| Subject: Under the chestnut tree |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 06/10/05 6:41pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Through the looking glass." on 06/10/05 1:08pm
>
>Perhaps so (though I can only think of a very few).
>The theory implicitly assumes, for instance, that the
>designer designed life in such a way to be empirically
>testable when it says, "artificial intervention is
>necessary" for the creation of life on Earth.
But the claim "artificial intervention is necessary" is made based on the idea of what is natural and we base our idea of what is natural on what humans can contrive; in other words we ultimately base our claims about things being made only with the perceptions of what can be made by humans. I don't think it'd be possible to detect artifical design provided it wasn't sufficiently human in nature. Do you disagree?
>Nonetheless, that still doesn't change the fact that
>this theory yields empirically testable and
>falsifiable predictions.
By why bother if the fundamental assumption is flawed?
>
>Any empirically testable theory includes (at least
>implicitly) some background assumptions to make
>predictions. ID is hardly unique, and should not be
>rejected on that basis.
Well, it isn't a matter of "some" background assumptions but rather the sort. An adherent of ID is basically saying "I know that anything designed must be thus and so although the only thing I have to base this on is what I as a human understand design to be".
>
>
>So the fact that the currents of nature are evidently
>not reasonably capable of producing the robots is just
>an immaterial, irrelevant fact?
"Evidently not reasonably capable" is quite a clause. It's quite immaterial if it isn't true.
We should say, "Well,
>we don't know much about the designer, so let's all
>pretend these robots weren't designed"?
Nah, we should say "I've never seen anything else that isn't designed by a human although these things look a lot like something humans might design".
>
>Would you have a better explanation how the
>robots got there? (Remember the game of inference to
>the best explanation.)
You mean make something up like design? How about explosive diarrhea?
>
>Not at all. Look, if naturalistic causes are
>not reasonably capable of doing the job, why wouldn't
>it be rational to accept design?
Because our design filters are only set to detect human design although IF an alien civilization were sufficiently LIKE humans it wouldn't matter.
The basic logic
>seems hard to argue with. (Think back to the magician
>example, something you have evaded.)
Not really, it's very easy to argue with, but you like to muddle the point. The basic objection goes "our experience with what we detect as design is very limited and because of this we aren't going to therefore be reliable about detecting design that isn't our own or sufficiently like our own to matter". See, that was pretty easy wasn't it?
>
>Need I remind you that the methods we use to create
>functional proteins, RNA and DNA could not have been
>used by abiogenesis?
So what? Do you honestly think there is only ONE way to get those proteins?
>
>What is reassuring that it was designed is
>(1)the predicted lack of any known means for
>undirected chemical reactions to get life (2) the
>predicted serious problems and barriers for undirected
>chemical reactions to get life (3) a known means (more
>than abiogenesis, anyway) for ID to create life. The
>(3) will undoubtedly reach full measure as technology
>goes on.
So the points that reassure you are 1) ignorance 2) ignorance of the processes of nature 3) knowledge that it CAN be done artifically and 4) a prediction about the future.
Hmm. Only one of these is really relevant and that's 3) and while things CAN be done artifically by humans like testube babies for example, that doesn't always imply that's the ONLY way it can be done.
You didn't address, for
>instance, my claim that ID explains the data better.
Well that's easy because the main assumption is flawed as I pointed out earlier. I don't get in the habit of explaining why something doesn't explain something better when it is crippled out of the gate.
>ID argues from what we do know about
>mathematical probability and observed chemistry,
>whereas abiogenesis here is arguing from laws we
>don't know about and haven't observed.
And again, I'm not really sure why you find this so reassuring particularly in a field which is pretty young like biology.
>This is a big reason why I believe ID explains the
>data better in this instance. There doesn’t seem to be
>any good reason to think otherwise (except perhaps
>that one may not like ID for philosophical reasons).
Or that one doesn't think that humans are capable of detecting design other than that sort that is like their own.
>
>No you didn't, at least you never responded to my last
>counterexample argument.
That's because your counterexample wasn't really all that relevant.
>
>Outcomes, as I illustrated, is one of the things that
>determine probability.
No, it isn't "one of the things". It's THE thing. Are you going to believe something is rational if it DOESN'T in fact happen?
(Remember, I'm using
>probability in a more accurate mathematical sense, so
>that it is inclusive of all probabilities from 0 to
>1.)
That's all well and good, but I'm not using a strict mathematical definition because it isn't all that capable of handling this particular problem.
You say that rationality and probability are not
>necessarily one and the same. I claim that the
>statement, “It is rational to believe belief X if it
>is highly probable that belief X is true” is
>necessarily true.
And you are clearly wrong because people don't believe things even if they are highly probable to happen if they don't happen. It's just that simple. No conditional logic, just simple observation.
If you think I'm wrong, and want to
>actually show that it's wrong, please given a
>possible scenario, a counterexample.
See above. It's really quite an easy point to grasp.
>>ID is categorically in a philosophical position
>
>Really? ID is often a very scientific position as in
>SETI and forensic science.
Searching for signs of intelligent life is not the same as searching for ID.
It basis its claims (as in
>the case of life on Earth) on empirical data,
>mathematical probability etc.
Again, searching for other sentient life is not the same as looking about for ID and besides SETI runs into the same problem ID does because there really isn't any guarantee that if we were to get a message from an intelligent source that we'd recognize it given our limited pool of expertise.
Tossing out the theory
>just because you personally don't like it isn't enough
>reason to discard the theory.
No you are right. That's why I don't do that.
>
>No, but the more empirically falsifiable the theory
>is, the better.
Not really. It just makes it easier to falsify. What is really ideal is truth.
Modern ID is certainly much
>more empirically falsifiable than abiogenesis; it has
>that advantage over its competitor at least.
Which again, just because it is easier to falsify (which I don't really believe it is anyway) doesn't make it a BETTER theory. What makes a theory better is if it is true.
>
>Here's one: remember what you were saying about an
>argument from ignorance? That's a bad thing, right?
When the subject being argued is largely shrouded in ignorance I'm not surprised that the theories have lapses.
>Or does it stop being a bad thing when it starts to
>apply to your favorite theories?
Nah, it's not a GOOD thing, but then again, sometimes when knowledge is scarce it behooves one to wait until there is more to make sweeping theories.
All else held constant, we accept theories that
>have a strong connection with the evidence, what we
>do know, over theories that do not.
Except in cases where our ignorance is so pronounced that it doesn't really matter to begin with.
ID basis
>its claims (at least in this case) on actual
>evidence (e.g. empirical), abiogenesis does not.
>All else held constant, I prefer theories that are
>based on evidence. Why don’t you see evidential basis
>as advantageous?
Well, the problem is in this particular instance we have a lack of information in areas that are rather critical to formulating any ultimate causes.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 