Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 06/16/05 11:50am
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Hooked on semantics" on 06/15/05 6:38pm
>>But I do say that we can have
>>rational reason for our beliefs in the
>>limitations of nature, even though we cannot
>>absolutely prove it.
>
>If you mean to say that we can extrapolate inferences
>about what nature can and cannot do based upon our
>rather limited experience of nature, alright.
>
>Extrapolating is dangerous territory though, and
>anytime that it's done at least in professional
>academic fields something is said along the lines of
>"We realize that the data we have extrapolated could
>well be erroneous."
And that's why ID is a tentatively accepted, empirically falsifiable theory. But then again, so is the idea that the Rosetta Stone was artificially created.
>>Yes, life is far more complex and has an even more
>>massive digital language encoded within it.
>
>I don't think life is accurately described as a
>"langauge".
In the same way computer has a "language," DNA is encoded digital information for making proteins. The existence of biological information is quite well accepted.
>>You claimed
>>that we weren't in a position to know what nature can
>>and cannot reasonably do.
>
>And we aren't except with regards to what we make.
Then what if we make life? (Goes back to a question I asked in my previous post.)
>>That is simply false, and I
>>have provided counterexamples.
>
>No, you pointed to things that we "know" are made by
>people.
Irrelevant, they are still counterexamples. And note the counterexamples not made by human hands (e.g. robots and automobiles on Pluto).
>>My principle of
>>detecting design ("nature is not reasonably capable of
>>producing X") is sound and applied all the time.
>
>It may be applied all the time, but that doesn't make
>it sound. An absence of knowledge concerning what
>nature is capable of doesn't a sound argument make.
Ignoring the fact that it's based on what we do know does not a sound argument make.
BTW, an absence of knowledge concerning what nature is capable of is precisely what abiogenesis does. It basis its claims on things we don't know about and have never observed.
>>As opposed to abiogenesis, where the leaps are made
>>from non-existent evidence?
>
>No, that's quite like ID actually.
It's a lot more like abiogenesis (e.g. the existence of unknown, undiscovered laws). Need I remind you again that ID basis its claims on what we do know? (Such as mathematical probability and known chemistry; as opposed to, say, appealing to laws we've never seen or observed.)
>Saying we'll NEVER
>find a mechanism for the formulation of life is simply
>standing on the lack of a mechanism; and as I said,
>standing on a lack of evidence for a prediction isn't
>much of a prediction at all.
Physical laws do it all the time. They say we won't see a violation of the law. In any case you're oversimplifying. While it is true that ID predicts what we won't see, it also predicts what we will see, and basis its claims more so on empirical evidence we have observed. Abiogenesis on the other hand...
>>How would you show that belief
>>is wrong? An experimental demonstration showing a
>>known possible means life could have been created
>>without artificial intervention would do the trick.
>
>And exactly what would constitute "non-artificial
>intervention"?
Undirected chemical reactions.
>>Basing your abiogenesis beliefs on "unknown things"
>>doesn't really help your argument, especially when
>>you're extrapolating this into extraordinary
>>circumstances where they likely don't belong.
>
>The difference between us though is that I don't claim
>to limit reality with my theory. You apparently do.
Limit reality? What do you mean? I acknowledge the possibility that it could be falsified, I just doubt that it actually will be falsified.
>>I asked exactly what kind of experiment would show
>>that it wasn't possible.
>
>The same kind that'll show that a mechanism "will
>never be found".
That's not an answer at all. Evidence that a mechanism will probably not be found would be the confirmed predictions of ID theory (e.g. significant barriers to the undirected formation of life), but that apparently doesn't do the trick for you does it?
So I ask again. Exactly what kind of experiment could falsify abiogenesis (please be specific)? A big problem is that the appeal to laws we've never seen etc. seems to forever save the theory from anything we've discovered about what we currently know about nature. Abiogenesis doesn't seem anywhere near as empirically falsifiable as ID.
>>And why is this the case? Why are significant
>>barriers to the undirected chemical formation of
>>functional proteins, RNA and DNA a problem for
>>all theories?
>
>Not the specific issues. The general ones about proofs
>for scientific theories.
Mind elucidating what you mean by that? I have been talking about the problems of proving scientific theories in general, but that's only to counter your criticisms of the evidence ID is based on, criticisms like "We've only discovered a fraction of nature."
>>Now perhaps you can see why I invoked counterexamples,
>>instances in which we have good reason to believe that
>>nature isn't reasonably capable of producing certain
>>things (Rosetta Stones, automobiles, etc.).
>
>Which are all examples in which we know that people
>can make.
Yes, and what happens when we know people can make life? (Goes back to my question in my previous post.)
>>Extraordinary or not, you didn't answer my questions.
>>Was it rational to infer design in the 17th century?
>>Would it be rational to accept design in the late 20th
>>century?
>
>Your hypothetical question is rather meaningless in
>this instance because of its inherent impossibility...
It's not really impossible; it could have happened (however unlikely it may seem), nonetheless you haven't answered it. Unlikely or not, there's a point I'm trying to make in this thought experiment. So please answer these questions of my previous post. Was it rational to infer design in the 17th century? Would it be rational to accept design in the late 20th century?
>>And therefore we can throw out known chemistry if it
>>coincides with a competing theory we don't like?
>
>Throw it out? Nah. Use it only tentatively? Yes.
Fine. But then what's wrong with tentatively accepting ID theory? ID basis its claims on evidence, abiogenesis not so much.
>>Well, yes.
>
>So do you suppose that MAYBE out of those possiblities
>nature MIGHT be able to make proteins?
Nature does all the time--with the benefit of biochemical machinery. Now, as for undirected chemical reactions I admit that it's possible, thought I consider it highly unlikely; just as I think it's highly unlikely that nature can reasonably make Rosetta Stones.
>>So...extrapolating non-existent data into
>>extraordinary circumstances is better? When it comes
>>to inference to the best explanation, I think
>>theories based on evidence are better.
>
>But you don't really have one based on evidence. You
>have one based on an ignorance of a known mechanism.
Let's stop this right now. If you need me to refresh your memory, visit this post again to see an example of ID based on what we do know. While the prediction that we'll never find any reasonable way to create life from non-life via undirected chemical reactions is an important prediction, it is not the only one. ID has its primary basis on what we do know (e.g. the known barriers to getting life via undirected chemical reactions).
>>So the fact that ID's known mechanism includes a
>>designer makes the mechanism unlikely? That's a bit
>>of question begging.
>
>It carries with it a bunch of metaphysical baggage and
>unecessarily mental gymnastics
Well, people may not like the metaphysical suggestions of life on Earth being artificially created, but that's their problem. Unless you're a bit more specific, this doesn't appear to be any reason to reject ID. Nor is it a reason that people might have to exercise their mind a little bit more.
>>But if that thing (let's call it Y) actually happened,
>>then X is no longer highly probably true. We
>>have new evidence that Y is highly probably true.
>
>Once something occurs, its probability is irrelevant.
>It's simply certain.
Then that probability is 100%. Remember, I'm using the more accurate mathematical definition of probability, which is inclusive of 0 to 1.
>Probabilities are only useful
>BEFORE an event happens because once they happen it's
>done.
Not really. There's also the probability that an event happened in the past (e.g. the study of history).
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 