Please Take the Time to Understand Our Arguments Before You Attack Them

_{Barry Arrington

October 1, 2013

Intelligent Design}

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

The comments our Darwinist friends put up on this site never cease to amaze. Consider, as a for instance, Kantian Naturalist’s comment that appears as comment 9 to kairosfocus’ Infographic: The science of ID post. The post sets forth a simple summary of the case for ID, and KN responds:

What I like about this infographic is that it makes really clear where the problem with intelligent design lies.

Here’s the argument:

(1) We observe that all As are caused by Bs. (2) Cs are similar to As in relevant respects. (3) Therefore, it is highly probable that Cs are also caused by Bs.

But this is invalid, because the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

KN has been posting on this site for years. He is obviously an intelligent man. He is obviously a man of good will. I will assume, therefore, that he is attacking ID as he believes it to be and not a straw man caricature of his own making. And that is what is so amazing. How can an intelligent person of good will follow this site for several years and still not understand the basics of ID? It beggars belief.

Maybe it will help if I explain ID using the same formal structure KN has used.

KN:

(1) We observe that all As are caused by Bs.

ID as it really is:

(1) For all As whose provenance is actually known, the cause of A was B.

Here “A” could be complex specified information or irreducible complexity.

B, of course, stands for “the act of an intelligent agent.”

In step 1 KN is actually not far off the mark. I have reworded it slightly, because ID does not posit there is no possible explanation for A other than B. ID posits that in our universal experience of A where its provenance has been actually observed, it has always arisen from B. Now, there may be some other cause of A (Neo-Darwinian evolution – NDE – for instance), but the conclusion that NDE causes A arises from an inference not an observation. “NDE caused A” is not just any old inference. We would argue that it is an inference skewed by an a priori commitment to metaphysical materialism and not necessarily an unbiased evaluation of the data.

KN:

(2) Cs are similar to As in relevant respects.

ID as it really is:

(2) We observe A to exist within living systems.

In (2) KN starts to go off the rails in a serious way. Here we have the tired old “ID is nothing by an argument from analogy” argument. KN is saying that the complex specified information in a cell is “similar in relevant respects” to the complex specified information found, for example, in a language or a code. He is saying that the irreducible complexity of any number of biological systems is “similar in relevant respects” to the irreducible complexity of machines.

No sir. That is not what ID posits at all, not even close. ID posits that the complex specified information in a cell is identical to the complex specified information of a computer code. The DNA code is not “like” a computer code. The DNA code and a computer code are two manifestations of the same thing. The irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum is identical to (not similar to) the irreducible complexity of an outboard motor.

ID proponents obviously have the burden of demonstrating their claims. For example, they have the burden of demonstrating that the DNA code and a computer code are identical in relevant respects. And if you disagree with their conclusions that is fair enough. Tell us why. But it is not fair to attempt to refute ID by attacking a claim ID proponents do not make.

KN:

(3) Therefore, it is highly probable that Cs are also caused by Bs.

ID as it really is:

(3) Therefore, abductive reasoning leads to the conclusion that B is the best explanation of A.

The Wikipedia article on abductive reasoning is quite good. [I have changed the symbols to correspond with our discussion]:

to abduce a hypothetical explanation “B” from an observed surprising circumstance “A” is to surmise that “B” may be true because then “A” would be a matter of course. Thus, to abduce B from A involves determining that B is sufficient (or nearly sufficient), but not necessary, for A.

For example, the lawn is wet. But if it rained last night, then it would be unsurprising that the lawn is wet. Therefore, by abductive reasoning, the possibility that it rained last night is reasonable. . . . abducing rain last night from the observation of the wet lawn can lead to a false conclusion. In this example, dew, lawn sprinklers, or some other process may have resulted in the wet lawn, even in the absence of rain.

[Philosopher Charles Sanders] Peirce argues that good abductive reasoning from A to B involves not simply a determination that, e.g., B is sufficient for A, but also that B is among the most economical explanations for A. Simplification and economy call for the ‘leap’ of abduction.

For what seems like the ten thousandth time: ID does not posit that the existence of complex specified information and irreducibly complex structures within living systems compels “act of an intelligent agent” as a matter of logical necessity. ID posits that given our universal experience concerning complex specified information and irreducibly complex structures where the provenance of such has been actually observed, the best explanation of the existence of these same things in living structures is “act of intelligent agent.”

KN, I hope this helps. If you disagree with any of the premises or the abuction that we say follows from the premises, by all means attack them with abandon. But please don’t attack an argument we do not make. That just wastes everyone’s time.

Comments

SirHamster @759: Thanks! For some reason the compliment is more meaningful coming from someone named "SirHamster." :)Phinehas_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

Correction:
Phin: If (3) were necessarily true as a logical statement, then it might be relevant as such...
Phinehas_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

RDF:
So you think this definition is “bizarre”???? That in itself is about as bizarre as it gets.
As you have to know, we are discussing your bizarre attempt to define an "embodied" intelligent agent "with CSI-rich mechanisms" as an intelligible formal cause in the context of historical science. Please don't pretend not to know what everyone else here knows. RDF:
I beg your pardon again? No, I did not say “no rules exist.” Where do you get this stuff?
You wrote, "Yes, but Meyer does not set any “non-negotiable rules” for science, any more than anyone else does." In fact, Meyer relates these rules that already existed prior to his explanation of them.
Um, you forgot to show how “intelligence” met these criteria.
More sophistry. I asked you to consider YOUR reformulation in the context of the rules that invalidate it. ID is obviously consistent with them. RDF: "Stephen. I just think it is hilarious that you think there are some “non-negotiable” rules in science!" Still more sophistry. As you know, the subject matter is about HISTORICAL science, which does have rules. You are dissembling. It cannot be an accident since I have made the distinction more than once.StephenB_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

RDF,
In our experience, dead people at the bottom of swimming pools have drown. FRED THEORY observes that Fred was found dead at the bottom of a swimming pool, and concludes that Fred drown. RDFish challenges FRED THEORY by pointing out that the particular pool Fred drown in had no water in it, and that you cannot drown without water. UB fights back: FRED THEORY has nothing to do with water! Don’t mention water! This has nothing to do with water! It doesn’t matter if there is water there or not! We know that Fred drown!!!
This is a good analogy, if, that is, you want to see the problem with your own arguments. People found dead at the bottom of swimming pools could have died from any other cause. Where a body is found often has zero to do with how it came to be dead. We KNOW THIS from experience. You confuse (a perceived) absence of evidence as evidence of absence (no disembodied intelligences exist), and act as if it is the same as experience we DO have (like people being killed by a bullet and then thrown into a pool, and things exhibiting CSI being designed by intelligence). It is TOTALLY different. In the one case we have evidence that refutes the certainty of a position, while in the other we have no evidence to doubt a certain position. So, we have ZERO experience of complex specified information arising without intelligence. It is thus a solid inference that CSI we are unable to directly observe arising is also due to intelligence. Not only have we no experience with other mechanisms by which CSI arises, but no other plausible mechanisms are even available. If, as you suggest, it is CSI (other complex physical mechanisms), that gives rise to CSI, well, you have in infinite regress, and have not answered the question. You seem to think this is a problem for ID, but it is not. You see this problem and immediately jump to the conclusion that, therefore, ID is really about the OOL. But it isn't. No one in the ID community proper is trying to ride the bus that far. They don't have to. Another kind of "law of the excluded middle???" You basically are ranting against ID for riding the bus too far (it's really about OOL (even though it's not)), but also say it hasn't gone far enough (it must acknowledge that intelligence is "invariably" accompanied by a physical makeup). The problem is, you're wrong on BOTH counts. ID gets off the bus in the middle. It's not about OOL, whether reasoning quickly and logically goes in that direction or not, while saying that intelligence must always be accompanied by a physical makeup is a metaphysical claim that you want to grant "empirical" status because it hasn't been "empirically" shown that a disembodied intelligence exists; and that stop is just in the middle of nowhere. Methinks you're going to have to be honest about ID's actual destination before saying "you can't get there from here."Brent_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

F/N 5: let us apply the logic now, by making substitution instances:
a: The actual past (or some other unobserved event, entity or phenomenon . . . ) A leaves traces t [= FSCO/I where we did not directly observe the causal process, say in the DNA of the cell], which we observe. b: We observe a cause C[= design, or purposefully directed contingency] that produces consequence s [= directly observed cases of creation of FSCO/I, say digital code in software, etc] which is materially similar to t [= the DNA of the cell] c: We identify that on empirical investigation and repeated observation, s [= FSCO/I] reliably results from C [= design, or purposefully directed contingency]. d: C [= design, or purposefully directed contingency] is ALSO the only empirically warranted source of s [= FSCO/I] . _____________________________ e: C [= design, or purposefully directed contingency] is the best explanation for t [= FSCO/I where we did not directly observe the causal process, say in the DNA of the cell], viewed here as an instance of s [= FSCO/I].
The chain of reasoning should be clear enough. Notice, at no point does the question as to whether designers, the generally observed source of FSCO/I are embodied or depend on brains to carry out design functions. So long as an entity can create directed contingent outcomes, it is capable of design. We do commonly observe embodied designers, literally from the inside out. Namely our selves. We observe similar creatures and for good reason accept they are minded too, not zombies. However there is no credible basis of observations for showing that the phenomena of conscious, self-aware, insightful thought, deciding, and the like, can and do emerge from the mechanical action of organised components and associated processing of software sequences, loops cases etc, whether using fluidic or electronic logic gates or neurons and ion flows, or relays or shafts and cogs such as in a mill (or an analogue computer) etc. That is there is no good observational basis for equating brain to mind or asserting that mind is an empiphenomenon or emergent effect of brain. This is commonly believed by those wedded to implicit or explicit a priori materialism, but that is a very different thing. Similarly, we do have the evidence of a fine tuned, contingent cosmos that points on the logic of best explanation to root source in a necessary being -- by direct implication immaterial as matter as we observe it is contingent -- with the power, skill, knowledge and intent to form such a cosmos. Thus, there is observationally grounded reason to accept at lest the possibility of an immaterial mind. Once such a possibility is at the table as of right not sufferance, no one can properly assert that our uniform experience supports that an intelligent, minded entity must be embodied or have or use a physical brain or the substantially equivalent. The soul, manifested through mind, is still very much in business. KFkairosfocus_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

RDF:
Here is a very simple summary: 1) ID says only intelligence makes CSI-rich systems. 2) We see CSI-rich systems in biology; ID says intelligence is the best explanation 3) I point out intelligence depends on CSI-rich mechanism, so it could not precede it.
Yes, sometimes you say "so it could not" as if this is a logical conclusion. But when logical objections are raised, you suddenly change what you are saying to claim you are making an empirical claim. Or that you are making no claim at all, but Meyer's claim is definitely not empirical. When it is pointed out that "our" experience isn't exactly uniform on this matter, you slide into some other objection while denying the materialistic conclusions that follow. When it is pointed out that (3) might lead to a logical infinite regress, you wave your hands and declare victory. You are really all over the map on this. So, does (3) accurately reflect what you are saying? Or does it not?
4) You say that is wrong and/or irrelevant.
For the reasons stated above, it is very difficult to say whether it is wrong or not when you keep changing the claim. As it is currently formulated, however, I would say that (3) is wrong. If (3) were necessarily true as a logical statement, then it would be relevant as such, but I suspect that it will undergo some evolution when environmental pressure is applied in the form of rational objections. And what it morphs into will likely be irrelevant. And you will likely continue to slip between a logical argument in your attempt to be relevant and an empirical argument in your attempt to support your claim.Phinehas_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

Hi Phinehas,
I understand your argument just fine. If you think otherwise, you simply don’t understand my objection to your argument.
Yes indeed - most of the argumentation on this site consists of misunderstandings, mainly on account of people using different word senses and talking past each other. Sometimes people even retreat into manufactured confusion in order to avoid being shown to be wrong. That is why I am attempting to make this argument very simple, and ask you, UB, StephenB, and so on to respond to my very simple formulations step-by-step. At least this way we should be able to pinpoint exactly what premises and what inferences we disagree about. And so, once more: 1) ID says only intelligence makes CSI-rich systems. 2) We see CSI-rich systems in biology; ID says intelligence is the best explanation 3) I point out intelligence depends on CSI-rich mechanism, so it could not precede it. 4) You say that is wrong and/or irrelevant. Now, let me make sure I understand your response: a) Perhaps you say (3) is wrong because we have no empirical grounds to say intelligence depends on CSI-rich systems b) Perhaps you say (3) is wrong because the intelligent being that caused biological systems may itself have been a CSI-rich entity It appears to me that you argue both (a) and (b) here. Is this right so far? Are there any other reasons that you believe (3) is wrong/irrelevant? Cheers, RDFishRDFish_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

@ Phinehas, #752, #754: That was hilarious and an excellent summary of the discussion.SirHamster_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

RDF:
Phin: Your argument is a non-sequitur. Your add-on conclusions do not follow from ID and have been clearly shown to be completely irrelevant to the theory.
If you think this, you simply don’t understand the argument. From what you said above, I think I see why you don’t.
I understand your argument just fine. If you think otherwise, you simply don't understand my objection to your argument.Phinehas_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Hi Phinehas, I really believe if we go step by step and keep things very simple, you will come to understand this argument. Here is a very simple summary: 1) ID says only intelligence makes CSI-rich systems. 2) We see CSI-rich systems in biology; ID says intelligence is the best explanation 3) I point out intelligence depends on CSI-rich mechanism, so it could not precede it. 4) You say that is wrong and/or irrelevant. Now, let me make sure I understand your response: a) Perhaps you say (3) is wrong because we have no empirical grounds to say intelligence depends on CSI-rich systems b) Perhaps you say (3) is wrong because the intelligent being that caused biological systems may itself have been a CSI-rich entity It appears to me that you argue both (a) and (b) here. Is this right so far? Are there any other reasons that you believe (3) is wrong/irrelevant? Cheers, RDFishRDFish_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

SH: Like I said before, sad – but I’ve learned from experience not to expect rationality from people who reject God. RDF: And what I find from religious people is that they are often unable to comport themselves politely in debate. I am not attacking you or your rationality, but you choose to insult me and anyone else who doesn’t share your religious views. To be honest, I find your arguments poorly stated, and that you are generally ignorant of philosophy and science, and that your responses are far less cogent than many of the other debaters here.
You are not being polite in debate when you repeatedly assert a refuted statement. I am simply choosing to acknowledge the true state of our debate. It isn't about whether you share my religious views - it's whether you acknowledge the evidence that opposes your preferred position. (that your claim of common experience is not uniform "invariable" common experience) Asserted a known false statement can only be described as irrational. It's almost as if you hope that if you keep repeating it, people will accept the false premise and adopt your unsupported conclusion. If you are interested in truth, there is no rational justification for that. If you are not interested in truth, then there is no common goal between us. I accept that I am not as learned and precise as most of the other commenters here; but I know that I am not making the logical mistakes you are, and I gave you the benefit of doubt before making any judgement.SirHamster_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

RDF:
Does our uniform and repeated experience not support the assertion that rocks are incapable of producing complex physical mechanisms?
Our uniform and repeated experience does support this assertion.
Does our uniform and repeated experience not support the assertion that complex physical mechanisms do not appear out of thin air?
Our uniform and repeated experience also supports this assertion. Now what?Phinehas_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

Continuing analogy...
RDF: Either there was water in the swimming pool when Fred drowned or there was no water in the swimming pool when Fred drowned. Based on our uniform and repeated experience, Fred cannot drown where there is no water, since water is required for drowning. But we can see quite clearly that there is no water in the swimming pool, so Fred cannot have drowned. UB: Really. Swimming pools, whether filled or empty are irrelevant. We know that Fred drowned because there is water in his lungs. That's as far as FRED THEORY goes. If it addressed swimming pools, then you might have a point, but it really doesn't. RDF: It has to! Because, obviously, no one can drown in an empty swimming pool. If you are arguing that someone can drown in an empty swimming pool, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. UB: No, that's not what I'm arguing at all. RDF: No one has been able to refute my argument, so I proclaim myself the winner of this debate! FRED THEORISTS (collectively): *sigh*
Phinehas_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

Hi Phinehas,
Our uniform and repeated experience does indeed support the assertion that disembodied beings are capable of producing complex physical mechanisms. Nope. Rather: Our uniform and repeated experience does not support the assertion that disembodied beings are incapable of producing complex physical mechanisms.
Oh, really? Does our uniform and repeated experience not support the assertion that rocks are incapable of producing complex physical mechanisms? Does our uniform and repeated experience not support the assertion that complex physical mechanisms do not appear out of thin air? Come on, Phinehas.
Your argument is a non-sequitur. Your add-on conclusions do not follow from ID and have been clearly shown to be completely irrelevant to the theory.
If you think this, you simply don't understand the argument. From what you said above, I think I see why you don't. Cheers, RDFishRDFish_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

RDF: A much more appropriate analogy:
In our experience, dead people found with water in their lungs have drowned. FRED THEORY observes that Fred was found dead at the bottom of a swimming pool with water in his lungs, and concludes that Fred drowned. RDFish challenges FRED THEORY by pointing out that the particular pool Fred was found in had no water in it, and that you cannot drown without water. UB fights back: FRED THEORY has nothing to do with swimming pools. Why are you bringing up swimming pools? This has nothing to do with swimming pools. It doesn’t matter if there is a swimming pool or not. Swimming pools are completely irrelevant to our findings, since Fred can have water in his lungs whether he is found in a swimming pool filled with water or one that is completely dry. He could even be found someplace that doesn't have a swimming pool at all. This devastates your argument. We know that Fred drowned because there is water in his lungs. Period. RDF: But there's no water in the swimming pool, and water is required in order to drown! FRED THEORISTS: *sigh*
Phinehas_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

RDF: Mischaracterization:
Our uniform and repeated experience does indeed support the assertion that disembodied beings are capable of producing complex physical mechanisms.
Nope. Rather: Our uniform and repeated experience does not support the assertion that disembodied beings are incapable of producing complex physical mechanisms. Mischaracterization:
ID does not try to explain the origin of life; it only tries to explain the information required for cellular life on Earth.
Nope. Rather: ID does not try to explain the origin of any sort of life that it cannot observe; it only tries to explain the origin of the information in the cellular life it can observe. And, more to the point: Your argument is a non-sequitur. Your add-on conclusions do not follow from ID and have been clearly shown to be completely irrelevant to the theory.Phinehas_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

Hi UprightBiPed, Let's take it step by step: The ID supporter speaks of empirically supporting a “design inference”. Right? I would like to evaluate whether or not this "design inference" is empirically justified. OK? As far as I can tell, when you make a "design inference" about X, you are saying that X was designed by some intelligent entity. Do you agree? Thus, in order to assess the validity of this "design inference", I would like to see if it is consistent with the evidence at hand that this intelligent entity was present when X was designed. Does that make sense to you? In order to assess how likely it was that this intelligent entity was present when X was designed, I'd like to consider the possible properties of this entity and compare it to what we know about the environment when X first appeared. Does that seem reasonable? I'm going to stop there, because I'm pretty sure you've already objected to my reasoning. I think you are going to say that the properties of the designer are irrelevant to the design inference. Here is a little analogy to illustrate how you miss the relevance of my point:
In our experience, dead people at the bottom of swimming pools have drown. FRED THEORY observes that Fred was found dead at the bottom of a swimming pool, and concludes that Fred drown. RDFish challenges FRED THEORY by pointing out that the particular pool Fred drown in had no water in it, and that you cannot drown without water. UB fights back: FRED THEORY has nothing to do with water! Don't mention water! This has nothing to do with water! It doesn't matter if there is water there or not! We know that Fred drown!!!
Cheers, RDFishRDFish_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

F/N 3: Do I need to explicitly state that inductive reasoning is generally understood to be a cornerstone of scientific reasoning? If so, I just did. KFkairosfocus_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

F/N 3: I trust also that comment 744 above, especially the markup at point 15, shows why it is so often necessary to craft statements about design theory with the care and complexity given to legal contract terms. When apparently simple and plausible alterations of ID key claims so often turn out to be loaded with all sorts of ideological implications, one should realise there is a reason why the likes of Dembski, Meyer and Richards hold PhDs in philosophy. Their statements, I find, are extremely carefully balanced, however simple they may appear. Before modifying, I would be very careful to consider the implications of alterations. And, it is apparent to me that in some cases the accusations of importing "the supernatural" are a reflection of the mindset of objectors who are locked into explicit or implicit a priori materialism complaining about things that do not have the question-begging ideological loading they want, viz, materialism. KFkairosfocus_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

F/N 2: On inductive reasoning about unobserved phenomena from their traces on the like causes like vera causa principle, again [with adjustments]:
a: The actual past (or some other unobserved event, entity or phenomenon . . . ) A leaves traces t, which we observe. (Try out deer tracks, cf here.) b: We observe a cause C that produces consequence s which is materially similar to t c: We identify that on empirical investigation and repeated observation, s reliably results from C. d: C is ALSO the only empirically warranted source of s. _____________________________ e: C is the best explanation for t, viewed here as an instance of s. This is glorified common sense.
I hope this with the onward linked will help us refocus on the inductive logic behind the design inference on reliable tested signs. And yes, abductive reasoning is a species of inductive reasoning. (Inductive reasoning, being used in the more modern sense of arguments whose premises and underlying empirical observations etc are held to make conclusions materially more credibly probable or at least plausible [no specific numerical quantification for the probability being required . . . ), rather than certainly following from premises beyond all doubt.) KFkairosfocus_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT}

Claudius: I do confess to being totally co0nfused by you, as it never dawned on me that you could even consider that I would believe that there is counter evidence that overturns the inference on signs such as FSCO/I to design, but would continue to support the design inference on FSCO/I. In that context of your evident projections and inferences, to speak of evident selective hyperskepticism on your part is not an insult, but a description of a double standard in reasoning that exerts an unwarranted stringency in dealing with what you disagree with that would reveal its lack of warrant if applied to things that you do not object to. It is obvious that his is being used to distract and polarise, so let me clip 610 to set the record straight:
[KF, 610 citing:] RDF, 606:
Here are two statements of experience: 1) Complex mechanism invariably arises from intelligent actions 2) Intelligent actions invariably arise from complex mechanisms Both deal with both experience (always) and non-experience (never)
Neither of these is a proper summary of our observations and analyses. Both are ideologically loaded with in effect Hume’s selectively hyperskeptical filtering out of contrary observations, and implicitly appeal to scientism and materialism (probably in the guise of methodological materialism.) The observations and analysis that point to a fine tuned contingent cosmos decisively undercut the “invariably” claims, as pointed out already. Once fine tuning and design of the observed cosmos are reasonable possibilities rooted in observation and analysis, one has no right to confidently assert uniform or invariable observation that complex functionally specific organisation traces to embodiment . . .
Notice the immediately following point on how both the statements are loaded with Hume's skepticism? That should suffice to show my context for the term "proper summary," i.e I spoke to ideologically loaded reframing. Which as I have just shown at 744, and in other remarks above by many others, and by myself, is unfortunately a characteristic pattern in RDF's arguments. It is only when the first sentence is taken utterly out of context and exported to an alien and loaded one that should have immediately flagged itself as utterly implausible and inconsistent with character on any reasonable reading, that the notion that I am asserting that there are valid counter-examples to the reliability of FSCO/I as an index of design, but am still advocating what I know to be falsified empirically, could have been entertained. So assertions about an own goal on an ambiguity that is credible, are greatly exaggerated. KFkairosfocus_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

CLAVDIVS, you state:
1. I did not argue against life after death, o teller of falsehoods. I pointed out the weakness of evidence in relation to NDE.
And here is your entire post in context where people can judge for themselves: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/please-take-the-time-to-understand-our-arguments-before-you-attack-them/#comment-477334 I do not see any where in your post any room for your caveat. i.e. you listed no strengths whatsoever! Nor did I see you acknowledge strengths that were presented to you subsequently. Thus, as far as I can tell from how you have presented yourself thus far you are arguing against NDEs! Thus the only way you could call me a liar is if you thought I could read your mind (which would be another proof for a transcendent soul by the way)! I really don't care what you believe but like I said before if you don't want to be treated like a mentally ill atheists don't act like one (oh disingenuous one!)!bornagain77_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT}

F/N 709:
The reason I say that ID supporters try to prohibit talk about “design” is because they refuse to entertain any discussion about their specific claims. For example, I may try to understand exactly what sorts of things are encompassed by the phrase “some intelligent entity E”, and as far as I can tell, it consists of the following disjunction: 1) An intelligent entity that is similar to life as we know it; in particular with complex physical mechanisms that humans require to store and process information. OR 2) An intelligent entity that is NOT similar to life as we know it, WITHOUT complex physical mechanisms that humans require to store and process information.
1 --> It is blatantly false that ID supporters try to forbid discussion of design. Cf WmAD and J Witt on design (as I cite, HT CL of ENV, early in Section A of my IOSE intro-summary page, to lead into the discussion of what design theory is about):
We know from experience that intelligent agents build intricate machines that need all their parts to function [[--> i.e. he is specifically discussing "irreducibly complex" objects, structures or processes for which there is a core group of parts all of which must be present and properly arranged for the entity to function (cf. here, here and here)], things like mousetraps and motors. And we know how they do it -- by looking to a future goal and then purposefully assembling a set of parts until they’re a working whole. Intelligent agents, in fact, are the one and only type of thing we have ever seen doing this sort of thing from scratch. In other words, our common experience provides positive evidence of only one kind of cause able to assemble such machines. It’s not electricity. It’s not magnetism. It’s not natural selection working on random variation. It’s not any purely mindless process. It’s intelligence . . . . When we attribute intelligent design to complex biological machines that need all of their parts to work, we’re doing what historical scientists do generally. Think of it as a three-step process: (1) locate a type of cause active in the present that routinely produces the thing in question; (2) make a thorough search to determine if it is the only known cause of this type of thing; and (3) if it is, offer it as the best explanation for the thing in question. [[William Dembski and Jonathan Witt, Intelligent Design Uncensored: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to the Controversy, pp. 20-21, 53 (InterVarsity Press, 2010). HT, CL of ENV & DI.]
2 --> Immediately following, I cite Stephen Meyer from his rebuttal to a negative review of Signature in the Cell by Falk:
The central argument of my book is that intelligent design—the activity of a conscious and rational deliberative agent—best explains the origin of the information necessary to produce the first living cell. I argue this because of two things that we know from our uniform and repeated experience, which following Charles Darwin I take to be the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. First, intelligent agents have demonstrated the capacity to produce large amounts of functionally specified information (especially in a digital form). Second, no undirected chemical process has demonstrated this power. Hence, intelligent design provides the best—most causally adequate—explanation for the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life from simpler non-living chemicals. [he is of course discussing int eh particular context of OOL] In other words, intelligent design is the only explanation that cites a cause known to have the capacity to produce the key effect in question . . . . In order to [[scientifically refute this inductive conclusion] Falk would need to show that some undirected material cause has [[empirically] demonstrated the power to produce functional biological information apart from the guidance or activity a designing mind. Neither Falk, nor anyone working in origin-of-life biology, has succeeded in doing this . . . . As the pioneering information theorist Henry Quastler once observed, “the creation of information is habitually associated with conscious activity.” And, of course, he was right. Whenever we find information—whether embedded in a radio signal, carved in a stone monument, written in a book or etched on a magnetic disc—and we trace it back to its source, invariably we come to mind, not merely a material process. Thus, the discovery of functionally specified, digitally encoded information along the spine of DNA, provides compelling positive evidence of the activity of a prior designing intelligence. This conclusion is not based upon what we don’t know. It is based upon what we do know from our uniform experience about the cause and effect structure of the world—specifically, what we know about what does, and does not, have the power to produce large amounts of specified information . . .
3 --> And as I close off that section, I cite this from WmAD in NFL:
. . . (1) A designer conceives a purpose. (2) To accomplish that purpose, the designer forms a plan. (3) To execute the plan, the designer specifies building materials and assembly instructions. (4) Finally, the designer or some surrogate applies the assembly instructions to the building materials. (No Free Lunch, p. xi. HT: ENV.)
4 --> Scrolling up and clicking the resources tab that appears on every UD page, we may see the following in the UD glossary:
Design — purposefully directed contingency. That is, the intelligent, creative manipulation of possible outcomes (and usually of objects, forces, materials, processes and trends) towards goals. (E.g. 1: writing a meaningful sentence or a functional computer program. E.g. 2: loading of a die to produce biased, often advantageous, outcomes. E.g. 3: the creation of a complex object such as a statue, or a stone arrow-head, or a computer, or a pocket knife.) Intelligence – Wikipedia aptly and succinctly defines: “capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn.” Intelligent design [ID] – Dr William A Dembski, a leading design theorist, has defined ID as “the science that studies signs of intelligence.” That is, as we ourselves instantiate [thus exemplify as opposed to “exhaust”], intelligent designers act into the world, and create artifacts. When such argents act, there are certain characteristics that commonly appear, and that – per massive experience — reliably mark such artifacts. It it therefore a reasonable and useful scientific project to study such signs and identify how we may credibly reliably infer from empirical sign to the signified causal factor: purposefully directed contingency or intelligent design. Among the signs of intelligence of current interest for research are . . . [gives cases in more detail than I wish to reproduce here]
5 --> So, plainly, the notion that ID thinkers and even this blog's participants refuse to discuss design, is false and misleading, is easily shown to be false, and to say such as RDF did, is a defiance of duties of care to truth and fairness. 6 --> Why the sledgehammer to crack a walnut approach? Because it also shows up something else, the way in which ID thinkers have focussed what intelligence and design are, as a functional capacity in the first case and as a process that is known to be carried out by agents [and only known to be carried out by agents] that leaves traces of intelligently directed configuration in the resulting artifacts. All, without prior metaphysical commitment on what the underlying nature of agents capable of designing is. 7 --> This highlights how RDF injects a red herring led away to an irrelevant and ideologically loaded, polarising strawman caricature by trying to shift subject to the nature of designers rather than what ID is actually about, observing that designers exist and work in a particular way and are the only entities known to be able to cause certain observable effects such as FSCO/I:
1) An intelligent entity that is similar to life as we know it; in particular with complex physical mechanisms that humans require to store and process information. OR 2) An intelligent entity that is NOT similar to life as we know it, WITHOUT complex physical mechanisms that humans require to store and process information.
8 --> Now notice, how having started with an accusation about design, RDF is now trying to shift discussion to the nature of designers and in effect whether or no such can only be warranted as embodied. 9 --> The specific scientifically relevant claim of design thinkers in the context of the world of life [the major focus for debates over ID] is about design as a process and empirical signs pointing to this as best causal explanation, not a discussion that speculates on the nature of designers as embodied or not. 10 --> And when it comes to the secondary focus on what intelligence is, that is understood as a functional capacity and facility exhibited by certain observed entities,t hen extended to the possibilities of anything else that may show a similar facility. Beavers for instance, and possibly one day robots, or going the other way the traditional possibilities up to and including God. But this is a much broader discussion than science, it is essentially philosophy at this point, specifically metaphysics. 11 --> Where, as consistently pointed out and equally consistently conveniently and studiously ignored, it has been highlighted by design thinkers from founding era ones such as Thaxton et al, that the scientific issues, evidence and warranted inferences on the world of life do not provide a basis for speculating on whether designers involved were within or beyond the cosmos. That is, patently, post Venter et al, a molecular nanotech lab is sufficient to potentially account for what we see in cell based life on earth. 12 --> However, there is a second major area of design thought in science, that focusses on evidence of a fine tuned cosmos set up to a deeply isolated operating point that facilitates C-chemistry, aqueous medium cell based life, from literally the laws of physics on up. In wider context this warrants inference to an extra cosmic designer as the basis for the fine tuning, and beyond that raises issues of contingency of being for the cosmos pointing to a necessary being as its causal root, even through a multiverse speculation (which as Collins discusses, will require fine tuning as well). 13 --> In that wider context of discussion, it is reasonable and possible to have an intelligent, necessary and powerful being at the root of the existence of the cosmos. Where, a necessary being will not be material -- a condition or embodiment -- as matter is inherently contingent, courtesy inter alia E = m* c^2. 14 --> All, in a context that is indeed anchored deeply in empirical, scientific evidence. So any attempt to pretend that the only empirically supported possibly intelligent entities are embodied ones, is based on willfully ignoring repeatedly presented evidence (and onward links for details) pointing to this case. 15 --> And since there is a tendency to miss the rhetorical reframing and subject-changing twists and turns in the phrasing used, let me again clip and modify the remarks by RDF on alternatives for intelligent agents in his "dichotomy":
1) An intelligent entity that is similar to ~~life as we know it~~ [the observed case we know from the inside, the conscious, self-aware, insightful and reflective human mind]; in particular with ~~complex physical mechanisms~~ [brains or the substantially functionally equivalent] that humans ~~require~~ [normally use] to store and process information. [Where also, processing of information by mechanical action of ion flows, synapses etc is -- e.g. on the Searle Chinese Room or the Leibnitz mill -- evidently qualitatively different from the process of self-aware insightful thought that we know is involved in our intelligence, from the inside.] OR 2) An intelligent entity that is NOT similar to ~~life as we know it~~ [observed consciously intelligent, brain using biological life], WITHOUT complex physical mechanisms [in the brain] that humans ~~require~~ [commonly use] to store and process information. [Where also, processing of information by mechanical action of ion flows, synapses etc is -- e.g. on the Searle Chinese Room or the Leibnitz mill -- evidently qualitatively different from the process of self-aware insightful thought that we know is involved in our intelligence, from the inside.]
16 --> The markup serves to highlight the ways in which a priori commitments to materialism are subtly embedded, and questions are begged by imposing unwarranted claims such as that the mind requires the brain to process and store information. Similarly, the distinction between mechanical processing in organised processors is not properly distinguished from conscious, minded insightful thought and reasoning, leading to in effect begging questions on the roots of mindedness. 17 --> Finally, it should be noted that these points have been put into the discussion stream several times by the undersigned, and have been repeatedly studiously ignored by RDF. On fair comment on that observation, this does not fit well with the presumed interest in genuine dialogue towards a reasonable mutual understanding on RDF's part. KFkairosfocus_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT}

Hi StephenB,
[a] You want to know why you can’t retain your bizarre redefinition of intelligent agency, so I explain that there are rules for historical science that preclude such a cluttered formulation of a cause.
I proposed a definition for "intelligence" (not "intelligent agency"). My definition was the common meaning found in dictionaries - not at all "bizarre". And I even said that if you didn't like that definition, you were welcome to provide your own. And you come back and accuse me of providing a "bizarre redefinition of intelligent agency"??? And refuse to simply provide your own definition of the word as I suggested? You have really gone off the rails this time, I'm afraid. Here is the dictionary definition for the word "intelligence":
dictionary.com: capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc. And here was my definition: our mental abilities, including (but not limited to) perception, storage/recall of information, planning, language generation and understanding, and so on.
So you think this definition is "bizarre"???? That in itself is about as bizarre as it gets.
[b] You proceed by informing me that no such rules exist, which means that you can describe intelligence as a cause in any way that you like.
I beg your pardon again? No, I did not say "no rules exist." Where do you get this stuff? (I don't want to know). And no again, I did not say I can describe intelligence any way I like - I USED THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION AND EVEN ASKED FOR YOUR OWN DEFINITION! Wow!
[c] I refute your claim by presenting ten non-negotiable rules for doing historical science.
Um, you forgot to show how "intelligence" met these criteria.
[d]. You ignore the refutation and presume to critically evaluate the very same causes that you claim didn’t exist.
You haven't made a refutation yet. I suggest we agree on what this critical term "intelligence" is supposed to mean in this context (given that you have rejected the dictionary definition), and then proceed to see how "intelligence" meets these criteria you've suggested.
[e] I ask you to follow up on [a] and review your bizarre formulation in the context of the rules, which you first denied and then accepted kicking and screaming.
You get funnier later in the night :-) No kicking or screaming, Stephen. I just think it is hilarious that you think there are some "non-negotiable" rules in science! Still, I don't mind using the rules - I just couldn't resist pointing out how stupid a few of them were (the redundancy of #3,9,and 10; the contradiction of #5 and 8; and so on).
[g] You ignore the challenge and ask me to test ID theory against it.
What exactly was "my challenge"? I am not proposing an explanation that can be judged by this criterion - only you are.
At this point, I realize that you are simply arguing by attrition since you have obviously abandoned all reason.
Everything you said in this post was really, really confused, Stephen. Really - every single thing. Cheers, RDFishRDFish_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
02:25 AM
2
02
25
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 663
Sorry Clavdivs, I guess I am guilty of judging you by your actions and not by your stated belief system. (i.e. by your hypocrisy) Since you argued against life after death I took it to mean you do not believe in life after death.
1. I did not argue against life after death, o teller of falsehoods. I pointed out the weakness of evidence in relation to NDE. 2. Arguing against life after death (which I did not do, as claimed by you, o mendacious one) does not make one an atheist. 3. I'm open to the idea of life after death; I just argue against unwarranted conclusions based on weak evidence or on the ignoring of contrary evidence.CLAVDIVS_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
12:28 AM
12
12
28
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed @738:
Thus far, I have told you that I do not challenge your observation that all intelligent agents in our universal experience are materially embodied
RDFish @727:
I argue that our universal experience is that intelligence is invariably embodied, so apparently we disagree on this point.
Or not.Mung_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
12:10 AM
12
12
10
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed:
Oh good grief. Let us be honest
LOL! You thought, for a moment, however brief, that you were talking to Elizabeth Liddle?Mung_{October 23, 2013
October
10
Oct
23
23
2013
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT}

RDFish: IF ‘x’ was intelligently designed THEN it logically follows that something intelligent (let’s call that something “E”) designed X. Not controversial. But so what? You failed to introduce your probability of E in your calculation of the probability of 'x.' But who cares. RDFish: IF ‘x’ was intelligently designed THEN it logically follows that something intelligent (let’s call that something “E”) designed X. Yes. It logically follows. Your argument consists of the claim that it does not logically follow?Mung_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT}

UB: And on point #2, I argue directly against your stated position that if the agent isn’t materially embodied, it would contradict our universal experience. This is the position you adopt in order to attack Meyer, but I have already stated that the universal experience he speaks of has nothing whatsoever to do with the physical characteristics of the agent; it only has to do with the unrefuted fact that no one, under any circumstances whatsoever, ”can demonstrate the existence of a dimensional semiotic code that is not also the product of intelligent input” – the very thing you just agreed to without reservation. RDF: I argue that our universal experience is that intelligence is invariably embodied, so apparently we disagree on this point. I will be happy to have clarified our disagreement and leave it at that: You believe that our universal experience includes disembodied entities who can produce complex physical mechanisms (e.g. irreducibly complex systems), and I do not.
Thus far, I have told you that I do not challenge your observation that all intelligent agents in our universal experience are materially embodied (for instance, over 100 posts ago: “I do not challenge…”). I could not have been more clear on this point – all intelligent agents in our universal experience are materially embodied. I have also been abundantly clear that the design inference does not turn on the physical nature of the agent, it is linked (as you know) to nothing other than the material evidence in the cell. You then asked for a short concise summary of my argument, which I obliged. And here in response to that summary, you turn and willfully restate my position as being the exact opposite of what it is. One hardly needs to wonder why you must do so. This is not rational discourse, RDF. This is a con job. - - - - - - - - - - -
Please read this carefully: It is my observation – not Meyer’s – that no one, under any circumstances whatsoever, can demonstrate the existence of intelligent output absent some complex physical mechanism that stores and processes information.
Of course it’s your observation, it’s the observation you bring to bear on Meyer’s book, while you willfully ignore the fact that Meyer’s claim of universal observation is specifically about the fact that no one ”can demonstrate the existence of a dimensional semiotic code that is not also the product of intelligent input” - which as you know, has nothing whatsoever to do with disembodied agents.
You deny that this fact is relevant, but I say that it shows that at least one version of ID (the one that attempts to explain the very first CSI in the universe) is not consistent with our universal experience.
This fact you speak of is irrelevant, again as you know, to the material evidence in the cell. Having said that, can we expect you to now stop attacking Meyer’s book on this point, given that his book is about the “version of ID” where observations are made of living cells we actually observe? You are, of course, welcome to save your argument for those ID proponents who postulate the origin of unknown cells on unknown planets. As an example, when you say something like: “The essence of my argument here is that while Meyer et al pretend that their conclusions are based on our shared experience, they choose to ignore the equally obvious and valid evidence that contradicts their position” - you could be intellectually honest about the whole affair, and instead of bringing a counter-argument that has no actual disconfirming impact on Meyer’s claim, you could, in its place, either provide valid counter-evidence, or just remain appropriately silent on the matter until you can.
Given your inability to refrain from nastiness and ad hominems, it is apparent that you are desperate to prove me wrong, but experiencing that sinking feeling that you are well out of your depth here
Oh good grief. Let us be honest: You just took the first two sentences from my last post which were inseparably bound by context, and you separated them for the express purpose of restating my position 100% opposite of what it is, and you did this after being told repeatedly and specifically what my position actually was. The reason you had to separate them is because my second sentence completely eviscerates your restatement of my position. This was cheap, counter-productive, and deliberate. Now you may be one of those people who think such actions are a sign of great respect and mutual fairness, but I am not. So loose the feigned offense. More importantly, your argument here has been entirely devastated. This is evidenced by the fact that you’ve been slowly forced to re-position your argument as being effective only against a specific “version of ID”, which frankly, few if any make. The problem is, you just don’t have the ideological control to simply admit this and be done with it – or even to just stop talking. Instead, you are choosing the spectacle of beating your dead horse while whistling victory songs. It’s your call as to what extent this embarrassment of yours continues.Upright BiPed_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PDT}

RDF: [a] You want to know why you can't retain your bizarre redefinition of intelligent agency, so I explain that there are rules for historical science that preclude such a cluttered formulation of a cause. [b] You proceed by informing me that no such rules exist, which means that you can describe intelligence as a cause in any way that you like. [c] I refute your claim by presenting ten non-negotiable rules for doing historical science. [d]. You ignore the refutation and presume to critically evaluate the very same causes that you claim didn't exist. [e] I ask you to follow up on [a] and review your bizarre formulation in the context of the rules, which you first denied and then accepted kicking and screaming. [g] You ignore the challenge and ask me to test ID theory against it. At this point, I realize that you are simply arguing by attrition since you have obviously abandoned all reason.StephenB_{October 22, 2013
October
10
Oct
22
22
2013
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 29 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply