Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinism: An Embarrassment for Legitimate Science

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I write this post from a hotel room in Livermore, California, home of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where my company has sent me for advanced training in computational fluid dynamics using LS-DYNA, arguably the most advanced finite element analysis program ever devised, originally at LLNL in the 1970s for the development and analysis of variable-yield nuclear weapons.

I have a particular interest in LLNL because my father worked on the Manhattan A-bomb Project during WWII, and was the founder and director of an experimental nuclear reactor at Washington State University, which has been named in his honor.

Here is some info from the LLNL website:

For more than half a century, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has applied cutting-edge science and technology to enhance national security.
Origins. The Laboratory was established in 1952 at the height of the Cold War to meet urgent national security needs by advancing nuclear weapons science and technology. Renowned physicists E.O. Lawrence and Edward Teller argued for the creation of a second laboratory to augment the efforts of the laboratory at Los Alamos.

The people who developed this technology are legitimate scientists. Darwinists are pseudo-scientists who have no notion of what science is all about. Compare the accomplishments of the LLNL scientists and developers of LS-DYNA to those of people like Dawkins and his “weasel” program.

Darwinism is a downright embarrassment for legitimate science.

Comments
tgpeeler, LOL, welcome to the ever flexible world of 'science by Elizabeth'! where the only rules that matter are the ones she decides that matter whenever she wants or needs them to matter!!! :) Thomas Dolby - She Blinded Me With Science - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IlHgbOWj4obornagain77
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
EL @ 55 "Of course science can investigate design! We do it all the time! Ask any forensic scientist! Ask me! I’m really interested in how design works, how intention works, how decision-making works, how creativity works. It’s my field!" I have fallen through a worm hole into an alternate universe. I'm arguing with a naturalist who says that design exists in nature, can be detected in nature, and can even be studied as a scientific discipline, BUT, she thinks intelligent design is nonsense. I have to be missing something here. This is just TFF. Mung, I am beginning to sympathize more and more...tgpeeler
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT
Mung: Yes, you can take me seriously. But it's probably a good idea to regard my less emphatic statements as trumping the more emphatic ones! I'm pretty consistent about what I think (I think) but perhaps not always in how I express it. Also, it has to be said, careless. So: keep holding my toes to the fire!
Elizabeth, you’re a strange bird indeed. One really has to wonder to what extent you should be taken seriously, if at all.
If such an experiment had come out positive, it would not, in any case, have convinced me of “the supernatural”. I don’t even know what the word is supposed to mean.
I mean: what people mean by "supernatural" in this context. How could something by "evidence for the supernatural"? If there's evidence for it, doesn't that mean it's natural? Or does supernatural just mean "something spooky"?
And then a brief time later:
But it has to rule out the supernatural simply by definition – natural is what can be explained by science – supernatural is what can’t. HERE
Did you, in the intervening 10 minutes, decide you know what “the word” means?
No. On the second occasion I simply took the word as its common or garden face value - something "super" to the "natural" world accessible to "methodological naturalism" aka science. So, tbh, the two examples aren't that contradictory - in the first instance I was saying I didn't know what people meant by it ("what the word is supposed to mean") and in the second I was treating it in what seems to me to the straightforward sense. What do you mean by the word, Mung?
How do you explain how at one moment you can say you don’t know what a word means, and then just a few minutes later you suddenly do know what the word means? What happened in those few brief minutes?
A shift in stance from "what does the person I'm responding to mean by evidence for things beyond natural" and "how do I use this word". But, good catch, anyway :)Elizabeth Liddle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
EL, in terms of intellectual commitments I was thinking along the lines of the first principles of reason. You have elucidated a fine list of moral or ethical commitments (I do wonder why you bother given your apparent belief system – it seems inconsistent to me – but that’s also for another time) but I am more interested in the rational commitments we make or fail to make.
Fair enough (and another time we can discuss your wonderings - it's an important issue!)
As you can probably tell I am not a professional or even semi-pro philosopher but I think I have some grasp of the logic of thought and the logic of implication. My intellectual commitments terminate in first principles. Principles of reason that cannot be denied.
Well, nor me. But I do value logic, so let's give it a go:
Let me try them out on you. 1. Being. Things exist. I exist. I can’t deny my existence without confirming my existence. 2. Identity. Things are what they are. Everything that exists or can be imagined to exist has an identity. It’s inconceivable that we could talk about something without identifying it in some way. Even something that does not exist has an identity. It is no thing, or nothing. 3. Non-contradiction. In ontology, something cannot exist and not exist at the same time. In epistemology, a truth claim cannot be true and not true (false). 4. Excluded middle. In ontology, something either exists or it does not. There is no middle ground. In epistemology, a truth claim is either true or false. There is no middle ground. 5. Causality. In a finite universe, which this is, every event that occurs is finite and has a sufficient cause. All finite things have a sufficient cause. This includes the universe. Things don’t “just happen.” Even were a miracle to occur, it would have to be attributed to Someone. God, probably. Until campaign season gets going in earnest, at least. Several things follow from these principles. 1. Error exists. If that truth claim is true then error exists. If it is not true then it commits an error. In either case, error exists. 2. Truth exists. If that truth claim is true then truth exists and if it is false then truth exists (that it is false). 3. All thought is made possible by reason and language which requires the free and purposeful manipulation of symbols, according to general (reason) and specific (language) rules. Try to think without using a language or the law of identity. It’s impossible. 4. There is a way that things are. (First principle of ontology.) To deny this is to assert it. 5. Reason is the sovereign, or ultimate authority in matters of truth. (First principle of epistemology.) One cannot argue against this without affirming it. 6. Truth claims are true if they correspond to the way things are. All theories of truth are ultimately correspondence theories as they purport to describe the way that things are. Thus, correspondence is not a theory of truth, it is a definition of truth. And one of my favorite statements that summarizes much of this from StephenB: “Evidence doesn’t inform reason’s rules. Reason’s rules inform evidence.”
OK,that's quite a plateful! I'll just comment on the last statement for now: My own position would be something like: "We do not have direct access to reality; all we have are models. We test how close our models fit reality by how well they fit our data; when we have a model that fits our data, we then test our fitted model on new data. This is an iterative process that never yields an error-free model, but gets us incrementally closer to reality. We regard the data that fits our models well as evidence for our models, and data that is discrepant evidence against our models. We evaluate the fit of our data to our models using reason - often math. Lastly, no data is raw - data at one level is a model at a lower level. Even the rawest data is not reality but a model." I just wrote that off the top of my head so bear in mind that an edit might be warranted!
Given Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty we know, we know, that 100% knowledge of the physical world is impossible to achieve. Therefore, it follows, that all “scientific” conclusions are probable and tentative. We also know that reason can produce necessarily true conclusions. (if 3 is less than 5 and 1 is less than 3 then 1 is less than 5.) So we ignore the principles of reason at our peril. I’m concerned never to violate these principles because I also think that knowing what is true serves my best interests. Believing BS never got me anywhere.
Aha! We agree! Yes, all models are tentative! Cool. But that doesn't mean there is no underlying reality, just that we approach it asymptotically.
Given these fundamental commitments, there are undeniable arguments for the existence of God. That is, as long as one “obeys” the logic. I’ll stop here. I’m sure you have found something to disagree with so far and maybe even something to agree with.
Well, certainly one agreement, so that is cool! But yes indeed, a disagreement - I don't get it that this is an argument for the existence of something I'd want to call God. It might be an argument that there is something about the world that is not just practically unknowable but essentially unknowable. I'm cool with that. The question is: why call that something "God"? And, more to the point, why identify it with goodness and/or morality? I do have a couple of issues with your set of principles, but let me think about it before I respond. Thanks! LizzieElizabeth Liddle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
Elizabeth, you're a strange bird indeed. One really has to wonder to what extent you should be taken seriously, if at all.
If such an experiment had come out positive, it would not, in any case, have convinced me of “the supernatural”. I don’t even know what the word is supposed to mean. HERE
And then a brief time later:
But it has to rule out the supernatural simply by definition – natural is what can be explained by science – supernatural is what can’t. HERE
Did you, in the intervening 10 minutes, decide you know what "the word" means? How do you explain how at one moment you can say you don't know what a word means, and then just a few minutes later you suddenly do know what the word means? What happened in those few brief minutes?Mung
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
PS: Those trying the God as moral monster tactic above first need to justify any claim to right and wrong that rises above emotional manipulation. Then, when they bridge the is-ought gap on their own worldview, they will have a right to talk in terms of good and evil. Then, they may go to where Bible difficulties may be discussed with profit for those who are not simply playing atmosphere poisoning games. [Try here and here for a start.]kairosfocus
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
UB:
[LYO:} Since many ID supporters here have A priori beliefs that they are absolutely committed to, and since they cannot evaluate the arguments you make without bias, they assume that those very same motives apply to you
This is of course a classic turnabout rhetorical tactic, meant to cover up what is in fact the real a priori imposition now poisoning origins science and even warping the basic definition of science, in the hands of the US NAS and NSTA etc. As Lewontin summarised Sagan and "all but a few" of the elites who run the show of institutional science in our time:
To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident [[actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . ] that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [[i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [[another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [[i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [And, LYO et al, if you imagine the immediately following words JUSTIFY this, kindly cf here to see how in reality they compound the issue and underscore the point . . . ]
"You're another" is a very handy rhetorical tactic when one is doing the blatantly indefensible. But in this case it is utterly unjustified: 1 --> Evolutionary materialism ends up reducing mind to the unintended consequence of blind forces of chance and necessity acting on some jumped up pond slime by way of an ape on the East African savannahs with a surfeit of neurons, firing away in electrochemical networks, cutting its own logical throat. 2 --> So, it is inescapably self referentially incoherent and necessarily false, on its own terms. As Haldane said by the turn of the 1930's:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." [["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]
3 --> Worse, since evo mat declares that all that is reduces to matter and energy interacting on chance and mechanical necessity across time in space, it has in it no IS that can carry the weight of OUGHT. It is inescapably amoral, and therefore a menace to the preservation of rights and the civil peace of justice, as Plato pointed out in The Laws Bk X as has been underscored over and over here at UD. 4 --> If you care about rights and justice beyond dirty manipulative power games by ruthless amoral factions, you will have nothing to do with evolutionary materialism and its enabling fellow travellers. 5 --> So, evolutionary materialism does not even make it to the starting gates, on self referential absurdity logical and moral grounds. 6 --> This is not a question begging a priori, it is the logic of reduction to absurdity speaking loud and clear right off. [The tu quoque tactics above suggest that the evo mat advocates know this, so they are now trying to drag us down into the mud of irrationality as well. Sorry, game over.] 7 --> Now, I for one could live with a world in which evolutionary mechanisms are used as means of creation of life, as say Behe holds, or even Ken Miller. 8 --> Remember, on the utterly separate evidence of a credibly fine tuned cosmos set up at an operating point that facilitates C-Chemistry, cell based life, that had a beginning perhaps 13.7 BYA, I already have strong grounds to believe in a necessary and powerful being with the knowledge, skill, and intention to create a cosmos such as we inhabit. 9 --> My worldview is simply not at stake on the origin of life or of body plans, or whether functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information [FSCO/I] is an empirically tested, inductively strong and reliable sign of intelligent cause. For me that is a simple matter of where the induction comes out. 10 --> On that, we can take the log reduced CSI metric as a good point of departure: Chi_500 = I*S - 500, bits beyond the solar system threshold. 11 --> The Planck time quantum state [PTQS] resources of the 10^57 or so atoms of our solar system would only be able to scan 1 in 10^48 of the states for 500 functionally specific bits, so -- on needle in haystack grounds similar to how the 2nd law of thermodynamics is grounded -- I can be highly confident that so small a relative sample is unlikely to find UN-representative clusters of states E in narrow specified zones T of the space of possibilities W. This is backed up by an Internet full of observed cases in point where we directly know the cause. 13 --> So, I am well within my rights to conclude on scientific investigation grounds that FSCO/I is a reliable empirical sign of design. 14 --> It is those who object who have yet to show a good counter example, invariably the cases suggested -- last one I looked at was canals on Mars -- turn out to be illustrations of the point, INCLUDING genetic algorithms, which are of course intelligently designed and work WITHIN islands of function T where there are nice hill climbing slopes provided by intelligently designed fitness functions and tuned procedures that will reliably climb. Let us just say that he problem the design inference is tackling is how to get to the shores of an island of function, not how ti climb hills once you are already there. 15 --> Of course some now want to challenge the reality of islands of function where well matched components must be put together under a wiring diagram per explicit or implicit and quite restrictive rules of integration. to these I say, go try generating a 73 or 143 letter text string in coherent English by chance. Or, put a bag full of watch parts and shake to see if you get a functioning watch. 16 --> And if you want to inject the new objection that Paley's watch was not self-replicating, you are WRONG. Paley went on in Ch II to discuss just how the additional capacity of self-replication ADDS to the functional complexity to be explained. We really shoud not let ourselves be taken in by a 150 year old strawman argument. 17 --> What Darwinists and their fellow traveller abiogenesis thinkers need to account for -- with observaitonal evidence in direct support -- is the spontaneous origin of a metabolising, self replicating automaton from pond chemistry or the like, requiring about 100,000 bits of stored digitally coded algorithmic information. 18 --> Then, they need to explain -- with direct empirical support too -- the further origin of dozens of body plans credibly requiring 10 - 100 mn bits each of additional FSCI, without intelligence. 19 --> This has not even begun, apart form the a priori imposition of materialism as highlighted above. 20 --> in short, the darwinist case and the abiogensis cases collapse for want of evidence and analysis that would make them credible, absent question-begging. 21 --> Wallace's intelligent evolution is still on the table as a contender, but the sort of evolution that dominates the institutions is ideology hiding in a lab coat. 22 --> That is why Philip Johnson was right to rebut Lewontin as follows:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
And no tu quoque tactics are going to change that. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
Doveton:
Elizabeth Liddle,
But what I do know is that none of them consider that the world lacks morality, or hold a world view that excludes morality. Or meaning, or purpose, for that matter.
I believe that when folks like Chris make such statements, they aren’t stating that atheists can’t give the world and their own lives some subjective meaning, purpose and apply some personal morality. Rather they are stating that the atheist worldview holds that there is not external purpose, meaning, or absolute morality.
That's a good point, Doveton, but I think the distinction is more apparent than real. A very large number of atheists I have talked to (especially before I was one myself) made the (to me persuasive) point that you can derive a more objective morality (or system of ethics) from logical principles than you can for adopting a belief in this god or that, which necessarily entails a subjective choice as to which god you opt for! And even if you opt for the Abrahamic God - which set of commandments? Which of many contradictory precepts? Which picture of the Almighty do we regard as an exemplar of goodness? Whereas we can derive fairly readily using logical methods the principle that "do as you would be done by", if kept by everyone, would leave everyone better off.
And indeed, I would say that by definition, that most atheists would be in rough shape philosophically if naturalism were shown to be false, but then I find that rather question begging anyway.
Well, there is that :) I don't know, though. I guess if an Michelangelo God-The-Father figure were to appear in the sky and announce that time was up, and we'd better abandon our erroneous Darwinian ways sharpish, yes, I'd be pretty disappointed! Indeed, if the God painted in most of the bible turned out to be unambiguously real, I'd be pretty horrified. I'd believe in him, I guess, but I wouldn't worship him. So, tgpeeler - I guess Doveton just extracted a couple of non-negotiables out of me! I won't worship a God I consider to be evil! And that would include one that committed genocide and/or instructed his followers to do so.Elizabeth Liddle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
correction, the experiment trying to 'evolve' Drosophila melanogaster was only conducted for 30 years/600 generationsbornagain77
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
Chris,
I use the term ‘Accident’ as the opposite of ‘Design’. I’d say weather conditions are the product of a Designed system, though I wouldn’t suggest that the first place to look for Intelligent Design is in a snowflake. Not when we have the cell to contend with!
Given the above, would you agree then that natural processes can "design" products? As an example, when rain water creates a cave, is the 'erosion system', a 'design system'? Are the forces acting on a rain that becomes a snowflake intelligent or are they unintelligent design?Doveton
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
But alas Nick, instead of 'just so' gene duplication events in peer review made up to fit preconceived biases for Drosophila melanogaster, I got actual experimental results in peer-review, from four decades of work, that say you are barking up the wrong tree with Drosophila melanogaster: Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) - October 2010 Excerpt: "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, "This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve," said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/10/07/experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies Now Nick, what should I believe, what the evidence actually says when tested or what you want the evidence to say before testing?? I think I'll stick to what the actual evidence says after testing!!!bornagain77
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
I can post links too! Except mine refer to actual peer-reviewed papers by actual experts in actual top journals! http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/07/random-response.html http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/12/jerry-coyne-man.html Explain why the natural origin of the new gene, Sdic, is impossible/wildly unlikely, or admit that evolution can produce new genes with new functions, i.e. new information. It's as simple as that.NickMatzke_UD
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
Mirrors are funny things, eh?
When I look in the mirror and laugh I've never thought it was because the mirror was funny.Mung
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
Let me put it another way Elizabeth. If all those regularities, which you use to say you're not left with mere appeal to accident, are not themselves accidental, what are they? Evidence of some deeper regularity? So it's turtles all the way down for you is it? How does order emerge from chaos?Mung
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
EL, in terms of intellectual commitments I was thinking along the lines of the first principles of reason. You have elucidated a fine list of moral or ethical commitments (I do wonder why you bother given your apparent belief system - it seems inconsistent to me - but that's also for another time) but I am more interested in the rational commitments we make or fail to make. As you can probably tell I am not a professional or even semi-pro philosopher but I think I have some grasp of the logic of thought and the logic of implication. My intellectual commitments terminate in first principles. Principles of reason that cannot be denied. Let me try them out on you. 1. Being. Things exist. I exist. I can't deny my existence without confirming my existence. 2. Identity. Things are what they are. Everything that exists or can be imagined to exist has an identity. It's inconceivable that we could talk about something without identifying it in some way. Even something that does not exist has an identity. It is no thing, or nothing. 3. Non-contradiction. In ontology, something cannot exist and not exist at the same time. In epistemology, a truth claim cannot be true and not true (false). 4. Excluded middle. In ontology, something either exists or it does not. There is no middle ground. In epistemology, a truth claim is either true or false. There is no middle ground. 5. Causality. In a finite universe, which this is, every event that occurs is finite and has a sufficient cause. All finite things have a sufficient cause. This includes the universe. Things don't "just happen." Even were a miracle to occur, it would have to be attributed to Someone. God, probably. Until campaign season gets going in earnest, at least. Several things follow from these principles. 1. Error exists. If that truth claim is true then error exists. If it is not true then it commits an error. In either case, error exists. 2. Truth exists. If that truth claim is true then truth exists and if it is false then truth exists (that it is false). 3. All thought is made possible by reason and language which requires the free and purposeful manipulation of symbols, according to general (reason) and specific (language) rules. Try to think without using a language or the law of identity. It's impossible. 4. There is a way that things are. (First principle of ontology.) To deny this is to assert it. 5. Reason is the sovereign, or ultimate authority in matters of truth. (First principle of epistemology.) One cannot argue against this without affirming it. 6. Truth claims are true if they correspond to the way things are. All theories of truth are ultimately correspondence theories as they purport to describe the way that things are. Thus, correspondence is not a theory of truth, it is a definition of truth. And one of my favorite statements that summarizes much of this from StephenB: "Evidence doesn't inform reason's rules. Reason's rules inform evidence." Given Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty we know, we know, that 100% knowledge of the physical world is impossible to achieve. Therefore, it follows, that all "scientific" conclusions are probable and tentative. We also know that reason can produce necessarily true conclusions. (if 3 is less than 5 and 1 is less than 3 then 1 is less than 5.) So we ignore the principles of reason at our peril. I'm concerned never to violate these principles because I also think that knowing what is true serves my best interests. Believing BS never got me anywhere. Given these fundamental commitments, there are undeniable arguments for the existence of God. That is, as long as one "obeys" the logic. I'll stop here. I'm sure you have found something to disagree with so far and maybe even something to agree with.tgpeeler
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle,
But what I do know is that none of them consider that the world lacks morality, or hold a world view that excludes morality. Or meaning, or purpose, for that matter.
I believe that when folks like Chris make such statements, they aren't stating that atheists can't give the world and their own lives some subjective meaning, purpose and apply some personal morality. Rather they are stating that the atheist worldview holds that there is not external purpose, meaning, or absolute morality. And indeed, I would say that by definition, that most atheists would be in rough shape philosophically if naturalism were shown to be false, but then I find that rather question begging anyway. :)Doveton
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
Tgpeeler,
In other words, design, real design, is outside of nature and therefore does not exist. Thus the lingo of Dawkins and his ilk that the universe exhibits “apparent design.” Does this help?
I'm confused by this, Tgpeeler. Are you saying that Dawkin's insists design is outside of nature or are you insisting that? In either case, if designer is "outside of nature", how can it be anything but SUPERnatural by definition?Doveton
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
Chris:
Not just mirrors, Lizzie, smoke and mirrors! At least that is the impression you’re leaving at the moment. How can prejudices be coming from our side when we could EASILY reconcile a rejection of ID and acceptance of evolution in the manner that Biologos does, if we happen to be religious? That’s twice you’ve missed that point now!
No, I'm not missing the point at all (although judging by the vitriol some of the news items on this site tend to pour on Christian Darwinists, I'd have some excuse!) I certainly accept that you don't have such a prejudice Chris. I was just suggesting that it's worth a self-check, as behooves us all, regardless of "side". I see no a priori reason to expect it more on one side than the other (except that scientific methodology tends to be an effective counter-weight, although I realise that may be a controversial view here!)
And to claim that Dawkins, Hitchens, Myers, Dennett and their followers (ie. Most atheists, not just agnostics which you seem to be referring to) would not be completely devastated by the rejection of evolution and acceptance of ID is frankly laughable! There is no way the atheist worldview – with its lack of meaning, purpose and morality – could ever be reconciled with the demise of naturalism.
No, it is not laughable Chris, and I find your view saddening. For a start, I think you have made a huge mistake in conflating lack of belief in god or gods with belief that there is no god or gods. The former is a simple lack of belief in something the person considers not supported by evidence - no more radical a world view than lack of belief in Zeus. The latter is something quite different. Now it may be that some of those you mention do positively claim that there is no God, not merely that no God is in evidence. Dawkins, I'm pretty sure, does not fall into that category. I don't know about the others. But what I do know is that none of them consider that the world lacks morality, or hold a world view that excludes morality. Or meaning, or purpose, for that matter. Dennett, whose work I know best, not only does not hold that view but has very strong views about the perils of "creeping exculpability" that is a potential danger of reductionism. He is a materialist, but most certainly not a reductionist. Dawkins is not a philosopher, and I don't know what his views are on the origins of morality, but he most certainly considers morality important. So does Hitchens, who frequently declares certain things immoral (you may disagree with his criteria but you certainly cannot claim that he is amoral). I don't know about Myers, but I have no reason to think he is not a perfectly upright and moral citizen who regards morality as important. Indeed most people with strong views have a very deep sense of morality, meaning and purpose or why would they bother to express their views!
That is why atheists cannot go wherever the scientific evidence leads. Only ID proponents can manage that. Join us if you place truth above prejudice, Lizzie.
Bless you, Chris :) But yes, they can. You've got that wrong. But that's OK: we all make errors :)Elizabeth Liddle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
tgpeeler:
lyo @ 42 “I honestly don’t know how to respond to such a basic misunderstanding, except to say your conflating ‘design’ and the supernatural.” You are missing the point. There is no basic misunderstanding on my part. I am not conflating design with the supernatural. I am telling you that your ontology of naturalism (if that is indeed what you hold to) denies the existence of both design and the supernatural. In other words, design, real design, is outside of nature and therefore does not exist. Thus the lingo of Dawkins and his ilk that the universe exhibits “apparent design.” Does this help?
Well, if you aren't conflating them, that's even odder! Of course science can investigate design! We do it all the time! Ask any forensic scientist! Ask me! I'm really interested in how design works, how intention works, how decision-making works, how creativity works. It's my field!Elizabeth Liddle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
tgpeeler,
I am telling you that your ontology of naturalism (if that is indeed what you hold to) denies the existence of both design and the supernatural.
Naturalism (materialism, atheism) denies the existence of the supernatural. It certainly does not deny the existence of design.
design, real design, is outside of nature and therefore does not exist.
Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.lastyearon
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
heh. I'm always linking to that essay! Yes, it's superb. I'll try to check out your post :)Elizabeth Liddle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle,
Actually, I think I’d find it still easier, as evolutionary biology is not my field!
Well, it isn't mine directly either, though I suspect I'm a little closer to it in the ecological work I do. I certainly use principles established in evolutionary biology in my research, particularly in my work in understanding the mechanism by which some species become "invasive."
But the trouble with that kind of thought experiment is that it has to be realistic.
True and I'm likely considering the impact too casually.
If evolutionary theory was completely overturned, it would be by something even more awesome. So I guess that would be pretty exciting, actually! A bit like Einstein overturning Newton. That still gives me the (pleasurable) shivers :)
Oh absolutely! Just the thought of such an immense shift in understanding is a fascinating concept. I'm going to go off on a tangent here. In the thread about Defining Life without Darwin, I posted a response to a bit you wrote with a reference to a bit Isaac Asimov wrote on the Relativity of Wrong. In it, Asimov points out that since in science, theories and hypotheses constitute models of the world, it isn't really accurate to say that one theory completely replaces another in all cases, in particular since many models work well in varying levels of detail. Newton's model of planetary mechanics vs Einstein's model of relativity illustrate this quite well in fact. I really like how he put that notion. It's a good read if you've not seen it.Doveton
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
lyo @ 42 "I honestly don’t know how to respond to such a basic misunderstanding, except to say your conflating ‘design’ and the supernatural." You are missing the point. There is no basic misunderstanding on my part. I am not conflating design with the supernatural. I am telling you that your ontology of naturalism (if that is indeed what you hold to) denies the existence of both design and the supernatural. In other words, design, real design, is outside of nature and therefore does not exist. Thus the lingo of Dawkins and his ilk that the universe exhibits "apparent design." Does this help?tgpeeler
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
Not just mirrors, Lizzie, smoke and mirrors! At least that is the impression you're leaving at the moment. How can prejudices be coming from our side when we could EASILY reconcile a rejection of ID and acceptance of evolution in the manner that Biologos does, if we happen to be religious? That's twice you've missed that point now! And to claim that Dawkins, Hitchens, Myers, Dennett and their followers (ie. Most atheists, not just agnostics which you seem to be referring to) would not be completely devastated by the rejection of evolution and acceptance of ID is frankly laughable! There is no way the atheist worldview - with its lack of meaning, purpose and morality - could ever be reconciled with the demise of naturalism. That is why atheists cannot go wherever the scientific evidence leads. Only ID proponents can manage that. Join us if you place truth above prejudice, Lizzie.Chris Doyle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
But then again Elizabeth, you still got 5 mutations that interfere with each other to bowl us over with the stunning power of neo-Darwinism!!! :)bornagain77
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
To dovetail into Dembski and Marks's work on Conservation of Information;,,, LIFE'S CONSERVATION LAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II http://evoinfo.org/publications/lifes-conservation-law/ ,,,Encoded classical information, such as what we find in computer programs, and yes as we find encoded in DNA, is found to be a subset of 'transcendent' quantum information by the following method:,,, This following research provides solid falsification for Rolf Landauer’s contention that information encoded in a computer is merely physical (merely ‘emergent’ from a material basis) since he believed it always required energy to erase it; Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011 Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm ,,,And here is the empirical confirmation that quantum information is 'conserved';,,, Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.htmlbornagain77
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
Elizabeth you state: 'If evolutionary theory was completely overturned, it would be by something even more awesome. So I guess that would be pretty exciting, actually! A bit like Einstein overturning Newton. That still gives me the (pleasurable) shivers' And just what would overturn neo-Darwinian evolution, scientifically, Elizabeth? Perhaps finding non-local quantum information, on a massive scale, in molecular biology which is impossible to be accounted for by materialism???? notes (once again): Neo-Darwinian evolution purports to explain all the wondrously amazing complexity of life on earth by reference solely to chance and necessity processes acting on energy and matter (i.e. purely material processes). In fact neo-Darwinian evolution makes the grand materialistic claim that the staggering levels of unmatched complex functional information we find in life, and even the ‘essence of life’ itself, simply ‘emerged’ from purely material processes. And even though this basic scientific point, of the ability of purely material processes to generate even trivial levels of complex functional information, has spectacularly failed to be established, we now have a much greater proof, than this stunning failure for validation, that ‘put the lie’ to the grand claims of neo-Darwinian evolution. This proof comes from the fact that it is now shown from quantum mechanics that ‘information’ is its own unique ‘physical’ entity. A physical entity that is shown to be completely independent of any energy-matter space-time constraints, i.e. it does not ‘emerge’ from a material basis. Moreover this ‘transcendent information’ is shown to be dominant of energy-matter in that this ‘information’ is shown to be the entity that is in fact constraining the energy-matter processes of the cell to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium. notes: Falsification of neo-Darwinism; First, Here is the falsification of local realism (reductive materialism). Here is a clip of a talk in which Alain Aspect talks about the failure of ‘local realism’, or the failure of reductive materialism, to explain reality: The Failure Of Local Realism – Reductive Materialism – Alain Aspect – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145 The falsification for local realism (reductive materialism) was recently greatly strengthened: Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism – November 2010 Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html Quantum Measurements: Common Sense Is Not Enough, Physicists Show – July 2009 Excerpt: scientists have now proven comprehensively in an experiment for the first time that the experimentally observed phenomena cannot be described by non-contextual models with hidden variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090722142824.htm (of note: hidden variables were postulated to remove the need for ‘spooky’ forces, as Einstein termed them — forces that act instantaneously at great distances, thereby breaking the most cherished rule of relativity theory, that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.) And yet, quantum entanglement, which rigorously falsified local realism (reductive materialism) as the complete description of reality, is now found in molecular biology on a massive scale! Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA & Protein Folding – short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint – 2010 Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours (arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053v1). “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/ The relevance of continuous variable entanglement in DNA – July 2010 Excerpt: We consider a chain of harmonic oscillators with dipole-dipole interaction between nearest neighbours resulting in a van der Waals type bonding. The binding energies between entangled and classically correlated states are compared. We apply our model to DNA. By comparing our model with numerical simulations we conclude that entanglement may play a crucial role in explaining the stability of the DNA double helix. http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053v1 Quantum Information confirmed in DNA by direct empirical research; DNA Can Discern Between Two Quantum States, Research Shows – June 2011 Excerpt: — DNA — can discern between quantum states known as spin. – The researchers fabricated self-assembling, single layers of DNA attached to a gold substrate. They then exposed the DNA to mixed groups of electrons with both directions of spin. Indeed, the team’s results surpassed expectations: The biological molecules reacted strongly with the electrons carrying one of those spins, and hardly at all with the others. The longer the molecule, the more efficient it was at choosing electrons with the desired spin, while single strands and damaged bits of DNA did not exhibit this property. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110331104014.htm Information and entropy – top-down or bottom-up development in living systems? A.C. McINTOSH Excerpt: This paper highlights the distinctive and non-material nature of information and its relationship with matter, energy and natural forces. It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate. http://journals.witpress.com/paperinfo.asp?pid=420 i.e. It is very interesting to note that quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints, should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, for how can the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy space/time) ’cause’ when the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ falsified material particles as its own ‘causation’ in the first place? (A. Aspect) Appealing to the probability of various configurations of material particles, as neo-Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the energy/matter particles themselves to supply! To give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘specified’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place! ,,,To refute this falsification of neo-Darwinism, one must falsify Alain Aspect, and company’s, falsification of local realism (reductive materialism)! ,,, As well, appealing to ‘non-reductive’ materialism (multiverse or many-worlds) to try to explain quantum non-locality in molecular biology ends up destroying the very possibility of doing science rationally; BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ ,,,Michael Behe has a profound answer to the infinite multiverse (non-reductive materialism) argument in “Edge of Evolution”. If there are infinite universes, then we couldn’t trust our senses, because it would be just as likely that our universe might only consist of a human brain that pops into existence which has the neurons configured just right to only give the appearance of past memories. It would also be just as likely that we are floating brains in a lab, with some scientist feeding us fake experiences. Those scenarios would be just as likely as the one we appear to be in now (one universe with all of our experiences being “real”). Bottom line is, if there really are an infinite number of universes out there, then we can’t trust anything we perceive to be true, which means there is no point in seeking any truth whatsoever. “The multiverse idea rests on assumptions that would be laughed out of town if they came from a religious text.” Gregg Easterbrook ================= Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry – Physics Professor – John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry’s referenced experiment and paper – “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 – “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 =========================bornagain77
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
lastyearon:
tgpeeler,
Science doesn’t exclude design?? What planet are you living on, earthling? Of course “science” excludes design. Science HAS TO exclude design (and God) because of its fundamental metaphysical commitment, which is naturalism.
I honestly don’t know how to respond to such a basic misunderstanding, except to say your conflating ‘design’ and the supernatural.
It's a really important distinction, and not the first time I've seen the two conflated here, which is sort of odd. Science certainly does not rule out "design". Indeed, in a sense, it is part of my own field (cognitive neuroscience)! But it has to rule out the supernatural simply by definition - natural is what can be explained by science - supernatural is what can't. And as there is no way of testing whether something can't be explained except by continuing to try to explain it, and failing, then you can't test the supernatural in science. It remains the null. And you can't prove a null. But you can certainly investigate Design, which is why Dembski's approach is potentially more informative, and indeed scientific. Except it has major problems (but that's for another thread :))Elizabeth Liddle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
Doveton: Interesting exercise indeed!
In reading this, I’ve been idly considering what pain I’d feel if evolution was shown to be completely erroneous and dismissed in science. Quite frankly, I can’t imagine I’d have much heartburn. It would be disappointing to look at all the life around me and accept that it was not related in anyway to one another biologically, but the fact is I’d still perceive their behavior, colors, and interaction and find that fascinating. Of course, in my mental wanderings on this I also envision that the replacing theory would have an equally feasible explanation for the colors, behaviors, and interactions, so I’d be good with that. I’d be rather bummed about all the work I’d done that was apparently erroneous, but then again I’d have a better picture of the world around me and since the new theory would have to take into consideration the explanations my work has been based upon, it wouldn’t have been a complete waste of my time. Interesting mental exercise…
Actually, I think I'd find it still easier, as evolutionary biology is not my field! But the trouble with that kind of thought experiment is that it has to be realistic. If evolutionary theory was completely overturned, it would be by something even more awesome. So I guess that would be pretty exciting, actually! A bit like Einstein overturning Newton. That still gives me the (pleasurable) shivers :)Elizabeth Liddle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
tgpeeler:
arkady @ 7 “I wonder, too, if oppostion to design theory isn’t rooted in issues other than science.” I think so. As far as I can tell, the opposition is almost always grounded in a failure to strictly adhere to the laws of rational thought. Conclusions from first principles don’t count as “evidence” but this is non-sensical, literally. This is why EL can blithely and interminabley make reference to “no evidence” for God. Well, in her world, duh. God is immaterial and science deals with the material world. Science explains the material world so the material world is all there is. So God doesn’t exist and there can be no evidence for Him, ever, since all that exists is material and He’s allegedly immaterial. I think that fairly sums it up from their point of view. Unfortunately for everybody, they are hopelessly confused about what counts as evidence and what is rational. In the end, it’s their epistemology that leads to their ontological problem. Once this has been explained to them, it then becomes a matter of willful ignorance. I’ve tried many times to engage “them” on fundamental intellectual commitments. Always to no avail. So how can one expect to ever make headway arguing with someone who rejects reason as foundational and authoritative in matters of truth? One cannot. One can only hope that someone lurking will see what makes sense and what does not. Plus, it helps to sharpen my thoughts as I’m sure it helps others. Any opposition, even irrational opposition, is better than no opposition.
Well, tgpeeler, I have to correct you on your representation of my view :) But I could have made myself clearer (although I have elsewhere, here, but I haven't had much conversation with you, so that's fair enough :)), so I'll do so now: I do not think there is any evidence for the kind of God that is postulated to be responsible for the appearance of Design in living things, nor do I think there is any evidence for the kind of God that science could find. That sounds circular, but it isn't - science is limited, not on philosophical principle, but methodologically, to discovering contingencies: if this happens, then that will happen, at least with high degree of probability. So one kind of God that science might be able to find might be the kind of God who tended to answer petitionary prayer. We could set up a proper scientific experiment (as has been done) with a control group, and find out whether a prayed-for person tended to have better outcome than a non-prayed for person. And the only studies that we have, that I am aware of, delivered a negative. This does not rule out a petitionary-prayer-answering God (a null result merely lets us retain the null, not reject our alternative hypothesis) but it is not evidence for it, either. However, if I was a theist (as I was, for about half a century) that would not, and did not, bother me. If such an experiment had come out positive, it would not, in any case, have convinced me of "the supernatural". I don't even know what the word is supposed to mean. It would merely have convinced me that a hitherto unknown regularity of the universe had been revealed, and we should find out more about it - how best to maximise the effect? What kind of prayers work best? Do some conditions respond better to prayer than others? Is there a dose-response curve? But that would not evidence for God - or at any rate, not the creator God I used to believe in. It would just be evidence for another property of the universe, and it seems to me it is somewhat heretical to regard God as a property of his/her own creation! In other words - if God is a god - and not merely a mysterious fellow-inhabitant of the universe - s/he is not going to be detectable by scientific means. If God explains everything, then his/her influence cannot be differential - and therefore cannot be tested by an if...then hypothesis. The only contingency for a God that is a god can be is "does God will it?" - and how can science know the mind of God? So that's my position. Not that materialism shows that materialism is true - that would indeed be circular! But that not only is science incapable of showing that materialism is true, so is science incapable of showing that materialism is false. Neither conclusion is possible in science, whatever your priors about whether or not God exists.
Think of it, design is excluded a priori because it’s not “scientific” but what is “scientific” is itself not a “scientific” question. Who cannot instantly see the circularity and irrationality of that? Lots of people as it turns out.
Well, see above :)
Bottom line, we are trying to bring people to truth by reasoning with them but they reject the authority of reason in matters of truth. That’s one of the things that makes it so much “fun” to do…
Well, it may be fun, but your premise is false. Still, it may serve as a McGuffin :)
In fact, just for my own vicious amusement and to provide one more data point for my claim, I’m going to ask EL to tell me what her fundamental, non-negotiable, intellectual commitments are. She posted on this thread so maybe she’s still reading.
Well, I guess I've sort of outlined them above, but I wouldn't call them "commitments". Actually, I'd call them "reason" ;) But let's see - do I have non-negotiable commitments? Yes, I do, I think. I'm pretty committed to honesty. I don't tell deliberate untruths (I guess I could see circumstances where an untruth just might be more ethical than the truth, but it would have to be life-or-death). I'd certainly much rather find I was wrong than remain in error (as I think I've said above). I'm not committed to theism or atheism, athough I don't believe in God, and indeed, believe that there is no God, or at least no God in the sense that you would regard God as God, probably. If you could present me with a good counterargument I'd be more than happy to consider it - I was a happy theist, as I said, for 50 odd years. I even wrote a book for children about heaven :) http://www.amazon.com/Pip-Edge-Heaven-Elizabeth-Liddle/dp/0802852572 I'm committed to kindness, as a principle - perhaps you could call it love, perhaps justice. My guiding ethical principle is the Golden Rule (and my favorite formulation is Jesus' version). I think the best ethical principle I have read (and unfortunately don't know the source - Rawls, maybe) is do what an unbiased judge would do". In other words, deprioritise the self. Trying to think of some other non-negotiables.... Nope, I think honesty is the only one. It's why I like science :) Science may not always be as honest as it should be (it isn't) but the great thing is that the entire edifice of scientific methodology is designed (heh) to minimise bias and eliminate dishonesty. More positively, the maximise the truth of our models - to fit them as closely as possible to our observations. That do? Anyway, nice to meet you :) Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle
July 13, 2011
July
07
Jul
13
13
2011
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply