Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Reductionist Predictions Always Fail

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

 Rod Dreher writes:

Time and time again, an experimental gadget gets introduced — it doesn’t matter if it’s a supercollider or a gene chip or an fMRI machine — and we’re told it will allow us to glimpse the underlying logic of everything. But the tool always disappoints, doesn’t it? We soon realize that those pretty pictures are incomplete and that we can’t reduce our complex subject to a few colorful spots. So here’s a pitch: Scientists should learn to expect this cycle — to anticipate that the universe is always more networked and complicated than reductionist approaches can reveal.

…Karl Popper, the great philosopher of science, once divided the world into two categories: clocks and clouds. Clocks are neat, orderly systems that can be solved through reduction; clouds are an epistemic mess, “highly irregular, disorderly, and more or less unpredictable.” The mistake of modern science is to pretend that everything is a clock, which is why we get seduced again and again by the false promises of brain scanners and gene sequencers. We want to believe we will understand nature if we find the exact right tool to cut its joints. But that approach is doomed to failure. We live in a universe not of clocks but of clouds.

Comments
What part of ID theory says we have to establish when an artifact was made in order to make an inference.
That is the conundrum of ID. The basic claim of ID is that existing biological objects cannot have arisen through a series of small modifications. The claim is vacuous without proposing an alternative history. We know that populations change over time and we know that the observed rate of change is consistent with the difference in genomes when they are assumed to be related by descent. We also have theories of how and why changes accumulates. Biologist do not assume that structures came together in a single event, so the mathematics of improbability is irrelevant.Petrushka
June 21, 2010
June
06
Jun
21
21
2010
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
Allen MacNeill: To be as specific as possible, according to current ID theory, how and when and where was the bacterial flagellum designed, under what conditions, in response to what ecological requirements, and for what purpose(s)? Freelurker: But it’s a misrepresentation for IDists to associate themselves with this. Figuring out how things work is not what ID is about, no more than it is about providing histories. ID is about attributing patterns to intelligence. First of all, I don't understand all this fuss about the "how, when and why". There is no reason why ID should not try to answer these questions. It is true that the first task of ID is at present to prove design in biological information (also because most biologists are still stubbornly trying to deny the evidence for it). But that priority is in no way a limit to what ID can do. An ID scenario can certainly help very much in answering these questions, while the darwinian scenario, being completely wrong, can only sidetrack present and future research and understanding. 1) "How" has two different aspects: a) How did the designer input the necessary information into the emerging species? That's a very appropriate question, and it is certainly possible to formulate different hypotheses (e.g., guided mutations, selected targeted hypervariation, intelligent selection, a mixture of all them, and probably others). All of these hypotheses are open to empirical verification (or falsification). b) How does the intelligent information work? How is it coordinated and integrated? These are easier issues, perfectly open to an analysis of the software structure in biological information. 2) "When" is a very interesting question, but it has the same validity for both ID and darwinism. The correct question is: "when does new CSI appear massively in evolution?". And we already have a few answers. Certainly, about 4 billion years ago, at OOL. Then, at some time much later, with the emergence of eukaryotes. The, about 580 Myears ago, with the Ediacara explosion, and again, 540 Myears ago, with the Cambrian explosion. And later, with the flowering plants explosion. And, in minor degrees, each time a new species emerges, or just each time a new protein superfamily emerges. All these sudden emergences of information will be better detailed as research goes on, especially if some sidetracking false assumptions of darwinism are put aside. 3) "Why?". Another pertinent ID question. While the big "why" (why does the universe, or life, exist at all?) could well be beyond the reach of pure science (it's more likely it will always have important philosophical connotations), many lesser "whys" can certainly be approached by science, especially design centered science. For instance, if we get rid of the darwinian myth that increased fitness and response to imagined fitness landscapes are the only engine driving evolution, it seems perfectly possible that the increasing complexity in living beings can have explcit purposes, and be targeted to exploring and expressing new ideas and new functions. So, the very simple answer to the why for the flagellum would be: because it allows to express movement, to explore space, to interact with different parts of reality. That's exactly why designers write more complex software: to implement new functionalities. According to a plan, according to a purpose. According to a desire.gpuccio
June 21, 2010
June
06
Jun
21
21
2010
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
Ena, Is an X-ray of an arm and an MRI of an arm inaccurate when compared to each other and/or a real arm? All 3 images look different yet all 3 are very much accurate in the function they were designed to do. The image at the top was designed to be a replica of a real structure. I, a layperson, know this. As for whether the flagellum is a clock or cloud, I dont' think either catagory is accurate in themselves. The comparison is really whether something is fluid or rigid. Both can be orginaized or disorganized. I would dare say that the cloud is very clock-like in that all the necessary factors must be present in order for them to appear. what the categories should be is a clock and a clock that doesn't keep time. So using these two categories the flagellum is a clock. You cannot define function without first defining purpose for that function. And without knowing either funciton or purpose one cannot measure it's effectiveness,or it's "optimization".wagenweg
June 21, 2010
June
06
Jun
21
21
2010
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
To make your analogy even close to the ID situation, imagine you have a fragment of code carved in a tablet and are claiming that this was created in 3000 BCE.
What part of ID theory says we have to establish when an artifact was made in order to make an inference. Can you point to specific pages in ID literature? That's a rhetorical question on my part. What you assert is does not represent the discipline of ID exploration. This is the definition of ID:
ID is the study of patterns that signifify itelligence Bill Dembski
Freelurker responded:
johnnyb wrote: For instance, when analyzing a computer program, I can interpret it just fine without knowing who programmed it, where they were sitting, or what device they used to input it.”
But it’s a misrepresentation for IDists to associate themselves with this. Figuring out how things work is not what ID is about, no more than it is about providing histories. ID is about attributing patterns to intelligence
No it is not a misrepresentation. Interpretation of software is recognizing the design of the software. Johnnyb was highlighting the fact that one does not need to know the designer in order to recognize designs. We've been able to figure out important features of the DNA genetic code without identifying the Intelligent Designer. Thus we can recognize and interpret artifacts without direct or indirect interaction with the designer. Further the cell is a computer and it runs computer languages running on a computer architecture. The computer analogy is spot on. Having access to the original intelligent designer to help us interpret the design is a sufficient, but not necessary condition to infer design. Johnnyb is point out knowing the designer is not a necessary condition for recognizing design (even though knowing the designer might be a sufficient condition for recognizing design).scordova
June 21, 2010
June
06
Jun
21
21
2010
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
johnnyb -
For instance, when analyzing a computer program, I can interpret it just fine without knowing who programmed it, where they were sitting, or what device they used to input it."
But it's a misrepresentation for IDists to associate themselves with this. Figuring out how things work is not what ID is about, no more than it is about providing histories. ID is about attributing patterns to intelligence.Freelurker_
June 21, 2010
June
06
Jun
21
21
2010
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
johnnyb:
For things which are designed, the material aspects of their design (how, when, and where) are much less relevant. For instance, when analyzing a computer program, I can interpret it just fine without knowing who programmed it, where they were sitting, or what device they used to input it.
However, you already know the designer (human) and can frame fairly accurate questions around "how" (e.g. Dvorak or QWERTY), so claiming (in this case) that the questions of "how, where and when" are less relevant is only possible because you already know most of the answers. To make your analogy even close to the ID situation, imagine you have a fragment of code carved in a tablet and are claiming that this was created in 3000 BCE. The questions of "how, where and when" suddenly become crucial and directly impact whether your 'evidence' is even valid.
These are much better ID-oriented questions. Right now, I would say that at present the state of ID is unable to answer these questions definitively. However, I think that a more ID-way of asking the question would be this – “how does the design of the organism interact with its purposes and ecological requirements?”
In this statement (and subsequent paragraphs) you seem to take a limited view of "purpose" - in fact, a use of the word more appropriate to an evolutionary view of ecological niches, etc. However, you claim that we're dealing with an intelligence. In this context, "purpose" could be anything. You might claim that a virus was designed to fit a particular ecological niche. I might claim that it was invented deliberately to torture other living creatures. Since ID has no information in this area, my claim is as good as your's.mikev6
June 21, 2010
June
06
Jun
21
21
2010
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
DATCG - "Reductionism as reverse engineering is a great way to discover design." If you are using the terms "reverse engineering" and "design" the way they are used in engineering then this is an uncontroversial statement. Reverse engineering analyzes an item and then describes that item as an arrangement of parts. But in the context of this blog, it looks as if, when you refer to discovering design, you are referring to the design detection that IDists talk about. This would be equivocating between the way the term "design" is used in ID and the way it is used in engineering. (IDist engineers are prone to this.) Design detection starts from a known arrangement of parts and then tries to determine if the pattern indicates the involvement of intelligence.Freelurker_
June 21, 2010
June
06
Jun
21
21
2010
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
DATCG, I really liked your link @ 36 Bacterial Flagellum: Visualizing the Complete Machine In Situ Excerpt: Electron tomography of frozen-hydrated bacteria, combined with single particle averaging, has produced stunning images of the intact bacterial flagellum, revealing features of the rotor, stator and export apparatus. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-4M8WTCF-K&_user=10&_coverDate=11%2F07%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_cdi=6243&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8d7e0ad266148c9d917cf0c2a9d12e82&artImgPref=F You might like this following link. In the video they get into some of the intricate assembly process for the flagellum: Bacterial Flagellum - A Sheer Wonder Of Intelligent Design - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994630bornagain77
June 21, 2010
June
06
Jun
21
21
2010
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT
The artist rendering is not used by any ID proponent in a scientific paper.
What scientific paper might that (not) be?Adel DiBagno
June 21, 2010
June
06
Jun
21
21
2010
01:54 AM
1
01
54
AM
PDT
Adel, "you might say that the flagellum is Haeckel's embryo of ID" No, not at all. ID proponents are not faking comparisions of multiple divergent units for one. And two, this is a website blog. The artist rendering is not used by any ID proponent in a scientific paper. The flagellum looks more like a machine either thru electron scattering images or as in the 3D image rendering by scientist that are non-ID proponents. Frankly, they could put the image up that Upright linked to at the top. It is even more convincing of Design in my opinion, as well as the 3D image I linked. Haeckel intentionally made multiple drawings of different embryos from different stages and different higher taxa to appear exactly the same, then declared a theory of recapitulation. Whereas ID proponents utilized existing images and scientific structural synopsis utilized by non-supporters alike(ie Nick Matzke's rebutall for example to the flagellum). The fake stages of chimp to human is more akin to Haeckel's embryo drawings.DATCG
June 20, 2010
June
06
Jun
20
20
2010
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT
gpuccio, Ena Sharples is no longer with us.Clive Hayden
June 20, 2010
June
06
Jun
20
20
2010
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT
Ena Sharples: Just to make my point more clear: a) Here is a link to an ultrasonographic image of the human abdomen: http://cir.ncc.go.jp/wwwdata/img/0118/0118010200J.jpg that's more or less the equivalent of your transmission electron microscope image, on which you based all your reasoning. b) Here is a link to one of the famous drawings by Netter of the abdominal cavity: http://biomedcentral.inist.fr/images/1477-7800-4-28-2.jpg c) Here is a 3D rendering of the abdominal cavity: http://www.voxel-man.de/vm/images/io_abdomen_quer.jpg d) And here is the real stuff: http://www.esg.montana.edu/esg/kla/ta/abdomen.jpg Look how idealized Netter's drawing or the 3d rendering are! Certainly, the ultrasonographic picture is the cloudy truth...gpuccio
June 20, 2010
June
06
Jun
20
20
2010
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT
Reductionism as reverse engineering is a great way to discover design. Reductionism ad naseum for the purposes of materialist ideology loses sight of the big picture.DATCG
June 20, 2010
June
06
Jun
20
20
2010
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT
@Ena, Upright The link below shows an excellent 3D image of the flagellum with work by David Derosier and company in Current Biology. Let Readers decide for themselves Ena, do you have the same problem with fake chimp to human pictures in biology books and posters? Fake chimp to human poster What about Lucy? She is depicted as having human feet. Maybe you should protest?DATCG
June 20, 2010
June
06
Jun
20
20
2010
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PDT
Matteo: Very funny indeed! We do need some good laugh here, once in a while... I am really surprised here by the futile attempts of darwinists to call "idealization" what is only "reasonable approximation". I suppose that, in that perspective, all physical laws are only propaganda idealizations, attempting to give the false impression to the layman that regularities do exist in nature, while any good picture of a bubble chamber experiment would clearly show what a cloudlike mess is underlying everything! Ah, the tricks of those bloody teleologists...gpuccio
June 20, 2010
June
06
Jun
20
20
2010
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT
Ena Sharples (#2): I have to disagree with you substantially. The flagellum is certainly a clock. And a very good one. And the image at the top of this blog is probably a quite accurate 3D rendering of its structure. Like all 3D renderings, it has some limits and does not show perfectly all the details (atomic and molecular movements, and so on). But the same is true of any rendering in modern video games (and some of them are definitely good!). The problem here is another one. What you link is a transmission electron microscope image, and everybody who is familiar with those images knows that they are very "dirty". But, if you are accustomed to reading such images, you can easily see that your image shows astounding regularities, confirming that the flagellum is a clock.gpuccio
June 20, 2010
June
06
Jun
20
20
2010
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT
LOL@MatteoDATCG
June 20, 2010
June
06
Jun
20
20
2010
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT
Allen - "To be as specific as possible, according to current ID theory, how and when and where was the bacterial flagellum designed," While those are certainly interesting questions, it is only the materialist position that makes them the primary questions, and presupposes that they have a definitive, findable answer. For things which are designed, the material aspects of their design (how, when, and where) are much less relevant. For instance, when analyzing a computer program, I can interpret it just fine without knowing who programmed it, where they were sitting, or what device they used to input it. I can't tell by looking at a program whether the typist used a Dvorak or a QUERTY keyboard. The main thing is that, with design, the logical relationships between the components are primary considerations, and the historical factors that led to those logical relationships are of secondary importance, and perhaps irrelevant. "under what conditions, in response to what ecological requirements, and for what purpose(s)?" These are much better ID-oriented questions. Right now, I would say that at present the state of ID is unable to answer these questions definitively. However, I think that a more ID-way of asking the question would be this - "how does the design of the organism interact with its purposes and ecological requirements?" My personal belief is that organisms are separated out into basic types, with each type having a purpose or range of purposes. In addition, organisms have an innate sense of what the overall design *should* be, and therefore adapt to fill predefined ecological niches where there is a need. This is why in different areas of the world you have the same basic ecological roles, but played out by species that are not related by descent. They are able to detect the niche that is not filled, and then adapt so as to fill it. As for the flagellum, while I am not an expert in its operation, I would assume that its role is to make sure that bacteria infiltrate the ecology sufficiently.johnnyb
June 20, 2010
June
06
Jun
20
20
2010
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
Don't you all get it? The flagellum drawing at the top of the page is obviously idealized and therefore off-limits, but the METHINKSITSLIKEAWEASEL program beautifully establishes the true power of natural selection, proving that all true scientists shun, shun misleading oversimplification.Matteo
June 20, 2010
June
06
Jun
20
20
2010
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington quoted Rod Dreher, who quoted Andrew Sullivan, who quoted Jonah Lehrer wrote …
Time and time again, an experimental gadget gets introduced -- it doesn't matter if it's a supercollider or a gene chip or an fMRI machine -- and we're told it will allow us to glimpse the underlying logic of everything. But the tool always disappoints, doesn't it? We soon realize that those pretty pictures are incomplete and that we can't reduce our complex subject to a few colorful spots. So here's a pitch: Scientists should learn to expect this cycle -- to anticipate that the universe is always more networked and complicated than reductionist approaches can reveal.
First, is this supposed to be controversial? Of course it's incomplete. These "pretty pictures" are only an abstraction of reality which has limits we're quite aware of. However, this doesn't mean that we should abandon a reductionists approach. Just because a tool has limits doesn't mean we should throw it away or that it always fails, as the title of this article suggests. What do you suggest we repose it with? Second, the original author (Lehrer) is a science blogger, who appears to be commenting more on how the press and public interprets science, rather than the actual views of the scientists themselves. For example, Stephen Hawking on finding the Higgs bosun…
“I think it will be much more exciting if we don’t find the Higgs. That will show something is wrong, and we need to think again. I have a bet of $100 that we won’t find the Higgs.”
So, I'd ask, who's really going to be disappointed, Hawkin, Lehrer or the lay public who Lehrer writes to? Lehrer then goes on to quote Karl Popper. However, Popper presented an emergentist cosmology which was not anti-reductionist either.veilsofmaya
June 20, 2010
June
06
Jun
20
20
2010
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
near impossible?,,,, Seeing as evolutionists, using all their intelligence and lab equipment, have not even found a single biologically relevant novel functional protein,,,, Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681 ,,, I would say finding a minimal system of functionally interacting proteins is "near impossible" multiplied exponentially.bornagain77
June 20, 2010
June
06
Jun
20
20
2010
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
I wonder how does evolution create over time optimal systems when on the other hand the chances of even minimal function arising are near impossible?Phaedros
June 20, 2010
June
06
Jun
20
20
2010
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
MacNeill you state: "Optimality, by itself, is no evidence for either evolution or ID. Indeed, both evolutionary biology and ID propose that most biological processes will be near optimal under most conditions (and this goes for rubisco, as well as for any other enzyme)." So please Mr. MacNeill explain to me why evolutionists proposed 180 vestigial organs and 95% junk DNA if evolution makes such a concise prediction for optimality?bornagain77
June 20, 2010
June
06
Jun
20
20
2010
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
Ena asked: "though he has no chance of even explaining the origination of what he perceives to be sub-optimal design) Out of interest, how do you explain it?" I'll answer that if you explain to me how you explain a quantum wave collapse to its "uncertain" particle/wave state in quantum mechanics.bornagain77
June 20, 2010
June
06
Jun
20
20
2010
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
Ena,
"It’s a very nice image."
You asked for one, and you got it.
"I don’t know. What are they using it for? Then I’ll be able to tell you if it’s misleading."
In the paper in which it was published, the authors placed it under the heading of "Structure".
"It would be truthier. It would have more truthiness."
Faced with taking an illogical position regarding the image at the top of this page, you are reduced to insinuating dishonesty on the part of the UD website. The fact that the scientific literature is replete with such images provided for the precise purpose of understanding the structure and function of such entities is simply ignored. Have a nice day.Upright BiPed
June 20, 2010
June
06
Jun
20
20
2010
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
Upright
It was interesting to see a scientist ignore detail. Apparently, there was too much of it.
Very interesting to see that, yes.Ena Sharples
June 20, 2010
June
06
Jun
20
20
2010
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
Upright, http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-08-20images/figure03.jpg It's a very nice image.
Is this a misleading image? If so, then how so?
I don't know. What are they using it for? Then I'll be able to tell you if it's misleading.
If the banner at the top of this page was replaced with the attached image, what would be different?
It would be truthier. It would have more truthiness. But for one thing people would look at it and wonder what the heck it was. As it looks nothing like what's at the top of the page, that's for sure. Most people would probably not connect the two.Ena Sharples
June 20, 2010
June
06
Jun
20
20
2010
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
I find it so interesting how Mr. Macneill and other evolutionists claim that "Biological entities are imprecise, irregular, and multifarious in function." Yet, when we talk about enzymes or cellular structures or whole organs we constantly talk about high efficiency, incredibly complex structure, and optimality. This seems very strange to me. Never mind the fact that the differences between organisms of the same species are negligible at best. The fact that some don't develop perfectly or have defects does not refute design in the slightest. I think Dr. Craig had some fun remarks about this in response to Dr. Ayala in their debate, "Is Intelligent Design Viable?"Phaedros
June 20, 2010
June
06
Jun
20
20
2010
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
Ena, For crying out loud. Its not about the image, its about the function and the structure. You've willfully ignored your initial problem of comparing an "actual picture that does not show the internal structure to an idealized picture that does". You, like Perakh, subscribe to the idea that viewing an artist's rederning of the internal structural details of a flagella will impede in the understanding of it. You just as quickly ignore the fact that the these renderings (which appear throughout the scientific literature) are provided precisely for the purposes of understanding the structure and function. You then go on to insinuate that the laypeople who visit here might perhaps be too dense to understand that a drawing is not a photograph. So infused with ignorance, they might not be able to recall a time in their lives where an artistic redering was used to provide them with an insight into a subject. Perhaps you think that scientists should have images and laypeople should not view them - lest they be betrayed by this ungamely ignorance. This is, of course, a common refrain. How can these laypeople be trusted to learn anything? I have no doubt that you ignore this faulty reasoning to advance additional faulty reasoning. Here is an image produced within the scientific literature. It is captioned with these words: "rotationally averaged reconstruction of images of hook-basal bodies seen in an electron microscope...This reconstruction is derived from rotationally averaged images of about 100 hook–basal body complexes of Salmonella polyhook strain SJW880 embedded in vitreous ice (29). The radial densities have been projected from front to back along the line of view, so this is what would be seen if one were able to look through the spinning structure." The scientists who developed this image did so for a reason. Is this a misleading image? If so, then how so? And since you brought it up, may I ask: If the banner at the top of this page was replaced with the attached image, what would be different?Upright BiPed
June 20, 2010
June
06
Jun
20
20
2010
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
To be as specific as possible, according to current ID theory, how and when and where was the bacterial flagellum designed, under what conditions, in response to what ecological requirements, and for what purpose(s)?Allen_MacNeill
June 20, 2010
June
06
Jun
20
20
2010
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply