| Subject: Mainly |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/27/05 7:37pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Rounding up the main points." on 04/27/05 5:34pm
>
>Why?
Because having a "designer" as a cause simply delays questions like "Where did the designer come from, why did he/she design, Why did it decide to design THIS way as opposed to THIS way". The same questions that remained unanswered in organic evolution remain unanswered here only we have the additional complication of a designer in on top of it all.
>
>No it isn't. You don't have one scientific
>objection to intelligent design theory.
I don't have a scientific objection to the theory that the world rests on tortoise shells either. (Or at least not one that couldn't be explained away)
What's your point?
It seems like
>you're trying to make it inadmissible on purely
>philosophical grounds.
Science doesn't exactly operate on philosophy first and THEN whatever reality has to say as subsidary; the objections I'm making ARE reasons that theories in science are rejected. (e.g. theories making too many initial assumptions, models not being good fits, situations in which the models don't yield accurate answers) That IS science. If you doubt it, crack open any physics book you please.
It is you who desires to shift the conversation to purely philosophical grounds because, and this is highly important, THAT IS THE ONLY PLACE THAT ID TRULY HAS ANY STRENGTH.
What science has discovered about theories that work is that they are usually ones that contain simple premises. That has absolutely nothing to do with a philosophical preference; it has everything to do with direct observation of what seems an accurate description of the world and what does not.
>
>A number of problems here. One, what you just quoted
>is a philosophical principle.
No, it's an observation about what has worked in the past quite frequently. It's no more philosophical than saying something like, "It is helpful to visualize a problem when you are trying to solve it."
The idea that nature
>prefers the simple over the complex is indeed a
>philosophical principle (and one that not everybody
>thinks is true).
It's one thing to say that theories with simple assumptions have borne out to be more accurate, it's another to say that nature prefers THE simple over the complex. An amalgamation of simple assumptions can yield a complex framework; however, keeping those assumptions simple initially is what allows one the ability to build up to complexity.
Second, if the theory really is true
>the extra dimension is not unnecessary. The third
>problem I'll get to later.
Yeah, but that's true for any theory, no matter how crazy. If you wish to put your theory on equal footing with rabid wombats creating the world, then you've accomplished it in this one above observation.
>
>How so?
It begs the question of whether or not WE created life.
>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.
They CAN be rational, but they are not by definition.
>
>
>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).
Would you feel better if the old paradigm posited rabid wombats as the mechanism by which it happened? A means doesn't necessarily help.
Additionally, the observations
>that are problematic to the old paradigm are not at
>all problematic for the new one.
Yes they are, unless you are simply content with the answer "a designer did it".
>
>The claim that ID cannot be applied to biology seems
>little more than special pleading.
Not anymore so than RC car driving can be applied to race car driving.
We use ID in
>forensics, cryptology, fraud detection etc.
Yes, successfully.
We even
>use it on SETI—which in this case does not involve
>human intelligence.
Now remind me, has it been successful here? Are we not applying what we know humans can design and trying to look for something SIMILAR?
>If artificial intervention is reasonably necessary,
>(if non-artificial causes seem insufficient) ID is a
>rational inference even if the designer is nonhuman.
But life "is created" all the time without any intervention. Were you born in a test tube?
>
>Quantum mechanics is not in the same league with other
>theories because it makes things more complicated than
>necessary.
Not quite. Quantum mechanics didn't start out with an entire set of complicated theories to explain what it saw. One can watch the progression from things like the uncertainty principle all the way up till now if one bothers to read the history from there to here.
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.
Except QM offers predictions that explain existing data BETTER and more accurately. ID doesn't quite do this.
>
>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.
Not really.
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.
Rabid wombats have one assumption too. Just one.
>
All else held constant, the theory A that
>predicts the data that is problematic with theory B
>explains it better.
But it doesn't. Moving on.
>
>On what grounds does it not explain the data better?
>Because you just don’t like it philosophically?
No, because it opens up a whole slew of MORE complicated questions that are probably and would ALWAYS probably be unsolveable. (Who designed this, why, where did they come from...etc. etc.)
>You used the fallacy of equivocation. The filter's
>definition of "chance" and what you said are not
>exactly the same thing.
If that's the case, then the FILTER uses the fallacy of equivocation. It cannot rightly call chance what is not chance, can it?
As I demonstrated earlier
>mathematically, the event as a whole
>corresponds to IP, and thus the filter selects
>"chance" based on that particular definition.
An "intermediate probability" does not at all sound anything like "chance and law". It sounds like something that is still rooted in chance, which QM is not.
>>
>>So the creation of life is just a regular normal
>>occurence?
>
>No, but neither is the Mona Lisa. Neither events
>require the supernatural.
I'd say people creating art is a pretty normal, mundane event compared to say creating life.
It remains to be forseen whether or not the creation of life requires something supernatural. It's a possiblity...not a particularly strong one, but possible.
>>
>>It postdicts them, like it or not.
>
>Theories are often constructed after the data is
>already there.
Yeah, but it's one thing to postdict data in a very strict mathematical sense, and it's quite another to postdict data in a looser sense. What ID has done is taken what science can't currently explain and turned the majority of it into a prediction for their "theory". The "theory" doesn't predict or even necessitate the things it assumes. It simply assumes them because it knows them to be true at the moment.
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?
It depends on whether or not it took what WASN'T known then as used it as a prediction for the theory.
>The theory is still the same either way.
Maybe to you it is.
> 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.
My tortoise shell theory can make predictions for the future, but if I set it up and use a little common sense while doing so, I can make predictions in such a way that the future PROBABLY will not refute what I've said...or at least not anytime in the NEAR future. That doesn't mean that it is a GOOD theory. It just means I can make up predictions that PROBABLY won't have any verdict passed on them anytime in the near future.
>>
>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 find it somewhat ironic that you place the idea of a designer coming down on par with all of these things, because that seems AS ridiculous to me as posing a designer in the first place. Maybe we agree on more than you think.
>
>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.
Another irony. YES, you very much ARE talking about the fantastic and extraordinary. I don't exactly see life popping up all over the universe.
For instance, to falsify ID,
>one could experimentally demonstrate that artificial
>intervention is not needed.
Did someone artifically intervene resulting in your birth? (If so, I'm not sure I even really wanna know...)
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:
I'd think that IF it could be shown than Earth could NOT have reasonably been expected to have the conditions necessary for life to form (whatever those conditions ultimately end up being) then abiogenesis would definitely go down the tubes.
>
>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 don't think they'd necessarily would say that they'll solve the problems AND abiogenesis WILL be the answer. I think they'd say something more akin to we'll work on these problems and see whether or not the future evidence helps SUPPORT the theory of abiogenesis. (at least the reputable ones anyway)
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.
I don't know that it's "okay". I think it's more that there isn't anything better to grab for. Abiogenesis has SOME evidential support, which is quite a bit better than ID at this particular point in time. I wouldn't expect scientists to throw their hands up in the air and start grasping other theories with less evidential support simply because they encountered problems. Some problems take time to work out. Some problems take an extremely LONG time to work out. Abiogenesis simply is the strongest contender at the present. I don't think it's being held on to and lauded as the ultimate answer or paradigm contrary to the portrait you paint.
>
>In any case, ID seems a lot more easily
>falsifiable.
So does my tortoise shell theory, but I don't think that makes it better.
>
>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!
If the odds were a trillion to one in terms of organic evolution, then I wouldn't accept organic evolution.
However, I wouldn't be so brash as to automatically accept design as the answer in lieu of organic evolution. The question would simply be open, and I'd be forced to admit that much ignorance is out there on the subject although life COULD well be designed. That is precisely the position I would take.
>You are very good at avoiding the question. Please
>answer it instead.
You mean how long before we switch to a WORSE theory? I'd say never.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 