Ideological Turing Test

_{Barry Arrington

November 29, 2016

Intelligent Design}

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

To all of our friends who subscribe to materialist accounts of evolution:

Here is an interesting little test.

The Ideological Turing Test is a concept invented by Bryan Caplan to test whether a political or ideological partisan correctly understands the arguments of his or her intellectual adversaries. The partisan is invited to answer questions or write an essay posing as his opposite number; if neutral judges cannot tell the difference between the partisan’s answers and the answers of the opposite number, the candidate is judged to correctly understand the opposing side.

Now most folks in the ID movement can pass the test when it comes to materialist evolutionary theory. After all, it is the dominant paradigm, and it has been crammed down our throats all of our lives. Yeah, yeah, I know. Our opponents often insist that only someone who does not truly understand their theory can reject it. Let’s set that bit of self-serving question begging aside. It really is the case that I have never seen a fair summary of ID theory come from one of our opponents. Invariably we get some caricature like “ID posits that all complex things must be designed.”

So, here is my challenge to our opponents: Do you understand ID well enough to pass the Ideological Turing Test? If you think you do, prove it by giving a one paragraph summary of ID in the comments below.

Comments

D: "Where is Eric Anderson’s one paragraph summary of ID?" D, take out the line breaks and EA's brief summary becomes a paragraph. Really? You are going to quibble about line breaks?Barry Arrington_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

I think it is fair to you and the observers if you ONLY revealed ONE PIECE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that convinced you THE MOST that life originated on its own and without a Intelligent Designer
I don't know how life arose, and I think anyone that tells you they do (be it by natural causes or by design) is going well beyond what the evidence can tell us.wd400_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

I humbly admit that I would fail the Turing test on both ID and Darwinian/neo-Darwinian/extended synthesis/third way/3.5 way/fourth way/etc. evolution. Definitely both definitions are above my pay grade. But I kind of prefer whatever I can grasp of the ID concepts. :)Dionisio_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

J-Mac @27:
[...] made of materials unknown to scientists on Earth, [...]
Are biological systems made of materials unknown to scientists on Earth? At the core of the discussion, is it about the materials the biological systems are made of or is it about the algorithmic complexity of the whole enchilada of interwoven specified information-processing subsystems underlying elaborate cellular and molecular choreographies of signalling pathways and regulatory networks orchestrated within the biological systems? Is there anything (or process) -either known or imaginable*- that could produce and maintain what is observed in biology? (*) yes, I'd graciously leave open the possibility to imagine a detailed process that would explain the creation and maintenance of the biological systems as we see them today, knowing that we're still missing a substantial chunk of the big picture.Dionisio_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

DaveS (19), "I also tried to avoid declaring any position on the truth or falsity of ID theory." I think you did a rather good job of avoiding declaring a position, better than other responses. However, I think to pass this turing test, a bit of supportive bias is called for. At least if I were to try the turing for Darwinism/naturalism, I'd throw in just enough "of course" to convince the turing analyst that I believed that view. Just sayin'.bFast_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

wd400 "I don’t see much value in the exercise, since I’m much more interested in evidence than ideology" This is great news wd400! I think you would have no problem providing us with evidence rather than ideology about what the origins of life and what evidence about it convinced you the most that life originated on it's own and without ID. I don't think you need to overwhelm us with the many pieces of scientific evidence that you no doubt have, otherwise you wouldn't just buy this ideology. I think it is fair to you and the observers if you ONLY revealed ONE PIECE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that convinced you THE MOST that life originated on its own and without a Intelligent Designer. BTW: wd400, if you find yourself overwhelmed with choosing the piece of scientific evidence from among so many that you no doubt have to support your belief in abiogenesis, why don't you ask your brothers in faith like MatSpirit, WD400, Seversky, daveS to help you choose the most convincing piece of scientific evidence that atheism has. I'm sure that no matter what you choose, it is going to overwhelm the ID believers.J-Mac_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington:
Do you understand ID well enough to pass the Ideological Turing Test? If you think you do, prove it by giving a one paragraph summary of ID in the comments below.

Eric Anderson passes the Turing Test.
Where is Eric Anderson's one paragraph summary of ID?Dionisio_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

I personally find this "test" more appealing: If NASA found on Mars, or other planet, something resembling a robot, made of materials unknown to scientists on Earth, and no designers responsible for the designing of the robot were found, how would you describe this structure? 1. It only has an appearance of design? 2. Or that it was designed? This is a test for wd400 and daves and so on to shine...unfortunately... they never do...J-Mac_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Eric Anderson passes the Turing Test. This was the sort of thing that I hoped (but doubted) our opponents would be able to produce.Barry Arrington_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

wd I remember that post from a couple of years ago and it's a good example of the kind of dispute that will arise. Another case I've encountered is where some ID advocates believe that modern science should be changed to allow for immaterial or supernatural causes - so ID is a critique of science itself in those cases. Where others do not see this problem. But you know that the same is very much true with debates on evolutionary theory.Silver Asiatic_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

EA - very good, thank you! Yes, what was missing in the definitions so far was how ID establishes positive evidence for design (agree or not whether it's successful, we're just talking about definitions). One of the problems is defining the characteristics of "a designed thing". But we start with "design exists". As stated, Dawkins and Darwin admit such and claim evolution creates that which was thought only to be designed. So, both start with "what appears to have been designed". Then ID can test that and when natural processes fail to create "that which has the appearance of design", then the inference of design is the best explanation. It's not a circular argument. It's actually similar to evolution: 1. RM & NS change things. 2. We see two fossils that appear similar. 3. Similarity implies ancestry 4. Ancestry is genetic inheritance, thus we see evolution However, in some cases, genetic analysis of living organisms indicate no ancestry - so convergent non-ancestral evolution is inferred. It's the same with ID. We observe design. Observe aspects of nature that share the characteristics of design. Failing another cause, we infer design as the cause.Silver Asiatic_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

If you ask for a single paragraph you are going to get general answers. From experience, I think we also know that IDers could not agree on a specific description of CSI or other specific approaches. How many people here could sign up to this post on CSI, for instance?wd400_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic and Bob O'H, see my comments to wd400 @21.Eric Anderson_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

wd400 @3:
I don’t see much value in the exercise, since I’m much more interested in evidence than ideology. But, briefly.
I agree with you that the focus should be on the evidence. The value of the test is that it helps identify biases and ideologies that an opponent of a particular theory might be bringing to the table. In other words, the exercise of going through the test, if sincerely undertaken, should help to limit and strip away the ideology and help us focus on the evidence.
Intelligent design advocates argue that some features of the natural world are best explained by the action of some intelligence, rather than natural and/or undirected forces.
Correct, as an initial broad description.
In biology this goal is usually pursued by demonstrating that biological systems (including particular proteins, other gene products and interactions among these molecules) could not have have been generated by the biological processes known to generate and filter genetic diversity.
Partly right, but not quite. The argument for design in any particular instance is a combination of at least two points; really two points, with sub-parts. 1. The positive argument. Certain designed things exhibit particular characteristics that are generally recognizable as indicia of design. Many of these characteristics show up in abundance in some biological systems. Such systems would therefore, on their face, appear to be designed, as even the most vociferous naturalistic proponents, such as Dawkins, acknowledge.* Additionally, some intelligent beings are known, on the evidence, to have the ability to produce such features. Furthermore, as a sub-argument/observation, we observe that in every instance in which we know the historical provenance of such features, the source inevitably turns out to be an intelligent cause. Therefore, the most reasonable inference is that those features were likely designed.* 2. The negative argument. Purely natural causes have never been shown to produce those kinds of features. Therefore, there is no reason, on the observational evidence, to believe that they can. Furthermore, as a sub-argument/observation, there are excellent practical and theoretical reasons to conclude that purely natural causes are not, in principle, capable of producing those kinds of features. Therefore, the most reasonable inference, is that they did not. ----- Just to make sure, if we are completing our Turing test a bit more fully, we should also point out that intelligent design does not depend on, and therefore cannot be validly challenged on, red herrings like "God did it," "too complex, so must have been designed," bad design, poor design, and so many of the other complaints and arguments regularly leveled against intelligent design. In other words, in producing our description for the Turing test above, we should acknowledge that those are the fundamental points at issue and not bring in other baggage that does not address the points we described in the Turing test. ----- Finally, I would also note that we need to be careful with your last phrase, "biological processes known to generate and filter genetic diversity." If you are just talking about minor observable changes resulting from observable DNA mutations and the like, then yes. But if you are talking about large-scale, non-observed, hypothetical and theoretical changes that are posited to occur, then no. Indeed, much of the very question on the table is whether known biological processes can in fact generate the changes that are known to have occurred. I think we are probably on the same page here, just wanted to flag this in case. ----- * Dawkins, and Darwin for that matter, both frame much of their naturalistic argument in the form of an argument against design. Indeed, the entire point of many of their writings is an attempt to demonstrate that the observable appearance of design can be produced by a design substitute. Both recognize that the default conclusion, in looking at many biological features, would be design. However, they believe they have found a design substitute that can explain the design without the designer. This argument against the default appearance of design is one of the most common, perhaps the most common, arguments made by evolutionary proponents in support of their theory.Eric Anderson_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H
is the problem with our attempts that they are short?
For me, no. It's the actual content of the definition that is wrong. As I quoted you above:
The arguments for this view are largely based on the improbability of other mechanisms (e.g. evolution) producing the world we observe.
That's the only argument you gave for ID, which would make it merely a negative critique of other mechanisms. But that's not correct. To do that would say nothing about what design is, or why one would make an inference to design.Silver Asiatic_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

bFast,
If I were to make my turing contribution to Darwinism, I would avoid declaring my philosophical position whatsoever, or I would inject a false position of agreement.
I'm not sure I this understand correctly, but I also tried to avoid declaring any position on the truth or falsity of ID theory. I just attempted to describe what ID theory hypothesizes and some of the disciplines that are applied in the study of ID. Does my summary reflect a bias one way or another?daveS_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

BA, "Nope. None of the responses so far passes the test." Actually, in my view none of the responses do pass the test, but not for the reasoning that you provide. If I were to make my turing contribution to Darwinism, I would avoid declaring my philosophical position whatsoever, or I would inject a false position of agreement. When I begin the statement with "Intelligent design advocates argue that ..." I already fail the test.bFast_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

There is a Wikipedia article on the ideological Turing test and it does appear that it can be conducted where the authors are known - however, it does seem that the judges should be neutral (which is obviously not the case here). One way to conduct it on UD is for everybody to temporarily change their Wordpress IDs to a given pool of names (if one is used try another), and then post. And have people post both ID and evolution descriptions.Fordgreen_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

Barry @ 12 - is the problem with our attempts that they are short? I would suggest that your definition also "demonstrate[s] no more than a superficial understanding of ID", but in the number of words you used, it's difficult to do more, I think. (I also have other problems with what you wrote, but I don't want to end up derailing this thread. I'd be happy to explain my problems on a new thread, if you want to go in that direction)Bob O'H_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

SA, Thanks for the recognition. Barry (and others), I request that when you judge that the test is over, you take advantage of this teachable moment and post a one-paragraph summary of ID which does meet your expectations.daveS_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

It's an interesting exercise, but shouldn't the responses be anonymous for this to work correctly? Isn't that how a real Turing test would be conducted?Fordgreen_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

BA @ 12 I appreciate the correction and upon second reading, yes I see at least one problem. Bob O'H gives it here:
The arguments for this view are largely based on the improbability of other mechanisms (e.g. evolution) producing the world we observe.
The ID argument is based on something other than this. daveS and rvb8 came closest to expressing the concept, but still not quite there. ID is a positive statement, for something, and not merely a negation of other theories. (I was just glad nobody said something like "ID is a religious-based concept that uses Biblical ideas to prove the universe was created by God ...").Silver Asiatic_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

SA @ 10: "all the responses thus far have actually been quite good" Nope. None of the responses so far passes the test. All of them demonstrate no more than a superficial understanding of, and a contempt for, ID. An analogous description of materialist evolutionary theory would be something like: "Evolutionary theory posits that organisms evolved from more simple to more complex forms and usually invokes some sort of a combination of chance and natural selection." True enough as far as it goes, but it does not demonstrate more than a superficial understanding. Perhaps my expectations are too high.Barry Arrington_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

AhmedKiaan: The problem with Fine Tuning is it makes god a mechanic who can only create universes according to the blueprints he’s been given. This is incredibly arrogant and blasphemous.
The concept of an all-powerful God doesn't follow from the fine-tuning argument. Given fine-tuning one can argue for a designed universe — nothing more and nothing less. The identity of the designer(s) remains unknown.
AhmedKiaan: And also, if you think your kilogram of brains is capable of understanding the parameters which constrain god, you are a fool.
No one in his right mind claims that 'understanding the parameters which constrain a material universe suitable for life' equates 'understanding the parameters which constrain god'.Origenes_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT}

I'm surprised that all the responses thus far have actually been quite good! Surprised because I misjudged our opponents' abilities to understand the concept?? I guess so. Ok, but I have seen so many ignorant misunderstandings of ID, especially by people who should know better (Jerry Coyne, Larry Moran, P.Z. Myers) that it seemed that the basic ID concept was impossible for materialists to understand. Some people are totally blind to the topic. If we flipped the Turing test around, defining 'evolution', is easy using the standard definitions. But term is also ambiguous and it gets challenging to be precise about it. If it was something like 'neo-Darwinian evolution', there wouldn't be a problem.Silver Asiatic_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT}

Hm, interesting (although I'm not so confident about IDers' abilities to describe evolution - perhaps the subject for another blog post?). Anyway, here's my entry. It's based on biological ID: I know less about cosmological ID. Intelligent Design suggests that some aspects of the natural world are best explained as coming about through design. The arguments for this view are largely based on the improbability of other mechanisms (e.g. evolution) producing the world we observe. Most current research in ID is based on calculating these improbabilities (usually using information theory). (I use "natural world" just to exclude human-made objects, like cars and fishing reels)Bob O'H_{November 30, 2016
November
11
Nov
30
30
2016
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT}

Cosmological fine tuning is a pretty direct inference from observations. The issue is, its explanation. And, the aspect of the cosmos being examined is precisely the mechanical. KFkairosfocus_{November 29, 2016
November
11
Nov
29
29
2016
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT}

"Certain physical constants are finely tuned." The problem with Fine Tuning is it makes god a mechanic who can only create universes according to the blueprints he's been given. This is incredibly arrogant and blasphemous. And also, if you think your kilogram of brains is capable of understanding the parameters which constrain god, you are a fool.AhmedKiaan_{November 29, 2016
November
11
Nov
29
29
2016
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT}

Humorously, the Turing Test is a test, by a person, of a computer's ability to exhibit intelligence equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a person. Yet, Atheistic Materialists insist that they are not really persons but are merely neuronal illusions:
“I’m not arguing that consciousness is a reality beyond science or beyond the brain or that it floats free of the brain at death. I’m not making any spooky claims about its metaphysics. What I am saying, however, is that the self is an illusion. The sense of being an ego, an I, a thinker of thoughts in addition to the thoughts. An experiencer in addition to the experience. The sense that we all have of riding around inside our heads as a kind of a passenger in the vehicle of the body. That’s where most people start when they think about any of these questions. Most people don’t feel identical to their bodies. They feel like they have bodies. They feel like they’re inside the body. And most people feel like they’re inside their heads. Now that sense of being a subject, a locus of consciousness inside the head is an illusion. It makes no neuro-anatomical sense.” Sam Harris: The Self is an Illusion "There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does.,,," - A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10 "What you’re doing is simply instantiating a self: the program run by your neurons which you feel is “you.”" Jerry Coyne The Confidence of Jerry Coyne - Ross Douthat - January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary. http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_r=0
Thus, since atheists 'self' admittedly are claiming that they are not real persons with real 'minds', then we Theists, as real persons with real minds, have every right to insist that Atheists have utterly failed the Turing Test for being humanly intelligent! :) i.e. Atheist's, in their claim that they are not real but are merely neuronal illusions, have in fact 'lost their minds'
Philosophical Zombies - cartoon http://existentialcomics.com/comic/11
In the following article, Dawkins himself admits that it would be 'intolerable' for him to live as if his atheistic worldview were actually true:
Who wrote Richard Dawkins's new book? - October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3
In what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for you to live as if your worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.
Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/
bornagain77_{November 29, 2016
November
11
Nov
29
29
2016
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT}

ID is easily understandable, that's one of its only good points. Features in nature scream design. Certain physical constants are finely tuned. There are irreducibly complex biological mechanisms evolution can not explain. Junk DNA is nonsense, we just don't know its function at this time. Specified complexity is theoretically measurable. There may be others but that's most of it I think, please correct me. No, understanding the idea is simple, the difficulty arises in the proof, testing the theory, and any experimentation that is going on, anywhere, at any time.rvb8_{November 29, 2016
November
11
Nov
29
29
2016
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply