Stephen Meyer on ID’s Scientific Bona Fides

_{William Dembski

July 13, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

Comments

My sources say the law of non contradiction is an axiom, and is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. If it is an axiom, it is not a deduction.Petrushka_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

"Going one step further, the assertions that everything has a cause, and nothing can come from nothing are based on experience and intuition. They are not provably true. They could conceivably be falsified by evidence" Then by all means falsify the LNC with your evidence without using the LNC. Vividvividbleau_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT}

"I’ve already given the only answer possible. Evidence cannot invalidate logic, but evidence can certainly invalidate logical deductions arising from invalid assumptions." Petrushka the LNC IS a logical deduction.So let me ask you again are you saying that if the evidence contradicts the law of non contradiction then the LNC has been contradicted? Vivid Vividvividbleau_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT}

Going one step further, the assertions that everything has a cause, and nothing can come from nothing are based on experience and intuition. They are not provably true. They could conceivably be falsified by evidence.Petrushka_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT}

I've already given the only answer possible. Evidence cannot invalidate logic, but evidence can certainly invalidate logical deductions arising from invalid assumptions.Petrushka_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

"Give me an example of evidence that would contradict LNC. A hypothetical." Petrushka please see my post 527. Please answer mmy question. Vividvividbleau_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

Give me an example of evidence that would contradict LNC. A hypothetical.Petrushka_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

RE 535 How about answering my question? Vividvividbleau_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT}

To be clear here are you saying that if the evidence contradicts the law of non contradiction then the LNC has been contradicted?
The "law" of non-contradiction appears to be a feature of formal logic. Any statement in logic that starts with axioms is only as valid as its axioms. If you start by assuming that an object cannot move from one location to another without passing through the intervening space, then you will have a problem with explaining how many electronic devices work. Alternately, you must be careful how you define object. The problem isn't with logic; it is with assumptions about objects and properties of objects.Petrushka_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

"To be clear, it means that there is no law of non-contradiction. In other words, there is no such law to contradict." To be clear, here you use the LNC as proof that there is no LNC. Vividvividbleau_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

"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 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

StephenB (530), Strangely, that's my wife's favourite song (the Dean Martin version, not your lyrics though!)Gaz_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus (526), "PS: To further underscore: for an event to be uncaused, it would have to have neither necessary nor sufficient causal factors, i.e. it would have to come out of nothing [so, no neutrons to decay!], and nowhere [neither in nor out of the atomic nuclei]. This cat ain’t even there, much less being superposed dead and alive!" This is just more irrelevant waffle. It doesn't matter how the neutrons got here, it could well have been by causal effects. The point is that you still haven't come up with a causal model, mechanism or any evidence for one. Which is very disappointing because I thought you, uniquely here, may be able to have a stab at it. Why not try, using W bosons for example?Gaz_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

To Acipenser, Petrushka, and Gaz: Goodbye, Let our hearts call it a day But before you walk away I sincerely want to say... I wish you bluebirds in the Spring To give your heart a song to sing And then a kiss, But more than this,I wish you rationality! And in July a lemonade To cool you in some leafy glade I wish you health, And more than wealth, I wish you rationality!StephenB_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

vividbleau (527), "To be clear here are you saying that if the evidence contradicts the law of non contradiction then the LNC has been contradicted?" To be clear, it means that there is no law of non-contradiction. In other words, there is no such law to contradict.Gaz_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

vividbleau (523), "Ok so you are in agreement with Stephen that the rules of reason inform the evidence?" I'm not sure what he really means by it. I'm afraid StephenB's prose and his thinking are rather opaque at times. If he means that the "rules of reason" are inflexible and inviolate, then no because he comes up with rules that clearly aren't valid for all events (e.g. causality and non-contradiction). But if he means that we analyse the evidence using reason, without being slaves to it and recognising that the evidence may reveal some of that reasoning to be invalid, then yes.Gaz_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT}

"The “law” of non-contradiction cannot invalidate experimental evidence of counter intuitive events, such as quantum tunnelling, and particles producing interference patterns with themselves" To be clear here are you saying that if the evidence contradicts the law of non contradiction then the LNC has been contradicted? Vividvividbleau_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

PS: To further underscore: for an event to be uncaused, it would have to have neither necessary nor sufficient causal factors, i.e. it would have to come out of nothing [so, no neutrons to decay!], and nowhere [neither in nor out of the atomic nuclei]. This cat ain't even there, much less being superposed dead and alive!kairosfocus_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

The "law" of non-contradiction cannot invalidate experimental evidence of counter intuitive events, such as quantum tunnelling, and particles producing interference patterns with themselves.Petrushka_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus (521), "I have already pointed out for the case of the neutron, on empirical evidence, that necessary causal factors are at work," But yet again you present no evidence. Nor do you present a model, no mechanism. Let's cut to the chase: instead of parrotting all the time that there are "necessary causal factors", give us evidence, a model, a mechanism. Otherwise you are just blowing hot air.Gaz_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

"No, the difference between StephenB’s position and mine is, as explained in 519, that the law of causality means that the quantum effects that appear uncaused are in fact caused." Ok so you are in agreement with Stephen that the rules of reason inform the evidence? Vividvividbleau_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

vividbleau (520), No, the difference between StephenB's position and mine is, as explained in 519, that the law of causality means that the quantum effects that appear uncaused are in fact caused. The onus is on him - and you, if you hold the same line - to provide us with the evidence that they are indeed caused. And I do mean evidence, not another warmed-over repetition of the same failed arguments that causality is a law therefore the events must be caused - I mean good, solid evidence. If you can't do that, I'll settle for a good model that can be tested.Gaz_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

Gaz: You are still refusing to acknowledge a basic fact of causality: there are two flavours, sufficient and necessary causal factors. (Reflect on the fire triangle, which BTW is the same example used by Copi in his well known (and excellent) Logic.) Acausal events would have to come out of nowhere, and nothing, utterly chaotically. I have already pointed out for the case of the neutron, on empirical evidence, that necessary causal factors are at work, and the very fact that free neutron decay follows a definite pattern with a definite half life indicates that it is not acausal. You can lead the horse to the water . . . And all of this still is tangential tothe unmet challenge to provide credible empirically observed cases of digitally coded, functionally specific complex information arising by undirected chance + necessity. We already know such are routinely caused by intelligent agents. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

"I say the evidence suggests that there are quantum phenomena that are uncaused. Therefore his law of right reason is not a law, it is false." So how would you present the evidence that certain quantum phenomena are uncaused without reason informing the evidence which is Stephens position? Vividvividbleau_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

vividbleau (516), "Furthermore I notice you have yet to answer my chellenge to you which is to present evidence without using right rules of reason. If you cannot then Stephens position that reason informs evidence stands and you are shown to be cluless once again." I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at. "Evidence" can be "presented" as raw data, without having been analysed at all. Now, if we analyse the data we will of course use reason and mathematical tools in that analysis. But if the data suggests that the reasoning is wrong then, as Petrushka points out, the axioms have been incorrectky formulated. StephenB has tried to assert that there is a "law of right reason" that says everything must be caused. I say the evidence suggests that there are quantum phenomena that are uncaused. Therefore his law of right reason is not a law, it is false. Similarly for the law of non-contradiction: StephenB claims that there is a law of right reason that says a thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time. I say that the evidence of quantum superposition renders that alleged law false. I don't mind if someone comes up with evidence, or even models, to suggest acausal quantum events are actually caused, but if someone claims that there must be a causal mechanism because some trumped-up law says so - and I don't care who trumped it up - then they need to produce the evidence.Gaz_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

---"I’m not sure what you are getting at." You are kidding, right. I'll break it down for you: Darwinist proposition---evidence can invalidate the law of non contradiction ID correction--evidence cannot invalidate the law of non-contradiction because reasons's rules, such as the law of non-contradition, inform evidence; evidence does not inform reason's rules. Thus, evidence cannot change reason's rules, it can only be interpreted in the light of reason's rules. Misguided Darwinist objection--but that isn't true, evidence does inform reason's rules. Indeed, evidence from quantum mechanics has shown that the law of non-contradiction is not really a law at all. Consider the thought experiment involving Schroeder's cat, which indicates that interpreting the evidence obtained by observing quantum events will show that a cat can be both dead and alive at the same time. Thus, the so-called "law" which states that a thing cannot be and not be at the same time, admits of at least one exception and cannot, therefore, be a non-negotiable principle of right reason. ID correction--The thought experiment involving Shroeder's cat was conceived to show that one can use the principle of non-contradiction to test the worth and reasonableness of some schools of quantum mechanics If, in applying the principles of a given school [such as the Copenhagen school], the researcher concludes that the cat was both dead and alive, the law of non contradiction, which rules such a state of affairs is logically impossible, will show that the principles which created that wrong impression are false and ought to be abandoned. Thus, anyone who tries to use the example of Shroeders cat to invalidate the law of non-contradiction is barking up the wrong tree and does, in fact, have it almost backwards. Schroeder was not challenging the law of non-contradiction. Quite the contrary, he understood that it was a valid and non-negotiable principle of right reason. So much so, he explicitly used it to make his point knowing that any argument or proposition that fails its test ought not to be taken seriously. ---"A lot of early quantum theorists were disturbed by the implications of their own work, but history and experimentation has largely confirmed the most distrubing parts." What does a theorist being "disturbed" have to do with the fact that quantum evidence cannot invalidate the law of non-contradiction. What, specifically do you think was confirmed? As already indicated, a lot of things that were allegedly confirmed in the minds of Darwinists, were not confirmed at all.StephenB_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

StephenB (512), "To try and turn that around to make it appear that he was appealing to a cat that was both dead and alive in order to challenge the same law that he was appealing to is, well, you have heard the word before—irrational." Oh, for Pete's sake, OF COURSE I wasn't claiming the cat could be both dead and alive. I was trying to use the thought experiment - which I thought would be familiar to everyone - to illustrate superposition and the fact that a particle can be in two states (existing and not-existing, if you like) depending on whether or not the radioactive nucleus had emitted the particle. There was never any intention to claim a cat could really be both dead and alive: if the experiment was reduced to reality, the wavefunction of the emitted particle would collapse when it was detected by the Geiger counter, not when the observer looked in the box.Gaz_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

"Nope, I’ve given you the evidence, you’ve totally failed to come up with any plausible mechanism for a cause or even cited anyone else who’s proposed one." What evidence? Do you mean this evidence? "What is it about the Schrodinger’s cat thought experiment that YOU do not understand? Do you not understand that it concerns a superposition of two states, one where a particle has been emitted from a nucleus and one where no such particle has been emitted?” If you are appealing to this as evidence Stephen has already demostrated how clueless you are. Furthermore I notice you have yet to answer my chellenge to you which is to present evidence without using right rules of reason. If you cannot then Stephens position that reason informs evidence stands and you are shown to be cluless once again. How about it Gaz put up or shut up. Vividvividbleau_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus (508), I'm disappointed in you. Amidst the mass of your waffle, I really hoped we were getting somewhere but you seemed to back off. I'm going to ignore the waffle and home in on the one issue, the one you raise of free neutron decay. I wrote: "Turning the issue back to you, when neutron are isolated how do you predict when and how a particular neutron will decay?" You claim it's still causal but giev no causal mechanism or even propose one. Why not?Gaz_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

StephenB (499), "My primary concern is rationality because rationality is the vehicle by which we arrive at truth. Your primary concern is irrationality because you would prefer not to arrive at the destination that truth will take you." Again, your bias and projection shows. I don't particularly care where the "destination" is, we just need to follow the evidence wherever it leads. "Thus, in an attempt to support your irrational world view and to deny the phenomenon of design even when it is obviously present you assert the most ridiclous propositions imaginable" Nope - no-one denies the phenomenon of design when it is "obviously" present. What is contested is the false claims that biologival organisms have been designed, which is far from "obvious" and not supported by evidnece at all. Your total failure to use the tools claimed by ID, such as explanatory filters, attests to that. "such as the claim that sand, wind, water, and time can build beautiful perfectly formed sand models of a Corvette Sting Ray, or the ambitious hope that a natural cause, such as a tornado, cannot be distinguished from intelligent causes, such as a burglar." You were the one who set up those scenarios, bizarre though they were. What they achieved remains a mystery. "Indeed, in order to blur the distinction between the two, you were reduced to claiming that a tornado, like a burglar, could possibly run off with the stolen jewelry." No, I just wasn't playing your silly little game. Of course a tornado can "run off" with a piece of jewellery, the same as it can "run off" with a house. However, the collateral damage widespread around it give the game away for it being a tornado as opposed to a burglar. Where on earth do you think these ridiculous scenarios get you? "As an encore, you will no doubt inform us that the tornado is equally likely to visit a pawn shop and hock the merchandise." Whatever. "You missed the context again. The point is not that theists never believe that quantum events are uncaused but rather that an atheist is more likely than a theist to believe it because it serves his biased world view." Oh, twaddle. That's you projecting again. Have you done a sample of theist scientists? "If ideology can influence judgment about causality, the the evidence is not, as you often claim, speaking for itself." The evidence speaks for itself, the question is if the investigator is listening to what it says or if its preconceived ideas drown it out. As in your case. "In any case, there are no theists who believe, as you do, that the universe was an uncaused quantum event. If they thought the universe was uncaused, it is obvious they wouldn’t be theists. [That, by the way, was a logical deduction which you may not accept since it was based on the law of non-contradiction]" At last an interesting question. Actually, there is no reason why a theist couldn't accept the universe was uncaused, but thought that a deity had a hand in its subseuqnet unfolding. Don't forget that not all theists are Christians like you. "The illogical proposition that quantum events are uncaused is not based on evidence but is rather a function of materialist ideology." Nope, I've given you the evidence, you've totally failed to come up with any plausible mechanism for a cause or even cited anyone else who's proposed one. "Until I make the equivalent claim that natural forces can build a perfect sand model of a Corvette Sting Ray or that a tornado can faithfully mimic the activities of a burglar, I don’t think it will be MY bias that muddies the debate waters." I think you underestimate yourself.Gaz_{July 24, 2010
July
07
Jul
24
24
2010
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 24 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply