And there you have it!

_{William Dembski

August 23, 2009

Eyes Rolling, Religion, Science}

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

Janna Levin, Columbia astrophysicist, gives us the cutting-edge science on the origin of the universe: there was nothing, really nothing, nothing at all … but the potential to exist. Was it Aristotle who said that nothing admits no predicates? So where did nothing get the potential to exist and then bring the universe into existence? Not to worry. Janna does give us this assurance: “We know that something happened.” Yes, this is science at its best. Let’s not bring God or design into this discussion — we wouldn’t want to be accused of “acting stupidly.” Oh, one more thing, she’s an assistant professor (go here). Want to bet that she doesn’t have problems getting tenure? Compare this to Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State.

YouTube Source

Comments

Echoing HSR's statement, StephenB. Hope you have a good time, and as always, damn good read.nullasalus_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I'd just like to say: I have followed your contributions to UD for some time now (nearly a year?), and your posts/discussions on philosophy and theology are some of the most competent and illuminating to read. So for that, I thank you. Oh, and have a good vacation. You'll need it after this.HouseStreetRoom_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 236:
Diffaxial failed to address his problem of selective causality.
Actually, I've been completely clear. From 67, above:
What you want to say is that it follows from the claim that there is an element of acausality/indeterminism at the quantum level vis, for example, timing of particle decay, that streets can “really just get wet.” Further, you want to say that that an individual who asserts that elements of quantum indeterminacy amount to a limited domain of acausality is being inconsistent in denying that that “streets can really just get wet.” But the physics itself tells us that that doesn’t follow: the indeterminacy and profound randomness of quantum events is displayed at the quantum level to degrees that can be predicted probabilistically with great precision, probabilities that render meaningful macrophysical violations a non factor in our experience of and reasoning over ordinary macrophysical events. Macrophysical events (such as the wetting of streets) obey classical causality with a fidelity sufficient to prompt us all, Darwinists and those among us who are less bright alike, to always expect that macrophysical events have macrophysical causes.
Note that I didn't merely say "expect"; I said "always expect." The physics that discloses quantum indeterminacy also constrains that indeterminacy to an precisely delimited scope. Therefore it is simply false that it follows from my position that macroscopic violations of causality can occur anytime, or any time it is convenient for me. The physics says otherwise. That's good enough for me. I rely on modern physics to tell me what is, and is not, physically possible, and indeed lack the expertise to do otherwise. Can the face of a statue of the Virgin Mary simply become wet without cause?Diffaxial_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT}

Adel Dibagnio: Blue Lotus: Your questions make no sense. Sorry to be so "uncivil." Why not just give each other high fives for getting in the last word, which I am sure you willStephenB_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

Er... (e.g., Darwinists "can't think" is the thrust of your initial post on this thread). (They sure can't type.)Diffaxial_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

Ooops - hit return somehow. The parenthetical comment in the last paragraph above was to be: (e.g., Darwinists "can't think is the thrust of your initial post on this thread)Diffaxial_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

Stephen @ 240:
Another approach might be for both sides to simply refrain from reaching back into the archives at all, focusing solely on the subject matter under consideration and the comments being made at that time.
I don't think we need be that restrictive. An alternative is to always include quotes including sufficient context, with appropriate links, when attributing statements and viewpoints to others. Then, when there are differences in interpretation, readers my follow those links and judge for themselves the intent of the writer. More generally, the use of such references to characterize participants in the debate (e.g., Darwinists "can't think" is the thrust of y) seems fated to receive a strong response and result in a dysfunctional conversation, and should be omitted.Diffaxial_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

Anyone who rejects causality or posits infinite multiple universes to avoid evidence for design is irrational.
Evidence for "design" is one of the issues under discussion. Scientists don't see it. They don't need to postulate "infinite multiple universes" to avoid seeing what isn't there.Adel DiBagno_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

With regard to the broader charge, the points made still stand.
Not at all. See, for example, Diffaxial [180].
By rejecting reason’s first principles, or pleading ignorance about what they mean, materialist Darwinists do indeed, embrace irrationality.
The issue is not settled: It is your first principles that are in question. Your defense of them has been found wanting.
I don’t apologize for raising that issue because it is a fair point. To reject reason’s principles is to reject reason itself.
Again, you are assuming the validity of your side of the argument.
Some have tried to rationalize the point, but it cannot be justified. Rob has yet to answer questions about his position on causality and Diffaxial failed to address his problem of selective causality. Some think it is uncivil to press the issue.
That's my position: you are uncivil. To justify your claim of irrationality, you have to cite independent empirical evidence of mental incapacity. One is not irrational simply because he doesn't accept your argument.Adel DiBagno_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

StephemB
What does the irrationality of Darwinism have to do with the rationality of legitimate science?
This worries me. A few questions. How many "Darwinists" are there? How do you determine who is doing "legitimate science" and who is a "Darwinist"? What is your test for "legitimate science"? If it supports a conclusion favoured by you it is "legitimate"? What? Give me a specific example of a scientist doing irrational science please.
They would follow where the evidence leads and abandon their paradigm.
And then what? Tell me StephenB, who do you think is stopping people following where the evidence leads? Some kind of "science mafia"? Or is it simply the "Steinberg/Expelled" fear you can conjure up? If so, well, even in that case I hear Dr Dembski just got an ID supporting paper peer reviewed and published and according to the DI the list is only growing. So, given their example would these scientists you claim are not following where the evidence leads not simply release their evidence of ID whatever the consequences? After all, they would be, as far as they are concerned, providing evidence for the existence of their god and what believer would possibly hesistate? Somewhat unlikely that all of them would remain silent?
I think it is unconscious until I point it out to them, then it becomes conscious.
Ah, here it is. Are you saying these scientists can't see the light for themselves? That you are the one? I hope not! So, how many Darwinist scientists have you converted to the rationality of legitimate science? 1? 10? It must be at least one!
then it becomes conscious.
So it's happened at least once then? And tell me, StephenB, what changed for that person in their research after you opened their eyes? What change in direction did you produce? Any hints?
Example: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist Therefore, the universe had a cause. Darwinists here reject that premise, presumably because they don’t like the conclusion. That is irrational.
How nice. And the cause to the universe did not "begin" to exist so it presumably always existed and had no need to come into existence and so you've not need to think about how it came into existence because you can use a few flimsy words and just shrug the whole mess off into a convenient bucket marked "don't look in here". How nice for you!
Darwinists here reject that premise, presumably because they don’t like the conclusion. That is irrational.
How many of the Darwinist scientists that you've converted started off rejecting your premise and how many supported it after? I want numbers!
Anyone who rejects causality or posits infinite multiple universes to avoid evidence for design is irrational. I don’t think all scientists do that, meaning that there are plenty of rational scientists around.
And there are more and more for every one you convert for every one you convert converts two and so on and so forth until all are converted and the world rejects Darwinistm! Is that it? So, these "plenty of" rational scientists who, by you definition are "following where the evidence leads" and have accepted your paradigm. What results have they produced that you can point to that supports the existence of an Intelligent Designer of any sort??Blue Lotus_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

---Blue Lotus: "Is that your way of saying you’ll be ignoring my comment at 238 regarding those irrational darwinists then?" No, I can certainly give you some answers, but I don't think I want to start another long round of volleys. ---"Given that, irrationality seems to be doing well. Things are being discovered, reports are, well, being reported. Journals seem to have no end of novel, useful results to share." What does the irrationality of Darwinism have to do with the rationality of legitimate science? ---"If Darwinist scientists were to embrace rationality what changes would you expect to see in research direction, the scientific method etc etc?" They would follow where the evidence leads and abandon their paradigm. ---"Do you think that Darwinists in general are aware that they embrace irrationality or is it an unconscious thing?" I think it is unconscious until I point it out to them, then it becomes conscious. Example: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist Therefore, the universe had a cause. Darwinists here reject that premise, presumably because they don't like the conclusion. That is irrational. ---"Is it all scientists or just Darwinists? Scientists working in Nuclear Physics, do they embrace irrationality too?" Anyone who rejects causality or posits infinite multiple universes to avoid evidence for design is irrational. I don't think all scientsits do that, meaning that there are plenty of rational scientists around.StephenB_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

StephenB
focusing solely on the subject matter under consideration and the comments being made at that time.
Is that your way of saying you'll be ignoring my comment at 238 regarding those irrational darwinists then? Funny that...Blue Lotus_{September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
01:06 AM
1
01
06
AM
PDT}

In keeping with your previous point, I don't know if there is any way to adjudicate our respective, and possibly contrary interpretations of the word "misrepresent." Another approach might be for both sides to simply refrain from reaching back into the archives at all, focusing solely on the subject matter under consideration and the comments being made at that time.StephenB_{September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 236:
I don’t accept that double standard.
Nor is there any way to adjudicate which is correct. But do you accept the suggested exchange? No need to accept any particular standards, or further re-hash these issues to do so.Diffaxial_{September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

StephenB
By rejecting reason’s first principles, or pleading ignorance about what they mean, materialist Darwinists do indeed, embrace irrationality.
Given that, irrationality seems to be doing well. Things are being discovered, reports are, well, being reported. Journals seem to have no end of novel, useful results to share. If Darwinist scientists were to embrace rationality what changes would you expect to see in research direction, the scientific method etc etc? Are do you think that Darwinists in general are aware that they embrace irrationality or is it an unconscious thing? Is it all scientists or just Darwinists? Scientists working in Nuclear Physics, do they embrace irrationality too? Or is it just biologists?Blue Lotus_{September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

" my position on necessary and sufficient [causes]"StephenB_{September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

I am gratified that we appear to be back on the road to civility. A few additional comments are in order. [At least from my perspective] Understand that the personal exchanges followed accusations that I have changed my position on necessary and sufficient charges. Although the infamous dangling prepositional phrase may have left that impression, it continues not to be the case. That is made clear by the meaning of the word sufficient, as I have pointed out several times. It is impossible to accept the notion of sufficient causes and then argue that physical events can occur without them. Hence, my final paragraph which, understood in context, made the point explicit. My critics persistently left that out. It was that omission that prompted my personal responses, and I still believe it to be unfair. Even now, no one seems to acknowledge that point or understand its significance. This misunderstanding was a two-way street, and both sides contributed to it. With regard to the broader charge, the points made still stand. By rejecting reason’s first principles, or pleading ignorance about what they mean, materialist Darwinists do indeed, embrace irrationality. I don’t apologize for raising that issue because it is a fair point. To reject reason’s principles is to reject reason itself. Some have tried to rationalize the point, but it cannot be justified. Rob has yet to answer questions about his position on causality and Diffaxial failed to address his problem of selective causality. Some think it is uncivil to press the issue. I think it is irresponsible not to. It is probably too late to address these issues on this thread because most of it has been devoted to a single sentence I once wrote. Diffaxial has suggested that I misrepresent the nature of past conversations. It is interesting that when it is I who claim to have been misunderstood, the formulation of the words mean everything while context and intent mean nothing, but when others claim to have been misunderstood, the formulation of the words mean nothing while context and intent mean everything. I don’t accept that double standard. Here is another way of looking at this. In some cases, when others fail to answer questions or consistently leave out important information, I try, as accurately as I can, to connect the dots that they refuse to connect. I know of no other way to persuade them to abandon their “strategic ambiguity,” which manifests itself in a number of ways that I will not go into. Some think I am rude to take that approach. I, the other hand, think it is rude for my adversaries to make it necessary. To each his own.StephenB_{September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

She must mean that we are the latest bleep in the cosmic history while I interpreted it to mean the final bleep in the cosmic history.Davem_{September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

What makes her think we are the last bleep in the cosmic history?Davem_{September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

vividbleau, thank you for the kind words @ 224.R0b_{September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

StephenB, I sincerely appreciate the olive branch. Diffaxial's response is mine also. I regret my uncharitable bluntness, and while I can't think of anything that I can honestly retract, I'd be more than happy with a bilateral agreement to drop the subject.R0b_{September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

That means, of course, that I owe Rob and Diffaxial apologies for my half of the misunderstanding and the attendant allusions to dishonesty.
I accept that. It is worth noting that I have made close to zero personal comments about you or anyone else in this discussion (other than "get some therapy" and addressing you as "dummy"). You and yours, however, have frequently characterized me as dishonest, irrational, as a liar, as lacking intellectual honesty and courage, as a coward, as displaying weakness, and so forth, with similar remarks directed to R0b. I think you embarrass yourselves with those remarks, which is why I pass over them without comment and decline to be baited into responding in kind. Fair to say that similar restraint characterizes R0b's superior contributions. I gather the purpose of these personal characterizations is to spin "onlooker's" impressions of the flow of the debate, but I'd be willing to bet they often have a very different impact than you imagine. You offered a sort of exchange:
if Rob or Diffaxial will acknowledge that I did not say that physical events can occur without sufficient causes, I will extend my apologies for escalating the dialogue to new levels and retract all personal comments.
I don't care about retraction of personal comments. Readers can judge for themselves the honesty (etc.) of my contributions. The exchange that interests me is that you cease repeating misleading characterizations of prior conversations to score rhetorical points. In exchange I will drop that issue, as well as questions surrounding the interpretation of your ambiguous statement vis necessary versus sufficient causes. I can't stop believing what I believe about your statement (and to say otherwise would be dishonest), but I can certainly stop commenting upon it. I'll allow you the same slack: You needn't concede anything about your prior statements. Just agree to stop making them.Diffaxial_{September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

Evidently, StephenB considers it civil discourse to characterize another person's beliefs as "irrational," because those beliefs don't share the presuppositions of the his particular beliefs. I was brought up to consider such behavior bad manners. It discredits the perpetrator while adding nothing of substance to his argument.Adel DiBagno_{September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

StephenB (228), What are the "necessary conditions" that you think cause particles to appear in a quantum vacuum?Gaz_{September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

---kairosfocus: "Uncaused events would have to have neither necessary nor sufficient causal factors at work." Actually, I pointed that out ...."when a particle appears in a quantum vacuum, it is spontaneous but not uncaused because it has many necessary conditions. To be uncaused, it must have NO NECESSARY OR SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS whatsoever. In other words, something cannot come from nothing." The problem was in the communication.StephenB_{September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

Stephen: You caught your slip. Uncaused events would have to have neither necessary nor sufficient causal factors at work. And I repeat from 76 (amplified at 135) for reminder:
1] Unless all NECESSARY causal factors are present, an event CANNOT happen. 2] If SUFFICIENT causal factors are present, the even WILL happen. 3] If an event DID happen, sufficient causal factors, AND necessary causal factors had to be present. (The two sets of factors need not be equivalent. Overkill is possible.)
GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT}

---Oops, I mean: If an event requires certain physically necessary conditions to occur, but if those conditions are not sufficient for its occurrence, then that event is only potentially possible until sufficient conditions arise and the event actually does occur, in which case it will be both unpredictable and [caused].StephenB_{September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT}

After giving this matter a good deal of thought, I have concluded that I have a point, and my critics have a point. On the one hand, I am right to this extent: Once the phrase “if the event occurs” is added, sufficient conditions are automatically implied. So, in that sense, it is impossible for me to argue that an event can occur solely as a result of necessary causes, since no event can occur without a sufficient cause by virtue of the definition of sufficient. My models show that. Rob and Diffaxial have not been attentive enough to that point. On the other hand, my critics are right in another important way: The sentence is misleading as the words, “under the circumstances,” by which I meant to convey “if, as it turns out,” easily translates into “according to the conditions just mentioned,” which would make it appear that I am arguing that events can occur solely through natural causes. I mistakenly assumed that my readers understood that all physical events automatically require sufficient causes, so I should have bridged that gap by using a different transitional phrase. I have not been attentive enough to that point. So, in the spirit of clarification, I think I will make the following change: If an event requires certain physically necessary conditions to occur, but if those conditions are not sufficient for its occurrence, then that event is only potentially possible until sufficient conditions arise and the event actually does occur, in which case it will be both unpredictable and uncaused. That means, of course, that I owe Rob and Diffaxial apologies for my half of the misunderstanding and the attendant allusions to dishonesty. On the other matter, the problematic Darwinist approach to causality persists and I am still not getting straight answers to straight questions. I hope that will change.StephenB_{September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT}

"R0b and Diffaxial remind me of John Wither from Lewis’s book That Hideous Strength, where they intentionally use vague language instead of concrete terms and propositions." Clive, I know the natural tendency for all of us is to support those that agree with us and oppose those who do not and I certainly do not want to alienate my pro ID friends. However I do not share the view that Rob is intentionally being vague. I think the old adage "the devils in the details" require boring down into what may appear to be minutia when in fact it is in the minutia where differences are resolved. I am a big fan of StephenB but that doesnt mean I cannot stick up for someone because I disagree with the person. There is probably little that Rob and I agree on but my sense of Rob is that purposeful intellectual dishonesty is not part of his DNA. Vividvividbleau_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

It’s getting late, so I am going to sum this thing up. Let’s use alternating sufficient causes and frame them in such a way that they cannot be interpreted as necessary causes. [I really do want to go on vacation] [A] Without the presence of water molecules the streets cannot get wet [necessary cause] Rain [sufficient cause]\ or perhaps A water sprinkler [sufficient cause] ---or perhaps Children running up and down the street with water jugs [sufficient cause] ---or perhaps something else. IF the event occurs, [if the streets get wet], then at least one sufficient cause had to happen. [B] Unless the adolescent is alive, he cannot obtain a high school degree [necessary cause] He may satisfy all the requirements of the institution [sufficient cause]--- or perhaps He may obtain a GDE [sufficient cause] --- or perhaps He may take an equivalency exam in the military [sufficient cause] IF the event occurs, [graduation], then at least on sufficient cause had to happen. So, when I wrote that, “If the physical event occurs,” it was, or should have been understood that a sufficient cause had to happen. This has nothing to do with the formally necessary cause indicated. As should be clear by now, I have never believed that an event can occur except when a necessary AND a sufficient cause are present, nor did I write anything that can rightly be understood that way once one understands that any physical event requires a sufficient cause. Now the error everyone has been making with this X.y Y.x business is this: One cannot say that a given sufficient cause [as in THE sufficient cause] is required because there are many possible candidates. On the other hand, one can always say that A sufficient cause is required. This is not even close to being a bi-conditional logical expression. Many unkind things have been said on this thread. On the one hand, I didn’t like being told that I said something that I didn’t say. On the other hand, I didn’t help matters much by using the L—word. So, if Rob or Diffaxial will acknowledge that I did not say that physical events can occur without sufficient causes, I will extend my apologies for escalating the dialogue to new levels and retract all personal comments. From there, we can begin the road back to civility and courtesy.StephenB_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply