Stephen Meyer on ID’s Scientific Bona Fides

_{William Dembski

July 13, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

Comments

Petrushka: So soon as quantum theory starts to observe [not just look, but SEE], infer on evidence and make rational and even Mathematical arguments, it is using first principles of right reasoning. And when we look at a Young's double slit electron experiment, we are seeing that whatever an electron is, it is NOT a particle [think tiny, hard cricket ball] or a wave [think Surf's up!] that our mathematical models are in effect talking about, but something else. I have always loved the "wavicle" term. (BTW, the classical point-particle is an impossibility, i.e. it has infinite density, but then, infinite poles in the Laplacian complex plane are key in frequency and transient response analysis. Waves, too are idealisations -- the continuum assumption implied in waves of water, sound, in strings etc is counter-factual. But, searching over by where the street-light is often helps us drunks out, never mind the real-real world over there in the dark.) So, I again draw your attention to the point that we are here looking at a mystery, and may well be playing at epicycles etc. A single electron at a time at the emitter, a wave at the two slits, and a particle again at the screen? Worse, if you do something to tell which slit it goes through, the wave collapses and the interference pattern goes away. Sounds a lot like Padraig being asked about the coherence of the triune concept of God, and answering by stooping to pick up a shamrock: is this one or three? If one, why the three evenly sized leaflets, if three why the single stem? And it is both, but not in the same sense, at the same time! GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

What I wonder in all of this: is this the typical position of materialists, to deny right reason? Or is it just these two? Does PZ Meyers, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens etc. deny the law of non-contradiction? Somehow I doubt it.CannuckianYankee_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

So, who is being a magician now?kairosfocus_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

Petrushka forget about the particular axiom.</blockquote. OK by me, but I was going to say that intuitively, an object can't be in two places at the same time. 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.
Petrushka_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

RE 566 Thanks KF. I especially liked this observation "Therefore, those who accuse us of circularity or infinity are doing worse than being circular or infinite: they are appealing to what they seek to oppose; THEY ARE BEING SELF-CONTRADICTORY, AS WELL AS ARBITRARY!" Of course this is aptly being demonstrated as we speak for all eyes to see. Vividvividbleau_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

KF "Similarly, we notice how the same objectors, after over 500 comments, are unable to address the patent facts of the presence of a digitally coded, functionally and specifically organised,algorithmic information processing entity and associated reams of information in the living cell" KF they are not capable of doing so because they embrace irrationality Think about it if they can hold to the position that something can come from nothing then the presence of digitally coded algorithmic information just happening is child play. When one believes in magic no amount of evidence can do anything to convince them about anything. 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? Vividvividbleau_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

F/N: One of the issues above is that "cause" in the a priori materialist mindset has come to often mean something like forced or determined or made. That is, they will only see causal influence in the context of sufficiency or even outright mechanical determination, e.g. they think random events that follow stochastic, probabilistic patterns that are indeterminate on outcome on a given "roll" are uncaused. (And, of course, they would reduce mind to chance and necessity acting on brain tissue, in the end.) This is an error, on multiple dimensions. 1 --> Reduction of mind to forces of chance and necessity ends up undermining the credibility of reason itself; becoming self-referentially incoherent. (This has been brought up before and linked on.) 2 --> As has been shown, there are necessary causal factors, absence of which can block an effect. (Think of the fire triangle and fire fighting.) 3 --> Sufficient causal factors are of course not necessary, i.e there is more than one way to end up with a skinned cat[-fish]. 4 --> There may even be contributory factors that affect but are neither necessary nor sufficient. 5 --> That we do not know the causal factors at work, or cannot see how they give rise to an effect does not mean they are not real. And more . . .kairosfocus_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

PS: I had forgotten this link on the primacy of the laws of thought, and addressing objections to them. Vivid will appreciate this excerpt:
Antagonism to the laws of thought is sure and incontrovertible proof that one is erring in one’s thinking. How might such antagonism be systematically justified without appeal to those very laws? One couldn’t claim to be generalizing or adducing it from experience, for this would appeal to the law of generalization or the principle of adduction, which are themselves based on the laws of thought. One couldn’t claim to be drawing some sort of syllogistic or other deductive conclusion, for the same reason. Such antagonism can only be based on arbitrary assertion, without any conceivable rational support. Arguments like this in favor of the laws of thought are claimed by their opponents to be ‘circular’ or ‘infinitely regressive’ – i.e. arbitrary. But to point to the fallacy of circularity or infinite regress is to appeal to the need to ground one’s beliefs in experience or reasoning – which is precisely the message of the laws of thought. Therefore, those who accuse us of circularity or infinity are doing worse than being circular or infinite: they are appealing to what they seek to oppose; they are being self-contradictory, as well as arbitrary! . . . . The laws of thought are not circular or infinite – they are just consistent with themselves. It is their opponents who are engaged in fallacy – the failure to think reflexively, and realize the implications of what they are saying on what they are saying. To deny all claims to knowledge is to deny that very claim too – it is to be self-inconsistent. One logically must look back and check out whether one is self-consistent; that is not circularity, but wise reflection. The laws of thought are not based on any particular argument, but are the very basis of all reasoning processes, including all argumentation. This is not an arbitrary starting point; it is an insight based on observation of all reasoning acts, an admission of what evidently carries conviction for us all. These laws cannot be disregarded or discarded, simply because they are so universal. That these laws do not lead to any paradox adds to their force of conviction; but that too is just an application of their universality. They encapsulate what we naturally find convincing in practice, provided we are not dishonestly seeking to pretend otherwise in theory.
kairosfocus_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

mullerpr: None of the principles of right reason can be proven. They are self evident and are either accepted or rejected as such with the understanding that if they are not true, there is no reason to talk to anybody about anything. Thus, we either choose to be rational and accept those principles or we choose not to be rational and reject them. One important aspect of "realism" [in the formal sense] is the notion that [A] we have rational minds, [B] we live in a rational universe, and [C] there is a correspondence between the two. In like fashion, the ordering of the universe is understood to be synchronized with the laws of mathematics such that the investigator can think or do science with the confidence that there is something to be known and that the faculty for knowing is reliable [not perfect]. If there is no correspondence between the knower and the thing to be known, then all so-called knowledge is an illusion and any attempt at rational discourse is impossible. Since there can be no correspondence without minds, denying the existence of the mind will immediately place one in intellectual quicksand. If the investigator doesn't have a mind to know, or if the object of the investigation doesn't contain anything to be known, or if there are no non-negotiable rational starting points by which the mind can begin the investigation, all discourse and truth seeking would be a total waste of time. Deniers of reason's principles do not understand this, which is why rational discourse is impossible with them. Consider the following questions: On Metaphysics: Is it rational to think that the planet Jupiter can both exist and not exist? Is it rational to think that the universe could come into being without a cause? Is it rational to think the quantum events, however counterintuitive they may be, are exempt from the law of causality or that they can operate without some guiding law to regulate their behavior? In keeping with that point, does not evidence need to be interpreted? Similarly, do not reason's first principles, the laws of logic and the laws of mathematics inform evidence and not the other way around. On Design: Is it rational to think that wind, air, water, and time can produce a perfect sand model of a 1963 Corvette Sting Ray? Is it rational to think that a tornado can faithfully mimic the behavior of a burglar? Is it rational to argue against the law of non-contradiction while [unwittingly] using it to make the argument. [Indeed, is it even possible to THINK without assuming the law of non-contradiction?] Obviously, the answer to all these questions should be clear. Nevertheless, those who challenge the law of non-contraction and the law of causality do not just get one or two of these questions wrong, they get all of them wrong. That is not a coincidence. In fact, they cannot reason in the abstract because they have rejected reason's principles. It has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with the choice that they have made. For personal reasons, whatever the circumstances, they have chosen to be irrational Thus, it is impossible to have a rational discussion with an irrational person as this thead makes clear. In that context, I am not really speaking to them because I suspect it may be too late to rescue them from their own folly. On the contrary, I am speaking to those onlookers whose minds have not yet been turned to mush and who may have some motivation either to become rational or return to rationality.StephenB_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

"Ok we have to particles passing through two slits simultaneously.What axiom does this evidence falsify?" 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. Vividvividbleau_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

And . . . the red herring pulls away, heading for the ad hominem-soaked strawman to be set alight . . . (Isn't it time to seriously address the implications of finding a digital, code-bearing, algorithmically functional, complex information system in the heart of the cell . . . ? Which, FYI Petrushka, is the actual "on track" issue, cf original post by watching the Meyer video again . . . "What best explains information in DNA inside the cell . . . " and ""is Intelligent Design scientific . . . " [in the context where Lewontinian a priori materialism tries to reduce knowledge and rationality to "science" understood materialistically, thus ending in inescapable self-referential incoherence and repeated examples of reductio ad absurdum]. Cf my 101 here. ) _________ F/N 1 --> Of course to try to refute the law of non-contradiction ends in self-referential incoherence so soon as you find yourself saying the first claim that you hold to be true [as in, denying by implication that it is false]. Cf, 556:
Statements like . . . are [i.e. as opposed to "are not"] statements derived from experience . . .
F/N 2 --> BTW as well, there are self-evident worldview level foundational truths which are prior to science and Mathematics and are in fact in many cases foundational to such; of which the law of non-contradiction is one. (It's not that LNC is just one of 17 axioms of Boolean Algebra.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

Correction we have one particle. Vividvividbleau_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

"Start with that one." Ok we have to particles passing through two slits simultaneously.What axiom does this evidence falsify? Vividvividbleau_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Then by all means falsify them!!!
All of these statements, except the last, have required radical adjustments to the definition of thing and nothing. The intuitive understanding of "thing" does not allow it to pass through two slits simultaneously. Start with that one.Petrushka_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

Gaz RE 552 Gaz I am sure Petrushka appreciates your help, God know he (she) needs it. However we have unfinshed business ourselves. Rather than helping Petushka how about dealing with my post to you in 533? Gaz "To be clear, it means that there is no law of non-contradiction. In other words, there is no such law to contradict" Great we are making progress. If there is no LNC you have no way to assert that the evidence that quantum phenomena have no cause eliminates the contrary. Vividvividbleau_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

"are statements derived from experience. They make risky axioms, because they can be falsified by evidence." Then by all means falsify them!!! I keep asking you to do so but you never do. All you do is to keep making the claim as if no one notices that you have failed to back up your repeated mantra. I will make it easy for you I wont even dispute whatever evidence you put forth!!! Vividvividbleau_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

Can this be settled by everyone exposing their position in regards to realism? I can see an anti-realist arguing that if there were no minds(observers) then there were no axioms, but the realist position is in my mind stronger, that will say that regardless of minds observing, the axioms will still be "constants" controlling algorithms / reality.mullerpr_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

Trying to get this discussion back on track: 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. The possibility that statements derived from common experience might not be true under all conditions does not falsify any proposition of formal logic. It merely reminds us to be careful with our assumptions.Petrushka_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

Why state the obvious? My question is did these axioms just poof into our minds or were they derived by reasoning? By definition, axioms are statements that cannnot be duduced. By definition, they are "stipulated to be true for the purpose of a chain of reasoning." The phrase "poof into existence" is not useful to the discussion. Axioms are statements derived from experience, or which appear to be self-evident.
Petrushka_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

PS: Onlookers, recall that the easiest way to rhetorically deal with a key and inconvenient issue is to distract attention. Such distraction by irrelevancy is therefore the main internal defence mechanism, and a major tool of the debater's dark art. This is why I keep calling our attention back to the issue in the original post [the theme of Signature in the Cell and the related warrant for the inference on best explanation to design as the best explanation for its digital information system as shown in the DNA-RNA-Ribosome-Enzyme etc system], and pointing out the fact that many tangential issues in this thread have in significant part served as distractors. 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.kairosfocus_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: See how a reductio ad absurdum works? The so-called law of non-contradiction is first a law of reality: distinct things are distinct, not confused and chaotic. What is, is, and what is not is not. So, when you stand by the side of the street, the car rushing towards you is not both there and not there. When we speak of it, we ought not to pretend that it is and is not there in the same sense and time. Indeed, as Vivid pointed out, when one tries to deny and dismiss the law, one is actually using it. For, one is trying to provide argument and evidence that contradicts it [shows it to be an is not], so that one should reject the distinction between an is and an is-not. So, confusedly, one ends up in asserting an is and an is-not, contradicting what one tries to assert by how one asserts it. Self-refuting absurdity, in short. That is, once we understand it, the law of non-contradiction is seen as not only actually true but necessarily true. It is self-evident. Of course, Quantum Mechanics has been asserted as a way of dismissing it, and the associated law that that which begins to happen or may be stopped, has a cause. In so doing, the very language used to assert claims puts the proponents in the uncomfortable position of asserting ises and is-nots to try to deny the sharp distinction and opposition between the two. As touching causal factors, it is plain that these advocates refuse to acknowledge -- and then use loaded language to dismiss instead of providing warrant -- the significance of the two classes of causal factors identified: sufficient ones (it is sufficient for a fire to come to be or be sustained, that we have heat, oxidiser and fuel) and necessary ones (absent any of the three and a fire will either not come to be or will go out). At the quantum level, I have particularly used the case of the neutron, which is stabilised in the atom, but decays through a beta process with a half life of ~ 886 s outside the nucleus. Thus we see two necessary conditions in action affecting a key probabilistic quantum event: (1) trivially, we need a neutron to have neutron decay, (2) the neutron must be in an environment where it is not stabilised, for it to decay [i.e. once we are in the stability belt, we do not normally see beta decay of neutrons, and where we do see beta decay in unstable nuclides, the half life varies considerably from the free neutron value]. As well, the reliable free neutron decay rate shown by the half-life [and underlying decay constant] and the definite pattern of a beta decay process, show that other causal factors are at work within the neutron as it decays. We may not know the sufficient set of factors that cause a particular neutron to decay at a particular moment, but we know enough to know that the decay is not acausal. One factor is of course availability of mass to be converted into energy releasing the 511 keV to form a beta particle. (NB:On some details, the neutron has a rest mass higher than that of the proton, with energy equivalent of about 1 MeV. Also, within a family of nuclides with the same nucleon number [A], the one that has the local minimum mass deficit relative to imagined isolated nucleons will be stabilised because there will not be available mass from the release of energy by decay to form the beta and the electron antineutrino. [I omit the intermediate particle.] Thus, we see E = m*c^2 and energy conservation as yet another causal constraint. This constraint also explains the reason why isolated protons do not normally undergo decay by positron emission [i.e. positive electron beta decay] as, on energy-mass conservation, the energy input to achieve this decay and form the new particles has to be paid for in readily available borrowed energy "cash.") Also, on the bare logic of cause, we know that there have to be sufficient factors present when a neutron decays, i.e. if there were not, it simply would not decay. This is self-evidently true, as opposed to being an empty tautological play on words. The uncertainty limits may block us from ascertaining details, but unless there is a sufficient set of causal factors present, the event simply would not happen. (Of course, we can have sufficient sets that are in excess of the precise, bare minimum necessary and sufficient set.) Similarly, we notice how the same objectors, after over 500 comments, are unable to address the patent facts of the presence of a digitally coded, functionally and specifically organised,algorithmic information processing entity and associated reams of information in the living cell. We know that such digitally coded functionally specific complex information has one routinely observed cause, and we know that undirected chance and necessity on the gamut of the observed cosmos, would not be able to even give a noticeable scratch on the surface of he sea of possible configurations. So, we have extremely good warrant to infer that the living cell exhibits clear signs of design. Further to this, we also observe that the cosmos in which we find ourselves and other C-chemistry cell based life forms, is exquisitely fine-tuned in ways that facilitate habitable zones for such life. So, it is further credible that the cosmos was shaped by a powerful, intelligent and skilled designer who intended to create life. This chain of inferences is premised on empirically observed reality, and the projection form the patterns of the observed present to the roots of that present in the past based on inference to the best explanation, in light of known causal patterns. The root problem, plainly, is that his sits ill with the present dominant Lewontinian a priori materialist school of thought that dominates in institutional science, and in many other relevant areas. But to see the way that defenders of the status quo are now in deep reduction to absurdity on even basic logic, tells us much about the real balance on the evidence and on basic principles of good reasoning. Evolutionary materialism is a dying school of thought, drying up from its roots. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
01:58 AM
1
01
58
AM
PDT}

vividbleau (550), "Why state the obvious? My question is did these axioms just poof into our minds or were they derived by reasoning?" They were taken as underivable statements of the obvious based on our experiences of the classical world. As maths and logic tools, therefore, they are useful in the classical world. Unfortunately they don't all survive after our experiences with the quantum world, as axioms, but that doesn't stop them being useful in the classical world.Gaz_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT}

StephenB (548), "Gaz, you wife has great taste." Well, she did marry me! Take that as proof or disproof as you see fit!Gaz_{July 25, 2010
July
07
Jul
25
25
2010
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT}

"The word axiom can have any of several meanings:" Why state the obvious? My question is did these axioms just poof into our minds or were they derived by reasoning? Vividvividbleau_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
09:25 PM
9
09
25
PM
PDT}

I see these axioms just poofed into our minds and were not derived by reasoning? Is this your position?
The word axiom can have any of several meanings:
(Mathematics) a generally accepted proposition or principle, sanctioned by experience; maxim 2. a universally established principle or law that is not a necessary truth the axioms of politics 3. (Philosophy / Logic) a self-evident statement 4. (Philosophy / Logic) (Mathematics) Logic maths a statement or formula that is stipulated to be true for the purpose of a chain of reasoning: the foundation of a formal deductive system Compare assumption [4]
Petrushka_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT}

---Gaz: "Strangely, that’s my wife’s favourite song (the Dean Martin version, not your lyrics though!)" Gaz, you wife has great taste. It was one of the premiere songs of all time, even with my mischievous embellishments!StephenB_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT}

"Might be my lat post on this thread,...You can play word games with this" In other words I am getting my butt kicked and I want it to stop so I will blame it on "word games" Vividvividbleau_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT}

"I see these axioms just poofed into our minds and were not derived by reasoning? Is this your position?" Oh I forgot I should say "is this your sources position" Vividvividbleau_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT}

"My sources say the law of non contradiction is an axiom, and is neither verifiable nor falsifiable." Your sources!!! LOL You gettin help somewhere eh Petrushka? "If it is an axiom, it is not a deduction." I see these axioms just poofed into our minds and were not derived by reasoning? Is this your position? Vividvividbleau_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT}

Might be my lat post on this thread, but one of the cornerstones of quantum theory is that the existence of particles at a specific time and place is statistical, so a statement that a particle can exist and not exist at the same time is not a violation of LNC. You can play word games with this, but the simple fact is that the quantum world contradicts many intuitions. In the world we perceive, existence of things is not statistical.Petrushka_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 24 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply