WJM is on a Roll

_{Barry Arrington
October 22, 2014

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

In response to this post rich says:

It’s a bit like looking at a clock for a tenth of a second and lamenting you’ve witnessed no hours. Did you expect to?

To which WJM responds:

what I’m lamenting is not that we do not see hours pass on the clock, but rather, I’m lamenting the faith-based, infinite credulity and certitude expressed by those that have looked at “the clock” for a 10th of a second (as you say) and have extrapolated that into virtual certainty that “the clock”, over time, came into being by chance and natural forces and through those processes developed all the different kinds of functional, accurate time pieces found on Earth.

Even when there is no evidence obtained in that 10th of a second to believe that chance and natural forces are capable of creating a single clock.

And yet, that which is known to regularly create a wide variety of functioning clock-like mechanisms is dismissed out of hand.

That is what we call “selective hyper-skepticism” combined with “selective hyper-credulity”

Comments

SETI provides a scientific definition of “intelligence”, but ID doesn’t:
This claim is false and also does not address the issue: For SETI, "artificial" means not natural. "Hallmarks of artificiality" refers to indicators that are not natural. You are not dealing with the art vs nature paradigm that SETI uses.StephenB_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PST}

Ignoring the facts won't make them go away, RD, it will only demonstrate what profits you. ID can unambiguously operationalize intelligence in the same manner as SETI, and can demonstrate the presence of intelligence in the coding of organic polymers – and like SETI, it can do so without any need to take a position on whether the intelligence is “natural, unnatural, supernatural, or anything else”.Upright BiPed_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PST}

Hi StephenB,
RDF: What is not legitimate is to say, “We have eliminated one whole type of cause (the natural or the physical) and what that leaves is this other type of cause (the mental or the intelligent)”. That is what you are doing, and that is not a scientifically legitimate justification for a theory. SETI does no such thing. SB: On the contrary, that is exactly what SETI does. What do you think they mean when they say they are searching for “artificiality” or “hallmarks of artificiality?”
They are searching for communication technology that is similar to that which we use. This is possible because our technology uses narrowband transmissions, while all other known producers of radio emissions produce broadband transmissions. SETI really is very clear about all this.
It means they are trying to find something that is not produced by nature.
No, it doesn't. I just got through explaining that "nature" per se (in and of itself) is not something that produces anything. It is not a cause per se. Rather, it is some class of causes, often defined as anything that is not made by human beings.
That is what artificiality means–not natural—-something produced by an intelligent agent as opposed to a natural cause.
No, all of the definitions refer to a human being, never an "intelligent agent". That is what "artificial" means - produced by a human being. Look it up - the definitions refer to human beings, always human beings, never "intelligent agents". Why? Because what you're talking about is actually human beings, and not anything else. And for scientific purposes (which is what we are talking about here), you must provide an operational definition for "intelligence". SETI does provide a scientific definition of "intelligence", but ID doesn't.
The formal definition means produced by a human and not by a natural cause, ...
Yes, that is correct. And so saying, as you do, something like "nature produces broadband signals" is equivalent to saying "that which is not produced by human beings produce broadband signals".
...but of course, SETI extends that meaning to aliens as well.
No, once again you are ignoring what I say and what SETI says. SETI defines "intelligence" as "technology detectable from Earth". It looks for intelligence by listening for signals that display artificiality, by which they mean the sort of signals (narrowband) that our technology employs - signals that are distinguishable from other known producers of radio emissions (which all produce broadband transmissions).
But the art vs. nature dichotomy is always there and essential to the detection of intelligence.
SETI provides a scientific definition of "intelligence", but ID doesn't:
There is no consensus on a strict definition of intelligence, and there likely never will be because intelligence is what is known as a fuzzy concept; it lacks well-defined boundaries and contains multiple components. However, the study of intelligence lies firmly in the domain of empirical science because its features can be operationally defined and its correlates can be quantified and measured. In the domain of SETI, intelligence has been operationalized as the presence of a technology detectable from Earth.
Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PST}

RDFish
What is not legitimate is to say, “We have eliminated one whole type of cause (the natural or the physical) and what that leaves is this other type of cause (the mental or the intelligent)”. That is what you are doing, and that is not a scientifically legitimate justification for a theory. SETI does no such thing.
On the contrary, that is exactly what SETI does. What do you think they mean when they say they are searching for "artificiality" or "hallmarks of artificiality?" It means they are trying to find something that is not produced by nature. That is what artificiality means--not natural----something produced by an intelligent agent as opposed to a natural cause. The formal definition means produced by a human and not by a natural cause, but of course, SETI extends that meaning to aliens as well. But the art vs. nature dichotomy is always there and essential to the detection of intelligence.StephenB_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PST}

Hi HeKS,
Is that right?
Yes that's right - those are the constraints on SETI methodology, but again what SETI folks (and all of us) would be tempted to conclude would depend a great deal on the signal. If we somehow could decode an extra-terrestrial image that showed a family of humanoid aliens sitting on the front porch reading a newspaper, that would certainly short-circuit the hypothesis testing regarding what was responsible! Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PST}

Hi StephenB,
To say that we rule out natural causes conditionally is to say that we rule them out based on the understanding that we could be wrong and that we have good reason to think that we are not. That is the position of ID and that is the position of SETI. With respect to the latter, we have prior knowledge of the kinds of radio signals that nature can produce.
No, you still don't understand. What we have prior knowledge of is the kinds of radio signals that can be produced by all known sources of radio waves. Human technology is one of those sources; other sources include stars and radio galaxies. "Nature" isn't a thing that produces radio signals or anything else. "Nature" isn't a cause. Read that again. One day you are going to understand it, I'm sure of it.
Natural radio signals are spread out; they do not have a narrow band as far as we know. Thus, SETI rules out the former and infers the latter. A clean inference to intelligence based on the separation of art an nature.
No, you still don't understand. First, human beings can produce broadband signals - does that mean those signals are not "natural"? You just said they were! The confusion arises because you keep reifying the concept of "natural". "Nature" isn't a cause OR a special category of causes that can be defined scientifically. Second, you keep ignoring the fact that when SETI says it detects "intelligence", it means "technology capable of sending signals to Earth".
It is meaningless and even illiterate to say that “physical” caused something.
Who said that?
It is meaningful to say that “nature” caused something.
No, it most certainly is not meaningful to say that - at least without providing some special definition for "nature"! "Nature" isn't a thing that causes things! AGAIN, "nature" can be contrasted vs. "artificial", where the latter means "humman-made". If that is the meaning you'd like to use here, say so; in that case "natural" means "anything not made by a human being".
Thus, the scientific inference to design is parallel to ID’s inference to design.
You haven't provided an operational definition for the fuzzy concept of "design", which means that unlike SETI (which takes care to provide a scientific definition of what "intelligence" means in that context), ID is not scientific.
No, a hypothesis is not a metaphysical assumption.
If your hypothesis that there is some cause that is not physical, or that is not "law+chance", then I would suggest you make that clear, and present your evidence that such a thing exists. You can start with evidence showing that the human mind does not operate according to physical law, or "law+chance".
RDF: What is not legitimate is to pretend that this is the same as saying, “We have eliminated one type of cause (the physical) and what that leaves is this other type of cause (the mental)”. That is non-scientific. SB: It is non-scientific to assume that there is no such thing as an intelligent agent and that nature is all there is.
Hahaha. Nobody said any of those things. Look at that again and try to respond reasonably: What is not legitimate is to say, “We have eliminated one whole type of cause (the natural or the physical) and what that leaves is this other type of cause (the mental or the intelligent)”. That is what you are doing, and that is not a scientifically legitimate justification for a theory. SETI does no such thing. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PST}

RDFish
Again, neither SETI nor any other scientific endeavor could rule out physical causes en masse. All anyone can do is to rule out physical causes that we know about. At this point you suggest that is equivalent to ruling out physical causes conditionally, but this still misses the point. Here is another way to understand the issue:
No. To say that we rule out natural causes conditionally is to say that we rule them out based on the understanding that we could be wrong and that we have good reason to think that we are not. That is the position of ID and that is the position of SETI. With respect to the latter, we have prior knowledge of the kinds of radio signals that nature can produce. Natural radio signals are spread out; they do not have a narrow band as far as we know. Thus, SETI rules out a natural cause and infers an intelligent cause, a separation of art from nature. It is meaningless and even illiterate to say that “physical” caused something. It is meaningful to say that “nature” caused something. Thus, the scientific inference to design is parallel to ID’s inference to design. It is the same process using different methodological tools. It’s clean and it’s correct. It has nothing to do with references to the supernatural, nor are there any metaphysical assumptions involved.StephenB_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PST}

RDFish, Let me ask it again and provide a response for you and you can tell me if it's right: "Does SETI think that within their own program, the detection of a certain type of signal would reveal to them the presence/existence of sophisticated non-human life-forms / beings?" Assumed answer from RDFish: No. SETI does not think that within their own search program the discovery of a certain type of signal would reveal to them the presence/existence of sophisticated non-human life-forms / beings. Within SETI itself, they would consider only that they have found a signal, or a signal and technology, but it is not within the realm of their program or part of their reasoning to say this would reveal the presence of sophisticated non-human beings. Instead, the question of whether sophisticated beings produced the technology would be a question left to Astrobiology, which would elucidate the possible physiological basis for some intelligence that might have created the technology. Is that right?HeKS_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PST}

RDF
It is only your metaphysical assumption that this is the case. It is also foundational for ID theory that this is the case, which is why ID is not scientific. As far as science is concerned, it may very well be the case that human minds operate by exactly the same physical laws that govern every other phenomenon. As far as science is concerned, nobody knows (yet) if mental causes are outside of physical causes.
No, a hypothesis is not a metaphysical assumption. We have been down that road before. ID makes no metaphysical presuppositions. I am surprised that you would try to raise that issue again. ID begins with observation; SETI begins with observation. .
It is perfectly legitimate for ID to conditionally rule out causes for living systems that we already understand (all of physics, chemistry, biology). I agree that all known causes ought to be ruled out. What is not legitimate is to pretend that this is the same as saying, “We have eliminated one type of cause (the physical) and what that leaves is this other type of cause (the mental)”. That is non-scientific.
It is non-scientific to assume that there is no such thing as an intelligent agent and that nature is all there is. Again, you miss the point and are also wrong. There is only one way to establish the presence of an intelligent agent and that is to rule out a natural cause To understand the point more fully, ask yourself how aliens would receive our intended signals. Yes, they would rule out the noise from their own technology, but the main thing they would do is rule out the activity of nature. They would be searching for intelligent agents other than themselves.StephenB_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PST}

Hi HeKS, Ok, here is your answer yet again, as briefly as I can: If SETI finds narrow-band signals from space, it will infer technology on a distant planet that is similar to our technology. It will not infer that this technology was built by civilizations of humanoid aliens; in fact, it will infer nothing at all about how that technology arose. It will be up to others (astrobiologists) to hypothesize about that. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PST}

RDFish
Again, neither SETI nor any other scientific endeavor could rule out physical causes en masse. All anyone can do is to rule out physical causes that we know about. At this point you suggest that is equivalent to ruling out physical causes conditionally, but this still misses the point. Here is another way to understand the issue:
No. To say that we rule out natural causes conditionally is to say that we rule them out based on the understanding that we could be wrong and that we have good reason to think that we are not. That is the position of ID and that is the position of SETI. With respect to the latter, we have prior knowledge of the kinds of radio signals that nature can produce. Natural radio signals are spread out; they do not have a narrow band as far as we know. Thus, SETI rules out the former and infers the latter. A clean inference to intelligence based on the separation of art an nature. It is meaningless and even illiterate to say that “physical” caused something. It is meaningful to say that "nature" caused something. Thus, the scientific inference to design is parallel to ID’s inference to design. It is the same process using different methodological tools. It’s clean and it’s correct. It has nothing to do with references to the supernatural, nor are there any metaphysical assumptions involved.
It is only your metaphysical assumption that this is the case. It is also foundational for ID theory that this is the case, which is why ID is not scientific. As far as science is concerned, it may very well be the case that human minds operate by exactly the same physical laws that govern every other phenomenon. As far as science is concerned, nobody knows (yet) if mental causes are outside of physical causes. No, a hypothesis is not a metaphysical assumption. We have been down that road before. ID makes no metaphysical presuppositions. I am surprised that you would try to raise that issue again. ID begins with observation; SETI begins with observation. .
It is perfectly legitimate for ID to conditionally rule out causes for living systems that we already understand (all of physics, chemistry, biology). I agree that all known causes ought to be ruled out. What is not legitimate is to pretend that this is the same as saying, “We have eliminated one type of cause (the physical) and what that leaves is this other type of cause (the mental)”. That is non-scientific.
It is non-scientific to assume that there is no such thing as an intelligent agent and that nature is all there is. Again, you miss the point and are also wrong. There is only one way to establish the presence of an intelligent agent and that is to rule out a natural cause To understand the point more fully, ask yourself how aliens would receive our intended signals. Yes, they would rule out the noise from their own technology, but the main thing they would do is rule out the activity of nature. They would be searching for intelligent agents other than themselves.
StephenB_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PST}

Hi HeKS, Your question is not a yes-or-no question - it must be qualified in order for the answer not to be misleading. (Have you stopped beating your wife, HeKS? Yes or no!!) I have answered your question fully and clearly. What part don't you understand? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PST}

SETI is looking for artifacts- things that nature,operating freely cannot or would not produce. They are looking for these artifacts in the detectable wavelengths. They are hoping to find signs of beings that are as clever as we are and do things similar to the way we do.Joe_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PST}

RDFish, I want a concrete answer so I can address what you are actually claiming and not wasting time picking apart what you are not saying.HeKS_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PST}

RDFish, I'm not looking for a logical inconsistency, or any other kind of inconsistency. I'm looking for a concrete answer to my question. So, can I assume that you would answer the question, as I stated it, with a "no"?HeKS_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PST}

Alan Fox:
I’m still baffled why anyone thinks SETI has anything in common with ID (apart from the coincidental use of the word “intelligent”).
Of course you are baffled, Alan. You're not exactly the brightest bulb in the circuit. Let's see- both are looking for signs of intelligence without observing the intelligence. That's a good chunk in common right there. Hey, my 12 year old came up with that one too. Makes you wonder what's wrong with Alan.Joe_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PST}

Hi HeKS,
The amount of obfuscation, confusion and absurdity going on here is shocking. It is truly off the charts.
Actually it's pretty normal for around here. Perhaps you'll begin to understand the topic of discussion soon and this sort of thing will begin to lessen :-)
So tell me RDFish, does SETI think that within their own program, the detection of a certain type of signal would reveal to them the existence of sophisticated non-human beings?
Of course. Again (and again and again) SETI notes that civilizations on Earth have technology that can send signals to other planets, and there are other planets similar to Earth, so perhaps there are other civilizations on these planets with similar technology and we could receive their signals. So they look for those signals. If they someday receive a signal that is similar to what we use (narrow-band EM transmission) that would certainly be exciting, and we would infer that we were receiving signals from technology similar to that humans build. But SETI itself is not a scientific discipline that would evaluate what attributes we might expect to apply to the civilization, or single organism (or whatever) responsible for building this technology on the distant planet; that would be (according to SETI) up to the astrobiologists, who rely on our knowledge of the relationship between our mental abilities and our brain in order to form hypotheses about these distant beings. (They explain this on their website) Again (and again and again): When SETI says they are looking for "intelligence", they make clear that they mean "the presence of technology detectable from Earth". Once they detect this technology, they turn to astrobiologists to figure out what we might infer regarding their nervous systems, learning abilities, behavioral flexibility and other attributes. (Again, this is all right there on the link I provided to you).
In past comments you’ve said this: RDF: When SETI says that it is looking for “intelligence”, it doesn’t mean they are looking for some telltale sign that human-like intelligence exists – they mean they are looking for narrow-band signals from outer space.
That's correct (again, also right on the SETI website).
And… RDF: And by “intelligence”, SETI declares that it means “something that can send signals detectable on Earth”. That doesn’t mean something that is necessarily conscious, or that can learn, or that has free will. It means just what it says.
Yes, that's correct.
And yet you’ve also said… RDF: :SETI looks for patterns that are NOT found in nature in order to infer life forms on other planets.
Here is the entire quote:
RDFish:SETI looks for patterns that are NOT found in nature in order to infer life forms on other planets. ID looks for patterns that ARE found in nature, to infer a non-life form outside of nature. I’d say that’s pretty darned different.
This was an attempt to highlight the differences between ID and SETI. In order to be brief, I did not add two caveats: First, I glossed over the point that ID does not explicitly look for "non-life forms"; ID remains agnostic regarding what sort of "intelligent agent" was responsible for life on Earth. Second, I glossed over the point that while looking for alien life forms is quite plainly the impetus behind the SETI program, they restrict their own conclusions to the presence of communication technology, and rely on astrobiology in order to study what might have been responsible for the technology that SETI has detected. There is no inconsistency here, HeKS. You just have no response to any of my points, so you're fishing for some logical error that doesn't exist.
But then again, you also said this: RDF: SETI makes no comment whatsoever about what might produce alien communication technology!!! That has nothing at all to do with SETI research!!! SETI defines “intelligence” as the presence of such technology, PERIOD. If you want to start talking about how that technology was likely produced, you must begin to study astrobiology!!
Yes, again (and again) exactly so. (The extra CAPS and exclamation points were a sign of my frustration of having to repeat the same thing over and over again; I apologize).
So let me repeat my question: Does SETI think that within their own program, the detection of a certain type of signal would reveal to them the presence/existence of sophisticated non-human life-forms / beings?
And I have repeated my answer, as clearly as I possibly can. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PST}

HeKS asks:
Does SETI think that within their own program, the detection of a certain type of signal would reveal to them the presence/existence of sophisticated non-human life-forms / beings?
It hardly matters what hypothetical questions can be asked. The interesting questions can be asked if the SETi institute or anyone else looking finds a signal that can't be accounted for by known examples of radio sources. I would imagine those funding and carrying out the research hope for positive results but there is absolutely no way to guess or hypothesize on what might turn up (within the parameters and limits of the search). Just wait and see. I'm still baffled why anyone thinks SETI has anything in common with ID (apart from the coincidental use of the word "intelligent").Alan Fox_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PST}

The amount of obfuscation, confusion and absurdity going on here is shocking. It is truly off the charts. RDFish, You said:
SETI understands that in order to remain in the domain of empirical science, they must provide an operational definition of this fuzzy concept, and so they do. They can’t detect brains or opposable thumbs or consciousness on other planets – they can only detect signals.
Interesting. So tell me RDFish, does SETI think that within their own program, the detection of a certain type of signal would reveal to them the existence of sophisticated non-human beings? In past comments you've said this:
When SETI says that it is looking for “intelligence”, it doesn’t mean they are looking for some telltale sign that human-like intelligence exists – they mean they are looking for narrow-band signals from outer space.
And...
And by “intelligence”, SETI declares that it means “something that can send signals detectable on Earth”. That doesn’t mean something that is necessarily conscious, or that can learn, or that has free will. It means just what it says.
And yet you've also said...
SETI looks for patterns that are NOT found in nature in order to infer life forms on other planets.
But then again, you also said this:
SETI makes no comment whatsoever about what might produce alien communication technology!!! That has nothing at all to do with SETI research!!! SETI defines “intelligence” as the presence of such technology, PERIOD. If you want to start talking about how that technology was likely produced, you must begin to study astrobiology!!
So let me repeat my question: Does SETI think that within their own program, the detection of a certain type of signal would reveal to them the presence/existence of sophisticated non-human life-forms / beings?HeKS_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PST}

RDFish:
ID holds that, based on evidence, science can (tentatively, conditionally) rule out every possible explanation ...
No. We can only rule out what we currently know/ understand. We use our knowledge of cause and effect relationships to make inferences. And yes, intelligent agencies offer a different explanation than do purely materialistic processes. The two are distinguishable and operationally defined. No one says that just because a physical explanation is not known that a non-physical one must be the only explanation. Stop it with your strawmen already.Joe_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PST}

Hi Joe,
RDF: Again, neither SETI nor any other scientific endeavor could rule out physical causes en masse. JOE: That is why the design inference, as with ALL scientific inferences, is tentative and based on our current understanding. Dembski goes over this many times.
No, you still don't understand the point. Of course all scientific results are tentative. Rather, here is the problem: ID holds that, based on evidence, science can (tentatively, conditionally) rule out every possible explanation in a particular class of explanations that ID refers to as "physical", and by doing so, demonstrate that the actual explanation must be in a different class of explanations, which ID refers to as "intelligent". That is the problem, because these two classes of explanations are not scientifically distinguishable (that is, they are not operationally defined). For example, physicists explain certain phenomena by "entanglement relations", and so such relations are typically considered as "physical". But they are not a thing, not a force, not a particle, not something that exists within spacetime as we understand it at all - so are they really "physical" in the sense we normally use the term? No, they are not - just like quantum waveforms, or any number of other weird explanatory constructs in physics. Physics often encounters phenomena that cannot be explained by what we currently know about, but that doesn't mean that no "physical" explanation is possible, or that some "nonphysical" explanation must be true. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PST}

Alan Fox:
Not sure what you are getting at with ID unless you mean ruling out chance and necessity.
That and we have a match of the design criteria, just like SETI requires- archaeology and forensics too.Joe_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PST}

RDFish:
Again, neither SETI nor any other scientific endeavor could rule out physical causes en masse.
That is why the design inference, as with ALL scientific inferences, is tentative and based on our current understanding. Dembski goes over this many times.Joe_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PST}

Alan
Regarding SETI, they are not ruling anything out yet. Once (if they ever do) they have some candidate signals, the fun will start.
Perhaps, but the process by which they (can, do, will) detect intelligence does rule out physical (natural) causes. Nature can send signals that have nothing to do with intelligent activity. The trick is to find signals of a different texture.
Not sure what you are getting at with ID unless you mean ruling out chance and necessity.
Right. ID's process is to detect intelligent causes by conditionally ruling out physical/natural causes; SETI's process is to detect intelligent causes by conditionally ruling out physical/natural causes. So, my question is this: Why are they not scientific equivalents in that context?StephenB_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PST}

Hi StephenB,
If, in the name of science, SETI, acknowledging that it doesn’t know everything about physical causes, can reasonably rule them out in a conditional manner, why cannot ID, in the name of science, confessing that it doesn’t know everything about natural causes, reasonably rule them out in a conditional manner?
Again, neither SETI nor any other scientific endeavor could rule out physical causes en masse. All anyone can do is to rule out physical causes that we know about. At this point you suggest that is equivalent to ruling out physical causes conditionally, but this still misses the point. Here is another way to understand the issue: Physicalism is the philosophical position that what we call the "physical" is all that exists; there is nothing that exists that is ontologically distinct from the physical. Now, this position is not at all a scientifically supported position - it is a metaphysical position (and BTW I am not a physicalist). So, if some sort of result or conclusion depends on the truth of physicalism, or its falisity, then it can't be considered a scientific result. Likewise, any conclusion that rests on the truth of libertarianism or dualism can't be considered scientific. Now, to say that the cause of some particular observed phenomenon can't possibly physical is to say that some sort of cause exists which is not physical - in other words, it is to say that physicalism is false. That is not a scientific statement, and no scientific conclusions can follow from it. One can only say that we do not know what the cause of that phenomenon is. In other words, in science, the term "physical" in "physical cause" is superfluous. Quantum waveforms and entanglement relations and deformations in spacetime and virtual particles are all well-accepted explanatory constructs in science, but they are not "physical" in the sense most people understand. So, SETI does not claim to rule out - conditionally or otherwise - a physical cause for any narrow-band signals it may receive. Rather, it claims to rule out any cause that we have scientific knowledge of except our own technology.
What matters is that intelligence is understood to be a different kind of cause than a natural or physical cause.
And this right here is the very heart - the crux - of your misunderstanding. This statement you just made is non-scientific, because it is most assuredly NOT understood in science that this is true! It is only your metaphysical assumption that this is the case. It is also foundational for ID theory that this is the case, which is why ID is not scientific. As far as science is concerned, it may very well be the case that human minds operate by exactly the same physical laws that govern every other phenomenon. As far as science is concerned, nobody knows (yet) if mental causes are outside of physical causes.
Otherwise there would be nothing unusual about it– otherwise there would be nothing to detect The SETI researcher must be able to say how the cause of this signal is of a different kind than those physical causes we know about.
No, this is completely muddled! What would be unusual (spectacular really) about receiving a SETI signal is that it would be something radically different from anything we currently know about except human technology. The point is not whether something is natural or supernatural, physical or non-physical. The point is just what might be responsible: A civilization of life forms similar terrestrial life (that is the assumption of astrobiology)? If not that, then we can hypothesize something else, but then we must look for evidence that our hypothesis is true. That's science.
Why is it legitimate for SETI to conditionally rule out causes about which not everything is known and not legitimate for ID to conditionally rule out causes about which not everything is known?
It is perfectly legitimate for ID to conditionally rule out causes for living systems that we already understand (all of physics, chemistry, biology). I agree that all known causes ought to be ruled out. What is not legitimate is to pretend that this is the same as saying, "We have eliminated one type of cause (the physical) and what that leaves is this other type of cause (the mental)". That is non-scientific. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PST}

Hi Stephen
Alan, I am afraid that you do not understand my question.
There's every likelihood. Fools rush in... Your question:
Why is it legitimate for SETI to conditionally rule out causes about which not everything is known and not legitimate for ID to conditionally rule out causes about which not everything is known?
Regarding SETI, they are not ruling anything out yet. Once (if they ever do) they have some candidate signals, the fun will start. Not sure what you are getting at with ID unless you mean ruling out chance and necessity.Alan Fox_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PST}

Alan Fox:
Can you suggest something we might look for that would suggest a “designer” was at work with respect to the diversity of life on earth?
The designer doesn't need to intervene, however in "Not By Chance" and "The Evolution Revolution" Spetner discusses evolution by design- that is organisms were designed to evolve.Joe_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PST}

Alan, I am afraid that you do not understand my question. However, if you would care to address it, I will happy to respond in a non-combative way.StephenB_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PST}

RDF, I used the word coextensive in the contemporaneous sense (that when A is present, B will be present as well) which in retrospect was inappropriate and would have been better expressed in other terms. I can only assume you interpreted my meaning when you in #173 agreed to the sentence where I originally used the term.I see now that you want to project that you never agreed to the content of that sentence, but you'll have to forgive me, when someone uses the word "yes" in response, I will take that as a term of agreement. You may have meant "no". In any case, I have given you an operational definition of intelligence that enables the same methodology as SETI's methodology, and it does so for the same stated reason - only intelligence produces the effect, natural forces don't.Upright BiPed_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PST}

Stephen Can you suggest something we might look for that would suggest a "designer" was at work with respect to the diversity of life on earth? I'll grant you that the arrival of life on Earth is currently a complete mystery.Alan Fox_{October 27, 2014
October
10
Oct
27
27
2014
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PST}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 15 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply