| Subject: Inference to the explanation Wade likes |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/13/05 8:31pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Inference to the best explanation" on 04/13/05 3:57pm
>You’re missing the point. Already we humans
>can do things that known natural processes cannot
>(outside a pre-existing cell), such as making DNA and
>RNA. It is entirely conceivable that there will be
>known artificial causes to create life but no known
>natural ones.
Actually, I think you are missing the point. Even if we do ALL of that, we won't have "created" life. We'll have manipulated whatever made life to begin with, and the fact that we can manipulate what is already here doesn't really help advance one theory or the other.
In that case, what does your apparent
>proposal of detecting design (the “we’ve already seen
>humans make these things” idea) say about this?
It doesn't say anything about it, because humans don't "make" life like they do a work of art or a watch. It simply means they manipulate what is already here due to whatever reason.
>
>Why not? The old paradigm (e.g. organic evolution) is
>hardly “rigorous” in any mathematical sense.
That depends on what you mean by rigorous, but even if that were TOTALLY true, there are at least starting pieces of evidence such as the ability to create the fundamental building blocks of life in simulated natural ways that give organic evolution sway over some nameless faceless designer who can shift intentions and personalities if questions arise that it doesn't handle in a tidy way.
Indeed,
>much of evolution (on the biochemical level) is
>far from rigorous by having only handwaiving
>explanations.
You can misspell "hand waving" all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that there is some pretty compelling rudimentary evidence that points towards organic evolution being pretty plausible.
But design can be very rigorous in
>principle (e.g. find a rigorous explanation how DNA
>could be artificially made)
In principle is not "in practice" and that is the problem.
and already it appeals to
>rigorous technical details (veracious or not, the
>irreducible complexity of a system can be defined and
>supported rigorously via rigorous biochemical
>details).
Irreducible complexity is hotly debated and not very widely supported.
But if organic evolution is sufficiently
>rational to believe it should be accepted as a
>scientific theory, agreed?
By rational if you mean evidence based, then yes.
Now, even if it was
>rational to believe ID, science should pretend
>not to know it?
Well, the issue is that ID changes the designer in question around when the need arises. Yeah yeah, it doesn't POSIT a designer, but because it doesn't POSIT a designer it loses the ability to be tested with regards to what we'd expect from a designer. If you haven't a particular SORT of designer in mind then there really aren't any predictions that naturally follow.
>
>Why?
They follow a pattern of regularity.
>
>But if that were true (the knowledge of their nature),
>then it would stop in the “chance” node. Your
>counterexample fails.
If the filter worked, it would, but it doesn't. The filter hangs because QM is a combination where randomnality produces a specific order that is regular. (design) The three questions would go something like does law explain this? No because laws don't describe random things. Does chance explain this? Well, there is order...and it IS regular, so no. How about design? Maybe, but the event itself is random.
Your appraisal of my counterexample fails.
>
>Even if true, it takes into account the situation
>nonetheless and the filter is valid.
That's like saying a piece of a pecan pie is the same as the WHOLE pie, which doesn't make any sense.
>
>No, because the evidence would still overwhelmingly
>point to design.
So if someone who had NEVER TOUCHED a deck of cards before in their life and had never been a magician before in their life interacted with a freshly opened pack of cards and muttered something about a pattern that then showed up, you'd still suspect design? That sounds a little paranoid to me...
>>Yeah, but the fact that he is a MAGICIAN is not
>>accounted for at all
>
>It is accounted for when deciding whether law/chance
>is the most likely explanation.
But that's what the model is for in the first place; it's supposed to make that determination not DECIDE it beforehand.
And even if it
>weren’t accounted for, the filter still succeeds and
>the logic is still valid. Law and chance being
>eliminated, design is chosen.
Yeah, but so what?
>>No, it isn't the most "rational" explanation.
>
>Really? I doubt you even believe the words you have
>typed. Let’s recap the scenario. If the magician
>said in advance what he was going to do, and after
>shuffling the cards, the entire deck is in the precise
>order he specified, you would really not think
>“design” is the most rational explanation? Would you
>think chance is responsible instead? I doubt it.
I think design is the strongest inference, but no, I don't think it's the most rational. Inferences are not rational by definition.
>
>And just because the known physical laws are
>consistent every time we test them doesn’t mean
>they’re proven. But it’s certainly a good sign.
Yeah, but this model is in conflict with research in psychology that HAS been consistent each time it was tested. That's not such a good sign, is it?
>
>Well, if we know the nature of electrons would
>reasonably produce that pattern, then law/chance would
>have been chosen.
But it's not really law or chance for the reasons I stated above. It's both. If you disagree as to why it is NOT both, then I'd challenge you to tell me why USING Dembski's model.
>
>One: I was concerned primarily with the logical
>validity of the filter, remember?
But I wasn't primarily, remember?
Two: your alleged
>psychological claims seem dubious at best.
Uh kay...
Suppose
>that comparison with things we know are designed does
>in fact occur. Well, the things that we know are
>designed also happen to be things that the
>currents of nature are not reasonably capable of
>producing (e.g. cars, computers, artifacts).
Not all things that are designed fall into that category. Art that mimics nature and vice-versa happen all the time. Hence, "the currents of nature argument" is a bit inadequate in the first place.
If you
>walked up to an archaeologist and claimed that
>so-and-so artifact (e.g. Rosetta Stone) could have
>been produced naturally, she’s likely to say something
>along the lines of “not bloody likely.”
Well yeah, because the Rosetta Stone is something that falls within my aforementioned observation that humans basically know the way other humans think, and language happens to be one of those things that indicate design.
>
>Yep, just a theory empirically works in all tested
>cases doesn’t mean it’s right. But it’s a pretty good
>sign. What are you expecting? A rigorous proof?
>Doesn’t happen in science.
No, just something that holds water as a model.
>
>Not really. But it is an important factor in the
>filter.
Yes really. Otherwise one has made probabilities for something that is irrelevant.
>>
>>Yeah, but it means to try to legitimize those numbers.
>
>No. It does try to use them however.
Okay then, what is the point of asking if something confirms to design patterns if NOT to make the probabilities assigned look useful?
>
>Yes, not very likely. The currents of nature are not
>reasonably capable of producing those things.
>Think back to my archaeologist example.
No, but the currents of nature aren't really the determining thing so much as judgements with respect to human nature.
>
>
>Ha! The Smithsonian has lots of artifacts with no
>known purpose but are obviously designed.
Just because their purpose is not known simply means that while we recognize humans could use this thing for some sort of utility, we don't know exactly which utility it was used for. However, what we do know is that this thing falls within the expectations of what humans make as we've seen things that are similar before that ARE made by humans.
>
>False. It predicts the designer would make things
>that (among other things) resist naturalistic
>explanation.
Now why would a designer do that in the first place? See, this is the sort of thing that makes ID a useless theory. It assumes things without much reason to do so.
This makes are design inference strong
>because (among other things) there are empirically
>falsifiable predictions.
Yeah, but they are baseless. Why couldn't a designer make something that is explained by naturalistic laws? Let me help here again, there is NO reason why this couldn't be the case; it's just conveinient for ID'ers to frame the premises in such a way so that the argument itself is in the strongest possible form.
How about organic evolution?
> Lately it seems awfully non-falsifiable.
I think it's very falsifiable as of yet. In fact, I don't think you'll find a single scientist that says organic evolution is the way it happened beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Don’t have
>the starting conditions here? Well, maybe it
>originated naturally in space.
And it COULD have, but it's acknowledged as a COULD.
Or maybe there are
>ways to produce life and we just haven’t discovered
>them yet.
Also a possibility. It's amazing how many one can come up with when they aren't limited to just coming up with two.
Lots of problems of organic evolution?
>That’s okay, because there are solutions and we just
>haven’t discovered them yet etc.
I don't think any scientist really believes there are solutions that will TOTALLY bear out organic evolution in its current form. I think you are simply strawmanning as it suits you.
Give me one bit of
>empirical data and I bet I could explain it away
>easily (playing devil’s advocate of organic
>evolution).
I'm sure you could, but the beauty of science is that you could do it for only as long as the absence of evidence allowed you to.
In contrast, modern ID theory seems
>much more at risk with empirical data. By
>philosophy of science, it’s organic evolution that
>doesn’t seem to be much of a scientific theory.
You hold organic evolution as though it is on the same level as gravity, and of course it isn't. It's a theory in the infantile state which means it's still subject to massive revisions. It simply has more going for it than ID as I pointed out above.
>
>What if there is no known utility and the robots are
>completely unlike any robots we’ve made? Design can
>still be rationally inferred.
Saying it and doing it are two different things. I don't think anyone could RATIONALLY infer design in this particular situation because they would have no experience to draw from.
And what if humans can
>artificially create life and no known natural
>processes can? In such a case, life is something we
>know humans can create etc.
Except they don't create it. They manipulate it.
>
>So you claim. But would you still accept organic
>evolution in spite of the evidence?
I accept organic evolution very tentatively. It's not going to break my heart if it isn't true. It's much better than the alternatives at this point.
And I think
>design in this case is more than just a possibility;
>it is the most reasonable possibility.
So you say.
Given
>life had a beginning and that organic evolution is
>almost certainly false, why not accept design
>as the most reasonable explanation?
Because organic evolution is not "almost certainly false", and the choices on this test are not a) organic evolution or b) design.
It makes
>falsifiable predictions, all of its predictions are
>very well confirmed, and it seems to win the game of
>inference to the best explanation.
It makes falsifiable predictions based on premises that have no apparent cause for being as they are. It seems to win the game because the premises are cast in such a way that at the end it of course seems to emerge the victor.
>
>Do I detect the odor of tenacity?
Nope, but it wouldn't hurt to check your armpits.
>
>
>Ever here of inference to the best explanation?
Yep.
>A similar thing is true for ID. Message theory
>predicts organisms would have similar components,
>which is evidence for message theory (thus having
>other supportive evidence).
And why, pray tell, would organisms have similar components under message theory?
Additionally, modern ID
>theory makes falsifiable predictions after all.
Based on things that there really isn't any reason to state.
> Now it is true that evidence supporting ID will often
>be against organic evolution. But the reverse is
>also true. By your logic, we should never accept
>organic evolution because all it does it make ID
>theory unlikely.
Not quite. We don't make decisions based on probabilities by THEMSELVES. If we did, we'd never drive our cars. There's quite a bit more to accepting or declining a theory other than just probability. It works in an ARRAY of other factors.
>
>So would you still accept organic evolution in the
>face of the overwhelming evidence?
Well, since I only accept organic evolution only very tentatively, I wouldn't be too crushed if it turned out that it wasn't exactly right and something else was. That something else isn't going to be ID though, at least not in the way you have presented it.
Remember the game
>is inference to the best explanation.
You know, I'd completely forgotten until you reminded me.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 