Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

On Breaking Eggs

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The City of Boulder is Colorado’s version of Berkeley, a deeply blue bastion in which an attitude of “lefter than thou” dominates all political conversations.  Example: Section 6-8-3 of the Boulder Municipal Code states: “After December 1, 1986, no person shall knowingly produce, store, process, or dispose of a nuclear weapon or component of a nuclear weapon within the city.”

Never mind that no one is or plans to produce or possess nuclear weapons there. Never mind that if the federal government decided to do so this ordinance would not have the slightest effect. Moral preening is its own reward.

Several years ago I was trying a case in which the city was a party. The city was building a hydroelectric power plant, and I represented a supplier to the project. The issue was whether my client had breached the contract by substituting a comparable component made by a Japanese company for the one specified in the contract. I will never forget my cross examination of one of Boulder’s witnesses. I asked how the city was harmed because the components were essentially identical. He agreed that as far as the power plant was concerned there was no problem, but the City of Boulder has its own foreign policy he testified, and it was boycotting this particular foreign supplier. I knew I was going to win the case when I glanced at the judge and caught her rolling her eyes.

Now the City is jumping on the climate alarmist bandwagon.

Never mind that the computer projections upon which climate alarmism has been based for the last decade have been wildly innacurate. Never mind that there has been no significant overall increase in global temperatures for the last decade. Never mind that the city acknowledges that any action it takes will certainly be meaningless. True believers cannot be bothered with considerations of costs and benefits (or in this case, the lack thereof). The city council would gladly ruin the City’s economy if that were necessary for them to preen.

Someone once asked that consummate leftist Lenin to justify the atrocities the Bolshevik’s were committing in the name of a socialist future. Lenin famously replied, “If you want to make an omelet you have to be willing to break a few eggs.” To which his interlocutor replied, “Comrade, I see the broken eggs everywhere. But where, oh where, is the omelet?”

True believers are dangerous. At least Lenin (however mistakenly) thought he was building a socialist paradise.  The Boulder city council knows its economy-killing regulations will be meaningless.  They are more than willing to break eggs even in the face of absolute certain knowledge that no omelet is to be had. Indeed, it seems that breaking the eggs to demonstrate their moral superiority, not the making of an omelet, is the whole point of the exercise.

Comments
Alan Fox:
First we need a “design inference” to evaluate.
First we need an “unguided evolution inference” to evaluate.
What can we look for, What can we test?.
WRT ID I, told you. WRT unguided evolution, nobody knows.
I think the reason Lizzie gave up on your particular “challenge” was that you would never commit or agree to an operational definition.
She gave up because she doesn't have anything.Joe
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
Upright Biped asks Dr liddle:
Dr Liddle wants to promote the idea that she and her comrades can invalidate the design inference with an unknown, undefined process, which neither she nor anyone else can demonstrate.
I submit you are premature here. First we need a "design inference" to evaluate. You, or anyone, need to explain what you mean by "a design inference". What is a design inference? What can we look for, What can we test?. I think the reason Lizzie gave up on your particular "challenge" was that you would never commit or agree to an operational definition.Alan Fox
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle do you plan to ignore valid criticism of your claims?
Yes.
Do you have anything other than your belief there is an unguided origin of a Darwinian-capable self-replicator?
No.
If you do not, then is it false to claim you can “show that an ID inference is unwarranted or invalid” by means of evidence you cannot demonstrate?
No. ID is unwarranted and invalid because Lizze sez so- and that is all, case closed, nothing to see here.Joe
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle do you plan to ignore valid criticism of your claims? Do you have anything other than your belief there is an unguided origin of a Darwinian-capable self-replicator? If you do not, then is it false to claim you can "show that an ID inference is unwarranted or invalid" by means of evidence you cannot demonstrate? Will you retract your claim, or simply explain it away?Upright BiPed
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
Meanwhile, she brushes off contrary evidence to her claims, describing herself as "unconvinced" by material evidence and rationale which she repeatedly has been unable to refute. But she loves science because no beleif is required... its all about what can be demonstrated. ;)Upright BiPed
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle wants to promote the idea that she and her comrades can invalidate the design inference with an unknown, undefined process, which neither she nor anyone else can demonstrate. And this is why she loves science. No belief is required, she says.Upright BiPed
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
Elizabeth:
There are unguided models that fit the data very well, but that does not mean there was no guidance.
Please present those models.
There is no such thing as a guided model –
Both evolutionary and genetic algorithms are guided models.Joe
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle,
It’s why I love science – because in science all conclusions are provisional, and “belief” is not required.
Yet just this week you stated on another thread:
We can show that an ID inference is unwarranted or invalid, but not that it is false.
And how would you go about doing that Dr Liddle? What would the requirement be to demonstrate, in a scientifically-valid manner, that the inference to design was unwarranted in the existence of life on earth? It would seem that in order to demonstrate that option B was “unwarranted” as a proposition; one would need to (at the very least) demonstrate that option A was causally adequate. What do you have in mind to do that?
What people have proposed is that a process of variation governed only by the laws of physics and chemistry coupled with the tendency of variants better suited to an environment to reproduce more will result in optimised “designs”.
But the proposition of chemical evolution (as a mechanism capable of establishing a Darwinian-capable self-replicator) is actually unsupported by any empirical demonstration of that capacity. Isn't that true? And clearly you’ve already defined the explanatory limit of Darwinian evolution, for example:
I have never, ever, suggested that you could produce a system of self-replicators from a system of non-self-replicators by Darwinian evolution … Clearly it would be an absurd claim, because you have to have self-replicators before you can have Darwinian evolution. By definition.
Indeed, did you not retract your claim that you could show the rise of a Darwinian-capable self-replicator in a simulation? Isn’t it a fact that there is no such demonstration in existence anywhere, or you wouldn’t have needed to create one? So if you cannot show the rise of a Darwinian-capable self-replicator, then what exactly do you have in mind to demonstrate that the design thesis is unwarranted? And now that you’ve repeatedly made thse claims, is there any way whatsoever for you to avoid having to submit (as a scientifically-valid explanation) your belief in a non-design scenario? Clearly, you are forced to submit your mere belief in an unguided origin of a Darwinian-capable self-replicator for the simple fact you have no valid demonstration of it. So isn’t all you talk of not needing belief, and particularly your pretense of scientific authority, just a bit of a ruse on this topic?Upright BiPed
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
There is no scientific methodology that can detect a divine foot. The best we can do is leave the door ajar.
Ah, but if that "divine foot" kicked a football (soccer ball, whatever) the real effect would be observable. Would the surface of the ball distort momentarily with the imprint of the divine foot? Would it not fly across the football field in an impressive arc. Observing that event, filming it say, multiple observers; would that be evidence of divine intervention? Could ID proponents look for events which apparently defied the laws of physics, as the football seems to? Seriously, if ID tinkering occurs, there must be some interface where the imaginary interventions cause real, observable effects. On the other hand, why cannot God work within the rules (they're his rules, after all), influencing apparently stochastic events that result in achieving his ineffable purpose?Alan Fox
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
02:04 AM
2
02
04
AM
PDT
Mung:
EL: “There is no scientific methodology that can detect a divine foot. ” Nor the absence of a divine foot.
Precisely. As I keep saying.
There are no “unguided models” that fit the facts quite well for the absence of divine feet.
There are unguided models that fit the data very well, but that does not mean there was no guidance. There is no such thing as a guided model - a divine guidance model has no explanatory power because it could fit all data equally well. This is why it cannot be falsified and why science cannot conclude that there was no guidance. That's why the identity of the designer matters. A non-divine guidance model could have constraints, and those constraints could be tested.Elizabeth B Liddle
August 21, 2013
August
08
Aug
21
21
2013
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT
EL: "There is no scientific methodology that can detect a divine foot. " Nor the absence of a divine foot. There are no "unguided models" that fit the facts quite well for the absence of divine feet.Mung
August 20, 2013
August
08
Aug
20
20
2013
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
I grew up in Ann Arbor (the Berkeley of the Midwest), and then lived in Boulder (the Berkeley of the Rockies) for nine years. Boy, was I screwed up! I'm in recovery though, and now living in Idaho working hard to un-learn the things I previously "learned".StuartHarris
August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
Phinehas:
Don’t you mean that all conclusions are provisional except for ones that preclude a Divine foot from getting in the door?
No, I meant what I said. The only sense in which science precludes a "Divine foot" is that science is incapable of coping with divine feet. There is no scientific methodology that can detect a divine foot. The best we can do is leave the door ajar.Elizabeth B Liddle
August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
Timaeus: I agree about the ambiguity of the word "belief". And I also agree that scientists need working assumptions. But those should always be subject to question, and any conclusion predicated on the validity of the working assumptions. Also - of course scientists can be dogmatic. But the a scientific conclusion can't be, nor can an assumption.Elizabeth B Liddle
August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
Elizabeth: "It’s why I love science – because in science all conclusions are provisional, and “belief” is not required." In an ideal world, this is true. In the actual practice of science, we find many scientists who are just as prone to dogmatism and certainty as we find in fields such as history, philosophy, sociology, politics, business, education, etc. But even in an ideal world "belief is not required" is not accurate. No scientist can function without belief. To start with, the scientist believes, at a minimum, that there is something called "nature" that operates regularly. If there is no such regularity in the universe, the enterprise of science cannot take place. Further, the scientist believes that the human mind is capable of grasping the regularities of nature. Without such confidence, scientists could not operate. Finally, scientists do in practice "believe" all kinds of things. When evolutionary biologists speculate about evolutionary mechanisms, they believe that macroevolution is a fact and that what needs to be done is not to prove macroevolution, but to establish what makes it work. They do not regard the "facticity" of macroevolution as a provisional truth that might one day be overthrown. Nor do most cosmologists (though we are seeing some doubts nowadays) question the facticity of the Big Bang. They believe the Big Bang happened. They treat that as a non-negotiable, and they work all their other observations and theoretical considerations around what they believe to be a fact -- though it may actually turn out not to be a fact. Similarly, working scientists believe that the melting point of lead is such-and-such, that certain kinds of cholesterol are bad for you, etc. These beliefs are not treated as speculations or things that might be overturned; they are regarded as sound bases on which future investigations can be reliably anchored. If a scientist had to re-determine the melting point of lead (because he didn't want to rely on "belief" in what previous scientists had found) before carrying on with research in, say, metallurgy, the science of metallurgy could never progress. Scientists exercise "belief" in the results of previous science every day. So the idea the scientists function without beliefs, even in the ideal case, is not correct. What you perhaps mean to say (and perhaps this is the reason you put " " around "belief") is that scientists function without "faith" -- acceptance of truths on the basis of alleged religious authority, or on the basis of trust in the personal character of the person who offers the truth. Well, in the ideal case, that is true. Scientists do not (or should not) accept things based on statements from the Bible, or by the Pope, or because they think that another scientist seems like an honest sort of guy. They accept things because they believe the methods used to determine those things are sound. As long as the scientist who determined the melting point of lead used proper methods, it doesn't matter if that scientist is the most dishonest person imaginable -- and hence untrustworthy, unworthy of faith -- when it comes to returning borrowed money or fidelity to his wife etc. His science can still be accepted as reliable. No "faith" is involved in accepting his lab results. But as no one has time to check all experiments, there has to be a general belief in the accuracy of the work of colleagues. Thus, no one, scientist or anyone else, functions without beliefs, in either a private or professional capacity. I say this not to quibble over words, but because the ambiguity of the word "belief" means that your statement needs clarification. I'd add that philosophy is like science in the sense that it does not rely on "faith" in the sense indicated above. This is not to say that professors of philosophy cannot be dogmatic -- they are human, and like scientists or others may fall short of the ideal of their calling. Indeed, I would say that the typical professor of philosophy in my experience is quite dogmatic on at least a few "pet" issues. But in principle philosophy does not accept premises or conclusions based on "faith." And certainly I find that some philosophers, e.g., Thomas Nagel, come closer to keeping dogmatic "faith" commitments out of their thinking than do some scientists (e.g., Myers, Coyne, Dawkins) whose science, at least in its popular presentation, seems laced with metaphysical commitments which cannot be established by science but only (if they can be established at all) by philosophy or theology.Timaeus
August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
Don't you mean that all conclusions are provisional except for ones that preclude a Divine foot from getting in the door?Phinehas
August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
The "science" of evolutionism is based on belief only...Joe
August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
Barry:
True believers are dangerous.
I absolutely agree, Barry. It's why I love science - because in science all conclusions are provisional, and "belief" is not required.Elizabeth B Liddle
August 19, 2013
August
08
Aug
19
19
2013
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
And bear in mind that, throughout history and right up to this day, there would seem to be an excellent chance that the leaders in a majority of countries, particularly, perhaps, autocracies, would have been unambiguous psychopaths. Never mind CEOs of large corporations.Axel
August 18, 2013
August
08
Aug
18
18
2013
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
If people of good will lack faith, then the field is left to the psychopaths, the snakes-in-suits, who, like the dishonest steward in the parable, commended by his boss, know very well what they want and go for it, bald-headed. It's a parable which seems to be little understood, as people tend to focus on the dishonesty, and are puzzled as to why Christ would seem to have endorsed the approval of the steward's dishonesty, when he was telling us not to be forever wavering in our belief. Worldlings know what they want and go for it. Why don't Christians? If a painfully honest person asks his bank manager for a loan, he will be treated with a certain reserve, shall we say. While such a request by a hail-fellow-well-met, natural-born salesman, who looks as if he could have been involved in some shady business or two at some time or another, and has definitely been round the block, business-wise, will be viewed by the bank manager with a certain cordiality. And as for a Russian billionaire seeking to launder a few billion roubles, from some factories he claims to own in Moscow and Petrograd...... Say no more. Nudge. Nudge. Wink. Wink.Axel
August 18, 2013
August
08
Aug
18
18
2013
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
On the other hand, Mark, what about 'true believers' who happen to be 'true believers', in fact, not just ironically? That is a question atheists a priori refuse to consider, even in the teeth of incontrovertible evidence, as is indicated again and again on this board. Luxuriating in cliches like that may induce a warm feeling in atheists, especially, in an ad hoc mutual admiration society in an online forum but in the end, it's a pretty vapid cop-out, isn't it? The purpose of an open mankind, after all, is to close on the truth. Not moral relativism or a sterile materialism that denies its own epistemic validity, never mind, authority.Axel
August 18, 2013
August
08
Aug
18
18
2013
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
hello mark, i would say that it depends on what the true belief is an what one is hyperskeptical of. In the context of the post, I would think that the climate people would argue that not only are the hyperskeptics dangerous, but even well reasoned cautious skepticism concerning anthropogenic warming will usher in the apocalypse. Also, a virologist friend of mine claims that those skeptical of certain vaccines will be the demise of us all. And if focused and aggressive hyperskepticism inevitably pushes us into a civilization based on nihilism, that probably is not ideal.junkdnathewhite
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
Mark Frank @ 1: The problem is that many skeptics and atheists are "true believers" themselves (in atheism or humanism, respectively). Witness Daniel Dennett's suggestion that religious people be put in zoos, or Richard Dawkins's comment that teaching children about God is worse than sexually abusing a child. Hyper-skeptics can be easily dismissed, because their arguments fail at a basic logical level. You can't have your degree of skepticism turned up so high that you don't believe anything, even when there's positive evidence for it. Then it turns from skepticism to outright stupidity.Barb
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
It reminds some of us of insisting that "Evolution HAPPENED!" while constantly changing the story and demanding implicit, childlike belief in whatever the current version is. Given the state of ferment, it is not hard to see why people do this. Because if they said, "Evolution happened, but most of the time we aren't sure exactly what happened or how, and new findings are always upending old ones" (which is true), the proper response would be: Okay. So? And most of their cultural authority would disappear. As well it should. Keeping the cultural authority while losing the plot is the reason for the current evolution circus.News
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
True believers are dangerous.
I am with you there. Much more dangerous than scepticism - even "hyperscepticism".Mark Frank
August 17, 2013
August
08
Aug
17
17
2013
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply