Science “Proves” Nothing

HeKS, I want to thank you for continuing the conversation in my absence. I have become busy elsewhere and have not been able to follow along. Between the two threads I have been active on, I thought that I might try once more to engage Guillermo at the granular level regarding ID issues and claims. But I can see that it is likely a useless exercise at this point, even though I am sure he is intelligent enough to understand the issues if he could just control himself long enough to hear something besides his next calamitous reply. - - - - - - - - - - Guillermo, You referred to HeKS in some rather disparaging remarks on these threads today (“truly dumb” or some such). I'm sure you feel justified in this because of the obviously cool response you’ve run into here, but you just have to man up - you have repeatedly demonstrated not only a dreadful level of reading comprehension, but also truly incoherent reasoning skills. This is not even to mention the glaring fact that you haven’t a damn clue what you are talking about. This last point is rather easy to pick out. In any case, if you think HeKS rightfully deserves your scorn, then there is certainly no reason for me continue. p.s. Next time, you should probably attempt to make yourself not look so obvious. Try responding to what people actually say. Try listening to your conversation partner. Give that a try. Upright BiPed

@G'moe #205

“It’s a simple fact that no natural process that has been proposed to date has been demonstrated to be causally adequate to produce the effects in question.” And what PROCESS has been demonstrated to do that? Can you describe that process, HeKS?

What process has been demonstrated to be capable of bringing about the effect of a complex arrangement of well-matched parts that are configured in such a way as to achieve a particular function? Simple, the process of an intelligent mind applying itself to the achieving of some functionally specified future goal or target. The same goes for, as Upright Biped puts it, "a semiotic system using representations with a dimensional orientation" as we find in the case of protein synthesis. Your problem is that you do not understand that there are different kinds of causal explanations. An explanation by reference to agent causation is a different type of explanation than a mechanistic explanation. See my latest comment to you in the other thread.

Man, you are really dumb..

Coming from you I'll take that as the highest form of praise.

“Thus, Upright Biped’s statement remains true” No, because: 1) the cause has not really been stated. What’s exactly the cause you are talking about?

Intelligent agency. If you don't get that then you don't understand the nature of causal explanations or the different forms they can take. See my comment to you in the other thread.

2) it has not been demonstrated that cause actually produces any features of life. Do you remember taking about “design INFERENCE” and “the MOST PLAUSIBLE explanation”?

An inference is not a demonstration. It's not supposed to be. A design inference is an inference to the best candidate for the source cause of the existence of certain things. Intelligence is inferred as the best cause for features found in living things because intelligence has been demonstrated to be capable of producing the defining characteristics of those features in other things (including in actual molecular machines), while no natural process has ever been demonstrated to be capable of producing those defining characteristics in anything. Hence, design is the best explanation for the existence of those things according to our uniform and repeated experience up to this point in history.

3) it has not even been demonstrated that cause exists at all.

Intelligence exists. You seem to be operating under the obviously false impression that the existence of a particular type of cause (like a non-human intelligence) can't reasonably be inferred on the basis of effects that would seem to make its existence necessary. In this you would simply be mistaken.

So, no. It has not been demonstrated there is something as “the intelligent cause of life”. It has not been demonstrated it existed. It has not been demonstrated it produced life. It has not been demonstrated it the only explanation.

Stop confusing what is claimed to have been demonstrated with what has been said to be inferred. Your comments are like a machine gun firing wildly at everything except the actual target. HeKS

@G'moe #203

“And why am I intellectually dishonest?” Because you dismiss a question when you can’t answer as being not relevant, instead of ackowledging you can’t answer it.

You are living in a fantasy world. You didn't originally even ask that question to me when you claimed I was intellectually dishonest for dismissing it while being unable to answer why it wasn't relevant. You asked that question to Upright Biped and I had not directly addressed it one way or the other when you made your accusation. I had only commented to Upright Biped that we both seemed to come to the conclusion that we were likely wasting our time trying to have a discussion with you ... which is a conclusion that you make me more and more certain of every time you post a comment. When you actually directed the question to me I answered it, or rather I explained why it was irrelevant and nonsensical.

“The problem is that you’re engaging in debate over issues you don’t seem to understand” And you seem to be unable to clarify them. I know I don’t understand ID. That’s why I am asking questions. Someone who did understand ID WOULD ANSWER those questions.

Your questions are almost uniformly nonsensical and irrelevant and you either misunderstand or intentionally distort the answers.

“How is that another question?” Question 1: Can you prove that no natural mechanism, known by now or unknown, can explain a certain natural feature? Choose the feature you want. Question 2: Explain why question 1 is not relevant in the context of ID Get it, now?

I see. So what appeared to be one compound question ("Can you explain why the Question X is irrelvant? Here is Question X") was to be taken as two questions requiring separate answers.

“the question that you seem to think is a brilliant argument. But if you really want to know what’s wrong with it, there are several things.” I know. That’s way Upright BiPed’s comment of “the cause I posit is the only cause that is actually DEMONSTRATED as being capable of what must be accomplished” (when what must be accomplished is some features of living organisms). To demonstrate that, you should demonstrate that these things to be accomplished cannot be achieved by any natural mechanistic process. And trying to demonstrate that has all this problems you list. Thanks for helping me show that.

LOL. You have a real genius for twisting reality. So, you claim that you knew your question had multiple problems with it, not the least of which was that it was completely irrelevant, and yet you thought that it still somehow demanded either an answer or an explanation for why it wasn't relevant? And you further thought that a question that was irrelevant to the issue under consideration could somehow make a point about that issue? In any case, you've twisted Upright Biped's claim to be something other than it was, which he has now corrected you on. Undoubtedly you will find some way to twist it further to avoid the obvious fact that his claim, as he actually made it, is accurate.

“It is completely irrelevant because it entirely misunderstands the nature of a design inference, which, being the result of an abductive argument, is always held tentatively” Remember that, Upright BiPed.

No, you remember that, Guillermoe. There was nothing irrelevant or misinformed about UB's statement, nor was there anything that contravened proper abductive argumentation. HeKS

Guillermo, if you are going to argue my words, would you mind using my words, not your reformulation of them. Here us the text:

G: Can you name a biological structure that is dimensional semiosis? UB: Protein Synthesis. G: Can you explain how ID produce that structure in nature? UB: We needn’t play games. Neither of us has an instruction list for the origin of life. The distinction between us is that the cause I posit is the only cause that is actually demonstrated as being capable of what must be accomplished [a semiotic system using representations with a dimensional orientation]. To achieve the translation of nucleic codons into amino acids requires very specific physical conditions that are unique throughout nature – they are found nowhere else in the physical world except in the recording and translation of language and mathematics. What is a more viable scenario: that a cause known to be capable of language and mathematics is the likely source of the origin of life - or - that the physical capacity of language and mathematics arose in a pre-biotic environment without any of the organization afforded to it by informational constraint, and when it arose, the details of its construction were fortunately encoded in the very information that it made possible?

Upright BiPed

G'moe:

For example, the soil is a complex arrangement of a great number of parts: organic compunds of different kinds, lots of species of microorganisms, invertebrates, inorganic compounds.

And materialism cannot account for any of it. Joe

Earth to Guillermoe, neither of those links demonstrate that IC can evolve via natural selection and/ or drift. You are either very gullible, very dishonest or very stupid. Joe

HeKS: "It’s a simple fact that no natural process that has been proposed to date has been demonstrated to be causally adequate to produce the effects in question." And what PROCESS has been demonstrated to do that? Can you describe that process, HeKS? Man, you are really dumb.. "Thus, Upright Biped’s statement remains true" No, because: 1) the cause has not really been stated. What's exactly the cause you are talking about? 2) it has not been demonstrated that cause actually produces any features of life. Do you remember taking about "design INFERENCE" and "the MOST PLAUSIBLE explanation"? 3) it has not even been demonstrated that cause exists at all. So, no. It has not been demonstrated there is something as "the intelligent cause of life". It has not been demonstrated it existed. It has not been demonstrated it produced life. It has not been demonstrated it the only explanation. Guillermoe

Joe: "We can detect design by the number of parts and the intricacy of the object/ structure/ eveny in question" For example, the soil is a complex arrangement of a great number of parts: organic compunds of different kinds, lots of species of microorganisms, invertebrates, inorganic compounds. We should conclude it's designed, then? "No, irreducibly complex systems have been shown to be possible result of gradual random change. That is nonsense and you cannot present that evidence." Oh, yes, I can. http://www.nature.com/news/prehistoric-proteins-raising-the-dead-1.10261 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7381/full/nature10724.html Guillermoe

HeKS "And why am I intellectually dishonest?" Because you dismiss a question when you can't answer as being not relevant, instead of ackowledging you can't answer it. "The problem is that you’re engaging in debate over issues you don’t seem to understand" And you seem to be unable to clarify them. I know I don't understand ID. That's why I am asking questions. Someone who did understand ID WOULD ANSWER those questions. "How is that another question?" Question 1: Can you prove that no natural mechanism, known by now or unknown, can explain a certain natural feature? Choose the feature you want. Question 2: Explain why question 1 is not relevant in the context of ID Get it, now? "the question that you seem to think is a brilliant argument. But if you really want to know what’s wrong with it, there are several things." I know. That's way Upright BiPed's comment of "the cause I posit is the only cause that is actually DEMONSTRATED as being capable of what must be accomplished" (when what must be accomplished is some features of living organisms). To demonstrate that, you should demonstrate that these things to be accomplished cannot be achieved by any natural mechanistic process. And trying to demonstrate that has all this problems you list. Thanks for helping me show that. "It is completely irrelevant because it entirely misunderstands the nature of a design inference, which, being the result of an abductive argument, is always held tentatively" Remember that, Upright BiPed. Guillermoe

RB:

If the shape of the earth is in fact “apprehended directly through our senses,” as Barry stated, why was that shape never directly apprehended prior to Aristotle?

It was. Joe

HeKS:

(and it’s actually not clear that those terms don’t explicitly include logical deductions)

Of course, if it were explicit, it would be clear. In any event, the question is answered here:

What [Barry] did say is that notions such as “the earth is round” and “the earth orbits the sun” are immediate facts “we apprehend though our senses,"

Logical deductions are not attained by apprehending them through our senses. They are attained through logical deduction! Moreover, logical operations alone don’t tell us anything true about the world. They must have premises that tie them to the wold, and yield necessarily true conclusions only if the premises are true. Which brings us back to the “facts on the ground” that CAN be observed, and that DO belong in Barry’s category 1.

In any case, my position is simply that logically necessary deductions fall into the category that includes evidence, data and observations.

Then you are defining your base epistemological category differently than does Barry. Barry defined it in terms of facts “apprehended through the senses.”

I can’t quite tell if you mean that we agree or that you don’t understand the run-on sentence or what I meant by it.

The latter! I think what you wanted to say was “If you want to say that conclusions drawn as logically necessary deductions from direct observations do not qualify as being evidence or data that itself does NOT need to be accounted for by a theory then we will simply have to part ways on the point.” Given that, you are applying a somewhat different definition to your base category than did Barry.

People can bet their lives on mistakes and do all the time. The very language of betting one’s life illustrates the lack of certainty involved.

I think you miss the point of my reference to “betting one’s life.” Barry stated, “Category 1 knowledge…can be known with practical certainty.” He also refers to “reasonable” certainty (both of which I found to be hedges relative to his initial statements). As he does not say “absolute” certainty, I take it that he believes that we can be mistaken about things we “know” with practical, reasonable certainty. The question then is how confident one needs to be in a conclusion before it can be said that we hold it with “practical, reasonable” certainty. Suppose you and I are standing on the banks of a large frozen lake. A plunge through the ice at the center of the lake would certainly be fatal. I propose we walk across. You ask, “are you certain that the ice is thick enough to walk on?” I respond “yes, I’m certain,” and venture onto the ice. Clearly, there is a sense in which my action provides an operational definition of "practical" certainty, because my certainty informs my practice. If you can think of a practical metric for “sufficiently (practically, reasonably) certain” that is better than “sufficient to guide life-or-death practice,” I’d like to hear it. RB:

So here we have observational and predictive confirmation of a theory progressing to the point that the model could be judged as certainly correct in any “practical” or “reasonable” sense of certainty.

HeKS

This wrongly equates a theory’s high degree of predictive success with a correct and true synthesis of the relevant aspects of reality.

As my statement refers to Yuri Gargarin witnessing a round earth from space as he orbited same, I’d say the theory had been shown to be correct with “practical, reasonable” certainty, free of ad hoc epicycles.

Something cannot be both a theory and a fact in the same sense at the same time unless one is equivocating on the meaning of one or both of those terms. Observations are not theories (unless what one means by “theory” in this case is, “I have a theory that the external world exists and that I’m perceiving it”). Once something has been confirmed to be true by direct observation, the notion that it is true ceases to be a theory and becomes an observational fact. It may have previously been only a theory, and probably a well-supported one, but it would not be a theory anymore. Speculative theories cannot simply confirm themselves and become facts simply because they model, or even predict, the data well.

Theories that have progressed to become facts (for all reasonable, practical purposes) are not both theories and facts “in the same sense.” They are both fact and theory in the original, differing senses of these terms: “theories” in the sense that they synthesize and explain large bodies of observations and “facts” in the sense that we have become “practically, reasonably” certain of the fundamental correctness of that synthesis. With regard to “Observations are not theories,” let’s clarify by substituting “facts are not theories.” My response is simply while it is certainly true that the vast majority of facts are not theories, some theories are so well confirmed that we regard them as facts. From one of your earlier posts:

What I object to are claims that speculative theories involving numerous unconfirmed hypotheses and facing large amounts of contrary evidence are somehow entitled to the same epistemological status as direct observations, logically necessary deductions, and the raw data and evidence that those theories attempt to account for.

What I detect in the phrase “speculative theories” is another instance of the conflation of the colloquial sense of “theory” as a “speculative guess,” a colloquial understanding that puts “speculation,” “hypothesis,” “theory” and “fact” on a continuum of certainty, with the scientific sense of the term “theory,” which refers to a conceptual system that encompasses and explains facts and observations. There is no necessary continuum of certainty, as some theories are so successful at unifying such large bodies of facts and observations that, again for all practical, reasonable purposes, their correctness is as certain as is reasonably, practically possible. In this connection with this, the replacement of the classical description of space with that derived from relativity is often adduced as an example of a well-accepted theory being subject to refinement/replacement. That is certainly correct. But what is often missed in such discussions is the notion that upon attaining that revision/replacement, what we previously took to be hard and fast observational “facts” also change. As an example, before relativity we took it to be a “fact” that objects, governed by inertia, travel in straight lines unless forces are applied to modify that trajectory; after relativity we know that they are following geodesics in curved space. This illustrates the notion that what we take to be “raw facts” are often less “theory free” than we originally, naively, take them to be, and that knowledge often flows top-down from theory to fact rather than always bottom-up from fact to theory, as y’all seem to believe. Reciprocating Bill

@Mung #195 Yes, his full quote only further demonstrates the massive flaw in his overall reasoning and approach.

I do think it’s a stupid question… It’s following a stupid claim, so it could not be otherwise.

And what was the stupid claim that this question followed? It was Upright Biped's claim that intelligence is the only cause that has been actually demonstrated to be capable of bringing about the effects that trigger a design inference. And to this Guillermoe responds:

Plus, ” the only cause that is actually demonstrated as being capable of what must be accomplished” is false. Prove that no natural mechanism, known by now or unknown, can explain any natural feature you choose.

This is an obviously stupid question. It's a simple fact that no natural process that has been proposed to date has been demonstrated to be causally adequate to produce the effects in question. And even in the highly unlikely event that there exists some utterly unknown natural process out there that is up to the task, the very fact that it is unknown means it can't possibly have been demonstrated to be causally adequate. Thus, Upright Biped's statement remains true, not false as G'moe claimed and certainly not stupid. So what is G'moe's excuse for the silly question? We can just add this problem with the question to the other five I highlighted and the one that KF mentioned. This is basic, basic stuff. And even though G'moe said to you that he agrees the question is stupid, when Upright Biped first replied to it by saying, "This would be humorous if you weren’t serious," G'moe responded by saying:

And if you could answer it, some of your claims would be more that arbitrary claims.

In fact, G'moe claimed multiple times that this question is one that we "CAN'T ANSWER". And apparently we are intellectually dishonest if we don't take the time to answer obviously stupid questions or explain at length why they are stupid. Of course, now we have explained exactly why the question is obviously stupid, so perhaps we have regained our intellectual honesty. Or maybe it was just me who was at risk of having lost it in the first place. Who knows? HeKS

@Reciprocating Bill #144

HeKS

Barry may not have said so explicitly, but I indicated in a comment…

I’ve responded to what Barry did explicitly say.

Did you miss the part where I said the following bit in bold?

Barry may not have said so explicitly, but I indicated in a comment shortly after his post that such things do fall within the first category as evidence/data (and it’s actually not clear that those terms don’t explicitly include logical deductions)

You continued...

What he did say is that notions such as “the earth is round” and “the earth orbits the sun” are immediate facts “we apprehend though our senses,” like watching apples fall (and like your weirdly dangling hands), observations that are theory free. I disagree.

There is some imprecision of language in saying those things if, for example, saying that we apprehend the earth is round through our senses means we apprehend it it is round by looking at it in its entirety (i.e. from a distance) and observe that it is round, which is obviously true now but wasn't at the start of the 20th century. However, it's not obviously inaccurate if what is meant is simply that we apprehend certain aspects of the earth through our senses, which, when combined with other facts we apprehend through our senses, make it logically necessary that the earth is round (a sphere), such that the conclusion does not rely on unconfirmed premises involving a network of unconfirmed hypotheses. In any case, my position is simply that logically necessary deductions fall into the category that includes evidence, data and observations. For me, this is simply an issue of relative epistemological status and what I object to are claims that speculative theories involving numerous unconfirmed hypotheses and facing large amounts of contrary evidence are somehow entitled to the same epistemological status as direct observations, logically necessary deductions, and the raw data and evidence that those theories attempt to account for. But just to be clear, I'm not saying you've tried to make these claims of equivalence in epistemological status. If you have, I don't think I've come across them ... except that this almost seems like what you were trying to do later in comment 144.

Of course, if you want to say that the ability to draw some conclusion as a logically necessary deduction from direct observations or other raw data does not qualify the conclusion as being evidence or data that itself needs to be accounted for by a theory then we will simply have to part ways on the point.

I wouldn’t want to say that because it make no sense.

I can't quite tell if you mean that we agree or that you don't understand the run-on sentence or what I meant by it :)

And, having said all that, I feel the need to point out that the reference to not having any doubt that the earth is round instead of flat was originally applied to the present day, after it has already been confirmed by direct observation.

I touched on this in a previous post: Of course, observational confirmation of that that model progressed to the point that some of us, since 1961, have directly observed the sphericity of the earth, observations that became possible in part due to the very success of the model, in conjunction with other successful models (e.g. of gravitation, orbital mechanics, etc.) These models had attained the clearest demonstration of “practical” and “reasonable” certainty of all: people bet their lives on them.

People can bet their lives on mistakes and do all the time. The very language of betting one's life illustrates the lack of certainty involved.

So here we have observational and predictive confirmation of a theory progressing to the point that the model could be judged as certainly correct in any “practical” or “reasonable” sense of certainty

This wrongly equates a theory's high degree of predictive success with a correct and true synthesis of the relevant aspects of reality. A theory can be highly successful at accounting for our observations, and even predicting them, and still be wrong. This is especially true when a large part of the reason that the theory can account for the observable data is because it has added numerous ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses to account for results that were in principle unexpected under the original theory. And it's even more true when the auxiliary hypotheses are added in order to allow the theory to continue to conform to and support philosophical presuppositions. This was the case for the Ptolemaic geocentric model and its addition of epicycles to keep it compatible with Aristotelian philosophy. It's also true of another theory that gets discussed around here a lot.

– in the process of which your categorical distinction dissolved completely as the core insights of the model progressed to become both theory and fact.

Something cannot be both a theory and a fact in the same sense at the same time unless one is equivocating on the meaning of one or both of those terms. Observations are not theories (unless what one means by "theory" in this case is, "I have a theory that the external world exists and that I'm perceiving it"). Once something has been confirmed to be true by direct observation, the notion that it is true ceases to be a theory and becomes an observational fact. It may have previously been only a theory, and probably a well-supported one, but it would not be a theory anymore. Speculative theories cannot simply confirm themselves and become facts simply because they model, or even predict, the data well. HeKS

F/N: Am I the only one utterly astonished by the turn of events in the debates over design theory in recent days and weeks here at UD, including refusing to accept that there is a radical difference between an analysis of the logic of Cartesian-type XY-planes and XYZ spaces, and models as simplifications of systems that may be useful? And other scorched-earth retreat talking points in current or recent use? KF kairosfocus

PS: The scale of the earth is large enough that it seems locally flat. Until one realises that the earth's shadow is being cast on and moving across the Moon in a lunar eclipse, one may not make the connexion between the casting of your shadow on the ground by the Sun, and the casting of Earth's shadow on the Moon> Once that is realised, all that is needed beyond is to understand that only a sphere always casts a round shadow directly behind it. BTW, it was the same not-connecting that allowed millions including thousands of the highly educated, not to connect an apple or mango dropping from a tree on Earth to the Moon undergoing centripetal acceleration in orbit around Earth. Once that was done and numbers were put in tracing to understanding the logic of space -- Geometry -- Newton's theory of Gravitation emerged. Its inverse square character is directly connected to the geometry of a flux passing through ever larger spherical shells. kairosfocus

RB: There you go again. KF kairosfocus

HeKS:

So that’s 5 blatant problems with your question/argument. Does anyone else have anything to add? Have I missed anything?

Guillermoe: "Can you prove that no natural mechanism, known by now or unknown, can explain a certain natural feature?" Mung: "What a stupid question." Guillermoe: "I do think it’s a stupid question...it could not be otherwise." Mung

KF:

It is now apparent that you refuse to acknowledge the difference between the logic of space addressed by Geometry and a model framework that is a simplification of reality and so is necessarily false though often useful.

No, the problem is that you are unable to grasp that axiomatic systems such as geometry and mathematics can be put to use building conceptual models. The current instance requires simplifications and assumptions that enable the application of the abstractions of geometry to a specific, very physical case. For example, modeling the earth as a geometric sphere omits every other fact about the earth except spherical shape. That's a simplification. Similar is the assumption, ultimately false, that light travels in the straight lines of Euclidian geometry. The very hallmarks you identify make it clear that Aristotle employed a model. The model was plenty good, nonetheless.

You will understand why we find it necessary to protect our children.

Once you have assumed your heroic stance, why not respond to this: If the shape of the earth is in fact “apprehended directly through our senses,” as Barry stated, why was that shape never directly apprehended prior to Aristotle? Was his the gift of superior eyesight? Reciprocating Bill

G'moe:

You said you detect DESIGN. Designing is to plan and make decisions about (something that is being built or created). To detect design you MUST detect those plans and decisions. Basically, that’s detecting purpose.

We can detect design by the number of parts and the intricacy of the object/ structure/ eveny in question

No, irreducibly complex systems have been shown to be possible result of gradual random change.

That is nonsense and you cannot present that evidence. Joe

HeKS, Nice summary, but I fear that it simply won't matter. He has way too much invested his faulty questions to give up on them now. Upright BiPed

F/N: Collins English Dict: MODEL . . . 9. (Logic) a simplified representation or description of a system or complex entity, esp one designed to facilitate calculations and predictions. Just to underscore the point, KF PS: One crucial distinction between a theory and a model as applicable to this discussion, is that a theory properly speaking seeks to be possibly true, not just empirically relevant in a certain range of validity. So, for instance strictly, between 1880 and 1930 Newtonian Dynamics was demoted to a useful limited model for the physical behaviour of large slow moving bodies. For, it has been definitively shown not to be of universal applicability. kairosfocus

RB: It is now apparent that you refuse to acknowledge the difference between the logic of space addressed by Geometry and a model framework that is a simplification of reality and so is necessarily false though often useful. If you expand "model" to mean everything, you empty it of meaning. Worse, if you do so in one step, the better to pull in under that umbrella the notion that there is equivalence in warrant between observations of the actual here-now world and the imaginative a priori evolutionary materialism controlled lab coat clad origins narrative presented to defenseless school children as though it were practically certain fact, that becomes blatantly manipulative. I suggest to you that you take time to think afresh. In the meanwhile we will take due note on what you and your ilk would do if given unfettered unsupervised access to our children under false colours of education in "Science." You will understand why we find it necessary to protect our children. KF kairosfocus

HeKS, it is also a case of selective hyperskepticism, as it taxes design theory specifically as though it were the case that other inductive arguments do not face very similar limitations. Where, for much of the knowledge we are interested in, we must be content to provide reasonable and currently adequate support rather than demonstrative proof beyond all correction. And in fact, post Godel, not even Mathematics rests on certain, complete, known true and coherent axioms that entail all that is knowable in a field of thought. Deductive arguments in the real world are also incapable of proofs beyond all possibility of correction that also give relevant real world answers on complex topics. With school arithmetic axiomatised as the yardstick. KF PS: SB has sometimes pointed out that a factor here is, that as objectors tend to take sci for granted, they discover limitations of inductive warrant in the context of determined objectionism and so think the problems are specific to ID. They then proceed to attack, and often will not then acknowledge correction, locking in selective hyperskepticism. PPS: I find it highly instructive that there is a general refusal to engage the config space search challenge in light of available atomic resources and chem interaction rates, which leads to inability to sample more than a very small fraction of configs for 500 - 1,000+ bits of info capacity; leading to the strong stochastic expectation of reflecting the vast bulk not isolated islands of specific function. Where that isolation and rarity of FSCO/I in config spaces is driven by the requirement of a large number of well-matched, correctly arranged and coupled parts to achieve relevant function . . . cell based life rooted in encapsulation, smart gating, metabolism, code based self replication on a kinematic von Neumann self-replicator, complex body plan development on integrated tissues, organs and systems. Blind chance sampling is the alternative to intelligent direction to account for high contingency, where mechanical necessity in the end does not account for such. Front loading cosmic physics and chemistry or genomes etc so we have programmed complex outcomes, simply displaces the contingency up a level or two. kairosfocus

@G'moe #180

HeKS: You are very dishonest intellectually and I’ll show it to you. I asked you a fair question. I HAVE JUSTIFIED WHY IT IS A FAIR QUESTION. You dismissed without giving reasons, just using irony to insult me. You know what they say, “irony is the strength of the cowards”.

Interesting. In at least 15 years of discussion and debate on theological and scientific issues with both laypersons (like myself) and academics, this is the first time anyone has ever accused me of being intellectually dishonest. And why am I intellectually dishonest? Because after taking the time to point out to you the widespread errors in your reasoning, which you simply ignored or responded to with different errors, I did not also take the time to explain to you why your question directed to someone else was silly.

If you really had a reason to dismiss the question (apart from not being able to answer it and to accept the implications of that) you would have given your reason. You haven’t, you simply treat me like it is a foolish question.

The problem is that you're engaging in debate over issues you don't seem to understand, you're accusing people of fallacies you don't comprehend, and you ask inane questions that you think are powerful arguments without realizing the obvious problems with them or that they are irrelevant, then you stamp your feet and make accusations when people recognize the level of error in your arguments and are surprised you don't see it for yourself.

It might be a foolish question. But you are not smarter that me if you can tell why it is a foolish question. So now, I’ll add ANOTHER FOOLISH question that you CAN’T ANSWER. Explain why the next question is not relevant in the context of ID: Can you prove that no natural mechanism, known by now or unknown, can explain a certain natural feature? Choose the feature you want. And I insist that you answer the question itself. Anyone else is invited to try.

How is that another question? That's the same question that Upright Biped was saying was silly ... the question that you seem to think is a brilliant argument. But if you really want to know what's wrong with it, there are several things. 1) Your question is asking if we can prove a universal negative that is not logically contradictory and which would be functionally impossible to investigate, since the universal set includes unknown entities (i.e. unknown natural mechanisms). So no, of course we can't prove this. By its very nature it is incapable of being proved. 2) Your question seeks to create an unfalsifiable and permanent materialism-of-the-gaps argument. It makes all contrary evidence irrelevant, because no matter what the evidence indicates, or how strongly, this materialism-of-the-gaps position can always invoke some unknown material mechanism to explain anything. 3) Combined with an a priori commitment to materialism, it advocates an actual argument from ignorance: It has not been proved that there is not an unknown material process capable of explaining this effect, therefore it is still appropriate to conclude that there is some unknown material process capable of explaining this effect. 4) It indicates that our science should be utterly dictated by a completely blind philosophical commitment to materialism, which must be absolute, and that it is never appropriate to make statements based on our best knowledge and evidence at any given time if those statements don't support materialism. 5) It is completely irrelevant because it entirely misunderstands the nature of a design inference, which, being the result of an abductive argument, is always held tentatively. That means that if some new, previously unknown natural mechanism is discovered in the future that is causally adequate to explain the effects that triggered the design inference, the design inference would be considered falsified at that time and the natural mechanism would then be adopted as the best explanation. That, however, does not change the fact that design is by far the best causal explanation for certain features of nature right now based on the evidence we have available to us in the present. So that's 5 blatant problems with your question/argument. Does anyone else have anything to add? Have I missed anything? HeKS

The same cannot be said for Darwinism and the naturalism it embodies as a framework for science. Suppose I were a super-genius molecular biologist, and I invented some hitherto unknown molecular machine, far more complicated and marvelous than the bacterial flagellum. Suppose further I inserted this machine into a bacterium, set this genetically modified organism free, allowed it to reproduce in the wild, and destroyed all evidence of my having created the molecular machine. Suppose, for instance, the machine is a stinger that injects other bacteria and explodes them by rapidly pumping them up with some gas (I'm not familiar with any such molecular machine in the wild), thereby allowing the bacteria endowed with my invention to consume their unfortunate prey. Now let's ask the question, If a Darwinist came upon this bacterium with the novel molecular machine in the wild, would that machine be attributed to design or to natural selection? When I presented this example to David Sloan Wilson at a conference at MIT two years ago, he shrugged it off and remarked that natural selection created us and so by extension also created my novel molecular machine. But of course this argument won't wash since the issue is whether natural selection could indeed create us. - Dembski

Heartlander

2001: A Space Odyssey Heartlander

G, Cant' say I can find fault then. I often follow up stupid claims with stupid questions myself! Mung

Mung: I do think it's a stupid question... It's following a stupid claim, so it could not be otherwise. Guillermoe

What a stupid question. Guillermoe:

Can you prove that no natural mechanism, known by now or unknown, can explain a certain natural feature?

If it's a natural feature it came about naturally, by definition. Proof has nothing to do with it. Mung

HeKS @ 177, The fundamental problem doesn't seem to be disagreement, IMHO. I have wonderfully intense and interesting discussions in this area with a good friend who still believes in Darwinism. And it feels productive. We see the strengths and weaknesses in our respective positions and treat each other with respect. What bothers me here is the attitude of some of the ID deniers that their unsupported disagreement constitutes irrefutable evidence. :P -Q Querius

"And I insist that you answer the question itself. Anyone else is invited to try." G, I'm afraid that you are on the wrong site if you expect to have questions answered. Insults they are good at. Sarcasm they are good at. Twisting words they are good at. Quote mining they are good at. Logically defending their own religion, not so much. But keep asking. It is entertaining. not_querius

HeKS: You are very dishonest intellectually and I'll show it to you. I asked you a fair question. I HAVE JUSTIFIED WHY IT IS A FAIR QUESTION. You dismissed without giving reasons, just using irony to insult me. You know what they say, "irony is the strength of the cowards". If you really had a reason to dismiss the question (apart from not being able to answer it and to accept the implications of that) you would have given your reason. You haven't, you simply treat me like it is a foolish question. It might be a foolish question. But you are not smarter that me if you can tell why it is a foolish question. So now, I'll add ANOTHER FOOLISH question that you CAN'T ANSWER. Explain why the next question is not relevant in the context of ID: Can you prove that no natural mechanism, known by now or unknown, can explain a certain natural feature? Choose the feature you want. And I insist that you answer the question itself. Anyone else is invited to try. Guillermoe

KF:

So, just the mere fact of that consistent shape establishes the fact of the general shape of the earth, a sphere, near enough for government work.

Certainly. But not by “direct apprehension through the senses,” but rather by means of reasoning employing the axiomatically derived geometric facts to which you refer. IOW, a model. That is why for most of human history there was no knowledge of the shape of the earth despite common, widely viewable eclipses throughout that history, and why we credit Aristotle with originating a brilliant deduction that disclosed that shape. If the shape of the earth is in fact “apprehended directly through our senses,” as Barry stated, why was that shape never directly apprehended prior to Aristotle? Was his the gift of superior eyesight?

By contrast the remote past of origins is NOT observable, only traces form it are.

I’ve made no comment regarding the reliability of models events in the present relative to models of events that occurred the remote past. My comment concerned Barry’s mischaracterization of an eclipse as “direct apprehension through the senses” of a round earth. Reciprocating Bill

Hi HeKS, You are correct. I think there may be a tipping point of some kind. Upright BiPed

@UB #171

G’Mo: “Prove that no natural mechanism, known by now or unknown, can explain any natural feature you choose. UB: This would be humorous if you weren’t serious.” G’Mo: And if you could answer it, some of your claims would be more that arbitrary claims.

Read what you wrote. Re-read what you wrote. Repeat this process until you stop yourself from asking this question. The simple fact that you ask it indicates that I need to limit my time conversing with you.

It seems we've come to the same conclusion. See my comment #170. You can only spend so much time trying to have a discussion with someone who thinks that type of argument is effective or reasonable. HeKS

"Because there is nothing you can do to the arrangement of nucleic acids in a codon to relate it to an amino acids except translate it. There is a physiocochemial discontinuity between them that must be preserved by the organization of the system in order for translation to be obtained" Why this can only be achieved by means of an IC system? That was my question. Answer in relation to biological systems, please. "UB: “But the system itself requires a local independence from physical determinsm in order to even function. This is another incontrovertible fact” G’Mo Again, why? Demosntrate it with biolocgical examples, please. Read the link I provided." I don't see the answer to my question there. Can you write it here? "UB: “No, there is no natural explanation, nor even a substantive hypothesis for the rise of translation” G’Mo: How do you know? From several years of reading advocates of natural causes, as well as their materialists counterparts who attempt to keep them in check. The links you provide give no substantive source for translation." Argument fro self knowing. Heearing someone talk about something is not proof of anything. The question remains unanswered: How do you know there is no natural explanation, nor even a substantive hypothesis for the rise of translation? Demonstration, please, in a biological context. "If it is unknown, then I obviously have nothing to recognize. If it was suddenly known, then it would demonstrate the capacities to which it is being assigned. This should seem rather obvious." Unknown things exist. How do you avoid confusing an existing but still unknown very complex process with the action of an intelligent agent? Why do you avoid this question so hard? "Read what you wrote. Re-read what you wrote. Repeat this process until you stop yourself from asking this question. The simple fact that you ask it indicates that I need to limit my time conversing with you." No, I won't because it's a fair question. You claim certain features cannot be explained by any natural mechanism. PROVE IT. " What exactly do you think information does without translation?" A lot of things. But I asked you: "Anyway, translation of what? I can find a lot of examples of “translation” in nature. In life and in non-life. So, what are you talking about exactly? And how do you explain the origin of that translation?" Why don't you answer? Guillermoe

RB: The facts of a 3-4-5 triangle were discovered then were the subject of a proof, not invented by those who looked at such. This is a direct implication of the logic of an XYZ Cartesian type space such as we study in school algebra then calculus. It cannot not obtain, it is necessarily true -- and yes other spaces are possible, with different geometries and more broadly topologies, but then we must be careful of equivocation about what we are discussing. Likewise the direct implications of space are that a sphere will be such that any cross section through the centre will be circular by the necessities of space and what a sphere is. Rays that run tangential to such and terminate on a surface behind, will mark out the locus of a circle's circumference. This is the only 3-d body with that property. That is why given that rays of light on the relevant scale act as geometric rays do, we see the consistently circular shadow cast on the Moon in a lunar eclipse. So, just the mere fact of that consistent shape establishes the fact of the general shape of the earth, a sphere, near enough for government work. By contrast the remote past of origins is NOT observable, only traces form it are. Explanatory constructs for how that reconstructed past came to be are twice removed from being observations. KF kairosfocus

HeKS: Really? Well, I don't wan to troll. Let's make it simple. Choose any natural feature you like and tell me what ID explains of it. I remind you "ID states that certain features of the universe and of life are best explained by means of an intelligent cause". Guillermoe

G: Can you prove the truth of any scientific explanation at theory level? ANS: No, so it makes no sense to demand of design theory what does not obtain for anything of that level. What can readily be shown is that the design inference, per inductive inference to the best explanation, is the best current explanation for FSCO/I and on the needle in haystack blind search on the gamut of atomic resources available in the solar system or cosmos, it is maximally unlikely that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity will ever give rise to FSCO/I. It so happens that cell based life is full of such, and further the fine tuning of the observed cosmos that supports that sort of life based on C Chemistry aqueous medium cells, is also indicative of design. By the sorts of standards of warrant that lie behind say the statistical form of the second law of thermodynamics, which is not about to be subjected to selectively hyperskeptical challenge, save by cranks. KF kairosfocus

wd400: I must confess, I wasn't sure what you were really getting at, and wanted to change my post. But I just couldn't figure out what it was you were trying to say, and just waited for you to respond. My point, in a way, was this: if, e.g., it turned out to be true that the sun revolved around the earth, then everything we thought we knew turns out to be wrong. And then we would be right to say that "science proves nothing," as we would have to invent an entirely new way of thinking scientifically. But, perhaps, this was your point as well. Having said this, I would just further point out that, e.g., when defining the electrical field, one has to adjust charges and distances, and, then, using the defining formula, "define" what a 'esu' (electro-static unit) is. Science, of course, cannot explain 'why' the electric field works the way it does; it can only explain what measurements you can expect. In this sense, it would be proper to say that "science proves nothing." IOW, science is limited in its scope. A lot of what ails us societally, spiritually, and even scientifically, is the lack of humility on the part of scientists. I can measure your height, weight, and IQ; but that doesn't mean I've "explained" you. I can plant electrodes in your brain and predict what you will do next; but I still have not "explained" you. It will be a happy day when scientists, especially radical atheistic scientists, can accept this delimitation. All the best. PaV

UB: “You can’t translate information without an irreducible complex system.” G’Mo: Why? Demonstrate this, please.

Because there is nothing you can do to the arrangement of nucleic acids in a codon to relate it to an amino acids except translate it. There is a physiocochemial discontinuity between them that must be preserved by the organization of the system in order for translation to be obtained. Here

UB: “But the system itself requires a local independence from physical determinsm in order to even function. This is another incontrovertible fact” G’Mo Again, why? Demosntrate it with biolocgical examples, please.

Read the link I provided.

UB: “No, there is no natural explanation, nor even a substantive hypothesis for the rise of translation” G’Mo: How do you know?

From several years of reading advocates of natural causes, as well as their materialists counterparts who attempt to keep them in check. The links you provide give no substantive source for translation.

G’Mo: Anyway, if there could be a natural explanation, How would you recognize a very complex UNKNOWN natural process that gave rise to preotein synthesis from intelligent planning of this process? You don’t answer the question. You are in denial.

If it is unknown, then I obviously have nothing to recognize. If it was suddenly known, then it would demonstrate the capacities to which it is being assigned. This should seem rather obvious.

G’Mo: “Prove that no natural mechanism, known by now or unknown, can explain any natural feature you choose. UB: This would be humorous if you weren’t serious.” G’Mo: And if you could answer it, some of your claims would be more that arbitrary claims.

Read what you wrote. Re-read what you wrote. Repeat this process until you stop yourself from asking this question. The simple fact that you ask it indicates that I need to limit my time conversing with you.

UB: “You cannot point to a single instance of translation anywhere in nature that does not owe its existence to the translation that organized the first livign cell on earth.” G’Mo: In your original phrase you didn’t mention “translation”. You are now asking me for an example to a different thing.

Yawn. What exactly do you think information does without translation? - - - - - Read the link I gave you. Really, think seriously for a while before responding. cheers... Upright BiPed

Guillermoe, At this point I just have to conclude that you are a troll. You do not seem to have the least bit of understanding about any of the issues you're discussing and your arguments read like you're quick-referencing something like RationalWiki to reproduce tired and misguided arguments. Case in point: You argue that if we conclude something was designed, our experience tells us that we must conclude it was designed by humans, and if it couldn't have been designed by humans, then it must not have been designed. Try telling that to the people who who work at S.E.T.I. The reality of the matter is that our uniform and repeated experience allows us to detect design simpliciter, and we do this when we find such things as the presence of complex and specified information. If we detect design in some medium that could not have been caused by humans, we do not conclude that it must therefore not have been designed. Rather, we reasonably conclude that there is some source of intelligence other than humans. That is exactly the logic upon which NASA's SETI program is built. Also, you have again invoked a fallacy you clearly don't understand and tried to apply it to ID. First it was an argument from ignorance, now you say it is an argument from self-knowing. You are wrong again. An argument from self-knowing is a deductive argument, though it is an invalid one. It makes a claim about the way things really are, end of story, not about the way things currently stand. You are trying to convert a perfectly valid aspect of abductive argumentation, which is used across the historical sciences, into a logical fallacy. It doesn't work. The simple fact that you don't understand what proper argumentation looks like doesn't mean that what you're looking at is a fallacy. In any case, I think I've spent enough time on this discussion with you. HeKS

UB: "You can’t translate information without an irreducible complex system." Why? Demonstrate this, please. "But the system itself requires a local independence from physical determinsm in order to even function. This is another incontrovertible fact" Again, why? Demosntrate it with biolocgical examples, please. "Perhaps you should still yourself long enough to learn what ID is about" Indeed, still I don't know how ID explains the existence of IC systems in nature, for example. "No, there is no natural explanation, nor even a substantive hypothesis for the rise of translation" How do you know? Here are some sources, by the way: http://130.14.81.99/ps/access/SCBCCX.pdf http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0032776 And this comes from a very quick search.. Anyway, if there could be a natural explanation, How would you recognize a very complex UNKNOWN natural process that gave rise to preotein synthesis from intelligent planning of this process? You don't answer the question. You are in denial. "Prove that no natural mechanism, known by now or unknown, can explain any natural feature you choose. This would be humorous if you weren’t serious." And if you could answer it, some of your claims would be more that arbitrary claims. I insist: you said "The distinction between us is that the cause I posit is the only cause that is actually demonstrated as being capable of what must be accomplished" show it to me with an example. Choose any feature you like and demonstrate that there cannot be any other cause than yours (also, describe that cause, please). "You cannot point to a single instance of translation anywhere in nature that does not owe its existence to the translation that organized the first livign cell on earth." In your original phrase you didn'tmention "translation". You are now asking me for an example to a different thing. Anyway, translation of what? I can find a lot of examples of "translation" in nature. In life and in non-life. So, what are you talking about exactly? And how do you explain the origin of that translation? Guillermoe

KF:

And so, when observed circumstances — facts — impose a certain spatial situation, there are concomitant necessarily true further facts. To the point where the observation is tantamount to an observation of those facts.

Only if one is aware of the concomitant facts of geometry relevant to the phenomenon, and their application to that phenomenon. IOW, aware of the model, and its application. Absent awareness of those concomitant facts of geometry and their application, there is no direct, “apprehension though our senses” of the fact that the earth is round. That is why for most of human history there was no knowledge of the shape of the earth despite common, widely viewable eclipses throughout that history, and why we credit Aristotle with originating a brilliant deduction that disclosed that shape. If the shape of the earth is in fact “apprehended directly through our senses,” why was that shape never directly apprehended prior to Aristotle? Reciprocating Bill

There surely is an explanation to this mechanism (at least a hypothesis), but I don’t need to. How would you recognize a very complex UNKNOWN natural process that gave rise to preotein synthesis from intelligent planning of this process?

No, there is no natural explanation, nor even a substantive hypothesis for the rise of translation. But now that you bring it up, on what material grounds do I prefer a unknown process over a known process?

Prove that no natural mechanism, known by now or unknown, can explain any natural feature you choose.

This would be humorous if you weren't serious.

Why “without any of the organization afforded to it by informational constraint”? Natural environments have informational constraints that force organization. Evolution is exactly that.

You cannot point to a single instance of translation anywhere in nature that does not owe its existence to the translation that organized the first livign cell on earth. You simply do not know what you are talking about. cheers... Upright BiPed

No, irreducibly complex systems have been shown to be possible result of gradual random change.

You can't organize the living cell without the translation of an informational medium into physical effects. You can't translate information without an irreducible complex system. These are incontrovertible facts. So, from a pre-biotic (non-information, inanimate) environment an IC system must arise just to be physcially capable of organizing the cell (and initiating Darwinian evolution). You want to posit a fully natural deterministic source for this IC system. But the system itself requires a local independence from physical determinsm in order to even function. This is another incontrovertible fact. Perhaps you should still yourself long enough to learn what ID is about, instead of merely parroting others (who take life's informational requirements for granted as you do). Upright BiPed

Jerry: "By definition, intelligence interventions are often one time events." How do you know that definition is correct respecting the intelligent designer of life? "theory of natural evolution explains changes in life since the first cell appeared" I know. I've heard many times in ID circles "evolution cannot explain this feature" but I never heard "ID explains this feature in this way". That was what I was talking about. That many people say "Evolution doesn't explain this", but when you ask ID doesn't either. So, what's the point with saying that evolution cannot explain this or that? Guillermoe

UB: G: So, how do you make sure that you are not confusing the result of a very complex natural process with intelligent planning? UB: Posit a natural process for the rise of dimensional semiosis* and I’ll take a stab at it. G: Can you name a biological structure that is dimensional semiosis? UB: Protein Synthesis. There surely is an explanation to this mechanism (at least a hypothesis), but I don't need to. How would you recognize a very complex UNKNOWN natural process that gave rise to preotein synthesis from intelligent planning of this process? UB: The distinction between us is that the cause I posit is the only cause that is actually demonstrated as being capable of what must be accomplished. No, PB, you have not posit a cause at all. What's exactly the intelligent cause? Plus, " the only cause that is actually demonstrated as being capable of what must be accomplished" is false. Prove that no natural mechanism, known by now or unknown, can explain any natural feature you choose. "To achieve the translation of nucleic codons into amino acids requires very specific physical conditions that are unique throughout nature – they are found nowhere else in the physical world except in the recording and translation of language and mathematics" That they are nowhere else proves nothing. That they are found in mathematics is not surprising, mathematics is a tool we developed to study our universe. Obviously, they share characteristics with the universe. "What is a more viable scenario: that a cause known to be capable of language and mathematics is the likely source of the origin of life" Depends on what you are talking about exactly. Spiderman is capable of language and mathematics, yet, him being the cause of life is not a very viable scenario. So, what is the "a cause known to be capable of language and mathematics" you are talking about exactly? "or - that the physical capacity of language and mathematics arose in a pre-biotic environment without any of the organization afforded to it by informational constraint" Why "without any of the organization afforded to it by informational constraint"? Natural environments have informational constraints that force organization. Evolution is exactly that. Guillermoe

Joe: This is nice: "1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design." No, irreducibly complex systems have been shown to be possible result of gradual random change. Also, specified complexity is a very confusing term. Many natural things can have high levels of specified complexity. Usually, to solve this, ID adds characteristics to the definition of specified complexity that involve the assumption of purpose. Yet, purpose has not been detected in nature. "2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity." True, but as said in 1, irreducible complexity can be the result of evolution (there is no biological reason for this not being true, try to justify that IC systems can't evolve naturally) and many natural features show high levels of specified complexity or we have to assume purpose in living organisms, which is a phallacy: we would assume purpose to conclude there was purpose. "3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity." False. Refuted in lab experiments. "4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems." What is the EXPLANATION? how does ID exactly EXPLAIN this systems? "via intelligent agent"? That's an explanation? "There you have it- to falsify Intelligent Design all one has to do is demonstrate that natural selection can produce irreducibly complex biological systems." First: IT HAS BEEN DONE!!! Second: NO!!!! To falsify intelligent design you should explain how the design happens or what's the designer, and then I have to falsify THAT. "3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity 4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems" This is argument from self-knowing: I don't know how natural mechanisms would explain this, so ID is a better explanation (though there is no explanation)". "How is this evidence for Intelligent Design? Cause and effect relationships as in designers often take two totally unrelated systems and intergrate them into one. The ordering of separate subsystems to produce a specific effect that neither can do alone" Argument from self-knowing: "I don't know a natural mechanism that explains this, therefore it doesn't exist". How did the intelligent cause produce ATP Synthase? Do you know Occam razor's? If you claim the ATP Synthase was produced by the intelligent cause without evidence, I can reject it without evidence. "Very wrong! We would infer it was some other intelligent agency as nature doesn’t magically gain some ability just because humans weren’t around." FALSE. All those other instances you say we know were not designed by "some other intelligent agency". They were designed BY HUMANS. If you can directly extrapolate the characteristiscs of those objects to any other, the characteristic is DESIGNED BY HUMANS. If it could be wrong to extrapolate the characteristic "BY HUMANS", there is a chance that it is also wrong to extrapolate the chracteristic "DEISGNED". Anyway, this is a phallacy: false analogy. Guillermoe

No, I am not confused. You accuse evolution of not explaining things. Yet ID doesn’t explain them. And it doesn’t explain anything else. So, what’s the deal? What the heck should we expect from ID?

No theory of natural evolution explains changes in life since the first cell appeared. If you differ on this then we suggest you delineate such a theory with supporting evidence. By definition, intelligence interventions are often one time events. If they did happen, there may be little if any forensic evidence for the actual event. That does not rule it out but it could be the explanation for much that we see. Not a guarantee but definitely a possibility jerry

Joe: "We don’t have to. All we need to do is detect intelligent agency activity" You said you detect DESIGN. Designing is to plan and make decisions about (something that is being built or created). To detect design you MUST detect those plans and decisions. Basically, that's detecting purpose. Anyway, can you give me examples of the activities of intelligent agency that have been detected? "Doubtful- well perhaps to people like you." Ironic. "Investigation. What prevented Stonehenge from being a very complex natural process?" Past observations. What past observations allow you to distiguish designed living organisms from undesigned living organisms? "And yet evolutionism doesn’t have any answers, let alone CLEAR ANSWERS." And my dady is going to beat you. How old are you? Feathers are altered scales from dinosauria skin. That's ONE answer.I have just proved you wrong. Now, do the same applying ID. "Then tell us all of the “deep, thorough, explanations/ answers of evolutionism" Ask a question. Ask a question you can answer with ID, I will answer it with evolution and we'll see. "That is only an OPINION. And seeing that I know better I can dismiss it." You can prove me wrong by just mentioning ONE example of something that we know for certain was designed and we can't say anything about the designer. "A cl;ass of causes, duh. Intelligent agencies make up a class of causes. Are you really that daft?" I might be daft, yeah.. But I guess I'm not daft enough to say the if I know something is intelligently designed I can tell the designer belongs to the intelligent class. Are you serious? "Officer, I can give information about the criminal you are looking for. He broke the law". "Nope. Obviously you have never conducted an investigation" I HAVE conducted investigation and I HAVE CHECKED THE DEFINITON OF DESIGN: Design: deliberate purposive planning. How can you detect purposive planning without detecting purposive planning? "It doesn’t, you are confused" No, I am not confused. You accuse evolution of not explaining things. Yet ID doesn't explain them. And it doesn't explain anything else. So, what's the deal? What the heck should we expect from ID? "No one has done such a thing for Stonehenge." No, because in that case we know the designer. Sorry, I'll rephrase: Science mandates also that the materialistic processes involved in the design or the designer itself be DESCRIBED and VALIDATED BEFORE accepting the design inference. Better, uh? Guillermoe

K "F/N: Let us refresh minds again on design, in the simplest definition: intelligently directed contingency (as shown in both plans and the results of the process), as we are all intimately familiar with" Can you prove any feature in nature to be the result of "intelligently directed" processes? Guillermoe

K: Answered what? Guillermoe

HeKS: "I’m talking about the application of mind to the achieving of some functionally specified goal." Can you give me an example from nature where you can detect that mind and its goal? "The evidence of purposeful design is overwhelming on any objective analysis" Examples, please. "but due to Methodological Naturalism it is claimed to be merely an appearance of purposeful design" What criteria that is not MN do you use to analyze this evidence? "For example, someone visiting South Dakota who had no knowledge of Mount Rushmore could stumble across it and know immediately that it was the product of intelligent design rather than natural processes" Yes, because that person SURELY has seen mountains in their natural state and knows that sculptures are not a natural part of mountains. And that person also surely has seen sculptures and knows that humans can do that. And it is also natural to attribute things in our planet that don't seem natural to human beings. You see what clearly comes from your example: analogy IS BASED ON PAST EXPERIENCE. Inference of design IS BASED ON PAST EXPERIENCE. What's our past experience? Complex things around us are designed by us. So, it's natural that we are biased to think that complex things are designed, wether they are designed or not. "As another example..." Can you give me a biological example of a natural feature in a living organism that can be explained by ID? An example for which we can prove it's designed? "We know what designed Stonehenge: HUMANS!! How do you know this?" PAST EXPERIENCE. We know humans build things because we have observed that they do. "How do you know it was humans rather than aliens?" Because aour past experience proves that humans exist and does not prove that aliens exist, so it's much much more likely that humans built Stonhenge. That allows us to say A LOT of things about the designers of Stonehenge. What can we say about the intelligent designer of life on Earth? "Would you like to assert that there is, in fact, no evidence that Stonehenge is the product of design and that it is very likely a natural occurrence because we don’t know who did it?" I didn't say that we can say EVERYTHING about the designers of Stonehenge, I said we could say a lot. When you detect design, you can say at least SOMETHING about the designer. Don't distort my arguments, please. " I was saying that if you bypass the question of the truth of UCA in order to discuss the mechanism of UCA, then you are assuming the truth of UCA because it is logically impossible to discover the true mechanism by which something happened if that thing didn’t actually happen in the first place." The truth of many things is conected to its mechanisms. You can discuss if those things are true BY DISCUSSING THEIR MECHANISMS. There is no rule that states that one comes before the other. "Second of all, even if it were true that there were no other explanation that made sense" It is true. Can you give me another explanation? "that in itself would not make UCA plausible if UCA itself could not realistically account for the evidence." I know. But there is evidence for UCA. It's ironic that you say such thing when a typical argument for Id is "evolution cannot explain this". "you have just admitted that you think it would be appropriate to make a design inference if intelligent design could account for the evidence and no other explanation could account for the evidence or could not account for it nearly as well." No, I didn't say that. I said that to infer intelligent design you have to prove there is goal. I clearly said that. Don't put words in my mouth. Basing an inference in having NO OTHER explanation is argument from self-knowing. I said there is evidence for evolution and UCA AND THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION. "An argument from ignorance takes the form: “We don’t have evidence that x is wrong, therefore x is right.”" You are right!! Your phallacy is argument from self-knowing, not argument from ignorance. "“We observe an effect, x is causally adequate to explain the effect and is the most common cause of the effect" Can you tell me how do we know what is the MOST COMMON CAUSE of living organisms? Can you tell me how many features in living organisms WE KNOW are couse by ID and how many of them are natural evolution? Can you describe THE CAUSE X you say it's "causally adequate"? If you can't answer this questions your inference is just wishful thinking. "The methodology I would use is simply to follow the evidence where it leads" That is not mechanistic? Can you give me an example of evidence of something that is not made by humans and is not natural? "And I explained exactly why. But you’ve ignored that explanation, quoted only the initial claim absent its justification, and answered “REEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAALLY?”" Ah, you need me to explain why all you said afterwards is bullshit. Science can be wrong. But science always follows evidence. So, if science assumes true something wrong it's because evidence led to it. An evidence, most of the time, ends up leading to valid knowledge. Now, check the definition of myth: a story about superhuman beings of an earlier age taken by preliterate society to be a true account, usually of how natural phenomena, social customs, etc., came into existence. Man, it looks quite a lot more like ID than science. " Would you like to tell me why a methodology with an a priori commitment to the implementation of a possibly false philosophical presupposition is less prone to accepting myths (widely held but false beliefs; especially those related to early history and the explanation of natural phenomena) than a methodology that allows the evidence to speak for itself and lead where it may, without predetermined philosophical commitments that block avenues of investigation?" Id does not allows evidence to speak. ID puts words in the mouth of evidence. How do you detect purpose in nature? What evidence of purpose in nature you have? There is none. You assumed purpose. And since you interpret evidence subjectively, evidence tells you what you believe is true. Even if it is a myth. "Because one aspect of creating the strongest possible abductive argument is to show that competing explanations are either inferior or simply causally inadequate" Ahh, argument from self knowing, again. You still have not told me what the ID explanation is. How can an explanation like UCA be inferior in quality to an explanation that DOESN'T EXIST? (Yo recognize that in the following point) "if you are asking what are the precise methods that were employed to effect the final implementation of the designs, that is not a question that can be answered directly from the scientific evidence" You are saying that you don't have an explanation from ID, right? But it's a better explanation!! Higher quality!! Sorry this is really long. Guillermoe

U.B. - "We needn’t play games. Neither of us has an instruction list for the origin of life." Resentment, deflection and games is all they have as evidence on their side. They haven't even admitted to themselves yet that hating Christianity isn't proof enough of blind undirected Evolution being a fact. U.B. - "The distinction between us is that the cause I posit is the only cause that is actually demonstrated as being capable of what must be accomplished." And don't ever ever let them off the hook for providing evidence that blind undirected forces of physics and wiccan brew chemical cocktails accomplish anything remotely brilliant. DavidD

Can you name a biological structure that is dimensional semiosis?

Protein Synthesis.

Can you explain how ID produce that structure in nature?

We needn't play games. Neither of us has an instruction list for the origin of life. The distinction between us is that the cause I posit is the only cause that is actually demonstrated as being capable of what must be accomplished. To achieve the translation of nucleic codons into amino acids requires very specific physical conditions that are unique throughout nature - they are found nowhere else in the physical world except in the recording and translation of language and mathematics. What is a more viable scenario: that a cause known to be capable of language and mathematics is the likely source of the origin of life - or - that the physical capacity of language and mathematics arose in a pre-biotic environment without any of the organization afforded to it by informational constraint, and when it arose, the details of its construction were fortunately encoded in the very information that it made possible? Upright BiPed

G'moe:

In all other instances were these objects are found they were designed by humans. So, according to your reasoning., we should conclude that the intelligent designer is US.. Pretty wrong, uh?

Very wrong! We would infer it was some other intelligent agency as nature doesn't magically gain some ability just because humans weren't around. Joe

For Gullermoe: OK seeing that evos choose to be totally clueless I will continue to expose their ignorance. Yes Intelligent Design is both testable and potentially falsifiable: ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):

1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

There you have it- to falsify Intelligent Design all one has to do is demonstrate that natural selection can produce irreducibly complex biological systems. As Dr Behe said:

Now, one can’t have it both ways. One can’t say both that ID is unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable. In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.(1) How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design. Let’s turn the tables and ask, how could one falsify the claim that, say, the bacterial flagellum was produced by Darwinian processes?

The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.” That is the positive case. For example: As I posted in an earlier blog: The ATP Synthase is a system that consists of two subsystems-> one for the flow of protons down an electrochemical gradient from the exterior to the interior and the other (a rotary engine) that generates ATP from ADP using the energy liberated by proton flow. These two processes are totally unrelated from a purely physiochemical perspective*- meaning there isn't any general principle of physics nor chemistry by which these two processes have anything to do with each other. Yet here they are. How is this evidence for Intelligent Design? Cause and effect relationships as in designers often take two totally unrelated systems and intergrate them into one. The ordering of separate subsystems to produce a specific effect that neither can do alone. And those subsystems are composed of the ordering of separate components to achieve a specified function. ATP synthase is not reducible to chance and necessity and also meets the criteria of design. * Emergent collective properties, networks, and information in biology, page 23:

In the same vein, ATP synthesis in mitochondria can be conceived of and explained only because there is a coupling between ATP-synthase, the enzyme responsible for ATP synthesis, and the electrochemical potential. Hence ATP synthesis emerges out of this coupling. The activity of ATP-synthase alone could have in no way explained ATP synthesis. It is the merit of Mitchell, to have shown that it is precisely the interaction between two different physico-chemical events that generates this novel remarkable property. (italics in original)

Next we take a look inside ATP synthase- “Thermodynamic efficiency and mechanochemical coupling of F1-ATPase”:

Abstract: F1-ATPase is a nanosized biological energy transducer working as part of FoF1-ATP synthase. Its rotary machinery transduces energy between chemical free energy and mechanical work and plays a central role in the cellular energy transduction by synthesizing most ATP in virtually all organisms. However, information about its energetics is limited compared to that of the reaction scheme. Actually, fundamental questions such as how efficiently F1-ATPase transduces free energy remain unanswered. Here, we demonstrated reversible rotations of isolated F1-ATPase in discrete 120° steps by precisely controlling both the external torque and the chemical potential of ATP hydrolysis as a model system of FoF1-ATP synthase. We found that the maximum work performed by F1-ATPase per 120° step is nearly equal to the thermodynamical maximum work that can be extracted from a single ATP hydrolysis under a broad range of conditions. Our results suggested a 100% free-energy transduction efficiency and a tight mechanochemical coupling of F1-ATPase.

Highly effiecient, irreducibly complex, and no way- physiochemcially to get the two subunits to come together-> there's no attraction and no coupling. See also: Davies et al., “Macromolecular organization of ATP synthase and complex I in whole mitochondria,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Tamás Beke-Somfai, Per Lincoln, and Bengt Nordén, “Double-lock ratchet mechanism revealing the role of [alpha]SER-344 in F0F1 ATP synthase,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Joe

Not good enough for someone who wants a CLEAR ANSWER

And yet evolutionism doesn't have any answers, let alone CLEAR ANSWERS.

Science is about deep, thorough explanations/answers.

Reference please. Then tell us all of the "deep, thorough, explanations/ answers of evolutionism.

If you REALLY determine something is desgined, you will surely gain some knowledge about the designer or the process of design.

That is only an OPINION. And seeing that I know better I can dismiss it.

Causal class? What is that?

A cl;ass of causes, duh. Intelligent agencies make up a class of causes. Are you really that daft?

To prove design you must prove purpose.

Nope. Obviously you have never conducted an investigation

Then way you always talk abut how evolution DOESN’T explain certain things instead of talking about how ID DOES explain those things.

It doesn't, you are confused.

Science mandates also that the materialistic processes involved in the design be DESCRIBED and VALIDATED BEFORE accepting the design inference.

No, it doesn't. No one has done such a thing for Stonehenge.

In fact, rejecting other materialistic processes DOES NOT automatically validates the inference of design.

I didn't say that it did. You have issues

And ALSO, rejecting ONE materialistic process is not equivalent to rejecting ALL NATURAL MATERIALISTIC processes.

I know.

That’s why the idea of “if I can’t explain it naturally now, it’s not natural” is a phallacy.

No one holds to that idea. You are confused.

I think you should know this things if you understood science. I know those things. I also know that you are ignorant.

Joe

As I said above, design involves purpose. I invite you to you me how you detect and test purpose.

We don't have to. All we need to do is detect intelligent agency activity. From there we can infer a purpose from the design, if purpose is warranted.

Also, Arthur Clarke said that a very advanced technology might be indistiguishable from magic.

So what?

In the same way, a VERY complex natural process might be indistiguishable from the activity of intelligent beings.

Doubtful- well perhaps to people like you.

So, how do you make sure that you are not confusing the result of a very complex natural process with intelligent planning?

Investigation. What prevented Stonehenge from being a very complex natural process? Joe

HeKS, gold again:

The evidence of purposeful design is overwhelming on any objective analysis, but due to Methodological Naturalism it is claimed to be merely an appearance of purposeful design, an illusion, while it is claimed that naturalistic processes are sufficient to achieve this appearance of purposeful design, though none have ever been demonstrated to be up to the task. They are claimed to be up to the task only because they are the only plausible sounding naturalistic explanations available.

I will headline shortly. KF kairosfocus

F?N 2: One reason I continue to emphasise the case of the shadow cast on teh moon, is that this is directly linked to the direct seeing of the arc of the Earth from space, or the taking of a photo of that arc or the whole planet. The self-same geometry that RB is trying to isolate is intimately involved in how what we see tends to accurately picture images focused on our retinas, similar images in a Camera Obscura -- starting with the pinhole box camera version, and in more modern lens based cameras with film or digital light sensors. In short, what is going on is that the geometry of visual observation is being resisted, leading to the sophomoric po mo Kantian ugly gulch between the inner life of perception and the allegedly inaccessible outer reality. In answer, F H Bradley's point obtains, the assertion that there is such an ugly gulch so that we cannot know the outer world but only our perceptions thereof, is itself a massive and demanding knowledge claim about that outer world that therefore refutes itself. Far better to face the logic of Josiah Royce's proposition that error exists, which is a point of universal agreement, common observation and which can be shown to be undeniably true and thus self evident. So, yes we may err but not always, and we may have high confidence in apprehending certain things as so about reality, including external reality. Which includes, for relevant instance, the logic of XYZ-type flat space that is studied in Geometry and especially Co-ordinate geometry and linked algebra, which last can be used to more closely define what we speak of and in fact to deduce a mathematical frame for the world of experience. KF kairosfocus

F/N: Let us refresh minds again on design, in the simplest definition: intelligently directed contingency (as shown in both plans and the results of the process), as we are all intimately familiar with. KF kairosfocus

Onlookers: Observe the dismissiveness and/or willful silence regarding the ideological censorship of a priori evolutionary materialism documented from 105, 87 and 66 above. This, in reply tot he pretence that such censorship does not exist. Multiply by the resistance to simple direct mathematical implications we are also seeing. KF kairosfocus

G: Answered. Please, think again. KF kairosfocus

RB, 124:

It does not follow from the fact that a model is immediately decisive that its conclusions are facts . . .

Do you really imagine that by playing the rhetorical tactic of inserting the word "model," you can do away with how Geometry (and more broadly, Mathematics) addresses the logical constraints of structured often quantifiable reality? Where, geometry studies the logic of space. And so, when observed circumstances -- facts -- impose a certain spatial situation, there are concomitant necessarily true further facts. To the point where the observation is tantamount to an observation of those facts. For simple instance, if one finds a length of knotted rope of twelve equal-sized segments, and it is then stretched around pegs marking 3 and 4, of spatial logic necessity, the rest will be at 5 and the angle between the 3 and 4 will be a right angle. More directly on the case in point, it is a commonplace observation that a light with an object between it and a screen will cast a shadow exhibiting its silhouette: L ---> O ---> | In particular, as noted but ignored by you, at this scale, rays of light under such circumstances, mark straight line segments. As, may be observed. Thus, when we see the shadow of earth cast on the Moon in a lunar eclipse, we are observing the silhouette of Earth cast by the ring of rays around the occluded part of the beam shining forth from the Sun. The further relevant fact is that it is always seen to be circular. (IIRC, it also makes an arc of a circle some 3 x the radius of the Moon. Where observation will show that a disk or ball that just occludes the Sun -- warning, danger to the retina do not do this unsupervised and without due safety precautions -- will cast a shadow-cone behind it that as the Sun is an extended source, tapers to a point some 108 diameters behind it. [This was actually used to estimate the distance to the moon, on the fact of the narrowness of the zone of occlusion in a solar eclipse.]) That always circularity directly entails the "good enough for govt work" sphericity of our planet. Based on what we see and the accompanying direct logic of space. By sharpest contrast:

1: climate is a fiction, an average of weather summed up in a "typical" pattern that is probably never actually seen just as the average man or woman is a fictional composite. 2: Climate models enfold many simplifications, approximations, assumptions and guesses, they are not read off the face of reality as observations 3: Computer simulations face realities of difference amplifications colourfully described as the butterfly effect, where e.g. strange attractors in a phase space may give a broad pattern but paths do not duplicate. 4: Computer climate simulations simply are not observations of reality. 5: Similarly, the remote past of origins was not observed, nor is it observable, we see traces inferred to come from it. 6: An inferred explanation of that past that -- due to imposition of Lewontinian a priori materialism (often in the guise of a "mere" methodological constraint) -- fail to reckon with the principle of explanation on verified, observed causes capable of an effect become ideological just so stories dressed up in the presumed authority of the lab coat. 7: To then censor out alternatives and seek to marginalise, pounce on, denigrate, accuse or even expel those who do not toe the party line, is inexcusable. 8: And yet, manifestly, that is what is being done, and it is what is being enabled by rhetorical devices such as I am here objecting to.

It is time to rethink and do better, RB. KF kairosfocus

@Guillermoe #128 & 129

HeKS: “the evidence claimed to support it is explained equally well and often better by common design” What are you talking about exactly when you say “design”?

I'm talking about the application of mind to the achieving of some functionally specified goal.

“there is much evidence against it that is actually expected under a design hypothesis” No, there isn’t.

Of course there is. The fact that UCA is plastic enough that it can accommodate ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses and just-so stories to account for any and all data that could contradict expectations does not mean that that data, when considered objectively, does not count against UCA. It also happens that this same data is predicted by design in light of our universal experience with design principles and practices. As a programmer, I notice this constantly.

“Methodological Naturalism, however, precludes the possibility of Artificial (Teleological) explanations from the outset” You are confusing a methodology to obtain evidence with your inability to get it.

You are mistaken and I'm beginning to think you may simply be a troll. The evidence of purposeful design is overwhelming on any objective analysis, but due to Methodological Naturalism it is claimed to be merely an appearance of purposeful design, an illusion, while it is claimed that naturalistic processes are sufficient to achieve this appearance of purposeful design, though none have ever been demonstrated to be up to the task. They are claimed to be up to the task only because they are the only plausible sounding naturalistic explanations available.

“what you mean when you say there is no other scientific explanation is that there is no other naturalistic (non-teleological) explanation” No. I mean there is no other scientific explanation: an explanation that describes mechanisms and agents involved and is supported with evidence.

By demanding that the mechanisms be elucidated you are confusing mechanistic causation with agent causation. The fact of design can be detected even in the absence of any knowledge about the methods employed by the designer to achieve their goal. For example, someone visiting South Dakota who had no knowledge of Mount Rushmore could stumble across it and know immediately that it was the product of intelligent design rather than natural processes, and they could know this without having any clue at all about the methods used to construct it or the identity of the builders. Both the methods and the identity of the builder(s) are second order questions that can potentially be investigated after the determination that some object or effect is the product of design. As another example, someone can observe some piece of electronic machinery and immediately recognize that it is the product of design rather than natural processes, even if they have have no idea what it does, how it was made, or who made it. However, once it has been determined to be a product of design, if the person has the requisite skills they could proceed to reverse engineer it in order to determine what it does and how it does that. Still, they may never be able to determine the precise method that was used to put the machine together, such as whether it was assembled purely by hand, or through the use of tools, or by machine. They also may never be able to determine the identity of the person who built it. None of this invalidates the conclusion that it was intelligently designed. The evidence for design lies in the indicators of intelligent design that are left behind in designed artifacts. They are features that we recognize, through our uniform experience, to be produced only by intelligent agents and never by natural, mindless processes. You said earlier:

We know what designed Stonehenge: HUMANS!!

How do you know this? How do you know it was humans rather than aliens? Do you know the actual identity of the individuals who made it or what methods they used? Absent this knowledge, is the determination that Stonehenge was definitely designed a scientifically valid one? Would you like to assert that there is, in fact, no evidence that Stonehenge is the product of design and that it is very likely a natural occurrence because we don't know who did it or how they pulled it off?

“for how can you expect to find the true mechanism responsible for a false historical narrative?” Much in the same way we found out the way things really were when we were sure they were different a lot of times in our history.

You misunderstood the statement. I was saying that if you bypass the question of the truth of UCA in order to discuss the mechanism of UCA, then you are assuming the truth of UCA because it is logically impossible to discover the true mechanism by which something happened if that thing didn't actually happen in the first place.

“The ‘science is settled’ on UCA exactly because it has been recognized that no other kind of naturalistic theory makes any sense” No, because there is no other explanation, naturalistic or not.

First of all, this is nonsense. Second of all, even if it were true that there were no other explanation that made sense, that in itself would not make UCA plausible if UCA itself could not realistically account for the evidence. Third, you have just admitted that you think it would be appropriate to make a design inference if intelligent design could account for the evidence and no other explanation could account for the evidence or could not account for it nearly as well. Except that you actually think it would not be appropriate because it contravenes the principle of Methodological Naturalism, which eliminates the possibility of considering teleological causes from the outset.

“It makes a design inference when it finds the observable hallmarks of intelligent agency” Under arbitrary definitions of design and intelligence.

Incorrect. It is under the standard definitions of design and intelligence.

” and where no naturalistic mechanisms are known to be capable of producing the effect in question.” Argument from ignorance.

And once again, incorrect. An argument from ignorance takes the form: "We don't have evidence that x is wrong, therefore x is right." The argument for ID is an abductive argument. An abductive argument basically takes the form: "We observe an effect, x is causally adequate to explain the effect and is the most common cause of the effect, therefore x is currently the best explanation of the effect." This is called an inference to the best explanation. When it comes to ID in particular, the form of the abductive argument is even stronger. It takes the form: "We observe an effect, x is uniquely causally adequate to explain the effect as, presently, no other known explanation is causally adequate to explain the effect, therefore x is currently the best explanation of the effect." Abductive arguments are always held tentatively because they cannot be as certain as deductive arguments, but they are a perfectly valid form of argumentation and their conclusions are legitimate as long as the premises remain true, because they are a statement about the current state of our knowledge and the evidence rather than deductive statements about reality. Abductive reasoning is, in fact, the standard form of reasoning on matters of historical science, whereas inductive reasoning is used on matters in the present and future.

“if you say that ID is subject to accepting myths when it detects intelligent design in living things because it is a myth that living things were intelligently designed” I didn’t say ID did that. I asked you what other mechanism apart from MN would you used to obtain knowledge that would give you the ability to reject myths.

MN is a philosophically motivated methodology, not a mechanism. The methodology I would use is simply to follow the evidence where it leads, whether that is to naturalistic causes or artificial (teleological) ones.

“Finally, I would say that ID is far less prone to accepting myths than naturalism, which is actually highly prone to accepting myths” And I would say “REEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAALLY?” with some Jim Carrey expression.

Yes. Really. And I explained exactly why. But you've ignored that explanation, quoted only the initial claim absent its justification, and answered "REEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAALLY?". Is that what you think passes for a response? Would you like to tell me why a methodology with an a priori commitment to the implementation of a possibly false philosophical presupposition is less prone to accepting myths (widely held but false beliefs; especially those related to early history and the explanation of natural phenomena) than a methodology that allows the evidence to speak for itself and lead where it may, without predetermined philosophical commitments that block avenues of investigation?

“For example, if you say that all life is descended from a single common …” Why you keep talking about what evolution says? How life came to be what it is according to ID?

Why do we keep talking about what evolution says? Because one aspect of creating the strongest possible abductive argument is to show that competing explanations are either inferior or simply causally inadequate. That is why the case for ID has both a negative aspect and a positive aspect. As for how life came to be what it is according to ID, if you are asking what are the precise methods that were employed to effect the final implementation of the designs, that is not a question that can be answered directly from the scientific evidence. At least not at present. It's impossible to say at present whether there might be some way to determine this in the future, but the inability to elucidate the specific methods employed to ultimately implement the design do nothing to undermine the detection of the design itself.

“On the other hand, where it finds that design is the only known explanation for some aspect of nature” Remember to define design, please.

I already did at the start of this comment. HeKS

HeKS

Barry may not have said so explicitly, but I indicated in a comment…

I’ve responded to what Barry did explicitly say. What he did say is that notions such as “the earth is round” and “the earth orbits the sun” are immediate facts “we apprehend though our senses,” like watching apples fall (and like your weirdly dangling hands), observations that are theory free. I disagree. In fact, the lesson of the failure of logical positivism is that there are no descriptions of raw sense data that are theory free, and the positivist program to build scientific statements from such raw data up was a fools errand.

Of course, if you want to say that the ability to draw some conclusion as a logically necessary deduction from direct observations or other raw data does not qualify the conclusion as being evidence or data that itself needs to be accounted for by a theory then we will simply have to part ways on the point.

I wouldn’t want to say that because it make no sense.

And, having said all that, I feel the need to point out that the reference to not having any doubt that the earth is round instead of flat was originally applied to the present day, after it has already been confirmed by direct observation.

I touched on this in a previous post:

Of course, observational confirmation of that that model progressed to the point that some of us, since 1961, have directly observed the sphericity of the earth, observations that became possible in part due to the very success of the model, in conjunction with other successful models (e.g. of gravitation, orbital mechanics, etc.) These models had attained the clearest demonstration of “practical” and “reasonable” certainty of all: people bet their lives on them. So here we have observational and predictive confirmation of a theory progressing to the point that the model could be judged as certainly correct in any “practical” or “reasonable” sense of certainty – in the process of which your categorical distinction dissolved completely as the core insights of the model progressed to become both theory and fact.

Reciprocating Bill

Upright biped: "Posit a natural process for the rise of dimensional semiosis* and I’ll take a stab at it." Can you name a biological structure that is dimensional semiosis? Can you explain how ID produce that structure in nature? "That the designer was capable of arranging matter into dimensional representations and feeding them to a translation apparatus with an organization capable of producing the desired effects from those representations." ALright, so the designer of life was capable of designing life.. I REALLY DID NOT SEE THAT COMING!! Can you mention any charcteristic of the designer of life that IS NOT "it designed life" in fancy words? "its also butted by the fact that the objects and organizations in question are found to be the product of design in all other instances where these objects and organizations are found – i.e. universal experience" In all other instances were these objects are found they were designed by humans. So, according to your reasoning., we should conclude that the intelligent designer is US.. Pretty wrong, uh? Sometimes we can't extrapolate from "other instances". Guillermoe

wd400:

I don’t think cryptography is a science, but archaeology and some of forensics certainly are.

Fine. Good enough for present purposes. And does your version of methodological naturalism allow scientists dealing in archeology and forensics to conclude that such-and-such an artifact or event was more likely caused by the activity of an intelligent agent than by purely natural causes? Eric Anderson

I don’t care. I’ll say it again. If you REALLY determine something is desgined, you will surely gain some knowledge about the designer or the process of design. What do we know of the intelligent designer?

That the designer was capable of arranging matter into dimensional representations and feeding them to a translation apparatus with an organization capable of producing the desired effects from those representations. This requires a set of singularly unique material requirements that would not rise again on Earth until the recording of language and mathematics. Beyond that...not much. Upright BiPed

That’s why the idea of “if I can’t explain it naturally now, it’s not natural” is a phallacy.>

ID is not merely about rejecting unguided causes, its also butted by the fact that the objects and organizations in question are found to be the product of design in all other instances where these objects and organizations are found - i.e. universal experience. However, to take your comment at face value, it is no less of a fallacy to say “if I can’t explain it naturally now, that just means I haven't found the natural explanation yet". Upright BiPed

So, how do you make sure that you are not confusing the result of a very complex natural process with intelligent planning?

Posit a natural process for the rise of dimensional semiosis* and I'll take a stab at it. * A semiotic system that uses representations with a dimensional orientation to encode information into accessible storage. Upright BiPed

Joe: "Not good enough for someone who is not interested in science and requires absolute proof" Not good enough for someone who wants a CLEAR ANSWER. Ambiguity is not scientific. What is exactly a non-human? What if someone told you "I have a pet for you. It's a non-human"? What would you answer? You go to a restaurant, you ask what's in the menu. "Non-human and fries. Does it please you?". You find that a satisfying answer? Science is about deep, thorough explanations/answers. "All that is required is knowledge of cause and effect relationships." I don't care. I'll say it again. If you REALLY determine something is desgined, you will surely gain some knowledge about the designer or the process of design. What do we know of the intelligent designer? "If that were true we wouldn’t be having this discussion" If it wasn't true, you would be giving me another explanation and you aren't. A real explanation from evolution, however poor, is better than no explanation from ID. "That could be how it all started- you know what got us away from spirits and demons causing illness" Yes, from the start they WERE REALLY trying to explain it, identifying the respnsible entity. Because that is an explanation. A certain A is caused by a certain B. "For one it tells us what classes of causes did not produce it and what causal class did" Causal class? What is that? "And for another it tells us there could be a purpose behind it" Could be? I agree. That's the problem. To prove design you must prove purpose. You say "there could be a purpose" because you really have not proved it. And if you didn't prove that, you didn't prove design. You proved complex pattern. "ID isn’t anti-evolution." Then way you always talk abut how evolution DOESN'T explain certain things instead of talking about how ID DOES explain those things. "science mandates that purely materialistic processes be considered and rejected before even considering a design inference" Science mandates also that the materialistic processes involved in the design be DESCRIBED and VALIDATED BEFORE accepting the design inference. In fact, rejecting other materialistic processes DOES NOT automatically validates the inference of design. And ALSO, rejecting ONE materialistic process is not equivalent to rejecting ALL NATURAL MATERIALISTIC processes. There might be some process we still have not found that could explain something evolution does not explain. You have to REJECT THAT, too. Which is obviously impossible. That's why the idea of "if I can't explain it naturally now, it's not natural" is a phallacy. I think you should know this things if you understood science. "Again had you been knowledgeable of science you would have known that." Aaaah!!! The irony is exquisite. Guillermoe

I don't think cryptography is a science, but archaeology and some of forensics certainly are. wd400

Joe: As I said above, design involves purpose. I invite you to you me how you detect and test purpose. Also, Arthur Clarke said that a very advanced technology might be indistiguishable from magic. In the same way, a VERY complex natural process might be indistiguishable from the activity of intelligent beings. Remember how ancient civilizacions made sacrifices to he gods for rain and good harvests? For them, climate was indistinguishable from the actions of gods. So, how do you make sure that you are not confusing the result of a very complex natural process with intelligent planning? Guillermoe

ppolish: I can't find the definition of "God's design" in the dictionary. Does it mean you invented it? "And the HOW of God Design is unknowable" Many unexisting things are. "Design is abundantly evident here/there/where/when/why/what." And it is better explained by evolution because evolution is KNOWABLE. By the way designing is making a plan for something and executing it. Plans are arrangements of steps selected to get a goal. A goal is the purpose of obtaining something. So, to detect design in nature you MUST detect purpose in nature. Can you give me an example? "The HOW is the gap" No, evolution explains the gap. There is no gap. You need a better filling than the existing one. Guillermoe

wd400:

There’s no reason it couldn’t. Nothing in ID get’s close to it.

Do you or do you not acknowledge that SETI, forensics, archaeology, cryptology (to name a few) are legitimate areas of scientific research and study? Eric Anderson

Why you keep talking about what evolution says?

ID isn't anti-evolution. That said, science mandates that purely materialistic processes be considered and rejected before even considering a design inference. Again had you been knowledgeable of science you would have known that. Joe

No, you can determine what APPEARS to be designed whithout knowing NOTHING of the designer or the process used.

No, we can determine design and we can test that inference.

I know what is a human. I don’t know what is a non-human. So, no, it’s not enough.

Not good enough for someone who is not interested in science and requires absolute proof. That is true but no one cares about those type of people.

But if you really determine something is desgined, you will surely gain some knowledge about the designer or the process of design.

All that is required is knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

Well, natural mechanisms do. So natural mechanisms are a better answer.

If that were true we wouldn't be having this discussion Please, do it. The designer is smarter than we are and can do things we can barely fathom.

Do you think a medical diagnostic could be “you are suffering from a lack of health that should be studied”?

That could be how it all started- you know what got us away from spirits and demons causing illness. Saying something was intelligently designed tells investigators a great deal. Obviously you don't have that kind of experience otherwise you would have known that. For one it tells us what classes of causes did not produce it and what causal class did. And for another it tells us there could be a purpose behind it. With biology, as Dawkins said, it changes everything. Joe

Guillermo, use Oxford dictionary for definition. And the HOW of God Design is unknowable. Not design itself. Design is abundantly evident here/there/where/when/why/what. The HOW is the gap. Gaps are popping up all over the place in Science these days. Gaps are forming a wondrous mosaic lol. Mosaic with a capital M. ppolish

@RB #124

It does not follow from the fact that a model is immediately decisive that its conclusions are facts “we apprehend though our senses,” as Barry defined his first epistemological class. Inferences mediated by the logical force of deductive systems are not “apprehended through our senses.”

Barry may not have said so explicitly, but I indicated in a comment shortly after his post that such things do fall within the first category as evidence/data (and it's actually not clear that those terms don't explicitly include logical deductions). Logically necessary deductions clearly have more claim to our confidence than speculative historical narratives or speculative scientific models that seek to explain facts, which include not only direct observations but logically necessary deductions resulting from the direct observations. If direct observations or reliable raw data serve as the premises in an a valid argument from which a logically necessary truth can be deduced, the deduction has a higher epistemological status than some speculative theory that seeks to account for the observations or the logically necessary deductions drawn from them. Of course, if you want to say that the ability to draw some conclusion as a logically necessary deduction from direct observations or other raw data does not qualify the conclusion as being evidence or data that itself needs to be accounted for by a theory then we will simply have to part ways on the point. And, having said all that, I feel the need to point out that the reference to not having any doubt that the earth is round instead of flat was originally applied to the present day, after it has already been confirmed by direct observation. In this context, it wasn't the 'science' (or the model) that settled it but the observation. Models can potentially make very accurate predictions and/or have great explanatory scope and power and this can give them a high degree of credibility, but models can't settle anything in and of themselves. They are always subject to either revision or falsification if new evidence is discovered that the model can't reasonably account for. For my money, I find observation and logical argument far more compelling than speculative narratives. HeKS

HeKS: "It makes a design inference when it finds the observable hallmarks of intelligent agency" Under arbitrary definitions of design and intelligence. " and where no naturalistic mechanisms are known to be capable of producing the effect in question." Argument from ignorance. "if you say that ID is subject to accepting myths when it detects intelligent design in living things because it is a myth that living things were intelligently designed" I didn't say ID did that. I asked you what other mechanism apart from MN would you used to obtain knowledge that would give you the ability to reject myths. "Finally, I would say that ID is far less prone to accepting myths than naturalism, which is actually highly prone to accepting myths" And I would say "REEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAALLY?" with some Jim Carrey expression. "For example, if you say that all life is descended from a single common ..." Why you keep talking about what evolution says? How life came to be what it is according to ID? "On the other hand, where it finds that design is the only known explanation for some aspect of nature" Remember to define design, please. Guillermoe

HeKS: "the evidence claimed to support it is explained equally well and often better by common design" What are you talking about exactly when you say "design"? "there is much evidence against it that is actually expected under a design hypothesis" No, there isn't. "Methodological Naturalism, however, precludes the possibility of Artificial (Teleological) explanations from the outset" You are confusing a methodology to obtain evidence with your inability to get it. "what you mean when you say there is no other scientific explanation is that there is no other naturalistic (non-teleological) explanation" No. I mean there is no other scientific explanation: an explanation that describes mechanisms and agents involved and is supported with evidence. "for how can you expect to find the true mechanism responsible for a false historical narrative?" Much in the same way we found out the way things really were when we were sure they were different a lot of times in our history. "The ‘science is settled’ on UCA exactly because it has been recognized that no other kind of naturalistic theory makes any sense" No, because there is no other explanation, naturalistic or not. Guillermoe

ppolish "God Design reflected in Nature is by definition unknowable" By who's definition? You know defintions are arbitrary, don't you? If design is unknowable, how do you reecognize it? Guillermoe

@Guillermoe #119

HeKS I want to mention, also, that yes MN is a limitation in science. But it’s a limitation that prevents science from confusing myths with reality. If you know any other methodology that is not restricted to naturalism but is STRONG in rejeting myths, it will be welcome.

Umm, ID. ID is conservative in making a design inference. It makes a design inference when it finds the observable hallmarks of intelligent agency and where no naturalistic mechanisms are known to be capable of producing the effect in question. Furthermore, the design inference is always made tentatively, so that it is based on the best scientific knowledge we have in the present but is subject to revision if naturalistic mechanisms are found in the future. Of course, if you say that ID is subject to accepting myths when it detects intelligent design in living things because it is a myth that living things were intelligently designed then you are obviously just employing a blatant circular argument. Finally, I would say that ID is far less prone to accepting myths than naturalism, which is actually highly prone to accepting myths. For example, if you say that all life is descended from a single common ancestor and evolved and diversified through a purely naturalistic process and you are wrong, that is a myth. A materialistic myth, but a myth nonetheless. Science is prone to this type of thing specifically because of Methodological Naturalism, which forces it to hold naturalistic theories dogmatically when they are the only logically viable naturalistic theories to explain some observed phenomenon. Any method of investigation that operates on the basis of a commitment to some particular philosophical presupposition is going to be vulnerable to accepting myths, because certain conclusions will flow from the philosophical presupposition as a matter of logical necessity, so that if the presupposition is wrong so too will be the conclusion. By contrast, ID is not committed to any particular philosophical presupposition. Where some aspect of nature is explicable by purely naturalistic causes, ID concludes that the naturalistic causes are the best explanation for that aspect of nature. On the other hand, where it finds that design is the only known explanation for some aspect of nature, it justifiably concludes that design is currently the best explanation for it. As many of us have said here repeatedly, when it comes to science, the competition is not between natural causes and supernatural causes. Rather, it is between natural causes and artificial causes. HeKS

Joe "We can determine design exists without knowing the designer. We can also detect design without knowing the process used." No, you can determine what APPEARS to be designed whithout knowing NOTHING of the designer or the process used. But if you really determine something is desgined, you will surely gain some knowledge about the designer or the process of design. "ID doesn’t answer those questions" Well, natural mechanisms do. So natural mechanisms are a better answer. "Well if that is good enough for you then saying a non-human designed life on earth should be good enough too" I know what is a human. I don't know what is a non-human. So, no, it's not enough. "We can tell things about the designer from the design" Please, do it. "The explanation is those features are intelligently designed and need to be investigated accordingly in order to be properly understood" That's not an explanation. Do you think a medical diagnostic could be "you are suffering from a lack of health that should be studied"? Guillermoe

KF:

RB, I have given in outline, facts, observations, reasoning, geometry. Thus, I claim warrant for holding that the shadows of Earth on the moon during lunar eclipses are an observation that on the logical force of geometry as a deductive system, are immediarely decisive that we have observed a round earth, as has been known since Aristotle.

It does not follow from the fact that a model is immediately decisive that its conclusions are facts "we apprehend though our senses," as Barry defined his first epistemological class. Inferences mediated by the logical force of deductive systems are not "apprehended through our senses." Reciprocating Bill

WD @ 98

[Regarding ID] To providing a testable hypothesis that “mind interacted with matter” to make biology.

Newton, Copernicus, Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, Faraday, Pascal, Harvey, Boyle, Pasteur, Mendel, Carver, et al. maintained that nature manifests the design of a preexistent mind or intelligence. Do you maintain that your mind and conscience is ultimately the result of mindlessness? (existence precedes essence) - If so, for you science actually does prove nothing .

@ 79 - I care about whether methodological naturalism requires philosophical naturalism, and am yet to see any argument as to why it does…

There must be a Darwinian explanation for our thoughts, behavior, and philosophy if we are the result of a process which did not have us in mind. Heartlander

@Guillermoe #116

HeKS The scientific position regarding UCA is settled because of two things: a) a lot of evidence supports it; b)there is no other scientific explanation for certain characteristics of living organisms on Earth. That it’s settled does not mean that it’s a definitive truth, but that the scientific community considers it so valid that there is no need to test it any further. Of course, it can be wrong. The first step to prove it wrong is explaining another mechanism that could have produced biodiversity as we see it in our world.

Guillermoe, you are only illustrating the problem. Regarding your point a), the evidence claimed to support it is explained equally well and often better by common design rather than by naturalistic common descent. Furthermore, there is much evidence against it that is actually expected under a design hypothesis. Methodological Naturalism, however, precludes the possibility of Artificial (Teleological) explanations from the outset, so common design is not allowed to be considered as a serious competitor theory. Regarding your point b), what you mean when you say there is no other scientific explanation is that there is no other naturalistic (non-teleological) explanation, which we are precluded from considering by MN. This leads, as you say, to a situation where UCA is accepted with such a high degree of confidence that there is thought to be no need to test it further, simply because it is the only naturalistic theory that has any hope of explaining any of the evidence, even though it requires the use of numerous just-so stories, ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses to account for highly unexpected data, and can offer no naturalistic mechanism known to be causally adequate in effecting viable and stable heritable changes at the level of the bodyplan. Finally, you say:

Of course, it can be wrong. The first step to prove it wrong is explaining another mechanism that could have produced biodiversity as we see it in our world.

But what you mean is another naturalistic mechanism. But here we seem to have switched from a historical narrative like UCA to a specific mechanism of UCA. But in that case we're still waiting on the first causally adequate mechanism before we need another mechanism. And if we've moved to mechanisms then we are again simply assuming the truth of UCA, for how can you expect to find the true mechanism responsible for a false historical narrative? But perhaps you meant we need to find another naturalistic historical narrative or general theory to explain the biodiversity. But why should one expect that if the 'science is settled' on UCA to the point that it no longer needs to be tested? The 'science is settled' on UCA exactly because it has been recognized that no other kind of naturalistic theory makes any sense. HeKS

The scientific position regarding UCA is settled because of two things: a) a lot of evidence supports it; b)there is no other scientific explanation for certain characteristics of living organisms on Earth.

Pure nonsense. Joe

That is true if design is a separete thing from designer and designer.

It is. We can determine design exists without knowing the designer. We can also detect design without knowing the process used.

If there is something designed, the there was a process of designing and something that acted as designer. Since science answers questions, once you get to a point when new questions arise you search for new answers.

Exactly and that is why ID is not a scientific dead end. ID doesn't answer those questions and it doesn't prevent anyone from trying to do so. As a matter of fact reality dictates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the only possible way to make any determination about the designer or the process used, is by studying the design and all relevant evidence.

We know what designed Stonehenge: HUMANS!!

Well if that is good enough for you then saying a non-human designed life on earth should be good enough too.

There’s nothing in the universe that we know for sure it was designed and we don’t know anything of the designer.

We can tell things about the designer from the design. If we knew who designed life and the universe then we wouldn't need science to help us with a design inference. It's as if you know absolutely nothing about how science works.

Besides, again “certain features of the universe and of life ar best explained by means of an intelligent cause”. What’s the explanation?

The explanation is those features are intelligently designed and need to be investigated accordingly in order to be properly understood. As Dawkins said it changes everything with respect to biology. Joe

HeKS I want to mention, also, that yes MN is a limitation in science. But it's a limitation that prevents science from confusing myths with reality. If you know any other methodology that is not restricted to naturalism but is STRONG in rejeting myths, it will be welcome. Also, bear in mind that ID is said to be science. Guillermoe

Guillermo, God Design reflected in Nature is by definition unknowable. Evolution in Nature is knowable. So, how did Evolution do the Design? And don't give me that "appearance of design" crud. ppolish

@Barry #113

Richard Dawkins agrees: My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory (there is, of course) we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories

Yes. Exactly! That's what Methodological Naturalism logically entails. HeKS

HeKS The scientific position regarding UCA is settled because of two things: a) a lot of evidence supports it; b)there is no other scientific explanation for certain characteristics of living organisms on Earth. That it's settled does not mean that it's a definitive truth, but that the scientific community considers it so valid that there is no need to test it any further. Of course, it can be wrong. The first step to prove it wrong is explaining another mechanism that could have produced biodiversity as we see it in our world. Guillermoe

Joe: "Both the designer and the specific processes used are separate questions from whether or not there is an intelligent design" That is true if design is a separete thing from designer and designer. But it is not. If there is something designed, the there was a process of designing and something that acted as designer. Since science answers questions, once you get to a point when new questions arise you search for new answers. We know what designed Stonehenge: HUMANS!! There's nothing in the universe that we know for sure it was designed and we don't know anything of the designer. Try to find an example. There isn't. Besides, again "certain features of the universe and of life ar best explained by means of an intelligent cause". What's the explanation? "I don't know what" did it "I don't know how", but "I don't know what" is intelligent for sure? Guillermoe

ppolish: It was not me who claim to have that explanation. ID is said to be a scientific discipline and those who study it always claim that evolutonists cannot explain how certain things took place. The obvious conclusion is that ID can explain it. By the way, what is exactly god? Guillermoe

HeKS:

MN makes it logically necessary that the singularly viable naturalistic theory (or one of the theories in the limited set) is correct for scientific purposes, no matter how low the prior probability might be. . . But if naturalism is assumed to be true, Universal Common Descent, or something very close to it, is necessarily true regardless of how it fares when compared to the evidence;

Richard Dawkins agrees:

My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory (there is, of course) we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories

Barry Arrington

@wd400 #78

HeKs, I really don’t know why you struggle with this so, and makes things so much more complex than they need be.

I'm not the one who is struggling with it, and I'm beginning to think less charitably of your dodging of the issues.

It’s quite possible for the best scientific explanation to be poor, in which case p(theory|naturalism) and p(theory|not-naturalism) would both be low, and so p(theory) would be low.

You are completely ignoring the problem. On Methodological Naturalism, if there is only one logically possible naturalistic theory to explain some phenomenon, it doesn't matter how low the prior probability of the theory would be, because naturalism is assumed to be correct, and so the correctness of the theory will be determined to have a probability of 1 as a matter of pure logical necessity.

I also don’t see why a theory would work only under naturalism.

Umm, because it defines itself in purely naturalistic terms to the exclusion of any role for mind. It's not necessarily that the theory couldn't work if naturalism is ultimately false. It's that the theory necessarily says naturalism is sufficient even if naturalism is not broadly true. If the philosophical principle underlying science is that naturalism is sufficient to explain anything and everything and that no non-naturalistic causes could ever be necessary to explain anything because their non-existence is assumed as part of the core methodology of science, then any time we find a singularly logically viable naturalistic theory (i.e. a theory that leaves no role for teleology or mind) to explain any phenomenon, or even some limited set of theories, MN makes it logically necessary that the singularly viable naturalistic theory (or one of the theories in the limited set) is correct for scientific purposes, no matter how low the prior probability might be.

The science of, to take your example, of universal common descent is settled. Many religous people accept this without a problem.

It doesn't matter whether many religious people accept it. What matters is whether it truly explains the evidence well when one is not committed to interpreting the evidence through the lens of a particular philosophical presupposition. Universal Common Descent is convincing on naturalism for the simple reason that if naturalism is true, anything other than Universal Common Descent seems virtually impossible to believe. So, no matter how low the prior probability of Universal Common Descent may be on naturalism, anything else would require events that are orders of magnitude more unlikely, if not impossible, on naturalism, and they would simply involve common descent from multiple naturalistic origins of life. But if naturalism is assumed to be true, Universal Common Descent, or something very close to it, is necessarily true regardless of how it fares when compared to the evidence; as are any claims that the mechanism of descent with modification is purely naturalistic, even if we don't know what naturalistic mechanism might be capable of effecting viable and stable changes at the level of the bodyplan. Think about that for a second. People say that when it comes to Universal Common Descent, 'the science is settled' (i.e. 'Science says it's true') even though we don't know how it could actually happen. Not only are we ignorant of how it could happen, in fact, but there are plenty of reasons to think it didn't happen and couldn't happen. At least not naturalistically. And yet, 'the science is settled', so rational people are supposed to simply accept the historical narrative of Evolutionary theory and overlook its incessant appeals to just-so stories. In reality, to say that 'the science is settled' on Universal Common Descent is simply to say that, given the artificially imposed philosophical constraints on science, Universal Common Descent has been shown to be the most likely naturalistic explanation by such a large margin that that it can be believed with certainty to be the only naturalistic explanation that makes any sense, even if we don't know of a naturalistic mechanism that can generate viable and stable heritable changes at the level of the bodyplan. I don't think there's any statement in that description that even I could disagree with. And yet, I believe that Universal Common Descent is a very poor fit with the evidence when it is viewed as a whole; especially in light of the lack of any viable naturalistic mechanism to allow it to happen. But if naturalism is true, Universal Common Descent, or something very much like it, must be true, regardless of how improbable it is on naturalism. And that's the big problem with Methodological Naturalism: If we observe some effect where the only viable naturalistic theory to explain it is incredibly improbable, that should call the naturalism into serious doubt. However, on MN, we must instead say that the naturalism is known to be true from the outset, and so the only viable naturalistic theory must be correct no matter how improbable. Finally, in a response to KF, you said:

I care about whether methodological naturalism requires philosophical naturalism, and am yet to see any argument as to why it does…

This just doesn't make any sense. Methodological Naturalism just is applied philosophical naturalism. It says, "Assume Philosophical Naturalism when you do science, even if you don't think Philosophical Naturalism is generally true." The resulting decrees of 'science' will therefore necessarily be determined by philosophical naturalism even when they come from people who don't think philosophical naturalism is generally true. Methodological Naturalism puts an investigative and intellectual block on scientists. And contrary to your claims, its not so much that MN prevents scientists from considering supernatural explanations as it is that it prevents them from considering artificial or teleological explanations. Note, however, that MN is ignored in archaeology, forensics, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence, and most other scientific disciplines. Where it is enforced is primarily in Biology, Astronomy and Cosmology. This is not because the methods of design detection employed in other areas of science suddenly become invalid in these fields. Rather, it is because if design detection is permitted in these fields it would have secondary philosophical implications that make many people, particularly committed materialists, very uncomfortable. Consider, for a moment, if the methods of design detection that are routinely employed in other areas of science were acknowledged as being genuinely scientific in the field of cosmology, so that now artificial and teleological explanations were allowed in addition to explanation that appeal simply to chance, law or some combination of the two. If that happened, even a number of committed atheist cosmologists would be forced to admit that design was currently the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe. But then one would be forced to conclude that that the entire material universe came into existence as the product of design by an agent that existed prior to the origin of matter and space-time. This would seriously call into question the validity of the PR claims of establishment science, which assert that science gives us a way to know the truth about reality where religion only gives us outdated myths. It would be very much like a comment made by Robert Jastrow:

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

If you think that this dynamic is not a significant consideration in the way the debate has unfolded, you're not being realistic. HeKS

wd400:

To providing a testable hypothesis that “mind interacted with matter” to make biology.

That is a separate question from what ID is. Joe

I forgot when. We can try to discover what/where/why/when God Designed. But not How. ppolish

Guillermoe:

Do you wnat me to explain what intelligent design has to do with designing?

OK so you have absolutely no clue as to what ID is. Why don't you just say so? Both the designer and the specific processes used are separate questions from whether or not there is an intelligent design. We don't know who designed Stonehenge nor how it was built, yet we are sure that it was intelligently designed. Joe

HOW did God design, Guillermo? First you ask what and now you ask how. HOW God Designed is above sapien's pay grade. We can try to discover what/where/why, but HOW is off the table. Way way off. ppolish

K I read the Weak Argument Correctives section. Left some comments there. The article is about science not proving things but giving "approximate answers". ID is said to be science. So it provides approximate answers. I wolud really like to know hat those answers are. ID states that the best explanation for ceartain features of life and the universe would be an intelligent cause. I guess the approximate answer wolud be that explanation. I want to know what that explanation is. What is the intelligent cause and how it produced those "certain features of the universe". I think this leads to a chance of showing how science produces "approxsimate answers" taking those answers from ID. I don't really care about the "inference of design". Living organisms are what they are. The question is not if it is appropriate to call them "designed" (which is correct if you choose an adequate definition of design) but HOW they came to be? Guillermoe

RB, I have given in outline, facts, observations, reasoning, geometry. Thus, I claim warrant for holding that the shadows of Earth on the moon during lunar eclipses are an observation that on the logical force of geometry as a deductive system, are immediarely decisive that we have observed a round earth, as has been known since Aristotle. You have so far presented dismissive language by trying to suggest that geometry provides a "model" rather than a logic that implies the conclusion on the observation given that on the relevant scale light is acting as rays that trace straight lines across space -- much as for today's laser levels. The balance on the merits speaks for itself. KF kairosfocus

WD, the evidence is there for all to see and I rest on the strength of it. That evidence says, worldview level ideological imposition and question-begging. Let me call up another witness on what is going on. Mr Martin Mahner of the Center for Inquiry-Europe, says much the same in his recent Science and Education article, "The role of Metaphysical Naturalism in Science" [[2011]:

This paper defends the view that metaphysical naturalism is a constitutive ontological principle of science in that the general empirical methods of science, such as observation, measurement and experiment, and thus the very production of empirical evidence, presuppose a no-supernature principle . . . . Metaphysical or ontological naturalism (henceforth: ON) [["roughly" and "simply"] is the view that all that exists is our lawful spatiotemporal world. Its negation is of course supernaturalism: the view that our lawful spatiotemporal world is not all that exists because there is another non-spatiotemporal world transcending the natural one, whose inhabitants—usually considered to be intentional beings—are not subject to natural laws . . . . ON is not part of a deductive argument in the sense that if we collected all the statements or theories of science and used them as premises, then ON would logically follow. After all, scientific theories do not explicitly talk about anything metaphysical such as the presence or absence of supernatural entities: they simply refer to natural entities and processes only. Therefore, ON rather is a tacit metaphysical supposition of science, an ontological postulate. It is part of a metascientific framework or, if preferred, of the metaparadigm of science that guides the construction and evaluation of theories, and that helps to explain why science works and succeeds in studying and explaining the world. Now this can be interpreted in a weak and a strong sense. In the weak sense, ON is only part of the metaphysical background assumptions of contemporary science as a result of historical contingency; so much so that we could replace ON by its antithesis any time, and science would still work fine. This is the view of the creationists, and, curiously, even of some philosophers of science (e.g., Monton 2009). In the strong sense, ON is essential to science; that is, if it were removed from the metaphysics of science, what we would get would no longer be a science. Conversely, inasmuch as early science accepted supernatural entities as explainers, it was not proper science yet. It is of course this strong sense that I have in mind when I say that science presupposes ON.

The degree to which this article ties the course of reasoning to a strawman contrast, natural vs supernatural, is inadvertently utterly revealing. As already noted, from the days of Plato on, the true contrast posed by design oriented thinkers -- as opposed to Creationists appealing to a tradition that is viewed as rooted in Divine Revelation -- has been that we may contrast blind chance and mechanical necessity ["nature"] vs the ART-ificial, and that both may leave empirically observable characteristic traces. On an inference to best explanation basis, science may identify such. As opposed to "prove" such. The cosnistent strawman contrast is a telling clue, and it speaks to an agenda, of a priori metaphysical evolutionary materialism perceived as the premise of being "Scientific." Exactly as Johnson pointed out in rebutting Lewontin. And of course though tangential, this points back tot he problem at the head of this thread, as a close traveling companion of this materialistic a priorism is scientism, the notion that science defines knowledge or at least covers knowledge worth having and really reliable. Such a view, being in itself inherently an epistemological claim, even when said while wearing a lab coat, is inescapably a philosophical one and self-refutes. But to those enmeshed int eh scheme, to "prove" is to ground "scientifically," with Mathematics somehow being enfolded as part of science. But a clearer-eyed understanding of what warrant and proof entail, will immediately show tha there is much more to the world of reason, logic and proof or knowledge than what scientism would admit. Where in particular, there are many observational claims that are empirically certain and deserve to be called facts, but the scientific explanatory frameworks that we term theories, are not like that. At best they are best explanations to date, may be actually true, or largely true, but they strictly are provisional and are trusted to be empirically reliable and powerful rather than strictly true. And, no, the circularity of the earth as manifested in observing round shadows on the Moon in a lunar eclipse is in the observations category not the explanatory frameworks one. A theory would be more along the lines of explaining how we got a cicumstellar habitable zone terrestrial planet of about 8,000 mi diameter, with so much water and a thick oxygen rich atmosphere, guarded by a large moon. That is ti round and terrestrial is one thing, how it got so in the unobserved deep past of origins, in light of reasonably available materials and forces acting in space and time, is another. KF KF kairosfocus

KF:

Assertions to the contrary do not undo the force of what has already been said.

A gate that swings two ways, KF. Reciprocating Bill

Well, KF, all I can say is a tried very hard to take you seriously. wd400

WD: By imposing naturalism -- a worldview -- that may be descriptively termed evolutionary materialism, the so called methodological constraint smuggle in not merely bias but censorship, not only in science but in science education. As we have seen in declarations, proposals, court actions and even governmental actions. The emperor has no clothes but insists that he parade of shame and folly must go on. KF kairosfocus

G: First, I note this is increasingly tangential to the purpose of this thread, and that you would do well to read the Weak Argument Correctives under the resources tab at the top of this and every UD page; but I will note for record. If you are trying to target the reasoning behind the design inference, kindly note the explanation here in the very first ID foundations series post at UD. I think you will on reflection appreciate that whodunit, howtwerdun and thattweredun are three distinct questions. The design inference is an inductive exercise that on a database of trillions of cases in point, infers that certain signs such as functionally specific complex information and associated information, FSCO/I, are empirically reliable signs of design. That is a that twerdun. As to how, there's more than one way to skin a cat, but on the world of life a sufficient cause would be a molecular nanotech lab several tech generations beyond Venter et al. I am confident that across this century and in part on reverse engineering cell based life, we will synthesise artificial life forms in such labs, so much so that one concern is to ethically control genetic engineering from utterly destructive ends such as inventing a little beastie that kills the Krebs cycle, which could sterilise our planet. You may also wish to look at the Russian originated science, TRIZ on inventive problem solving and technologically driven evolution. On whodunit, the empirical evidence from the world of life -- as design thinkers have openly stated from the outset of modern design theory in 1984 in Thaxton et al in TMLO -- i.e. this is yet another insisted upon strawman tactic -- that the evidence in hand from the world of life on earth does not allow us to on that alone identify a specific "suspect" much less identify whether the designer would be within or beyond the observed cosmos. That the observed cosmos exhibits deep, multi-dimensional fine tuning that sets up the world of life based on c-chemistry aqueous medium metabolising, code and algorithm using nanotech cells, that points to a cosmos-building intelligence intending a possibility of such life. But the scientific impact is long before we get there: reverse engineering the design of the world of life. And, perhaps the cosmos too. KF kairosfocus

Guillermoe, "what happened?"? Considering the latest evidence, Genesis gives an Awesome Explanation and is sapien understandable to boot: Cosmologist Dr Ross, Bizarro World Tyson:) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4EaWPIlNYY&feature=youtube_gdata_player ppolish

Joe: Do you wnat me to explain what intelligent design has to do with designing? Really? Guillermoe

To providing a testable hypothesis that "mind interacted with matter" to make biology. wd400

Nothing in ID gets close to what? Joe

There's no reason it couldn't. Nothing in ID get's close to it. wd400

wd400: Let's set aside your dismissive (and faulty) understanding of ID for a moment. The specific question is: can methodological naturalism (in your understanding in the way you are using it) ever draw a conclusion that an intelligent agent acted in nature? Take your pick of examples: archaeology, SETI, forensics, etc. Does your methodological naturalism allow a scientist to infer that an artifact found in the real world may have been caused by purposeful intelligent action, as opposed to purely natural causes like chance and necessity? Eric Anderson

wd400:

For the most part the things ID peole talk about are really secondary to science, and amount to arguing naturalistic theories are insuficent to explain biology.

That is only part of it and as it turns out it is a part that is mandated by science. The other part is the positive case for intelligent design, ie the criteria proposed by Behe and Dembski. ID makes testable claims, it can be falsified and that is what makes it science. Joe

Guillermoe:

All I have to say about this, given that is blog is about ID is: explain what is the designer and how it does it.

Explain what that has to do with ID and I will give you an answer. Joe

EA, My own position is the "methodological naturalism" is only a special case of the general rule that scientific theories have to make demands on the natural world. If it was possible to make a real testable hypothesis from a specific theory that involved "mind interacting with nature" then that'd be fine. I've never seen anything like that in ID, though. For the most part the things ID peole talk about are really secondary to science, and amount to arguing naturalistic theories are insuficent to explain biology. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but it's not science. wd400

K "this is no idiosyncratic notion held by one man, but reflects a strong pattern, including the US based National Academy of Science and national Science Teachers Association Board" All I have to say about this, given that is blog is about ID is: explain what is the designer and how it does it. You can't blame an international complot for your lack of answers. "MN is an ideologically loaded, worldview level imposition and straight-jacket on science that begs BIG questions." What is the alternative? How does it produce knowledge? Guillermoe

Science can only be limited by reality. Science cannot be limited to "naturalistic explanations". Joe

wd400: Let's cut to the chase: Is it your understanding that "methodological naturalism" allows us to consider the possibility of an intelligent agent acting in nature to cause certain effects? If so, fine. But that is quite a different understanding of methodological naturalism than what most people understand, including Eugenie Scott and the NCSE. In contrast, if by methodological naturalism you mean that we can only ever consider explanations that have a purely natural and material cause, then that is a different matter entirely. Eric Anderson

That just says science is limited to naturalistic explanations -- a methological constraint in your own words. You have claimed it's more than that, can you please make a case for that claim. wd400

WD, on- the- ground demonstrated significance of Lewontinian a priori materialism imposed on science and science education, as in just read on. Here, I clip the linked from NSTA, the US Science Teachers Association board in a July 2000 statement . . . just click on the link as given and read on down, as was suggested above:

The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts [--> as in, Phil Johnson was dead on target in his retort to Lewontin, science is being radically re-defined on a foundation of a priori evolutionary materialism from hydrogen to humans] . . . . Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations [--> the ideological loading now exerts censorship on science] supported by empirical evidence [--> but the evidence is never allowed to speak outside a materialistic circle so the questions are begged at the outset] that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world [--> but the competition is only allowed to be among contestants passed by the Materialist Guardian Council] . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements [--> in fact this imposes a strawman caricature of the alternative to a priori materialism, as was documented since Plato in The Laws, Bk X, namely natural vs artificial causal factors, that may in principle be analysed on empirical characteristics that may be observed. Once one already labels "supernatural" and implies "irrational," huge questions are a priori begged and prejudices amounting to bigotry are excited to impose censorship which here is being insituttionalised in science education by the national science teachers association board of the USA.] in the production of scientific knowledge. [[NSTA, Board of Directors, July 2000. Emphases added.]

Please, don't try that one on us again. KF kairosfocus

I can assure you, KF, that I have no idea what you think "the direct force" of Lewontin's comment is, or even what the phrase "ground demonstrated significance " would mean. Can you please, in plain english, state why you think methodological naturalism is such a problem. wd400

WD400, your trying to dismissively brush aside the direct force of what Lewontin stated and its on the ground demonstrated significance is of no consequence to the force of hat reality. KF kairosfocus

RB: Assertions to the contrary do not undo the force of what has already been said. And BTW, geometry is a deductive system of logic. Once we have light instantiating rays which go in straight lines, and once we have solid objects that obstruct, this instantiation is enough for consequences to follow with certainty. KF kairosfocus

Strange that no one has ever successfully modeled universal common descent. It's as if it never was a real physical phenomena... Joe

KF:

that’s a turnabout tactic

No, it's the assertion that you’ve got it backward.

Have you ever seen a lunar eclipse? Are you aware that this is a common event, often visible all over the world? Do you understand that...

Your Condescension Ray has no effect on me!

And, geometry is not about “models,” it is about the strictly logical properties of space and objects in XYZ type “flat” space. (and the XY type plane.)

Yet has been used throughout history to build conceptual models of physical phemonema, as have other, equally abstract and logical mathematical disciplines.

"Archimedes developed ingenious techniques for calculating areas and volumes, in many ways anticipating modern integral calculus."

Techniques of great practical value, as they could be used to model actual physical objects.

"The field of astronomy, especially as it relates to mapping the positions of stars and planets on the celestial sphere and describing the relationship between movements of celestial bodies, served as an important source of geometric problems during the next one and a half millennia."

And to solve a such geometric problems in astronomy is to model them. Successful models enabled the prediction of future astronomical events.

Albeit, as aids to reasoning, we often use sketches that help us visualise the strictly logical relationships.

Such a sketch is a rough conceptual model of the relationship of interest.

Those observations connect to the further points of empirically collectively certain observation on light and shadow-casting, namely applicability of the ray level understanding.

Enabling the conceptual modeling of a lunar eclipse.

Geometry, on logic, tells us just one 3d shape casts a consistently round shadow, a sphere.

And Aristotle used that fact to model the relationship of sunlight, earth and moon, and deduce thereby the shape of the earth. Reciprocating Bill

wd400:

Science can ask questions about all those — why would methodological naturalism hold it back in those cases?

For the simple reason that neither of those events are reducible to matter, energy and what emerges from their interactions. For that matter, information is not reducible to matter, energy and what emerges from their interactions. So MN fails at trying to explain information. That means they cannot be explained explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. Joe

Joe, Science can ask questions about all those -- why would methodological naturalism hold it back in those cases? wd400

KF, That was utterly extraordinary. I can't belief it's possible to make it less clear what Dick Lewontin was on about but you've managed it. Apart from the fact that Lewontin was talking about Sagan's book, rather than, as you seem to claim, letting slip some grand scientific conspiracy, I don't really care what Lewontin thought. I care about whether methodological naturalism requires philosophical naturalism, and am yet to see any argument as to why it does... wd400

HeKs, I really don't know why you struggle with this so, and makes things so much more complex than they need be. It's quite possible for the best scientific explanation to be poor, in which case p(theory|naturalism) and p(theory|not-naturalism) would both be low, and so p(theory) would be low. I also don't see why a theory would work only under naturalism. The science of, to take your example, of universal common descent is settled. Many religous people accept this without a problem. I'm not sure there is really anything left to say about all this wd400

This is all very nice, but I still don't know what is the "approximate answer" of ID. There is life on Earth bacause... what happened? Guillermoe

RB, that's a turnabout tactic, though not the vicious form. Have you ever seen a lunar eclipse? Are you aware that this is a common event, often visible all over the world? Do you understand that there is a progression of the Earth's shadow across the Moon, in the form of a part of a circle, ALWAYS. (That is, I summarise here a large body of observations of what are sometimes called blood moons because of the dark reddish-brown colour of the shadowed Moon.) Do you recognise the -- easily confirmed empirically, and mathematically demonstrable -- geometry of shadow-casting, that just one shape will ALWAYS cast a circular shadow right behind itself when directly illuminated? Namely, a "good enough for government work" sphere? And, geometry is not about "models," it is about the strictly logical properties of space and objects in XYZ type "flat" space. (and the XY type plane.) Wiki:

Geometry (from the Ancient Greek: ?????????; geo- "earth", -metron "measurement") is a branch of mathematics concerned with questions of shape, size, relative position of figures, and the properties of space. A mathematician who works in the field of geometry is called a geometer. Geometry arose independently in a number of early cultures as a body of practical knowledge concerning lengths, areas, and volumes, with elements of formal mathematical science emerging in the West as early as Thales (6th Century BC). By the 3rd century BC, geometry was put into an axiomatic form by Euclid, whose treatment—Euclidean geometry—set a standard for many centuries to follow.[1] Archimedes developed ingenious techniques for calculating areas and volumes, in many ways anticipating modern integral calculus. The field of astronomy, especially as it relates to mapping the positions of stars and planets on the celestial sphere and describing the relationship between movements of celestial bodies, served as an important source of geometric problems during the next one and a half millennia . . .

Albeit, as aids to reasoning, we often use sketches that help us visualise the strictly logical relationships. In short, you are making a category confusion error. So, we have a large body of mutually agreed direct observations, for which the odds of collective error are for good reason negligible. If in doubt, cf Babbage's decisive discussion in answer to Hume in the 9th Bridgewater Thesis. Those observations connect to the further points of empirically collectively certain observation on light and shadow-casting, namely applicability of the ray level understanding. Beyond, the earth is 3-D, as looking at a mountain will confirm, or digging a hole. Geometry, on logic, tells us just one 3d shape casts a consistently round shadow, a sphere. As, its cross-section is always circular. KF kairosfocus

KF:

You are trying to convert direct observations that directly demand the conclusion on geometry — implications of spatial properties — into data points that require explanation.KF

Quite the reverse: you are trying to convert data points that required explanation into direct observations.

roundness of the lunar eclipse moon shadow is a direct observation and not merely a data point to be accounted for.

The conclusion that the earth must be round was an inference enabled by a model - a geometric model, in this case, not a direct observation. "Demanding the conclusion on geometry" is your oblique description of the application of that model. "The earth is round" was not directly observed - what was directly observed were reductions in illumination of the moon that conformed to a spatial and temporal pattern, the significance of which was recognized only when mediated by a successful model. Reciprocating Bill

F/N: One of the darwinist debate tactics is to set up a strawman opposition between the natural and the supernatural, which is then accused of being chaotic and irrational -- a willful distortion in itself . . . at the level of say NCSE, NAS or NSTA board or the like there are abundant and accessible resources to learn that the God of Judaeo-Christian theism (the usual target) is supremely rational and the God of order, as say Newton knew and outright said in his General Scholium to Principia. Indeed this view of God and the world was foundational to the rise of modern science as a self-sustaining systematic attempt to understand the expected rational order and LAWS -- a telling word that is still there in the language of science -- that govern the natural world, c. 1200 - 1700; as in thinking God's creative and sustaining thoughts after him. If we have not been taught this in the course of education in science and its roots, or in history and culture, we have been misled by those who knew better or should have known and done better. But more to the point, by diverting attention from another relevant contrast, natural vs ART-ificial, there is a willful suppression of the fact that blind chance + necessity on the one hand and ART (intelligently directed as opposed to merely stochastic contingency) on the other often leave distinct empirically observable traces. Such as, FSCO/I. That is, the rhetorical tactics used to try to discredit the inference to design as an empirically based, observationally anchored, reasonable, inductive logic-driven, inference to best current explanation scientific endeavour are based on disregard of and/or neglect for duties of care to truth and fairness. Sad. KF kairosfocus

HeKS: In the very same passage in The Laws Bk X that I have often cited per Plato's warning on evolutionary materialism's socio-ethical consequences, he marks the distinction that the proper dichotomy is indeed between natural (= blind chance and necessity) and Art . . . intelligently directed contrivance. Where, he then went on to infer from evident order in the cosmos to an intelligent and beneficial creator which he called a good soul. In context, soul is defined as the self-moved and living, a root or first cause of chains of cause-effect action. KF kairosfocus

F/N: Aristotle in Metaphysics, 1011b: truth says of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not. Any modifier added -- such as so-called "scientific truth" -- that materially changes this meaning, is a perversion of language beyond Jesus' let your yes be yes and your no no. Anything beyond that comes of evil. Where also, to lie is to speak with disregard for truth, hoping to profit by what is said or suggested being perceived as true. KF kairosfocus

wd400:

MN applies when you do science (because I really don’t know how else you could…),

So science can't say anything about the origin of the universe, the origin of our plant nor the origin of life? Really? Joe

Vishnu said:

Theory #2 (which the major news media rarely mentions) says that the atmosphere contains a positive feedback system that, with enough CO2, cause catospophic runaway climate disturbance. Not only is this not settled science, but nobody knows what that the SIGN the feedback is, i.e, which direction, positive or negative. All the hysteria is based on the theory #2.

There's always the possibility I may be wrong, but I have the habit of doing my best to research matters within what is a resonable effort given my background et cetera, and I disagree. I think what we have is a feedback system comprised of the entire planet. Ocean currents, rising temperatures leading to release of Methane gas stored in permafrost. I'll leave it to the people dedicated to professional study of the Earth's climate. Are there anyone else capable of telling us what's reasonabel to expect given the avilable data? Science is an ongoing project and all scientific conclusions are open for revision - if scientific research warrants. I believe science is the only method we can rely on to resolve our problems whatever they may be. I often get the impressino that critics have an a priori theory that if it science, then there's got to be somethinf fishy about it. Is it possible to take a clue from the marvelswe all take for granted, all the result of applied science? What is so special about science when applied to biology and climate that it is subject to so much criticism and denial? Whereas everybody is happy we have such brilliant scientists helping us cure the most threatening medical, agricultural - ans you name it, problems? Who created our powerful pocket computers aka cell phones - marvellous gadgets making the huge 20th century IBM, Control Data or Cray computers look like toys, at a fraction of the cost? There's nothing wrong with criticism of science - if it is done from insight and knowledge. Cabal

@wd400 #61

Nah, this is where you are going wrong. MN applies when you do science (because I really don’t know how else you could…), but not when you do philospophy.

I don't know if I'm just not being clear and you are continuing to miss my point or if you are intentionally dodging it, but I'll operate on the assumption that it is the former. If you don't know how one could do science without imposing MN, which is to say, without imposing some a priori philosophical principle that precludes the possibility of invoking intelligent agency as a causal explanation, then I have to wonder if you've been paying any attention here. Furthermore, to say that MN applies when you do science but not philosophy is basically nonsensical. Especially in the context of the current topic. When people claim that 'the science is settled' on some issue, they mean that the conclusion that science has supposedly settled on is true. They don't just mean it is scientifically true but not really true. When people claim that the science is settled on Evolution, or more specifically Common Descent, they are not trying to say that it is scientifically true but actually might very well be false. Now, statements that are thought to be true tend to make their way into philosophical arguments. For example, what if we were to make the following argument: 1) If life on earth reached its current level of diversity through a completely naturalistic process involving chance and natural law, an intelligent designer is not necessary to explain the diversity of life on earth. 2) Life on earth reached its current level of diversity through a completely naturalistic process involving chance and natural law. 3) Therefore, an intelligent designer is not necessary to explain the diversity of life on earth. Of course, under normal circumstances premise 2 would be a question open to investigation which could go either way depending on what evidence is found. However, instead of worrying about the evidence, we can simply make another deductive argument in favor of premise 2: 1) If naturalism is true, life on earth reached its current level of diversity through a completely naturalistic process involving chance and natural law. 2) One must assume the philosophical position that naturalism is true (Methodological Naturalism). 3) Therefore, life on earth reached its current level of diversity through a completely naturalistic process involving chance and natural law. We have now determined solely through the deduction of logically necessary implications of MN that all life arose through natural processes and we don't need to look at a single piece of evidence to know this. So, here's the question: Should premise 2, that all life on earth reached its current level of diversity through a completely naturalistic process involving chance and natural law, be considered scientifically true, and therefore settled science, and yet very possibly false? The type of distinction you have been trying to make separates scientific truth from actual truth. Under this paradigm, it may well be perverse to question the scientific truth of some proclamation of 'settled science', but it would be perfectly reasonable to question the actual truth of the proclamation. If scientific truth is potentially different from actual truth, where the former may be nothing more than the logically necessary outcome of mistaken philosophical presuppositions, why should anyone give any credence to proclamations that the just-so stories making up the historical narratives of Evolutionary theory are 'settled science', or 'fact', or 'true'?

A naturalistic explanation for some phenomenon might increase your condifence that naturalism is true, but there’s always some probability that super-naturalism is true.

You are falling into the trap of so many naturalists before you, which is that you are creating a false dichotomy between natural and supernatural where the actual scientific choices are natural and artificial (i.e. the product of some artful mind). HeKS

RB: Notice, the roundness of the lunar eclipse moon shadow is a direct observation and not merely a data point to be accounted for. Where BTW, modern photos from space are little more than an update to this moon shadow effect, as the point is only one solid body is always circular in projection to the film. Hull down ships are a direct observation of a bulge so that the surface of the earth is known not to be flat. And of course circumnavigation by Magellan's surviving crew members was a final direct observation. Arguably, when that worth reached the Philipines by sailing generally W, having already been there by sailing generally E, that would have been enough. He of course died there, felled by was it a spear. You are trying to convert direct observations that directly demand the conclusion on geometry -- implications of spatial properties -- into data points that require explanation.KF kairosfocus

RB, I suggest you consult 64 above, as from the 4th C BC on, the roundness of the shadow the earth ALWAYS casts on the Moon in a lunar eclipse has made the sphericity of the earth a matter of direct observation, and per the work of Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BC, the value of the circumference has been known to be at a level close to the modern one, based on simple calculations on direct observations on differences in shadows at the same time at two points on roughly a N-S axis and a known distance apart -- summer solstice, noon. KF kairosfocus

Re WD400: This objector is striving manfully to pull the thread off topic through a red herring over methodological naturalism and the talking point that it is "only" a mere methodological constraint. It ain't. Let's just correct for record and refuse to continue off on the tangent until WD400 actually addresses the substance on the merits in light of inconvenient facts he and the like will be wont to try to pointedly ignore while they spin their web of talking points. Lewontin let the cat out of the bag in his NYRB review article, in 1997:

. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads we must first get an incorrect view out . . . the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth [[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [[--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [[--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. {Billions and billions of demons, NYRB Jan 1997. If you imagine that the above has been "quote mined" kindly read the fuller extract and notes here on, noting the onward link to the original article.]

If you click the given link and read on down, you will see that this is no idiosyncratic notion held by one man, but reflects a strong pattern, including the US based National Academy of Science and national Science Teachers Association Board. MN is an ideologically loaded, worldview level imposition and straight-jacket on science that begs BIG questions. It is little less than metaphysical, a priori evolutionary materialism smuggled in the back door and set up as a censor over science. Thus, the telling force of Philip Johnson's retort in First Things in November that same year:

For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]

Nope, as Newton plainly stated in his general scholium to Principia, God would be a God of the order of the world, so also Boyle and Kepler et al saw themselves as thinking God's creative and sustaining ordering and providential thoughts after him in order to better steward the world under Him, and as we may add . . . echoing C S Lewis, that the God who made and sustains the world by his word of power may have good reason to occasionally go beyond the usual course of nature, has no practical import for studies of that usual course. And, such a usual course marks the difference between a chaos and a cosmos -- an ordered system of reality. So the theism/supernatural implies chaos is a strawman caricature set up and pummelled, having been led away to by a red herring. As, so sadly, usual. KF kairosfocus

RB:

“The earth is round” is a scientific model, not a “fact on the ground.”

Barry:

Sigh. Really Bill?

Here are examples of actual sensory observations pertaining to a round earth that may be classified as falling into your epistemic "category 1": - When at sea it is possible to see high mountains or elevated lights in the distance before lower-lying ground and the mast of a boat before the hull. It is also possible to see further by climbing higher in the ship, or, when on land, on high cliffs. - The sun is lower in the sky as you travel away from the tropics. For example, when traveling northward, stars such as Polaris, the north star, are higher in the sky, whereas other bright stars such as Canopus, visible in Egypt, disappear from the sky. - The length of daylight varies more between summer and winter the farther you are from the equator. - The earth throws a circular shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse. - The times reported for lunar eclipses (which are seen simultaneously) are many hours later in the east (e.g. India) than in the west (e.g. Europe). Local times are confirmed later by travel using chronometers and telegraphic communication. - When you travel far south, to Ethiopia or India, the sun throws a shadow south at certain times of the year. Even farther (e.g. Argentina) and the shadow is always in the south. - It is possible to circumnavigate the world; that is, to travel around the world and return to where you started. "The earth is a sphere" was for millennia a model that both accounted for and was progressively affirmed by those observations (which are presented in chronological order of their observation - thanks to Wikipedia). Yet during those millennia "the earth is a sphere" was never given directly to anyone's senses. That model for millennia exemplified your epistemic category 2, and could be (and was) doubted in the way that direct observations cannot. Of course, observational confirmation of that that model progressed to the point that some of us, since 1961, have directly observed the sphericity of the earth, observations that became possible in part due to the very success of the model, in conjunction with other successful models (e.g. of gravitation, orbital mechanics, etc.) These models had attained the clearest demonstration of "practical" and "reasonable" certainty of all: people bet their lives on them. So here we have observational and predictive confirmation of a theory progressing to the point that the model could be judged as certainly correct in any "practical" or "reasonable" sense of certainty - in the process of which your categorical distinction dissolved completely as the core insights of the model progressed to become both theory and fact. Reciprocating Bill

TB (Attn: RB): Actually, in C4 BC, Aristotle pointed out that the shadow the earth casts on the Moon in a Lunar eclipse is always a circular one. There is exactly one solid shape that has this property [and yes, up to the refinements of a Taylor series equivalent of refinements on the lumps and bumps]. By the 200's Eratosthenes, Librarian in Alexandria, worked out from shadows cast in Alex and Syene [on the Tropic of Cancer, where Aswan Dam now sits] had calculated, apparently to within 10% of the modern value for circumference, some 40,000 km. Which is no accident, that is the intended figure on which the metre was originally defined. By the high Middle Ages, there was a famous "cartoon" that I call blue and brown cloak, where the characters go on a walk to the antipodes and meet face to face there, having effectively walked half way around the earth. So, the sphericity of the Earth was a matter of direct observation, long before the photos shot from space. KF kairosfocus

Earth is a sphere for everyone except a geodesist who is trying to be very precise.Earth has been photographed from outer space multiple times and has been shown to be spherical.It is not a theory anymore. Why would anyone believe it is a theory and not a fact unless he suspects that all the outer-space photos are Photoshop ? the bystander

RB:

“The earth is round” is a scientific model, not a “fact on the ground.”

Sigh. Really Bill? If your religion requires you to say something so preposterous, I guess you have to do it (or, I suppose, you could switch religions). Barry Arrington

In any case, the problem here is that on MN, P(naturalism) = 1

Nah, this is where you are going wrong. MN applies when you do science (because I really don't know how else you could...), but not when you do philospophy. A naturalistic explanation for some phenomenon might increase your condifence that naturalism is true, but there's always some probability that super-naturalism is true. wd400

I find the long debate on basic issue funny. Scientific theories are not proven till all facts are in. Once facts are verified, the theory ceases to be a theory. Isn't it obvious that all theories in science are not verified and hence 'Science is not settled' ? the bystander

@wd400 #54 The question you answered was ultimately leading into the next more specific question: "If the probability that mind is responsible for some effect is preemptively set at zero for methodological purposes and only one naturalistic explanation, in its rough outline, is logically possible, then is the probability that the naturalistic explanation is correct actually 1? And does it necessarily remain 1 in spite of what the evidence may tell us?" I'm not looking for a formula to make a calculation. I'm asking a philosophical question about the effect of presupposition when you are trying to explain some effect where two causes seem logically possible, but the one that is actually known to be causally adequate is ruled out by an a priori philosophical or methodological presupposition. That said...

p(theory) = [p(theory|naturalism) * p(naturalism) ] + [p(theory|not-naturalism) * p(not-naturalism)]

On Methodological Naturalism (MN), it seems this would be: P(theory) = [P(theory|naturalism) * 1] + [P(theory|not-naturalism) * 0] Without knowing the value of P(theory|naturalism) (or, the probability that the theory is true given naturalism is true), we can't give a final probability percentage. We can, however, recognize that [P(theory|not-naturalism) * P(not-naturalism)] = 0. On MN, it doesn't matter what the probability is that the theory is true given naturalism is false, because the probability of naturalism being false is already determined to be 0.

of course, if a naturalistic theory explains data well then it makes p(naturalism) higher: where p(observations|naturalism) is p(observations|theory) (or perhaps summed over all naturalistic theories that might explain the observation)

Wouldn't that be... p(naturalism|observations) = p(observations|naturalism) * P(naturalism) / [p(observations|naturalism) * p(naturalism)] + [p(observations|not-naturalism) * p(not-naturalism)] ...or am I missing something? In any case, the problem here is that on MN, P(naturalism) = 1 Methodological Naturalism is the methodological implementation of a philosophical presupposition, not the conclusion of a Bayesian probability calculation. But if we incorporate MN into a Bayesian calculation for the probability that the 'only viable naturalistic theory' (ovnt) for some effect is correct, the result is entirely predictable. P(ovnt) = [P(ovnt|naturalism) * P(naturalism)] + [P(ovnt|not-naturalism) * P(not-naturalism)] Becomes... P(ovnt) = [1 * 1] + [x * 0] [Given naturalism is true (i.e. P(naturalism) = 1), the probability that the only viable naturalistic theory is true is, by logical necessity, 1 (i.e. P(ovnt|naturalism) = 1). Meanwhile the probability that the theory would be true on not-naturalism is ultimately irrelevant because the probability of not-naturalism is 0] So, this becomes... P(ovnt) = 1 + 0 Becomes... P(ovnt) = 1 It doesn't seem to me that this is the kind of scenario that Bayes Theorem was intended for. On MN, if we find a singularly viable naturalistic theory to explain something, a Bayesian calculation that takes MN into account will always reveal to us with 100% certainty that the theory is correct. You obviously get the exact same result if you replace 'only viable naturalistic theory' (ovnt) with 'some naturalistic theory' (snt). We get certain conclusions we can hold with certainty without the need for any supporting evidence at all. We only need to deduce them from the principle of Methodological Naturalism. For example, on MN, what is the probability that the Origin of Life came about through purely naturalistic causes without any role played by a mind? Simple. The probability is 1. On MN we can know this with complete certainty even if we never figure out how it could possibly happen. I'm no expert in Bayesian analysis, but this seems philosophically problematic to me. HeKS

Barry:

Bill @ 13. We finally agree on something. I knew that if we searched long enough it was bound to happen.

I think we also agreed that Blade Runner is a superb science fiction film. Barry:

Bill, I’m not sure what your point is. Are you still trying to demonstrate that Feynman harbored doubts about whether the earth is round?

My point is that there is little difference between what Feynman has said (which in turn you offer to exemplify the thrust of your OP), what WD400 has said and the thrust of Wittgenstein's essay (although Feynman also famously said, "Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.") In contrast, your statements indicating your belief that there is zero probability that the earth does not travel around the sun (etc.) seem to contradict all three, even the apparent thrust of your OP. I found that confusing.

On a more serious note, wd400 still does not seem to understand the relative epistemological standing between facts on the ground and scientific models designed to account for those facts. 1. Evidence; Data; Observations. These are the facts on the ground that we apprehend though our senses. Example: “An apple drops to the ground.” 2. Scientific Theories These are the models we use to attempt to account for the facts. Example: “The apple and the earth are subject to the inverse square law of gravitation.” Observations in category 1 are in a different epistemological category than conclusions in category 2. In other words, we “know” apples fall to the ground in a different way than we “know” objects will “obey” the inverse square law of gravitation. Category 1 knowledge comes from sense impressions and is immediate and primary. Category 2 knowledge is inductive and secondary. Even the way we can doubt category 1 knowledge is different from the way we can doubt category 2 knowledge. Apples always fall to the ground. This fact has been observed countless billions of times by untold millions of observers. It is not subject to reasonable doubt. The mere fact that it is not logically impossible that all of those observations could have been in error (it is logically possible that everyone could have been in the grip of a Cartesian demon after all) does not change this fact. Category 1 knowledge (the earth is round) can be known with practical certainty. Suggesting otherwise is mere sophistry.

Now you're hedging with qualifiers like "reasonable" and "practical." Those leave open the possibility that there is a fraction of a percent of "unreasonable" and "impractical" doubt, a fraction not worth discussing, just as WD400 stated. That said, and accepting this scheme for the sake of discussion, “The earth is round” and “The Earth revolves around the sun” are category 2 statements - economical scientific models that best account for the the actual category 1 data (observations of the position of the sun and planets in the sky, for example). The fact that you construe them as category 1 "facts on the ground" demonstrates the degree to which these scientific models have, in fact, been assimilated into no-longer sensibly doubted background knowledge that you know with "practical certainty" will never be overturned.

Suggesting otherwise is mere sophistry.

Which is equivalent to WD400's even stronger statement that "some things are just so well established it would be perverse to worry about the minute fraction of probability that it’s not true." Reciprocating Bill

urious post...quotes from the author: "Science “Proves” Nothing Do you seriously believe there is a tiny fraction of a percent possibility that the earth is flat or that it really orbits the sun? I don’t think there is any chance whatsoever that the earth is flat. Nor do I think there is any chance whatsoever that the earth does not orbit the sun. The fact that the earth is round is settled. The fact that the earth orbits the sun is settled. These data points are indeed settled. But that does not mean the “science” is settled" From one author! I think the biggest issue is confusing data points with conclusions. Take the "data points" that the earth is round or that we orbit the sun. Those are conclusions. That is the verboten "settled science." Calling them "data points" is convenient rhetoric. What you agree with is data, the rest is theory up for discussion. The "data" include observations that are incompatible with a flat surface (mountains are observable before shorelines on a ship, angle of the sun in tropics vs. northern latitudes), circumnavigation, all the way up to geostationary satellites. A madman could dispute the data (and some do). Optical tricks on the eye. Mirage. NASA forgeries and fraud. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_cannot_claim_the_earth_is_not_flat REC

Science is successful precisely because it, through experimental investigation, can deliver us a level of certainty about the ‘natural’ world not available to us through philosophy and/or reasoning alone. For instance, when I query as to the integrity of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity to see how much trust I can have in them as theories, I find that they have been empirically tested to almost absurd levels of precision. For example, in Quantum Mechanics I find Leggett’s Inequality confirmed to 120 standard deviations,,,

Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system – Zeilinger 2011 Excerpt: Page 491: “This represents a violation of (Leggett’s) inequality (3) by more than 120 standard deviations, demonstrating that no joint probability distribution is capable of describing our results.” The violation also excludes any non-contextual hidden-variable model.The result does, however, agree well with quantum mechanical predictions, as we will show now.,,, https://vcq.quantum.at/fileadmin/Publications/Experimental%20non-classicality%20of%20an%20indivisible.pdf

The preceding experiment, and the mathematics behind it, are discussed beginning at the 24:15 minute mark of the following video:

Quantum Weirdness and God 8-9-2014 by Paul Giem – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N7HHz14tS1c#t=1449

The following articles give us a small glimpse as to what it truly means for Quantum Mechanics to be confirmed to an order of ’120 standard deviations’:

Standard deviation Excerpt: Particle physics uses a standard of “5 sigma” for the declaration of a discovery.[3] At five-sigma there is only one chance in nearly two million that a random fluctuation would yield the result. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation#Particle_physics SSDD: a 22 sigma event is consistent with the physics of fair coins? – June 23, 2013 Excerpt: So 500 coins heads is (500-250)/11 = 22 standard deviations (22 sigma) from expectation! These numbers are so extreme, it’s probably inappropriate to even use the normal distribution’s approximation of the binomial distribution, and hence “22 sigma” just becomes a figure of speech in this extreme case… https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/mathematics/ssdd-a-22-sigma-event-is-consistent-with-the-physics-of-fair-coins/

Thus I can have much confidence that our model is correct for Quantum Mechanics. In fact, an experiment was recently performed in Quantum Mechanics showing that Quantum Theory will never be exceeded in predictive power by a future theory with the only assumption being that measurement (conscious observation) parameters can be chosen independently (free choice, free will, assumption) of the other parameters of the theory

Can quantum theory be improved? – July 23, 2012 Excerpt: However, in the new paper, the physicists have experimentally demonstrated that there cannot exist any alternative theory that increases the predictive probability of quantum theory by more than 0.165, with the only assumption being that measurement (conscious observation) parameters can be chosen independently (free choice, free will, assumption) of the other parameters of the theory.,,, ,, the experimental results provide the tightest constraints yet on alternatives to quantum theory. The findings imply that quantum theory is close to optimal in terms of its predictive power, even when the predictions are completely random. http://phys.org/news/2012-07-quantum-theory.html

Now this is completely unheard of in science as far as I know. i.e. That a mathematical description of reality would advance to the point that one can actually perform a experiment showing that your current theory will not be exceeded in predictive power by another future theory is simply unprecedented in science! And please note that free will and consciousness are both axiomatic to Quantum Theory in that unprecedented experiment. But ‘unguided’ evolution, as it is taught in schools, which clearly excludes mind as a starting axiom in its theory, has nothing of the sort that one can hang his hat on as to the certainty of it. Berlinski puts the situation with unguided evolution like this,,,

“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)

And indeed, if one looks for ANY empirical evidence for the unguided processes of evolution producing complexity, one finds, besides ZERO examples of Darwinian processes producing functional complexity, that the evidence shows that, instead of building complexity, the evidence shows that unguided processes are far more likely to degrade preexisting complexity rather than ever building it up! Dr. Behe surveyed 4 decades of evolution experiments here:

“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/

Thus, even though Darwinists imagine that unguided processes can build the unfathomed complexity we see in life, the plain fact of the matter is that our 'science', i.e. our experimental evidence, gives us no indication whatsoever that unguided processes are up to the task that Darwinists have imagined for them! I would go even further and hold that our experimental evidence confirms the thesis of Genetic Entropy (J. Sanford), and disconfirms the 'Blind-Watchmaker' thesis of Richard Dawkins: To quote Richard Feynman in regards to the importance of experimental evidence in science:

The Scientific Method – Richard Feynman – video Quote: ‘If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

Thus as far as our science is concerned, Darwinian evolution is wrong! Verse and Music:

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good. The Allman brothers Band - Soulshine - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L3BYTS8uxM

Supplemental note on Leggett’s inequality,, In the following article, Physics Professor Richard Conn Henry is quite blunt as to what quantum mechanics, specifically Leggett’s Inequality, reveals to us about the ‘primary cause’ of our 3D reality:

Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry – Physics Professor – John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the “illusion” of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry’s referenced experiment and paper – “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 – “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett’s Inequality: Verified, as of 2011, to 120 standard deviations) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html

Quotes:

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." Max Planck - The Father Of Quantum Mechanics - Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944) (from Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797) "The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke "decoherence" - the notion that "the physical environment" is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in "Renninger-type" experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy." Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics John Hopkins University - The Mental Universe -

bornagain77

HeKS #53: If the plausibility of some scientific theory relies heavily on methodological naturalism, which includes the a priori elimination of mind as a possible causal explanation for any effect, assigning it a probability of zero, how do we assess the probability that the naturalistic theory is correct?

We (our minds) do not assess anything. Obviously we are an illusion. Brain chemistry is doing the assessment for us. Surprisingly the particles in motion that comprise "our" brain, are very much interested in - and perfectly capable of - doing science and sound assessments. /sarc Box

If the plausibility of some scientific theory relies heavily on methodological naturalism, which includes the a priori elimination of mind as a possible causal explanation for any effect, assigning it a probability of zero, how do we assess the probability that the naturalistic theory is correct?

p(theory) = [p(theory|naturalism) * p(naturalism) ] + [p(theory|not-naturalism) * p(not-naturalism) ] of course, if a naturalistic theory explains data well then it makes p(naturalism) higher: p(naturalism|observations) = p(observations|naturalism) * P(naturalism) / [p(observations|naturalism) + p(observations|not-naturalism)] where p(observations|naturalism) is p(observations|theory) (or perhaps summed over all naturalistic theories that might explain the observation)

Your answers to the Big Philosophical Questions are going to inherit philosophical naturalism from the output of methodological naturalism unless you are either going to simply disregard scientific results in answering the Big Questions

Not discard scientific results, include them in a broader framework. wd400

@wd400 #46

HeKs, Methodological naturalism is, you know, methodological. Science is about explaining the natural world, I don’t really see how you can do science if you allow supernatural forces to enter the picture (how do you measure them, if you measure them in what sense are they supernatural?).

Science, and especially historical science, is not merely about measurement. It is also about offering causal explanations for observed effects. And saying that methodological naturalism is methodological does not answer the question or the problem. I'm asking whether or not you think it's appropriate that science should define itself by a methodology that, by definition, sets a prior probability of zero on the existence of non-material causes before examining the evidence relevant to any given effect. If the plausibility of some scientific theory relies heavily on methodological naturalism, which includes the a priori elimination of mind as a possible causal explanation for any effect, assigning it a probability of zero, how do we assess the probability that the naturalistic theory is correct? If the probability that mind is responsible for some effect is preemptively set at zero for methodological purposes and only one naturalistic explanation, in its rough outline, is logically possible, then is the probability that the naturalistic explanation is correct actually 1? And does it necessarily remain 1 in spite of what the evidence may tell us? If mind is eliminated as a possible explanation of any effect, is there a probability of 1 that every effect can be fully explained by reference to a material cause?

So you do your science (with methodological naturalism) then you draw your conclusions about whatever topic your interested in. So the answer to your Big Philosophical Questions can be informed from the results of science, but they don’t have to inherit the (methodological) naturalism required to do science.

This just seems confused to me. If your answers to the Big Philosophical Questions are informed by the results of science, and scientific results are either informed or determined by methodological naturalism, and methodological naturalism is merely the methodological implementation of a philosophical presupposition of naturalism/materialism, then your answers to the Big Philosophical Questions will necessarily be either informed or determined by a philosophical presupposition of naturalism/materialism. Your answers to the Big Philosophical Questions are going to inherit philosophical naturalism from the output of methodological naturalism unless you are either going to simply disregard scientific results in answering the Big Questions, or else you are going to hold internally inconsistent beliefs, such that in day-to-day life you believe X, but when considering the Big Questions you believe Not-X HeKS

WD, I would save the evidence is strong that natural forces are causing West Coast warming, but I would NOT say its "settled": http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-pacific-warming-20140923-story.html ppolish

wd400- can one accept that the earth has warmed a little since 1880 but doubt that man-made CO2 is the driving factor? Is it OK to doubt climate models when weather models for one week out are doubtful? Joe

wd400:

Barry said something that many anti-science folks . . . say

Ah, having been thoroughly routed, wd400 pulls out the ad hominems.

I started by saying that it’s reasonable to say “the science is settled”, because some things are just so well established it would be perverse to worry about the minute fraction of probability that it’s not true.

No, you started out by making a category error which you have yet to acknowledge. Your argument is smoke and mirrors. You say some things are just so well established it would be perverse to worry about the minute fraction of probability that it’s not true. But the “things” about which you are talking are not scientific theories. Your reasoning is demonstrated by the following: 1. It is perverse to doubt that the earth orbits the sun because the probability that the observations of the earth orbiting the sun being in error are vanishingly small. 2. Therefore, in 1800 it was proper to say that “the science is settled” concerning the Newtonian laws of planetary motion because they were “so well established.” You seem incapable or unwilling to grasp the obvious epistemological distinction between observations and models explaining those observations. It is axiomatic that our confidence in inductive conclusions drawn from observations can never be as certain as the observations upon which the inductive conclusions are based. Assume that in 1800 every scientist on earth believed "the science is settled" concerning the laws of planetary motion. If that was in fact the case, every scientist was wrong. The science was not settled. Similarly, assume (counter to fact) that every scientist today believes in the global warming alarmist climate models (in the very teeth of the fact that those models have been uniformly wrong for nearly two decades now). The science would still not be "settled" for the reasons discussed in the OP. Barry Arrington

wd400:

Joe — if you can change your mind you weren't 100% sure.

That is incorrect. One could be 100% sure due to ignorance and then the proper education would cure that.

That’s just how probability works, I’m afraid.

But that ain't how humans work. Joe

PaV, I find this kind of thing from you very starnge:

So, what is the point here? Have you decided to point out to all IDers that they are “flat earth”, geocentrists who stupidly deny “Climate Change”? Is that it?

You seem to think I spend my time dreaming up ways to make IDers look dumb in some sort of PR war. I don't. The "point" is that Barry said something that many anti-science folks (from GMO critics on to global warming skeptics and everyone in between) say, but which I think it a very silly argument. I said why I think this is a silly arugment in the hope that there might be less silly arguments made, though I appear to have failed in that goal... wd400

Joe -- if you can change your mind you weren't 100% sure. That's just how probability works, I'm afraid. wd400

I haven't changed at all. I started by saying that it's reasonable to say "the science is settled", because some things are just so well established it would be perverse to worry about the minute fraction of probability that it's not true. It;s tru that "litterally everything is up for grabs", but it would be pretty stupid to spend much time worry about the , say, the possibility the the universe didn't exist until the instant. HeKs, Methodological naturalism is, you know, methodological. Science is about explaining the natural world, I don't really see how you can do science if you allow supernatural forces to enter the picture (how do you measure them, if you measure them in what sense are they supernatural?). So you do your science (with methodological naturalism) then you draw your conclusions about whatever topic your interested in. So the answer to your Big Philosophical Questions can be informed from the results of science, but they don't have to inherit the (methodological) naturalism required to do science. wd400

wd400- Bayes Theorem doesn't take free will into account. People are not binary. We can change our minds even when we have been 100% sure of the contrary position. Joe

@Barry #42 I guess you're technically correct there. Of course, I was referring to the underlying facts that the statements were based on. HeKS

@Daniel King #40 It seems to me that both statements would basically fall into category 1. The first statement is a logical deduction based on the limits of induction. The second is an observation. Of course, if you want to remove logically necessary statements from these categories, then the first is a logically necessary philosophical statement while the second is an observation. But it seems to me that logical deductions probably fit in the first category. HeKS

DK at 40. Neither. They are conclusions that follow from the categories, not examples of the categories. Barry Arrington

@Barry #38 An example of the difference between those categories is 1) noting that you have hands, and 2) theorizing that you came to have those hands through a process of naturalistic evolution. It's logically possible that you're a brain in a vat and that your senses telling you that you have hands are an illusion. And yet, if you see hands dangling off your wrists, you can be as certain that you have hands as it is possible to be certain of anything. Far, far more certain than you can reasonably be that the historical narrative of just-so stories put forth by evolutionary theory is true. HeKS

Because of the epistemological difference between category 1 knowledge and category 2 knowledge, it is not inconsistent to say “the science is never settled” and “we can be certain the earth is round.” Please clarify: Which of the quoted propositions is category 1 or 2? Daniel King

WD, there is a difference between saying the "science is settled" and the "science is strong". They convey different ideas. Science can be strong, but never settled. That is the point of the OP. Saying "Science is settled" is either 1 or 2 per the OP, Your 3 option is bogus sorry. ppolish

On a more serious note, wd400 still does not seem to understand the relative epistemological standing between facts on the ground and scientific models designed to account for those facts. 1. Evidence; Data; Observations. These are the facts on the ground that we apprehend though our senses. Example: “An apple drops to the ground.” 2. Scientific Theories These are the models we use to attempt to account for the facts. Example: "The apple and the earth are subject to the inverse square law of gravitation." Observations in category 1 are in a different epistemological category than conclusions in category 2. In other words, we “know” apples fall to the ground in a different way than we “know” objects will “obey” the inverse square law of gravitation. Category 1 knowledge comes from sense impressions and is immediate and primary. Category 2 knowledge is inductive and secondary. Even the way we can doubt category 1 knowledge is different from the way we can doubt category 2 knowledge. Apples always fall to the ground. This fact has been observed countless billions of times by untold millions of observers. It is not subject to reasonable doubt. The mere fact that it is not logically impossible that all of those observations could have been in error (it is logically possible that everyone could have been in the grip of a Cartesian demon after all) does not change this fact. Category 1 knowledge (the earth is round) can be known with practical certainty. Suggesting otherwise is mere sophistry. Contrast this with category 2 knowledge. As KF explained above, “An explanation in science may possibly be true and may even be well warranted, but because of the limitations of an empirically supported inductive argument it cannot prove its explanations beyond possibility of correction.” Those who thought otherwise for over 200 years after Newton were, quite simply, wrong. When Einstein was doubting whether Newton had given us a complete picture, he was not doubting whether apples in fact fell to the ground. Because of the epistemological difference between category 1 knowledge and category 2 knowledge, it is not inconsistent to say “the science is never settled” and “we can be certain the earth is round.” Barry Arrington

HeKs, Please lay off wd400, I can't bear to watch him twist and turn to get an answer out that will bear any scrutiny at all. (but just for fun) "MN is epistemologically prior to Bayesian analysis." or "MN is a useful tool, so useful in fact that if you don't pick it up, you are a useful . . ." Remember, wd400 wrote,

If you hold that there is literally no possibility that something is false, then you are saying no evidence could ever change you (sic) mind

Of course, this is only what some people are saying. Tim

As Pilate said: "What is truth?" Dr JDD

Correction: In (2) "If you accept [the possibility that the Sun can orbit the Earth], then you effectively believe in magic. PaV

WD400: The earth really is not flat, it really does orbit the sun and carbon dioxide really is a greenhouse gas. Not amount of freshman philosophy courses changes that. (1) There is ZERO possibility that the Earth is flat, Bayesian Theory and Cromwell's Law notwithstanding. The only way you can say that the Earth is 'flat' is by means of some sort of equivocation of that word. (2) The Laws of Gravity make it impossible for the Sun to revolve around the Earth. If you accept this position, then you effectively believe in magic. (3) Yes, CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas.' So is nitric oxide. But when you walk into a 'greenhouse,' you don't cough due to excessive amounts of CO2, but you sweat, because of an increased concentration of H20. Global warming is so pathetically wrong that it is now called (newly christened) "climate change." So, what is the point here? Have you decided to point out to all IDers that they are "flat earth", geocentrists who stupidly deny "Climate Change"? Is that it? PaV

@wd400 In light of your comments, I'm interested in what you think of the propriety of methodological naturalism. After all, it says that in order to do science you must set the prior probability of the existence of the supernatural or the immaterial to 0. HeKS

wd400’s response is amusing. At comment 1 he dismisses the OP as comparable to the rantings one might hear in a freshman philosophy course. Having been made to look foolish, by comment 30 he is citing Cromwell’s Law, a staple of freshmen level philosophy. Notice that in the course of one combox discussion wd400 has swung from saying “the science is settled” is a valid expression to saying literally everything (including whether the earth is round) is up for grabs. Nailing Jello to the wall is child’s play compared to having a rational discussion with a committed materialist. Their religion requires them to be dogmatically assertive one moment and infinitely flexible the next. Tough religion. And funny too, in a kind of sad/pathetic way. Barry Arrington

wd400: I haven't been through all the comments, but I think you've made some good points here. Eric Anderson

The bit about not setting any probabilities to zero has a name is stats, "Cromwell's Law". Reader's mike recognize the quote from which the name arises. wd400

My what a lot of comments, rather that picking stuff out from the above I'll make some general replies. If you hold that there is literally no possibility that something is false, then you are saying no evidence could ever change you mind, no matter how overwhelming (this is easy to see from Bayes Thererom -- if you set a prior to 0 no observation will every move a posterior probability from that value). I can't imagine people really think it impossible that, say, the world was created yesterday complete with textbooks and memories and satellite images, so i doubt any of you really believe there is no possibility that the earth this flat, or the carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. I know about models and observations. That the earth orbits the sun is a model, supported by many observations including the relative motions of planets and (these days) photographs. But it's still a model. I'm afraid I still this stock "science can't prove anything, man..." response is much more indicative of someone with a shallow grasp of philosophy of science that someone using the phrase "the science is settled". wd400

Bill, From the Wittgenstein you linked:

81. That is to say: if I make certain false statements, it becomes uncertain whether I understand them.

This applies to wd400 does it not? Barry Arrington

Bill

I think you have misunderstood what he is asserting

If that is the case then perhaps you can help me understand. I asked this question: “Do you seriously believe there is a tiny fraction of a percent possibility that the earth is flat or that it really orbits the sun?” wd400 responded: “Yes.” Bill, you and I have already agreed that wd400 was wrong when he stated there is room for doubt about whether the earth is round or orbits the sun. The only issue is why he is wrong. I assert that he is wrong because he has failed to appreciate the difference between data and scientific models that purport to account for that data. Do you have another explanation for why he is wrong? If so, I would love to hear it. Barry Arrington

Don't tell the "2D Hologram" folks that the Earth is not flat. They have good maths. ppolish

BA:

Now, can you help me explain to wd400 the difference between being absolutely certain the earth is not flat, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, being less than certain regarding any scientific model that purports to explain why the earth is not flat?

I won't presume to speak for wD400, but I think you have misunderstood what he is asserting. But I'll let him clarify. My take on certainty is best expressed in Wittgenstein's little book "On Certainty": http://www.edtechpost.ca/readings/Ludwig%20Wittgenstein%20-%20On%20Certainty.html Reciprocating Bill

Folks, IIRC, Feynmann did have a problem remembering which hand was left, which right. I think he used to look at a mole on his hand to remind himself. Newton, at least once IIRC, was fooled into believing he had already eaten dinner. But, I am sure that the round shadow of the earth on the Moon in a Lunar Eclipse, not to mention Eratosthenes' measurement, should have removed doubts on the sphericity of the earth from c 300 BC. BTW, the debate with Columbus was really over his too small estimate for the size of the "ball," and the OBJECTORS were right, just he had evidence of something out there within sailing reach, and he did reach it. Roundness of Earth is a fact of observation and measurement. A theory of planetary formation, is not. KF kairosfocus

Bill, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you still trying to demonstrate that Feynman harbored doubts about whether the earth is round? Barry Arrington

A still larger context for Feynman's remarks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL_P6Lz-8o8Sit9oT2RPMejizuoqT_16jP&v=YltEym9H0x4 Reciprocating Bill

BA, I hear you, though there is another level of sophomore out there -- secondary. KF kairosfocus

Ah, missed a typo: 9.8 N/kg, not Newtons per Kelvin gram! KF kairosfocus

KF @ 14:

And the very notion that any theory reflects some grand consensus and is beyond correction, is at best sophomoric.

I beg to differ. wd400 at comment 1 assures us that it is "freshmanic" ;-) Barry Arrington

A portion of the Feynman interview from which the quoted passage was drawn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1tKEvN3DF0 Reciprocating Bill

RB: A lot of awful things can be done in even five minutes. KF kairosfocus

Bill @ 13. We finally agree on something. I knew that if we searched long enough it was bound to happen. :-) Now, can you help me explain to wd400 the difference between being absolutely certain the earth is not flat, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, being less than certain regarding any scientific model that purports to explain why the earth is not flat? Barry Arrington

BTW, a fuller rendition of Feynman's remarks: "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything, and of many things I don't know anything about, but I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose which is the way it really is as far as I can tell." Elsewhere he stated, "Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain." (from The Pleasure of Finding Things Out) So he seems to be referring to "a body of statements," not necessarily limiting those statements to "scientific models." Reciprocating Bill

BA: A good clip, that puts the matter with a very useful metaphor. An explanation in science may possibly be true and may even be well warranted, but because of the limitations of an empirically supported inductive argument it cannot prove its explanations beyond possibility of correction. That is, IF Theory (T) then observations (O), O so T is a fallacy. Safer, to hold that theories in science are so-far best, most empirically reliable explanations; which MAY be true. Models, as simplifications, are false but useful within a range of validity. And the very notion that any theory reflects some grand consensus and is beyond correction, is at best sophomoric. At worst, I don't wish to put in words. Some factual observations, indeed, are beyond reasonable doubt, such as that apples or guavas drop at 9.8 N/Kg initial accel from trees, or that pure water at STP atmospheric conditions will boil at 100 deg C. Claimed narrative accounts of the deep and unobservable past are not facts and the explanations are much less tested, much less precise, and much less reliable than something like Newtonian Gravitation was when it ran into Relativity trouble. As for Climate change, climate first is a fiction, an average of weather over 33 years, as I was taught way back. It changes, obviously, it must. Trends, there obviously are, and have been. CO2 is a GHG, but so is Water Vapour, which is much more variable. One does not doubt that we are injecting CO2 etc due to technology, but it would be wise to be patient with the models until they can get the structure of atmospheric temp variations right and fine grained, backed up by a much more fine grained temp etc monitoring. I would suggest that it would be wise not to make major policy changes that can have potentially serious economic etc consequences unless they are also separately warranted on other grounds than what the climate models of the past decades and even today say and project. At the same time, we should realise that oil dependence and the regimes propped up by such, should give us serious pause for concern. I think we need to look harder at conservation, alternate energy and renewables. Pebble bed modular reactors, Thorium reactors using molten salt [LIFTR], promising fusion, OTEC, Geothermal energy and PV are all useful to consider. For fuels/energy carriers, I think if we can solve the high-oil content algae problems that is a break through, and alcohol based fuels -- especially butanol [can be put in a gasoline engine today and it would basically work], should be looked into. The ME Mess and the Venezuela mess give me waking nightmares. KF kairosfocus

Barry:

Let me ask you Bill, do you entertain any doubt whatsoever that the earth is not flat?

None whatsoever. Reciprocating Bill

KF:

I can understand your concern. My reluctant conclusion is that as a high controversy site (that often faces pretty dirty tricks such as the latest I was banned stunt), it is better that way.

One solution is to have the ability to edit time out after some period of time. Some sites use 60 minutes, but I think 30 or even 15 would suffice. Reciprocating Bill

Bill @ 9: You misunderstand Feynman. He was not a radical skeptic about the veracity of his sense impressions. In context, he meant he was not absolutely certain about any scientific model. Let me ask you Bill, do you entertain any doubt whatsoever that the earth is not flat? Barry Arrington

wd400

No amount of freshman philosophy courses changes that.

Thank you also for this little tidbit. Your failure to understand the difference between data and models that account for that data (which, incredibly, you repeated after correction) suggests that you should perhaps attend a freshman philosophy course instead of dismissing its relevance so flippantly. Once again we have a materialist pushing a claim with a confidence, indeed a relish, that is inversely proportional to its veracity. Barry Arrington

Barry:

I don’t think there is any chance whatsoever that the earth is flat. Nor do I think there is any chance whatsoever that the earth does not orbit the sun.

Which would place you at odds with Feynman, who has "approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything." To state that there is no chance whatsoever that the earth is flat is to state that you are absolutely sure that the earth is flat. If you withhold the characterization "the science is settled" on those matters, what characterization do you prefer? Reciprocating Bill

Ah, V: I can understand your concern. My reluctant conclusion is that as a high controversy site (that often faces pretty dirty tricks such as the latest I was banned stunt), it is better that way. I suggest, write posts in an editor that will give straight quote marks (for addresses) and which allows you to do edits. When ready, post. KF kairosfocus

Ahem, pardon the lack of editing. (Is UD ever going to get an editor so we can make corrections?) Vishnu

WD400: The earth really is not flat, it really does orbit the sun and carbon dioxide really is a greenhouse gas. Not amount of freshman philosophy courses changes that.

Both true. However, when somebody claims the "science is settled" about run-away climate change based on human CO2 contributions, I watch my wallet. You see, there are actually two theories involved with the controversial climate science, theory #1 deals with CO2 as a greenhouse. Nobody disputes this. Theory #2 (which the major news media rarely mentions) says that the atmosphere contains a positive feedback system that, with enough CO2, cause catospophic runaway climate disturbance. Not only is this not settled science, but nobody knows what that the SIGN the feedback is, i.e, which direction, positive or negative. All the hysteria is based on the theory #2. And yes, "seeing is believing", and most people are rather confident by the consilence of evidence, including that of their own direct vision, that the earth is not flat, particular those of us who have actually flown around the world. If you think that, say, the origin of life, comes anywhere close to this sort of empirical validation, then you are a simply a kook. Vishnu

wd400, you do not appear to understand the difference between data and scientific models. Do you seriously believe there is a tiny fraction of a percent possibility that the earth is flat or that it really orbits the sun?

Yes. don't you?

No. I don't think there is any chance whatsoever that the earth is flat. Nor do I think there is any chance whatsoever that the earth does not orbit the sun. For you to say that you do shows once again that you are deeply confused.

If you don't then is the science not indeed settled?

No. The fact that the earth is round is settled. The fact that the earth orbits the sun is settled. These data points are indeed settled. But that does not mean the “science” is settled. Go back and read the full article linked in the OP. Perhaps that will help you understand the difference. Here’s an excerpt:

. . . we must collect data, through observations and experiments of natural phenomena, and then compare them to the mathematical predictions and laws. The word central to this endeavour is “evidence”.

Scientists collect data through observations and experiments (the earth orbits the sun). This is only the first (and not necessarily the most important) step. The next step is to develop a theory that explains the data. The second part is where the real science happens. Do you see the difference between the following two statements: 1. The earth orbits the sun. 2. The earth orbits the sun because of X. The truth of the first statement is settled. “X” (whatever “X” is) is never settled absolutely. For over 200 years everyone thought Newton was the last word on why the earth orbits the sun. They were all wrong. Barry Arrington

Without greenhouse gases we wouldn't be here, plants need CO2 and we need plants. No amount of special pleading changes that. Joe

wd400, you do not appear to understand the difference between data and scientific models. Do you seriously believe there is a tiny fraction of a percent possibility that the earth is flat or that it really orbits the sun?

Yes. don't you? If you don't then is the science not indeed settled? wd400

wd400:

Or (3), they are talking like normal human beings and by “settled” they mean the evidence is so strong it would be perverse to hark on the tiny fraction of a percent of the possibility that the claim is wrong. The earth really is not flat, it really does orbit the sun and carbon dioxide really is a greenhouse gas. Not amount of freshman philosophy courses changes that.

wd400, you do not appear to understand the difference between data and scientific models. Do you seriously believe there is a tiny fraction of a percent possibility that the earth is flat or that it really orbits the sun? Thank you for illustrating the point that materialists are so blinded by their religious commitments that they say crazy things like their theory to account for the facts (i.e., their scientific model) is the same as the facts themselves. Barry Arrington

When someone says “the science is settled” one of two things is true: (1) they know better and are lying; or (2) they are deeply ignorant about the philosophy of science.

Or (3), they are talking like normal human beings and by "settled" they mean the evidence is so strong it would be perverse to hark on the tiny fraction of a percent of the possibility that the claim is wrong. The earth really is not flat, it really does orbit the sun and carbon dioxide really is a greenhouse gas. Not amount of freshman philosophy courses changes that. wd400