RDFish Cannot Count to Three

_{Barry Arrington
December 5, 2015

Intelligent Design

4}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

In a prior post RDFish starts off with a promisingly cogent observation:

We’re not arguing about “evolutionary adaptation”, but rather about the highly intricate, multi-component mechanisms we observe in organisms. Of course large populations and crossovers can help a bit with local optima, but saying these things will “tend to avoid” them is wishful thinking – there is just so much that can be assembled that way, which is why GAs come up with optimizations and not novel mechanisms. The important point, though, is not to argue about this in the abstract, because there is no way to demonstrate (yet) whether or not the combinatorial resources were sufficient or not.

Leading Mapou to respond:

Wow. RDFish is moving dangerously close to accepting the designer hypothesis (i.e., life requires consciousness)

To which RDFish responds indignantly:

HUH? Why in the world would you say that – I haven’t moved one iota in that direction, of course, because there isn’t a shred of evidence for it. I deny that evolutionary theory accounts for biological complexity, but that doesn’t lend any credence whatsoever to the notion that some conscious being thought up designs for all us creatures and built us somehow!

I am always amazed when one of our opponents reveals that the metaphysical blinders they are wearing restrict their vision to such a degree that they cannot see the blatantly obvious implications of their own conclusions.

Let’s lay it out step by step.

Given our current understanding of causation, there are three and only three possibilities regarding the provenance of “highly intricate, multi-component mechanisms we observe in organisms.” The first two possibilities, which in combination are often referred to as “natural causes,” are law and chance, including a combination of the two. The third possibility, Aristotle’s tertium quid, is the act of an intelligent agent.*

The project of modern evolutionary theory is to demonstrate that the highly intricate, multi-component mechanisms we observe in organisms can be reduced to purely natural causes.

The project of intelligent design is to demonstrate that intelligent agency is a better explanation for the highly intricate, multi-component mechanisms we observe in organisms.

Modern evolutionary theory and ID are playing a zero sum game. If modern evolutionary theory is correct about the sufficiency of natural causes to account for the observations, ID would be falsified. If ID is correct about the insufficiency of natural causes to account for the observations, that aspect of modern evolutionary theory would be falsified.

In the comment above, RDFish denies that evolutionary theory currently accounts for biological complexity.

Other things being equal, RDFish’s observation – to the extent it is true – undermines the standing of modern evolutionary theory.

Since we are playing a zero sum game, it follows that Mapou is generally correct; RDFish’s observation supports a design approach to the extent it undermines a non-design approach to origins, even if RDFish himself does not understand it.

RDfish again: “I deny that evolutionary theory accounts for biological complexity, but that doesn’t lend any credence whatsoever to the notion that some conscious being thought up designs for all us creatures and built us somehow!”

Uh, Fish, since it is one or the other, denying that one can explain the observations does tend to lend credence to the other (which is not to say that it establishes it, but it does tend in that direction).

__________

*There may, of course, be an unknown quartium quid (a fourth causal force in addition to law, chance and agency) that has escaped detection from the time of Aristotle to this moment. That is why I qualify with “given our current understanding of causation.” We do not know what we do not know, but if we must choose based on what we do know, there are only three choices.

Comments

RDFish responding to aqueels
Empirical science demonstrates laws, and even SB acknowledges that. As far as the “underlying basis” for lawlike regularities, I have no idea why there are lawlike regularities, and neither does anyone else (it was Einstein’s favorite question).
Are you saying that science can demonstrate the existence of natural causes (as we both define them?) That is the main issue, you know.
There is no way to demonstrate that intelligent agency involves causation that is ontologically distinct from all other cause.
But the question is, as I have been insisting all along, whether or not science can demonstrate the existence of ANY kind of cause, including a natural cause.
With regard to the truth of the claim that intelligent behaviors require an ontologically distinct cause, this is simply the metaphysical claim of dualism, which cannot be put to empirical test.
The claim is not that agent causes require a different kind of cause. The claim is that agent causes are a different kind of cause. So, once again, I present the questions: Is a murderer (agent cause) a categorically different kind of cause than an accidental death (natural cause) or is it not? Is a burglar (agent cause) a categorically different kind of cause than a tornado (natural cause) or is it not?StephenB_{December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

Hi aqeels,
Please respond to SB’s question in relation to the ontological reality of chance/ law and it’s underlying basis.
I did: Empirical science demonstrates laws, and even SB acknowledges that. As far as the "underlying basis" for lawlike regularities, I have no idea why there are lawlike regularities, and neither does anyone else (it was Einstein's favorite question).
...vindicate your own position in relation to your refusal to accept the reality of intelligent agency.
I have said over and over again, I am not denying the reality of "intelligent agency". I am saying two things about "intelligent agency": (1) It lacks an empirically useful definition in the context of ID, and (2) There is no way to demonstrate that intelligent agency involves causation that is ontologically distinct from all other cause.
We are not trying to catch you out – rather we are trying to understand your position.
Great!
If you say that we have no certain way of being sure about the underlying basis of chance/ law other than the fact that we routinely observe it,
Yes I would say that is true.
... then we are fully entitled to ask why you will not accept the obvious observations of what intelligent agency can produce and how it differs from the very thing that you believe exists as a distinct ontological category, namely chance/ law?
With regard to an empirical definition of "intelligent agency": Simply explain what you mean by "intelligent agency" and we can then see if there is an objective way to distinguish all intelligent agents from the rest of reality. SB says that intelligent agency is distinguished by the fact that all intelligent agents, and nothing else, "arranges matter for a purpose". Would you agree with this description? Anything to add? With regard to the truth of the claim that intelligent behaviors require an ontologically distinct cause, this is simply the metaphysical claim of dualism, which cannot be put to empirical test. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

Zachriel:
Intent and volition, however, are specific to knowledge of human behavior and psychology,
Other animals exhibit it also. And yes, the design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.Virgil Cain_{December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

RDFish, Please respond to SB's question in relation to the ontological reality of chance/ law and it's underlying basis. SB and a few others have repeatedly asked you, but you refuse to engage. A child could appreciate the question, but you have completely ignored it as being either incoherent, or irrelevant. I can assure you that anyone following the argument and who is not completely biased will see that it's of central importance, not only to the ID position, but also to vindicate your own position in relation to your refusal to accept the reality of intelligent agency. We are not trying to catch you out - rather we are trying to understand your position. If you say that we have no certain way of being sure about the underlying basis of chance/ law other than the fact that we routinely observe it, then we are fully entitled to ask why you will not accept the obvious observations of what intelligent agency can produce and how it differs from the very thing that you believe exists as a distinct ontological category, namely chance/ law? Thanks, aqeels.aqeels_{December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

StephenB: No, I was simply correcting your misguided notions about forensic scientists and your uninformed claim that they are looking only for the existence of “human beings,” rather than something much more important, namely the purpose and intent behind their actions. Forensic investigators do look for evidence of intent and volition (depending on the jurisdiction). http://www.pathologyoutlines.com/topic/forensicscauses.html Intent and volition, however, are specific to knowledge of human behavior and psychology, and this area has become more specialized over time. http://www.apa.org/ed/graduate/specialize/forensic.aspxZachriel_{December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

Hi RDFish:
It is up to the court, not the forensic investigators, to establish intent and purpose.
Reference please. This is the heart of the problem. RDFish thinks its ignorant spewage is actual evidence and means something. If only RDFish could support what it posts cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain_{December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

RDFish
Wow, you really are so confused about the legal system.
No, I was simply correcting your misguided notions about forensic scientists and your uninformed claim that they are looking only for the existence of “human beings,” rather than something much more important, namely the purpose and intent behind their actions.
First, guilt, intent, and purpose are all things that are never decided by forensic investigators or by policemen.
You are profoundly confused. Forensic scientists look for evidence of these things. The court makes the final decision. If there was no evidence of purpose, intent, and guilt, then there would be no charges and the court would not be involved.
I always answer your questions, even though you have been dodging my questions about what scientific meaning “intelligent agency” might have for years.
Everyone knows that you have been dodging my questions. Meanwhile, I have defined an intelligent agent (many times) as one who has the ability to “arrange matter for a purpose.” Why do you pretend not to know this?
I take “law” to mean the same thing as “law-like regularities”. You have said “We have already established that law-like regularities exist. That is obvious.” So this doesn’t seem to be in doubt.
Even when you promise not to dodge, you dodge. I am not asking about my position, I am asking about your position. For my part, I understand that both intelligent agency and law/chance exist because their existence is self-evidently true. I also have stated that science cannot prove it. So, I am asking how YOU know that law/chance exists. Is it self evidently true, or does science prove it? Or, do you know it some other way. SB: Meanwhile, you have quietly abandoned your claim that we can never “rule out” natural causes. I refuted that claim, but you have been silent on the matter ever since.
HUH? You are so funny when you pretend that I am dodging some question or changing my mind about something. I have never done either of these things debating with you, but you hope against hope that I will.
You dodge with regularity
Anyway, if by “natural causes” you mean “anything aside from human action” (which is the common definition of the term), then obviously you can rule out “natural causes” for something by showing that a human being was responsible.
Hilarious. Yet another dodge. The design inference does not determine that human agency is responsible and then rule out natural causes; it rules out natural causes and then determines that human agency is responsible. You have claimed that we cannot reasonably rule out natural causes and cannot, therefore. make a design inference. Your rationale has something to do with the alleged possibility that there might be some other kind of natural cause that we don’t know about. My question to you—again—is this: Have you abandoned that position or do you still hold to it?
Now, please answer mine:
With pleasure.
What objectively observable characteristics do all “intelligent agents” have in common?
They arrange matter for a purpose.StephenB_{December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT}

Hi StephenB,
No, they are looking for evidence of someone who committed a criminal act with intent and purpose.
No, wrong again: It is up to the court, not the forensic investigators, to establish intent and purpose. You are claiming that forensic experts learn all about "intelligent agents", and I say all they learn about is how to find evidence regarding what exactly happened and who or what was responsible. Maybe it was a person, maybe an animal, maybe a robot, maybe a tornado, maybe a bomb, maybe an exploding boiler. They try figure it out, and it has nothing with some abstract class of beings called "intelligent agents". Again, let's just agree to disagree about this. You can pretend that forensic science talks about "intelligent agency", and we can move on.
Try to step back and think–really think– about this. To say that the murderer is a “human being” is to say nothing at all. The forensic scientists are not looking for evidence of his humanity. They are looking for evidence of his guilt, as expressed by his intent and purpose.
Wow, you really are so confused about the legal system. Here's two things you need to understand: First, guilt, intent, and purpose are all things that are never decided by forensic investigators or by policemen. Rather, they always decided in a court of law. And second, there is only one type of entity that can ever be accused of a crime, and that is a human being. If investigators find that anything else was responsible - a chimpanzee, a snake, a tornado, a swarm of wasps - then there is no crime to prosecute.
RDF: This is truly pathetic. Why do you pretend I say things that I don’t say? SB: I am simply speculating about what answers you might provide
Well that's stupid and irritating - how about if you stop doing that?
... if you would only do me the courtesy of answering my questions–at least once in a while. My last statement, the one you find so offensive, was a question, not a claim.
Really? Here was your "question":
So, are you saying that science cannot prove the existence of law/chance? Excellent! Tell me then how you “know” that law/chance exists since you now agree with me that science cannot prove it.
That's not a question, SB. It's obvious that you put words into my mouth and build these stupid strawmen because you can't actually respond to what I argue here.
You have stated that we (and by implication, you) “know” that law/chance exists.
You really want to take this diversion so you don't have to address my argument. Well, fine - I always answer your questions, even though you have been dodging my questions about what scientific meaning "intelligent agency" might have for years. And so I shall answer you yet again: I take "law" to mean the same thing as "law-like regularities". You have said "We have already established that law-like regularities exist. That is obvious." So this doesn't seem to be in doubt. I have said that "chance" is a thorny issue, and don't really see the need to start discussing the nature of randomness. You agreed, and said "I agree. Chance is not relevant." Now you want to start asking how we know that law-like regularities exist. You've already said they do, and that it is obvious that they do. So why do you want to question them? I'll tell you why: Because you have no response to my argument, so you will do anything to sidetrack the discussion.
Meanwhile, you have quietly abandoned your claim that we can never “rule out” natural causes. I refuted that claim, but you have been silent on the matter ever since.
HUH? You are so funny when you pretend that I am dodging some question or changing my mind about something. I have never done either of these things debating with you, but you hope against hope that I will. Anyway, if by "natural causes" you mean "anything aside from human action" (which is the common definition of the term), then obviously you can rule out "natural causes" for something by showing that a human being was responsible.
So, what is your answer: On the matter of detecting the cause of a disordered living room, can we rule out natural causes or not?
I just answered this. If you have evidence that a human being did it, then "natural causes" would not, by definition, be the cause. Otherwise, yes.
If the dresser drawers are empty and the jewelry is gone, can we rule out the tornado and affirm the presence of a burglar.
Yes, that's likely to be true.
Or, are you open to the possibility that the tornado may have run off with the jewelry and sold it at a pawn shop?
No, tornados do not do this - only human beings do.
What is your answer?
I have just answered every mind-numbingly stupid question you have asked. Now, please answer mine: What objectively observable characteristics do all "intelligent agents" have in common? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 8, 2015
December
12
Dec
8
08
2015
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT}

Hi RDFish:
1) There is no way to empirically test the conjecture that human intelligence (or anything else) is ontologically distinct from all other forms of causation.
And yet we have entire scientific fields dedicated to doing that very thing, ie showing tHat human causation, and other intentional agency causation, is ontologically distinct from all other causes
2) There is no definition of “intelligence” that (a) is similar to what we refer to as intelligent behavior in human beings, and (b) can be empirically evaluated in the context of ID.
And yet you have been provided with such a definition. Then you whined, blew a gasket, ran away and now you are back spewing the same ole refuted nonsense.
1) DUALISM IS A METAPHYSICAL CLAIM, NOT A SCIENTIFIC FACT.
DUALISM IS A STARTING POINT, IE AN ASSUMPTION IN AN ARGUMENT. IT CAN BE POTENTIALLY FALSIFIED THEREBY DESTROYING ANY AND ALL ARGUMENTS BASED ON IT. IT ALSO HAS THE POTENTIAL OF BEING CONFIRMED. SCIENCE IS A RISKY BUSINESS. WE TAKE RISKS TO ADVANCE ARGUMENTS AND TEASE OUT THE PARTICULARS OF WHATEVER WE ARE INVESTIGATING/ TRYING TO EXPLAIN.
2) “INTELLIGENCE” MUST BE EMPIRICALLY DEFINED TO HAVE SCIENTIFIC MEANING
AND IT IS. THANKS FOR PLAYING. cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain_{December 8, 2015
December
12
Dec
8
08
2015
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

RDFish
You say that forensic scientists look for evidence of a broad class of entities that they call “intelligent agents”, and I say you’re wrong, and that forensic scientsts instead look specifically for evidence of human beings and only human beings. (I have allowed for the improbable, but possible exception of other animals such as chimps to have been identified at some point by some forensic team).
No, they are looking for evidence of someone who committed a criminal act with intent and purpose. The mere presence of another “human being” does not settle the question about murder or accidental death. That other person could have simply witnessed an accident. The issue is the process by which an accident is ruled out as one kind of cause and murder is affirmed as the better of two possible explanations. It is understood that nature cannot act with intent and purpose. That is why natural causes can be ruled out. At this point in the investigation, the attributes of the killer are not necessarily relevant. It also doesn’t matter whether the killer is characterized as an intelligent cause, an intelligent agent, a murderer, an incorrigible miscreant, or a human being. The only thing that counts is this: Was the act intentional and purposeful.
You say that murderers and burglars may be any sort of thing at all that belong to some broad, abstract class of entities called “intelligent agents”. I disagree, and say that according to the law, murder and burglary are crimes that only “human beings” – and nothing else – can commit.
Try to step back and think--really think-- about this. To say that the murderer is a “human being” is to say nothing at all. The forensic scientists are not looking for evidence of his humanity. They are looking for evidence of his guilt, as expressed by his intent and purpose. SB: So, are you saying that science cannot prove the existence of law/chance?
This is truly pathetic. Why do you pretend I say things that I don’t say? Because you lose every argument we have, and your only option is to make things up, that’s why. Don’t you realize all of our words remain on this page so anyone interested can actually see you lying about what I say?
I am simply speculating about what answers you might provide if you would only do me the courtesy of answering my questions--at least once in a while. My last statement, the one you find so offensive, was a question, not a claim. So, back to substance. You have stated that we (and by implication, you) “know” that law/chance exists. Do you think science proves it? Or, is this knowledge something you arrived at through common sense. The latter seems unlikely since you carry on endlessly about how scientific knowledge often trumps common sense and how ID shouldn’t justify the existence of intelligent agents as a category of causes by appealing to that same common sense. So, if you don’t think common sense is a reliable way of knowing that intelligent causes or natural causes exist, I can only conclude that you think science can prove them. However, I cannot know for sure until you tell me. I didn’t create all this confusion. It stems from your unwillingness to face up to your double standard of setting the bar ridiculously low for yourself and ridiculously high for ID. Meanwhile, you have quietly abandoned your claim that we can never "rule out" natural causes. I refuted that claim, but you have been silent on the matter ever since. So, what is your answer: On the matter of detecting the cause of a disordered living room, can we rule out natural causes or not? If the dresser drawers are empty and the jewelry is gone, can we rule out the tornado and affirm the presence of a burglar. Or, are you open to the possibility that the tornado may have run off with the jewelry and sold it at a pawn shop? What is your answer?StephenB_{December 8, 2015
December
12
Dec
8
08
2015
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

Hi vividbleau, Nice to hear from you.
StephenB is asking a question not pretending to say things you don’t say at least that seems to me a fair reading.
Uh, nope: Read it again in context:
SB: The issue is whether or not science can prove law/chance on the basis of empirical evidence. You say that it can. I am asking you to defend that claim.
Here, he pretends that I have said that "science can prove law/chance". But I have never said any such thing, and I do not know what that means, and I tell him so:
RDF: I have no idea what you’re talking about. What does it mean to “prove law/chance”? Where did I say anything of the sort?
Instead of apologizing and responding to that, he says this:
SB: So, are you saying that science cannot prove the existence of law/chance? Excellent! Tell me then how you “know” that law/chance exists since you now agree with me that science cannot prove it.
Not only does he falsely state that I claimed science can "prove law/chance" (whatever that means!), he goes on to pretend I somehow changed my mind about something and now agree with him that it can't be proven. It's all just crazy nonsense from him - he'll do anything to keep from admitting he can't counter my arguments.
Have you answered Stephens question? Maybe that’s part of the confusion?
I've answered him endlessly.
Can science prove the existence of law and chance?
Here is what I've answered:
Instead of talking about that, however, you choose to question whether “law/chance exists”. But you already agreed that lawlike regularities exist.[he again confirmed this!]. And as far as “chance” goes, the concept is actually pretty thorny, but I don’t see the relevance of randomness to this discussion.[he agreed with this too!]
Again, my points here are: 1) There is no way to empirically test the conjecture that human intelligence (or anything else) is ontologically distinct from all other forms of causation. 2) There is no definition of "intelligence" that (a) is similar to what we refer to as intelligent behavior in human beings, and (b) can be empirically evaluated in the context of ID. To clarify: 1) DUALISM IS A METAPHYSICAL CLAIM, NOT A SCIENTIFIC FACT. Every type of cause is different - polar bears are different from termites which are different from lightning bolts, humans, rivers, tornados, beavers, soap film, and dogs. Electro-magnetism is different from the strong nuclear force which is different from gravity. Dualists such as StephenB (and all other ID proponents that I have discussed this with) hold that mental causes are ontologically different from all other types of causes - everything else is the same ontological type of cause, while intelligence is held to be some entirely other type of cause. I point out this is merely a metaphysical conjecture, not something that can be scientifically tested and confirmed. ID assumes, then, that intelligent causes are ontologically distinct from all other causes, which makes ID a metaphysical position rather than a scientific theory. 2) "INTELLIGENCE" MUST BE EMPIRICALLY DEFINED TO HAVE SCIENTIFIC MEANING Saying something is "intelligent" is scientifically meaningless unless one provides some particular meaning for the term. Various definitions of intelligence talk about various basic mental abilities, such as learning, short- and long-term memory, reading and writing in natural (general-purpose) languages, solving novel (not previously seen by the subject) problems in math and logic, and so on. These abilities do not necessarily occur together; there is no scientific reason to assume that just because something has one of these abilities, it is likely to have the others. In human beings we find these abilities often (but not always) co-occur, and also that they co-occur with conscious awareness. But in something radically different from human beings - like whatever it was that caused living things to exist! - we have no way to evaluate what - if any - mental abilities would be involved. Nor can we say if conscious awareness is the (or one) causal factor involved in mental tasks, or if it is merely perceptual. Many mental abilities proceed without conscious awareness; we have no reason to assume that the cause of living things possessed conscious awareness. And if there was no conscious awareness, terms such as "foresight" become ambiguous - what does it mean to have "foresight" if one is not conscious? All we can say is that whatever caused living systems to occur obviously had the ability to produce what we observe in living systems - which of course is not a helpful statement at all. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 8, 2015
December
12
Dec
8
08
2015
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

RE 52 Hi RDF StephenB is asking a question not pretending to say things you don't say at least that seems to me a fair reading. Have you answered Stephens question? Maybe that's part of the confusion? Can science prove the existence of law and chance? Maybe you have if so where? Very interested on your take on this. Thanks Vividvividbleau_{December 8, 2015
December
12
Dec
8
08
2015
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

Hi RDFish:
You cannot prove that human intelligence or anything else transcends physical cause,...
Science isn't about proof, but science can, for the sake of making and/ or advancing an argument, make the assumption one way or another.
... and I’m saying that there is no definition of “intelligent agency” that is both empirically meaningful and supports ID’s claims.
And you have been proven to be wrong on that claim. Just because you can ignore all refutations of your claims doesn't mean they don't exist. It does prove tat you are one willfully ignorant crybaby when exposed to reality, though. cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain_{December 8, 2015
December
12
Dec
8
08
2015
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

RDFish:
You say that forensic scientists look for evidence of a broad class of entities that they call “intelligent agents”, and I say you’re wrong, and that forensic scientsts instead look specifically for evidence of human beings and only human beings. (I have allowed for the improbable, but possible exception of other animals such as chimps to have been identified at some point by some forensic team).
No, RDFish, they do not assume what they are trying to demonstrate. cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain_{December 8, 2015
December
12
Dec
8
08
2015
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

It's clear that Andre cannot read much better than his non-human primate burglars, for here is what I just said:
(I have allowed for the improbable, but possible exception of other animals such as chimps to have been identified at some point by some forensic team).
RDFish_{December 8, 2015
December
12
Dec
8
08
2015
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

It's clear that RDFISH does not live in Africa over here burglaries are often committed by animals aka intelligent agents. Sure by the monkey's standard it's not stealing but humans think otherwise.Andre_{December 8, 2015
December
12
Dec
8
08
2015
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

Hi StephenB,
We are discussing a specific kind of analysis that forensic scientists do, which is to make the distinction between a purposefully committed murder, which is the product of an intelligent agent, and an accidental death, which is the product of natural causes.
You say that forensic scientists look for evidence of a broad class of entities that they call "intelligent agents", and I say you're wrong, and that forensic scientsts instead look specifically for evidence of human beings and only human beings. (I have allowed for the improbable, but possible exception of other animals such as chimps to have been identified at some point by some forensic team). You say that murderers and burglars may be any sort of thing at all that belong to some broad, abstract class of entities called "intelligent agents". I disagree, and say that according to the law, murder and burglary are crimes that only "human beings" - and nothing else - can commit. I would say at this point I'm happy to agree to disagree, and let the fair reader decide who is correct.
RDF: I have no idea what you’re talking about. What does it mean to “prove law/chance”? Where did I say anything of the sort? SB: So, are you saying that science cannot prove the existence of law/chance?
This is truly pathetic. Why do you pretend I say things that I don't say? Because you lose every argument we have, and your only option is to make things up, that's why. Don't you realize all of our words remain on this page so anyone interested can actually see you lying about what I say? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 8, 2015
December
12
Dec
8
08
2015
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

RDFish:
You cannot prove that human intelligence or anything else transcends physical cause, and I’m saying that there is no definition of “intelligent agency” that is both empirically meaningful and supports ID’s claims.
Another vacuous bluff. Still waiting for you to define "physical cause" and provide a scientific means to distinguish physical causes from non-physical causes.Mung_{December 8, 2015
December
12
Dec
8
08
2015
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

I assume that is why you did not answer Barry’s question about whether or not you are an intelligent agent. And then whines when Barry decides not to waste his time trying to reason with someone who won't affirm that they are an intelligent agent. Go figure.Mung_{December 8, 2015
December
12
Dec
8
08
2015
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

RDFish
I’ve even answered it in this very thread @24: Forensic scientists find evidence of human activity (or perhaps in a stretch some other animal with opposable thumbs). If you asked a forensic scientist what an “intelligent agent” was, they would have no more notion of what that meant than you apparently do!!
We are discussing a specific kind of analysis that forensic scientists do, which is to make the distinction between a purposefully committed murder, which is the product of an intelligent agent, and an accidental death, which is the product of natural causes. in this case, they rule out natural causes and make a design inference to the activity of an intelligent agent. So your claim that you can never rule out natural causes is ridiculous. Similarly, if you notice a disordered living room and you are asked whether or not it is the product of a tornado (natural cause) or a burglar (intelligent agent), you consider the evidence and make an inference to the best explanation, which in this case indicates that anintelligent agent was responsible and a natural cause was not responsible--that is, it was ruled out If you notice that the dresser drawers are open and the jewelry is gone, you conclude that an intelligent agent is responsible. It's called a design inference. By your ridiculous standard we can "never rule out" natural causes, which means that you are reduced to saying that the tornado may have ran off with the jewelry.
Please stop with this nonsense. Our criminal justice system does not have a concept of “intelligent agency”, for it holds only “human beings” culpable – nothing else.
The nonsense is all yours. The criminal justice system holds human beings accountable for their crimes precisely because they are intelligent agents, which can do things that natural causes cannot do. SB: On matters of life and death, for example, a murderer is a different kind of cause than an accidental death.
Yes, and this has nothing to do with a class of things called “intelligent agents”. Only human beings can be murderers.
So you agree that a murderer is a different kind of cause than accidental death. Excellent. Intelligent agents can produce effects that nature cannot. That is what makes them intelligent agents. TSB: On matters of created disorder, a violent tornado is a different kind of cause than a ransacking burglar.
Yes, and this has nothing to do with a class of things called “intelligent agents”. Only human beings can be burglars.
Bad logic. A burglar can make intelligent choices; a tornado cannot. Human beings are burglars because they are intelligent agents, not simply because they are human beings. On the strength of their intelligence--they can do things that nature cannot do, thus, they are causes that transcend nature. SB: The issue is whether or not science can prove law/chance on the basis of empirical evidence. You say that it can. I am asking you to defend that claim.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. What does it mean to “prove law/chance”? Where did I say anything of the sort?
So, are you saying that science cannot prove the existence of law/chance? Excellent! Tell me then how you "know" that law/chance exists since you now agree with me that science cannot prove it.
AGIAN, HERE IS WHAT I AM SAYING: You cannot prove that human intelligence or anything else transcends physical cause and I’m saying that there is no definition of “intelligent agency” that is both empirically meaningful and supports ID’s claims.
Do you agree that the murderer is a different kind of cause than accidental death or do you not? Do you agree that the natural cause (accidental death) can be ruled out when the victim has twenty seven stab wounds in his back or do you not? Do you agree that a tornado is a different kind of cause than a burglar or do you not? Earlier, you said yes. Are you now going to change your position? Do you agree that a tornado (natural cause) can be ruled out when a burglar runs off with the jewelry or do you not?StephenB_{December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT}

Hi StephenB,
Intelligent agency is defined as an intelligent causal agent, which is a different kind of cause than a natural cause.
Since nobody knows if intelligence is ontologically distinct, you can't say if this particular definition actually matches anything in existence.
That is what the phrase “intelligent agent” means. You reject intelligent agency as a distinct kind of cause, which means that you reject intelligent agency,...
You need go no further to recognize your error. This analogy shows exactly how ridiculous your argument is: 1) I define "living thing" as "that which is inhabited by the spirit of Vodula the Spider God". 2) You say that according to my definition, nobody can show that any living things exist. 3) I then complain that "StephenB rejects living things! Isn't that stupid!"
Forensic science, among many other paradigms, does support the idea of intelligent agency.
I am so tired of this incredibly stupid canard. I've even answered it in this very thread @24: Forensic scientists find evidence of human activity (or perhaps in a stretch some other animal with opposable thumbs). If you asked a forensic scientist what an “intelligent agent” was, they would have no more notion of what that meant than you apparently do!!
If it didn’t, no one would ever be found guilty or even charged for deliberately committing a crime.
Please stop with this nonsense. Our criminal justice system does not have a concept of "intelligent agency", for it holds only "human beings" culpable - nothing else. There is no class of things called "intelligent agency" defined in law, or science. If there was, you could tell me what observable traits all intelligent agents share - but you can't.
On matters of life and death, for example, a murderer is a different kind of cause than an accidental death.
Yes, and this has nothing to do with a class of things called "intelligent agents". Only human beings can be murderers.
On matters of created disorder, a violent tornado is a different kind of cause than a ransacking burglar.
Yes, and this has nothing to do with a class of things called "intelligent agents". Only human beings can be burglars.
You reject these self-evident truths. Why?
Huh?
The issue is whether or not science can prove law/chance on the basis of empirical evidence. You say that it can. I am asking you to defend that claim.
I have no idea what you're talking about. What does it mean to "prove law/chance"? Where did I say anything of the sort? AGIAN, HERE IS WHAT I AM SAYING: You cannot prove that human intelligence or anything else transcends physical cause, and I'm saying that there is no definition of "intelligent agency" that is both empirically meaningful and supports ID's claims.
However, we are discussing the source of lawlike regularity–not the fact of law-like regularity. According to your report, you know that nature is its source. How do you know that?
Perhaps you are responding to somebody else's posts? I've never discussed the origin of natural laws on this forum, and I have no idea at all what it would mean to say that "nature is its source". Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the illusion of design and planning.” Richard Dawkins Barry: "That sentence is the product of intelligent agency." If only, Barry.... 'intelligent' only in the most limited sense. Such as, perhaps, a bird trying to master the modest intricacies of an obstacle on a man-made obstacle course, in order to reach a bag of nuts or other birdie 'treats'... but failing to do so. Dawkins, thus, seems very low on the evolutionary ladder. And imagine ! You let him get away with such laughable 'tosh', as a 'blind watchmaker'. Boys and girls, he should have been laughed and pilloried out of academia. It's on a par with the reportedly overheard comment about Isaac Newton. Newton was passed on the street by a student who is said to have remarked, "There goes the man that writ a book that neither he nor anybody else understands."Axel_{December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

RDFish
I do not reject “intelligent agency” of course; so many different people mean so many different things by that term that one cannot say whether or not it exists until the meaning is clarified.
Intelligent agency is defined as an intelligent causal agent, which is a different kind of cause than a natural cause. That is what the phrase "intelligent agent" means. You reject intelligent agency as a distinct kind of cause, which means that you reject intelligent agency, which also means that you reject the proposition that you are an intelligent agent. I assume that is why you did not answer Barry's question about whether or not you are an intelligent agent. By contrast, reason tells us that agent causes and natural causes both exist. Science cannot prove it either way. Since science cannot prove that that law/chance exists, how do you "know" that it does?
There is no scientific support for that claim
Forensic science, among many other paradigms, does support the idea of intelligent agency. If it didn't, no one would ever be found guilty or even charged for deliberately committing a crime. On matters of life and death, for example, a murderer is a different kind of cause than an accidental death. On matters of created disorder, a violent tornado is a different kind of cause than a ransacking burglar. You reject these self-evident truths. Why? However, that is not what we are discussing. The issue is not whether science can support claims about intelligent agencies or natural causes. The issue is whether or not science can prove law/chance on the basis of empirical evidence. You say that it can. I am asking you to defend that claim.
Instead of talking about that, however, you choose to question whether “law/chance exists”.
No, I don't question it at all. However, unlike you, I don't claim that science can prove it.
But you already agreed that lawlike regularities exist.
Of course. Lawlike regularity is obvious. However, we are discussing the source of lawlike regularity--not the fact of law-like regularity. According to your report, you know that nature is its source. How do you know that?
And as far as “chance” goes, the concept is actually pretty thorny, but I don’t see the relevance of randomness to this discussion.
I agree. Chance is not relevant. We can limit the discussion to intelligent agency vs physical laws.StephenB_{December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

Hi OldArmy94,
Regarding these “laws” that are being spoken of by RDFish...
It's not me who is trying to talk about "laws". I am responding to the OP here. StephenB knows that he can't counter my arguments regarding the meaning of "intelligent agency" in ID, so he tries to change the subject. Here, he's trying to drag us into questions like "how is knowledge possible", "how do we know what is real", and so forth. It's annoying. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

Regarding these "laws" that are being spoken of by RDFish: Can the laws exist due to purely natural causes? Why does gravity exist? Why is the area of a circle always equal pi*r^2? It seems to me that this begs an explanation. Why SOMETHING rather than NOTHING? And laws aren't nothing.OldArmy94_{December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

Hi StephenB, I do not reject "intelligent agency" of course; so many different people mean so many different things by that term that one cannot say whether or not it exists until the meaning is clarified. What I rejected here is not "intelligent agency", but the claim that intelligent agency is ontologically distinct from physical cause. There is no scientific support for that claim. Instead of talking about that, however, you choose to question whether "law/chance exists". But you already agreed that lawlike regularities exist. And as far as "chance" goes, the concept is actually pretty thorny, but I don't see the relevance of randomness to this discussion. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

RDFish
Again, I’m not interested in debating the whether scientific laws are the result of angels’ activities. If you would like to discuss such things, perhaps another forum would be more appropriate.
We are not really debating anything at this point. I am simply asking you if, as you claim, you really "know" that law/chance exists and, if so, how you know it.
No, my arguments are empirical. I accept realism and the scientific method, and point out that we have no empirical evidence that anything transcends physical cause.
But that cannot be the case. As I already explained, there is no empirical evidence that physical causation exists at all. Science cannot prove physical causation; science assumes physical causation. It searches for causes already assumed to be there. That is why I asked you the question about angels and the prospect that they might be regulating the universe with law/like precision. I don't think that is the case, but I can provide good philosophical arguments to support my contention, just as I can provide good philosophical arguments to support the existence of intelligent agency. In fact, science cannot prove the existence of law/chance, just as it cannot prove the existence of intelligent agency. These facts are arrived at through philosophical reasoning. So your conclusion that law/chance exists is not based on the scientific method as you claim. It is solely a philosophical argument, which by the way, I agree with. I am just asking you to recognize it as such. Accordingly, if you reject intelligent agency, you must also reject law/chance since neither category can be established through the scientific method.
This means that any theory (such as ID) that assumes mental causation transcends physical cause cannot be empirically supported.
If that is true, then It also means that the existence of law/chance cannot be empirically supported. If you reject the common sense observation that agency exists on the grounds that it cannot be proven through scientific methods, as you clearly do, then you must also reject the observation law/chance exists on those same grounds.
...common sense is not the source of scientific results. Instead, we rely on observations that are within our uniform and shared experience.
We are not discussing scientific results. We are discussing the proposition that you can know that law/chance exists. How do you know this since it cannot be proven by science?
Again, common sense conclusions are often found to be wrong, and corrected by science.
Which brings me back to my question, which you will not answer. How do you know that the common sense observation that law/chance exists is correct? Since you reject intelligent agency on the grounds that science cannot prove its existence, why do you not also reject law/chance on those same grounds?StephenB_{December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

Hi RDFish:
Of course there are endless different definitions of “intelligence” – that is the problem. I categorized the various problems that these definitions pose for ID @24, above.
You and I have been down that road and you lost, miserably. Perhaps you should just leave well-enough alone as you are obviously unable and unwilling to learn. cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain_{December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

Hi RDFish:
No, my arguments are empirical. I accept realism and the scientific method, and point out that we have no empirical evidence that anything transcends physical cause.
"Information is information, neither matter nor energy"- Norbert Wiener. Information exists without any known physical cause. Codes transcend physical cause.
This means that any theory (such as ID) that assumes mental causation transcends physical cause cannot be empirically supported.
Only in the minds of the narrow-minded who, we shall note, cannot support their own position- like you. cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain_{December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

Hi Barry Arrington, So, once again you post an OP trying to take on my arguments, then you dodge, run, and hide when you find yourself in a corner. Why not answer the question at the end of @24? Because you have no answer, that's why. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply