Stephen Meyer on ID’s Scientific Bona Fides

_{William Dembski

July 13, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

Comments

---Petrushka: "In the quantum world there is a finite probability that a rabbit could materialize. The odds could be computed, in fact I believe the odds for equivalent events have been computed. There is also a finite probability that a stage magician, having hidden a rabbit in his hat, will find it has vanished to regions unknown. ---"I fail to see how this connects to formal logic or rules of reason." Meaning no disrespect, but it isn't polite to stall. I will ask the question again by emphasizing only the key points with capital letters and editing out everything else. You have stated that UNTIL WE PRESENT YOU WITH EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, you will continue to hold that a magician could, in principle, PULL A RABBIT THAT ISN'T THERE out of a hat. You have established this evidential standard on the grounds that the law of non-contradiction IS NOT REALLY A "LAW." Please tell us plainly, then, using YOUR SPECIFIED STANDARDS for verification, WHAT KIND OF EVIDENCE WOULD YOU ACCEPT THAT WOULD CONVINCE YOU THAT YOU ARE WRONG--that is, what kind of evidence would, in your judgment CONFIRM THE LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION. Please be SPECIFIC. (Again, I am taking bets and giving odds that neither Petrushka or Gas will provide examples of the very demands they are insisting on.)StephenB_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

Petrushka, "No, it means that at the quantum level, evidence can contradict our expectations of how physical objects behave." Surprising our expectations does not provide evidence that events happen without causes. - - - - - - It now seems like Gaz has passed on my question in #589. Perhaps he will return to later. In the meantime, care to give us your thoughts?Upright BiPed_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

"No, it means that at the quantum level, evidence can contradict our expectations of how physical objects behave." Ok, granted. Then why all the objections to rational sensibilities? They may be counterintuitive; which simply means that they operate under conditions, which we currently don't have a handle on. It doesn't mean that they defy a logical explanation. And if we do find an explanation that fits with our logic, (which I believe KF has already provided) then Gaz's argument is falsified. The law of non-contradiction still stands. So I don't see how anyone would resort to the dismissal of common logic when faced with phenomena that don't appear to fit within that logic. It sounds rather counterproductive to me. Appearances can be deceiving. Expectations are one thing - abandoning logic is another.CannuckianYankee_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

Quantum phenomenon are counterintuitive. This means that they don’t obey the laws of logic.
No, it means that at the quantum level, evidence can contradict our expectations of how physical objects behave.Petrushka_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

Being spatially distributed is of course a wave-like property. As is undergoing interference [and superposition].kairosfocus_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT}

correction: phenomenaCannuckianYankee_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

How Evidence for Quantum phenomenon Contradicts the Law of Non-Contradiction 101: INT. PHYSICS CLASSROOM - DAY A TEACHER discusses quantum phenomenon before a class of STUDENTS behind desks. TEACHER Quantum phenomenon are counterintuitive. This means that they don't obey the laws of logic. One of the primary laws of logic is the law of Non-contradiction; which forms the basis for any evidential argument. Since quantum phenomenon are counterintuitive, and show that certain things can be two places at one time according to evidence, which must be interpreted according to laws of logic; quantum phenomenon contract the law of Non-Contradiction. Are you getting it so far, class? STUDENT No, now I'm completely confused. TEACHER Excellent. Now you understand quantum phenomenon, but I doubt if you'll understand much else.CannuckianYankee_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT}

Stephen: No rabbit and no hat is right: everything, from nothing. As soon as the claim was made that evidence would count for one claim as against its opposite, they are assuming and using implicitly the very first principles of right reason they object to. Indeed, so soon as they affirm or imply that something IS an actual state of affairs. The reductio is getting tighter and tighter. Gkairosfocus_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT}

Until we present you with evidence to the contrary, you hold that a magician could, in principle, pull a rabbit out of the hat that isn’t there.
In the quantum world there is a finite probability that a rabbit could materialize. The odds could be computed, in fact I believe the odds for equivalent events have been computed. There is also a finite probability that a stage magician, having hidden a rabbit in his hat, will find it has vanished to regions unknown. I fail to see how this connects to formal logic or rules of reason.Petrushka_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

I wrote that too hurriedly. It should read, ...they actually believe there is no rabbit in the hat before the magician pulls it out."StephenB_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

---vividbleau: “They actually believe there is no rabbit before the magician pulls it out of the hat!!! Is it any wonder that any amount of evidence one produces does nothing to change their mind?” ---Gaz: "You’ve produced nothing in the way of evidence. Not a jot. All we’ve had from you is constant references to some laws of right reason that don’t apparently, differ from ordinary reason, but which include some laws that don’t stand up to evidence." Gaz, bless your lovable little heart, this is just too precious. Until we present you with evidence to the contrary, you hold that a magician could, in principle, pull a rabbit out of the hat that isn't there. You contend, after all, that there is no "law" of non-contradiction that would rule out the possibility. Inasmuch as you have claimed that you could only be persuaded otherwise if we provide EVIDENCE, and inasmuch as you labor under the illusion that evidence informs reason's principles rather than the other way around, please tell us plainly what kind of evidence would convince you that you are wrong. Please be specific. (I am taking bets and giving odds that Gaz will not even approach this question). Petrushka, please feel free to weigh in.StephenB_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

Gaz, "The problem has come because – for reasons I have yet to fathom – IDists are unable to accept that the quantum world is different to the classical world." Rest assured, IDist know as well as you that quantum events can be different than classical physical events, we are well versed in the fact that counter-intuitive events are a part of the physical world. To tell you the truth, we also breathe air and bury our dead just like you. The issue is simple. You are demonstrably wrong, and I will allow your own words to illustrate it:
“It is not strange if one understands, as you evidently do not, that unpredictability is not synonymous with acausality.”
I agree, but that isn’t the issue.
Yes Gaz, it is. Now will you address my last post.Upright BiPed_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

"Nonsense. If the law is shown to be wrong then it isn’t a law. Full stop." Not only have you not shown the LNC to be wrong you used the law to claim acausal quantum phenomena contradicted the law. Quit whining it doesnt serve you well. Vividvividbleau_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

vividbleau (586), "In order to claim acausaul quantum phenomena contradicts the LNC you must use the LNC to make the claim." Nonsense. If the law is shown to be wrong then it isn't a law. Full stop.Gaz_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

Vivid, Thank you, too kind. - - - - - - - - Gaz, Cornell Biology Prof Allan McNeil was recently on this forum to deride IDist with his usual pleasantries. He agreed that the specific sequencing of nucleotides in DNA which are transcribed by the cell's machinery contain "meaningful information". He also agreed that "meaningful information" is necessarily the product of perception. By this it was meant that there are no particles of information contained among the orbits of matter, instead, information is an abstraction that requires perception in order to exist. May I ask, how do you agree/disagree with any of these observations?Upright BiPed_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

Upright (578), "If this conversation was about tires or washing machines Gaz (and Petrushka) would have affirmed the obvious long ago." At last, an IDist appears to be on the verge of some understanding. If it was about tires and washing machines we would have been talking about the classical world and none of us would have had any disagreements. The problem has come because - for reasons I have yet to fathom - IDists are unable to accept that the quantum world is different to the classical world. Even kairosfocus, who I'm told is a professional physicist, seems unabel to grasp this, and poor StephenB doesn't have a chance with it. I'm not talking tires and washing machines, nor the planet Jupiter - that's the entire point. I'm talking superposition, virtual particles, spontaneous pair generation, wavefunctions etc. where the physics is completely different and acausal effects happen and particles can exist in several states at least until collapse of the wavefunction. So far no-one here - repeat, NO-ONE here - has come up with any evidence to the contrary.Gaz_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

vividbleau (576), "Dont, virtually every materialist that frequent this board espouse , based on quantum theory, something can come from nothing. That the LNC has been shown to have been invalidated." Not just quantum theory - evidence of quantum phenomena.Gaz_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT}

"Of course I have. If it’s a law it holds true in all cases. One contrary example of acausal quantum phenomena means it isn’t a law." Thanks for agreeing with me “If there is no LNC you have no way to assert that the evidence that quantum phenomena have no cause eliminates the contrary.” Furthermore you have just confirmed StephenB's position that the right principles of reasons inform science. In order to claim acausaul quantum phenomena contradicts the LNC you must use the LNC to make the claim. It is not the evidence that contradicts the LNC it is what is deduced from the evidence ,the LNC that informs you that the contrary has been falsified. Case closed. Vividvividbleau_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

vividbleau (568), "When one believes in magic no amount of evidence can do anything to convince them about anything." Sounds like a definition of miracles and faith to me. "They actually believe there is no rabbit before the magician pulls it out of the hat!!! Is it any wonder that any amount of evidence one produces does nothing to change their mind?" You've produced nothing in the way of evidence. Not a jot. All we've had from you is constant references to some laws of right reason that don't apparently, differ from ordinary reason, but which include some laws that don't stand up to evidence.Gaz_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

The evidence does not say that the contrary state of affairs is false that is the evidence DOES NOT say that one particle DOES NOT pass through two slits simultaneously.
If you know what that means, and why it's important to this discussion, you win.Petrushka_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

Vivid: A wavicle: it has properties of both, manifested depending on circumstances. (Even the classical point particle is a mathematical abstraction . . . a cricket ball shrunk down till it can go no more.) G PS: Guess how the Shamrock became the symbol of Christian Ireland?kairosfocus_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

vividbleau (559), "If there is no LNC you have no way to assert that the evidence that quantum phenomena have no cause eliminates the contrary." Of course I have. If it's a law it holds true in all cases. One contrary example of acausal quantum phenomena means it isn't a law.Gaz_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

RE 578 Upright I want to start off by saying I very much appreciate all the things you bring to this forum.I have learned so much from your postings and appreciate your defense in the cause of truth. Upright you are correct, in away all this is boring and I am sure everyone is sick and tired of reading my questions to Gaz and Petrushka over and over again. You are correct even though boring I think it is quite illustrative. What lessons have we learned so far? 1)That both Gaz and Petrushka embrace irrationality. Now this is of particular interest to me and hopefully those honest seekers of truth that lurk on this board that may be fence sitters. It is of particular interest to me because of some of the points you made in 578. We Christian ID'sts (IDiots) are portrayed as irrational and anti science. Petrushka and Gaz bring these stereotypes to this forum so it is important to expose this mischaracterization in all its glory. By doing so we show that contrary to the stereotypes it is the Christian ID'sts ( IDiots) that are rational, the defenders of rationality and the defenders of science. It is Petrushka, gaz and their ilk that are irrational, anti scientific and the IDiots. The irony is delicious. 2) The second lesson is that, either by comission or omission, neither one of them are truly interested in the truth. Their worldview supercedes evidence. They indeed are blind and as I said to KF incapable of entertaining any evidence that conflicts with their worldview. When people are capable of embracing magic in order to defend their worldview no amount of rational discourse or evidential profferings can offset "beleif in magic" Once one embraces irrationality the game is over as is the enterprise of science. I mean if something can come from nothing ( magic) digitally encoded information just happening is easily doable. 3) Finally the third lesson we can take from all this is that they are intellectually dishonest. Observe th smoke screens, the back tracking , the dodging, the obfuscations as evidenced by their refusal to answer direct questions. Questions that they know will damn themselves if they do. This is not the sign of an intellectually honest person. All that to say that I am going to press on with this and not be diverted. Besides I am bored this weekend and have a lot of time on my hands. Vividvividbleau_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus (554), "While SB is correct that breakdowns in understanding and accepting basic principles of reasoning are a key part of what has gone wrong, the tactic of ever increasing tangents has now reached the extent of someone wanting to debate W-Bosons as intermediates in beta decay of neutrons [when these pass by in about 10^-25 s, and are very intermediate indeed], which distracts from the main point on that already tangential matter: there is abundant reason to see that such processes are not acausal. Such a tactic of increasing degrees of distractive tangentiality needs to stop." Well, if you can't come up with a causal model for beta decay, all you had to do was SAY so....Gaz_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

"Starting at post 465, I have maintained that it is possible, in principle, for evidence to contradict statements about the properties of objects based on intuition." In 566 you moved from "intuition" to "axioms of logic". You listed these "axioms" and stated these axioms you listed can be falsified by evidence. I asked for the evidence that falsified them. As evidence of that falsification you gave me the doulble slit experiment. I responded "The evidence shows that we have one particle passing through two slits simultaneously. The evidence does not say that the contrary state of affairs is false that is the evidence DOES NOT say that one particle DOES NOT pass through two slits simultaneously." So dont give me this crap that your comments only applied to intuition. Vividvividbleau_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

CY, Hitchens would most assuredly deny cause. Dawkins refuses to debate it as a means to deny it, and PZ plays with crackers and stomps his adolescent feet. In the end, they all have already denied it. They all know that Life operates from semiotic content contained in an information carrier. They all also know that chemistry cannot create meaning. Whats a materialist to affirm if those are the facts? Nothing. Denial is the only game in town. I agree with Vivid that this has been a most interesting thread to watch. Petruska was simple. He/she (like many others) will simply refuse to engage the issues, call it a mystery, point to research, and stick his/her head back in the sand. He/she said exactly that. Of course, as a defense that is somewhat boring, but it is illustrative. Gas on the other hand is a fighter. He is standing there wobbling, nose is broken, one eye is shut and the other is cut, blood running down his chin - and he still has his gloves up, swinging at what he can't even see. He can't stand it that (ehgads!) a Christian IDist uses logic and reason to deprive him of the ability to make sense out of his own position. And let's be honest, that is the motivation. If this conversation was about tires or washing machines Gaz (and Petrushka) would have affirmed the obvious long ago.Upright BiPed_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

You are now saying evidence cannot falsify propositions of formal logic?
Starting at post 465, I have maintained that it is possible, in principle, for evidence to contradict statements about the properties of objects based on intuition. As a matter of history, quantum theory has modified our intuitive ideas about what matter is, and what its properites are.Petrushka_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

RE 572 "Somehow I doubt it." Dont, virtually every materialist that frequent this board espouse , based on quantum theory, something can come from nothing. That the LNC has been shown to have been invalidated. Vividvividbleau_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

"I have no idea what you are getting at. The only thing I've claimed is that Quantum theory challenges many intuitive ideas about the properties of matter. It says nothing about propositions of formal logic." Really???? Petrushka in 556 you wrote Statements like: “Objects cannot simultaneously exist and not exist” or “Objects cannot move from one place to another without passing through the intervening space” or “All effects must have a cause” or “Nothing can come from nothing” or “Objects seen in the mirror are closer than they appear” are statements derived from experience. They make risky axioms, because they can be falsified by evidence." Your claim is that these 'risky" axioms can be falsified by evidence. In 558 I wrote "Then by all means falsify them!!!" In 560 you wrote "The intuitive understanding of “thing” does not allow it to pass through two slits simultaneously. Start with that one." As per your request I started with that one in 564 "Petrushka forget about the particular axiom. Lets get to the evidence. The evidence shows that we have one particle passing through two slits simultaneously. The evidence does not say that the contrary state of affairs is false that is the evidence DOES NOT say that one particle DOES NOT pass through two slits simultaneously." After all this you are now saying you have no idea what I am getting at? You are now saying evidence cannot falsify propositions of formal logic? KF is correct "So, who is being a magician now?" Vividvividbleau_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

CY, based on SB's experience with many materialists at UD, a lot. It is not just two or two dozen. Gkairosfocus_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 24 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply