Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/27/05 5:34pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Well duh" on 04/26/05 9:11pm
>>You’re missing the point. The new theory (ID) will
>>have a known means, possible...
>
>But having a known means in this case just sets all
>the questions back one notch.
Why?
>>So in other words, you just don't like it
>>philosophically (the philosophical requirement being
>>what you consider to be a "neat way").
>
>No, I don't like it philosophically, but that's beside
>the point.
No it isn't. You don't have one scientific objection to intelligent design theory. It seems like you're trying to make it inadmissible on purely philosophical grounds.
>A theory should help explain data
>preferably as simplistically as possible. ID doesn't
>do this. It adds a dimension of complication that is
>unecessary.
A number of problems here. One, what you just quoted is a philosophical principle. The idea that nature prefers the simple over the complex is indeed a philosophical principle (and one that not everybody thinks is true). Second, if the theory really is true the extra dimension is not unnecessary. The third problem I'll get to later.
>>Remember, in this scenario we humans
>>who have artificially created life without using the
>>supernatural.
>
>Kind of begs the question.
How so?
>We have to use whatever
>started life to begin with be it supernatural or no
>each time we make life because we didn't exactly
>develop the blueprints for life.
What you said doesn't make sense. How is demonstrating a known means how life could be artificially created begging the question?
>>Thus your claim has been proven false.
>
>No it hasn't.
Let's try this again.
>Inferences are not rational by definition.
You and I have very different definitions. When I say “infer” I mean “the act or process of inferring.” What is inferring? In the definition I am using, it means, “to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises.” There is nothing about this definition that implies that an inference can’t be rational or reasonable.
I'll go the extra mile and give a counterexample. Under this definition, atomic theory (like many other theories) is an inference. It is a rational inference? I believe so. Inferences can be rational. The claim that "inferences are not rational by definition" is false.
>>So I take it then that no matter how long ID's
>>predictions are confirmed, no matter how long the
>>problems remain unresolved, the new paradigm should
>>never be accepted? It will never be "better"?
>
>First, let's make something clear. ID is not a NEW
>paradigm. It's an old paradigm with some new paint.
Well, it is "new" in the sense the evolutionary theory is "old." It is true that ID has been around for a while, but only recently has the "upper tier" proposed it and it is "new" in the sense that it is not currently accepted (though I believe it eventually will if the predictions continue to be confirmed).
>>Even if the new paradigm has a known cause and
>>mechanisms, whereas the other theory does not
>>have a known cause (naturalistic formation) and will
>>still have many unresolved problems that the other
>>theory accounts for and explains, it should not be
>>accepted? No matter how long this goes on?
>
>It'd be different if ID explained the data in some
>better way other than "Oops, a designer did it that
>way."
It explains it better because it predicts the kinds of problems with the old paradigm and can give a means on how it could have been done (unlike the old paradigm). Additionally, the observations that are problematic to the old paradigm are not at all problematic for the new one.
Things have been getting kind of long, so I’ll see if I can round up some of the main points.
Damoclese: ID cannot be applied to biology because humans didn’t make life, and only human-caused artificial creations can be legitimately detected. There are facets of things we expect from humans (e.g. tables, chairs, pottery), but not nonhumans.
The claim that ID cannot be applied to biology seems little more than special pleading. We use ID in forensics, cryptology, fraud detection etc. We even use it on SETI—which in this case does not involve human intelligence. Additionally, note what the theory is:
“Within biology, intelligent design is a theory of biological origins and development. Its fundamental claim is that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable.”
If artificial intervention is reasonably necessary, (if non-artificial causes seem insufficient) ID is a rational inference even if the designer is nonhuman.
Damoclese: ID adds an unnecessary complication.
>Furthermore, ID is not in the same league with other
>theories because it makes things more complicated than
>necessary.
Quantum mechanics is not in the same league with other theories because it makes things more complicated than necessary. Lots of complicated mathematics—let’s just stick with Newtonian laws. What, Newtonian mechanics has problems? That’s okay, there are solutions to them and we just haven’t discovered it yet.
By now you likely see my point. ID may add something (designer) but in doing so it explains and predicts the problems of the old paradigm. Additionally, it has one—count it, one new factor. That one additional factor wouldn’t be enough for you to start whipping around Ockham’s razor given the benefits it provides.
Damoclese: Adding a designer doesn’t explain the data any better.
>>And so long as the designer doesn't come down, we can
>>stick with the old paradigm no matter how long the
>>unresolved problems exist, no matter if there is a new
>>paradigm that predicts the existence of such problems
>>etc.?
>
>If it's the best we can do and adding a designer
>doesn't HELP explain the data...
Similar to above, but I’m sure you already know my justification that it explains the data better. The problems with abiogenesis are, well, problematic for abiogenesis. ID predicts such problems would occur. All else held constant, the theory A that predicts the data that is problematic with theory B explains it better.
On what grounds does it not explain the data better? Because you just don’t like it philosophically?
Damoclese: There exists a counterexample for the explanatory filter.
>>I worded it wrongly. It fits into the chance node
>>because of the combination of chance and law makes it
>>an intermediate probability, as I explained earlier.
>
>Alright, so the filter says that it is chance, right?
>That's not correct. It's a combination of chance and
>law.
You used the fallacy of equivocation. The filter's definition of "chance" and what you said are not exactly the same thing. As I demonstrated earlier mathematically, the event as a whole corresponds to IP, and thus the filter selects "chance" based on that particular definition.
Damoclese: ID involves the supernatural.
>>The new paradigm (ID) doesn't appeal to
>>supernatural causes. Let's get that straight right
>>now.
>
>So the creation of life is just a regular normal
>occurence?
No, but neither is the Mona Lisa. Neither events require the supernatural.
Damoclese: ID doesn’t predict data, it postdicts it.
>>Perhaps not, but the theory does predict that such
>>problems would exist nonetheless, like it or not.
>
>It postdicts them, like it or not.
Theories are often constructed after the data is already there. It is not uncommon for theories to predict data that has already been observed in addition to predicting data not yet observed (physical laws are a good example). That it makes predictions after the data is not relevant, so long as the evidence confirms it (confer the idea of hypothetico-deductivism). When the theory arises is a bad philosophical principle to be dealing with. If this form ID existed in the nineteenth century (IIRC, it did), then would its predictions be legitimate? The theory is still the same either way. Even then, this form of ID has been around for quite a while (though not necessarily in the majority of scientists). And finally, ID doesn’t make predictions just with current data. It also makes predictions of the future which, if disproven, would spell absolute doom for the theory.
Damoclese: Abiogenesis is falsifiable
>>Nice accusation, but it doesn't address the point I
>>made. Abiogenesis does not appear to be falsifiable.
>
>Sure it is. If the designer of life comes down, it'd
>be pretty hard to still adhere to abiogenesis.
True, if aliens came from outer space and said they designed life and backed it up with videotape recordings, that might do it. Not only that, but if we make a time machine and use it to go back in time and see the designer, then it’s falsified then too. Also, if a wizard comes and allows us to see into the past, the same sort of thing could also happen.
I think you drastically missed the point of what I said. I’m not talking about the fantastic or extraordinary, I’m talking about more mundane scientific observations. For instance, to falsify ID, one could experimentally demonstrate that artificial intervention is not needed. In contrast, there doesn’t seem to be anything comparable for abiogenesis; no experimental demonstrations that can do the same for the old paradigm. For instance:
>>Problems with the theory? That's okay, because there
>>are solutions to those problems and we just haven't
>>discovered them yet.
>
>Could be the case, but I don't think that's the
>attitude held by scientists much as you would like to
>think.
Really? So if I talk to evolutionary scientists regarding the multiple problems of abiogenesis, their attitude won’t be “we’ll solve the problems eventually”? I’m not saying they’ll be ecstatic about the problems, nonetheless it’s “okay” in the sense that these observations do not apparently falsify the theory.
In any case, ID seems a lot more easily falsifiable.
Damoclese Regarding the though experiment in which the odds of organic evolution being true are a trillion one, and it is known life had a beginning. Would I still accept organic evolution? My answer is…
>>>>Would you still accept
>>>>organic evolution in spite of the evidence?
>>>
>>>As opposed to?
>>
>>As opposed to rejecting organic evolution. Now please
>>answer my question.
>
>Rejecting it for WHAT?
Well, ID theory I suppose, since that seems win the game of inference to the best explanation in this case. Now please answer my question!
Damoclese: How long does the old paradigm’s problems (naturalistic formation) have to remain unresolved before I switch to the new paradigm (ID) that resolves those problems? My answer is…
>>Suppose the predictions of the new
>>paradigm (ID) continue to be confirmed, and the old
>>paradigm still has its unresolved problems that the
>>new paradigm accounts for and explains. How long
>>should we put up with the current paradigm’s
>>unresolved problems before we switch to the new
>>paradigm that solves (and even predicts) those kinds
>>of problems?
>
>How long should we take aspirin before we switch to
>willow bark?
You are very good at avoiding the question. Please answer it instead.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 