Origenes: “The Emergence of Emergentism: A Play for Two Actors”

_{kairosfocus

December 8, 2022

Intelligent Design}

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

The stage is in darkness, with sombre mood music, then light rises . . .

Origenes, 226 in the Pregnancy thread:

<<Two desperate naturalists in a room.

A: “I feel completely desperate. There is no way we will ever be able to explain life and consciousness.”
B: “I feel the exact same way. The main issue is that we have nothing to work with. All we have is mindless particles in the void obeying mindless regularities. Starting from that, how can we possibly explain life, not to mention personhood, freedom, and rationality? There is simply no way forward.”
A: “Exactly right. Sometimes I feel like such a loser. The other day I heard that current science cannot even explain liquidity.”
B: “What did you just say?”

**POOF**>>

THE END.

Comments

PM1, perhaps if you were, via your free will, to exert more control of your thoughts and words, instead of just letting the random jostling of atoms in your brain dictate your thoughts and words for you, your arguments for atheistic naturalism might be more persuasive to others here on UD?? Just a suggestion! :) (And also generously assuming that you have the will necessary to change your actions) You are, of course, and as usual, wrong. Inductive reasoning is indeed included in the 'deductive' feedback loop you've indicated. 1. If hypothesis H were the case, that would entail observation O. 2. But we do not observe O. 3. Therefore, H is not the case. i.e. As you yourself indicated in your deductive argument, "bottom up" empirical evidence and/or observation, via step 2, is given 'inductive', i.e. 'bottom-up', authority to provide feedback and falsify a deductive premise. And again, Darwinists and/or Atheistic Naturalists are notorious for denying empirical evidence any 'inductive feedback' authority to falsify their premise of atheistic naturalism. And as such, that makes atheistic naturalism profoundly unscientific and irrational.bornagain77_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

@13
, Popper, via his emphasis on falsifying evidence over and above just focusing on confirming evidence, used the inductive method far more precisely, in a ‘bottom-up’ inductive manner, to weed out a failed hypothesis. i.e. to ‘inductively’ weed out presuppositions that are wrong in a far more rigorous way.
Sorry, but that's not correct. Induction has nothing at all to do with weeding out failed hypotheses. Popper thinks that a hypothesis must be rejected if even a single observation is incompatible with it. That is completely different from induction, where we generalize over multiple observations. Popper's falsificationism is built upon the following truth of deductive (not inductive) logic. The following is a logically invalid argument
1. If P, therefore Q. 2. Q. 3. Therefore, P.
But Popper thinks that that's how inductive reasoning works, in the following way. The inductivist is someone who reasons:
1. If hypothesis H were true, then observation O would follow. 2. We observe O. 3. Therefore, H is true.
Popper thinks that the inductivist is making a logically invalid argument because the two argument schemas are the same. By contrast, the following is logically valid:
1. If P, then Q. 2. But not Q. 3. Therefore, not P.
Popper uses this to reconstruct scientific reasoning as:
1. If hypothesis H were the case, that would entail observation O. 2. But we do not observe O. 3. Therefore, H is not the case.
and that is the logical basis of falsificationism. All the hard work of science goes into designing an experiment careful enough to show that H logically entails O, so that even a single failure to observe O is sufficient to reject H. No induction required. From which it follows, as Popper makes very clear, that it is not logically possible to ever confirm a scientific hypotheses. All hypotheses fall into one of three categories: falsified, not yet falsified, and not even falsifiable. Popper's complaint against Marxism and psychoanalysis was not that they were false or nonsense, but they were not genuine sciences -- and that was because (he thought) every objection to them was dismissed by using that theory. Criticisms of Marxism were dismissed as mere ideology that disguises class interest; criticisms of psychoanalysis were dismissed as unresolved Oedipal issues. So the problem, he thought, is that Marxists and psychoanalysts were not even able to recognize the sheer possibility that their theories could be mistaken, because they desperately needed to be right, no matter what. And that obstinate clinging to being right, no matter what, is the exact opposite of a scientific attitude.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

PM1, (generously assuming that you were in control of the words you just wrote, and that you are, therefore, capable of even being rational :) ), the conflict between Popper and Bacon exists far more in your imagination than it does in the real world.
"Scientists do indeed begin with hypothesis, bold hypothesis, that could be falsified by evidence. But rather than looking for supporting evidence, Popper argued scientists (should) go out of their way to refute their own hypothesis. Testing them to destruction. They go out searching for black swans, not more white swans, (to confirm their hypothesis that 'all swans are white). Science is all about falsification, not confirmation." - Karl Popper's Falsification https://youtu.be/wf-sGqBsWv4?t=16
In fact, Popper, via his emphasis on falsifying evidence over and above just focusing on confirming evidence, used the inductive method far more precisely, in a 'bottom-up' inductive manner, to weed out a failed hypothesis. i.e. to 'inductively' weed out presuppositions that are wrong in a far more rigorous way.
Deductive vs. Inductive reasoning – top-down vs. bottom-up – graph https://i2.wp.com/images.slideplayer.com/28/9351128/slides/slide_2.jpg Inductive reasoning Excerpt: Inductive reasoning is distinct from deductive reasoning. While, if the premises are correct, the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
i.e. Empirical evidence, and inductively falsifying wrong presuppositions in a 'bottom-up manner, still plays a central role in Popper's reasoning, it is just that Popper held the inductive method can be abused, and indeed has been abused, particularly by naturalists, (and/or Marxists), especially when they look only for examples that confirm their naturalistic hypothesis, and ignore all evidence that falsifies it.
Karl Popper Karl Popper equated naturalism with inductive theory of science. He rejected it based on his general critique of induction (see problem of induction), yet acknowledged its utility as means for inventing conjectures. "A naturalistic methodology (sometimes called an "inductive theory of science") has its value, no doubt.... I reject the naturalistic view: It is uncritical. Its upholders fail to notice that whenever they believe to have discovered a fact, they have only proposed a convention. Hence the convention is liable to turn into a dogma. This criticism of the naturalistic view applies not only to its criterion of meaning, but also to its idea of science, and consequently to its idea of empirical method." — Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, (Routledge, 2002), pp. 52–53, ISBN 0-415-27844-9. Popper instead proposed that science should adopt a methodology based on falsifiability for demarcation, because no number of experiments can ever prove a theory, but a single experiment can contradict one. Popper holds that scientific theories are characterized by falsifiability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Views
In short, Popper's supposed rejection of the general method of induction was sparked by Naturalistic dogmatism which refused to consider any falsifying evidence, and only considered evidence that might lend support. (which sounds exactly what we are currently going through with Atheistic Naturalism and Darwinism) Moreover PM1, I can see why you yourself would try to diss falsification. There is simply no empirical evidence that is ever allowed to falsify Darwinian evolution.
Darwinism vs. Falsification - link to defense of each claim https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/
And thus, since Darwinian evolution is beyond empirical reproach, then obviously "it does not speak of reality"
“In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.” – Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery
Quote and Verse:
"If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it." - Feynman 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
Of supplemental note,
Nov. 2022 - Lakatos himself based much of his ‘philosophy’ for shunning the importance of empirical falsification on the Copernican revolution. In fact, Lakatos specifically stated that, “I thought that the Copernican revolution might in particular serve as an important test case between some contemporary philosophies of science.”,,, (yet empirical evidence has now falsified the Copernican principle and has, thus, turned Lakatos's entire rationale for questioning falsification on its head) https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/at-evolution-news-there-is-no-settled-theory-of-evolution/#comment-770283
bornagain77_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

@11 I'd still love to see how you reconcile Popper and Bacon, since Popper developed falsificationism precisely in order to do science without induction. If you think that science involves induction, then what do you need falsification for? To be fair, I think there are really interesting reasons why Popper is the favorite philosopher of science among practicing scientists, even though there are glaring philosophical problems with his philosophy of science. My surmise is that most scientists like Popper because Popper shares what most scientists value: inspiration, creativity, a willingness to try out any idea, no matter how crazy, just to see if it works. And I'd bet that most scientists just don't notice that his entire project is based upon rejecting induction in scientific reasoning -- or if they do notice, they don't care. Lakatos showed (correctly, I think) that there's no demarcation criterion for any scientific theory, not just evolutionary theory -- but that there is no basis for ever demarcating science from pseudo-science. (This does not mean that "pseudoscience" is a useless concept, only that there is no unambiguous criterion that puts all scientific theories on one side and all pseudoscientific theories on the other.) What I do like in Lakatos is his distinction between "progressive research programs" and "degenerating research programs". I think this is a much more useful distinction than trying to solve the demarcation problem.PyrrhoManiac1_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox asks, "Is this the epitaph of arguments for “Intelligent Design”?",,, Well Alan, the proper word is not "epitaph" but "prologue". But since you, self-admittedly, are not in control of the words you are writing, well then, I can hardly fault you, (or PM1), for constantly making such nonsensical arguments.
BA77: "So AF holds that the ‘niche”, not AF himself, is responsible for the information that he himself is writing in his posts?" Alan Fox: "Yes, sort of, though I don’t know,,," https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-evolution-news-for-darwinism-pregnancy-is-the-mother-of-all-chicken-and-egg-problems/#comment-771084 Origenes: "Does rationality require a person who is in control of his thoughts?" PM1: “No, I don’t think so.” https://uncommondescent.com/mind/the-thought-that-stops-thought/#comment-771074 also see Origenes response to PMI at post 72 of the same thread
As to a positive testable hypothesis, well AF, whereas Darwinian evolution has no rigid falsification criteria that would demarcate it as a scientific theory, and not a 'metaphysical research program', and/or a pseudoscience,
Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution - John Horgan - July 6, 2010 Excerpt: Early in his career, the philosopher Karl Popper ,, called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.” Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back (in approx 1978). But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin’s theory dissatisfying. “One ought to look for alternatives!” Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-nonreligious-people-doubt-the-theory-of-evolution/ “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.” – Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery Imre Lakatos - Pseudoscience Excerpt: In his 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture 1[23] he (Lakatos) also claimed that "nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific". Almost 20 years after Lakatos's 1973 challenge to the scientificity of Darwin, in her 1991 The Ant and the Peacock, LSE lecturer and ex-colleague of Lakatos, Helena Cronin, attempted to establish that Darwinian theory was empirically scientific in respect of at least being supported by evidence of likeness in the diversity of life forms in the world, explained by descent with modification. She wrote that "our usual idea of corroboration as requiring the successful prediction of novel facts...Darwinian theory was not strong on temporally novel predictions.." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Pseudoscience
,,, whereas Darwinian evolution has no rigid falsification criteria that would demarcate it as a scientific theory, and not a 'metaphysical research program', and/or a pseudoscience, Intelligent Design does have a rigid falsification criteria so as to demarcate itself a testable scientific theory. In fact there is currently up to a 10 million dollar prize being offered for the first person that can “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”
The Origin of Information: How to Solve It - Perry Marshall Where did the information in DNA come from? This is one of the most important and valuable questions in the history of science. Cosmic Fingerprints has issued a challenge to the scientific community: “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.” “Information” is defined as digital communication between an encoder and a decoder, using agreed upon symbols. To date, no one has shown an example of a naturally occurring encoding / decoding system, i.e. one that has demonstrably come into existence without a designer. A private equity investment group is offering a technology prize for this discovery (up to 10 million dollars). We will financially reward and publicize the first person who can solve this;,,, To solve this problem is far more than an object of abstract religious or philosophical discussion. It would demonstrate a mechanism for producing coding systems, thus opening up new channels of scientific discovery. Such a find would have sweeping implications for Artificial Intelligence research. http://cosmicfingerprints.com/solve/
,,, i.e. Honestly admitting that natural processes can't create information is just the very first step, i.e. the 'prologue', to the technological fruits that are to come to man from advances in systems biology, biomimetics, etc..,
Emily Reeves: The Systems Biology Revolution - 2022 https://www.discovery.org/podcast/emily-reeves-the-systems-biology-revolution/ Eyeballing Design "Biomimetics" Exposes Attacks on ID as Poorly Designed By: Casey Luskin - December 2011 Perhaps the most familiar example of biomimetics is the body shape of birds serving as the inspiration for aircraft design. But the list of fascinating cases where engineers have mimicked nature to develop or improve human technology goes on and on: • Faster Speedo swimsuits have been developed by studying the properties of sharkskin. • Spiny hooks on plant seeds and fruits led to the development of Velcro. • Better tire treads were created by understanding the shape of toe pads on tree frogs. • Polar bear furs have inspired textiles and thermal collectors. • Studying hippo sweat promises to lead to better sunscreen. • Volvo has studied how locusts swarm without crashing into one another to develop an anti-collision system. • Mimicking mechanisms of photosynthesis and chemical energy conversion might lead to the creation of cheaper solar cells. • Copying the structure of sticky gecko feet could lead to the development of tape with cleaner and dryer super-adhesion. • Color-changing cuttlefish have inspired television screens that use a fraction of the power of standard TVs. • DNA might become a framework for building faster microchips. • The ability of the human ear to pick up many frequencies of sound is being replicated to build better antennas. • The Namibian fog-basking beetle has inspired methods of desalinizing ocean water, growing crops, and producing electricity, all in one!,,, The answer is hard to miss. The widespread practice and success of biomimetics among technology-creating engineers has powerful implications that point to intelligent design (ID). After all, if human technology is intelligently designed, and if biological systems inspire or outperform man-made systems, then we are confronted with the not-so-subtle inference that nature, too, might have been designed. http://www.discovery.org/a/18011
Quote and Verse:
“Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.” - Francis Bacon - Aphorism 73 of Novum Organum - father of the scientific method Matthew 7:18-20 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
bornagain77_{December 9, 2022
December
12
Dec
9
09
2022
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT}

Is this the epitaph of arguments for "Intelligent Design"? Scientists can't produce an evidenced explanation for the initial appearance of life on Earth, therefore ID must be true by default? I'm going to try an experiment. I'm going to wait for some positive scientific, testable hypothesis to emerge from the ID movement. Let's see if I live long enough to see it.Alan Fox_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PDT}

@PM1@7 “ No definite answer, sure, but there’s been lots of progress ” Thomas Huxley, when installed President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, pronounced, “With organic chemistry, molecular physics, and physiology yet in their infancy, and every day making prodigious strides, I think it would be the height of presumption for any man to say that the conditions under which matter assumes the properties we call "vital" [alive] may not, some day, be artificially brought together. ” That was over 150 years ago; with very slight variations - three years, ten years, in our lifetime, soon, very soon now - is an echo-chamber regular, and only a manifestation of the triumph of forlorn hope over prolonged failure. “How did life begin? We don’t know ….. BUT we DO know that it was the result of chemical accidents though we can’t demonstrate even the first tiny step because we still don’t know what the first step was.”Belfast_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

PM1, you know that I took time to answer you point by point. KFkairosfocus_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

Well, never let it be said that I always take the moral high-ground and never descend to pettiness. So here we go: Anti-naturalist: "There's no naturalistic explanation for life and consciousness." Naturalist: "No definite answer, sure, but there's been lots of progress in figuring out how life and consciousness fit into a naturalistic worldview." Anti-naturalist: "No, there isn't. It can't be done." Naturalist: "Sure, just look at these books and articles [provides list]" Anti-naturalist: "Literature bluff! Literature bluff!" Naturalist: "well, read it for yourself -- or not. It's not my job to educate you."PyrrhoManiac1_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

“Mindless particles obeying mindless regularities” It’s good, it’s very good. The conceptualisation is brilliant. But “obeying” is perhaps not quite the word, as obedience suggests choice. I can’t think of a better off the top of my head, “following” or “driven by” are no better . “Mindlessly obeying” has problems too. “Mindless particles AND mindless regularities” damages the visual impact. “Mindless particles randomly obeying mindless regularities.” Is superfluous. Anyway, congratulations.Belfast_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

And for the musical version, as sung by Dorothy and the Scarecrow (Strawman) from The Wizard Of Oz ,
I could while away the hours Conferrin' with the flowers, Consulting with the rain; And my head I'd be a scratchin' While my thoughts are busy hatchin' If I only had a brain.
Seversky_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

My Dinner With Alan Andrewasauber_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

Bravo! Author! Author!PyrrhoManiac1_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

Thank you KF, This is an honor. The first play I’ve ever written and I’m over the moon with it. It came to me out of nowhere, I must say. I simply cannot explain it. All I did was putting various parts of the discussion together, and next, unexpectedly, the play, somehow ‘emerged’, for lack of a better word. KF added the setting and is absolutely right about it: starting with darkness, somber music, and then the dramatic rising of light …. it completes it. - - - p.s. IMHO the role of actor B is a real challenge for any actor. In particular the line ***What did you just say?*** must be communicated in such a way that the audience truly experiences the emergence of emergentism - Robert Downey Jr. comes to mind.Origenes_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT}

Origenes: “The Emergence of Emergentism: A Play for Two Actors”kairosfocus_{December 8, 2022
December
12
Dec
8
08
2022
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply