive generalisation is pointing to the credible source for such: design.
So now, when we turn to such design, that empirically warranted inductive generalization is pointing to the credible source for such: mechanism. :-)aiguy_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

KF at 33, Well said and I agree with you. I believe that my last comment that I just posted clears up my thoughts on the matter.CJYman_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

One more thing ... aiguy: "I don’t think anybody understands how FSCI in biology arose. You can say that some unspecified conscious thing was responsible, or you can say that some unspecified unconscious thing was responsible, but neither of these claims can be supported." ... except that we routinely experience the generation of FSCI as a result of our own foresight (the key component of all intelligent action and reasoning) and all non-conscious generation of FSCI (ie: AI) have conscious foresighted intelligence in its causal chain. Furthermore, we've never experienced FSCI being generated in a context devoid of foresight. I'm really not sure how you could have left that out, unless again you are implying that you wish to respond in the negative to the questions I asked in comment 27. So, in effect I would be specifying that the system responsible is summed up as a complex organization (FSCI) able to model the future, generate a target and then engineer matter and energy/law and chance in such a configuration so that the target would be accomplished. Basically it is capable, as we are, of present choice between configurations of matter and energy, with future intent for that matter and energy. We can even get an idea of what type of structure the designer may require by studying AI and then also consciousness when we finally understand it. Furthermore, I'm not sure of why people use this "unspecified" notion ... do you want a name of the designer or something? ... maybe what he physically looks like, the clothes he wears or doesn't wear, whether this intelligence resides in the quantum structure of the universe itself, in the structure of a silicon computer, or in the structure of a biological brain? What difference would it make to the inference to intelligence (as I've defined it) and the relation between intelligence and FSCI -- if indeed there is a relationship that we experience. IMO, applying this notion of "unspecified" as some type of argument against ID Theory is akin to saying that the Big Bang is unspecified because you can't give me its address and then using that as an argument against the Big Bang. The main point is that it makes no difference to the Big Bang inference, so why the "unspecified" label? Is it supposed to actually mean something as it pertains to the debate?CJYman_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

Joseph: And so truth-seeking is a key and irreplaceable value in science. Which indicts the now ever so common a priori imposition of materialism as a censorship on thinking and education about origins science. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

CJY: An AI could well eventually be a created intelligence. In any case, that AI's are based on very careful design and implementation of FSCI-rich technologies is a given. So, that running an explanatory filter on the result of an AI's action and detecting that underlying intelligence is not a failure, no more than it is a failure to detect that the original behind a mould of a statue is designed. AI's are not exceptions to the observation that when we directly and independently know the cause through empirical means [i.e. this is empirical testing], reliably the source of FSCI is design, and so we have an empirical observation base to regard FSCI as a credible sign of design. So, now when we turn to such FSCI all over cell based life, that empirically warranted inductive generalisation is pointing to the credible source for such: design. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

aiguy: "You could say that an undesigned designer started the whole shebang, or you could say that an unprogrammed program started the whole shebang. ID people like the first notion, and insist that at some point the original, initial, ultimate cause must have been an intelligent being who started the FSCI ball rolling. Anti-ID people like the second notion, and insist that the whole thing started with this FSCI existing already, and didn’t need a mind to get it going." But if we actually follow both Meyers argument and *your own* initial argument, we experience (uniformly and repeatedly) a closed loop between foresight utilizing systems (intelligence) and FSCI. Therefore, as I've already explained the best explanation would actually be to combine both of your scenarios. Since FSCI and intelligence can not exist independent of each others' (akin to the relationship between matter and energy) causal influence, then the first thing to get it all going would have been described in terms of both FSCI and intelligence. So yes, IMO, the best scientific explanation from inference of presently acting cause that we uniformly and repeatedly experience would be that a physically complex (FSCI -- call it living if you wish) intelligent system "got the ball rolling" in relation to all subsequent FSCI and intelligent systems. This is like stating that the Big Bang got the universe rolling. There is no need to provide a causal account of the Big Bang or this initial FSCI based intelligence in order to argue for it as a causal factor. IMO, I see no significant difference between making that inference and making an inference to the Big Bang. Neither can be observed directly in the past, yet the Big Bang, *something never experienced as I've already discussed earlier*, is a logical result of many other observations and reasoning being put together. And when we look at foresight, the inference is even stronger since we actually *do experience* foresight on a daily basis and engineers to use it to generate FSCI. Unless, that is, you are going to answer in the negative to the questions I asked in comment 27. And yes, I do agree that we can not yet separate the *direct* patterns caused by AI from the *direct* patterns caused by true conscious intelligence. But, if the ID argument that I've provided is solid and not yet falsified, then the AI would most likely have had an intelligence in its causal chain, so detecting the effects of AI would be indirectly detecting the effects of intelligence (foresight). Anyhow, now I'm pretty much just covering ground I've already covered, so it appears that alas we will have to agree to disagree for the moment on some of these key issues -- although I do have my reasons for my position which I believe are solid and I believe I have explained to the best of my ability, and I'm sure you would say the same as it pertains to your position. Have a good day, aiguy, and I look forward to our next discussion.CJYman_{August 6, 2010
August
08
Aug
6
06
2010
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

Science Asks Three Basic Questions
1- What’s there? 2- How does it work? 3- How did it come to be this way?
Joseph_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

aiguy:
He didn’t say “in this universe”; he just said “first”.
Where else do we observe living organisms? And as I have said many times before to refute any given design inference all one has to do is demonstrate that nature, operating freely, ie blind, undirected processes, can account for it.
I don’t think anybody understands how FSCI in biology arose.
I agree and that is why science is tentative. Also I am all for teaching "we don't know". What I am firmly against is teaching "we don't know but we know it wasn't by design".
You can say that some unspecified conscious thing was responsible, or you can say that some unspecified unconscious thing was responsible, but neither of these claims can be supported.
Look, we exist and there is only one reality behind that existence. So we survey the field to figure out what the options are and go from there. Science is all about determining the reality behind how things came to be the way they are.Joseph_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

CJYMan,
I’ve provided a link (http://telicthoughts.com/what-.....ent-244642) for you twice now, in which I provide an operational definition of intelligence which, as per our repeated and uniform experience does indeed exist.
Yes. In the telic thoughts thread, you say an intelligent system is:
"a system which is able to model the future and generate a future goal which does not yet exist and then engineer chance and law in such a way as to accomplish that goal."
Your definition is OK; it isn't what most people would call "intelligence" (in AI we would call this ability "planning", which is just one thing that intelligent systems do). However, (you will be non-plussed to hear) your definition is not operationalized, because there is no objective method provided to tell if something is capable of planning in this way or not. I understand you will instantly disagree with my saying that, but give me a chance here. I had replied to this point already, in the "Scientific Literacy" thread, but I'll expand here. My point is that there is no way to distinguish whether or not some entity is capable of planning (i.e. is "intelligent" by your definition) if the only thing you can do is observe the artifacts it has built. If I programmed a computer to generate plans, and it produced a set of instructions for some complex functional mechanism by representing some goal and then reasoning about functional and temporal relations, then my system would be intelligent per your definition (I actually do this in real life). By learning about various components it could work with, and reasoning about how they could go together and what would result, this computer system could build things that were not explicitly programmed into it, just as a human could learn about these things (from books or teachers) and figure out new designs too. If my program could also operate a robot, and the whole system went ahead and designed and built some irreducibly complex functional mechanism in this fashion, then you would point to the output artifact and declare that it demonstrated intelligence because it required foresight to build. Now, say I built another computer/robot system, and this one didn't have any reasoning abilities at all. It just had a big database full of instructions for building complex mechanisms - but you didn't know that. This robot built one of these artifacts just like that intelligent system did, and you came in and looked at. You would conclude that this system was "intelligent" too, right? After all, it looks exactly the same to you - there's a robot that built this irreducibly complex artifact that required planning, so it must have been intelligent. But in this second scenario, the system would not have been capable of planning. All it did was look up these designs and follow the instructions. OK? Now, we have two things to discuss: First, we need to discuss how we can tell something that actually plans (like the first system) from something that doesn't plan (like the second system) even when they both build FSCI-rich artifacts. The second thing we need to discuss is the importance of the fact that these computer systems in our thought experiment were all designed and built by a human programmer. So let's take these one at a time. First, hopefully it will be apparent that in order to distinguish something that can actually formulate novel plans by synthesizing other information (i.e. by thinking), one needs to be able to interact with the system. I need to be able to, for example, request that the system design something of a particular function, or to modify one of its designs to accomodate some new requirement, etc. Only then can I satisfy myself that it is capable of generating novel plans by itself. Now, we get to the second thing. Considering these two computer systems, some people (like Bill Dembski, with whom I've discussed this very point) will declare that neither of these computer systems is actually intelligent; in fact, the intelligence for even the first system has been "smuggled in" by the programmer. Dembski insists this is the case even when the computer system is shown to design novel mechanisms (such as electronic circuits) that the programmer didn't even know how to design! I do not think you agree with Dembski here, as you agree that intelligence may be accomplished mechanically. But what about the second system? Here's where it gets hard to communicate and understand, so let's go slowly. In the second system, there is code and data which already encode FSCI-rich designs, so the system doesn't have to perform any planning in order to create them. All this system does is regurgitate these plans. Of course you will say that somebody had to design these mechanisms in the first place, and you know full well it was the human programmer of this computer system. But what if you had no idea where these designs came from? That is the case we find ourselves in in the context of ID. We see FSCI-rich designs, but we don't know if the immediate cause of these designs was something that reasoned from more basic principles and knowledge and came up with these designs itself, or if it was something that output these designs without reasoning about them at all. Now, since you acknowledge that planning/design may be accomplished mechanically, it is theoretically possible that the thing which built this second, unintelligent system was yet another unintelligent system, which again was pre-programmed with another complex design. And so on, back as far as you would care to regress. But wait, you complain! In this regress of unintelligent causes - each one producing its artifacts as complex as you please - there must have been an intelligent cause somewhere along the line! At some point up the causal chain, where these complex designs which beget other complex designs which beget... at some point there had to be something that thought up the design (the goal, function, implementation) in the first place!!! WELL, HERE IS WHERE THE DISAGREEMENT LIES, CJYMan. You could say that an undesigned designer started the whole shebang, or you could say that an unprogrammed program started the whole shebang. ID people like the first notion, and insist that at some point the original, initial, ultimate cause must have been an intelligent being who started the FSCI ball rolling. Anti-ID people like the second notion, and insist that the whole thing started with this FSCI existing already, and didn't need a mind to get it going. So if you'd like to ask how FSCI-rich organisms came to exist, it could be that something capable of planning was responsible, or it could be that FSCI-rich mechanisms are implicit in the universe already. ID people talk about this possibity too, under the name "front-loading". But what they don't realize is that the front-loader may be capable of planning, or maybe it already contained the FSCI to start with. You could ask who programmed the front-loader, but I could ask who designed the designer. This is an argument about ultimate cause, which cannot be resolved by science. I'll stop here. * * * Joseph, aiguy:
AIGUY: However, since Meyer claims to be explaining the “very first life”, it can’t possibly be another life form that was responsible. JOSEPH: Meyer is referring to the first living organisms of this universe.
Actually here is what he says:
The central argument of my book is that intelligent design—the activity of a conscious and rational deliberative agent—best explains the origin of the information necessary to produce the first living cell.
He didn't say "in this universe"; he just said "first". Besides, once we indulge in highly speculative hypotheses like multiple universes, we can come up with all sorts of explanations for FSCI (for example, if there are infinite universes, then we would expect an infinite number of them to have astronomically improbable life forms all over the place).
And as I have said many times before to refute any given design inference all one has to do is demonstrate that nature, operating freely, ie blind, undirected processes, can account for it.
I don't think anybody understands how FSCI in biology arose. You can say that some unspecified conscious thing was responsible, or you can say that some unspecified unconscious thing was responsible, but neither of these claims can be supported.aiguy_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

aiguy:
However, since Meyer claims to be explaining the “very first life”, it can’t possibly be another life form that was responsible.
Meyer is referring to the first living organisms of this universe.
Yes Meyer and you infer “designing agency”, by which Meyer means a “conscious deliberative entity” which in the context of ID must not itself a living thing.
We don't know. And as I have said many times before to refute any given design inference all one has to do is demonstrate that nature, operating freely, ie blind, undirected processes, can account for it. That is how it has worked throughout our history. Look we exist and there is only one reality behind that existence. So we survey the field to figure out what the options are and go from there.Joseph_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

aiguy: "I’m interested in what this “designer” thing is, since I have no experience with anything remotely like it." I'm seriously confused by that statement of yours. It seems to me that you could only be stating such a thing if you haven't actually read much of anything that I've ever written in our discussions. I've plainly laid out that intelligence is basically synonymous with foresight. In fact, I've provided a link (http://telicthoughts.com/what-is-an-intelligent-cause/#comment-244642) for you twice now, in which I provide an operational definition of intelligence which, as per our repeated and uniform experience does indeed exist. That is, unless you, aiguy have never utilized your foresight. Have you ever envisioned a future goal that did not yet exist and then engineer matter and energy in the present to accomplish that future goal? Again, I don't care if we are free or determined in our foresight, or whether foresight is purely mechanistic or quantum or probabilistic or supernatural or whatever. It does exist and I'm sure you utilize it daily, or it just exists in your brain and does what it does. Either way it exists and it is used to produce FSCI such as seen in an engineers blueprints (ie: circuit or software design). Or, do you insist that foresight (again, "envisioning a future goal and manipulating matter in the present to accomplish that goal in the future") is not a necessity to build a complex and specified electronic circuit? What does your repeated and uniform experience tell you? Let's start from there. I also believe that this (http://telicthoughts.com/what-is-an-intelligent-cause/#comment-243550) and this (http://telicthoughts.com/wisdom-from-jj-thomson/#comment-230184) previous discussion may be helpful, in light of the context of our present discussion, for the onlooker so that I don't have to constantly repeat myself. [sorry about just cutting and pasting the web addresses. I couldn't get the links to work]CJYman_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

Joseph,
AIGUY: We have uniform and repeated experience of human beings creating FSCI, but we do not have uniform and repeated experience of anything else doing that. JOE: Other animals do so too.
I quite agree. Meyer makes the point that there are certain sorts of things humans build that other animals don't - in particular creating digital codes. But yes, living things of various sorts are exactly what we experience creating FSCI. However, since Meyer claims to be explaining the "very first life", it can't possibly be another life form that was responsible. So, Meyer must be talking about something that is outside of our common experience, namely something besides a living thing that can somehow create FSCI.
If we “know” humans could not have done it then we infer something else did it. And if nature, operating freely couldn’t have done it then we infer some other designing agency.
Yes Meyer and you infer "designing agency", by which Meyer means a "conscious deliberative entity" which in the context of ID must not itself a living thing. That is one hypothesis, but it is not something known to our experience. I'm not saying Meyer is necessarily wrong about his conclusion; rather, I'm saying he is wrong that the explanation he offers is known to our common experience. So some people hypothesize that some unknown type of conscious thing was responsible, and other people hypothesize that some unknown type of unconscious thing was responsible. I don't think either of these ideas is specific enough to spend any time debating.
AIGUY: I would be very happy if ID actually embarked on a research program that was relevant to it’s claims! JOE: It takes resources to do that. Resources ID doesn’t have at this time
I'm not sure about that. Even if ID authors don't have the resources to embark on their own research into cognitive science, paranormal psychology, and other related scientific studies of the mind, they could at discuss survey of the field to evaluate the relevant studies done so far. Do you know of any book by Meyer, Dembski, etc. that reviews the evidence for intelligent behavior that does not come from FSCI-rich living organisms?aiguy_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

Thanks Upright Biped, it is good to be back.Joseph_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

aiguy:
We have uniform and repeated experience of human beings creating FSCI, but we do not have uniform and repeated experience of anything else doing that.
Other animals do so too. But that ain't the point. If we "know" humans could not have done it then we infer something else did it. And if nature, operating freely couldn't have done it then we infer some other designing agency. aiguy:
I’m not interested in the “identify” of the designer of course; I’m interested in what this “designer” thing is, since I have no experience with anything remotely like it.
The only way to do that is by studying the design.
I would be very happy if ID actually embarked on a research program that was relevant to it’s claims!
It takes resources to do that. Resources ID doesn't have at this time.Joseph_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

above,
The connection is an INFERENCE not an “observation” as you imagine it and I explained it rather simply with an example a few days ago.
The division between inference and observation is a matter of difficulty and debate in the philosophy of science. Every "observation" requires some inference from our raw sensory data... even when we see something with our own eyes, we are "inferring" objects from nothing but a bunch of photons. But this difficulty is much more interesting to philosophers of science than to scientists. Scientists somehow manage to agree on what they replicably observe with fairly good reliability. Nobody argues about our observations of mutations and heritability and differential reproduction - not even the most staunch ID proponent doubts that these things exist. Of course we don't believe that these observable things account for biological complexity, but that is another matter. Likewise, everybody agrees that human beings are capable of producing complex, functional mechanisms - because we observe them doing it. In stark contrast, we do not observe anything else besides human beings producing FSCI. You hypothesize that something else does it because you want to explain FSCI in biology, but we do not observe anything producing FSCI that is not itself an FSCI-rich organism.
I also, pointed the need to define ‘observation’, ‘physicality’ etc in order and to further delve into the issue. But alas, my words have either been forgotten or ignored.
I just discussed this. We aren't going to solve the problems of epistemology and the philosophy of science here, obviously. But scientists muddle onward and manage to reach worldwide consensus on all sorts of different things, even though the individual scientists have all different cultures, ideologies, religious beliefs, and so on. Again, Stephen Meyer obviously believes (he says so himself) that scientific reasoning is different from other reasoning in that it proceeds from "uniform and repeated experience". We have uniform and repeated experience of human beings creating FSCI, but we do not have uniform and repeated experience of anything else doing that.
If dualism is true it is YOU that is mistaken. That’s what you simply refuse to concede. And it all ties back to what I pointed out from the start that your objection relies on a materialistic assumption and specifically, once again (3rd time?) of subsuming the mental under the physical. I think you’ve realized that now and so you’re bringing dualism into question. That’s fine. There are also other substance mataphysics that would nullify your objection but that’s another story.
It is not my intent to ignore or miscommunicate. These are difficult questions that smart people have difficulty communicating clearly about. I'm trying my best to be clear and sincere, and I am assuming that you are as well, even though I too feel like I repeat my points over and over without being understood. Regarding dualism, I'll try one more time: 1) Let us assume arguendo that dualism (in particular substance dualism/interactionism) is true, and that irreducible, causal mind-stuff (let's call it res cogitans) exists and interacts with our brains in order to produce our conscious behaviors. 2) Now let us ask the question, what is it in our experience that is capable of producing FSCI? The answer is: human beings. 3) Given that dualism is true, you would like to say that the reason humans can produce FSCI is because of the immaterial mind that interacts with our bodies. And yes, according to dualism, our conscious deliberations critically require res cogitans. 4) But according to dualism, our intelligent behavior also involves the complex mechanism of our brains and bodies in order to act in the world. A dualism may wish to speculate that some entity could exhibit intelligent behavior with only res cogitans, and without the benefit of the physcial body. But even a dualist cannot say that this speculation is grounded in their experience.
AIGUY: No, we do not detect “design” per se, but rather the effects of “human beings. ABOVE: Now you’re just playing with words.
No, I really am not. The term "per se" means "in and of itself". If by "design" here you mean (like Meyer does) the action of conscious, deliberative beings, then yes, since human beings are conscious deliberative beings and we detect the action human beings, we also detect "design". But that does not mean we can detect conscious activity in and of itself, nor that we can detect the action of a larger class of conscious beings that extends beyond human beings.
AIGUY: We can observe the cause Darwin inferred ABOVE: It has been noted and I think you agree that these causes (darwinian) are inadequate.
Yes, we agree on this. The causes are indeed known to our uniform and repeated experience, but they do not seem to fully account for what we observe in biology.
It’s been indicated to you before that the identity of the designer is not something ID is concerned with explicitly.
I'm not interested in the "identify" of the designer of course; I'm interested in what this "designer" thing is, since I have no experience with anything remotely like it. When you say it's "identity", it sounds like you are talking about what its name is. But what I want to know is something about what you're talking about - what it can and can't do, how it does what it does, what it is made of, if it occupies space. I want some characterization of this thing that I can use to decide if it exists or not. When Newton described gravity, everybody already knew that things fell to the ground. If Newton had simply said "gravity is that thing that makes things fall to the ground" then he wouldn't have become famous. But instead he characterized gravity in a way that other people could decide if the thing he characterized actually existed or not (by describing what it was, what it did, what it did not do, what it affected, how fast it acted, and so on. That is why he became famous.
Just because we don’t have a good understanding of one aspect of reality – consciousness – that does not mean that we need to shut the shop, reject any theory that is related to it and leave it at that.
Of course not! Lots of people are studying consciousness, and I find it fascinating! On the other hand, we must be honest that at this point we have no idea what sorts of things might have consciousness and what doesn't. We're all pretty comfortable ascribing consciousness to each other - waking human beings - but we can't even tell what other animals are conscious much less things that aren't alive at all!
So just in the case of darwinism where later discoveries (in genetics, dna etc) offered additional variables to consider and assimilate into the theory, the same can happen with ID and its own research programme. We both know well that science is provisional, so why not let it be just that?
Yes of course! Let's continue to research! I would be very happy if ID actually embarked on a research program that was relevant to it's claims! ID should be joining the ranks of the cognitive scientists trying to use science to investigate how the brain works, the relationship between mind and brain, the nature of volition, and so on. Who knows - if we make enough progress there, we might actually have a theory of ID that is based on scientific knowledge! Until then, when Meyer claims we already know about intelligent cause and how it can operate without complex mechanism, he is simply and plainly mistaken.aiguy_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

-“You say that we all can observe immaterial beings…Please tell me how to make this observation” That is so disingenuous. You’re simply putting words in my mouth now. This is probably the 4th time I state this. The connection is an INFERENCE not an “observation” as you imagine it and I explained it rather simply with an example a few days ago. I also, pointed the need to define ‘observation’, ‘physicality’ etc in order and to further delve into the issue. But alas, my words have either been forgotten or ignored. I clarify the statement which you phrased so conveniently to fit your agenda and you get all sarcastic with lols and wows. If you want to play games go ahead. I’ll just leave you to it. Unless you recognize the limitations of your objection and the question-begging, I don’t think this will go anywhere. In fact it isn’t. -“So even if dualism was true you’d be mistaken. However, we do not know if dualism is true or not,” If dualism is true it is YOU that is mistaken. That’s what you simply refuse to concede. And it all ties back to what I pointed out from the start that your objection relies on a materialistic assumption and specifically, once again (3rd time?) of subsuming the mental under the physical. I think you’ve realized that now and so you’re bringing dualism into question. That’s fine. There are also other substance mataphysics that would nullify your objection but that’s another story. -“No, we do not detect “design” per se, but rather the effects of “human beings”. Now you’re just playing with words. -“We can observe the cause Darwin inferred” It has been noted and I think you agree that these causes (darwinian) are inadequate. And as I have pointed out, that both the causes and effects of what you call variation (change) are sometimes unknown and unpredictable and not part of our uniform and repeated experience. If the cause of variation is unknown however, then it is at best incomplete and at worst unidentified. -“No, you are wrong about that. Rather, I constantly remind you that there is no scientific way to decide if intelligence can exist without a complex physical mechanism. There are scientific ways to determine if the higgs boson exists, but no way to determine if consciousness exists independently of human brains” Another clarification for you: “We think there are scientific ways to determine if the higgs boson exists.” That’s as far as you can claim, which will still leave the higgs boson outside of our uniform and repeated experience, hence as per your standard outside of the realm of “science”. You can compound all the additional inferences you like – and since by your standards inference is unwarranted – unless you show me the higgs, nothing will come out of it. I’m not implying that it does not exist nor that it will never be found by the way. All I am doing is using your reasoning to indicate once again how destructive it could be to science. It’s been indicated to you before that the identity of the designer is not something ID is concerned with explicitly. You constantly try to sneak that in, in order to launch your objection, without which you frankly HAVE NO objection. In other words, it is the fact that you compound this postulate on ID that allows you to launch the objection. Just because we don’t have a good understanding of one aspect of reality – consciousness – that does not mean that we need to shut the shop, reject any theory that is related to it and leave it at that. So just in the case of darwinism where later discoveries (in genetics, dna etc) offered additional variables to consider and assimilate into the theory, the same can happen with ID and its own research programme. We both know well that science is provisional, so why not let it be just that? Now we’re back to where we were days ago. Yours is an interesting concern and one that needs to be approached with caution, but in no way is it adequate as an objection to undermine Meyer’s thesis as I understand it. You can have the last word if you like. I don’t think there is anything more that can be said on this.above_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

aiguy:
Darwin made an inference from FSCI to variation, heredity, and competition.
Actually Darwin started out with FCSI as he never attempted to explain the origin of living organisms. IOW he started out with what needed an explanation in the first place.Joseph_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

Joseph, Glad you are back.Upright BiPed_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

above,
In his words: “Uniform and repeated experience affirms that intelligent agents produce information-rich systems… Minds are clearly capable of generating specified information.” That is an observable fact. Nothing in this signifies that he is wrong. Given dualism – and unless you want to claim that it’s not the mind that writes the software – the engineer example was more than adequate to put this to rest and justify the inference but you simply will not concede. That’s fine.
We assume dualism. You say that we all can observe immaterial beings thinking and interacting with the world. I think you're wrong. Please tell me how to make this observation. So even if dualism was true you'd be mistaken. However, we do not know if dualism is true or not, and so clearly immaterial agents are outside of our experience.
Also, your above statement once again begs the question. In order not to it should read: “we do not KNOW IF we uniformally and repeatedly experience immaterial beings interacting with the world and doing intelligent things”. For we might just find ourselves in the situation that we are simply incapable of understanding it just yet. Time will tell.
LOL. If we do not know if we observe them or not, then they are not known to our experience. Wow.
AIGUY: Gravity cannot be observed, but its effects are, and by observing its effects we can characterize our understanding in such a way that we can make testable predictions about other things we can observe.” ABOVE: The effects of design can also be observed. The internet that allows us to interact this moment is one example of an effect of design that is detectable.
No, we do not detect "design" per se, but rather the effects of "human beings". We already know human beings create FSCI. What we do not know from our experience is whether immaterial beings do.
I do recognize the implicit logical inference made from mind+body (dual) to intelligence (singular). Now, as I said before, such inferences are always made by scientists and philosophers and without which science would be impossible.
Meyer makes an inference from FSCI to an immaterial intelligent agent. Darwin made an inference from FSCI to variation, heredity, and competition. We can observe the cause Darwin inferred; we cannot observe the cause Meyer infers.
Your entire argument rests on the assumption that the inference to intelligence is unwarranted because you constantly try to subsume it under the physical.
No, you are wrong about that. Rather, I constantly remind you that there is no scientific way to decide if intelligence can exist without a complex physical mechanism. There are scientific ways to determine if the higgs boson exists, but no way to determine if consciousness exists independently of human brains.aiguy_{August 5, 2010
August
08
Aug
5
05
2010
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

“Even if substance dualism is true, we do not uniformally and repeatedly experience immaterial beings interacting with the world and doing intelligent things. So even if dualism is true, Meyer is wrong to claim such a thing is part of our uniform and repeated experience” In his words: “Uniform and repeated experience affirms that intelligent agents produce information-rich systems… Minds are clearly capable of generating specified information.” That is an observable fact. Nothing in this signifies that he is wrong. Given dualism – and unless you want to claim that it’s not the mind that writes the software - the engineer example was more than adequate to put this to rest and justify the inference but you simply will not concede. That’s fine. Also, your above statement once again begs the question. In order not to it should read: “we do not KNOW IF we uniformally and repeatedly experience immaterial beings interacting with the world and doing intelligent things”. For we might just find ourselves in the situation that we are simply incapable of understanding it just yet. Time will tell. “I’m not talking about evolutionary theory here, but I still think you’re mistaken. The cause that Darwin proposes is quite observable in our uniform and repeated experience – it is phenotypic variation (which we observe)” Variation is both a cause and an effect. Often its cause is unknown and its effect unpredictable. So yes, there are parts of darwinism along with the past, which you still refuse to address, that are not part of our uniform and repeated experience. -“Perhaps I wasn’t clear. The higgs boson can’t be observed, nor can any number of things in physics.” So that would disqualify them by your standards. Simply put, they are not part of our uniform and repeated experience. Period. Stop trying to deny this. -“ Gravity cannot be observed, but its effects are, and by observing its effects we can characterize our understanding in such a way that we can make testable predictions about other things we can observe.” The effects of design can also be observed. The internet that allows us to interact this moment is one example of an effect of design that is detectable. Like I said, I’m not an IDist, but I think Meyers makes some predictions. The testability objection is however noted. -“ The difference is that there are no observations of anything that allow us to determine the existence of immaterial intelligent beings.” This is circular logic at its finest. I’m not even going to get into it. -“ But science is possible, of course. Stephen Meyer agrees, as long as the causes we propose for historical phenomena are known to our uniform and repeated experience.” Once again, simple rhetoric and refusal to comment on the point I made. Here it is once again for the third time: ““I do recognize the implicit logical inference made from mind+body (dual) to intelligence (singular). Now, as I said before, such inferences are always made by scientists and philosophers and without which science would be impossible.” Your entire argument rests on the assumption that the inference to intelligence is unwarranted because you constantly try to subsume it under the physical. I pointed out repeatedly that all one needs is a simple logical inference, which in this case is more than warranted. As of yet, apart from naïve empiricism, you have offered no good reason why one should uphold your objection and how said objection will not cripple science. And THAT’S the bottom line. ;)above_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

Aiguy:
The difference is that there are no observations of anything that allow us to determine the existence of immaterial intelligent beings.
ID doesn't say anything about the designer(s). We infer at least one designer existed by the evidence left behind.
But the only type of intelligent agent known to our experience can’t possibly be responsible for creating the “very first life forms” (as Meyer says), so he’s wrong.
Not really. Ya see the designer could be extra-dimensional and be responsible fior the first living organisms in this universe. THAT is what Meyer is saying- the origin of living organisms in this universe- not the origin overall. Ya see science follows the data/ evidence. And the only way to say anything about the designer(s) or the specific processes used, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.Joseph_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

above,
But as per substance dualism, the mind is not necessarily dependent on the brain. All we know is that they interact and affect each other!
Even if substance dualism is true, we do not uniformally and repeatedly experience immaterial beings interacting with the world and doing intelligent things. So even if dualism is true, Meyer is wrong to claim such a thing is part of our uniform and repeated experience.
The past that is postulated in evolutionary theory was never based upon any of our uniform and repeated experience.
I'm not talking about evolutionary theory here, but I still think you're mistaken. The cause that Darwin proposes is quite observable in our uniform and repeated experience - it is phenotypic variation (which we observe), hereditability (which we observe), and competition and differential reproduction (which we observe). I am not claiming that these causes account for biological complexity. However, they are all causes that are known to our uniform and repeated experience.
So inference from the present to the past would be a problem if your objection is accepted.
Not at all. I agree with Stephen Meyer (and Darwin) in that our scientific reasoning about the past requires that the explanations we propose are known to our uniform and repeated experience in the present. If you disagree, then you are disagreeing with Stephen Meyer (see his quotes, above).
Maybe I wasn’t clear. The higgs boson is not now nor has it ever been observed – with or without our instruments – nor is it a part of our uniform and repeated experience. So your objection would apply to that as well. That’s the point I’m trying to make.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. The higgs boson can't be observed, nor can any number of things in physics. Still and yet physics is based on our observations. Gravity cannot be observed, but its effects are, and by observing its effects we can characterize our understanding in such a way that we can make testable predictions about other things we can observe. Same with the Higgs boson, etc. That's how physics works.
But it does. That’s the point Meyer also makes. If you object to ID on such premises, you will need to object, on the same grounds as shown above, to a number of other scientific theories. That will cause huge problems for science.
Not at all. Stephen Meyer and I are in complete agreement that scientific reasoning must be based on our uniform and repeated experience. I've explained how physics is based on our uniform and repeated experience (we observe the effects of our carefully characterized explanatory constructs, typically by observing instruments). The difference is that there are no observations of anything that allow us to determine the existence of immaterial intelligent beings. Again, I will add the caveat that some researchers do believe we have evidence of such things - they are called paranormal psychology researchers. This is the attempt to use scientific research to find evidence that immaterial beings can act intelligently (among other things). If you (and all ID proponents) would like to argue that immaterial intelligent agents exist, then I would suggest you put your research efforts into paranormal psychology. To date I'm not aware that anybody in ID is doing this.
My point is to get unveil the metaphysical implications of notions such as chance. The example you gave me is only a very specific example of what is meant by chance – in this case it’s juxtaposed to what we call a formal cause – but that’s certainly not the only way it is being used in the sciences.
I still don't understand your point but I don't want to get sidetracked. I'm not talking about using "chance" as an explanation of anything.
This is basically the essence of the issue so let’s focus on this. Like I said before: “I do recognize the implicit logical inference made from mind+body (dual) to intelligence (singular). Now, as I said before, such inferences are always made by scientists and philosophers and without which science would be impossible.”
But science is possible, of course. Stephen Meyer agrees, as long as the causes we propose for historical phenomena are known to our uniform and repeated experience.
The bottom line is this. I believe he is warranted in making that inference, which is what you object you.
What I object to is that he justifies his inference by claiming it is a cause known to our experience. But the only type of intelligent agent known to our experience can't possibly be responsible for creating the "very first life forms" (as Meyer says), so he's wrong.
And my point once again is that if you are to object to him on such grounds then you must also object to other scientific theories. That in effect would be destructive for science.
I'm only holding Meyer to his own criteria and pointing out that the cause he is proposing (an intelligent agent which is not itself a life form) is unknown to our uniform and repeated experience. That is the bottom line.aiguy_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

-“Of course I would say our thoughts (about FSCI or anything else) are products of the mind – that is entailed by what we mean by “mind”. But I would also say that the mind is demonstrably dependent upon the brain.” But as per substance dualism, the mind is not necessarily dependent on the brain. All we know is that they interact and affect each other! That’s why I raised the objection a few days ago about subsuming the mental under the physical. But once again we’re going to the metaphysics of substances. That’s a whole new discussion. -“What I said was that I was adopting S. Meyer’s criterion for scientific reasoning about the past – that it must be based upon our uniform and repeated experience. Nobody said anything about “direct observation”. The past that is postulated in evolutionary theory was never based upon any of our uniform and repeated experience. It is simply inferred from the present. So inference from the present to the past would be a problem if your objection is accepted. -“Physics is based on our observations within our uniform and repeated experience. Of course we can’t observe subatomic particles; we observe our instruments instead.” Maybe I wasn’t clear. The higgs boson is not now nor has it ever been observed - with or without our instruments – nor is it a part of our uniform and repeated experience. So your objection would apply to that as well. That’s the point I’m trying to make. -“This has nothing to do with anything I’ve said here.” But it does. That’s the point Meyer also makes. If you object to ID on such premises, you will need to object, on the same grounds as shown above, to a number of other scientific theories. That will cause huge problems for science. -“I’m having trouble seeing your point here.” My point is to get unveil the metaphysical implications of notions such as chance. The example you gave me is only a very specific example of what is meant by chance – in this case it’s juxtaposed to what we call a formal cause – but that’s certainly not the only way it is being used in the sciences. I used the demon to signify that there are mutations whose cause could be unknown, hence chance. If the said cause is unknown as in chance, then one can simply substitute the demon (for the sake of argument). This is all connected to my previous questions but if you think talk randomness will complicate things even more, and you might be right, then don’t worry about it. -“If you are a realist, and do believe that knowledge is possible, then you still must disagree with Meyer because what he claims is not true. There is no cause which is known to our experience that could account for first life.” This is basically the essence of the issue so let’s focus on this. Like I said before: “I do recognize the implicit logical inference made from mind+body (dual) to intelligence (singular). Now, as I said before, such inferences are always made by scientists and philosophers and without which science would be impossible.” The bottom line is this. I believe he is warranted in making that inference, which is what you object you. And my point once again is that if you are to object to him on such grounds then you must also object to other scientific theories. That in effect would be destructive for science.above_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

BTW why did they close the previous thread? Anyone? Vividvividbleau_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

Thats the handle I wanted "vividblue" but it was not available thus "vividbleau" Vividvividbleau_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

Sorry for not getting the quote quite right... and for misspelling your handle, vividbleau :-)aiguy_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply