Science and Absolute Knowledge
Seanpit
Richard Forrest wrote:
> Seanpit wrote:
> > Richard Forrest wrote:
> >
> > < snip >
> >
> > > > You have to know
> > > > that no other possible cause is likely to have given rise to the given
> > > > phenomenon as well.
> > >
> > > No you don't, because you can't know all other possible causes.
> >
> > You don't have to know about all possible causes to have a usable
> > hypothesis. Science isn't about absolute knowledge of all
> > possibilities. It is about predictive value while not knowing anything
> > with 100% confidence - don't you know?
>
> You claim that it is possible to exclude any cause other than the
> intervention of an intelligent designer.
Not quite. What I am saying is that one can hypothesize that there is
no mindless process that can produce a given phenomenon with a very
high degree of predictive value. Once this is done, there is only one
other viable alternative hypothesis - Intelligent Design.
For example, it is possible for someone to win the California Lottery 5
times in a row - but it is very very unlikely. If it ever happened, you
can bet most people would begin to wonder if the whole thing was
deliberately rigged. How do you think those who run the casinos in Las
Vegas got so good at catching cheaters? They look for patterns that go
significantly against the odds of how a particular game usually works.
Anything that goes significantly beyond the "norm" of how the numbers
usually work for a particular game sends up a red flag. It is a sign of
bias and likely design. They don't need to know how the person is
actually cheating in order to detect deliberate manipulation of the
game.
The very same thing is true of a polished granite cube. Such a shape
and structure is never seen in granite objects that are thought to have
arisen via purely non-deliberate processes. You argue that some as yet
unknown mindless process could possibly produce such a granite cube.
But, I'm sure you really don't believe in the likelihood of such a
process. Like me, I'm sure that if you found such a cube, even on an
alien planet, that you would certainly start thinking about intelligent
design - even without any knowledge about the identify or mechanisms of
the designers.
> You are the one claiming to know all possible causes.
The scientific method would not be needed if all possibilities were
already known. Science is useful as a predictive tool because we don't
know everything. Science helps us function and successfully predict
things based on what little we do know. That is why science need not be
based on 100% knowledge or accuracy. Science only tells us about what
is most likely given our current knowledge base.
Given our current knowledge base about granite and how mindless
processes affect granite, we can know, with a very high degree of
predictive value, that such non-deliberate processes never produce
perfectly symmetrical polished granite cubes. This leaves only ID as a
viable hypothesis and this ID hypothesis does in fact carry with it a
very high degree of predictive value. Though never 100% (not achievable
in science) the high degree of predictive value that this hypothesis
carries is in fact very useful. That is what science is all about.
> So you are denying your own assertions.
You don't seem to understand how science works, that science does not
require 100% certainty to be useful. Science is about being able to
predict the future to at least some degree of usefulness despite one's
limited knowledge base.
> > > > In other words, the phenomenon in question must go
> > > > beyond what any other possible cause has ever even come close to
> > > > achieving before you can reasonably hypothesize human design.
> > >
> > > The *only* way we can infer that it was designed is by looking for
> > > signs of how it was manufactured.
> >
> > One need not know anything about how a given phenomenon was produced or
> > manufactured to be able to detect design. The polished granite cube on
> > my desk could have been manifactured in many different ways.
>
> Quite so. But unless it shows evidence of manufacture in some way, you
> have no way of knowing that it was designed.
Everything was "manufactured" in some way - either by deliberate or
non-deliberate processes. You don't need to know how it was done in
order to know that the forces behind whatever manufactured a particular
object where most likely intelligent and deliberate. You don't need to
know how the granite cube was formed into a perfectly symmetrical
polished cube (there are many ways to do this) to know that however it
was done, it was done deliberately.
< snip much repetition of the above statement >
> > It just isn't likely is all.
>
> How do you know how likely it is unless you can form an hyothesis about
> how it was made?
Because of the value of the hypothesis dealing with how it wasn't made.
When you rule out, to a high degree of statistical significance, that
mindless processes most likely did not produce a given phenomenon,
then, by default, you are left with the hypothesis of mindful
deliberate design. There simply is no viable third option. At this
point, the design hypothesis does indeed carry with it a very high
degree of predictive value.
It is like flipping a coin. If you accept that the coin in question has
only two sides, heads and tails, and you are able to determine that the
side facing up is not heads to a high degree of predictive value, what
side is most likely facing up? If I hypothesize that the side facing
up is tails, given that it probably isn't heads, how much predictive
value does my hypothesis carry? - How about the same degree of
predictive value that I obtained to hypothesize that the side facing up
isn't heads?
< snip >
> > Even if you saw such a granite cube on an alien planet, you would
> > know it was designed by some sort of deliberate process. You would not
> > automatically assume a mindless cause.
>
> A scientist would not automatically assume *any* cause. He would study
> the object, and look for clues about how it was made, form testable
> hypotheses based on these clues and test those hypotheses against the
> evidence.
>
> It is possible that the conclusion of such a study would be "I don't
> know how this object was made". Unless there is some indication of
> manufacture, there would be no reason to assume it was designed.
Even though you or I might conclude that we don't really know for sure
how the polished granite cube was made, would could reasonably
hypothesize many ways to make it - just that non of our hypothesized
ways would include any non-deliberate ways. All of the reasonable ways
we would come up with would include intelligent design. Therefore,
regardless of how the granite cube was actually made, we can reasonably
conclude that it was most likely designed in a very deliberate way.
So, you see, identity and methods need not be known to determine an
intelligent origin.
> > > It may have been
> > > designed by little green men from Mars.
> >
> > Exactly my point.
>
> The point I was making is that without evidence of how this object was
> created, either manufacured by the little green men from Mars or the
> outcome of some natural process such as weathering, no scientist could
> form the conclusion that it was designed.
Not true. If you or I or any other scientist (via land rover or
whatever) found a polished granite cube on Mars, as I've described it
(with the geometric forms on each face) it would be clear evidence to
*almost* everyone that clear evidence of alien intelligence had been
discovered. There would be no need to determine how the granite cube
was actually formed in order for this conclusion to be reasonably
reached by all.
> In science one cannot reach conclusions without evidence and argument.
That's right. The evidence is that the polished cube is indeed granite
and the argument is that no known mindless process can reasonably be
presented to explain its origin. Therefore, such a granite cube might
reasonably have been designed. There simply are no other viable
options. Therefore this design hypothesis for the granite cube would
indeed carry with it a high degree of predictive value - just as high a
degree of value as one's ability to show that no mindless process is
capable of achieving such a granite form (which is pretty high).
< snip more assertions that scientists need to know all possible
causes before hypotheses can achieve high statistical value >
> > > > No true. I only assume that high levels of function complexity require
> > > > a designer because no non-deliberate process even comes close to
> > > > producing such levels of functional complexity.
> > >
> > > That is a circular argument.
> > >
> > > You are asserting that "deliberate processes" must be responsible for
> > > the enormous complexity of living organisms because only
> > > "non-deliberate processes" can produce such complexity.
> >
> > Read what I said again. I said that *no* non-deliberate process comes
> > even close to producing such levels of *functional* complexity.
> >
>
> How can you know that?
> Whether you like it or not, it is a circular argument. Your assertion
> is that only non-deliberate processes can produce such complexity, but
> have failed to demonstrate that this is the case.
Again, read what I actually wrote and highlighted for you. Didn't you
see the word "no"? Again, it is my assertion that *no* non-deliberate
processes can produce polished granite cubes or the high levels of
functional complexity that we see in living things. You are trying to
say that I claim just the opposite? - that *only* non-deliberate
processes can produce such complexity? Clearly, that's not my position
at all.
> Even if you could exclude evolution by small incremental steps, it
> would not support your assertion that the only possible alternative is
> "non-deliberate processes".
If I could exclude evolution by small incremental steps at higher
levels of functional complexity, it most certainly would exclude all
known non-deliberate possibilities for the existence of higher-level
functions. Darwinian-style evolution would certainly be out the window,
leaving no other viable non-deliberate alternative. The only hypothesis
with any reasonable statistical value left would be the hypothesis of
"deliberate processes".
(Again, note that the only reasonable possible alternative is
*deliberate*, not non-deliberate, processes)
> We cannot know all possible causes.
Science never does.
>
> > > It is the logical falacy of presuming the consequent.
> > >
> > > The crux of your argument is the assertion that only "deliberate
> > > processes" can produce high levels of complexity. You can't use the
> > > fact of such complexity to support your assertion.
> >
> > Sure you can - as long as you can adequately show that no
> > non-deliberate cause even comes close to being able to produce a
> > particular phenomenon. this is what the scientific method does.
>
> The scientific method does *NOT* say that if an hypothesis is
> falsified, the only possible alternative explanation is a completely
> different hypothesis.
It does if there is no viable third alternative. If you effectively
rule out the possibility of non-deliberate causes, this coin has only
one other side - i.e., deliberate causes. Do you know of any other
option besides deliberate and non-deliberate causes? Pretty much
covers all the options doesn't it? ; )
< snip >
>
> Does the fact that you have snipped the rest mean that you conceede the
> points I make?
Nice try ; )
Usually though, it means that either I ran out of time or I got bored
with responding to repetitive statements. I think both came into play .
. .
< snip >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net
Seanpit wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
> > Seanpit wrote:
> > > Richard Forrest wrote:
> > >
> > > < snip >
> > >
> > > > > You have to know
> > > > > that no other possible cause is likely to have given rise to the given
> > > > > phenomenon as well.
> > > >
> > > > No you don't, because you can't know all other possible causes.
> > >
> > > You don't have to know about all possible causes to have a usable
> > > hypothesis. Science isn't about absolute knowledge of all
> > > possibilities. It is about predictive value while not knowing anything
> > > with 100% confidence - don't you know?
> >
> > You claim that it is possible to exclude any cause other than the
> > intervention of an intelligent designer.
>
> Not quite. What I am saying is that one can hypothesize that there is
> no mindless process that can produce a given phenomenon with a very
> high degree of predictive value. Once this is done, there is only one
> other viable alternative hypothesis - Intelligent Design.
Here are three possibilities (1) life evolved by a random walk of amino
acid/DNA/RNA sequences through sequence space (2) life evolved some
other way (3) life was designed by an unspecified designer with
unspecified motives and unlimited powers.
I think (1) pretty unlikely, as do evolutionary biologists to the last
man or woman. I think (3) is, scientifically, a cop-out. My money's on
(2).
<snip ,pst everything else> < snip >
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
wf3h
Seanpit wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
> > >
> > You claim that it is possible to exclude any cause other than the
> > intervention of an intelligent designer.
>
> Not quite. What I am saying is that one can hypothesize that there is
> no mindless process that can produce a given phenomenon with a very
> high degree of predictive value. Once this is done, there is only one
> other viable alternative hypothesis - Intelligent Design.
except, of course, for an unknown natural cause. and ID is ruled out
simply because such a 'designer', without a mechanism FOR the
design...is special pleading. it's based on 'negative evidence'...the
idea that the current theory (science) can't explain something, so
non-science must step in.
and, naturally, so to speak, there is the idea that an event has NO
cause. if you're engaged in special pleading, the uncaused event is
always a possibility.
>
> For example, it is possible for someone to win the California Lottery 5
> times in a row - but it is very very unlikely. If it ever happened, you
> can bet most people would begin to wonder if the whole thing was
> deliberately rigged. How do you think those who run the casinos in Las
> Vegas got so good at catching cheaters? They look for patterns that go
> significantly against the odds of how a particular game usually works.
> Anything that goes significantly beyond the "norm" of how the numbers
> usually work for a particular game sends up a red flag. It is a sign of
> bias and likely design. They don't need to know how the person is
> actually cheating in order to detect deliberate manipulation of the
> game.
amazing enough we know how to fix lotteries. it can be done. we know
the mechanisms. and none...not a single mechanism...invokes the use of
magic, superstition, special pleading, etc.
> >
> > You are the one claiming to know all possible causes.
>
> Given our current knowledge base about granite and how mindless
> processes affect granite, we can know, with a very high degree of
> predictive value, that such non-deliberate processes never produce
> perfectly symmetrical polished granite cubes.
and how does one polish granite WITHOUT the use of natural forces?
evolution is a natural process. saying that it can't account for
something and therefore NON natural processes were involved is
identical to saying that you can polish granite by THINKING about it.
This leaves only ID as a
> viable hypothesis and this ID hypothesis does in fact carry with it a
> very high degree of predictive value.
in fact, ID can explain anything. it can explain why my tire went flat
on Friday. Nail? nope. ID. Why did someone get sick? germs? nope. ID.
etc etc.
that's why it's not science.
>
> You don't seem to understand how science works, that science does not
> require 100% certainty to be useful. Science is about being able to
> predict the future to at least some degree of usefulness despite one's
> limited knowledge base.
and it is based on natural laws. such as electromagnetism.
thermodynamics...evolution...
> >
> Everything was "manufactured" in some way - either by deliberate or
> non-deliberate processes. You don't need to know how it was done in
> order to know that the forces behind whatever manufactured a particular
> object where most likely intelligent and deliberate.
which is, by definition, not science. science is ONLY about "FORCES".
period. that's what science DOES. saying that 'design' was behind
something is to say nothing at all.
You don't need to
> know how the granite cube was formed into a perfectly symmetrical
> polished cube (there are many ways to do this) to know that however it
> was done, it was done deliberately.
irrelevant. this is irrelevant to science. without saying HOW it was
done, it's simply not science.
>
> Because of the value of the hypothesis dealing with how it wasn't made.
> When you rule out, to a high degree of statistical significance, that
> mindless processes most likely did not produce a given phenomenon,
> then, by default, you are left with the hypothesis of mindful
> deliberate design. There simply is no viable third option. At this
> point, the design hypothesis does indeed carry with it a very high
> degree of predictive value.
uh, no.
this is begging the question. just because you can't EXPLAIN something
does NOT mean you're free to propose ANY explanation at all.
what design says is this:
1. evolution can't explain certain phenomena.
2. intelligent design cant explain it either, BUT
3. ID uses god not to explain events
that's no explanation...that's magic.
> >
> Even though you or I might conclude that we don't really know for sure
> how the polished granite cube was made, would could reasonably
> hypothesize many ways to make it - just that non of our hypothesized
> ways would include any non-deliberate ways.
no it wouldn't. if YOU can use intelligent design, then i can use magic
why? this is why
ID explains nothing as I pointed out above. if YOU are saying YOU don't
have to explain how something happens, then ANY explanation is
reasonable and acceptable, including magic.
All of the reasonable ways
> we would come up with would include intelligent design. Therefore,
> regardless of how the granite cube was actually made,
'other than that, mrs. lincoln, how did you like the play'?
the 'minor' detail that he so causally dismisses by saying 'regardless'
is the raison d'etre of science. that's what science DOES...it explains
HOW. that's why evolution IS science and ID is not.
>
> So, you see, identity and methods need not be known to determine an
> intelligent origin.
irrelevant. again, we have never seen intelligent create universes. we
dont know how an intelligence would do that.
there is little difference between saying that we dont know HOW an
intelligence COULD create something that we can not even in PRINCIPLE
begin to imagine a cause for and saying it's irrelevant to HOW that
something was created.
IOW with universes, species, etc., we have NEVER seen an intelligence
do anything LIKE that that did NOT involve NATURAL forces. ever. not
once. not a single time
yet creationists say it happens ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE. their
explanation was the ONLY explanation BEFORE science existed, but they
want another chance.
why? what good would it do?
> >
> Not true. If you or I or any other scientist (via land rover or
> whatever) found a polished granite cube on Mars, as I've described it
> (with the geometric forms on each face) it would be clear evidence to
> *almost* everyone that clear evidence of alien intelligence had been
> discovered. There would be no need to determine how the granite cube
> was actually formed in order for this conclusion to be reasonably
> reached by all.
and yet no one would doubt for a single second that natural forces were
involved in the making of the cube...
the very principle denied by intelligent design which, BY DEFINITION,
excludes natural processes and laws from its basis for existing.
> >
> Again, read what I actually wrote and highlighted for you. Didn't you
> see the word "no"? Again, it is my assertion that *no* non-deliberate
> processes can produce polished granite cubes or the high levels of
> functional complexity that we see in living things.
and here is the FATAL weakness in his OWN argument by his OWN words.
he uses the term 'processes'. a process is a sequence of operations
used to make something.
he ADMITS processes are used by intelligent designers to produce
something. yet he asserts these processes are NOT natural...because he
excludes evolution or ANY natural process
so HOW does he KNOW something was intelligently designed via the use of
PROCESSES if he excludes NATURAL processes? because those are the ONLY
kinds of processes we have EVER seen.
so even HE can't think of an event coming into being without the use of
'processes'. and NO process is EVER non-natural.
the major difference between science and seanpit's metaphysics is that
SCIENCE deals with MECHANISMS and THEOLOGY deals with INFERENCES and
PURPOSE.
seanpit keeps trying to sneak the camel's nose of INFERENCE into the
tent as a substitute for MECHANISM. and that is just NOT science. not a
bit. he is trying to REPLACE mechanism, saying it's not necessary,
since INFERENCE can take its place.
and that is nonsense. if he can so cavalierly dismiss natural causes,
then we can safely assume intelligent design is without merit, since NO
designer uses anything BUT natural causes.
And INFERENCE is NOT a replacement for MECHANISMS
rupert....@gmail.com
Seanpit wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
> > Seanpit wrote:
> > > Richard Forrest wrote:
> > >
> > > < snip >
> > >
> > > > > You have to know
> > > > > that no other possible cause is likely to have given rise to the given
> > > > > phenomenon as well.
> > > >
> > > > No you don't, because you can't know all other possible causes.
> > >
> > > You don't have to know about all possible causes to have a usable
> > > hypothesis. Science isn't about absolute knowledge of all
> > > possibilities. It is about predictive value while not knowing anything
> > > with 100% confidence - don't you know?
> >
> > You claim that it is possible to exclude any cause other than the
> > intervention of an intelligent designer.
>
> Not quite. What I am saying is that one can hypothesize that there is
> no mindless process that can produce a given phenomenon with a very
> high degree of predictive value. Once this is done, there is only one
> other viable alternative hypothesis - Intelligent Design.
>
> For example, it is possible for someone to win the California Lottery 5
> times in a row - but it is very very unlikely.
Not if I can pass a copy of the winning ticket to my children. If most
of the ticket buyers in week 2 have a copy of the ticket that won in
week 1, how does that change yor calculation?
Just because it's unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible. Most specific
things that happen are unlikely, which is why Complex Specified
Information is so misleading.
Consider your own conception. A priori, each non-defective sperm has
about a 10^-8 chance of fertilizing the egg. Does this mean that
conception is impossible? Obviously not. In the last 5 generations
alone, you are the combination of 31 (or slightly fewer depending on
inbreeding) conception events, with a combined probability of 10^-248,
well below Dembski's "universal probability threshhold". Thus,
according to Dembski, you are designed. How did your
great-great-great-grandparents manage that? Did they all know each
other?
[snip the rest]
Bobby D. Bryant
> Not quite. What I am saying is that one can hypothesize that there
> is no mindless process that can produce a given phenomenon with a
> very high degree of predictive value. Once this is done, there is
> only one other viable alternative hypothesis - Intelligent Design.
Only if you define "mindless" and "Intelligent Design" as exact antonyms.
You can claim "A or not A", but in the general case you can't claim
"A or B", even if B is _similar_ to ~A.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Richard Forrest
Seanpit wrote:
> >
> > You claim that it is possible to exclude any cause other than the
> > intervention of an intelligent designer.
>
> Not quite. What I am saying is that one can hypothesize that there is
> no mindless process that can produce a given phenomenon with a very
> high degree of predictive value.
How can you predict what an unknown process can produce?
> Once this is done, there is only one
> other viable alternative hypothesis - Intelligent Design.
Why? You can *NOT* know all the possible ways in which such as system
can be produced.
>
> For example, it is possible for someone to win the California Lottery 5
> times in a row - but it is very very unlikely. If it ever happened, you
> can bet most people would begin to wonder if the whole thing was
> deliberately rigged. How do you think those who run the casinos in Las
> Vegas got so good at catching cheaters? They look for patterns that go
> significantly against the odds of how a particular game usually works.
> Anything that goes significantly beyond the "norm" of how the numbers
> usually work for a particular game sends up a red flag. It is a sign of
> bias and possibly deliberate design. They don't need to know how the
> person is actually cheating in order to detect deliberate manipulation
> of the game.
Why on earth is this relevant? We know how the lottery works, and
because we know how it works we can surmise that if something so
unlikely happens, there has been tampering with the mechanism.
If evolution by small incremental steps can't produce a system, all we
know is that evolution by small incremental steps can't produce a
system. We can't make any assumptions about what other mechanism might
produce such a system unless we can test our hypothesis of how it's
produced against the evidence.
>
> The very same thing is true of a polished granite cube. Such a shape
> and structure is never seen in granite objects that are thought to have
> arisen via purely non-deliberate processes. You argue that some as yet
> unknown mindless process could possibly produce such a granite cube.
> But, I'm sure you really don't believe in the likelihood of such a
> process. Like me, I'm sure that if you found such a cube, even on an
> alien planet, that you would certainly start thinking about intelligent
> design - even without any knowledge about the identify or mechanisms of
> the designers.
Your beloved granite cube is, as has been pointed out by other posters,
completely irrelevant to the argument. However, if we found a granite
cube, we could not assume that it was designed unless we had some
evidence to support that hypothesis. If an unknown process produced
this granite cube, there is no way of working out the probabilty of its
production. One cannot assign a probability to an unknown process.
>
> > You are the one claiming to know all possible causes.
>
> The scientific method would not be needed if all possibilities were
> already known.
There would be no science if all causes were known.
> Science is useful as a predictive tool because we don't
> know everything. Science helps us function and successfully predict
> things based on what little we do know. That is why science need not be
> based on 100% knowledge or accuracy. Science only tells us about what
> is most likely given our current knowledge base.
>
What science tells us is what is consitent with our theories of how the
universe functions. It does not asign probabilities to unknown
mechanisms.
> Given our current knowledge base about granite and how mindless
> processes affect granite, we can know, with a very high degree of
> predictive value, that such non-deliberate processes never produce
> perfectly symmetrical polished granite cubes.
Unless we know all "natural processes" - which we can't - there is no
way in which we can assign a probabilty to the production of the cube
by natural processes.
One cannot assign a probabilty to an unknown process.
> This leaves only ID as a
> viable hypothesis and this ID hypothesis does in fact carry with it a
> very high degree of predictive value.
Why does it leave ID as the only viable hypothesis?
ID is not a hypothesis. It can't be tested and makes no predictions?
When faced with the unknown, science does not invoke the intervention
of the supernatural.
> Though never 100% (not achievable
> in science) the high degree of predictive value that this hypothesis
> carries is in fact very useful. That is what science is all about.
>
Science is *NOT* about asserting hypotheses which cannot be tested.
Furthermore, ID makes no predictions whatsoever.
> > So you are denying your own assertions.
>
> You don't seem to understand how science works, that science does not
> require 100% certainty to be useful. Science is about being able to
> predict the future to at least some degree of usefulness despite one's
> limited knowledge base.
I *do* know how science works.
Science does not invoke the intervention of an unknown but possibly
supernatural "intelligent designer" if an hypothesis is falsifed.
Science advances by testing hypotheses, and ID is not an hypothesis. It
can explain anything, but predicts nothing.
>
> > > > In other words, the phenomenon in question must go
> > > > beyond what any other possible cause has ever even come close to
> > > > achieving before you can reasonably hypothesize human design.
> > >
> > > The *only* way we can infer that it was designed is by looking for
> > > signs of how it was manufactured.
> > >
> > One need not know anything about how a given phenomenon was produced or
> > manufactured to be able to detect design. The polished granite cube on
> > my desk could have been manifactured in many different ways.
> >
> > Quite so. But unless it shows evidence of manufacture in some way, you
> > have no way of knowing that it was designed.
>
> Everything was "manufactured" in some way - either by deliberate or
> non-deliberate processes. You don't need to know how it was done in
> order to know that the forces behind whatever manufactured a particular
> object where most likely intelligent and deliberate.
Of course you do, because otherwise you have no hypthesis to test. If
you are asserting that an "intelligent designer" made it, you need to
hypothesise *how* it was made.
> You don't need to
> know how the granite cube was formed into a perfectly symmetrical
> polished cube (there are many ways to do this) to know that however it
> was done, it was done deliberately.
>
If the cube was produced by an unknown process, how on earth can one
conclude that it was made deliberately?
> < snip much repetition of the above statement >
>
> > It just isn't likely is all.
> >
> > How do you know how likely it is unless you can form an hyothesis about
> > how it was made?
>
> Because of the value of the hypothesis dealing with how it wasn't made.
You can't form an hypothesis about something which didn't happen!
I assert that your cube was formed by a natural process which we
haven't discovered yet. I call it "krumplerping".
Now prove to me that krumplerping is not responsible for the creation
of your cube.
> When you rule out, to a high degree of statistical significance, that
> mindless processes most likely did not produce a given phenomenon,
What is the statistical probability the krumplerping produced the cube?
> then, by default, you are left with the hypothesis of mindful
> deliberate design.
There are no "default hypotheses" in science.
Period.
> There simply is no viable third option.
Yes there is. It's krumplerping.
> At this
> point, the design hypothesis does indeed carry with it a very high
> degree of predictive value.
Then give me a prediction made by ID.
I'm not asking for a potential falsification of evolutionary theory.
I'm asking for a prediction made by your "hypothesis".
Asserting that evolution could not have produced a structure does not
offer support for ID.
>
> It is like flipping a coin. If you accept that the coin in question has
> only two sides, heads and tails, and you are able to determine that the
> side facing up is not heads to a high degree of predictive value, what
> side is most likely facing up? If I hypothesize that the side facing
> up is tails, given that it probably isn't heads, how much predictive
> value does my hypothesis carry? - How about the same degree of
> predictive value that I obtained to hypothesize that the side facing up
> isn't heads?
Why this utter irrelevance? We are not dealing with coins. This is not
an either/or situation.
>
> < snip >
>
>
> > Even if you saw such a granite cube on an alien planet, you would
> > know it was designed by some sort of deliberate process. You would not
> > automatically assume a mindless cause.
> >
> > A scientist would not automatically assume *any* cause. He would study
> > the object, and look for clues about how it was made, form testable
> > hypotheses based on these clues and test those hypotheses against the
> > evidence.
> >
> > It is possible that the conclusion of such a study would be "I don't
> > know how this object was made". Unless there is some indication of
> > manufacture, there would be no reason to assume it was designed.
>
> Even though you or I might conclude that we don't really know for sure
> how the polished granite cube was made, would could reasonably
> hypothesize many ways to make it - just that non of our hypothesized
> ways would include any non-deliberate ways.
We could reasonably form any number of hypotheses of how it was made,
but unless there was evidence to support at least one of those
hypotheses, we could only conclude that we don't know how it was made.
I say that the cube was produced by a perfectly natural but unknown
process.
Now tell me what is the probabilty of that unknown process being
responsible for producing the cube.
> All of the reasonable ways
> we would come up with would include intelligent design. Therefore,
> regardless of how the granite cube was actually made, we can reasonably
> conclude that it was most likely designed in a very deliberate way.
>
We could surmise, but we couldn't conclude. Not if this is supposed to
be science. Without evidence of how the cube was made, and an
hypothesis which can be tested against the evidence, we can only
conclude that we don't know.
> So, you see, identity and methods need not be known to determine an
> intelligent origin.
No, I don't see.
You have failed to make a case.
ID is not the default position for science when we don't know.
In science, when we don't know, we conclude that we don't know.
>
> > > It may have been
> > > designed by little green men from Mars.
> > >
> > Exactly my point.
> >
> > The point I was making is that without evidence of how this object was
> > created, either manufacured by the little green men from Mars or the
> > outcome of some natural process such as weathering, no scientist could
> > form the conclusion that it was designed.
>
> Not true. If you or I or any other scientist (via land rover or
> whatever) found a polished granite cube on Mars, as I've described it
> (with the geometric forms on each face) it would be clear evidence to
> *almost* everyone that clear evidence of alien intelligence had been
> discovered.
In the tabloid press perhaps, but not to scientists.
I presume that we are talking about science, not the tabloid press.
> There would be no need to determine how the granite cube
> was actually formed in order for this conclusion to be reasonably
> reached by all.
Unless one could determine how the cube was made, we could most
certainly *NOT* reach such a conclusion.
>
> > In science one cannot reach conclusions without evidence and argument.
>
> That's right. The evidence is that the polished cube is indeed granite
> and the argument is that no known mindless process can reasonably be
> presented to explain its origin.
That is not an argument. It it an unfounded assertion.
> Therefore, such a granite cube might
> reasonably have been designed.
Perhaps, but such an assumption carries no weight as science.
> There simply are no other viable
> options.
Yes there are. There is the option that an unknown but natural process
produced the cube.
One *cannot* know all possible options.
> Therefore this design hypothesis for the granite cube would
> indeed carry with it a high degree of predictive value -
What on earth is the "predictive value" of asserting that something was
"designed"?
>just as high a
> degree of value as one's ability to show that no mindless process is
> capable of achieving such a granite form (which is pretty high).
>
> < snip more assertions that scientists need to know all possible
> causes before hypotheses can achieve high statistical value >
Are you saying that one can ascribe probabilties to undefined
mechanisms?
How?
What is the probability that krumplerping produced your cube?
>
> > > > No true. I only assume that high levels of function complexity require
> > > > a designer because no non-deliberate process even comes close to
> > > > producing such levels of functional complexity.
> > >
> > > That is a circular argument.
> > >
> > > You are asserting that "deliberate processes" must be responsible for
> > > the enormous complexity of living organisms because only
> > > "non-deliberate processes" can produce such complexity.
> > >
> > Read what I said again. I said that *no* non-deliberate process comes
> > even close to producing such levels of *functional* complexity.
> > >
> >
> > How can you know that?
> > Whether you like it or not, it is a circular argument. Your assertion
> > is that only non-deliberate processes can produce such complexity, but
> > have failed to demonstrate that this is the case.
>
> Again, read what I actually wrote and highlighted for you. Didn't you
> see the word "no"? Again, it is my assertion that *no* non-deliberate
> processes can produce polished granite cubes or the high levels of
> functional complexity that we see in living things.
Quite so. It is your *assertion*.
That is not an hypothesis, and can only be tested by a knowledge of
*all* possible "non-deliberate" processes.
> You are trying to
> say that I claim just the opposite? - that *only* non-deliberate
> processes can produce such complexity? Clearly, that's not my position
> at all.
That *IS* your position.
You make the assertion that "specified complexity" - a term for which
neither you nor anyone else has provided a meaningful measure - can
only be produced by the intervention of an "intelligent designer"
So tell me: what is the measure of the "specified complexity" of your
granite cube?
How does it compare in "specified complexity" with a pebble from a
stream bed?
How do I measure the "specified complexity" of a brick? An atom? The
Eifel Tower? George Clooney? An ant? A virus? The fossil ichthyosaur
vertebra I have sitting in my dsk?
At what level in the scale of "specified complexity" does it become
statistically impossible for "non-deliberate" processes to be a
reasonable explanation?
>
> > Even if you could exclude evolution by small incremental steps, it
> > would not support your assertion that the only possible alternative is
> > "non-deliberate processes".
>
> If I could exclude evolution by small incremental steps at higher
> levels of functional complexity, it most certainly would exclude all
> known non-deliberate possibilities for the existence of higher-level
> functions.
How can you? You do not know all possible causes.
> Darwinian-style evolution would certainly be out the window,
> leaving no other viable non-deliberate alternative.
Why? You do not know all possible causes.
> The only hypothesis
> with any reasonable statistical value left would be the hypothesis of
> "deliberate processes".
That is not an hyptheses. It is an unfounded assertion.
>
> (Again, note that the only reasonable possible alternative is
> *deliberate*, not non-deliberate, processes)
How can that be a reasonable assumption if you do not know all possible
causes?
>
> > We cannot know all possible causes.
>
> Science never does.
Quite so. That is why science says "I don't know" when it doesn't know
the cause.
What science does *NOT* say is "if I don't know, let's change the
fundamental paradigm of all science and invoke the intervention of
unknown but probably supernatural causes."
>
> >
> > > It is the logical falacy of presuming the consequent.
> > >
> > > The crux of your argument is the assertion that only "deliberate
> > > processes" can produce high levels of complexity. You can't use the
> > > fact of such complexity to support your assertion.
> > >
> > Sure you can - as long as you can adequately show that no
> > non-deliberate cause even comes close to being able to produce a
> > particular phenomenon. this is what the scientific method does.
> >
> > The scientific method does *NOT* say that if an hypothesis is
> > falsified, the only possible alternative explanation is a completely
> > different hypothesis.
>
> It does if there is no viable third alternative.
Well, perhaps you can give me an example from any field in any science
in which the falsification of one hypothesis was taken as support for
another hypotheses which has no support whatsoever from the evidence.
Quite simply, you are wrong.
There is no default hypothesis in science.
> If you effectively
> rule out the possibility of non-deliberate causes, this coin has only
> one other side - i.e., deliberate causes. Do you know of any other
> option besides deliberate and non-deliberate causes? Pretty much
> covers all the options doesn't it? ; )
No it doesn't.
This is not an either/or situation.
>
> < snip >
>
> >
> > Does the fact that you have snipped the rest mean that you conceede the
> > points I make?
>
> Nice try ; )
>
> Usually though, it means that either I ran out of time or I got bored
> with responding to repetitive statements. I think both came into play .
> . .
Well evidently you don't like my conclusions
In science, you look for evidence which can be tested against an
hypothesis of how
the object was made. Unless you can, you don't know.
Scientists often say "I don't know". It's what makes science
interesting. If we knew everything, what would be the point of science?
The one thing that scientists *don't* say after saying "I don't know"
is "in that case an intelligent designer must be responsible, so I
won't speculate any further or try to find out anything about the
intelligent designer".
RF
Woland
The probability of getting any one bridge hand is 52C13, which works
out to be 3.350135596 X 10^11. This probability is far too low to be
random therefor I propose that wood sprites are responsible for all
bridge hands.
Ken Shackleton
Seanpit wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
> > Seanpit wrote:
> > > Richard Forrest wrote:
> > >
> > > < snip >
> > >
> > > > > You have to know
> > > > > that no other possible cause is likely to have given rise to the given
> > > > > phenomenon as well.
> > > >
> > > > No you don't, because you can't know all other possible causes.
> > >
> > > You don't have to know about all possible causes to have a usable
> > > hypothesis. Science isn't about absolute knowledge of all
> > > possibilities. It is about predictive value while not knowing anything
> > > with 100% confidence - don't you know?
> >
> > You claim that it is possible to exclude any cause other than the
> > intervention of an intelligent designer.
>
> Not quite. What I am saying is that one can hypothesize that there is
> no mindless process that can produce a given phenomenon with a very
> high degree of predictive value. Once this is done, there is only one
> other viable alternative hypothesis - Intelligent Design.
It strikes me that one of the best examples of a mindless process is
the process by which Intelligent Design was conceived and is currently
being promoted.
Richard Forrest
Ken Shackleton wrote:
>
> It strikes me that one of the best examples of a mindless process is
> the process by which Intelligent Design was conceived and is currently
> being promoted.
>
I disagree rather strongly with this statement.
The process by which ID was conceived and is currently promoted is very
clever. It is carefully designed to have maximum apeal to a population
generally rather poorly educated in science, and with a high level of
commitment to religious beliefs.
The fact that it is scientifically illiterate, and that the image of
scientific validity is no more than a clever illusion is irrelevant. It
has convinced many people that it is genuine science.
Just because the movement is fundamentally dishonest does not make it
stupid. To carry out a successful scam on this scale requires
intelligence. It doesn't require any integrity.
RF
Ken Shackleton
Richard Forrest wrote:
> Ken Shackleton wrote:
> >
> > It strikes me that one of the best examples of a mindless process is
> > the process by which Intelligent Design was conceived and is currently
> > being promoted.
> >
>
>
> I disagree rather strongly with this statement.
You are right....I didn't think it through very well before pressing
"Post Message".
I guess what I was thinking was that ID does little but turn off the
mind. I keep reading Sean talking about "mindless processes" and was
thinking that it's ID that's the mindless process.....in that it
requires one to turn it off....to not think very hard or ask too many
questions....
Sorry about the confusion.....you are absolutely correct.
sea...@naturalselection.0catch.com
Richard Forrest wrote:
< snip >
> > Given our current knowledge base about granite and how mindless
> > processes affect granite, we can know, with a very high degree of
> > predictive value, that such non-deliberate processes never produce
> > perfectly symmetrical polished granite cubes.
>
> Unless we know all "natural processes" - which we can't - there is no
> way in which we can assign a probabilty to the production of the cube
> by natural processes. One cannot assign a probabilty to an unknown
> process.
Again, science is not based on the absolute knowledge of anything. You
can actually make real useful scientific hypothesis about things for
which you do not know every possible option or outcome.
It is valid, scientifically, to hypothesize that polished granite cubes
cannot be made with any non-deliberate process. Such a hypothesis is
perfectly valid. The prediction that no non-deliberate process will
ever produce a granite cube can be tested in a falsifiable way. If any
non-deliberate process is ever found that produces even one polished
granite cube, then the hypothesis is indeed falsified. Until then, it
gains very real predictive value.
It is because of this very same scientific method that you can, with a
very high degree of accuracy, predict that the Sun will come up in the
east and set in the west tomorrow. You need not know anything about the
mechanism of how the sun does this in order to reasonably make this
prediction - with a high degree of predictive value.
In the same way, I don't have to know about all cows to reasonably
hypothesize that no cow will ever be able to jump on or over my house.
Therefore, if I ever see a cow on my house, I can very reasonably
conclude, given my knowledge about the jumping abilities of a few cows,
that this cow did not jump on my house, but got there through some
other means.
You see, knowledge about all cows is not needed before a reasonable
hypothesis about cow jumping can be created. The same is true about
mindless processes. All mindless processes need not be known in order
to make a reasonable hypothesis that no mindless process will ever
produce a perfectly symmetrical polished granite cube with geometric
shapes in the center of each face.
Your notion that one cannot make a valid negative scientific hypothesis
unless all possibilities for falsification of such a hypothesis are
known, is actually anti-science. If all possibilities for the
falsification of a negative hypothesis were already known, there would
be no need for a hypothesis or for science. It is because all the
possibilities are not known that science is necessary and the risk of
potential falsification is a real factor.
> > This leaves only ID as a
> > viable hypothesis and this ID hypothesis does in fact carry with it a
> > very high degree of predictive value.
>
> Why does it leave ID as the only viable hypothesis?
Can you think of any alternative besides non-intelligent and
intelligent processes? If you can demonstrate that non-intelligent
processes are unlikely, what else are you left with as far as what is
most likely? Why do you default to non-intelligent all the time for
every situation in which you cannot directly identify an intelligent
agent? It seems to me like you wouldn't make a very good forensic
scientist or anthropologist.
> ID is not a hypothesis. It can't be tested and makes no predictions?
ID is a valid hypothesis that does indeed make predictions that can be
tested in a falsifiable manner. I propose ID as responsible for a
polished granite cube wherever such a cube is found in the entire
universe. I predict that no non-intelligent processes will ever be
found to produce such cube. All you have to do to disprove my
hypothesis is show me a mindless process making such a granite cube.
You in fact have tried to disprove my hypothesis by referring to
crystals. In attempting to make this argument, you in fact
acknowledged, despite yourself, that my design hypothesis for the
granite cube was in fact a valid scientific hypothesis after all.
The hypothesis of a negative event (hypothesizing that something will
not happen or will not be found) is still a valid scientific
hypothesis. Such negative hypotheses are used all the time in science.
> When faced with the unknown, science does not invoke the intervention
> of the supernatural.
I'm not invoking the intervention of the supernatural. I'm invoking the
intervention of an intelligent natural agent of any kind acting in
his/her/its own natural abilities. Science also does this sort of
invocation all the time. Science is clearly able to recognized
intelligent activities. It does this by reasonably ruling out
non-intelligent possibilities to a high degree of predictive value.
< snip repletions of the same thing >
> > Everything was "manufactured" in some way - either by deliberate or
> > non-deliberate processes. You don't need to know how it was done in
> > order to know that the forces behind whatever manufactured a particular
> > object where most likely intelligent and deliberate.
>
> Of course you do, because otherwise you have no hypthesis to test. If
> you are asserting that an "intelligent designer" made it, you need to
> hypothesise *how* it was made.
Not true. There are many ways to make a polished granite cube with the
use of intelligence. There are also many ways to make an amorphous
granite rock with the use of intelligence. There are many ways to make
an amorphous granite rock with the use of non-intelligent processes.
However, there are no known or reasonably hypothsizable ways of making
a polished granite cube with any non-intelligent process. There are
only two possibilities of how this polished granite cube was made.
Either it was made with intelligent or non-intelligent processes of
some kind. There is no third option. If after considering many many
non-intelligent processes and noting that they all create pretty much
the same amorphous looking granite shapes, none coming even remotely
close to producing anything like the polished granite cube in front of
me, perhaps I should consider the potential of intelligent design?
Even I can create such a granite cube with the use of my own limited
intelligence, so I hypothesize that some intelligent agent by some
mechanism (among many reasonable possibilities) created the cube since
no non-intelligent mechanism comes even theoretically close to
producing such a cube.
> > You don't need to
> > know how the granite cube was formed into a perfectly symmetrical
> > polished cube (there are many ways to do this) to know that however it
> > was done, it was done deliberately.
> >
>
> If the cube was produced by an unknown process, how on earth can one
> conclude that it was made deliberately?
Because of what is known about non-intelligent processes. Again, you
don't have to know everything above all non-intelligent processes to
reasonably hypothesize that no non-intelligent process will be able to
made such a cube.
Remember my cow-jumping hypothesis? Was knowledge about all cows
necessary to make this hypothesis?
> > < snip much repetition of the above statement >
> >
> > > It just isn't likely is all.
> > >
> > > How do you know how likely it is unless you can form an hyothesis about
> > > how it was made?
> >
> > Because of the value of the hypothesis dealing with how it wasn't made.
>
> You can't form an hypothesis about something which didn't happen!
You most certainly can. Negative hypothesis are used all the time in
science. Figuring out how something didn't happen, to a statistical
degree of value, is very useful in science. I'm surprised that a
scientist, like you, would make this statement.
> I assert that your cube was formed by a natural process which we
> haven't discovered yet. I call it "krumplerping".
And I hypothesize that you will never find krumplerping, as a mindless
natural process, given that no other mindless process has ever come
even close to the creative abilities for your proposed mindless
krumplerping. Current evidence weighs heavily in my favor. Now, I
could be wrong and you could be right - which makes my position
falsifiable and thus a valid scientific hypothesis. Until you find some
positive evidence to the contrary, my negative hypothesis continues to
gain predictive value.
> Now prove to me that krumplerping is not responsible for the creation
> of your cube.
Again, you seem to be asking for absolute evidence/proof here. Real
science does not require absolute proof. It only requires predictive
value, which never achieves the level of absolute proof. You need to
get over this notion that science demands 100% knowledge. It doesn't.
There is in fact very good evidence that a polished granite cube was
not created via any mindless process. Therefore, the option with the
highest predictive value is the ID option. Carefully note that this
option could be wrong. But, for now, it carries with it the highest
degree of predictive value as a valid tested scientific hypothesis with
the future potential of falsification.
> > There simply is no viable third option.
>
> Yes there is. It's krumplerping.
The krumplerping hypothesis simply doesn't carry the highest degree of
predictive value. It is like saying that it is possible to find a cow
that can jump over my house since I haven't studied all cows yet.
Note, however, that this krumplerping cow jumping hypothesis is not a
valid scientific hypothesis since it cannot really be falsified short
of 100% knowledge of all cows. The same goes for your krumplerping
hypothesis for mindless processes making granite cubes. This hypothesis
cannot be falsified short of 100% knowledge of all mindless processes
in all situations. Such a hypothesis simply isn't useful since it is
practically impossible to falsify.
My hypothesis, on the other hand, that no mindless process will ever
produce such a granite cube, is much easier to falsify. A single
demonstration of a mindless process producing such a cube would falsify
my hypothesis without the need to know about all other possibilities.
This makes my hypothesis much more useful and therefore scientific than
your krumplerping hypothesis.
> > It is like flipping a coin. If you accept that the coin in question has
> > only two sides, heads and tails, and you are able to determine that the
> > side facing up is not heads to a high degree of predictive value, what
> > side is most likely facing up? If I hypothesize that the side facing
> > up is tails, given that it probably isn't heads, how much predictive
> > value does my hypothesis carry? - How about the same degree of
> > predictive value that I obtained to hypothesize that the side facing up
> > isn't heads?
>
> Why this utter irrelevance? We are not dealing with coins. This is not
> an either/or situation.
What other option is there besides intelligent vs. non-intelligent
processes? It is like the option between A and everything other than
A. There just aren't any other options - right? Krumplerping is not a
different option. Krumplerping is still a non-intelligent possibility
making it part of the either/or situation we have here.
Sure, you could argue that there just isn't enough evidence to tell if
our coin shows tails facing up by the evidence of what is facing down.
That is a possibility, but it doesn't not remove the fact that this is
indeed and either/or situation. Either one or the other is actually
true. We may not be able to determine which one is or isn't true, but
one of these two options is in fact true. In fact, even if we do find
some sort of indication that one or the other might be true, we never
find 100% confirmation this side of infinity. There is always room for
error in one's conclusions in science. But, we can often find evidence
to support a particular hypothesis to a useable level of predictive
value.
< snip >
> > All of the reasonable ways
> > we would come up with would include intelligent design. Therefore,
> > regardless of how the granite cube was actually made, we can reasonably
> > conclude that it was most likely designed in a very deliberate way.
>
> We could surmise, but we couldn't conclude.
That is what science is all about. If there is enough evidence to
"surmise" there is enough evidence to support a valid scientific
hypothesis to at least some degree of usable predictive value. Again,
100% confidence in a conclusion is never reachable in science. That's
not what science is about. Science is about predicting a future that is
never 100% knowable.
< snip >
> > > > It may have been
> > > > designed by little green men from Mars.
> > > >
> > > Exactly my point.
> > >
> > > The point I was making is that without evidence of how this object was
> > > created, either manufacured by the little green men from Mars or the
> > > outcome of some natural process such as weathering, no scientist could
> > > form the conclusion that it was designed.
> >
> > Not true. If you or I or any other scientist (via land rover or
> > whatever) found a polished granite cube on Mars, as I've described it
> > (with the geometric forms on each face) it would be clear evidence to
> > *almost* everyone that clear evidence of alien intelligence had been
> > discovered.
>
> In the tabloid press perhaps, but not to scientists.
> I presume that we are talking about science, not the tabloid press.
You're wrong. Scientists would also conclude intelligent alien activity
if such a cube was found on Mars. What do you think alien scientists
would conclude if they found one of our long forgotten satellites with
carvings of use humans on sheets of gold? What do you think SETI
scientists are looking for? There is fundamentally no difference
between such carvings and the finding of a polished granite cube as
very good evidence of intelligent activity.
> > There would be no need to determine how the granite cube
> > was actually formed in order for this conclusion to be reasonably
> > reached by all.
>
> Unless one could determine how the cube was made, we could most
> certainly *NOT* reach such a conclusion.
You're wrong. Scientists who found such a cube on Mars may never be
able to know the mechanism of how it was created, but they most
certainly would accept it as evidence that intelligent agents once
visited Mars.
> > There simply are no other viable
> > options.
>
> Yes there are. There is the option that an unknown but natural process
> produced the cube.
Yes, unknown mindless processes may have produced such a granite cube,
but such an option has very little scientific value and is therefore
not a valid option given our current knowledge. The predictive value of
the hypothesis that no mindless process creates such granite cubes is
simply much greater than your proposed non-falsifiable hypothesis.
> One *cannot* know all possible options.
That's why science is useful.
< snip more repetition of stuff already discussed >
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Kermit
sea...@naturalselection.0catch.com wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> > > Given our current knowledge base about granite and how mindless
> > > processes affect granite, we can know, with a very high degree of
> > > predictive value, that such non-deliberate processes never produce
> > > perfectly symmetrical polished granite cubes.
> >
> > Unless we know all "natural processes" - which we can't - there is no
> > way in which we can assign a probabilty to the production of the cube
> > by natural processes. One cannot assign a probabilty to an unknown
> > process.
>
> Again, science is not based on the absolute knowledge of anything. You
> can actually make real useful scientific hypothesis about things for
> which you do not know every possible option or outcome.
>
> It is valid, scientifically, to hypothesize that polished granite cubes
> cannot be made with any non-deliberate process.
Excuse me. I am a bear of very little brain, and big thoughts bother
me. Could you explain how one would test this hypothesis?
> Such a hypothesis is
> perfectly valid. The prediction that no non-deliberate process will
> ever produce a granite cube can be tested in a falsifiable way. If any
> non-deliberate process is ever found that produces even one polished
> granite cube, then the hypothesis is indeed falsified. Until then, it
> gains very real predictive value.
What is the difference between your hypothesized process and some
as-yet unobserved process? Neither are observed; neither can be tested,
neither makes predictions.
It sounds rather like a dishonest way of saying "We don't know yet".
The hypothesis "I don't know" will be falsified when the explanation is
found. But with nothing to investigate, no way to confirm, no expected
consequence which can be sought - or refuted - what does it *do*,
exactly?
What equations can be derived, what steps taken to exploit this model?
>
> It is because of this very same scientific method that you can, with a
> very high degree of accuracy, predict that the Sun will come up in the
> east and set in the west tomorrow. You need not know anything about the
> mechanism of how the sun does this in order to reasonably make this
> prediction - with a high degree of predictive value.
Except we have seen the sun rising everyday for a long time. I don't
see anything when I look at an event and have no process to explain it.
Being a bear of very little brain, I am used to not knowing so very
many things.
Perhaps you should try it.
>
> In the same way, I don't have to know about all cows to reasonably
> hypothesize that no cow will ever be able to jump on or over my house.
> Therefore, if I ever see a cow on my house, I can very reasonably
> conclude, given my knowledge about the jumping abilities of a few cows,
> that this cow did not jump on my house, but got there through some
> other means.
>
But what do you know about something if you don't know how it happened?
If I were to do actual research into ID, for instance, what would I
look for? How could I, and all the other researchers in ID <cough>
agree on what is designed? If we were to look at several organisms
independently, would we know ID when we saw it?
> You see, knowledge about all cows is not needed before a reasonable
> hypothesis about cow jumping can be created. The same is true about
> mindless processes. All mindless processes need not be known in order
> to make a reasonable hypothesis that no mindless process will ever
> produce a perfectly symmetrical polished granite cube with geometric
> shapes in the center of each face.
Really? How would this be tested? This is a different "hypothesis" from
the one you propose up there ^^^
>
> Your notion that one cannot make a valid negative scientific hypothesis
> unless all possibilities for falsification of such a hypothesis are
> known, is actually anti-science.
Funny you should mention that. Aren't you proposing that we can know
all mindless processes, and if we don't see one from the list, then it
must be mindful?
I can think of other possibilities:
1. There is a mindless process which we don't know about.
2. The data is wrong, or faked.
3. The data is not the result of a process - e.g. uncaused quantum
events.
> If all possibilities for the
> falsification of a negative hypothesis were already known, there would
> be no need for a hypothesis or for science.
Right. And here you go suggsting that it's possible to know that we
haven't overlooked anything. I'm not sure that this is possible even in
*principle.
> It is because all the
> possibilities are not known that science is necessary and the risk of
> potential falsification is a real factor.
Yes. And you offer a hypothesis which will be "valid" until *all gaps
in knowledge have been explained. Does your designer hypothesis depend
on one gap, or will you jus tpoint out that there are other gaps, as
each is explained in turn? Such a hypothesis cannot be falsified in any
practical sense of the word.
>
> > > This leaves only ID as a
> > > viable hypothesis and this ID hypothesis does in fact carry with it a
> > > very high degree of predictive value.
> >
> > Why does it leave ID as the only viable hypothesis?
>
> Can you think of any alternative besides non-intelligent and
> intelligent processes?
Yeah. We don't know enough yet to understand it.
> If you can demonstrate that non-intelligent
> processes are unlikely, what else are you left with as far as what is
> most likely?
How can you demonstrate that non-intelligent processes are unlikely?
You have to establish that the data is caused and that we have no gaps
in our imagination or knowledge.
> Why do you default to non-intelligent all the time for
> every situation in which you cannot directly identify an intelligent
> agent?
So far, th eonly intelligent behavior we have seen has been human. MAny
of the processes we did not understand in the past are not understood
to some degree, and it seems to be unintelligent processes all the way
down.
> It seems to me like you wouldn't make a very good forensic
> scientist or anthropologist.
ARe you suggesting that humans are responsible for bacterial flagella?
>
> > ID is not a hypothesis. It can't be tested and makes no predictions?
>
> ID is a valid hypothesis that does indeed make predictions that can be
> tested in a falsifiable manner. I propose ID as responsible for a
> polished granite cube wherever such a cube is found in the entire
> universe. I predict that no non-intelligent processes will ever be
> found to produce such cube. All you have to do to disprove my
> hypothesis is show me a mindless process making such a granite cube.
You hypothesis would be more inviting if you had such a cube. And I for
one would supect aliens. I hope you realize this would have little
support for your god of the evolutionary gaps.
> You in fact have tried to disprove my hypothesis by referring to
> crystals. In attempting to make this argument, you in fact
> acknowledged, despite yourself, that my design hypothesis for the
> granite cube was in fact a valid scientific hypothesis after all.
But you have no such cube.
I suggest that if we see winos morphing into black-suited agents,
shooting at terrorists who can dodge bullets, that we are living in a
virtual reality. How much time would you spend:
1. Considering the possibility that it is a true hypothesis?
2. Applying it to human evolution?
>
> The hypothesis of a negative event (hypothesizing that something will
> not happen or will not be found) is still a valid scientific
> hypothesis. Such negative hypotheses are used all the time in science.
So, if I hypothesize there is no designer, then it is true until you
come up with a designer?
>
> > When faced with the unknown, science does not invoke the intervention
> > of the supernatural.
>
> I'm not invoking the intervention of the supernatural. I'm invoking the
> intervention of an intelligent natural agent of any kind acting in
> his/her/its own natural abilities. Science also does this sort of
> invocation all the time. Science is clearly able to recognized
> intelligent activities. It does this by reasonably ruling out
> non-intelligent possibilities to a high degree of predictive value.
Well, anthropologists do this looking at broken rocks sometimes. It's
not always clear whether or not it was accidental or an early tool. But
humans make tools. I haven't heard of any physicists spending time
ruling out intelligent entities.
>
> < snip repletions of the same thing >
>
> > > Everything was "manufactured" in some way - either by deliberate or
> > > non-deliberate processes. You don't need to know how it was done in
> > > order to know that the forces behind whatever manufactured a particular
> > > object where most likely intelligent and deliberate.
> >
> > Of course you do, because otherwise you have no hypthesis to test. If
> > you are asserting that an "intelligent designer" made it, you need to
> > hypothesise *how* it was made.
>
> Not true. There are many ways to make a polished granite cube with the
> use of intelligence. There are also many ways to make an amorphous
> granite rock with the use of intelligence. There are many ways to make
> an amorphous granite rock with the use of non-intelligent processes.
> However, there are no known or reasonably hypothsizable ways of making
> a polished granite cube with any non-intelligent process. There are
> only two possibilities of how this polished granite cube was made.
> Either it was made with intelligent or non-intelligent processes of
> some kind. There is no third option.
Are ants intelligents? Computers? Whales? There are processes which are
somewhere between "rock" and "medical doctor" in intelligence. And
there are events which are uncaused.
> If after considering many many
> non-intelligent processes and noting that they all create pretty much
> the same amorphous looking granite shapes, none coming even remotely
> close to producing anything like the polished granite cube in front of
> me, perhaps I should consider the potential of intelligent design?
I probably would, for a polished cube with designs on the faces. What
does this have to do with theevolutionary process?
>
<snip>
> > how it was made?
> > >
> > > Because of the value of the hypothesis dealing with how it wasn't made.
> >
> > You can't form an hypothesis about something which didn't happen!
>
> You most certainly can. Negative hypothesis are used all the time in
> science. Figuring out how something didn't happen, to a statistical
> degree of value, is very useful in science. I'm surprised that a
> scientist, like you, would make this statement.
OK. "Nothing was ever made by any god." This hypothesis is true for all
reasonable values of "true", until you or someone else finds a
counter-example to refute it.
Keep us posted.
>
> Again, you seem to be asking for absolute evidence/proof here. Real
> science does not require absolute proof. It only requires predictive
> value, which never achieves the level of absolute proof.
OK. What does *your ID hypothesis predict? What data should we find?
What event will happen?
>
> The krumplerping hypothesis simply doesn't carry the highest degree of
> predictive value. It is like saying that it is possible to find a cow
> that can jump over my house since I haven't studied all cows yet.
Ah. But for ID, you can claim that we have thought of all processes,
and if we haven't an explanation, it must be ID. Until we figure it
out, in which case it will be the next gap which supports ID.
<snip>
> >
> > Why this utter irrelevance? We are not dealing with coins. This is not
> > an either/or situation.
>
> What other option is there besides intelligent vs. non-intelligent
> processes? It is like the option between A and everything other than
> A. There just aren't any other options - right?
Wrong. Semi-intelligent. Uncaused. We haven't thought of everything.
And I suggest that hypothestical cubes have nothing to do with
evolution. I expect that intelligence is out there somewhere.
Intelligence is one thing evolution *does. I expect to see planets with
living organisms that move; some will fly, some will have poisonous
fangs, some will use tools. But I do not have any reason to think that
human intelligence is the result of occasional meddling from a
Repugnian Blood Worm.
<snip>
>
> Sure, you could argue that there just isn't enough evidence to tell if
> our coin shows tails facing up by the evidence of what is facing down.
> That is a possibility, but it doesn't not remove the fact that this is
> indeed and either/or situation. Either one or the other is actually
> true. We may not be able to determine which one is or isn't true, but
> one of these two options is in fact true. In fact, even if we do find
> some sort of indication that one or the other might be true, we never
> find 100% confirmation this side of infinity. There is always room for
> error in one's conclusions in science. But, we can often find evidence
> to support a particular hypothesis to a useable level of predictive
> value.
It's a simple world you live in.
I remember a doctor riddle when I was a kid.
There was a traffic accident. A boy was injured and his father killed.
The boy is rushed to the hospital, where the trauma surgeon sees him
and shouts"That's my son!" How can this be?
The explanation, of course, is that the surgeon was a woman, the boy's
mother. I assure you that I delighted in baffling the adults in 1960
with that one. It wouldn't work now, though, would it?
You don't know the blinders you wear; you can't, by definition.
I studied sleight of hand when I was a kid. If that coin were in my
hand, it might not be the one you think it is. You would be making the
assumption that it's the same coin, and you would be wrong.
There is *always that which you haven't thought of, don't know about,
or aren't smart enough to understand. You *cannot rule out all natural
causes because you *cannot know what you have missed. We do not know of
anything created by gods. Until we have some examples, this will have
to be low on my own list of possibilities.
<snip>
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
Kermit
Seanpit
Kermit wrote:
< snip >
> > If after considering many many
> > non-intelligent processes and noting that they all create pretty much
> > the same amorphous looking granite shapes, none coming even remotely
> > close to producing anything like the polished granite cube in front of
> > me, perhaps I should consider the potential of intelligent design?
>
> I probably would, for a polished cube with designs on the faces. What
> does this have to do with theevolutionary process?
Why? Why would you conclude design if you found such a granite cube?
Why not conclude that some as yet unknown mindless process is more
likely to have created this cube vs. some intelligent agent? The
answer to this question has a lot to do with the ToE as well as the
theory of ID.
< snip >
> Kermit
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
john.1...@gmail.com
Seanpit wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
> > Seanpit wrote:
> > > Richard Forrest wrote:
> > >
> > > < snip >
> > >
> > > > > You have to know
> > > > > that no other possible cause is likely to have given rise to the given
> > > > > phenomenon as well.
> > > >
> > > > No you don't, because you can't know all other possible causes.
> > >
> > > You don't have to know about all possible causes to have a usable
> > > hypothesis. Science isn't about absolute knowledge of all
> > > possibilities. It is about predictive value while not knowing anything
> > > with 100% confidence - don't you know?
> >
> > You claim that it is possible to exclude any cause other than the
> > intervention of an intelligent designer.
>
> Not quite. What I am saying is that one can hypothesize that there is
> no mindless process that can produce a given phenomenon with a very
> high degree of predictive value. Once this is done, there is only one
> other viable alternative hypothesis - Intelligent Design.
You can hypothesize all you want, but if you want to have a viable
scientific
hypothesis, there is a lot of context that you need before you can
claim that
something is "designed". Actually, the term "manufactured" is more apt.
In
short, we can only determine if an object was manufactured if we know
or
have a good idea of the manufacturing process involved in making the
object.
>
> For example, it is possible for someone to win the California Lottery 5
> times in a row - but it is very very unlikely. If it ever happened, you
> can bet most people would begin to wonder if the whole thing was
> deliberately rigged.
... then they would hold an investigation to see how the wins were
accomplished.
But only if the manufacturing process were determined would the
accusation of
fraud hold up.
> How do you think those who run the casinos in Las
> Vegas got so good at catching cheaters? They look for patterns that go
> significantly against the odds of how a particular game usually works.
>
> Anything that goes significantly beyond the "norm" of how the numbers
> usually work for a particular game sends up a red flag. It is a sign of
> bias and likely design. They don't need to know how the person is
> actually cheating in order to detect deliberate manipulation of the
> game.
They may "suspect" cheating based on a pattern, but any accusation of
cheating also contains a discription of the likely way that the
cheating
was accomplished. Again, you have to know the manufacturing process.
Basically, this requires that we know a lot about what the "norm" is
before
we can even suspect that an object is manufactured, but it takes
knowledge
of the manufacturing process to say that this is what happened.
> The very same thing is true of a polished granite cube. Such a shape
> and structure is never seen in granite objects that are thought to have
> arisen via purely non-deliberate processes. You argue that some as yet
> unknown mindless process could possibly produce such a granite cube.
> But, I'm sure you really don't believe in the likelihood of such a
> process. Like me, I'm sure that if you found such a cube, even on an
> alien planet, that you would certainly start thinking about intelligent
> design - even without any knowledge about the identify or mechanisms of
> the designers.
We manufacture "polished granite cubes" all the time. We have knowledge
of a number
of such manufacturing processes.
>
> > You are the one claiming to know all possible causes.
>
> The scientific method would not be needed if all possibilities were
> already known. Science is useful as a predictive tool because we don't
> know everything. Science helps us function and successfully predict
> things based on what little we do know. That is why science need not be
> based on 100% knowledge or accuracy. Science only tells us about what
> is most likely given our current knowledge base.
Indeed, but the ID theorist has no need to do further science, because
all he/she
has to do is yell "designed' and then no hope of further knowledge is
possible.
>
> Given our current knowledge base about granite and how mindless
> processes affect granite, we can know, with a very high degree of
> predictive value, that such non-deliberate processes never produce
> perfectly symmetrical polished granite cubes. This leaves only ID as a
> viable hypothesis and this ID hypothesis does in fact carry with it a
> very high degree of predictive value. Though never 100% (not achievable
> in science) the high degree of predictive value that this hypothesis
> carries is in fact very useful. That is what science is all about.
It is our knowledge of manufacturing processes of carved and polished
stone objects
that allows us to draw the conclusion of manufacture.
>
> > So you are denying your own assertions.
>
> You don't seem to understand how science works, that science does not
> require 100% certainty to be useful. Science is about being able to
> predict the future to at least some degree of usefulness despite one's
> limited knowledge base.
Irony alert!
>
> > > > > In other words, the phenomenon in question must go
> > > > > beyond what any other possible cause has ever even come close to
> > > > > achieving before you can reasonably hypothesize human design.
> > > >
> > > > The *only* way we can infer that it was designed is by looking for
> > > > signs of how it was manufactured.
> > >
> > > One need not know anything about how a given phenomenon was produced or
> > > manufactured to be able to detect design. The polished granite cube on
> > > my desk could have been manifactured in many different ways.
> >
> > Quite so. But unless it shows evidence of manufacture in some way, you
> > have no way of knowing that it was designed.
>
> Everything was "manufactured" in some way - either by deliberate or
> non-deliberate processes. You don't need to know how it was done in
> order to know that the forces behind whatever manufactured a particular
> object where most likely intelligent and deliberate. You don't need to
> know how the granite cube was formed into a perfectly symmetrical
> polished cube (there are many ways to do this) to know that however it
> was done, it was done deliberately.
Everything originates by some way, but manufactured items are
distinguished from
nonmanufactured items, because we know the manufacturing process.
< repetition snipped>
> >
>
> Sean Pitman
-John Stockwell
Kermit
I've seen people make things like this. Is is not a big jump to think
that people or something like us might have made this imaginary cube.
Same as if I seea city on another planet.
Are you suggesting that humans created bacterial flagella?
Do you think that some things are designed by a designer, but not other
things?
>
> < snip >
>
> > Kermit
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
Kermit
sea...@naturalselection.0catch.com
john.1...@gmail.com wrote:
< snip >
> > Everything was "manufactured" in some way - either by deliberate or
> > non-deliberate processes. You don't need to know how it was done in
> > order to know that the forces behind whatever manufactured a particular
> > object where most likely intelligent and deliberate. You don't need to
> > know how the granite cube was formed into a perfectly symmetrical
> > polished cube (there are many ways to do this) to know that however it
> > was done, it was done deliberately.
>
> Everything originates by some way, but manufactured items are
> distinguished from nonmanufactured items, because we know
> the manufacturing process.
Ever heard of rocks being manufactured to look like natural rocks?
Humans can and do deliberately shape rocks to look "natural" and
unmanufactured. Yet, they are manufactured. The problem is, when you
see one of these rocks it is much harder to detect the fact that they
were in fact designed deliberately (in comparison to a polished granite
cube).
Now, why do you think that is? Is it not because mindless natural
processes can also produce such a look? Why is the designed nature of a
polished perfectly symetrical granite cube so much easier to detect?
Come on now, be honest. Is it because you automatically know who made
the cube and what process was used in its manufacture? Really? Or, is
it because of your knowledge of the limits of mindless processes when
it comes to making such granite cubes?
The only real difference between the two types of rock forms is that
one can easily be made by mindless natural processes while the other
cannot reasonable be made by any mindless process that is known or
likely to be discovered.
> -John Stockwell
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Von R. Smith
sea...@naturalselection.0catch.com wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> > > Given our current knowledge base about granite and how mindless
> > > processes affect granite, we can know, with a very high degree of
> > > predictive value, that such non-deliberate processes never produce
> > > perfectly symmetrical polished granite cubes.
> >
> > Unless we know all "natural processes" - which we can't - there is no
> > way in which we can assign a probabilty to the production of the cube
> > by natural processes. One cannot assign a probabilty to an unknown
> > process.
>
> Again, science is not based on the absolute knowledge of anything. You
> can actually make real useful scientific hypothesis about things for
> which you do not know every possible option or outcome.
Unfortunately, however, the entire basis for ID is the categorical
assertion that every other possible option or outcome is vanishingly
improbable (along with suppression of any consideration that a designer
might be similarly improbable), a claim for which you *would* need such
knowledge. Mainstream science doesn't need such absolute knowledge
precisely because it does not try to argue this way. While comparing
and eliminating possible alternatives is part of the scientific method,
it can never be the sole basis for any proposal if it is to be
considered viable; one must establish a reasonable *positive* case for
one's hypothesis. ID fails to do this largely because, by refusing to
speculate as to the nature, activity, and motives of the Designer, it
cannot even tell us what a reasonable positive case for ID would look
like.
>
> It is valid, scientifically, to hypothesize that polished granite cubes
> cannot be made with any non-deliberate process. Such a hypothesis is
> perfectly valid. The prediction that no non-deliberate process will
> ever produce a granite cube can be tested in a falsifiable way.
No, it can't. While falsifiable in principle (there is a conceivable
set of events that would motivate its rejection) there is no remotely
feasible battery of tests that would allow us to make such a
determination one way or another. It would be far more fruitful to
pursue positive evidence for a deliberate designer -unless, of course,
your designer is so vaguely-described that it could be practically
anything.
> If any
> non-deliberate process is ever found that produces even one polished
> granite cube, then the hypothesis is indeed falsified. Until then, it
> gains very real predictive value.
Only if one gives "deliberate process" a reasonably rigorous
operational definition; otherwise, such a prediction will yield only
vague hand-waving.
>
> It is because of this very same scientific method that you can, with a
> very high degree of accuracy, predict that the Sun will come up in the
> east and set in the west tomorrow. You need not know anything about the
> mechanism of how the sun does this in order to reasonably make this
> prediction - with a high degree of predictive value.
Actually, without the mechanism, all one has is the naive empirical
induction that, since the sun has always risen in the east and set in
the west in the past, it should continue to do so in the future. Not
an unreasonable conclusion, but it is precisely the sort that even
Stone-Age illiterates could make without anything remotely resembling
scientific method. What scientific method allows me to do is to move
beyond mere naive inductions and predict the circumstances under which
the sun would *stop* rising in the east and setting in the west (which,
e.g., could eventually happen were the moon's orbit different).
I suppose it is telling that you would want to present a purely
empirical conclusion (btw, when scientists tell you that your methods
are "purely empirical", that isn't a good thing) as an example of good
science, for it is essentially what ID is: we observe that humans make
things like watches and nature makes things like lumps of rock, so the
next thing we find that looks more like a watch than a lump of rock
must have been designed. There is no deeper inquiry into this naive
induction, no attempt to build an actual theory as to *why* manmade
objects might tend to resemble watches than rock-lumps, or under what
circumstances one might expect a departure from this general pattern.
>
> In the same way, I don't have to know about all cows to reasonably
> hypothesize that no cow will ever be able to jump on or over my house.
No, but I do need to know *something* that I can reasonably suppose to
be valid for all cows. I bet I can tell you a lot more about cows
than you can about the supposed Intelligent Designer.
> Therefore, if I ever see a cow on my house, I can very reasonably
> conclude, given my knowledge about the jumping abilities of a few cows,
> that this cow did not jump on my house, but got there through some
> other means.
>
> You see, knowledge about all cows is not needed before a reasonable
> hypothesis about cow jumping can be created. The same is true about
> mindless processes. All mindless processes need not be known in order
> to make a reasonable hypothesis that no mindless process will ever
> produce a perfectly symmetrical polished granite cube with geometric
> shapes in the center of each face.
I doubt that you would accept the conclusion that, because cows cannot
jump on your house, that no mammal can. Would you accept such an
hypothesis? How can you be so confident that your insight about
"mindless" processes can, in fact, be cogently generalized over all
such processes, as opposed to some subset of them? How can you be sure
that "mindless processes" are even a coherent category that share some
set of traits besides the arbitrary one that defines them?
>
> Your notion that one cannot make a valid negative scientific hypothesis
> unless all possibilities for falsification of such a hypothesis are
> known, is actually anti-science.
...and freedom is actually slavery, and ignorance is actually strength.
> If all possibilities for the
> falsification of a negative hypothesis were already known, there would
> be no need for a hypothesis or for science. It is because all the
> possibilities are not known that science is necessary and the risk of
> potential falsification is a real factor.
But, again, science rarely proceeds by simply pronouncing certain
outcomes impossible, and then declaring victory by default. If ID
cannot present any sort of *positive* case for its proposal, then it is
nothing more than an argument from incredulity.
snip rest for now.
sea...@naturalselection.0catch.com
Kermit wrote:
> Seanpit wrote:
> > Kermit wrote:
> >
> > < snip >
> >
> > > > If after considering many many
> > > > non-intelligent processes and noting that they all create pretty much
> > > > the same amorphous looking granite shapes, none coming even remotely
> > > > close to producing anything like the polished granite cube in front of
> > > > me, perhaps I should consider the potential of intelligent design?
> > >
> > > I probably would, for a polished cube with designs on the faces. What
> > > does this have to do with theevolutionary process?
> >
> > Why? Why would you conclude design if you found such a granite cube?
> > Why not conclude that some as yet unknown mindless process is more
> > likely to have created this cube vs. some intelligent agent? The
> > answer to this question has a lot to do with the ToE as well as the
> > theory of ID.
>
> I've seen people make things like this. Is is not a big jump to think
> that people or something like us might have made this imaginary cube.
> Same as if I seea city on another planet.
But you've also seen or know of people who make amorphous looking rocks
- deliberately to look "natural". Yet, you wouldn't assume intelligent
design when you see an amorphous-looking rock even though you know that
people can and do make such things - do you? If not, why not?
You see, you know that humans can and do make both types of rocks -
amorphous as well as polished granite cubes. Why then do you not
quickly assume design on the one hand, but you do on the other? Does
it really have anything at all to do with understanding the mechanism
involved? Or, does it have to do with understanding the limits of
mindless processes?
> Are you suggesting that humans created bacterial flagella?
I'm suggesting that some intelligent agent(s) created the bacterial
flagellar motility system. I don't need to know who it was or how it
was done in order to have a very good idea that high-level intelligence
was indeed involved.
> Do you think that some things are designed by a designer, but not other
> things?
Sure - I don't believe that most amorphos rocks were deliberately
designed, but I do believe that all polished granite cubes were.
> Kermit
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
sea...@naturalselection.0catch.com
That's right . . . That's exactly what I'm doing.
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net
sea...@naturalselection.0catch.com wrote:
> Kermit wrote:
> > Seanpit wrote:
> > > Kermit wrote:
> > >
> > > < snip >
> > >
>
> But you've also seen or know of people who make amorphous looking rocks
> - deliberately to look "natural". Yet, you wouldn't assume intelligent
> design when you see an amorphous-looking rock even though you know that
> people can and do make such things - do you? If not, why not?
The world is rather like the amorphous rock. God could have designed
the biological world to *look* exactly as though it arose from the
mindless operation of millions of cycles of variation and selection,
but in fact it was designed deliberately to look "natural." Really it
was designed. It only *looks* natural. Really. Just like that amorphous
looking rock made by a peculiar artist. Really. It's designed. For
sure.
neverbetter
Seanpit wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
> > Seanpit wrote:
> > > Richard Forrest wrote:
> > >
> > > < snip >
> > >
> > > > > You have to know
> > > > > that no other possible cause is likely to have given rise to the given
> > > > > phenomenon as well.
> > > >
> > > > No you don't, because you can't know all other possible causes.
> > >
> > > You don't have to know about all possible causes to have a usable
> > > hypothesis. Science isn't about absolute knowledge of all
> > > possibilities. It is about predictive value while not knowing anything
> > > with 100% confidence - don't you know?
> >
> > You claim that it is possible to exclude any cause other than the
> > intervention of an intelligent designer.
>
> Not quite. What I am saying is that one can hypothesize that there is
> no mindless process that can produce a given phenomenon with a very
> high degree of predictive value. Once this is done, there is only one
> other viable alternative hypothesis - Intelligent Design.
We can hypothesize that there is no predictable mindless process that
can produce a given phenomenon but we'd have to be able to demonstrate
that this is the case to use it as proof of Intelligent Design.
Otherwise it's just assuming the conclusion.
Anyway, it's a false dichotomy. It could be an unpredictable mindless
natural process we don't know about because it's unpredictable. Maybe
it was something that has happened just once. It could be the
manifestation of a process which is equivalent to radioactive decay
which happens randomly and the half-life is so long that we are unable
to predict it because our lifespan's too short. It could be a mindless
supernatural process. It could be a cosmic lifeforce that keeps the
balance and produces lifeforms in the process without intending any of
it. There is as much evidence for any of those alternatives as there is
evidence for the Intelligent Designer
> For example, it is possible for someone to win the California Lottery 5
> times in a row - but it is very very unlikely. If it ever happened, you
> can bet most people would begin to wonder if the whole thing was
> deliberately rigged. How do you think those who run the casinos in Las
> Vegas got so good at catching cheaters? They look for patterns that go
> significantly against the odds of how a particular game usually works.
> Anything that goes significantly beyond the "norm" of how the numbers
> usually work for a particular game sends up a red flag. It is a sign of
> bias and likely design. They don't need to know how the person is
> actually cheating in order to detect deliberate manipulation of the
> game.
There is a significant difference. We happen to have evidence that
people occasionally cheat and we know some mechanisms they use. Not so
with ID.
> The very same thing is true of a polished granite cube. Such a shape
> and structure is never seen in granite objects that are thought to have
> arisen via purely non-deliberate processes. You argue that some as yet
> unknown mindless process could possibly produce such a granite cube.
> But, I'm sure you really don't believe in the likelihood of such a
> process. Like me, I'm sure that if you found such a cube, even on an
> alien planet, that you would certainly start thinking about intelligent
> design - even without any knowledge about the identify or mechanisms of
> the designers.
Well, we have evidence that polished granite cubes are occasionally
produced by humans so it's a natural association. If I see a car
travelling in the distance I take it for granted that it was
intelligently designed and that it is driven by an intelligent agent. I
don't know for certain but it's a good prediction based on previous
experience.
What has this got to do with creating life? We have no previous
experience of life designers that I'm aware of, if you don't count
genetic engineering., and don't know what the probabilities of either
are. How probable or improbable are Intelligent Designers? I have no
idea.
> > You are the one claiming to know all possible causes.
>
> The scientific method would not be needed if all possibilities were
> already known. Science is useful as a predictive tool because we don't
> know everything. Science helps us function and successfully predict
> things based on what little we do know. That is why science need not be
> based on 100% knowledge or accuracy. Science only tells us about what
> is most likely given our current knowledge base.
>
> Given our current knowledge base about granite and how mindless
> processes affect granite, we can know, with a very high degree of
> predictive value, that such non-deliberate processes never produce
> perfectly symmetrical polished granite cubes. This leaves only ID as a
> viable hypothesis and this ID hypothesis does in fact carry with it a
> very high degree of predictive value. Though never 100% (not achievable
> in science) the high degree of predictive value that this hypothesis
> carries is in fact very useful. That is what science is all about.
Yes, as far as I'm aware our knowledge base about granite contains only
deliberately polished granite cubes, so it's a good educated guess to
say that it's likely to be deliberately made. I don't think that our
knowledge base about how lifeforms arise is sufficient to make a
similar conclusion about life, however. We have no examples which are
definitely known to be supernaturally designed, and assigning any odds
is rather arbitrary. Predictive value is not a useful concept in this
instance since we have no way to ascertain whether the prediction "ID
did it" is a true prediction, whereas we could possibly find someone
who knows how the granite cube was done or find the place where they
are made and check the equipment.
> > So you are denying your own assertions.
>
> You don't seem to understand how science works, that science does not
> require 100% certainty to be useful. Science is about being able to
> predict the future to at least some degree of usefulness despite one's
> limited knowledge base.
If we hypothesize that ID did it, what useful predictions can we make
about the future?
> > > > > In other words, the phenomenon in question must go
> > > > > beyond what any other possible cause has ever even come close to
> > > > > achieving before you can reasonably hypothesize human design.
> > > >
> > > > The *only* way we can infer that it was designed is by looking for
> > > > signs of how it was manufactured.
> > >
> > > One need not know anything about how a given phenomenon was produced or
> > > manufactured to be able to detect design. The polished granite cube on
> > > my desk could have been manifactured in many different ways.
> >
> > Quite so. But unless it shows evidence of manufacture in some way, you
> > have no way of knowing that it was designed.
>
> Everything was "manufactured" in some way - either by deliberate or
> non-deliberate processes. You don't need to know how it was done in
> order to know that the forces behind whatever manufactured a particular
> object where most likely intelligent and deliberate. You don't need to
> know how the granite cube was formed into a perfectly symmetrical
> polished cube (there are many ways to do this) to know that however it
> was done, it was done deliberately.
Know is rather a strong word in the absence of all evidence of entities
capable of doing it. I might guess, suppose and believe it and feel
justified in saying that I know if I know there are or were beings
living nearby who could do such a thing. But I if we boldly went where
it's certain that no-one's gone before and found an unexplained cube I
wouldn't say that I know how it was made until I know more. I suppose
it's a possibility that supernatural forces leave polished granite
cubes lying around but I don't know enough about them to conclude that
it's more likely than the possibility that I'm just ignorant about some
natural explanation.
> < snip much repetition of the above statement >
>
> > > It just isn't likely is all.
> >
> > How do you know how likely it is unless you can form an hyothesis about
> > how it was made?
>
> Because of the value of the hypothesis dealing with how it wasn't made.
> When you rule out, to a high degree of statistical significance, that
> mindless processes most likely did not produce a given phenomenon,
> then, by default, you are left with the hypothesis of mindful
> deliberate design. There simply is no viable third option. At this
> point, the design hypothesis does indeed carry with it a very high
> degree of predictive value.
I don't see your point. We've just assumed that it can't be
undeliberate and it must be deliberate then. How does this predict
anything at all?
> It is like flipping a coin. If you accept that the coin in question has
> only two sides, heads and tails, and you are able to determine that the
> side facing up is not heads to a high degree of predictive value, what
> side is most likely facing up? If I hypothesize that the side facing
> up is tails, given that it probably isn't heads, how much predictive
> value does my hypothesis carry? - How about the same degree of
> predictive value that I obtained to hypothesize that the side facing up
> isn't heads?
The difference is that you can check the result of your coin toss and
see if your hypothesis had predictive value. There is no coin we can
look at and see if our designed/not designed prediction was actually
true. Predictive value is meaningless.
> < snip >
>
>
> > > Even if you saw such a granite cube on an alien planet, you would
> > > know it was designed by some sort of deliberate process. You would not
> > > automatically assume a mindless cause.
> >
> > A scientist would not automatically assume *any* cause. He would study
> > the object, and look for clues about how it was made, form testable
> > hypotheses based on these clues and test those hypotheses against the
> > evidence.
> >
> > It is possible that the conclusion of such a study would be "I don't
> > know how this object was made". Unless there is some indication of
> > manufacture, there would be no reason to assume it was designed.
>
> Even though you or I might conclude that we don't really know for sure
> how the polished granite cube was made, would could reasonably
> hypothesize many ways to make it - just that non of our hypothesized
> ways would include any non-deliberate ways. All of the reasonable ways
> we would come up with would include intelligent design. Therefore,
> regardless of how the granite cube was actually made, we can reasonably
> conclude that it was most likely designed in a very deliberate way.
It's a good guess but how does it help us to determine the origins of
life? We can make inferences about granite cubes because we have
previous knowledge of designers polishing granite cubes. What previous
knowledge have we got concerning designers creating bacteria?
> So, you see, identity and methods need not be known to determine an
> intelligent origin.
We are using evidence of creatures known to have done similar things
previously and using inductive reasoning to assume that this case is
similar, as in the casino cheating example. In the absence of such
evidence we are just guessing.
> > > > It may have been
> > > > designed by little green men from Mars.
> > >
> > > Exactly my point.
> >
> > The point I was making is that without evidence of how this object was
> > created, either manufacured by the little green men from Mars or the
> > outcome of some natural process such as weathering, no scientist could
> > form the conclusion that it was designed.
>
> Not true. If you or I or any other scientist (via land rover or
> whatever) found a polished granite cube on Mars, as I've described it
> (with the geometric forms on each face) it would be clear evidence to
> *almost* everyone that clear evidence of alien intelligence had been
> discovered. There would be no need to determine how the granite cube
> was actually formed in order for this conclusion to be reasonably
> reached by all.
It would certainly prompt a rigorous investigation into whether there
is evidence of Martians or other creatures who could have left it
there.
> > In science one cannot reach conclusions without evidence and argument.
>
> That's right. The evidence is that the polished cube is indeed granite
> and the argument is that no known mindless process can reasonably be
> presented to explain its origin. Therefore, such a granite cube might
> reasonably have been designed. There simply are no other viable
> options. Therefore this design hypothesis for the granite cube would
> indeed carry with it a high degree of predictive value - just as high a
> degree of value as one's ability to show that no mindless process is
> capable of achieving such a granite form (which is pretty high).
The usability of the concept predictive value is dependent on us being
able to do some test to determine if our predictions are true or false.
If we just make an assumption "Not produced by the non-deliberate
processes we know and there can't be others we don't know about that
could explain it", then infer from that premise "deliberate processes
did it" and then sit back happily having solved the problem we may be
taken in by false premises. The dichotomy could be false. Maybe it was
not produced at all, maybe there is a granite cube in the core of the
universe which has always been so and is itself the cause of
everything. Maybe there is some grey area where it's meaningless to
talk about deliberate or non-deliberate. Maybe there are unknown
deliberate processes which nevertheless don't require designers or
design. Maybe we have simply overlooked some process.
IF "Not A" is just an assumption with no supporting evidence, then "If
Not A, then A" doesn't amount to much more than assuming the
conclusion.
> < snip more assertions that scientists need to know all possible
> causes before hypotheses can achieve high statistical value >
>
> > > > > No true. I only assume that high levels of function complexity require
> > > > > a designer because no non-deliberate process even comes close to
> > > > > producing such levels of functional complexity.
> > > >
> > > > That is a circular argument.
> > > >
That's what I thought. Assuming the conclusion. Assumption: no
unintelligent process can explain complexity. Conclusion: An
intelligent designer is needed to explain complexity. It's just stating
the same thing over again in other words. If not 'not-A', then A, a
double negation that cancels itself out. This is trivially true if the
premise is true but is it? If you just assumed it like you said, the
argument is not very convincing.
neverbetter
I don't think your cows are a good analogue. To the best of our
knowledge cows are rather similar to each other and have typical
capabilities. That's why they're all If you know one cow you know them
all :) However, we also know that there is a vast variety of natural
processes which are all different and achieve very different things.
Gravity is different from wind, mutation, caries, demethylation and
radioactive decay and so on and none of the others achieve quite what
gravity achieves, just as gravity doesn't cause teeth to ache.
We have a sample of cows which have a limited variation of abilities,
and any new cows are statistically likely to fall within that
variation. But we have sample of natural processes which have a large
variation of "abilities" and there's no saying what the next natural
process that we discover could be like. So it's not a stretch to
presume that all cows fall short in a similar manner in respect to
house-jumping, but it's far more of a leap to presume that all mindless
processes are similarly handicapped in respect to producing life.
neverbetter
sea...@naturalselection.0catch.com wrote:
> Kermit wrote:
> > Seanpit wrote:
> > > Kermit wrote:
> > >
> > > < snip >
> > >
> > > > > If after considering many many
> > > > > non-intelligent processes and noting that they all create pretty much
> > > > > the same amorphous looking granite shapes, none coming even remotely
> > > > > close to producing anything like the polished granite cube in front of
> > > > > me, perhaps I should consider the potential of intelligent design?
> > > >
> > > > I probably would, for a polished cube with designs on the faces. What
> > > > does this have to do with theevolutionary process?
> > >
> > > Why? Why would you conclude design if you found such a granite cube?
> > > Why not conclude that some as yet unknown mindless process is more
> > > likely to have created this cube vs. some intelligent agent? The
> > > answer to this question has a lot to do with the ToE as well as the
> > > theory of ID.
> >
> > I've seen people make things like this. Is is not a big jump to think
> > that people or something like us might have made this imaginary cube.
> > Same as if I seea city on another planet.
>
> But you've also seen or know of people who make amorphous looking rocks
> - deliberately to look "natural". Yet, you wouldn't assume intelligent
> design when you see an amorphous-looking rock even though you know that
> people can and do make such things - do you? If not, why not?
Because we have knowledge of what people generally do and don't do, and
it tells us that most rocks on this planet are generally not made by
humans. Human-made rocks are a special rare case so it's not the
default option. And some of the "natural-looking" rocks people make are
easily recognizable as non-natural because of the look and feel and the
context of other artificial decoration.
john.1...@gmail.com
sea...@naturalselection.0catch.com wrote:
> john.1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> > > Everything was "manufactured" in some way - either by deliberate or
> > > non-deliberate processes. You don't need to know how it was done in
> > > order to know that the forces behind whatever manufactured a particular
> > > object where most likely intelligent and deliberate. You don't need to
> > > know how the granite cube was formed into a perfectly symmetrical
> > > polished cube (there are many ways to do this) to know that however it
> > > was done, it was done deliberately.
> >
> > Everything originates by some way, but manufactured items are
> > distinguished from nonmanufactured items, because we know
> > the manufacturing process.
>
> Ever heard of rocks being manufactured to look like natural rocks?
> Humans can and do deliberately shape rocks to look "natural" and
> unmanufactured. Yet, they are manufactured. The problem is, when you
> see one of these rocks it is much harder to detect the fact that they
> were in fact designed deliberately (in comparison to a polished granite
> cube).
Indeed, we know the rocks are fake because we either know the
manufacturing process,
or can deduce the manufacturing process from a careful examination of
the rock.
>
> Now, why do you think that is? Is it not because mindless natural
> processes can also produce such a look? Why is the designed nature of a
> polished perfectly symetrical granite cube so much easier to detect?
> Come on now, be honest. Is it because you automatically know who made
> the cube and what process was used in its manufacture? Really? Or, is
> it because of your knowledge of the limits of mindless processes when
> it comes to making such granite cubes?
It is because we know that humans carve rocks and we know how humans
carve rocks. Period.
>
> The only real difference between the two types of rock forms is that
> one can easily be made by mindless natural processes while the other
> cannot reasonable be made by any mindless process that is known or
> likely to be discovered.
Nonsense. If we were to find a polished cube on Mars, we would suspect
that it
is a manufactured item only because we have a familiarity with human
manufactured
items, and a knowledge of how one would go about making such an item.
We would
look for other evidence of the manufacturers which would include the
technology
corresponding the support technologies of human societies. We would
look for organisms
with the physical structures (such as hands) to hold and work materials
to make the
tools needed to do the carving. Our first models of such a collection
of beings would
be humans. In short, we must have knowledge of the manufacturers and
their technology
to claim "manufacture".
>
> > -John Stockwell
>
> Sean Pitman
-John Stockwell
Kermit
sea...@naturalselection.0catch.com wrote:
> Kermit wrote:
> > Seanpit wrote:
> > > Kermit wrote:
> > >
> > > < snip >
> > >
> > > > > If after considering many many
> > > > > non-intelligent processes and noting that they all create pretty much
> > > > > the same amorphous looking granite shapes, none coming even remotely
> > > > > close to producing anything like the polished granite cube in front of
> > > > > me, perhaps I should consider the potential of intelligent design?
> > > >
> > > > I probably would, for a polished cube with designs on the faces. What
> > > > does this have to do with theevolutionary process?
> > >
> > > Why? Why would you conclude design if you found such a granite cube?
> > > Why not conclude that some as yet unknown mindless process is more
> > > likely to have created this cube vs. some intelligent agent? The
> > > answer to this question has a lot to do with the ToE as well as the
> > > theory of ID.
> >
> > I've seen people make things like this. Is is not a big jump to think
> > that people or something like us might have made this imaginary cube.
> > Same as if I seea city on another planet.
>
> But you've also seen or know of people who make amorphous looking rocks
> - deliberately to look "natural". Yet, you wouldn't assume intelligent
> design when you see an amorphous-looking rock even though you know that
> people can and do make such things - do you? If not, why not?
Because (if it's well done) it would resemble the vast majority of
rocks, which we know are made thru natural processes.
Are you claiming that no modifications of species are done by natural
processes - are you claiming that the *vast majority* of modifications
are not via natural processes? If so, there is no reason to then assume
that a new modification is. While we would not rule it out given
persusive evidence, a geologist who finds an interesting rock in a
hillside would not assume it was (nor probably give a moment's thought
towards it being ) manufactured by humans.
>
> You see, you know that humans can and do make both types of rocks -
> amorphous as well as polished granite cubes. Why then do you not
> quickly assume design on the one hand, but you do on the other? Does
> it really have anything at all to do with understanding the mechanism
> involved? Or, does it have to do with understanding the limits of
> mindless processes?
What limits? The ones you hypothesize? On what grounds? When I see a
class of data (such as the traits of various species) that have been
primarily the result of natural processes which are understood to
varying degrees, I find it far more likely that some of them we simply
haven't figured out yet. We have many examples of things we had not
been able to figure out for a long time, then given more data or better
tools, we could.
>
> > Are you suggesting that humans created bacterial flagella?
>
> I'm suggesting that some intelligent agent(s) created the bacterial
> flagellar motility system. I don't need to know who it was or how it
> was done in order to have a very good idea that high-level intelligence
> was indeed involved.
We need evidence that such a thing happened. Our simply not yet knowing
the details is far more likely than postulating a non-testable process
with no supporting evidence, no proposed mechanism, no way to test.
>
> > Do you think that some things are designed by a designer, but not other
> > things?
>
> Sure - I don't believe that most amorphos rocks were deliberately
> designed, but I do believe that all polished granite cubes were.
A good working assumption. I trust you would change your mind on
certain particulars if the evidence were strong enough.
In the meanwhile, I will go on the working assumption that all
modifications to living organisms were done by natural processes, as we
know most were. If you find actual evidence to the contrary, let me
know.
BTW - why don't you think everything is designed?
Theists who do evolutionary science have a much bigger god than you -
theirs created *everything. And science is the study of how he did it.
Why would an intelligent man confine himself to a god (godling?
demigod?) who only produces bacterial flagella and the like?
Seanpit
neverbetter wrote:
> > > I've seen people make things like this. Is is not a big jump to think
> > > that people or something like us might have made this imaginary cube.
> > > Same as if I seea city on another planet.
> >
> > But you've also seen or know of people who make amorphous looking rocks
> > - deliberately to look "natural". Yet, you wouldn't assume intelligent
> > design when you see an amorphous-looking rock even though you know that
> > people can and do make such things - do you? If not, why not?
>
> Because we have knowledge of what people generally do and don't do, and
> it tells us that most rocks on this planet are generally not made by
> humans. Human-made rocks are a special rare case so it's not the
> default option. And some of the "natural-looking" rocks people make are
> easily recognizable as non-natural because of the look and feel and the
> context of other artificial decoration.
The point is that you can quickly tell the difference between a
"natural" and an "unnatural" look even though both could have been
designed by humans. Therefore, the argument that we can detect what is
designed by a human by knowing that humans design certain things is not
enough. One must also know what other non-intelligent processes don't
do. Without the knowledge of what natural processes commonly do and
don't do, one wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a
polished granite cube and an amorphous granite rock.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
We aren't talking about what looks "natural", we are talking about what
looks designed. Some things in nature do not have the appearance of
deliberate design - like the form of an amorphous-looking rock. Other
things in nature definitely have the signs of deliberate manipulation -
like a polished granite cube. It is easy to tell that such a granite
cube is the result of deliberate design, without knowing who made it or
how it was formed, by comparing it to what known non-deliberate
processes create.
There is definitely a consistent pattern to how non-deliberate
processes shape granite. Non-deliberate processes work in a predictable
way when it comes to granite. This predictability can be used to make
very accurate scientific hypotheses that carry with them a very high
degree of predictive value.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
john.1...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Ever heard of rocks being manufactured to look like natural rocks?
> > Humans can and do deliberately shape rocks to look "natural" and
> > unmanufactured. Yet, they are manufactured. The problem is, when you
> > see one of these rocks it is much harder to detect the fact that they
> > were in fact designed deliberately (in comparison to a polished granite
> > cube).
>
> Indeed, we know the rocks are fake because we either know the
> manufacturing process, or can deduce the manufacturing
> process from a careful examination of the rock.
You might be able to figure out that an amorphous or "natural"-looking
rock was in fact deliberately formed, but sometimes it might be very
difficult indeed. This is not the case with a polished granite cube. It
is very easy to tell that such a cube was clearly designed regardless
of who did it or how they formed this cube.
If you put a "natural-appearing" granite rock next to a polished
granite cube, even you could tell which one looks designed even though
both of them could have been designed. Why is that? What's the
difference? In other words, the knowledge that humans are capable of
making a particular look is not enough to adequately assume humans
design. You need something else to go along with that knowledge. You
need knowledge about the potential and limits of non-intelligent
processes working with granite. Without this knowledge, you really
couldn't tell which one was or wasn't most likely designed.
> > Now, why do you think that is? Is it not because mindless natural
> > processes can also produce such a look? Why is the designed nature of a
> > polished perfectly symmetrical granite cube so much easier to detect?
> > Come on now, be honest. Is it because you automatically know who made
> > the cube and what process was used in its manufacture? Really? Or, is
> > it because of your knowledge of the limits of mindless processes when
> > it comes to making such granite cubes?
>
> It is because we know that humans carve rocks and we know how humans
> carve rocks. Period.
Not true. We also know that humans can and do carve amorphous looking
granite rocks. Therefore, this knowledge is not enough to assume design
in the polished granite cube over the amorphous-looking granite rock.
You also have to know something about the limits of non-deliberate
processes when it comes to working with granite.
> > The only real difference between the two types of rock forms is that
> > one can easily be made by mindless natural processes while the other
> > cannot reasonable be made by any mindless process that is known or
> > likely to be discovered.
>
> Nonsense. If we were to find a polished cube on Mars, we would suspect
> that it is a manufactured item only because we have a familiarity with human
> manufactured items, and a knowledge of how one would go about making such an
> item. We would look for other evidence of the manufacturers which would include the
> technology corresponding the support technologies of human societies. We would
> look for organisms with the physical structures (such as hands) to hold and work
> materials to make the tools needed to do the carving. Our first models of such a
> collection of beings would be humans. In short, we must have knowledge of the
> manufacturers and their technology to claim "manufacture".
And why don't you assume such deliberate activity when you see
amorphous-looking rocks on Mars? These rocks could also have been
deliberately designed. Yet, you don't assume design why? Only because
you know that non-deliberate processes commonly produce such rock
forms. There is not other reason. You have to know something about the
potential of both deliberate and non-deliberate processes to make an
adequate scientific prediction of deliberate activity. You simply
cannot do it by knowing the potential of humans alone. You also have to
know at least something about the potential of non-deliberate
processes.
Noone Inparticular
Seanpit wrote:
<SNIPS>
>
> The point is that you can quickly tell the difference between a
> "natural" and an "unnatural" look even though both could have been
> designed by humans. Therefore, the argument that we can detect what is
> designed by a human by knowing that humans design certain things is not
> enough. One must also know what other non-intelligent processes don't
> do. Without the knowledge of what natural processes commonly do and
> don't do, one wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a
> polished granite cube and an amorphous granite rock.
You'll never get it. Or rather, you'll never accept it. The reason we
might be able to tell the difference between a "natural" and an
"unnatural" rock is because we know something about how humans make
things. People have patiently explained this really very (VERY) simple
concept to you. Sad.
>
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
Exactly! I think you've got it! ; )
You see, you have to have knowledge about the potential and limitations
of non-deliberate processes to make an adequate judgment about how this
or that granite rock was actually formed. If you knew of a
non-deliberate process that was in fact making polished granite cubes,
you would not be able to detect deliberate design in a such a granite
cube either. It is because you don't know of any non-deliberate
process or even a likely non-deliberate process making anything close
to a polished granite cube that you can adequately hypothesize design
when you see such a cube.
> Are you claiming that no modifications of species are done by natural
> processes - are you claiming that the *vast majority* of modifications
> are not via natural processes?
No, I'm not. Lots of modifications of living things are done by
non-deliberate natural processes. However, there are many features of
living things that simply cannot be explained by any non-deliberate
processes - not even close.
> If so, there is no reason to then assume
> that a new modification is. While we would not rule it out given
> persusive evidence, a geologist who finds an interesting rock in a
> hillside would not assume it was (nor probably give a moment's thought
> towards it being ) manufactured by humans.
If a geologist found a polished granite cube with geometric features
etched in the center of each of its faces, you can bet your bottom
dollar that he/she would quickly recognize that it was in fact designed
- and so would you (if you are being honest).
> > You see, you know that humans can and do make both types of rocks -
> > amorphous as well as polished granite cubes. Why then do you not
> > quickly assume design on the one hand, but you do on the other? Does
> > it really have anything at all to do with understanding the mechanism
> > involved? Or, does it have to do with understanding the limits of
> > mindless processes?
>
> What limits? The ones you hypothesize? On what grounds? When I see a
> class of data (such as the traits of various species) that have been
> primarily the result of natural processes which are understood to
> varying degrees, I find it far more likely that some of them we simply
> haven't figured out yet. We have many examples of things we had not
> been able to figure out for a long time, then given more data or better
> tools, we could.
What if the more data you get the farther and farther away the notion
of non-deliberate cause gets? - like with a polished granite cube?
The more you investigate how non-deliberate processes work with
granite, the more you recognize a pattern that comes nowhere close to
producing a polished granite cube. This pattern is in fact highly
predictable - it is predictably "random" and "non-symmetrical". That
is what gives amorphous granite rocks that "natural" appearing
"fractal" look. This look is very predictable when it comes to
non-deliberate processes acting on granite. The more you study this,
the more and more clear it becomes that a polished granite cube is very
far away from any non-deliberate process.
The same thing is true of many features found in living things. The
more you study how random mutation and natural selection affect the
genetics of living things, the more and more predictable these
processes become and the more and more you realize that such
non-deliberate processes simply never come remotely close to making any
of the higher level systems that are found in all living things.
> > > Are you suggesting that humans created bacterial flagella?
> >
> > I'm suggesting that some intelligent agent(s) created the bacterial
> > flagellar motility system. I don't need to know who it was or how it
> > was done in order to have a very good idea that high-level intelligence
> > was indeed involved.
>
> We need evidence that such a thing happened. Our simply not yet knowing
> the details is far more likely than postulating a non-testable process
> with no supporting evidence, no proposed mechanism, no way to test.
Though significantly inferior in form, function, and even beauty,
humans can create similar systems of function while nothing of a lower
level of intelligence or deliberate intent comes even remotely close.
That should give you a very good clue as to the origin of the flagellar
motility system. Not even one of the proposed higher-level steps in
flagellar evolution models has ever been demonstrated in observable
time - not one of the supposed "small" steps between any of the
steppingstones in the pathway. We aren't talking about the evolution of
the whole system here, just one step.
> > > Do you think that some things are designed by a designer, but not other
> > > things?
> >
> > Sure - I don't believe that most amorphous rocks were deliberately
> > designed, but I do believe that all polished granite cubes were.
>
> A good working assumption. I trust you would change your mind on
> certain particulars if the evidence were strong enough.
Sure, that is what science is all about. My position is certainly
falsifiable. Is yours?
> In the meanwhile, I will go on the working assumption that all
> modifications to living organisms were done by natural processes, as we
> know most were. If you find actual evidence to the contrary, let me
> know.
The problem is that most modifications to granite rocks were also done
by non-deliberate natural processes. However, there are features of
certain granite stones that are clear evidence of deliberate design.
How long are you simply going to keep looking for a non-deliberate
process to explain a polished granite cube before you give up and
consider the design hypothesis? It just doesn't seem reasonable to me
to assume non-deliberate causes in all situations for all phenomena
just because non-deliberate processes are most common when it comes to
certain types of features found in the object in question. What about
those features that can be created to at least a rough degree by human
intelligence, but not to even a remotely close approximation by any
known non-deliberate cause? - non-deliberate causes which do show very
predictable patterns and limitations?
> BTW - why don't you think everything is designed?
I just told you in my last post, which you already responded to, that I
don't believe everything is deliberately designed. I only believe
certain features are deliberately designed. Don't you remember what
you just read a few paragraphs ago? - when I said that I don't believe
that most amorphous rocks were deliberately designed? Come on now . . .
>
> Theists who do evolutionary science have a much bigger god than you -
> theirs created *everything. And science is the study of how he did it.
> Why would an intelligent man confine himself to a god (godling?
> demigod?) who only produces bacterial flagella and the like?
Why is it better for a God to have to deliberately manipulate
everything that goes on in creation? Why not create the potential for
lower-level processes that can act and react according to various rules
that need not require constant conscious manipulation? Think about it,
which method really would be more creative and intelligent?
Theistic evolutionists are a contradiction. They believe in a God for
which they have absolutely no reasonable/testable/falsifiable evidence.
Everything that they see could have been formed, according to their own
beliefs, by non-deliberate causes. What then is left to support their
notion of a higher being with any capability of deliberate thought or
action? They might as well believe that little green men live in the
middle of the moon - making the moon go around the Earth.
> Kermit
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
What if you knew of a non-deliberate process that commonly made
polished granite cubes? Would you be able to assume human design when
you saw a polished granite cube anymore - just because you knew humans
can and do design such cubes?
This really isn't a difficult concept to grasp. Think about it.
Knowledge about human potential just isn't enough. You also have to
know something about the potential and limitations of non-deliberate
processes.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
neverbetter
Seanpit wrote:
> neverbetter wrote:
>
> > > > I've seen people make things like this. Is is not a big jump to think
> > > > that people or something like us might have made this imaginary cube.
> > > > Same as if I seea city on another planet.
> > >
> > > But you've also seen or know of people who make amorphous looking rocks
> > > - deliberately to look "natural". Yet, you wouldn't assume intelligent
> > > design when you see an amorphous-looking rock even though you know that
> > > people can and do make such things - do you? If not, why not?
> >
> > Because we have knowledge of what people generally do and don't do, and
> > it tells us that most rocks on this planet are generally not made by
> > humans. Human-made rocks are a special rare case so it's not the
> > default option. And some of the "natural-looking" rocks people make are
> > easily recognizable as non-natural because of the look and feel and the
> > context of other artificial decoration.
>
> The point is that you can quickly tell the difference between a
> "natural" and an "unnatural" look even though both could have been
> designed by humans.
Could they? Most artificial rock materials I've seen were rather
unnatural, and it was not hard to tell they were fake. Although if it's
a good fake I might not have noticed... Anyway, we have years of
experience of naturally occurring rocks and synthetic stuff and it's
trained us to tell the difference between natural and synthetic. We
recognize patterns and assign them to the category that seems the best
fit. There are usually some differences when you look/touch closely
enough. Another thing that helps quick recognition are expectations. If
we're wandering in the wilderness and chance across a rock, it never
occurs to us to wonder whether this rock is manmade. In a cheap
restaurant decorated á la Flintstone it might, especially if we know
that these walls weren't made of stone before the renovation.
>Therefore, the argument that we can detect what is
> designed by a human by knowing that humans design certain things is not
> enough. One must also know what other non-intelligent processes don't
> do. Without the knowledge of what natural processes commonly do and
> don't do, one wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a
> polished granite cube and an amorphous granite rock.
This doesn't really help your argument, it hurts it rather. Knowledge
help to recognize rock-like materials but it's no comfort when it comes
to life. We know what natural rocks look like because we've seen them
and we know what synthetic rocks look like because we've seen them. We
can compare the two and see where our current specimen fits. But this
look and feel method doesn't work with life because we haven't learned
to recognize the patterns while comparing intelligently created life
and naturally occurring life. We have just observations of life in
general and if our aim is to find out whether life is intelligently
designed or naturally occurring we can't base our argument on the
assumption that this kind of life occurs because it's designed and that
kind of life doesn't. We'd just be assuming the conclusion.
Seanpit
neverbetter wrote:
> I don't think your cows are a good analogue. To the best of our
> knowledge cows are rather similar to each other and have typical
> capabilities. That's why they're all If you know one cow you know them
> all :) However, we also know that there is a vast variety of natural
> processes which are all different and achieve very different things.
> Gravity is different from wind, mutation, caries, demethylation and
> radioactive decay and so on and none of the others achieve quite what
> gravity achieves, just as gravity doesn't cause teeth to ache.
> We have a sample of cows which have a limited variation of abilities,
> and any new cows are statistically likely to fall within that
> variation. But we have sample of natural processes which have a large
> variation of "abilities" and there's no saying what the next natural
> process that we discover could be like. So it's not a stretch to
> presume that all cows fall short in a similar manner in respect to
> house-jumping, but it's far more of a leap to presume that all mindless
> processes are similarly handicapped in respect to producing life.
When it comes to granite, all natural processes tend to have a very
similar and predictable effect when it comes to granite formations.
They all tend to act on granite in a rather random fractal-type way.
That is why the "natural" look is so predictable. This is also why the
polished granite cube is so unpredictable given non-deliberate
processes of any and all kinds since all non-deliberate natural process
do pretty much the same thing to granite - just like cows. If you know
how a few non-deliberate processes affect granite, you can have a
pretty good idea that other non-deliberate processes will follow pretty
much the same pattern.
This is what science is all about. Science is all about assuming that
"if you know one, you know them all" . . . at least a little bit (to at
least some degree of predictive value) . . . And, if you know more, you
know them all even better. Perfect knowledge is never reached about the
"all". It is always partial this side of infinite knowledge. But,
limited knowledge is what makes science so useful. It helps us make
useful predictions about the whole based on a very small sample.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
gregwrld
Seanpit wrote:
> >
> > Theists who do evolutionary science have a much bigger god than you -
> > theirs created *everything. And science is the study of how he did it.
> > Why would an intelligent man confine himself to a god (godling?
> > demigod?) who only produces bacterial flagella and the like?
>
> Why is it better for a God to have to deliberately manipulate
> everything that goes on in creation? Why not create the potential for
> lower-level processes that can act and react according to various rules
> that need not require constant conscious manipulation? Think about it,
> which method really would be more creative and intelligent?
>
> Theistic evolutionists are a contradiction. They believe in a God for
> which they have absolutely no reasonable/testable/falsifiable evidence.
> Everything that they see could have been formed, according to their own
> beliefs, by non-deliberate causes. What then is left to support their
> notion of a higher being with any capability of deliberate thought or
> action? They might as well believe that little green men live in the
> middle of the moon - making the moon go around the Earth.
Theistic evolutionists have something you don't, Sean: actual Faith.
Try it sometime.
Your argument devolves to an argument from ignorance: if you really
have a better handle on fitness landscapes than published scientists,
then publish your findings, math included. We all know you won't,
though because you know damn well you'd get laughed right out of your
discipline.
For you, ? = ID. Real scientists try to answer questions; you merely
rationalize your religious beliefs...
g(regwrld)
>
> > Kermit
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
Noone Inparticular
Dr. Pitman, I really do think that you are looking at this through the
wrong end of the telescope. The issue, as you rightly put it sometimes
(though not consistently) is that we should be able to detect design
where the appearence is natural, not, as the rock example illustrates,
the obverse. In the former it *is* required that you know something
about the manufacture (not design, really), either the process or the
intent. If this is not known you have an unknown cause. If you cannot
determine how a thing was made, you cannot determine that is *was*
made. For scientists this is not a scary thing; it's what we live for.
But consider your last clause (and it is here where I have to wonder if
you are being deliberately obtuse); "You also have to know something
about the potential and limitations of non-deliberate processes."
There are two things wrong with this, both fatal to your argument. You
are essentially saying that our state of knowledge of the universe and
its properties is complete enough that you could actually know what the
"limitations of non-deliberate processes" actually are. This is silly
and the objections to it are obvious. The second is a trivial
observation that the clause is nothing more than an argument from
ignorance; "an object must be designed because I cannot come up with a
natural explanation". The universe is not constrained by your
ignorance, Dr. Pitman. Or mine.
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
Von R. Smith wrote:
> sea...@naturalselection.0catch.com wrote:
> > Richard Forrest wrote:
> >
> > < snip >
> >
> > > > Given our current knowledge base about granite and how mindless
> > > > processes affect granite, we can know, with a very high degree of
> > > > predictive value, that such non-deliberate processes never produce
> > > > perfectly symmetrical polished granite cubes.
> > >
> > > Unless we know all "natural processes" - which we can't - there is no
> > > way in which we can assign a probabilty to the production of the cube
> > > by natural processes. One cannot assign a probabilty to an unknown
> > > process.
> >
> > Again, science is not based on the absolute knowledge of anything. You
> > can actually make real useful scientific hypothesis about things for
> > which you do not know every possible option or outcome.
>
>
> Unfortunately, however, the entire basis for ID is the categorical
> assertion that every other possible option or outcome is vanishingly
> improbable (along with suppression of any consideration that a designer
> might be similarly improbable), a claim for which you *would* need such
> knowledge.
The ID proposal that non-deliberate possibilities is based on studying
a subset of non-deliberate processes and detecting a very predictable
pattern in these processes. Now, it is true that the ID prediction
could be falsified - very easily in fact. However, given the evidence
and consistent pattern of how known non-deliberate processes work, the
predictive value against this happening is very high.
> Mainstream science doesn't need such absolute knowledge
> precisely because it does not try to argue this way.
Sure it does. Mainstream science, like all real science, argues from
the interpretation of a small subset of the whole, extrapolating the
conclusions taken from the subset to the whole. In this way absolute
knowledge is not required before a useful hypothesis can be created. In
fact, it is because absolute knowledge is impossible that science is so
useful. If we already knew everything, there would be no need for
science since there would be no possibility of falsification.
> While comparing
> and eliminating possible alternatives is part of the scientific method,
> it can never be the sole basis for any proposal if it is to be
> considered viable; one must establish a reasonable *positive* case for
> one's hypothesis.
Not true. Negative hypotheses (i.e., a hypothesis that something is not
true or will not happen) are very valuable in science. Science is not
always based on positive predictions.
> ID fails to do this largely because, by refusing to
> speculate as to the nature, activity, and motives of the Designer, it
> cannot even tell us what a reasonable positive case for ID would look
> like.
You limit science to only positive predictions. Science is bigger than
that. Negative hypothesis are also very useful and often provide very
powerful evidence.
> > It is valid, scientifically, to hypothesize that polished granite cubes
> > cannot be made with any non-deliberate process. Such a hypothesis is
> > perfectly valid. The prediction that no non-deliberate process will
> > ever produce a granite cube can be tested in a falsifiable way.
>
> No, it can't. While falsifiable in principle (there is a conceivable
> set of events that would motivate its rejection) there is no remotely
> feasible battery of tests that would allow us to make such a
> determination one way or another. It would be far more fruitful to
> pursue positive evidence for a deliberate designer -unless, of course,
> your designer is so vaguely-described that it could be practically
> anything.
What about an amorphous granite rock? Are you going to pursue positive
evidence for a designer of such a rock? If not, why not? I mean
really, a deliberate process certainly could be responsible - right?
Could it be then, that you would not try to find evidence to support
this possibility because you know that such amorphous granite rocks are
easily formed by non-deliberate processes? Why then would you not
accept the deliberate origin of a polished granite cube until you found
positive evidence for the identity of the designer of that specific
cube as well as the motives of that designer?
Come on now, would you really never accept the deliberate origin of
such a cube until you actually found the designer? I just don't
believe you. That just isn't rational given your own knowledge about
the predictable limits of non-deliberate processes when it comes to
granite.
> > If any
> > non-deliberate process is ever found that produces even one polished
> > granite cube, then the hypothesis is indeed falsified. Until then, it
> > gains very real predictive value.
>
>
> Only if one gives "deliberate process" a reasonably rigorous
> operational definition; otherwise, such a prediction will yield only
> vague hand-waving.
Fine - make a reasonably rigorous operational definition for a
non-deliberate process. I think most would accept that weather
patterns, wind, rain, volcanoes, forest fires, lightening, etc. would
all qualify as non-deliberate processes when it comes to their action
on granite. I certainly would - how about you?
< snip >
> > In the same way, I don't have to know about all cows to reasonably
> > hypothesize that no cow will ever be able to jump on or over my house.
>
> No, but I do need to know *something* that I can reasonably suppose to
> be valid for all cows. I bet I can tell you a lot more about cows
> than you can about the supposed Intelligent Designer.
I know something about non-deliberate processes and how they affect
granite that can reasonably be valid for all non-deliberate processes.
The same is true about non-deliberate processes and how they affect
living things that can be very reasonably extrapolated to all
non-deliberate processes in the very same way that you extrapolate your
knowledge about a limited subset of cows to all cows.
> I doubt that you would accept the conclusion that, because cows cannot
> jump on your house, that no mammal can. Would you accept such an
> hypothesis? How can you be so confident that your insight about
> "mindless" processes can, in fact, be cogently generalized over all
> such processes, as opposed to some subset of them? How can you be sure
> that "mindless processes" are even a coherent category that share some
> set of traits besides the arbitrary one that defines them?
How can I make such generalization about non-deliberate processes? -
Because I've studied many different kinds of non-deliberate processes.
I've not just limited myself to "cows", so to speak. I've found a very
consistent predictable pattern in all of the different mindless
processes I've studied. This pattern shows predictable limits to how
non-deliberate processes can affect granite, and even living things. It
is quite reasonable, then, to extrapolate the predictable limits of a
small subset to the larger whole - just like you do with your
extrapolation of knowledge of the limited jumping ability of a few cows
to all cows.
> > Your notion that one cannot make a valid negative scientific hypothesis
> > unless all possibilities for falsification of such a hypothesis are
> > known, is actually anti-science.
>
>
> ...and freedom is actually slavery, and ignorance is actually strength.
>
>
> > If all possibilities for the
> > falsification of a negative hypothesis were already known, there would
> > be no need for a hypothesis or for science. It is because all the
> > possibilities are not known that science is necessary and the risk of
> > potential falsification is a real factor.
>
> But, again, science rarely proceeds by simply pronouncing certain
> outcomes impossible, and then declaring victory by default. If ID
> cannot present any sort of *positive* case for its proposal, then it is
> nothing more than an argument from incredulity.
Science often proceeds by assuming certain things are impossible - just
like you assume cows jumping on or over my 2-story house is impossible
for all cows and all time based on your experience with a small subset
of cows. Science does allow this sort of thing. It is done all the time
- even in mainstream science.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
What our ignorance does create is a need for science. Without
ignorance, there would be no need for science. Science allows us to
reasonably extrapolate from a small subset of knowledge to the whole.
Now, there is a possibility of error when this is done. Our
interpretation of the subset may not represent the whole as we might
initially hypothesize. But, this is how science works.
Your argument that knowledge of who made something and why and how they
made it is required before an adequate hypothesis of deliberate design
can be formulated just isn't enough to be useful for general
application. Knowing who made an amorphous looking granite rock and
why and how they made it isn't enough to be able to assume deliberate
design whenever such a rock form is seen in the future. In the same
way, knowing who made a polished granite cube as well as how and why
they made it isn't enough to assume deliberate design whenever such a
rock form is seen in the future. I mean really, knowing just this
much, and nothing else, it could be just as likely that a
non-deliberate process could also produce such a polished granite cube.
Without knowledge that non-deliberate processes have a consistent
random fractal-type action on granite forms, you would not be able to
accurately predict design when you see polished granite cubes in the
future.
So you see, knowledge of human potential isn't enough for a useful
hypothesis when it comes to predicting the origin of granite forms.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
neverbetter wrote:
< snip >
> This doesn't really help your argument, it hurts it rather. Knowledge
> help to recognize rock-like materials but it's no comfort when it comes
> to life. We know what natural rocks look like because we've seen them
> and we know what synthetic rocks look like because we've seen them. We
> can compare the two and see where our current specimen fits. But this
> look and feel method doesn't work with life because we haven't learned
> to recognize the patterns while comparing intelligently created life
> and naturally occurring life. We have just observations of life in
> general and if our aim is to find out whether life is intelligently
> designed or naturally occurring we can't base our argument on the
> assumption that this kind of life occurs because it's designed and that
> kind of life doesn't. We'd just be assuming the conclusion.
Ah, but we do have knowledge when it comes to deliberately designed
systems of function vs. various functions that were not deliberately
designed. The potential of one and the limits of the other are known
and can be very reasonably extrapolated to functional systems found in
all living things - with a very high degree of predictive value.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
neverbetter
I'm not disagreeing with you about the difference between polished
granite and non-polished granite being usually obvious, although I
don't agree that all non-deliberate processes tend to affect things the
same way. Granite, maybe, since it's inanimate and there aren't many
options of things that can be done to granite so lots of processes do
nothing at all. But living beings react and change more readily and I
don't think you could say that most processes affecting them follow the
same pattern.
A problem here is that you're taking it for granted that you can tell
what's non-deliberate. Many designer scenarios suggest that the
designer created granite just as he liked it so it actually isn't a
result of a non-deliberate process. How do we tell which natural
processes are deliberate actions by the designer and which are
non-deliberate?
> This is what science is all about. Science is all about assuming that
> "if you know one, you know them all" . . . at least a little bit (to at
> least some degree of predictive value) . . . And, if you know more, you
> know them all even better. Perfect knowledge is never reached about the
> "all". It is always partial this side of infinite knowledge. But,
> limited knowledge is what makes science so useful. It helps us make
> useful predictions about the whole based on a very small sample.
True, supposing that we identified our samples correctly.
Seanpit
gregwrld wrote:
> Seanpit wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > > Theists who do evolutionary science have a much bigger god than you -
> > > theirs created *everything. And science is the study of how he did it.
> > > Why would an intelligent man confine himself to a god (godling?
> > > demigod?) who only produces bacterial flagella and the like?
> >
> > Why is it better for a God to have to deliberately manipulate
> > everything that goes on in creation? Why not create the potential for
> > lower-level processes that can act and react according to various rules
> > that need not require constant conscious manipulation? Think about it,
> > which method really would be more creative and intelligent?
> >
> > Theistic evolutionists are a contradiction. They believe in a God for
> > which they have absolutely no reasonable/testable/falsifiable evidence.
> > Everything that they see could have been formed, according to their own
> > beliefs, by non-deliberate causes. What then is left to support their
> > notion of a higher being with any capability of deliberate thought or
> > action? They might as well believe that little green men live in the
> > middle of the moon - making the moon go around the Earth.
>
> Theistic evolutionists have something you don't, Sean: actual Faith.
> Try it sometime.
I don't believe that blind faith is useful. I just don't care for it.
Perhaps I'm just too dependent on rationality?
> Your argument devolves to an argument from ignorance: if you really
> have a better handle on fitness landscapes than published scientists,
> then publish your findings, math included. We all know you won't,
> though because you know damn well you'd get laughed right out of your
> discipline.
I will publish. It is just that right now I have a lot on my plate and
don't have the time to put together such a paper. As far as getting
"laughed right out of my discipline" - that has happened to a lot of
very good scientists. Look at what happened to the likes of J Harlen
Bretz. Scientists are not dispassionate about their notions. They are
very ardent about what they believe and they do tend to kick out
heretics from the school, universities, and publications that they
control. Many have lost their careers over this sort of thing. Gotta be
careful what you say - watch your step you know, or you could be out on
your can.
> For you, ? = ID. Real scientists try to answer questions; you merely
> rationalize your religious beliefs...
Real scientist try to go where the evidence leads. Negative hypothesis
are not invalid. They are used all the time in science. It is because
of ignorance that science is actually useful. All scientific arguments
are arguments from ignorance. If we weren't arguing from ignorance, we
wouldn't need a scientific argument - we'd just know.
> g(regwrld)
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Zachriel
We're already starting to see some artifice in life, human proteins in
bacteria, nematode and spinach genes in pigs, spider genes in goats,
fish with human blood-clotting factors, hepatitis protein in potatoes,
all clear violations of the nested hierarchy, all hallmarks of design.
Zachriel
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
neverbetter
Some examples would be nice. I'm aware of no living things that we can
definitely identify as designed or not designed. Some we have bred and
tweaked a bit but I wouldn't go as far as call the whole creatures
designed. Comparison to non-living systems have their problems. And
anyway, if there's an intelligent designer, how can we tell what's not
been deliberately designed? How do we know that he didn't do it all on
purpose?
Richard Forrest
...but has happened many more times to very bad scientists.
> Look at what happened to the likes of J Harlen
> Bretz. Scientists are not dispassionate about their notions. They are
> very ardent about what they believe and they do tend to kick out
> heretics from the school, universities, and publications that they
> control. Many have lost their careers over this sort of thing. Gotta be
> careful what you say - watch your step you know, or you could be out on
> your can.
>
> > For you, ? = ID. Real scientists try to answer questions; you merely
> > rationalize your religious beliefs...
>
> Real scientist try to go where the evidence leads. Negative hypothesis
> are not invalid.
There's a saying in science:
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
You want to coin a new one:
"Absence of evidence is evidence of presence."
One has to be very careful about "negative hypotheses". And just
because they are negative hypotheses does not mean that they need not
be testable.
Seanpit
Richard Forrest wrote:
> > > For you, ? = ID. Real scientists try to answer questions; you merely
> > > rationalize your religious beliefs...
> >
> > Real scientist try to go where the evidence leads. Negative hypothesis
> > are not invalid.
>
> There's a saying in science:
>
> "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
This is not a true saying in science. The stability of a scientific
hypothesis is dependent upon the "absence of evidence" to the contrary.
Such contradictory evidence, which is currently absent, may always come
along and ruin a perfectly brilliant hypothesis.
I think it was Einstein who said, "A beautiful theory can be completely
destroyed by one ugly fact." Now, *that* is science.
> You want to coin a new one:
>
> "Absence of evidence is evidence of presence."
The continued absence of evidence contrary to a given potentially
falsifiable hypothesis does indeed strengthen that hypothesis over
time. This is how science works. The absence of evidence is very
important in science. It is not meaningless.
> One has to be very careful about "negative hypotheses". And just
> because they are negative hypotheses does not mean that they need not
> be testable.
That's exactly right. Negative hypothesis (i.e., the hypotheses that
something won't happen) are indeed testable in a falsifiable manner.
Careful investigation is indeed required. The more a negative
hypothesis is investigated and tested, without falsification, the
stronger it becomes and the more predictive value it gains.
After investigating many non-deliberate processes it is quite clear
that a consistent pattern develops when it comes to the actions of many
different non-deliberate processes on granite. They all create similar
"natural-appearing" fractal-type granite forms. This similarity of
action of many different non-deliberate processes on granite, can be
very reasonably extrapolated to predict that all non-deliberate
processes will most likely work in a similar way on granite (just like
my cow jumping theory, says something about all cows based on just a
small subset of cows).
This is a valid prediction about an entire set of potential options
based on a small subset. If everything about all non-deliberate
processes were already known, there would be no need for a scientific
hypothesis about the entire set of possibilities. You are arguing
against the need for science when you assert that everything must be
known about something before anything can be said about it.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
Seanpit wrote:
>
> Not quite. What I am saying is that one can hypothesize that there is
> no mindless process that can produce a given phenomenon with a very
> high degree of predictive value.
How would you this? Are you aware of the law of large numbers? Flip a
coin twice, and you may get two heads or two tails, but flip it 325
trillion times, and it will be very close to 50-50 heads/tails
> Once this is done, there is only one
> other viable alternative hypothesis - Intelligent Design.
Bullshit.
Noone Inparticular
Seanpit wrote:
<snips>
>
> That's exactly right. Negative hypothesis (i.e., the hypotheses that
> something won't happen) are indeed testable in a falsifiable manner.
> Careful investigation is indeed required. The more a negative
> hypothesis is investigated and tested, without falsification, the
> stronger it becomes and the more predictive value it gains.
This is only true if there is not also an alternative hypothesis. In
your long, futile efforts here on T.O. you have failed to eliminate a
well known and VERY well supported alternative. You claim you have, but
you have NOT shown anyone how to do it. Pointing to your website is
wholly inadequate and you have never *NEVER* given a rigorous
description of your method. This is why all your bluster here on T.O.
is like a fart in the wind. Unless and until you make an effort to
subject your ideas to scientific scrutiny, you are just like every
other windbag here.
<snip rest>
Seanpit
rupert....@gmail.com wrote:
> > For example, it is possible for someone to win the California Lottery 5
> > times in a row - but it is very very unlikely.
>
> Not if I can pass a copy of the winning ticket to my children. If most
> of the ticket buyers in week 2 have a copy of the ticket that won in
> week 1, how does that change yor calculation?
Passing on the winning number doesn't help when it comes to finding new
winning numbers. The odds of finding a new winning number are just as
low.
> Just because it's unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible. Most specific
> things that happen are unlikely, which is why Complex Specified
> Information is so misleading.
The unlikeliness of something does mean something. It tells you how
often you can expect such an event to happen. For something that is
supposed to be a rare event, like you winning the California Lottery,
the finding that you have won it 5 times in a row strongly indicates a
non-random deliberate bias. This is very helpful to understand and this
is why the notion of complex specified information is very important in
developing scientific theories dealing with how information systems
work.
> Consider your own conception. A priori, each non-defective sperm has
> about a 10^-8 chance of fertilizing the egg. Does this mean that
> conception is impossible? Obviously not.
What would be very unlikely is if you could successfully pick which
sperm would be the "winner" 5 times in a row. The odds are very good
the someone will win the California Lottery, true, but this doesn't
negative the fact that the odds are very bad that the same person will
win 5 times in a row. You have to understand the statistics of the
problem you are talking about.
Of course, evolutionists think that given a large enough gene pool and
a few billion years, anything is possible. However, if you really look
at the statistics involved, there just aren't nearly enough lottery
players in the pool in order for even one of them to "win" at a higher
level of functional complexity even if trillions of years were provided
- on average.
> In the last 5 generations
> alone, you are the combination of 31 (or slightly fewer depending on
> inbreeding) conception events, with a combined probability of 10^-248,
> well below Dembski's "universal probability threshhold". Thus,
> according to Dembski, you are designed. How did your
> great-great-great-grandparents manage that? Did they all know each
> other?
You really aren't asking the right statistical questions. What would
be impressive, and highly improbable, is if my
great-great-great-grandparents were able to predict that I would ever
come along out of all the other equally potential options. That is the
right question to ask here. The odds that someone among all the
possibilities would come along were pretty good. But, the odds that one
particular possibility would actually "win" were not good at all.
You're just trying to trick yourself here in a vain attempt to
eliminate the significance of very low probabilities from the problem
of evolving high-level systems of function. These extremely bad odds do
indeed come into play. They say something very important about the
likelihood of evolution at higher levels of functional complexity in a
given amount of time.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
hersheyhv
The problem is not with our being able to identify objects that, to a
reasonable degree of certainty, were designed and manufactured by
intelligences not markedly different from our own. We can, and do, do
that based on inference from objects that we know humans and other
animal intelligences can perform that do not happen in their absence.
The problem, rather, lies in our being unable to reliably determine
that an object was NOT made by a supernatural agency with powers far
beyond our own. There is literally nothing that exists or happens that
has not, at one time or another and even today, been claimed to have
been intentionally designed and manufactured by a HYPE (hypothetical
posited entity) with exactly the same powers you endow it/him/her/them
with. The heavens and the earth (stars, meteors, rocks -- often the
former are created by the god to act as signs and divinations). The
waters above and the waters below. The weather. Crop successes. Crop
failures. Fire. Individual human life (babies are God's gift).
Individual human deaths (merciful or cruel, they are God calling us
home).
Now, if you think your God is responsible for making *everything* we
see, how valid is an argument that is based on and requires the idea
that God only makes some things (smooth surfaced granite cubes) and
doesn't make others (granite rocks)? Are there some things you are
willing to say are not your God's creation and tell us why they are
not? Why, for example, are all the people who think that God created
the heaven and the earth (stars to rocks) wrong? Why are all the
people who attribute babies (despite our knowledge of the scientific --
and sexual -- process that produces them) to being gifts from God
wrong? Why are all the people who claim comfort in thinking that
deaths are merely God calling them home wrong?
That, of course, brings up a theological conundrum. To be able to
present scientifically valid evidence that God created (some certain?)
life forms, you have to limit your God so that it is not responsible
for everything we see. You have to be able to present reliable
evidence that some things are explicitly NOT God's creation. Otherwise
you cannot use an argument based on the premise that some things are
NOT created by God. That means you need to distinguish those objects
and features where God plays no role and tell us why all the people who
claim a role for God in creating these objects and features are
ignorant fools who don't know the evidence.
> Your argument that knowledge of who made something and why and how they
> made it is required before an adequate hypothesis of deliberate design
> can be formulated just isn't enough to be useful for general
> application. Knowing who made an amorphous looking granite rock and
> why and how they made it isn't enough to be able to assume deliberate
> design whenever such a rock form is seen in the future.
Why or why not? If there is literally nothing that one can explicitly
exclude as being the creation of a supernatural designer, I would
certainly agree that we could not do so for life -- even if we were to
learn how abiogenesis occurs and had evidence that all life arose via
evolutionary mechanisms. Those would simply be the mechanisms that the
supernatural designer used rather than magical poofing. But if you are
claiming that there are some things that your supernatural designer
made and other things he didn't based on properties that they have
(such as polished rather than rock like), do state what those
properties are and why they lead you to conclude that God had nothing
to do with it and everyone who says otherwise doesnt' know what they
are talking about.
> In the same
> way, knowing who made a polished granite cube as well as how and why
> they made it isn't enough to assume deliberate design whenever such a
> rock form is seen in the future. I mean really, knowing just this
> much, and nothing else, it could be just as likely that a
> non-deliberate process could also produce such a polished granite cube.
> Without knowledge that non-deliberate processes have a consistent
> random fractal-type action on granite forms, you would not be able to
> accurately predict design when you see polished granite cubes in the
> future.
So your God is only responsible for items that 'look like' human
artifacts?
Richard Forrest
Seanpit wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>
> > > > For you, ? = ID. Real scientists try to answer questions; you merely
> > > > rationalize your religious beliefs...
> > >
> > > Real scientist try to go where the evidence leads. Negative hypothesis
> > > are not invalid.
> >
> > There's a saying in science:
> >
> > "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
>
> This is not a true saying in science.
I'm surprised that you say that.
You have no evidence for your "intelligent designer", yet you insist in
his existence in the absence of evidence as your default position.
Having said that, it's a phrase I have heard frequently used by
scientists. It may not be true in any absolute sense, but it's a very
useful guideline.
> The stability of a scientific
> hypothesis is dependent upon the "absence of evidence" to the contrary.
> Such contradictory evidence, which is currently absent, may always come
> along and ruin a perfectly brilliant hypothesis.
For that to happen, you have to formulate a testable hypothesis is in
the first place. It doesn't matter whether it's a negative hypothesis,
it has to be testable.
>
> I think it was Einstein who said, "A beautiful theory can be completely
> destroyed by one ugly fact." Now, *that* is science.
>
Oh, please! Don't compare youself to Einstein!
> > You want to coin a new one:
> >
> > "Absence of evidence is evidence of presence."
>
> The continued absence of evidence contrary to a given potentially
> falsifiable hypothesis does indeed strengthen that hypothesis over
> time.
Quite so.
So how does one falsify the assertion that an "intelligent designer" of
unspecified but possibly supernatural powers, using unspecified but
possibly supernatural methods interfere with the evolutionary processes
we can observe and measure in a way which is apparently completely
arbitrary?
> This is how science works. The absence of evidence is very
> important in science. It is not meaningless.
>
> > One has to be very careful about "negative hypotheses". And just
> > because they are negative hypotheses does not mean that they need not
> > be testable.
>
> That's exactly right. Negative hypothesis (i.e., the hypotheses that
> something won't happen) are indeed testable in a falsifiable manner.
> Careful investigation is indeed required. The more a negative
> hypothesis is investigated and tested, without falsification, the
> stronger it becomes and the more predictive value it gains.
Quite so.
So how does one falsify the assertion that an "intelligent designer" of
unspecified but possibly supernatural powers, using unspecified but
possibly supernatural methods interfere with the evolutionary processes
we can observe and measure in a way which is apparently completely
arbitrary?
> After investigating many non-deliberate processes it is quite clear
> that a consistent pattern develops when it comes to the actions of many
> different non-deliberate processes on granite. They all create similar
> "natural-appearing" fractal-type granite forms. This similarity of
> action of many different non-deliberate processes on granite, can be
> very reasonably extrapolated to predict that all non-deliberate
> processes will most likely work in a similar way on granite (just like
> my cow jumping theory, says something about all cows based on just a
> small subset of cows).
How do you distinguish between "non-deliberate" and "deliberate"
processes without an hypothesis of what those processes are?
SETI looks for "deliberate" processes by looking quite specifically for
very simple signals. This is because the nature of "non-deliberate"
processes is that that they generate very messy and complex signals.
Your favoured granite block is precieved as being non-natural because
it is very simple. It has flat, polished sides which are parallel to
each other. You are using the same filter as do the SETI researchers
when you state that it is made by "deliberate" processes.
Yet you also hold that a high level of complexity is evidence for
"non-deliberate" processes.
So what would be evidence *against* "non-deliberate" processes?
>
> This is a valid prediction about an entire set of potential options
> based on a small subset. If everything about all non-deliberate
> processes were already known, there would be no need for a scientific
> hypothesis about the entire set of possibilities. You are arguing
> against the need for science when you assert that everything must be
> known about something before anything can be said about it.
I have made no such assertion.
I have asserted that science operates on the basis of testing
hypotheses.
I have argued that without a testable hypothesis of *how* an object is
made, one cannot conclude that it was "designed" or not. We have had
other posters on this forum insisting that pyrite crystals must be
"designed" because of the geometrically regular form and shinny
surface. They were misled into this belief through an ignorance of the
processes of crystal formation.
In archaeology, scientist frequently come across objects which may or
may not be designed. They form their conclusions on whether or not they
were designed by testing hypotheses of manufacture.
To assert that if evolutionary theory were falsified, the only other
possible alternative is the intervention of the supernatural (and
please don't pretend that ID is anything else: if you want to argue
with that, take it up with Michael Behe) is scientifically illiterate.
"I don't know" does not mean "GodImeananintelligentdesigner did it".
It means "I don't know"
RF
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
Kermit
> >
> > Theists who do evolutionary science have a much bigger god than you -
> > theirs created *everything. And science is the study of how he did it.
> > Why would an intelligent man confine himself to a god (godling?
> > demigod?) who only produces bacterial flagella and the like?
>
> Why is it better for a God to have to deliberately manipulate
> everything that goes on in creation?
He/she/it doesn't. If there is a creator, and he is not a trickster
god, then the universe seems to behave in consistent ways. No
intervention at all, as far as the evidence can show. *You are the one
who claims intervention - and in trivial matters like bacterial
flagella, of all things!
> Why not create the potential for
> lower-level processes that can act and react according to various rules
> that need not require constant conscious manipulation?
That seems to be how the universe works. Why are you postulating divine
intervention in these minor cases?
How do you conclude [no possible natural process] from [I can't think
of any offhand]?
> Think about it,
> which method really would be more creative and intelligent?
>
The Deist create it and step back and let it all unfold, I agree. So
why do you propose otherwise?
> Theistic evolutionists are a contradiction. They believe in a God for
> which they have absolutely no reasonable/testable/falsifiable evidence.
I think most of them would agree that their religious beliefs are not
scientific.
> Everything that they see could have been formed, according to their own
> beliefs, by non-deliberate causes. What then is left to support their
> notion of a higher being with any capability of deliberate thought or
> action?
Are you saying that *your belief depends on our never finding a natural
process which could explain bacterial flagella? Will you conclude that
there is no god if we can just figure out this one thing, or will you
keep retreating to another little thing we haven't figured out yet?
That sounds like neither strong theology nor good science.
> They might as well believe that little green men live in the
> middle of the moon - making the moon go around the Earth.
Obviously, theists who can do science have psychologically compelling
reasons to believe. Curiously, their beliefs neither contradict known
science, nor depend on continued ignorance. They are not threatened by
learning how any particular thing happens - they don't seem to place
their spiritual faith in (falsifiable) synthetic statements. But I
shouldn't speak for them; it would be best if you asked them yourself.
I *have seen evidence that humans exist, that we make things, in
particular that we sometimes shape, polish, and decorate rocks.
I have *never seen evidence that there is a creator of any sort that
could be responsible for Earth evolution.
Nor have I seen any evidence that *you know, and can reasonably
dismiss, all natural processes that could bring about bacterial
flagella.
Seanpit
Ken Shackleton
Seanpit wrote:
> rupert....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > For example, it is possible for someone to win the California Lottery 5
> > > times in a row - but it is very very unlikely.
> >
> > Not if I can pass a copy of the winning ticket to my children. If most
> > of the ticket buyers in week 2 have a copy of the ticket that won in
> > week 1, how does that change yor calculation?
>
> Passing on the winning number doesn't help when it comes to finding new
> winning numbers. The odds of finding a new winning number are just as
> low.
Let's try it this way.....in the lottery of life....if the environment
and selection pressures don't change....then that would be the same as
if the winning lottery number did not change from week to week. So
let's ponder that for a moment...
The lottery foundation never publishes the winning number [you have to
have your ticket checked in person, and they only tell you about your
numbers that match the winner]....we have to guess week after
week....and the winners don't tell anyone else what their winning
numbers are....they want to keep it to themselves.
All tickets that have no winning numbers earn their holders
nothing....and they have no clue as to the winning number....so have to
start again from scratch.
All tickets that have some winning numbers have a small prize....and
they pass on what they know to be some of the winning numbers to the
next "generation"....the remaining numbers are guessed.
The winners with the most correct numbers win more money....they can
buy more tickets with those winnings and take more guesses at the
numbers that they do not know are winners. The losers have fewer and
fewer resources each week and can buy fewer and fewer tickets.....they
have less fitness.
Each week.....the percentage of winning tickets steadily increases as
correct guesses are preserved and incorrect guesses are discarded....
How long before there are huge numbers of winners?.....no very long at
all.
Not a perfect analogy.....but it does illustrate the glaring problem
with your line of reasoning.....in that you think that things start
afresh with each generation and that nothing useful gets passed on...
Ken
Seanpit
So, I take it you agree that non-deliberate processes are unlikely
designers of polished granite cubes? ; )
Stick with the topic at hand Noone . . .
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
hersheyhv
Of course. But it would be unscientific to attribute the polished
granite cube to a supernatural designer of infinite powers. Not that
it couldn't be, but such a hypothesis is untestable. Instead we would
attribute the polished granite cube to a designer of limited powers
roughly comparable to that of humans, since this artifact is at about
that level. A fossil brachiopod shell, OTOH, we would not attribute to
a designer or sculptor, natural or supernatural, although a fossil
shell could have been carved by a sculptor with human abilities.
Of what possible utility would be positing that either the cube or the
shell was the result of a supernatural agent with infinite powers.
Certainly it could. Anything, certainly anything you don't understand
as natural mechanisms but even things that have natural explanations as
well, can be asserted to be made by such a HYPE. But where can you go
from there?
Von R. Smith
> Von R. Smith wrote:
> > sea...@naturalselection.0catch.com wrote:
> > > Richard Forrest wrote:
> > >
> > > < snip >
> > >
> > > > > Given our current knowledge base about granite and how mindless
> > > > > processes affect granite, we can know, with a very high degree of
> > > > > predictive value, that such non-deliberate processes never produce
> > > > > perfectly symmetrical polished granite cubes.
> > > >
> > > > Unless we know all "natural processes" - which we can't - there is no
> > > > way in which we can assign a probabilty to the production of the cube
> > > > by natural processes. One cannot assign a probabilty to an unknown
> > > > process.
> > >
> > > Again, science is not based on the absolute knowledge of anything. You
> > > can actually make real useful scientific hypothesis about things for
> > > which you do not know every possible option or outcome.
> >
> >
> > Unfortunately, however, the entire basis for ID is the categorical
> > assertion that every other possible option or outcome is vanishingly
> > improbable (along with suppression of any consideration that a designer
> > might be similarly improbable), a claim for which you *would* need such
> > knowledge.
>
> The ID proposal that non-deliberate possibilities is based on studying
> a subset of non-deliberate processes and detecting a very predictable
> pattern in these processes.
There have been many times that people cleverer than you or I have
proposed, in complete seriousness, that some non-human intelligent
agency is the "only reasonable explanation" for some phenomenon X.
Every one of those proposals to date has failed. Why do you suppose
that is? Where do you think these other inferences went wrong? What
is that you think you've fixed, that one should trust you to have
finally gotten right this time round?
A Theory of Non-Deliberate Processes (and that is, in effect, what you
are claiming to have in hand) would be Nobel Prize material. Do you
have anything on it that you could submit for peer review?
> Now, it is true that the ID prediction
> could be falsified - very easily in fact. However, given the evidence
> and consistent pattern of how known non-deliberate processes work, the
> predictive value against this happening is very high.
How high is "very high"? Can you put a number to it, and justify that
number with data, or are you just waving your hands? I predict that
people who claim to have a rational, scientific basis for rejecting
evolution will generally turn out to have had strong prior cultural
and/or emotional commitments dispositive to rejecting it. What do you
think: does my proposal have a higher or lower predictive value than
yours?
>
> > Mainstream science doesn't need such absolute knowledge
> > precisely because it does not try to argue this way.
>
> Sure it does.
Sure it does what? Sure it does need absolute knowledge, or sure it
does argue "this way", referring to this:
quote
Unfortunately, however, the entire basis for ID is the categorical
assertion that every other possible option or outcome is vanishingly
improbable (along with suppression of any consideration that a designer
might be similarly improbable), a claim for which you *would* need such
knowledge.
/quote
> Mainstream science, like all real science, argues from
> the interpretation of a small subset of the whole, extrapolating the
> conclusions taken from the subset to the whole. In this way absolute
> knowledge is not required before a useful hypothesis can be created. In
> fact, it is because absolute knowledge is impossible that science is so
> useful. If we already knew everything, there would be no need for
> science since there would be no possibility of falsification.
There are cogent extrapolations, and there are bogus ones. There are
also methods and precautions for maximizing the odds that a particular
extrapolation is the former rather than the latter. One such
precaution is not to extrapolate beyond known fit, a precaution that
generalizing over all "non-deliberate processes" throws right out the
window.
More importantly, it is unscientific to presume that any extrapolation,
no matter how good, gives one an a priori justification to reject a
given hypothesis out of hand. Pauli and other physicists may have
preferred the neutrino hypothesis to abandoning the conservation
principle of energy (which is about as good an extrapolation as any in
science), but they never pretended that that preference obviated the
need to search for positive evidence for the existence of neutrinos.
You, on the other hand, do not have anything nearly as well-supported
as the conservation principle of energy, and yet you seem to think that
you have proven the existence and agency of your "neutrino" simply by
insisting that any alternative violates your intuitions about
non-deliberate processes.
>
> > While comparing
> > and eliminating possible alternatives is part of the scientific method,
> > it can never be the sole basis for any proposal if it is to be
> > considered viable; one must establish a reasonable *positive* case for
> > one's hypothesis.
>
> Not true. Negative hypotheses (i.e., a hypothesis that something is not
> true or will not happen) are very valuable in science. Science is not
> always based on positive predictions.
Are you sure that you read what I wrote? We agree that negative
hypotheses play a role. But they rarely if ever can serve as the sole
basis for positive claims. Pauli never claimed to have proven the
existence of neutrinos by dysjunctive syllogism:
~(Conservation of energy)\/(neutrinos)
(Conservation of energy)
~[~(Conservation of energy)] - by double negation
// (neutrinos) - by disjunctive syllogism
Aristoteleans and medieval Schoolmen use such arguments. Scientists do
not.
What sort of arguments do you use?
>
> > ID fails to do this largely because, by refusing to
> > speculate as to the nature, activity, and motives of the Designer, it
> > cannot even tell us what a reasonable positive case for ID would look
> > like.
>
> You limit science to only positive predictions.
No, I do not. My point is that, whatever use one might have for
negative predictions, one still needs positive evidence for positive
claims.
> Science is bigger than
> that. Negative hypothesis are also very useful and often provide very
> powerful evidence.
Yes, but by themselves they can provide only weak support for something
as sweeping in scope as ID.
>
> > > It is valid, scientifically, to hypothesize that polished granite cubes
> > > cannot be made with any non-deliberate process. Such a hypothesis is
> > > perfectly valid. The prediction that no non-deliberate process will
> > > ever produce a granite cube can be tested in a falsifiable way.
> >
> > No, it can't. While falsifiable in principle (there is a conceivable
> > set of events that would motivate its rejection) there is no remotely
> > feasible battery of tests that would allow us to make such a
> > determination one way or another. It would be far more fruitful to
> > pursue positive evidence for a deliberate designer -unless, of course,
> > your designer is so vaguely-described that it could be practically
> > anything.
>
> What about an amorphous granite rock? Are you going to pursue positive
> evidence for a designer of such a rock? If not, why not? I mean
> really, a deliberate process certainly could be responsible - right?
Right. And if I had some *independent* basis for supposing that a
given piece of granite had been man-made in a laboratory, then I might
well look for more evidence confirming or falsifying that hypothesis.
> Could it be then, that you would not try to find evidence to support
> this possibility because you know that such amorphous granite rocks are
> easily formed by non-deliberate processes?
That would depend on whether I were actually interested in knowing
where the rock came from. If I were, then I would definitely *not*
just conclude that the rock had formed naturally, merely because I
think it could have.
> Why then would you not
> accept the deliberate origin of a polished granite cube until you found
> positive evidence for the identity of the designer of that specific
> cube as well as the motives of that designer?
Given my answer to your setup question, why would I?
>
> Come on now, would you really never accept the deliberate origin of
> such a cube until you actually found the designer? I just don't
> believe you. That just isn't rational given your own knowledge about
> the predictable limits of non-deliberate processes when it comes to
> granite.
The problem with your cube of granite example is that you and I already
know that we *have* found the designer, or at least a very likely
candidate for one.
Suppose, however, that I know of no designers capable of making such a
cube, nor could I think of any compelling reason to expect a designer
to make such a thing even if it could.
Suppose that I also know for a fact that natural processes can
sometimes form very small cubes of related rock-types.
Suppose that in addition I have some idea of what sort of traces such
processes might leave behind on the off chance that they *did* manage
to form a large granite cube. Suppose furthermore that when I examine
the cube in question more closely, I find evidence of those traces.
Suppose that the consensus among professional geologists and
mineralogists who study granite for a living is that the natural
formation of such a cube, while remarkable, rare, and really cool, is
well within the realm of possibility.
Suppose, finally, that the only objections being urged against such an
hypothesis were the bald assertions and hand-wavings of some medico who
came into the discussion clearly already wanting to believe that his
dad had made the cube.
Under *those* circumstances, I suspect a natural origin for the granite
cube would look quite promising to any reasonable person, and *that*,
Dr. Pitman, is more similar to the context in which we currently
consider the origins and history of life than is your analogy.
>
> > > If any
> > > non-deliberate process is ever found that produces even one polished
> > > granite cube, then the hypothesis is indeed falsified. Until then, it
> > > gains very real predictive value.
> >
> >
> > Only if one gives "deliberate process" a reasonably rigorous
> > operational definition; otherwise, such a prediction will yield only
> > vague hand-waving.
>
> Fine - make a reasonably rigorous operational definition for a
> non-deliberate process. I think most would accept that weather
> patterns, wind, rain, volcanoes, forest fires, lightening, etc. would
> all qualify as non-deliberate processes when it comes to their action
> on granite. I certainly would - how about you?
I don't know. Some cultures believe that volcanoes and weather are
controlled by gods or local geniuses. I see no reason to believe that
they are, but I suppose I could be wrong. As long as my understanding
of how these phenomena affect granite doesn't hinge on metaphysics, I
really don't care if the lightning is from Thor or not. I'm not the
one who thinks these concepts of "deliberate" vs. "non-deliberate" are
useful constructs, and I'm not even sure how they would be used in such
a context.
>
> < snip >
>
> > > In the same way, I don't have to know about all cows to reasonably
> > > hypothesize that no cow will ever be able to jump on or over my house.
> >
> > No, but I do need to know *something* that I can reasonably suppose to
> > be valid for all cows. I bet I can tell you a lot more about cows
> > than you can about the supposed Intelligent Designer.
>
> I know something about non-deliberate processes and how they affect
> granite that can reasonably be valid for all non-deliberate processes.
How do you know that they are valid for all non-deliberate processes?
> The same is true about non-deliberate processes and how they affect
> living things that can be very reasonably extrapolated to all
> non-deliberate processes in the very same way that you extrapolate your
> knowledge about a limited subset of cows to all cows.
Depends on the knowledge and the subset. If my subset of cows are all
black, does that mean I can extrapolate that all cows are black? If
all of my subset of cows live on my own farm, does that mean that I can
extrapolate that all cows live on my farm? Why can I do this for a
cow's ability to fly, but not for color, or what farm they live on?
There are reasonable answers to these questions. There are good
extrapolations and bad ones, as well as methods and precautions for
figuring out which ones are which. What methods did you use?
>
> > I doubt that you would accept the conclusion that, because cows cannot
> > jump on your house, that no mammal can. Would you accept such an
> > hypothesis? How can you be so confident that your insight about
> > "mindless" processes can, in fact, be cogently generalized over all
> > such processes, as opposed to some subset of them? How can you be sure
> > that "mindless processes" are even a coherent category that share some
> > set of traits besides the arbitrary one that defines them?
>
> How can I make such generalization about non-deliberate processes? -
> Because I've studied many different kinds of non-deliberate processes.
> I've not just limited myself to "cows", so to speak. I've found a very
> consistent predictable pattern in all of the different mindless
> processes I've studied. This pattern shows predictable limits to how
> non-deliberate processes can affect granite, and even living things. It
> is quite reasonable, then, to extrapolate the predictable limits of a
> small subset to the larger whole - just like you do with your
> extrapolation of knowledge of the limited jumping ability of a few cows
> to all cows.
You might as well have written: "Trust me, I just know" for all this
paragraph tells me.
Seanpit
Richard Forrest wrote:
< snip >
> > After investigating many non-deliberate processes it is quite clear
> > that a consistent pattern develops when it comes to the actions of many
> > different non-deliberate processes on granite. They all create similar
> > "natural-appearing" fractal-type granite forms. This similarity of
> > action of many different non-deliberate processes on granite, can be
> > very reasonably extrapolated to predict that all non-deliberate
> > processes will most likely work in a similar way on granite (just like
> > my cow jumping theory, says something about all cows based on just a
> > small subset of cows).
>
> How do you distinguish between "non-deliberate" and "deliberate"
> processes without an hypothesis of what those processes are?
Oh, give me a break! Don't tell me you are now finding difficulty
figuring out the difference between deliberate and non-deliberate?
Really? Are you really trying to argue for a deliberate motive behind
the activities of something like a tornado? Come on now, don't tell me
that you have problems figuring out what is and what is not capable of
deliberate activity? . . .
You're really reaching for straws now my friend. Why not simply accept
the obvious conclusion that deliberate intelligent beings can
manipulate granite stone in a much broader range than any
non-deliberate process can? Why not accept the obvious notion that the
anything that goes beyond the limits of the very clear pattern of what
non-deliberate processes do to granite, is pretty convincing evidence
of design all by itself?
> SETI looks for "deliberate" processes by looking quite specifically for
> very simple signals. This is because the nature of "non-deliberate"
> processes is that that they generate very messy and complex signals.
Ah, so you understand after all that all non-deliberate processes do
indeed have a certain predictable pattern when it comes to certain
types of things - like their action on granite and radio waves. Why
didn't you avoid admitting the significance of this characteristic for
such a long time?
> Your favoured granite block is precieved as being non-natural because
> it is very simple. It has flat, polished sides which are parallel to
> each other. You are using the same filter as do the SETI researchers
> when you state that it is made by "deliberate" processes.
Exactly - I'm glad you're finally catching on ; )
> Yet you also hold that a high level of complexity is evidence for
> "non-deliberate" processes.
You keep getting this statement wrong over and over again. Clearly, I
hold that high-level systems of functional complexity are evidence for
*deliberate* processes.
In the context that I use the word "complexity" I don't mean the same
thing as randomness or chaos. I'm talking about system complexity,
which is not at all highly chaotic. An integrated system of function is
actually highly constrained and requires a certain minimum size and
specificity within the underlying DNA code for that system. Greater
"complexity" in such a code does note mean greater chaos, but rather a
greater minimum size and specificity requirement.
High minimum size and specificity requirements simply go beyond what
non-deliberate processes are capable of achieving since all
non-deliberate processes, to include the Darwinian mechanism of random
mutation and natural selection, have very predictable effects on gene
pools over time. They random mutations always tend toward chaos or
homogeny. Natural selection always tends to keep what functional
systems it already has. Occasionally, random mutations will come across
some novel beneficial sequence, which natural selection will also
maintain. However, such occasions of novel discovery become more and
more rare, in a very predictable exponential fashion, until they never
happen beyond a relatively low threshold of minimum size and
specificity requirements (this side of trillions upon trillions of
years).
Because of the clear limited threshold of what non-deliberate processes
can do, any system that requires a minimum size and specificity
requirement that is significantly beyond this threshold give as clear
evidence of deliberate design as does a polished granite cube with
geometric shapes carved in each face.
> So what would be evidence *against* "non-deliberate" processes?
What you mean to say is, "What would be evidence against 'deliberate'
processes?"
Evidence against the hypothesis that only deliberate design could
produce a given phenomenon would be the finding of some non-deliberate
process that is in fact capable of producing the phenomenon in question
(i.e., a polished granite cube or a system of function that requires a
minimum of more than a couple thousand fairly specified base pairs of
genetic real estate).
> > This is a valid prediction about an entire set of potential options
> > based on a small subset. If everything about all non-deliberate
> > processes were already known, there would be no need for a scientific
> > hypothesis about the entire set of possibilities. You are arguing
> > against the need for science when you assert that everything must be
> > known about something before anything can be said about it.
>
> I have made no such assertion.
Yes, you have. You have said that one cannot assume design of polished
granite cubes by showing that no known non-deliberate process even
comes close because of your arguments of something along the lines of,
"All non-deliberate processes cannot be known" and "You would have to
know about all non-deliberate processes first".
> I have asserted that science operates on the basis of testing
> hypotheses.
You have argued that negative hypotheses aren't helpful in science.
> I have argued that without a testable hypothesis of *how* an object is
> made, one cannot conclude that it was "designed" or not.
Yes, that's exactly what you have argued, and this is exactly what I've
shown to be a mistaken notion. There is simply no need to know *how* a
polished granite cube was actually formed, or even by whom it was
formed, to know with a very high predictive value, that it was in fact
deliberately designed - simply by knowing the common pattern of
non-deliberate processes when it comes to their action on granite.
> We have had
> other posters on this forum insisting that pyrite crystals must be
> "designed" because of the geometrically regular form and shinny
> surface. They were misled into this belief through an ignorance of the
> processes of crystal formation.
I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone argue this and I tend not to
believe your assertion here. But, even if someone were to have made
this argument for pyrite crystals or other types of crystals, it wasn't
me. As I've pointed out to you before, why do you think I chose
granite for my illustration? You have to investigate the material that
has a particular structure in some detail before you are able to tell
that it goes significantly beyond the capabilities of non-deliberate
processes.
> In archaeology, scientist frequently come across objects which may or
> may not be designed. They form their conclusions on whether or not they
> were designed by testing hypotheses of manufacture.
Again, archaeologists have to do more than figure out possible ways of
manufacture. Any amorphous flint stone can be manufactured
deliberately. So, determining the possibility of this or that method of
manufacture says very little about the likelihood of deliberate vs.
non-deliberate creation. Archaeologists must also have some sort of
knowledge about the limits of non-deliberate processes when it comes to
the material that makes up the object in question.
You've already admitted as much yourself when you agreed that
non-deliberate processes work in a very predictably random/chaotic way
on stuff like granite rocks - giving evidence that a polished granite
cube is in fact obviously designed.
> To assert that if evolutionary theory were falsified, the only other
> possible alternative is the intervention of the supernatural (and
> please don't pretend that ID is anything else: if you want to argue
> with that, take it up with Michael Behe) is scientifically illiterate.
ID Theory isn't about trying to argue for the identity of the
deliberate agent. Really, it isn't. All ID Theory says is that whoever
it is, it was intelligent and it acted deliberately in the creation of
certain systems within all living things. I'm sorry that you just
don't see the value of such a theory, but that is all that ID is. And,
it does indeed carry with it a very high degree of predictive value.
> "I don't know" does not mean "GodImeananintelligentdesigner did it".
Again, there is plenty of evidence besides a simple "I don't know". We
do know a whole lot by studying the very predictable patterns of what
non-deliberate processes are capable of achieving as they relate with
different materials - like granite or DNA. These very predictable
non-deliberate processes give us a very good idea about where these
processes end and where deliberate processes start.
ID Theory does not detect "God". An intelligent agent of some kind is
detected - to a very high degree of predictive value. If you want to
call that intelligent agent "God" - that's perfectly fine. If you want
to call it "It" that is also fine.
> It means "I don't know"
If you really didn't know anything, then this would be fine. But, you
yourself seem to recognize that a polished granite cube is in fact
evidence of deliberate design even without any knowledge of who or what
or how such a cube was actually formed. Even you seem to understand
that all you need to know is how non-deliberate processes tend to work
with granite. That's it. Simple. You do "know".
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Cubist
> Von R. Smith wrote:
[el snipparoonie]
> > > In the same way, I don't have to know about all cows to reasonably
> > > hypothesize that no cow will ever be able to jump on or over my house.
> >
> > No, but I do need to know *something* that I can reasonably suppose to
> > be valid for all cows. I bet I can tell you a lot more about cows
> > than you can about the supposed Intelligent Designer.
>
> I know something about non-deliberate processes and how they affect
> granite that can reasonably be valid for all non-deliberate processes.
> The same is true about non-deliberate processes and how they affect
> living things that can be very reasonably extrapolated to all
> non-deliberate processes in the very same way that you extrapolate your
> knowledge about a limited subset of cows to all cows.
Mr. Pitman, it is worth noting that this "non-deliberate processes"
category of yours is one whose members are *not* identified by any
trait that they actually possess in common with one another; rather,
they are identified by the *absence* of a particular trait. The
category of "cows", contrariwise, is one whose members are identified
by various characteristics which they *do* actually possess in common
with one another. Dare one suggest that generalizations about a
category which is defined by the presence of a list of specific traits,
are more likely to to be true than generalizations about a category
which is *solely* defined by the *absence* of one specific trait?
Von R. Smith
Seanpit wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> > > After investigating many non-deliberate processes it is quite clear
> > > that a consistent pattern develops when it comes to the actions of many
> > > different non-deliberate processes on granite. They all create similar
> > > "natural-appearing" fractal-type granite forms. This similarity of
> > > action of many different non-deliberate processes on granite, can be
> > > very reasonably extrapolated to predict that all non-deliberate
> > > processes will most likely work in a similar way on granite (just like
> > > my cow jumping theory, says something about all cows based on just a
> > > small subset of cows).
> >
> > How do you distinguish between "non-deliberate" and "deliberate"
> > processes without an hypothesis of what those processes are?
>
> Oh, give me a break! Don't tell me you are now finding difficulty
> figuring out the difference between deliberate and non-deliberate?
> Really? Are you really trying to argue for a deliberate motive behind
> the activities of something like a tornado? Come on now, don't tell me
> that you have problems figuring out what is and what is not capable of
> deliberate activity? . . .
One could interpret Richard's question as rhetorical (as in: 'How does
one dstinguish between non-deliberate and deliberate processes?);
however, I suspect that he may have actually been directing it at you
personally: IOW, "How does Sean Pitman distinguish between
non-deliberate and deliberate processes?" Since you are the one who
proposes to use these concepts as crucial categories in your
methodology, and since you draw conclusions about them that are at odds
with what many other people in the discussion think, it is fair to ask
you this, and to expect an answer.
So tell us, Sean: what are the operational criteria you use to
distinguish a deliberate from a non-deliberate process. You claim that
non-deliberate processes share objective characteristics that enable
you to make generalizations about what they can and cannot do; surely
it is not too much to expect that you can make generalizations about
the observable characteristics that enable you to identify them as
deliberate or non-deliberate in the first place.
You do understand what I mean by operational criteria, right? I don't
want another one of your attempts to define by or appeal to
impressionistic examples, nor am I interested in some vague verbal
formulation (such as "fairly specified"), the interpretation of which
any two people could argue about fruitlessly for weeks; I mean a test,
a measurement, an observation that you, I, Richard, or Zoe could make,
and reliably determine whether the results were positive or negative.
A criterion by which, if we can agree on the data, then we can agree on
what the results are, even if we don't agree that those results
actually mean what Sean Pitman claims they mean.
So, to repeat Richard's question: How do you distinguish between
deliberate and non-deliberate processes?
>
> You're really reaching for straws now my friend. Why not simply accept
> the obvious conclusion that deliberate intelligent beings can
> manipulate granite stone in a much broader range than any
> non-deliberate process can? Why not accept the obvious notion that the
> anything that goes beyond the limits of the very clear pattern of what
> non-deliberate processes do to granite, is pretty convincing evidence
> of design all by itself?
Why not consider the equally obvious alternative that you might be
completely wrong about where the boundaries of what "non-deliberate
processes" are capable of actually are? With all due respect, I'd be
willing to bet that confirmed Sean Pitman mistakes occur more often
then confirmed miracles or alien interventions.
subtrahend
> Seanpit wrote:
> > Richard Forrest wrote:
> > Not true. If you or I or any other scientist (via land rover or
> > whatever) found a polished granite cube on Mars, as I've described it
> > (with the geometric forms on each face) it would be clear evidence to
> > *almost* everyone that clear evidence of alien intelligence had been
> > discovered. There would be no need to determine how the granite cube
> > was actually formed in order for this conclusion to be reasonably
> > reached by all.
>
> and yet no one would doubt for a single second that natural forces were
> involved in the making of the cube...
>
> the very principle denied by intelligent design which, BY DEFINITION,
> excludes natural processes and laws from its basis for existing.
Excuse me, Bob, but I could imagine a formulation of "intelligent
design" that makes no statement about the natural or supernatural
nature of the causes of the design that it seeks to infer in living
things on this planet. In other words, isn't it possible that one
interpretation of the ID program could be an attempt to demonstrate
that an intelligent being or beings necessarily influenced the
development of life, and an attempt to do so without resort to any
supernatural causes in order to explain this influence?
>
> > >
> > Again, read what I actually wrote and highlighted for you. Didn't you
> > see the word "no"? Again, it is my assertion that *no* non-deliberate
> > processes can produce polished granite cubes or the high levels of
> > functional complexity that we see in living things.
>
>
> and here is the FATAL weakness in his OWN argument by his OWN words.
>
> he uses the term 'processes'. a process is a sequence of operations
> used to make something.
>
> he ADMITS processes are used by intelligent designers to produce
> something. yet he asserts these processes are NOT natural...because he
> excludes evolution or ANY natural process
>
> so HOW does he KNOW something was intelligently designed via the use of
> PROCESSES if he excludes NATURAL processes? because those are the ONLY
> kinds of processes we have EVER seen.
>
> so even HE can't think of an event coming into being without the use of
> 'processes'. and NO process is EVER non-natural.
>
> the major difference between science and seanpit's metaphysics is that
> SCIENCE deals with MECHANISMS and THEOLOGY deals with INFERENCES and
> PURPOSE.
>
> seanpit keeps trying to sneak the camel's nose of INFERENCE into the
> tent as a substitute for MECHANISM. and that is just NOT science. not a
> bit. he is trying to REPLACE mechanism, saying it's not necessary,
> since INFERENCE can take its place.
>
> and that is nonsense. if he can so cavalierly dismiss natural causes,
> then we can safely assume intelligent design is without merit, since NO
> designer uses anything BUT natural causes.
>
> And INFERENCE is NOT a replacement for MECHANISMS
And what about "hypotheses non fingo"? Newton did not provide a
mechanism for his law of attraction. Is this not science?
bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net
Seanpit wrote:> > > > Seanpit wrote:
> > > > > Kermit wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > < snip >
> > > > >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > But you've also seen or know of people who make amorphous looking rocks
> > > - deliberately to look "natural". Yet, you wouldn't assume intelligent
> > > design when you see an amorphous-looking rock even though you know that
> > > people can and do make such things - do you? If not, why not?
> >
> > the biological world to *look* exactly as though it arose from the
> > mindless operation of millions of cycles of variation and selection,
> > but in fact it was designed deliberately to look "natural." Really it
> > was designed. It only *looks* natural. Really. Just like that amorphous
> > looking rock made by a peculiar artist. Really. It's designed. For
> > sure.
>
> We aren't talking about what looks "natural", we are talking about what
> looks designed. Some things in nature do not have the appearance of
> deliberate design - like the form of an amorphous-looking rock. Other
> things in nature definitely have the signs of deliberate manipulation -
> like a polished granite cube. It is easy to tell that such a granite
> cube is the result of deliberate design, without knowing who made it or
> how it was formed, by comparing it to what known non-deliberate
> processes create.
>
> There is definitely a consistent pattern to how non-deliberate
> processes shape granite. Non-deliberate processes work in a predictable
> way when it comes to granite. This predictability can be used to make
> very accurate scientific hypotheses that carry with them a very high
> degree of predictive value.
Non-deliberate processes work in predictable ways when it comes to
living things, too. Repeatedcycles of imperfect replication and
selection, lead to predictable patterns of relationships among living
and extinct species. Either there is no designer, or the designer has
decided (like the artist producing an amorphous rock) to make biology
look like the result of repeated mindless cycles of variation and
selection. And he's done a good enough job at making it look that way
that he's got the overwhelming majority of people who spend their
careers trying to understand it, convinced that there's no design
there, beyond that that grows out of repeated variation and selection.
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
Richard Forrest
Seanpit wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> > > After investigating many non-deliberate processes it is quite clear
> > > that a consistent pattern develops when it comes to the actions of many
> > > different non-deliberate processes on granite. They all create similar
> > > "natural-appearing" fractal-type granite forms. This similarity of
> > > action of many different non-deliberate processes on granite, can be
> > > very reasonably extrapolated to predict that all non-deliberate
> > > processes will most likely work in a similar way on granite (just like
> > > my cow jumping theory, says something about all cows based on just a
> > > small subset of cows).
> >
> > How do you distinguish between "non-deliberate" and "deliberate"
> > processes without an hypothesis of what those processes are?
>
> Oh, give me a break! Don't tell me you are now finding difficulty
> figuring out the difference between deliberate and non-deliberate?
How can you distinguish between deliberate and non-deliberate if you
don't know the process?
Seem as simple question.
> Really? Are you really trying to argue for a deliberate motive behind
> the activities of something like a tornado?
Are you asserting that we don't know the processes which lead to a
torando?
> Come on now, don't tell me
> that you have problems figuring out what is and what is not capable of
> deliberate activity? . . .
This is pure rhetoric, and does not address my question.
>
> You're really reaching for straws now my friend.
So why not answer the question?
> Why not simply accept
> the obvious conclusion that deliberate intelligent beings can
> manipulate granite stone in a much broader range than any
> non-deliberate process can?
What on earth does that mean?
We know that humans cut granite into regular blocks.
Humans polish granite.
Humans even make statues out of granite.
They do so by using processes we know and understand. We recognise that
regular blocks are man-made because we know that they are cut using
saws.
If we crush granite into small pieces to use as aggregate, it is far
harder to tell if such aggregate is man-made. "Non-deliberate"
processes do the same thing, and I doubt if one could tell by looking
at a pile of aggregate if it was natural or man-made. A knowldge of
process might help: if we know that man-made aggregates go through a
crushing mill and are screened to eliminate all particles over a
particular size, we could do a statistical sampling of particle from
the pile to find out if there is an anomalous cut-off point in particle
size.
By the way "non-deliberate" processes can smash, splinter, melt, erode,
decay, carve, polish in a far greater variety of ways than we can.
> Why not accept the obvious notion that the
> anything that goes beyond the limits of the very clear pattern of what
> non-deliberate processes do to granite, is pretty convincing evidence
> of design all by itself?
What is clear is that we accept *simple* geometries of form in the case
of your granite cube as evidence of human manufacture. The more complex
that form becomes, the less likely we are to ascribe it to human
manufacture,
>
> > SETI looks for "deliberate" processes by looking quite specifically for
> > very simple signals. This is because the nature of "non-deliberate"
> > processes is that that they generate very messy and complex signals.
>
> Ah, so you understand after all that all non-deliberate processes do
> indeed have a certain predictable pattern when it comes to certain
> types of things - like their action on granite and radio waves. Why
> didn't you avoid admitting the significance of this characteristic for
> such a long time?
We know that objects we manufacture have simple forms because we know
how they are manufactured. We understand the processes, and if there is
a question as to whether an object is man-made or natural, it is the
understanding of those processes which allows us to decide whether or
not an object is man-made.
>
> > Your favoured granite block is precieved as being non-natural because
> > it is very simple. It has flat, polished sides which are parallel to
> > each other. You are using the same filter as do the SETI researchers
> > when you state that it is made by "deliberate" processes.
>
> Exactly - I'm glad you're finally catching on ; )
Quite so, but even when SETI researchers discover a simple signal, they
don't automatically assume that it is the result of deliberate process.
Recognising such a signal is the starting point of the investigation
into whether or not it is artificial.
When the first pulsar was discovered, the regularity of the signal
suggested that it was artificial. It was further investigation which
showed that it was not. What you are suggesting is that as soon as such
a regular signal is detected, we can conclude immediately that it is
artificial without any further investigation into how it was produced.
>
> > Yet you also hold that a high level of complexity is evidence for
> > "non-deliberate" processes.
>
> You keep getting this statement wrong over and over again. Clearly, I
> hold that high-level systems of functional complexity are evidence for
> *deliberate* processes.
>
> In the context that I use the word "complexity" I don't mean the same
> thing as randomness or chaos. I'm talking about system complexity,
> which is not at all highly chaotic. An integrated system of function is
> actually highly constrained and requires a certain minimum size and
> specificity within the underlying DNA code for that system. Greater
> "complexity" in such a code does note mean greater chaos, but rather a
> greater minimum size and specificity requirement.
This is mere word-salad.
How do you measure "specificity"?
How do you determine what the minimum size is?
How do you measure complexity? It's not an easy term to define, and
furthermore however you measure complexity, you need to demonstrate
that such a measure is appropriate to biological systems.
We know that such complex systems can be created by totally
non-deliberate processes. Corporations spend millions of dollars on
designs which are created by processes which are modelled on natural
selection.
>
> High minimum size and specificity requirements simply go beyond what
> non-deliberate processes are capable of achieving since all
> non-deliberate processes, to include the Darwinian mechanism of random
> mutation and natural selection, have very predictable effects on gene
> pools over time. They random mutations always tend toward chaos or
> homogeny.
No they don't. Genetic algorythms run on computers don't. Experimental
breeding of organisms in the laboratory don't.
This is quite simply an unfounded assertion which is demonstrably
wrong.
> Natural selection always tends to keep what functional
> systems it already has. Occasionally, random mutations will come across
> some novel beneficial sequence, which natural selection will also
> maintain. However, such occasions of novel discovery become more and
> more rare, in a very predictable exponential fashion, until they never
> happen beyond a relatively low threshold of minimum size and
> specificity requirements (this side of trillions upon trillions of
> years).
Which is simply another unfounded assertion, and furthermore one which
other contributors to this forum have demolished.
>
> Because of the clear limited threshold
What "clear limited threshold"?
How do you measure it? How do you determine what the threshold is in a
system you are investigating?
It is most certainly *NOT* clear.
> of what non-deliberate processes
> can do,
How do we know what "non-deliberate processes" can or can't do unless
we know those processes?
> any system that requires a minimum size
How do we determine that minimum size?
> and specificity
> requirement
How do we measyre a "specificity requirement"?
>that is significantly beyond this threshold
How have you determined this threshold?
>give as clear
> evidence of deliberate design as does a polished granite cube with
> geometric shapes carved in each face.
Which, as all you have done is made unqualified assertions, none of
which can be quantified is merely yet another empty assertion.
>
> > So what would be evidence *against* "non-deliberate" processes?
>
> What you mean to say is, "What would be evidence against 'deliberate'
> processes?"
No, I mean what would be evidence against "non-deliberate" processes.
>
> Evidence against the hypothesis that only deliberate design could
> produce a given phenomenon would be the finding of some non-deliberate
> process that is in fact capable of producing the phenomenon in question
> (i.e., a polished granite cube or a system of function that requires a
> minimum of more than a couple thousand fairly specified base pairs of
> genetic real estate).
>
Let's turn this around:
Evidence against the hypothesis that deliberate design could
not produce a given phenomenon would be the finding of some
non-deliberate
process that is in fact capable of producing the phenomenon in question
(i.e., a polished granite cube or a system of function that requires a
minimum of more than a couple thousand fairly specified base pairs of
genetic real estate).
This is *exactly* the same argument as you use to support your
assertion, but used to support a diametrically opposite assertion.
So unless we know the process, we have no way of knowing whether it was
deliberate or not. It is only with a knowledge of the process by which
something was created that we can determine if it was made by
deliberate or non-deliberate processes.
> > > This is a valid prediction about an entire set of potential options
> > > based on a small subset. If everything about all non-deliberate
> > > processes were already known, there would be no need for a scientific
> > > hypothesis about the entire set of possibilities. You are arguing
> > > against the need for science when you assert that everything must be
> > > known about something before anything can be said about it.
> >
> > I have made no such assertion.
>
> Yes, you have. You have said that one cannot assume design of polished
> granite cubes by showing that no known non-deliberate process even
> comes close because of your arguments of something along the lines of,
> "All non-deliberate processes cannot be known" and "You would have to
> know about all non-deliberate processes first".
What I am saying is that unless you can form a testable hypothesis of
process, you can't make that determination.
>
> > I have asserted that science operates on the basis of testing
> > hypotheses.
>
> You have argued that negative hypotheses aren't helpful in science.
>
They are tricky, and one needs to be very careful in how one constructs
such hypotheses. Nevertheless, they still need to be testable.
> > I have argued that without a testable hypothesis of *how* an object is
> > made, one cannot conclude that it was "designed" or not.
>
> Yes, that's exactly what you have argued, and this is exactly what I've
> shown to be a mistaken notion.
Quite simply, you haven't.
Your argument in favour of something being made by "deliberate"
processes can be mirrored exactly into an argument in favour of
something being made by "non-deliberate" processes. I can use exactly
the same argument to support an assertion that something is made by
"non-deliberate" processes as you use to support your assertion that
something is made by "deliberate" processes.
This shows that your explanatory filter is of no value without a
knowledge of process.
> There is simply no need to know *how* a
> polished granite cube was actually formed, or even by whom it was
> formed, to know with a very high predictive value, that it was in fact
> deliberately designed - simply by knowing the common pattern of
> non-deliberate processes when it comes to their action on granite.
>
What is the "common pattern" of "deliberate processes"?
How about a list of characteristics of such processes?
> > We have had
> > other posters on this forum insisting that pyrite crystals must be
> > "designed" because of the geometrically regular form and shinny
> > surface. They were misled into this belief through an ignorance of the
> > processes of crystal formation.
>
> I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone argue this and I tend not to
> believe your assertion here.
It was McCoy. Okay, he's a nutcase, but that doesn't affect the
argument.
> But, even if someone were to have made
> this argument for pyrite crystals or other types of crystals, it wasn't
> me.
So what?
> As I've pointed out to you before, why do you think I chose
> granite for my illustration? You have to investigate the material that
> has a particular structure in some detail before you are able to tell
> that it goes significantly beyond the capabilities of non-deliberate
> processes.
So how do you know what a process can or can't do unless you know what
that process is?
What are the characteristics of all deliberate processes, and how are
they quantitavely different from non-deliberate processes?
>
> > In archaeology, scientist frequently come across objects which may or
> > may not be designed. They form their conclusions on whether or not they
> > were designed by testing hypotheses of manufacture.
>
> Again, archaeologists have to do more than figure out possible ways of
> manufacture. Any amorphous flint stone can be manufactured
> deliberately.
And without a knowledge of how such flints are made, an archaeologist
can't determine whether or not such an object is man-made.
> So, determining the possibility of this or that method of
> manufacture says very little about the likelihood of deliberate vs.
> non-deliberate creation.
Actually, it tells us *exactly* whether or not we can form such a
conclusion.
> Archaeologists must also have some sort of
> knowledge about the limits of non-deliberate processes when it comes to
> the material that makes up the object in question.
What archaeologists have is a knowledge of the *deliberate* processes
by which such tools are made. I spent a lot of time in my late teens
collecting flint tools from the fields in the area around my school. I
even co-authored a paper on the subject for an archaeological journal.
To identify a flint which is worked by man, as opposed to one which
hasn't, one looks quite specifically for indications of *how* the
object is made. One looks for a striking platform, a bulb of
percussion, for reworking of edges, and other indications of
*processes* which it is virtually impossible for natural agents to
produce. Even so, one looks for clusters of such finds: faced with a
single such object from an unknown location, the evidence that it is
man-made rather than natural needs to be very clear.
>
> You've already admitted as much yourself when you agreed that
> non-deliberate processes work in a very predictably random/chaotic way
> on stuff like granite rocks - giving evidence that a polished granite
> cube is in fact obviously designed.
Pyrite crystals are also very regular.
If we didn't know about the processes by which such crystals are
formed, your filter would designate them as made by "deliberate"
processes.
>
> > To assert that if evolutionary theory were falsified, the only other
> > possible alternative is the intervention of the supernatural (and
> > please don't pretend that ID is anything else: if you want to argue
> > with that, take it up with Michael Behe) is scientifically illiterate.
>
> ID Theory isn't about trying to argue for the identity of the
> deliberate agent.
It's very studiously evading the isse of the identity of the deliberate
agent.
> Really, it isn't.
Quite so, but that rather undermines its claim that it is science.
> All ID Theory says is that whoever
> it is, it was intelligent and it acted deliberately in the creation of
> certain systems within all living things. I'm sorry that you just
> don't see the value of such a theory, but that is all that ID is. And,
> it does indeed carry with it a very high degree of predictive value.
>
> > "I don't know" does not mean "GodImeananintelligentdesigner did it".
>
> Again, there is plenty of evidence besides a simple "I don't know". We
> do know a whole lot by studying the very predictable patterns of what
> non-deliberate processes
So please give me a list of the characteristics of "non-deliberate"
processes..
> are capable of achieving as they relate with
> different materials - like granite or DNA. These very predictable
> non-deliberate processes give us a very good idea about where these
> processes end and where deliberate processes start.
>
So please give me a prediction of ID which will allow ID to be
falsified.
> ID Theory does not detect "God". An intelligent agent of some kind is
> detected - to a very high degree of predictive value.
So please give me a prediction of ID.
Something which allows ID to be falsified.
Not a potential falsification of evolution in small incremental steps.
A potential falsification of the assertion that an "intelligent
designer" of unspecified but possibly supernatural powers intervenes
either occasionally or all the time using unspecified but possibly
supernatural processes with the observed and measured processes of
evolution.
> If you want to
> call that intelligent agent "God" - that's perfectly fine. If you want
> to call it "It" that is also fine.
>
> > It means "I don't know"
>
> If you really didn't know anything, then this would be fine. But, you
> yourself seem to recognize that a polished granite cube is in fact
> evidence of deliberate design even without any knowledge of who or what
> or how such a cube was actually formed.
> Even you seem to understand
> that all you need to know is how non-deliberate processes tend to work
> with granite. That's it. Simple. You do "know".
Which shows how misleading simple conclusions can be.
If it is the characteristics of the granite cube - i.e. that is has a
simple geometry and flat surfaces - that make me think that it was
manufactured, how does this help your assertion that some biological
systems are manufactured because they are extremely complex?
Furthermore, if I didn't know about the processes by which large
crystals are formed, I would identify a large pyrite crystal as being
manufactured on the basis of the same explanatory filter.
I'd be wrong.
It is only by forming an hypothesis of how something is made which can
be tested against the evidence that we can make the determination that
it is manufactured or the result of natural processes.
RF
>
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
avital...@gmail.com
>high degree of predictive value. Once this is done, there is only one
>other viable alternative hypothesis - Intelligent Design.
1). Contrary to what IDers say, it is of course the case that
biologists CAN explain, very well, how natural processes CAN create the
very same natural structures the IDers claim are "inexplicable" (e.g.
the flagellum, the eye, etc., etc. etc.)
2). The whole ID argument is really a version of the argument from
incredulity: I cannot explain how X happened, so it has to be God!
(Oops--an "intelligent designer".) It was wrong to use this argument
3500 years ago to to claim that, since I cannot explain what the sun
is, it must be Apollo riding a chariot of fire in the heavens. It is
still wrong to use it now to say that, because I cannot explain how the
flagellum evolved, it must have been the Lord God--oops, the
"intelligent designer"--that did it.
3). IDers are nothing more than dishonest creationists. Creationists
say that IN THE BEGINNING, the LORD GOD had created LIFE out of THE
DUST OF THE GROUND using His INFINITE POWER. IDers, on the other hand,
say that BILLIONS OF YEARS AGO, an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER had created
LIFE out of NON-LIVING MOLECULES using his INELLIGENT ENGINEERING
SKILLS.
Obviously, these are really exactly the same claim (i.e., "Godidit").
The difference is simply that the creationists are honest about it,
while the IDers dishonestly claim their "Godidit" claim a "scientific
theory" because they changed a few names in an attempt to get around
the church/state seperation thingy.
4). The ID view is based on a very basic logical fallacy. Why introduce
the ID at all? Well, because IDers say all things that are complex
enough could not evolve naturally and thus had to be designed by an
intelligent designer. But what about the intelligent designer itself?
Surely IT is too complex to arise naturally.
So who designed the intelligent designer?
Was it designed by an even *more* powerful and intelligent intelligent
designer? If so, who designed THAT designer? We must suppose in that
case an infinite heirarchy of intelligent designers, which is too
absurd to be taken seriously.
Or did the intelligent designer always exist? Ooops, IDers don't want
to say THAT--it make it even more obvious their "intelligent designer"
is really, erm, the Christian God with a different name.
Or did the intelligent designer occur naturally, after all? In that
case, the entire motivation for introducing it in the first place--the
claim that some things are too complex to have occured naturally--is
cut off at the knees. It would be much more logical to suppose that the
far-simpler bacteria flagellum could have occured naturally after all,
than to say *it* is too complex to occur naturally but the ID itself is
*not* too complex.
It is a small wonder that the creationists (a.k.a. "Intelligent design
theory proponents") do not want to discuss the central, and most
important, entity in their "theory"--who the intelligent designer
is--since it instantly gives the lie to the claim that they are
"scientific", and shows the gaping logical hole at the very core of
their "scientific" view.
Von R. Smith
Richard Forrest wrote:
> Seanpit wrote:
> > Richard Forrest wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > You've already admitted as much yourself when you agreed that
> > non-deliberate processes work in a very predictably random/chaotic way
> > on stuff like granite rocks - giving evidence that a polished granite
> > cube is in fact obviously designed.
>
> Pyrite crystals are also very regular.
> If we didn't know about the processes by which such crystals are
> formed, your filter would designate them as made by "deliberate"
> processes.
Good point. Here's a nice picture of a pyrite growth (mind the wrap):
http://www.museums.udel.edu/mineral/mineral_site/displaycollection/Sulfides/9999-0800-3425b.html
So how about it, Sean? If you didn't know much about mineralogy, how
would you decide whether deliberate or non-deliberate processes had
made this?
TomS
<1146044131....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, avital...@gmail.com
stated..."
Myself, I prefer to point out that the advocates of "design"
bring up the issue of "how do you explain such-and-such", and
end by refusing to offer an explanation of such-and-such.
There is *no* explanatory power to the concept of an intelligent
designer.
The concept has been around for hundreds of years, and, as a
matter of acknowledged historical fact, no one has ever predicted
anything about the natural world from the assumption of "design".
Meanwhile, science has managed to discover patterns in the natural
world that have never been thought of by advocates of design:
Biogeography, the nested hierarchy, extinctions and the rise of
new species, transitional forms.
In modern times, there is nothing about the nature of an
"intelligent designer" which could conceivably lead to some inference
about something in the natural world. None of those patterns can be
explained by "design", in the sense of "why this way and not some
other way?"
And the future prospects of "design"? Is there even any hint
that anybody who is advocating "design" is working on research into
the consequences of that concept?
They bring up the supposed shortcomings of scientific explanations,
but they have nothing in the way of an explanation.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
gregwrld
Seanpit wrote:
> gregwrld wrote:
> > Seanpit wrote:
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Theists who do evolutionary science have a much bigger god than you -
> > > > theirs created *everything. And science is the study of how he did it.
> > > > Why would an intelligent man confine himself to a god (godling?
> > > > demigod?) who only produces bacterial flagella and the like?
> > >
> > > Why is it better for a God to have to deliberately manipulate
> > > everything that goes on in creation? Why not create the potential for
> > > lower-level processes that can act and react according to various rules
> > > that need not require constant conscious manipulation? Think about it,
> > > which method really would be more creative and intelligent?
> > >
> > > Theistic evolutionists are a contradiction. They believe in a God for
> > > which they have absolutely no reasonable/testable/falsifiable evidence.
> > > Everything that they see could have been formed, according to their own
> > > beliefs, by non-deliberate causes. What then is left to support their
> > > notion of a higher being with any capability of deliberate thought or
> > > action? They might as well believe that little green men live in the
> > > middle of the moon - making the moon go around the Earth.
> >
> > Theistic evolutionists have something you don't, Sean: actual Faith.
> > Try it sometime.
>
> I don't believe that blind faith is useful. I just don't care for it.
> Perhaps I'm just too dependent on rationality?
And yet Faith is the very basis of Christianity and many other
religions, or so I was taught...
>
> > Your argument devolves to an argument from ignorance: if you really
> > have a better handle on fitness landscapes than published scientists,
> > then publish your findings, math included. We all know you won't,
> > though because you know damn well you'd get laughed right out of your
> > discipline.
>
> I will publish. It is just that right now I have a lot on my plate and
> don't have the time to put together such a paper. As far as getting
> "laughed right out of my discipline" - that has happened to a lot of
> very good scientists. Look at what happened to the likes of J Harlen
> Bretz. Scientists are not dispassionate about their notions. They are
> very ardent about what they believe and they do tend to kick out
> heretics from the school, universities, and publications that they
> control. Many have lost their careers over this sort of thing. Gotta be
> careful what you say - watch your step you know, or you could be out on
> your can.
>
> > For you, ? = ID. Real scientists try to answer questions; you merely
> > rationalize your religious beliefs...
>
> Real scientist try to go where the evidence leads. Negative hypothesis
> are not invalid. They are used all the time in science. It is because
> of ignorance that science is actually useful. All scientific arguments
> are arguments from ignorance. If we weren't arguing from ignorance, we
> wouldn't need a scientific argument - we'd just know.
Sean, we live in a world full of biological processes known and unknown
where gods or intelligent designers (besides us) are unknown. Why is it
more logical to say ? = ID than it is to say, "Don't know yet, but
let's investigate the possiblity of an unknown biological process" than
it is to say "It must be ID" when there is no evidence for such a being
(or beings) other than us?
>
>
> > g(regwrld)
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
Robert J. Kolker
>
> And yet Faith is the very basis of Christianity and many other
> religions, or so I was taught...
Not faith. More like wishful thinking.
Bob Kolker
Noone Inparticular
Unlikely? Sure. Impossible? No.
That *is* the problem, Dr. Pitman. You have failed to rule out the
alternative. Even in this highly contrived and rather off the curve
example, anyone (excepting you, apparently) can see that while a
polished granite cube is unlikely to be the result of natural
processes, you have presented no rigorous demonstration that is
impossible. Nor have you given any rigorous ways to arrive at an
objective measure of its "unlikeliness".
The fact that you are unable or unwilling to do so with such a
contrived example and then imply that the same problem applies to the
evolution of novel structures or functions gives proof the vacuity of
your claims. You have not once given a rigorous explanation of how you
measure or predict "unlikeliness". Thus your thesis is a fart in the
wind.
>
> Stick with the topic at hand Noone . . .
I am Dr. Pitman, I am. I can say one thing, however. It is no longer a
mystery to me; you are being deliberately obtuse.
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
Hieros Gamos
"Richard Forrest" <ric...@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
news:1145985722.1...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Why is this bit of theist sophistry still being circulated in this day and
age?
No proof of the absence of somebody else's hypothetical ('might be') thing
is ever required in any case. There is a basic principle of valid argument
that the burden of proof can never be shifted to the non-believers.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is just nonsense
sophistry, the true-believers' lame argument _ad ignorantiam_ that there
might be X because there is no proof their hypothesis (their 'might be'
conjecture) is false. The only reasonable default presumption in any case,
like the presumption of 'No guilt' in court, is the null, 'There is no X'
(whatever X is imagined to be, but is not in evidence).
http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
Seanpit
Richard Forrest wrote:
> > > How do you distinguish between "non-deliberate" and "deliberate"
> > > processes without an hypothesis of what those processes are?
> >
> > Oh, give me a break! Don't tell me you are now finding difficulty
> > figuring out the difference between deliberate and non-deliberate?
>
> How can you distinguish between deliberate and non-deliberate if you
> don't know the process?
You study and learn about the processes involved. You can't know how
granite will react to non-deliberate processes unless you do a little
investigation first. It is because you've learned about the difference
between weather patterns and humans that you can predict how one will
always act on granite vs. how the other might act.
> Seem as simple question.
>
> > Really? Are you really trying to argue for a deliberate motive behind
> > the activities of something like a tornado?
>
> Are you asserting that we don't know the processes which lead to a
> torando?
We do know a great deal about the processes that lead to a tornado.
That is why we have a very good idea that a tornado does not act with
conscious deliberate intent. Why are you even trying to argue this
point?
< snip >
> By the way "non-deliberate" processes can smash, splinter, melt, erode,
> decay, carve, polish in a far greater variety of ways than we can.
Not true. Non-deliberate processes are limited to a very predictable
range of forms when it comes to granite. Humans are not nearly as
limited.
> > > SETI looks for "deliberate" processes by looking quite specifically for
> > > very simple signals. This is because the nature of "non-deliberate"
> > > processes is that that they generate very messy and complex signals.
> >
> > Ah, so you understand after all that all non-deliberate processes do
> > indeed have a certain predictable pattern when it comes to certain
> > types of things - like their action on granite and radio waves. Why
> > didn't you avoid admitting the significance of this characteristic for
> > such a long time?
>
> We know that objects we manufacture have simple forms because we know
> how they are manufactured.
Not true. We can also manufacture granite forms with very fractal-type
chaotic geometry that look very "natural". You simply do not need to
know anything at all about the manufacturing processes to be able to
detect deliberate design behind a polished granite cube because of your
knowledge of how very predictable non-deliberate processes affect
granite. That's it.
> We understand the processes, and if there is
> a question as to whether an object is man-made or natural, it is the
> understanding of those processes which allows us to decide whether or
> not an object is man-made.
You don't have to understand the *actual* mechanism used by deliberate
processes. All you have to understand is that many deliberate
mechanisms do in fact go far beyond all non-deliberate mechanisms. Once
you understand this, all you have to ask yourself is, "does this
particular phenomenon go significantly beyond what all known
non-deliberate processes do?" If the answer to this question is,
"yes", then the hypothesis of a deliberate cause gains the most
predictive value.
> > > Your favoured granite block is precieved as being non-natural because
> > > it is very simple. It has flat, polished sides which are parallel to
> > > each other. You are using the same filter as do the SETI researchers
> > > when you state that it is made by "deliberate" processes.
> >
> > Exactly - I'm glad you're finally catching on ; )
>
> Quite so, but even when SETI researchers discover a simple signal, they
> don't automatically assume that it is the result of deliberate process.
They would if such a signal comes from something that is known to be
naturally incapable of producing such a signal all by its
non-deliberate self.
> Recognising such a signal is the starting point of the investigation
> into whether or not it is artificial.
If SETI scientists found a perfectly symmetrical polished granite cube
on Mars, with small geometric designs carved in the center of each
face, they wouldn't need to do any further investigation than
determining if that cube was in face granite. Their prior experience
with granite and with non-deliberate forces acting on granite, would
tell them that such a cube was almost certainly not formed by any
non-deliberate cause. Non-deliberate forces are just too predictable.
They always act on granite in pretty much the same way - forming it
into random fractal-type forms. Such a polished granite cube is so far
away from such a fractal-type form that it is clearly beyond the scope
of what all non-deliberate processes do. It is therefore clearly *not*
non-deliberate in origin. What is the only other option then to explain
its origin if it is clearly not non-deliberate? Hmmmm? What other
option do you have besides the hypothesis of a deliberate origin?
> When the first pulsar was discovered, the regularity of the signal
> suggested that it was artificial. It was further investigation which
> showed that it was not. What you are suggesting is that as soon as such
> a regular signal is detected, we can conclude immediately that it is
> artificial without any further investigation into how it was produced.
I've told you over and over again that research is necessary before any
hypotheses can be adequately forwarded. I've pointed out to you
several times that just because a perfectly symmetrical cube is found
in nature does NOT automatically mean that such a cube was designed.
You should have figured this out by now since you've already tried to
float the argument of crystals several times. As I've already explained
to you, this argument doesn't work for granite because granite does not
naturally form perfectly symmetrical polished cubes. Other materials do
form such cubes without any deliberate thought or action. Granite does
not.
Of course this information requires study and investigation! I never
said otherwise. You have to learn about the phenomenon in question as
it relates to non-deliberate forces before you can adequately
hypothesis any potential limits of non-deliberate forces as they act on
the object or material in question.
However, once these limits of non-deliberate processes have been
ascertained in a repeatably testable way, they can be used to support
the hypothesis of deliberate causes as well - without any need of
knowing the actual mechanism for the deliberate cause.
That is how SETI scientists make their hypotheses. They don't need to
know the identity of the alien intelligences or anything about their
technology or their mechanisms of creativity in order to determine that
their activities are indeed deliberate and highly intelligent. All SETI
scientists really need to know is the limits of how non-deliberate
processes interact with the particular object or material in question.
That's it.
> > > Yet you also hold that a high level of complexity is evidence for
> > > "non-deliberate" processes.
> >
> > You keep getting this statement wrong over and over again. Clearly, I
> > hold that high-level systems of functional complexity are evidence for
> > *deliberate* processes.
> >
> > In the context that I use the word "complexity" I don't mean the same
> > thing as randomness or chaos. I'm talking about system complexity,
> > which is not at all highly chaotic. An integrated system of function is
> > actually highly constrained and requires a certain minimum size and
> > specificity within the underlying DNA code for that system. Greater
> > "complexity" in such a code does note mean greater chaos, but rather a
> > greater minimum size and specificity requirement.
>
> This is mere word-salad.
> How do you measure "specificity"?
DNA specificity is a measure of the maximum amount of sequence change
that can be tolerated before the function in question is completely
lost. In other words, a certain minimum limit on the order of the bases
is needed in order for the function in question to "work" at all. The
greater is this minimum requirement, the greater is the required
specificity of the functional sequence.
> How do you determine what the minimum size is?
The minimum size of a functional system is the minimum length of DNA
needed to code for that system. If this minimum sequence size
requirement is not met, the functional system in question cannot be
formed in a way that will "work" at all - not even a little bit.
> How do you measure complexity?
There are different meanings to the term "complexity". When most people
use this word, they are actually thinking of chaos or randomness. This
isn't how I'm using this term. I'm using it terms of functional systems
and what these systems need to "work".
So, functional complexity is a measure of the minimum size and
specificity requirements for a functional system to work at all to a
selectable advantage - even a little bit.
> It's not an easy term to define, and
> furthermore however you measure complexity, you need to demonstrate
> that such a measure is appropriate to biological systems.
Like any other system of function, all biological systems require
various minimum size and specificity requirements. Different systems do
indeed have different minimum requirements before they will work at all
- even a little bit.
> We know that such complex systems can be created by totally
> non-deliberate processes. Corporations spend millions of dollars on
> designs which are created by processes which are modelled on natural
> selection.
Not beyond very low levels of "functional complexity" when it comes to
the creation of truly novel functions.
> > High minimum size and specificity requirements simply go beyond what
> > non-deliberate processes are capable of achieving since all
> > non-deliberate processes, to include the Darwinian mechanism of random
> > mutation and natural selection, have very predictable effects on gene
> > pools over time. They random mutations always tend toward chaos or
> > homogeny.
>
> No they don't. Genetic algorythms run on computers don't. Experimental
> breeding of organisms in the laboratory don't.
Yes, they do. If you disagree, provide your evidence where a novel
system of function is truly created via a non-deliberate process of
random mutation and function-based selection beyond very low levels of
minimum size and specificity requirements.
> This is quite simply an unfounded assertion which is demonstrably
> wrong.
Where's your demonstration?
> > Natural selection always tends to keep what functional
> > systems it already has. Occasionally, random mutations will come across
> > some novel beneficial sequence, which natural selection will also
> > maintain. However, such occasions of novel discovery become more and
> > more rare, in a very predictable exponential fashion, until they never
> > happen beyond a relatively low threshold of minimum size and
> > specificity requirements (this side of trillions upon trillions of
> > years).
>
> Which is simply another unfounded assertion, and furthermore one which
> other contributors to this forum have demolished.
Where? Can you provide a link or a reference to such a "demolition"?
Can you show me any novel system that has demonstrably evolved that
requires a minimum of more than a couple thousand fairly specified bp
of genetic real estate? I've yet to see such an example. Please, do
show me a reference that really does prove me wrong here.
< snip >
> > > So what would be evidence *against* "non-deliberate" processes?
> >
> > What you mean to say is, "What would be evidence against 'deliberate'
> > processes?"
>
> No, I mean what would be evidence against "non-deliberate" processes.
Evidence against a non-deliberate process would be the fact that all
known non-deliberate process do pretty much the same thing to granite.
Therefore, when a perfectly symmetrical polished granite cube is found,
this is very clear evidence against the non-deliberate hypothesis for
explaining the origin of this cube.
But, you already admit this. So, why ask this question yet again?
> > Evidence against the hypothesis that only deliberate design could
> > produce a given phenomenon would be the finding of some non-deliberate
> > process that is in fact capable of producing the phenomenon in question
> > (i.e., a polished granite cube or a system of function that requires a
> > minimum of more than a couple thousand fairly specified base pairs of
> > genetic real estate).
>
> Let's turn this around:
>
> Evidence against the hypothesis that deliberate design could
> produce a given phenomenon would be the finding of some
> non-deliberate process that is in fact capable of producing the
> phenomenon in question (i.e., a polished granite cube or a
> system of function that requires a minimum of more than a
> couple thousand fairly specified base pairs of
> genetic real estate).
That's not true. There is no evidence against the design hypothesis
since it is known that deliberate design can also produce what
non-deliberate processes can produce. But, the opposite is not true. It
is known that non-deliberate processes do not produce many forms that
deliberate processes produce when it comes to granite.
It doesn't work both ways. That's why ID can be so easily hypothesized
to the near certain exclusion of non-deliberate processes in certain
cases while the opposite is not true.
> This is *exactly* the same argument as you use to support your
> assertion, but used to support a diametrically opposite assertion.
That's because this argument only works in one direction. It is not
true both ways.
> So unless we know the process, we have no way of knowing whether it was
> deliberate or not.
Not true. You need *not* know the process or mechanism or identity of
deliberate design at all in order to adequately hypothesize deliberate
design - because of the one-way nature of the argument (i.e., the
demonstrable limits of non-deliberate processes).
> It is only with a knowledge of the process by which
> something was created that we can determine if it was made by
> deliberate or non-deliberate processes.
Not true - because of one very simple reason:
Deliberate processes have no limits with it comes to anything.
Non-deliberate processes do have very predictable limits with it comes
to everything. This is key.
> > > > This is a valid prediction about an entire set of potential options
> > > > based on a small subset. If everything about all non-deliberate
> > > > processes were already known, there would be no need for a scientific
> > > > hypothesis about the entire set of possibilities. You are arguing
> > > > against the need for science when you assert that everything must be
> > > > known about something before anything can be said about it.
> > >
> > > I have made no such assertion.
> >
> > Yes, you have. You have said that one cannot assume design of polished
> > granite cubes by showing that no known non-deliberate process even
> > comes close because of your arguments of something along the lines of,
> > "All non-deliberate processes cannot be known" and "You would have to
> > know about all non-deliberate processes first".
>
> What I am saying is that unless you can form a testable hypothesis of
> process, you can't make that determination.
The hypothesis isn't that ID could create a given phenomenon. ID can
always create any phenomenon. Therefore, that isn't the basis of the
ID hypothesis. The ID hypothesis is the notion that ONLY ID could
create a given phenomenon. While the first ID hypothesis cannot be
falsified as is therefore not science, the second (and real) ID
hypothesis can be falsified and therefore is a valid scientific
hypothesis. All you have to do to falsify the ONLY ID hypothesis is to
show some non-deliberate doing what is supposed to be limited to ID
ONLY sources.
Again, the ID ONLY hypothesis is indeed testable. One need no
demonstrate the identity or mechanism or motive of the creator of a
given phenomenon in order to clearly support the ID ONLY hypothesis
when it comes to explaining that phenomenon.
< snip >
> > There is simply no need to know *how* a
> > polished granite cube was actually formed, or even by whom it was
> > formed, to know with a very high predictive value, that it was in fact
> > deliberately designed - simply by knowing the common pattern of
> > non-deliberate processes when it comes to their action on granite.
>
> What is the "common pattern" of "deliberate processes"?
There is no common pattern for a deliberate process. That is why
knowledge about the mechanism, motive, and identity of the deliberate
designer is not needed - because it is worthless. It has no consistent
pattern.
However, non-deliberate processes do have a very consistent pattern.
That's why we can use this pattern to rule out non-deliberate causes in
certain cases and therefore predict, very accurately, that at least one
intelligent deliberate designer, mechanism, and motive, among many many
possibilities, was in fact responsible for this or that particular
observation.
> How about a list of characteristics of such processes?
Think about it . . . There is *no* predictable process or pattern for
deliberate design of anything. An almost infinite number of processes
and patterns can be used and created with the use of intelligence and
deliberate action.
> > > We have had
> > > other posters on this forum insisting that pyrite crystals must be
> > > "designed" because of the geometrically regular form and shinny
> > > surface. They were misled into this belief through an ignorance of the
> > > processes of crystal formation.
> >
> > I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone argue this and I tend not to
> > believe your assertion here.
>
> It was McCoy. Okay, he's a nutcase, but that doesn't affect the
> argument.
>
> > But, even if someone were to have made
> > this argument for pyrite crystals or other types of crystals, it wasn't
> > me.
>
> So what?
You are talking to me here - not some other nutcase.
> > As I've pointed out to you before, why do you think I chose
> > granite for my illustration? You have to investigate the material that
> > has a particular structure in some detail before you are able to tell
> > that it goes significantly beyond the capabilities of non-deliberate
> > processes.
>
> So how do you know what a process can or can't do unless you know what
> that process is?
I really don't think anyone would have much difficulty knowing that
wind, rain, tornados, volcanoes, etc. are in fact mindless processes
after just a bit of investigation. I therefore do know that these
processes are "non-deliberate". I also don't think there is a real
argument against the notion that humans are capable of "deliberate"
action.
> What are the characteristics of all deliberate processes, and how are
> they quantitavely different from non-deliberate processes?
Again, there is no predictable characteristic of all deliberate
processes except in range. Deliberate processes are predictably capable
of going far beyond the predictable limits of all mindless processes -
to a very high degree of predictive value.
< snip more repetitive arguments >
> > You've already admitted as much yourself when you agreed that
> > non-deliberate processes work in a very predictably random/chaotic way
> > on stuff like granite rocks - giving evidence that a polished granite
> > cube is in fact obviously designed.
>
> Pyrite crystals are also very regular.
> If we didn't know about the processes by which such crystals are
> formed, your filter would designate them as made by "deliberate"
> processes.
Exactly. I never said that knowledge about non-deliberate processes and
how they act on the object in question isn't needed. Clearly, such
knowledge is needed. What I said was that knowledge about deliberate
intelligent processes, mechanisms, and personal identity, is not
needed. Such knowledge is not needed to detect deliberate design.
> > > To assert that if evolutionary theory were falsified, the only other
> > > possible alternative is the intervention of the supernatural (and
> > > please don't pretend that ID is anything else: if you want to argue
> > > with that, take it up with Michael Behe) is scientifically illiterate.
> >
> > ID Theory isn't about trying to argue for the identity of the
> > deliberate agent.
>
> It's very studiously evading the isse of the identity of the deliberate
> agent.
That's right. ID Theory is based on the notion of the ID ONLY
hypothesis. It isn't based at all upon anything that any potential
designer might do in any particular and for any reason. ID Theory says
nothing at all about those things. It only says that non-deliberate
processes did not do something and therefore something deliberate was
indeed responsible. That's it.
> > Really, it isn't.
>
> Quite so, but that rather undermines its claim that it is science.
Not true. Where does the scientific method require that a hypothesis
identify the designer, motive, and method before design can be
detected?
> > All ID Theory says is that whoever
> > it is, it was intelligent and it acted deliberately in the creation of
> > certain systems within all living things. I'm sorry that you just
> > don't see the value of such a theory, but that is all that ID is. And,
> > it does indeed carry with it a very high degree of predictive value.
> >
>
> > > "I don't know" does not mean "GodImeananintelligentdesigner did it".
> >
> > Again, there is plenty of evidence besides a simple "I don't know". We
> > do know a whole lot by studying the very predictable patterns of what
> > non-deliberate processes
>
> So please give me a list of the characteristics of "non-deliberate"
> processes.
When it comes to granite rocks, I've already given you this.
Non-deliberate processes always act in to produce a random fractal-type
pattern on granite rocks - to a very high degree of predictive value.
> > are capable of achieving as they relate with
> > different materials - like granite or DNA. These very predictable
> > non-deliberate processes give us a very good idea about where these
> > processes end and where deliberate processes start.
>
> So please give me a prediction of ID which will allow ID to be
> falsified.
Again, the ID hypothesis cannot be falsified. However, ID Theory is not
based on the ID hypothesis. ID Theory is based on the ID ONLY
hypothesis (see above for more details).
< snip >
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
TomS wrote:
> Myself, I prefer to point out that the advocates of "design"
> bring up the issue of "how do you explain such-and-such", and
> end by refusing to offer an explanation of such-and-such.
>
> There is *no* explanatory power to the concept of an intelligent
> designer.
Ah, but there is very good explanatory power to the hypothesis of *not*
by accident (i.e., not non-deliberate). If a given phenomenon can be
shown to go beyond what the very consistent patterns of non-deliberate
processes produce, then the hypothesis of the deliberate does indeed
gain predictive value.
If you argue that the hypothesis of the non-deliberate cannot be
falsified, then it isn't scientific to argue that a non-deliberate
process, like Darwinian-style evolution, did anything. In order for
anyone to scientifically hypothesize or theorize about a non-deliberate
cause, there must be the potential for falsification and support of a
deliberate cause.
The ID Theory does indeed gain very good predictive value when it comes
to things like polished granite cubes because of the fact that no
non-deliberate process even comes close. Therefore, the ID ONLY Theory
gains predictive value since only deliberate action produces such a
granite form - to a very high degree of predictive value.
> ---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
Cubist wrote:
> Mr. Pitman, it is worth noting that this "non-deliberate processes"
> category of yours is one whose members are *not* identified by any
> trait that they actually possess in common with one another; rather,
> they are identified by the *absence* of a particular trait. The
> category of "cows", contrariwise, is one whose members are identified
> by various characteristics which they *do* actually possess in common
> with one another. Dare one suggest that generalizations about a
> category which is defined by the presence of a list of specific traits,
> are more likely to to be true than generalizations about a category
> which is *solely* defined by the *absence* of one specific trait?
You'd be correct if non-deliberate processes were only characterized by
the absence of traits. Fortunately though, this isn't true. All known
non-deliberate processes act on granite in very predictable and similar
ways. They all produce randomly shaped fractal-type granite rocks to
give what is generally called the "natural look". The 'natural look'
is so predictable and well-characterized that it can actually be copied
and reproduced deliberately by us humans. This natural look, and the
consistency with which non-deliberate processes produce this look on
stones like granite, is what makes a polished granite cube look so
"unnatural" and therefore designed.
You see, then, knowledge about the consistency of a subset of
non-deliberate processes can indeed be extrapolated to the entire set
of all non-deliberate processes just like knowledge about the limits of
cow jumping in a small subset of cows can be extrapolated to all cows.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
P.S. Good name, "Cubist", for a discussion like this . . . ; )
Hieros Gamos
"Seanpit" <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in message
news:1146074087.6...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> ...
> That is how SETI scientists make their hypotheses.
The only hypothesis operational at the moment, that statement which is being
tested by searching for evidence that will knock it down, is the null,
'There are no ETs'.
This is true of ANY scientific investigation.
In any case, the null, 'There is no X' (whatever X is imagined to be, but is
not in evidence) stands as the operational presumption forever, or until
knocked down by solid evidence of X, whichever occurs first. 8^)
See:
http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm
Kermit
Seanpit wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>
> > > > How do you distinguish between "non-deliberate" and "deliberate"
> > > > processes without an hypothesis of what those processes are?
> > >
> > > Oh, give me a break! Don't tell me you are now finding difficulty
> > > figuring out the difference between deliberate and non-deliberate?
> >
> > How can you distinguish between deliberate and non-deliberate if you
> > don't know the process?
>
> You study and learn about the processes involved. You can't know how
> granite will react to non-deliberate processes unless you do a little
> investigation first. It is because you've learned about the difference
> between weather patterns and humans that you can predict how one will
> always act on granite vs. how the other might act.
>
Why didn't you answer the question? He didn't ask how one learns
things, he asks what you have actually learned about the difference. If
one decided to do actual research in this field, what would one look
for?
<snip cube talk>
> >
> > This is mere word-salad.
> > How do you measure "specificity"?
>
> DNA specificity is a measure of the maximum amount of sequence change
> that can be tolerated before the function in question is completely
> lost. In other words, a certain minimum limit on the order of the bases
> is needed in order for the function in question to "work" at all. The
> greater is this minimum requirement, the greater is the required
> specificity of the functional sequence.
>
>
> There are different meanings to the term "complexity". When most people
> use this word, they are actually thinking of chaos or randomness. This
> isn't how I'm using this term. I'm using it terms of functional systems
> and what these systems need to "work".
>
> So, functional complexity is a measure of the minimum size and
> specificity requirements for a functional system to work at all to a
> selectable advantage - even a little bit.
How do you rule out all possible functions it may have had before it
reached its present form?
It may have served another purpose.
It may have been duplicated, and wasn't needed, but started being used
when it started functioning in some way.
It may be a slightly modified fragment of some other sequence.
Perhaps it is the combination of two or more fragments.
Perhaps it's precursors are now gone; no longer needed.
<snip>
> > Let's turn this around:
> >
> > Evidence against the hypothesis that deliberate design could
> > produce a given phenomenon would be the finding of some
> > non-deliberate process that is in fact capable of producing the
> > phenomenon in question (i.e., a polished granite cube or a
> > system of function that requires a minimum of more than a
> > couple thousand fairly specified base pairs of
> > genetic real estate).
>
> That's not true. There is no evidence against the design hypothesis
> since it is known that deliberate design can also produce what
> non-deliberate processes can produce. But, the opposite is not true. It
> is known that non-deliberate processes do not produce many forms that
> deliberate processes produce when it comes to granite.
Why do you stick to granite? Because you know it's an example of human
activity?
You:
If I can't think of any natural process which did this, IDdidit.
That's scientific because it's falsifiable; all you have to do is
demonstrate one natural process.
Me:
I have never seen a evidence for a designer who intervened in life's
development. Therefore, an as-yet unknown natural process did it. It's
a scientific hypothesis, because it's falsifiable - all you have to do
is come up with one unnatural process for it.
We have thousands of cases where we did not at first understand how a
natural process could produce the phenomenon, and then later we did.
Examples include tornados, hail, and lightning.
We do not have one case where we subsequently established an alien or
divine designer created any event.
>
> It doesn't work both ways. That's why ID can be so easily hypothesized
> to the near certain exclusion of non-deliberate processes in certain
> cases while the opposite is not true.
This sounds like you are asserting that you know all possible natural
processes.
>
> > This is *exactly* the same argument as you use to support your
> > assertion, but used to support a diametrically opposite assertion.
>
> That's because this argument only works in one direction. It is not
> true both ways.
I see why you prefer to keep that granite cube in everyone's mind. This
almost sounds persusive talking about that, but not about bacterial
flagella.
>
> > So unless we know the process, we have no way of knowing whether it was
> > deliberate or not.
>
> Not true. You need *not* know the process or mechanism or identity of
> deliberate design at all in order to adequately hypothesize deliberate
> design - because of the one-way nature of the argument (i.e., the
> demonstrable limits of non-deliberate processes).
What are the limits of non-deliberate natural processes in designing
bacterial flagella?
>
> > It is only with a knowledge of the process by which
> > something was created that we can determine if it was made by
> > deliberate or non-deliberate processes.
>
> Not true - because of one very simple reason:
>
> Deliberate processes have no limits with it comes to anything.
Really? I hypothesize that deliberate processes cannot cause a nova. Do
you have any counter-examples?
> Non-deliberate processes do have very predictable limits with it comes
> to everything. This is key.
So divine creation is only limited by your imagination, is that it?
But non-deliberate is limited by what we actually know?
<snip>
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
Kermit
Cubist
Seanpit wrote:
> Cubist wrote:
>
> > Mr. Pitman, it is worth noting that this "non-deliberate processes"
> > category of yours is one whose members are *not* identified by any
> > trait that they actually possess in common with one another; rather,
> > they are identified by the *absence* of a particular trait. The
> > category of "cows", contrariwise, is one whose members are identified
> > by various characteristics which they *do* actually possess in common
> > with one another. Dare one suggest that generalizations about a
> > category which is defined by the presence of a list of specific traits,
> > are more likely to to be true than generalizations about a category
> > which is *solely* defined by the *absence* of one specific trait?
>
> You'd be correct if non-deliberate processes were only characterized by
> the absence of traits. Fortunately though, this isn't true.
well *is* characterized, completely and exhaustively, by the fact that
they are Not Deliberate. This is exactly analogous to the biological
taxon "invertibrates", which is completely & exhaustively characterized
by the fact that an invertibrate Ain't Got No Backbone.
It is obvious that all "non-deliberate processes" share one
characteristic, the negatively-defined 'trait' of being Not Deliberate;
by definition, as it were. If you happen to feel that there is a
*second* characteristic which is shared by *all* "non-deliberate
processes", feel free to identify that characteristic, Mr. Pitman.
> All known
> non-deliberate processes act on granite in very predictable and similar
> ways.
"[V]ery predictable and similar ways".
Hmm.
If this were true, the effect of a lightning bolt on rock would be
rather like unto the effect of a sandstorm on rock. Given the
"similar"ity you assert between the actions of "all known
non-deliberate processes" (lightning and sandstorms, in this case), it
should not be easy to determine whether a chunk of rock has been
blasted by lightning or worn by a sandstorm.
> They all produce randomly shaped fractal-type granite rocks to
> give what is generally called the "natural look".
Okay, you agree -- given the "similarity" between all
"non-deliberate processes", which of course entails "similarity"
between any arbitrary pair of "non-deliberate processes", it *isn't*
easy to distinguish between sandstorm-worn rock and lightning-blasted
rock.
> The 'natural look'
> is so predictable and well-characterized that it can actually be copied
> and reproduced deliberately by us humans. This natural look, and the
> consistency with which non-deliberate processes produce this look on
> stones like granite, is what makes a polished granite cube look so
> "unnatural" and therefore designed.
Right, right. All "non-deliberate processes" are quite similar, and
they all produce quite similar results. It's *not* easy to distinguish
between sandstorm-worn and lightning-blasted rock.
> You see, then, knowledge about the consistency of a subset of
> non-deliberate processes can indeed be extrapolated to the entire set
> of all non-deliberate processes just like knowledge about the limits of
> cow jumping in a small subset of cows can be extrapolated to all cows.
Of course. And, similarly, knowledge of one particular subgroup of
invertibrates can indeed be extrapolated to the entire set of
invertibrates. Right?
Seanpit
Von R. Smith wrote:
> There have been many times that people cleverer than you or I have
> proposed, in complete seriousness, that some non-human intelligent
> agency is the "only reasonable explanation" for some phenomenon X.
> Every one of those proposals to date has failed.
Many have failed, but not all. That's the nature of science. Some
valid scientific hypotheses do indeed fail. That doesn't make such
hypothesis unscientific. Just the opposite. These hypotheses are always
needed as at least null hypothesis or else your notion that
non-deliberate processes were actually responsible wouldn't be
scientific since there would be no possibility of falsification.
> Why do you suppose
> that is? Where do you think these other inferences went wrong? What
> is that you think you've fixed, that one should trust you to have
> finally gotten right this time round?
Not all such hypotheses have failed. When they did go wrong, they went
wrong for the same reason that any other scientist goes wrong - they
didn't know everything. That doesn't make the notion that everything is
therefore non-deliberate an adequate default position to explain every
phenomenon. Such positions are often not falsifiable short of knowledge
about everything and are therefore not useful as scientific hypotheses.
> A Theory of Non-Deliberate Processes (and that is, in effect, what you
> are claiming to have in hand) would be Nobel Prize material. Do you
> have anything on it that you could submit for peer review?
Sure, when it comes to certain things like granite and DNA.
< snip >
> > > ID fails to do this largely because, by refusing to
> > > speculate as to the nature, activity, and motives of the Designer, it
> > > cannot even tell us what a reasonable positive case for ID would look
> > > like.
> >
> > You limit science to only positive predictions.
>
> No, I do not. My point is that, whatever use one might have for
> negative predictions, one still needs positive evidence for positive
> claims.
That's not true when you have an "either/or" situation. Of course, I
suppose there is at least some positive evidence for ID of polished
granite cubes in that it is very easy to show that such cubes could be
deliberately made with a wide variety of deliberate methods - none of
which need to be known ahead of time to determine deliberate intent and
method of some sort.
< snip >
> > Why then would you not
> > accept the deliberate origin of a polished granite cube until you found
> > positive evidence for the identity of the designer of that specific
> > cube as well as the motives of that designer?
>
> Given my answer to your setup question, why would I?
Because you know the predictable limits of non-deliberate processes
acting on granite? That really is all you need to know. There simply is
no need to I.D. the actual agent or motive or method before ID can be
adequately hypothesized for a polished granite cube.
> > Come on now, would you really never accept the deliberate origin of
> > such a cube until you actually found the designer? I just don't
> > believe you. That just isn't rational given your own knowledge about
> > the predictable limits of non-deliberate processes when it comes to
> > granite.
>
> The problem with your cube of granite example is that you and I already
> know that we *have* found the designer, or at least a very likely
> candidate for one.
Not if such a cube was found on Mars. If it was found on Mars, or any
other alien planet, are you seriously telling me you'd have your doubts
about it's intelligent origin?
> Suppose, however, that I know of no designers capable of making such a
> cube, nor could I think of any compelling reason to expect a designer
> to make such a thing even if it could.
There is no evidence to pre-suppose any limits on the power and
potential of intelligent design. All the evidence that we have
indicates that there are no such limits. Only non-intelligent
non-deliberate processes have clearly predictable limits.
> Suppose that I also know for a fact that natural processes can
> sometimes form very small cubes of related rock-types.
> Suppose that in addition I have some idea of what sort of traces such
> processes might leave behind on the off chance that they *did* manage
> to form a large granite cube. Suppose furthermore that when I examine
> the cube in question more closely, I find evidence of those traces.
If this where true, you might have something. For now though, this
isn't even close to being true with regard to granite.
> Suppose that the consensus among professional geologists and
> mineralogists who study granite for a living is that the natural
> formation of such a cube, while remarkable, rare, and really cool, is
> well within the realm of possibility.
Again, if this were true, you'd have something. So far it isn't even
remotely close to being true. That is why the ID hypothesis for
polished granite cubes has such high predictive value.
> Suppose, finally, that the only objections being urged against such an
> hypothesis were the bald assertions and hand-wavings of some medico who
> came into the discussion clearly already wanting to believe that his
> dad had made the cube.
He/she wouldn't have a strong a case if you knew of any
mindless/non-deliberate process that was already capable of making such
cubes.
Don't you get it? It is only because there are no such non-deliberate
granite cube-making processes, nor are any such processes remotely
likely given what we already know, that the design hypothesis for
polished granite cubes has such high predictive power.
> Under *those* circumstances, I suspect a natural origin for the granite
> cube would look quite promising to any reasonable person, and *that*,
> Dr. Pitman, is more similar to the context in which we currently
> consider the origins and history of life than is your analogy.
You'd be right if this little scenario of yours were true. It isn't
true for granite and it isn't true for DNA. That's why the ID ONLY
Theory is so powerful.
> > > > If any
> > > > non-deliberate process is ever found that produces even one polished
> > > > granite cube, then the hypothesis is indeed falsified. Until then, it
> > > > gains very real predictive value.
> > >
> > >
> > > Only if one gives "deliberate process" a reasonably rigorous
> > > operational definition; otherwise, such a prediction will yield only
> > > vague hand-waving.
> >
> > Fine - make a reasonably rigorous operational definition for a
> > non-deliberate process. I think most would accept that weather
> > patterns, wind, rain, volcanoes, forest fires, lightening, etc. would
> > all qualify as non-deliberate processes when it comes to their action
> > on granite. I certainly would - how about you?
>
>
> I don't know.
B.S. You certainly do know - or at least you have a very strong
opinion. You just don't want to admit it in this context because it
would mess up your argument.
> Some cultures believe that volcanoes and weather are
> controlled by gods or local geniuses.
That's not what I asked you. I asked what you believe about these
processes.
> I see no reason to believe that
> they are, but I suppose I could be wrong.
Yes, you and I could be wrong. Such processes may in fact be
deliberate. But, as far as we can tell, they do in fact have the
appearance of being truly random in action and production.
> As long as my understanding
> of how these phenomena affect granite doesn't hinge on metaphysics, I
> really don't care if the lightning is from Thor or not. I'm not the
> one who thinks these concepts of "deliberate" vs. "non-deliberate" are
> useful constructs, and I'm not even sure how they would be used in such
> a context.
The concepts of deliberate and non-deliberate are very useful
constructs in many field of science - to include forensic science,
anthropology, etc. Come on now. You can't be serious when you say that
such concepts have no use in science.
> > > > In the same way, I don't have to know about all cows to reasonably
> > > > hypothesize that no cow will ever be able to jump on or over my house.
> > >
> > > No, but I do need to know *something* that I can reasonably suppose to
> > > be valid for all cows. I bet I can tell you a lot more about cows
> > > than you can about the supposed Intelligent Designer.
> >
> > I know something about non-deliberate processes and how they affect
> > granite that can reasonably be valid for all non-deliberate processes.
>
> How do you know that they are valid for all non-deliberate processes?
By extrapolation of the few to the many - just like I extrapolate my
knowledge about the limits of cow jumping from the few to the many.
This is how scientific hypotheses work. Science helps us make general
predictions based on limited knowledge. While this is never 100%, it is
helpful because of the predictive value it creates whenever the
hypothesis is tested and doesn't fail.
> > The same is true about non-deliberate processes and how they affect
> > living things that can be very reasonably extrapolated to all
> > non-deliberate processes in the very same way that you extrapolate your
> > knowledge about a limited subset of cows to all cows.
>
>
> Depends on the knowledge and the subset. If my subset of cows are all
> black, does that mean I can extrapolate that all cows are black?
Yes, you can. This is a perfectly valid scientific hypothesis. It
doesn't matter if you could be falsified. The hypothesis hold until it
is falsified. The more and more black cows you see before you find one
that isn't black, the more and more predictive value your "all cows are
black hypothesis" gains. It's like if I make a hypothesis that all
crows are black. Is that not a valid hypothesis? - It could be
falsified, but until it is, it is a perfectly valid scientific
hypothesis.
> If
> all of my subset of cows live on my own farm, does that mean that I can
> extrapolate that all cows live on my farm?
Yes . . .
> Why can I do this for a
> cow's ability to fly, but not for color, or what farm they live on?
You can . . .
> There are reasonable answers to these questions.
Not until you have more knowledge . . . The most reasonable hypothesis
given a limited data set is the hypothesis that is most consistent with
that data set.
> There are good
> extrapolations and bad ones,
Nope, they are all "good ones" as long as they are consistent with your
data set. That is how science works.
> as well as methods and precautions for
> figuring out which ones are which. What methods did you use?
The scientific method combined with inductive and deductive reasoning
to form valid scientific hypotheses.
> > > I doubt that you would accept the conclusion that, because cows cannot
> > > jump on your house, that no mammal can. Would you accept such an
> > > hypothesis? How can you be so confident that your insight about
> > > "mindless" processes can, in fact, be cogently generalized over all
> > > such processes, as opposed to some subset of them? How can you be sure
> > > that "mindless processes" are even a coherent category that share some
> > > set of traits besides the arbitrary one that defines them?
> >
> > How can I make such generalization about non-deliberate processes? -
> > Because I've studied many different kinds of non-deliberate processes.
> > I've not just limited myself to "cows", so to speak. I've found a very
> > consistent predictable pattern in all of the different mindless
> > processes I've studied. This pattern shows predictable limits to how
> > non-deliberate processes can affect granite, and even living things. It
> > is quite reasonable, then, to extrapolate the predictable limits of a
> > small subset to the larger whole - just like you do with your
> > extrapolation of knowledge of the limited jumping ability of a few cows
> > to all cows.
>
> You might as well have written: "Trust me, I just know" for all this
> paragraph tells me.
Oh please - This is how science works. Science always works by
extrapolation of the subset to the whole. If all knowledge were already
known, there would be no need for science because there would be no
need for predicting anything. There would be no potential for
falsification.
You seem to be arguing that if there is any chance of falsification, as
in a hypothesis like "all cows are black because I've only seen black
cows", then there is no science. You forget that science is based on
testability and the potential for falsification. Without the potential
for falsification, there is no science.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesgin.com
Noone Inparticular
Seanpit wrote:
> Von R. Smith wrote:
>
> > There have been many times that people cleverer than you or I have
> > proposed, in complete seriousness, that some non-human intelligent
> > agency is the "only reasonable explanation" for some phenomenon X.
> > Every one of those proposals to date has failed.
>
> Many have failed, but not all.
Name them
> That's the nature of science. Some
> valid scientific hypotheses do indeed fail. That doesn't make such
> hypothesis unscientific. Just the opposite. These hypotheses are always
> needed as at least null hypothesis or else your notion that
> non-deliberate processes were actually responsible wouldn't be
> scientific since there would be no possibility of falsification.
>
> > Why do you suppose
> > that is? Where do you think these other inferences went wrong? What
> > is that you think you've fixed, that one should trust you to have
> > finally gotten right this time round?
>
> Not all such hypotheses have failed.
Name them.
<snip rest>
Tracy P. Hamilton
Seanpit wrote:
> TomS wrote:
>
> > Myself, I prefer to point out that the advocates of "design"
> > bring up the issue of "how do you explain such-and-such", and
> > end by refusing to offer an explanation of such-and-such.
> >
> > There is *no* explanatory power to the concept of an intelligent
> > designer.
>
> Ah, but there is very good explanatory power to the hypothesis of *not*
> by accident (i.e., not non-deliberate). If a given phenomenon can be
> shown to go beyond what the very consistent patterns of non-deliberate
> processes produce, then the hypothesis of the deliberate does indeed
> gain predictive value.
Empty claim. Have you predicted how the flagellum was designed?
> If you argue that the hypothesis of the non-deliberate cannot be
> falsified,
He isn't so [snip]
> The ID Theory does indeed gain very good predictive value when it comes
> to things like polished granite cubes because of the fact that no
> non-deliberate process even comes close. Therefore, the ID ONLY Theory
> gains predictive value since only deliberate action produces such a
> granite form - to a very high degree of predictive value.
Does ID ONLY predict the granite would be a cube instead of a
tetrahedron? Did it predict a granite object of any kind even
exists? For a theory with such a high degree of predictive
value, you would think it would predict SOMETHING.
Tracy P. Hamilton
Richard Forrest
Seanpit wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>
> > > > How do you distinguish between "non-deliberate" and "deliberate"
> > > > processes without an hypothesis of what those processes are?
> > >
> > > Oh, give me a break! Don't tell me you are now finding difficulty
> > > figuring out the difference between deliberate and non-deliberate?
> >
> > How can you distinguish between deliberate and non-deliberate if you
> > don't know the process?
>
> You study and learn about the processes involved.
And how do you study a process you have not identified?
> You can't know how
> granite will react to non-deliberate processes unless you do a little
> investigation first. It is because you've learned about the difference
> between weather patterns and humans that you can predict how one will
> always act on granite vs. how the other might act.
>
So without a knowledge of process, you cannot determine if it is
"deliberate" or "non-deliberate".
Thank you for confirming my assertion.
> > Seem as simple question.
> >
> > > Really? Are you really trying to argue for a deliberate motive behind
> > > the activities of something like a tornado?
> >
> > Are you asserting that we don't know the processes which lead to a
> > torando?
>
> We do know a great deal about the processes that lead to a tornado.
That's why we know that it's "non-deliberate".
> That is why we have a very good idea that a tornado does not act with
> conscious deliberate intent. Why are you even trying to argue this
> point?
The point is that because we know the processes which cause a tornado,
we know that it is not deliberate.
Thank you for confirming my point.
>
> < snip >
>
> > By the way "non-deliberate" processes can smash, splinter, melt, erode,
> > decay, carve, polish in a far greater variety of ways than we can.
>
> Not true. Non-deliberate processes are limited to a very predictable
> range of forms when it comes to granite.
I can predict precisely the form the surface of a granite block will
take when cut with a rock saw.
Can you predict the form a granite surface will take when exposed to
natural weathering?
> Humans are not nearly as
> limited.
Humans are limited by their technology. We can cut granite into flat
slabs. We can crush granite to use as roadstone. We can, if we are
very, very patient (and since the days of the ancient Egytpians noboby
seems to have had that patience) carve granite into sculptures
We don't have the technology to reduce granite to kaolin.
>
> > > > SETI looks for "deliberate" processes by looking quite specifically for
> > > > very simple signals. This is because the nature of "non-deliberate"
> > > > processes is that that they generate very messy and complex signals.
> > >
> > > Ah, so you understand after all that all non-deliberate processes do
> > > indeed have a certain predictable pattern when it comes to certain
> > > types of things - like their action on granite and radio waves. Why
> > > didn't you avoid admitting the significance of this characteristic for
> > > such a long time?
> >
> > We know that objects we manufacture have simple forms because we know
> > how they are manufactured.
>
> Not true. We can also manufacture granite forms with very fractal-type
> chaotic geometry that look very "natural".
We can?
Please give us an example of this.
> You simply do not need to
> know anything at all about the manufacturing processes to be able to
> detect deliberate design behind a polished granite cube because of your
> knowledge of how very predictable non-deliberate processes affect
> granite. That's it.
No, that's not it. You have not defined the characteristics of a
deliberate process.
I gave you the example of a very regular crystal of pyrite.
Without a knowledge of how such crystals are formed, how could you
determine that it was the outcome of natural processes?
>
> > We understand the processes, and if there is
> > a question as to whether an object is man-made or natural, it is the
> > understanding of those processes which allows us to decide whether or
> > not an object is man-made.
>
> You don't have to understand the *actual* mechanism used by deliberate
> processes. All you have to understand is that many deliberate
> mechanisms do in fact go far beyond all non-deliberate mechanisms. Once
> you understand this, all you have to ask yourself is, "does this
> particular phenomenon go significantly beyond what all known
> non-deliberate processes do?" If the answer to this question is,
> "yes", then the hypothesis of a deliberate cause gains the most
> predictive value.
>
So what are the characteristics of a deliberate process?
All you have done so far is to assert that such processes can be
recognised.
How can they be recognised?
> > > > Your favoured granite block is precieved as being non-natural because
> > > > it is very simple. It has flat, polished sides which are parallel to
> > > > each other. You are using the same filter as do the SETI researchers
> > > > when you state that it is made by "deliberate" processes.
> > >
> > > Exactly - I'm glad you're finally catching on ; )
> >
> > Quite so, but even when SETI researchers discover a simple signal, they
> > don't automatically assume that it is the result of deliberate process.
>
> They would if such a signal comes from something that is known to be
> naturally incapable of producing such a signal all by its
> non-deliberate self.
>
So without a knowledge of how that signal was produced they could not
conclude that it was deliberate.
Thank you for confirming my point.
> > Recognising such a signal is the starting point of the investigation
> > into whether or not it is artificial.
>
> If SETI scientists found a perfectly symmetrical polished granite cube
> on Mars, with small geometric designs carved in the center of each
> face, they wouldn't need to do any further investigation than
> determining if that cube was in face granite.
How on earth can the search for radio signals from distant solar
systems detect a granite cube on Mars?
> Their prior experience
> with granite and with non-deliberate forces acting on granite, would
> tell them that such a cube was almost certainly not formed by any
> non-deliberate cause.
Because they could form an hypothesis of how that cube was made.
> Non-deliberate forces are just too predictable.
So what are the characteristics of "non-deliberate" forces?
By the way, they are not.
The motion of the planets in the solar system is not predictable over
periods of tens of millions of years.
Can you predict the precise form the eroded surface of a block of
limestone will take?
I can predict precisely the form it will take if cut by a saw.
> They always act on granite in pretty much the same way - forming it
> into random fractal-type forms.
Which we know because we have a knowledge of the processes involved/
A pyrite crystal does not form a "random fractal-type" form.
We recognise it as natural because we know the processes involved.
> Such a polished granite cube is so far
> away from such a fractal-type form that it is clearly beyond the scope
> of what all non-deliberate processes do. It is therefore clearly *not*
> non-deliberate in origin.
Because we know the processes involved.
> What is the only other option then to explain
> its origin if it is clearly not non-deliberate? Hmmmm? What other
> option do you have besides the hypothesis of a deliberate origin?
>
So the pyrite crystal has a regular, geometric shape.
Your granite cube has a regular, geometric shape.
We recognise one as being natural
We recognise the other as being artificial.
Without a knowledge of the processes involved, how can we tell which is
natural and which is artificial?
> > When the first pulsar was discovered, the regularity of the signal
> > suggested that it was artificial. It was further investigation which
> > showed that it was not. What you are suggesting is that as soon as such
> > a regular signal is detected, we can conclude immediately that it is
> > artificial without any further investigation into how it was produced.
>
> I've told you over and over again that research is necessary before any
> hypotheses can be adequately forwarded. I've pointed out to you
> several times that just because a perfectly symmetrical cube is found
> in nature does NOT automatically mean that such a cube was designed.
What research have you suggested?
You have mererly asserted that it is obviously designed, but not given
a set of characters unique to designed objects.
I have asserted repeatedly that unless we can form an hypthesis of how
an object is manufactured, we cannot determine if it is natural or
artificial.
Are you agreeing with me now?
> You should have figured this out by now since you've already tried to
> float the argument of crystals several times. As I've already explained
> to you, this argument doesn't work for granite because granite does not
> naturally form perfectly symmetrical polished cubes.
Because we know the processes which produce crystals in pyrite, and we
know that those processes don't apply to granite!
> Other materials do
> form such cubes without any deliberate thought or action. Granite does
> not.
>
So we know the processes which can shape granite.
You assert that there is some sort of universal filter which allows us
to determine if an object is natural or artificial *in the absence* of
any knowledge of process.
So: what is that filter?
> Of course this information requires study and investigation!
So you agree with me that without an hypothesis of process, we cannot
determine if an object is natural or artificial.
If this is not the case, what is the point of further investigation?
> I never
> said otherwise. You have to learn about the phenomenon in question as
> it relates to non-deliberate forces before you can adequately
> hypothesis any potential limits of non-deliberate forces as they act on
> the object or material in question.
So you agree with me that without an hypothesis of process, we cannot
determine if an object is natural or artificial.
If this is not the case, what is the point of further investigation?
>
> However, once these limits of non-deliberate processes have been
> ascertained in a repeatably testable way,
You claim to know those limits.
Fine.
Define them.
> they can be used to support
> the hypothesis of deliberate causes as well - without any need of
> knowing the actual mechanism for the deliberate cause.
>
So define your limits.
> That is how SETI scientists make their hypotheses. They don't need to
> know the identity of the alien intelligences or anything about their
> technology or their mechanisms of creativity in order to determine that
> their activities are indeed deliberate and highly intelligent. All SETI
> scientists really need to know is the limits of how non-deliberate
> processes interact with the particular object or material in question.
> That's it.
No it isn't, and you evidently haven't read the link I provided.
Read this:
http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_intelligentdesign_051201.html
And please stop equating the SETI investigation to intelligent design.
Just in case your browser is not working:
"n fact, the signals actually sought by today's SETI searches are not
complex, as the ID advocates assume. We're not looking for
intricately coded messages, mathematical series, or even the aliens'
version of "I Love Lucy." Our instruments are largely insensitive to
the modulation-or message-that might be conveyed by an
extraterrestrial broadcast. A SETI radio signal of the type we could
actually find would be a persistent, narrow-band whistle. Such a simple
phenomenon appears to lack just about any degree of structure, although
if it originates on a planet, we should see periodic Doppler effects as
the world bearing the transmitter rotates and orbits.
And yet we still advertise that, were we to find such a signal, we
could reasonably conclude that there was intelligence behind it. It
sounds as if this strengthens the argument made by the ID proponents.
Our sought-after signal is hardly complex, and yet we're still going
to say that we've found extraterrestrials. If we can get away with
that, why can't they?
Well, it's because the credibility of the evidence is not predicated
on its complexity. If SETI were to announce that we're not alone
because it had detected a signal, it would be on the basis of
artificiality. An endless, sinusoidal signal - a dead simple tone -
is not complex; it's artificial. Such a tone just doesn't seem to
be generated by natural astrophysical processes. In addition, and
unlike other radio emissions produced by the cosmos, such a signal is
devoid of the appendages and inefficiencies nature always seems to add
- for example, DNA's junk and redundancy."
>
> > > > Yet you also hold that a high level of complexity is evidence for
> > > > "non-deliberate" processes.
> > >
> > > You keep getting this statement wrong over and over again. Clearly, I
> > > hold that high-level systems of functional complexity are evidence for
> > > *deliberate* processes.
> > >
> > > In the context that I use the word "complexity" I don't mean the same
> > > thing as randomness or chaos. I'm talking about system complexity,
> > > which is not at all highly chaotic. An integrated system of function is
> > > actually highly constrained and requires a certain minimum size and
> > > specificity within the underlying DNA code for that system. Greater
> > > "complexity" in such a code does note mean greater chaos, but rather a
> > > greater minimum size and specificity requirement.
> >
> > This is mere word-salad.
> > How do you measure "specificity"?
>
> DNA specificity is a measure of the maximum amount of sequence change
> that can be tolerated before the function in question is completely
> lost.
I asked how you measure it, not how you define it.
> In other words, a certain minimum limit on the order of the bases
> is needed in order for the function in question to "work" at all.
So how do you determine what that "minimum limit" is?
> The
> greater is this minimum requirement, the greater is the required
> specificity of the functional sequence.
So how do you determine what that "minimum requirement" is?
>
> > How do you determine what the minimum size is?
>
> The minimum size of a functional system is the minimum length of DNA
> needed to code for that system.
And how do you determine this?
> If this minimum sequence size
> requirement is not met, the functional system in question cannot be
> formed in a way that will "work" at all - not even a little bit.
>
You have not told us how you determine the minimum size of a functional
system.
Unless you do so, this is empty assertion.
> > How do you measure complexity?
>
> There are different meanings to the term "complexity". When most people
> use this word, they are actually thinking of chaos or randomness.
Mathematicians don't.
> This
> isn't how I'm using this term. I'm using it terms of functional systems
> and what these systems need to "work".
>
> So, functional complexity is a measure of the minimum size and
> specificity requirements for a functional system to work at all to a
> selectable advantage - even a little bit.
>
You haven't answered my question.
How do you measure functional complexity?
> > It's not an easy term to define, and
> > furthermore however you measure complexity, you need to demonstrate
> > that such a measure is appropriate to biological systems.
>
> Like any other system of function, all biological systems require
> various minimum size and specificity requirements. Different systems do
> indeed have different minimum requirements before they will work at all
> - even a little bit.
So how do *you* use the term?
How do you measure it?
>
> > We know that such complex systems can be created by totally
> > non-deliberate processes. Corporations spend millions of dollars on
> > designs which are created by processes which are modelled on natural
> > selection.
>
> Not beyond very low levels of "functional complexity" when it comes to
> the creation of truly novel functions.
How do you measure "functional complexity"?
Unless you can do so, this is simply an unfounded assertion.
>
> > > High minimum size and specificity requirements simply go beyond what
> > > non-deliberate processes are capable of achieving since all
> > > non-deliberate processes, to include the Darwinian mechanism of random
> > > mutation and natural selection, have very predictable effects on gene
> > > pools over time. They random mutations always tend toward chaos or
> > > homogeny.
> >
> > No they don't. Genetic algorythms run on computers don't. Experimental
> > breeding of organisms in the laboratory don't.
>
> Yes, they do. If you disagree, provide your evidence where a novel
> system of function is truly created via a non-deliberate process of
> random mutation and function-based selection beyond very low levels of
> minimum size and specificity requirements.
Before I can do that, you need to tell me how to measure "minimum size"
and "specificity requirements".
Well?
>
> > This is quite simply an unfounded assertion which is demonstrably
> > wrong.
>
> Where's your demonstration?
>
You have not provided any way of measuring the parameters which you use
to set your limits.
How on earth can I demonstrate something when I don't know what I'm
supposed to be demonstrating?
You are asserting that there are limits.
How can I determine what those limits are?
> > > Natural selection always tends to keep what functional
> > > systems it already has. Occasionally, random mutations will come across
> > > some novel beneficial sequence, which natural selection will also
> > > maintain. However, such occasions of novel discovery become more and
> > > more rare, in a very predictable exponential fashion, until they never
> > > happen beyond a relatively low threshold of minimum size and
> > > specificity requirements (this side of trillions upon trillions of
> > > years).
> >
> > Which is simply another unfounded assertion, and furthermore one which
> > other contributors to this forum have demolished.
>
> Where? Can you provide a link or a reference to such a "demolition"?
> Can you show me any novel system that has demonstrably evolved that
> requires a minimum of more than a couple thousand fairly specified bp
> of genetic real estate? I've yet to see such an example. Please, do
> show me a reference that really does prove me wrong here.
>
Just look at the history of your posting and the reponses.
You have yet to provide any measure of the limits you assert make
evolutionary processes impossible.
If you have provided such a measure, please point me at the link.
You assert that evolutionary processes are limited.
Fine.
Perhaps they are.
But unless you tell us how to determine those limits, all you have is
an unfounded assertion.
> < snip >
>
>
> > > > So what would be evidence *against* "non-deliberate" processes?
> > >
> > > What you mean to say is, "What would be evidence against 'deliberate'
> > > processes?"
> >
> > No, I mean what would be evidence against "non-deliberate" processes.
>
> Evidence against a non-deliberate process would be the fact that all
> known non-deliberate process do pretty much the same thing to granite.
Because we know the processes involved.
> Therefore, when a perfectly symmetrical polished granite cube is found,
> this is very clear evidence against the non-deliberate hypothesis for
> explaining the origin of this cube.
Because we know the processes which can shape granite.
If we didn't know those processes, what are the characteristic of a
non-deliberate process which will allow us to make that determination?
>
> But, you already admit this. So, why ask this question yet again?
We know the processes involved.
That's why we can tell.
>
> > > Evidence against the hypothesis that only deliberate design could
> > > produce a given phenomenon would be the finding of some non-deliberate
> > > process that is in fact capable of producing the phenomenon in question
> > > (i.e., a polished granite cube or a system of function that requires a
> > > minimum of more than a couple thousand fairly specified base pairs of
> > > genetic real estate).
> >
> > Let's turn this around:
> >
> > Evidence against the hypothesis that deliberate design could
> > produce a given phenomenon would be the finding of some
> > non-deliberate process that is in fact capable of producing the
> > phenomenon in question (i.e., a polished granite cube or a
> > system of function that requires a minimum of more than a
> > couple thousand fairly specified base pairs of
> > genetic real estate).
>
> That's not true. There is no evidence against the design hypothesis
> since it is known that deliberate design can also produce what
> non-deliberate processes can produce. But, the opposite is not true. It
> is known that non-deliberate processes do not produce many forms that
> deliberate processes produce when it comes to granite.
What has "when it comes to granite" to do with anything?
You are making a general claim about an unknown phenomenon.
What are the characteristics of an object produced by an artificial
process which will allow us to identify it as a manufactured object in
the absence of a knowledge of process?
>
> It doesn't work both ways.
It most certainly does.
What are the characteristics of an object produced by an artificial
process which will allow us to identify it as a manufactured object in
the absence of a knowledge of process?
> That's why ID can be so easily hypothesized
> to the near certain exclusion of non-deliberate processes in certain
> cases while the opposite is not true.
So what are the characteristics of an object produced by an artificial
process which will allow us to identify it as a manufactured object in
the absence of a knowledge of process?
>
> > This is *exactly* the same argument as you use to support your
> > assertion, but used to support a diametrically opposite assertion.
>
> That's because this argument only works in one direction. It is not
> true both ways.
>
You have not demonstrated that.
> > So unless we know the process, we have no way of knowing whether it was
> > deliberate or not.
>
> Not true. You need *not* know the process or mechanism or identity of
> deliberate design at all in order to adequately hypothesize deliberate
> design - because of the one-way nature of the argument (i.e., the
> demonstrable limits of non-deliberate processes).
>
What are the characteristics of an object produced by an artificial
process which will allow us to identify it as a manufactured object in
the absence of a knowledge of process?
> > It is only with a knowledge of the process by which
> > something was created that we can determine if it was made by
> > deliberate or non-deliberate processes.
>
> Not true - because of one very simple reason:
>
> Deliberate processes have no limits with it comes to anything.
They don't?
Transform a block of granite into a bird.
You can't ?
So there are limits.
Unless, of course, you invoke the supernatural.
In that case it sure as hell ain't science.
> Non-deliberate processes do have very predictable limits with it comes
> to everything. This is key.
What are the characteristics of an object produced by an artificial
process which will allow us to identify it as a manufactured object in
the absence of a knowledge of process?
>
> > > > > This is a valid prediction about an entire set of potential options
> > > > > based on a small subset. If everything about all non-deliberate
> > > > > processes were already known, there would be no need for a scientific
> > > > > hypothesis about the entire set of possibilities. You are arguing
> > > > > against the need for science when you assert that everything must be
> > > > > known about something before anything can be said about it.
> > > >
> > > > I have made no such assertion.
> > >
> > > Yes, you have. You have said that one cannot assume design of polished
> > > granite cubes by showing that no known non-deliberate process even
> > > comes close because of your arguments of something along the lines of,
> > > "All non-deliberate processes cannot be known" and "You would have to
> > > know about all non-deliberate processes first".
> >
> > What I am saying is that unless you can form a testable hypothesis of
> > process, you can't make that determination.
>
> The hypothesis isn't that ID could create a given phenomenon. ID can
> always create any phenomenon.
Precisely!
That's what makes it untestable!
I'm glad that you conceede that point.
> Therefore, that isn't the basis of the
> ID hypothesis. The ID hypothesis is the notion that ONLY ID could
> create a given phenomenon. While the first ID hypothesis cannot be
> falsified as is therefore not science, the second (and real) ID
> hypothesis can be falsified and therefore is a valid scientific
> hypothesis. All you have to do to falsify the ONLY ID hypothesis is to
> show some non-deliberate doing what is supposed to be limited to ID
> ONLY sources.
>
That is not falsification.
ID isn *NOT* the default position of science if an explanation cannot
be found.
We don't assume that unless we can explain something,
"godimeananintelligentdesigner" did it.
We say "I don't know".
> Again, the ID ONLY hypothesis is indeed testable. One need no
> demonstrate the identity or mechanism or motive of the creator of a
> given phenomenon in order to clearly support the ID ONLY hypothesis
> when it comes to explaining that phenomenon.
>
> < snip >
>
> > > There is simply no need to know *how* a
> > > polished granite cube was actually formed, or even by whom it was
> > > formed, to know with a very high predictive value, that it was in fact
> > > deliberately designed - simply by knowing the common pattern of
> > > non-deliberate processes when it comes to their action on granite.
> >
> > What is the "common pattern" of "deliberate processes"?
>
> There is no common pattern for a deliberate process. That is why
> knowledge about the mechanism, motive, and identity of the deliberate
> designer is not needed - because it is worthless. It has no consistent
> pattern.
So if there is no consistent pattern, how can we recognise it?
>
> However, non-deliberate processes do have a very consistent pattern.
And what are the characteristics of that pattern?
> That's why we can use this pattern to rule out non-deliberate causes in
> certain cases and therefore predict, very accurately, that at least one
> intelligent deliberate designer, mechanism, and motive, among many many
> possibilities, was in fact responsible for this or that particular
> observation.
And what are the characteristics of that pattern?
>
> > How about a list of characteristics of such processes?
>
> Think about it . . . There is *no* predictable process or pattern for
> deliberate design of anything. An almost infinite number of processes
> and patterns can be used and created with the use of intelligence and
> deliberate action.
So there is no pattern, yet you claim to be able to recognise it.
How can that be?
>
> > > > We have had
> > > > other posters on this forum insisting that pyrite crystals must be
> > > > "designed" because of the geometrically regular form and shinny
> > > > surface. They were misled into this belief through an ignorance of the
> > > > processes of crystal formation.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone argue this and I tend not to
> > > believe your assertion here.
> >
> > It was McCoy. Okay, he's a nutcase, but that doesn't affect the
> > argument.
> >
> > > But, even if someone were to have made
> > > this argument for pyrite crystals or other types of crystals, it wasn't
> > > me.
> >
> > So what?
>
> You are talking to me here - not some other nutcase.
>
The example is still valid, and the ignorance of the poster serves to
illustrate the example.
Without a knowledge of process, how can we determine that those
crystals are natural?
> > > As I've pointed out to you before, why do you think I chose
> > > granite for my illustration? You have to investigate the material that
> > > has a particular structure in some detail before you are able to tell
> > > that it goes significantly beyond the capabilities of non-deliberate
> > > processes.
> >
> > So how do you know what a process can or can't do unless you know what
> > that process is?
>
> I really don't think anyone would have much difficulty knowing that
> wind, rain, tornados, volcanoes, etc. are in fact mindless processes
> after just a bit of investigation. I therefore do know that these
> processes are "non-deliberate".
So what are the characteristics which allow you to make that
determination?
> I also don't think there is a real
> argument against the notion that humans are capable of "deliberate"
> action.
Nobody is making that argument.
>
> > What are the characteristics of all deliberate processes, and how are
> > they quantitavely different from non-deliberate processes?
>
> Again, there is no predictable characteristic of all deliberate
> processes except in range. Deliberate processes are predictably capable
> of going far beyond the predictable limits of all mindless processes -
> to a very high degree of predictive value.
>
And how do you measure the "predictive value" of unknown processes?
> < snip more repetitive arguments >
>
>
> > > You've already admitted as much yourself when you agreed that
> > > non-deliberate processes work in a very predictably random/chaotic way
> > > on stuff like granite rocks - giving evidence that a polished granite
> > > cube is in fact obviously designed.
> >
> > Pyrite crystals are also very regular.
> > If we didn't know about the processes by which such crystals are
> > formed, your filter would designate them as made by "deliberate"
> > processes.
>
> Exactly. I never said that knowledge about non-deliberate processes and
> how they act on the object in question isn't needed. Clearly, such
> knowledge is needed. What I said was that knowledge about deliberate
> intelligent processes, mechanisms, and personal identity, is not
> needed. Such knowledge is not needed to detect deliberate design.
>
So what are the characteristics of an object produced by "deliberate
processes" which allow you to make that determination?
> > > > To assert that if evolutionary theory were falsified, the only other
> > > > possible alternative is the intervention of the supernatural (and
> > > > please don't pretend that ID is anything else: if you want to argue
> > > > with that, take it up with Michael Behe) is scientifically illiterate.
> > >
> > > ID Theory isn't about trying to argue for the identity of the
> > > deliberate agent.
> >
> > It's very studiously evading the isse of the identity of the deliberate
> > agent.
>
> That's right. ID Theory is based on the notion of the ID ONLY
> hypothesis. It isn't based at all upon anything that any potential
> designer might do in any particular and for any reason. ID Theory says
> nothing at all about those things. It only says that non-deliberate
> processes did not do something and therefore something deliberate was
> indeed responsible. That's it.
So what are the characteristics of "non-deliberate" processes?
You've said that there are none.
How can I recognise a process as deliberate when there is no basis on
which to make such a determination?
>
> > > Really, it isn't.
> >
> > Quite so, but that rather undermines its claim that it is science.
>
> Not true. Where does the scientific method require that a hypothesis
> identify the designer, motive, and method before design can be
> detected?
Science demands testable hypotheses.
>
> > > All ID Theory says is that whoever
> > > it is, it was intelligent and it acted deliberately in the creation of
> > > certain systems within all living things. I'm sorry that you just
> > > don't see the value of such a theory, but that is all that ID is. And,
> > > it does indeed carry with it a very high degree of predictive value.
> > >
> >
> > > > "I don't know" does not mean "GodImeananintelligentdesigner did it".
> > >
> > > Again, there is plenty of evidence besides a simple "I don't know". We
> > > do know a whole lot by studying the very predictable patterns of what
> > > non-deliberate processes
> >
> > So please give me a list of the characteristics of "non-deliberate"
> > processes.
>
> When it comes to granite rocks, I've already given you this.
> Non-deliberate processes always act in to produce a random fractal-type
> pattern on granite rocks - to a very high degree of predictive value.
>
You claim to be able to make a universal judgment, not just on
hypothetical rocks.
This is evading the issue.
> > > are capable of achieving as they relate with
> > > different materials - like granite or DNA. These very predictable
> > > non-deliberate processes give us a very good idea about where these
> > > processes end and where deliberate processes start.
> >
> > So please give me a prediction of ID which will allow ID to be
> > falsified.
>
> Again, the ID hypothesis cannot be falsified.
In which case it is not an hypothesis.
> However, ID Theory is not
> based on the ID hypothesis. ID Theory is based on the ID ONLY
> hypothesis (see above for more details).
>
But offers no characteristics which will allow us to recognise it.
Not very helpfull, is it?
RF
Richard Forrest
Seanpit wrote:
> Richard Forrest wrote:
>
> > > > How do you distinguish between "non-deliberate" and "deliberate"
> > > > processes without an hypothesis of what those processes are?
> > >
> > > Oh, give me a break! Don't tell me you are now finding difficulty
> > > figuring out the difference between deliberate and non-deliberate?
> >
> > How can you distinguish between deliberate and non-deliberate if you
> > don't know the process?
>
> You study and learn about the processes involved.
And how do you study a process you have not identified?
> You can't know how
> granite will react to non-deliberate processes unless you do a little
> investigation first. It is because you've learned about the difference
> between weather patterns and humans that you can predict how one will
> always act on granite vs. how the other might act.
>
So without a knowledge of process, you cannot determine if it is
"deliberate" or "non-deliberate".
Thank you for confirming my assertion.
> > Seem as simple question.
> >
> > > Really? Are you really trying to argue for a deliberate motive behind
> > > the activities of something like a tornado?
> >
> > Are you asserting that we don't know the processes which lead to a
> > torando?
>
> We do know a great deal about the processes that lead to a tornado.
That's why we know that it's "non-deliberate".
> That is why we have a very good idea that a tornado does not act with
> conscious deliberate intent. Why are you even trying to argue this
> point?
The point is that because we know the processes which cause a tornado,
we know that it is not deliberate.
Thank you for confirming my point.
>
> < snip >
>
> > By the way "non-deliberate" processes can smash, splinter, melt, erode,
> > decay, carve, polish in a far greater variety of ways than we can.
>
> Not true. Non-deliberate processes are limited to a very predictable
> range of forms when it comes to granite.
I can predict precisely the form the surface of a granite block will
take when cut with a rock saw.
Can you predict the form a granite surface will take when exposed to
natural weathering?
> Humans are not nearly as
> limited.
Humans are limited by their technology. We can cut granite into flat
slabs. We can crush granite to use as roadstone. We can, if we are
very, very patient (and since the days of the ancient Egytpians noboby
seems to have had that patience) carve granite into sculptures
We don't have the technology to reduce granite to kaolin.
>
> > > > SETI looks for "deliberate" processes by looking quite specifically for
> > > > very simple signals. This is because the nature of "non-deliberate"
> > > > processes is that that they generate very messy and complex signals.
> > >
> > > Ah, so you understand after all that all non-deliberate processes do
> > > indeed have a certain predictable pattern when it comes to certain
> > > types of things - like their action on granite and radio waves. Why
> > > didn't you avoid admitting the significance of this characteristic for
> > > such a long time?
> >
> > We know that objects we manufacture have simple forms because we know
> > how they are manufactured.
>
> Not true. We can also manufacture granite forms with very fractal-type
> chaotic geometry that look very "natural".
We can?
Please give us an example of this.
> You simply do not need to
> know anything at all about the manufacturing processes to be able to
> detect deliberate design behind a polished granite cube because of your
> knowledge of how very predictable non-deliberate processes affect
> granite. That's it.
No, that's not it. You have not defined the characteristics of a
deliberate process.
I gave you the example of a very regular crystal of pyrite.
Without a knowledge of how such crystals are formed, how could you
determine that it was the outcome of natural processes?
>
> > We understand the processes, and if there is
> > a question as to whether an object is man-made or natural, it is the
> > understanding of those processes which allows us to decide whether or
> > not an object is man-made.
>
> You don't have to understand the *actual* mechanism used by deliberate
> processes. All you have to understand is that many deliberate
> mechanisms do in fact go far beyond all non-deliberate mechanisms. Once
> you understand this, all you have to ask yourself is, "does this
> particular phenomenon go significantly beyond what all known
> non-deliberate processes do?" If the answer to this question is,
> "yes", then the hypothesis of a deliberate cause gains the most
> predictive value.
>
So what are the characteristics of a deliberate process?
All you have done so far is to assert that such processes can be
recognised.
How can they be recognised?
> > > > Your favoured granite block is precieved as being non-natural because
> > > > it is very simple. It has flat, polished sides which are parallel to
> > > > each other. You are using the same filter as do the SETI researchers
> > > > when you state that it is made by "deliberate" processes.
> > >
> > > Exactly - I'm glad you're finally catching on ; )
> >
> > Quite so, but even when SETI researchers discover a simple signal, they
> > don't automatically assume that it is the result of deliberate process.
>
> They would if such a signal comes from something that is known to be
> naturally incapable of producing such a signal all by its
> non-deliberate self.
>
So without a knowledge of how that signal was produced they could not
conclude that it was deliberate.
Thank you for confirming my point.
> > Recognising such a signal is the starting point of the investigation
> > into whether or not it is artificial.
>
> If SETI scientists found a perfectly symmetrical polished granite cube
> on Mars, with small geometric designs carved in the center of each
> face, they wouldn't need to do any further investigation than
> determining if that cube was in face granite.
How on earth can the search for radio signals from distant solar
systems detect a granite cube on Mars?
> Their prior experience
> with granite and with non-deliberate forces acting on granite, would
> tell them that such a cube was almost certainly not formed by any
> non-deliberate cause.
Because they could form an hypothesis of how that cube was made.
> Non-deliberate forces are just too predictable.
So what are the characteristics of "non-deliberate" forces?
By the way, they are not.
The motion of the planets in the solar system is not predictable over
periods of tens of millions of years.
Can you predict the precise form the eroded surface of a block of
limestone will take?
I can predict precisely the form it will take if cut by a saw.
> They always act on granite in pretty much the same way - forming it
> into random fractal-type forms.
Which we know because we have a knowledge of the processes involved/
A pyrite crystal does not form a "random fractal-type" form.
We recognise it as natural because we know the processes involved.
> Such a polished granite cube is so far
> away from such a fractal-type form that it is clearly beyond the scope
> of what all non-deliberate processes do. It is therefore clearly *not*
> non-deliberate in origin.
Because we know the processes involved.
> What is the only other option then to explain
> its origin if it is clearly not non-deliberate? Hmmmm? What other
> option do you have besides the hypothesis of a deliberate origin?
>
So the pyrite crystal has a regular, geometric shape.
Your granite cube has a regular, geometric shape.
We recognise one as being natural
We recognise the other as being artificial.
Without a knowledge of the processes involved, how can we tell which is
natural and which is artificial?
> > When the first pulsar was discovered, the regularity of the signal
> > suggested that it was artificial. It was further investigation which
> > showed that it was not. What you are suggesting is that as soon as such
> > a regular signal is detected, we can conclude immediately that it is
> > artificial without any further investigation into how it was produced.
>
> I've told you over and over again that research is necessary before any
> hypotheses can be adequately forwarded. I've pointed out to you
> several times that just because a perfectly symmetrical cube is found
> in nature does NOT automatically mean that such a cube was designed.
What research have you suggested?
You have mererly asserted that it is obviously designed, but not given
a set of characters unique to designed objects.
I have asserted repeatedly that unless we can form an hypthesis of how
an object is manufactured, we cannot determine if it is natural or
artificial.
Are you agreeing with me now?
> You should have figured this out by now since you've already tried to
> float the argument of crystals several times. As I've already explained
> to you, this argument doesn't work for granite because granite does not
> naturally form perfectly symmetrical polished cubes.
Because we know the processes which produce crystals in pyrite, and we
know that those processes don't apply to granite!
> Other materials do
> form such cubes without any deliberate thought or action. Granite does
> not.
>
So we know the processes which can shape granite.
You assert that there is some sort of universal filter which allows us
to determine if an object is natural or artificial *in the absence* of
any knowledge of process.
So: what is that filter?
> Of course this information requires study and investigation!
So you agree with me that without an hypothesis of process, we cannot
determine if an object is natural or artificial.
If this is not the case, what is the point of further investigation?
> I never
> said otherwise. You have to learn about the phenomenon in question as
> it relates to non-deliberate forces before you can adequately
> hypothesis any potential limits of non-deliberate forces as they act on
> the object or material in question.
So you agree with me that without an hypothesis of process, we cannot
determine if an object is natural or artificial.
If this is not the case, what is the point of further investigation?
>
> However, once these limits of non-deliberate processes have been
> ascertained in a repeatably testable way,
You claim to know those limits.
Fine.
Define them.
> they can be used to support
> the hypothesis of deliberate causes as well - without any need of
> knowing the actual mechanism for the deliberate cause.
>
So define your limits.
> That is how SETI scientists make their hypotheses. They don't need to
> know the identity of the alien intelligences or anything about their
> technology or their mechanisms of creativity in order to determine that
> their activities are indeed deliberate and highly intelligent. All SETI
> scientists really need to know is the limits of how non-deliberate
> processes interact with the particular object or material in question.
> That's it.
No it isn't, and you evidently haven't read the link I provided.
Read this:
http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_intelligentdesign_051201.html
>
> > > > Yet you also hold that a high level of complexity is evidence for
> > > > "non-deliberate" processes.
> > >
> > > You keep getting this statement wrong over and over again. Clearly, I
> > > hold that high-level systems of functional complexity are evidence for
> > > *deliberate* processes.
> > >
> > > In the context that I use the word "complexity" I don't mean the same
> > > thing as randomness or chaos. I'm talking about system complexity,
> > > which is not at all highly chaotic. An integrated system of function is
> > > actually highly constrained and requires a certain minimum size and
> > > specificity within the underlying DNA code for that system. Greater
> > > "complexity" in such a code does note mean greater chaos, but rather a
> > > greater minimum size and specificity requirement.
> >
> > This is mere word-salad.
> > How do you measure "specificity"?
>
> DNA specificity is a measure of the maximum amount of sequence change
> that can be tolerated before the function in question is completely
> lost.
I asked how you measure it, not how you define it.
> In other words, a certain minimum limit on the order of the bases
> is needed in order for the function in question to "work" at all.
So how do you determine what that "minimum limit" is?
> The
> greater is this minimum requirement, the greater is the required
> specificity of the functional sequence.
So how do you determine what that "minimum requirement" is?
>
> > How do you determine what the minimum size is?
>
> The minimum size of a functional system is the minimum length of DNA
> needed to code for that system.
And how do you determine this?
> If this minimum sequence size
> requirement is not met, the functional system in question cannot be
> formed in a way that will "work" at all - not even a little bit.
>
You have not told us how you determine the minimum size of a functional
system.
Unless you do so, this is empty assertion.
> > How do you measure complexity?
>
> There are different meanings to the term "complexity". When most people
> use this word, they are actually thinking of chaos or randomness.
Mathematicians don't.
> This
> isn't how I'm using this term. I'm using it terms of functional systems
> and what these systems need to "work".
>
> So, functional complexity is a measure of the minimum size and
> specificity requirements for a functional system to work at all to a
> selectable advantage - even a little bit.
>
You haven't answered my question.
How do you measure functional complexity?
> > It's not an easy term to define, and
> > furthermore however you measure complexity, you need to demonstrate
> > that such a measure is appropriate to biological systems.
>
> Like any other system of function, all biological systems require
> various minimum size and specificity requirements. Different systems do
> indeed have different minimum requirements before they will work at all
> - even a little bit.
So how do *you* use the term?
How do you measure it?
>
> > We know that such complex systems can be created by totally
> > non-deliberate processes. Corporations spend millions of dollars on
> > designs which are created by processes which are modelled on natural
> > selection.
>
> Not beyond very low levels of "functional complexity" when it comes to
> the creation of truly novel functions.
How do you measure "functional complexity"?
Unless you can do so, this is simply an unfounded assertion.
>
> > > High minimum size and specificity requirements simply go beyond what
> > > non-deliberate processes are capable of achieving since all
> > > non-deliberate processes, to include the Darwinian mechanism of random
> > > mutation and natural selection, have very predictable effects on gene
> > > pools over time. They random mutations always tend toward chaos or
> > > homogeny.
> >
> > No they don't. Genetic algorythms run on computers don't. Experimental
> > breeding of organisms in the laboratory don't.
>
> Yes, they do. If you disagree, provide your evidence where a novel
> system of function is truly created via a non-deliberate process of
> random mutation and function-based selection beyond very low levels of
> minimum size and specificity requirements.
Before I can do that, you need to tell me how to measure "minimum size"
and "specificity requirements".
Well?
>
> > This is quite simply an unfounded assertion which is demonstrably
> > wrong.
>
> Where's your demonstration?
>
You have not provided any way of measuring the parameters which you use
to set your limits.
How on earth can I demonstrate something when I don't know what I'm
supposed to be demonstrating?
You are asserting that there are limits.
How can I determine what those limits are?
> > > Natural selection always tends to keep what functional
> > > systems it already has. Occasionally, random mutations will come across
> > > some novel beneficial sequence, which natural selection will also
> > > maintain. However, such occasions of novel discovery become more and
> > > more rare, in a very predictable exponential fashion, until they never
> > > happen beyond a relatively low threshold of minimum size and
> > > specificity requirements (this side of trillions upon trillions of
> > > years).
> >
> > Which is simply another unfounded assertion, and furthermore one which
> > other contributors to this forum have demolished.
>
> Where? Can you provide a link or a reference to such a "demolition"?
> Can you show me any novel system that has demonstrably evolved that
> requires a minimum of more than a couple thousand fairly specified bp
> of genetic real estate? I've yet to see such an example. Please, do
> show me a reference that really does prove me wrong here.
>
Just look at the history of your posting and the reponses.
You have yet to provide any measure of the limits you assert make
evolutionary processes impossible.
If you have provided such a measure, please point me at the link.
You assert that evolutionary processes are limited.
Fine.
Perhaps they are.
But unless you tell us how to determine those limits, all you have is
an unfounded assertion.
> < snip >
>
>
> > > > So what would be evidence *against* "non-deliberate" processes?
> > >
> > > What you mean to say is, "What would be evidence against 'deliberate'
> > > processes?"
> >
> > No, I mean what would be evidence against "non-deliberate" processes.
>
> Evidence against a non-deliberate process would be the fact that all
> known non-deliberate process do pretty much the same thing to granite.
Because we know the processes involved.
> Therefore, when a perfectly symmetrical polished granite cube is found,
> this is very clear evidence against the non-deliberate hypothesis for
> explaining the origin of this cube.
Because we know the processes which can shape granite.
If we didn't know those processes, what are the characteristic of a
non-deliberate process which will allow us to make that determination?
>
> But, you already admit this. So, why ask this question yet again?
We know the processes involved.
That's why we can tell.
>
> > > Evidence against the hypothesis that only deliberate design could
> > > produce a given phenomenon would be the finding of some non-deliberate
> > > process that is in fact capable of producing the phenomenon in question
> > > (i.e., a polished granite cube or a system of function that requires a
> > > minimum of more than a couple thousand fairly specified base pairs of
> > > genetic real estate).
> >
> > Let's turn this around:
> >
> > Evidence against the hypothesis that deliberate design could
> > produce a given phenomenon would be the finding of some
> > non-deliberate process that is in fact capable of producing the
> > phenomenon in question (i.e., a polished granite cube or a
> > system of function that requires a minimum of more than a
> > couple thousand fairly specified base pairs of
> > genetic real estate).
>
> That's not true. There is no evidence against the design hypothesis
> since it is known that deliberate design can also produce what
> non-deliberate processes can produce. But, the opposite is not true. It
> is known that non-deliberate processes do not produce many forms that
> deliberate processes produce when it comes to granite.
What has "when it comes to granite" to do with anything?
You are making a general claim about an unknown phenomenon.
What are the characteristics of an object produced by an artificial
process which will allow us to identify it as a manufactured object in
the absence of a knowledge of process?
>
> It doesn't work both ways.
It most certainly does.
What are the characteristics of an object produced by an artificial
process which will allow us to identify it as a manufactured object in
the absence of a knowledge of process?
> That's why ID can be so easily hypothesized
> to the near certain exclusion of non-deliberate processes in certain
> cases while the opposite is not true.
So what are the characteristics of an object produced by an artificial
process which will allow us to identify it as a manufactured object in
the absence of a knowledge of process?
>
> > This is *exactly* the same argument as you use to support your
> > assertion, but used to support a diametrically opposite assertion.
>
> That's because this argument only works in one direction. It is not
> true both ways.
>
You have not demonstrated that.
> > So unless we know the process, we have no way of knowing whether it was
> > deliberate or not.
>
> Not true. You need *not* know the process or mechanism or identity of
> deliberate design at all in order to adequately hypothesize deliberate
> design - because of the one-way nature of the argument (i.e., the
> demonstrable limits of non-deliberate processes).
>
What are the characteristics of an object produced by an artificial
process which will allow us to identify it as a manufactured object in
the absence of a knowledge of process?
> > It is only with a knowledge of the process by which
> > something was created that we can determine if it was made by
> > deliberate or non-deliberate processes.
>
> Not true - because of one very simple reason:
>
> Deliberate processes have no limits with it comes to anything.
They don't?
Transform a block of granite into a bird.
You can't ?
So there are limits.
Unless, of course, you invoke the supernatural.
In that case it sure as hell ain't science.
> Non-deliberate processes do have very predictable limits with it comes
> to everything. This is key.
What are the characteristics of an object produced by an artificial
process which will allow us to identify it as a manufactured object in
the absence of a knowledge of process?
>
> > > > > This is a valid prediction about an entire set of potential options
> > > > > based on a small subset. If everything about all non-deliberate
> > > > > processes were already known, there would be no need for a scientific
> > > > > hypothesis about the entire set of possibilities. You are arguing
> > > > > against the need for science when you assert that everything must be
> > > > > known about something before anything can be said about it.
> > > >
> > > > I have made no such assertion.
> > >
> > > Yes, you have. You have said that one cannot assume design of polished
> > > granite cubes by showing that no known non-deliberate process even
> > > comes close because of your arguments of something along the lines of,
> > > "All non-deliberate processes cannot be known" and "You would have to
> > > know about all non-deliberate processes first".
> >
> > What I am saying is that unless you can form a testable hypothesis of
> > process, you can't make that determination.
>
> The hypothesis isn't that ID could create a given phenomenon. ID can
> always create any phenomenon.
Precisely!
That's what makes it untestable!
I'm glad that you conceede that point.
> Therefore, that isn't the basis of the
> ID hypothesis. The ID hypothesis is the notion that ONLY ID could
> create a given phenomenon. While the first ID hypothesis cannot be
> falsified as is therefore not science, the second (and real) ID
> hypothesis can be falsified and therefore is a valid scientific
> hypothesis. All you have to do to falsify the ONLY ID hypothesis is to
> show some non-deliberate doing what is supposed to be limited to ID
> ONLY sources.
>
That is not falsification.
ID isn *NOT* the default position of science if an explanation cannot
be found.
We don't assume that unless we can explain something,
"godimeananintelligentdesigner" did it.
We say "I don't know".
> Again, the ID ONLY hypothesis is indeed testable. One need no
> demonstrate the identity or mechanism or motive of the creator of a
> given phenomenon in order to clearly support the ID ONLY hypothesis
> when it comes to explaining that phenomenon.
>
> < snip >
>
> > > There is simply no need to know *how* a
> > > polished granite cube was actually formed, or even by whom it was
> > > formed, to know with a very high predictive value, that it was in fact
> > > deliberately designed - simply by knowing the common pattern of
> > > non-deliberate processes when it comes to their action on granite.
> >
> > What is the "common pattern" of "deliberate processes"?
>
> There is no common pattern for a deliberate process. That is why
> knowledge about the mechanism, motive, and identity of the deliberate
> designer is not needed - because it is worthless. It has no consistent
> pattern.
So if there is no consistent pattern, how can we recognise it?
>
> However, non-deliberate processes do have a very consistent pattern.
And what are the characteristics of that pattern?
> That's why we can use this pattern to rule out non-deliberate causes in
> certain cases and therefore predict, very accurately, that at least one
> intelligent deliberate designer, mechanism, and motive, among many many
> possibilities, was in fact responsible for this or that particular
> observation.
And what are the characteristics of that pattern?
>
> > How about a list of characteristics of such processes?
>
> Think about it . . . There is *no* predictable process or pattern for
> deliberate design of anything. An almost infinite number of processes
> and patterns can be used and created with the use of intelligence and
> deliberate action.
So there is no pattern, yet you claim to be able to recognise it.
How can that be?
>
> > > > We have had
> > > > other posters on this forum insisting that pyrite crystals must be
> > > > "designed" because of the geometrically regular form and shinny
> > > > surface. They were misled into this belief through an ignorance of the
> > > > processes of crystal formation.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone argue this and I tend not to
> > > believe your assertion here.
> >
> > It was McCoy. Okay, he's a nutcase, but that doesn't affect the
> > argument.
> >
> > > But, even if someone were to have made
> > > this argument for pyrite crystals or other types of crystals, it wasn't
> > > me.
> >
> > So what?
>
> You are talking to me here - not some other nutcase.
>
The example is still valid, and the ignorance of the poster serves to
illustrate the example.
Without a knowledge of process, how can we determine that those
crystals are natural?
> > > As I've pointed out to you before, why do you think I chose
> > > granite for my illustration? You have to investigate the material that
> > > has a particular structure in some detail before you are able to tell
> > > that it goes significantly beyond the capabilities of non-deliberate
> > > processes.
> >
> > So how do you know what a process can or can't do unless you know what
> > that process is?
>
> I really don't think anyone would have much difficulty knowing that
> wind, rain, tornados, volcanoes, etc. are in fact mindless processes
> after just a bit of investigation. I therefore do know that these
> processes are "non-deliberate".
So what are the characteristics which allow you to make that
determination?
> I also don't think there is a real
> argument against the notion that humans are capable of "deliberate"
> action.
Nobody is making that argument.
>
> > What are the characteristics of all deliberate processes, and how are
> > they quantitavely different from non-deliberate processes?
>
> Again, there is no predictable characteristic of all deliberate
> processes except in range. Deliberate processes are predictably capable
> of going far beyond the predictable limits of all mindless processes -
> to a very high degree of predictive value.
>
And how do you measure the "predictive value" of unknown processes?
> < snip more repetitive arguments >
>
>
> > > You've already admitted as much yourself when you agreed that
> > > non-deliberate processes work in a very predictably random/chaotic way
> > > on stuff like granite rocks - giving evidence that a polished granite
> > > cube is in fact obviously designed.
> >
> > Pyrite crystals are also very regular.
> > If we didn't know about the processes by which such crystals are
> > formed, your filter would designate them as made by "deliberate"
> > processes.
>
> Exactly. I never said that knowledge about non-deliberate processes and
> how they act on the object in question isn't needed. Clearly, such
> knowledge is needed. What I said was that knowledge about deliberate
> intelligent processes, mechanisms, and personal identity, is not
> needed. Such knowledge is not needed to detect deliberate design.
>
So what are the characteristics of an object produced by "deliberate
processes" which allow you to make that determination?
> > > > To assert that if evolutionary theory were falsified, the only other
> > > > possible alternative is the intervention of the supernatural (and
> > > > please don't pretend that ID is anything else: if you want to argue
> > > > with that, take it up with Michael Behe) is scientifically illiterate.
> > >
> > > ID Theory isn't about trying to argue for the identity of the
> > > deliberate agent.
> >
> > It's very studiously evading the isse of the identity of the deliberate
> > agent.
>
> That's right. ID Theory is based on the notion of the ID ONLY
> hypothesis. It isn't based at all upon anything that any potential
> designer might do in any particular and for any reason. ID Theory says
> nothing at all about those things. It only says that non-deliberate
> processes did not do something and therefore something deliberate was
> indeed responsible. That's it.
So what are the characteristics of "non-deliberate" processes?
You've said that there are none.
How can I recognise a process as deliberate when there is no basis on
which to make such a determination?
>
> > > Really, it isn't.
> >
> > Quite so, but that rather undermines its claim that it is science.
>
> Not true. Where does the scientific method require that a hypothesis
> identify the designer, motive, and method before design can be
> detected?
Science demands testable hypotheses.
>
> > > All ID Theory says is that whoever
> > > it is, it was intelligent and it acted deliberately in the creation of
> > > certain systems within all living things. I'm sorry that you just
> > > don't see the value of such a theory, but that is all that ID is. And,
> > > it does indeed carry with it a very high degree of predictive value.
> > >
> >
> > > > "I don't know" does not mean "GodImeananintelligentdesigner did it".
> > >
> > > Again, there is plenty of evidence besides a simple "I don't know". We
> > > do know a whole lot by studying the very predictable patterns of what
> > > non-deliberate processes
> >
> > So please give me a list of the characteristics of "non-deliberate"
> > processes.
>
> When it comes to granite rocks, I've already given you this.
> Non-deliberate processes always act in to produce a random fractal-type
> pattern on granite rocks - to a very high degree of predictive value.
>
You claim to be able to make a universal judgment, not just on
hypothetical rocks.
This is evading the issue.
> > > are capable of achieving as they relate with
> > > different materials - like granite or DNA. These very predictable
> > > non-deliberate processes give us a very good idea about where these
> > > processes end and where deliberate processes start.
> >
> > So please give me a prediction of ID which will allow ID to be
> > falsified.
>
> Again, the ID hypothesis cannot be falsified.
In which case it is not an hypothesis.
> However, ID Theory is not
> based on the ID hypothesis. ID Theory is based on the ID ONLY
> hypothesis (see above for more details).
>
But offers no characteristics which will allow us to recognise it.
Not very helpfull, is it?
RF
> < snip >
>
>
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
wf3h
john.1...@gmail.com
Seanpit wrote:
> john.1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Ever heard of rocks being manufactured to look like natural rocks?
> > > Humans can and do deliberately shape rocks to look "natural" and
> > > unmanufactured. Yet, they are manufactured. The problem is, when you
> > > see one of these rocks it is much harder to detect the fact that they
> > > were in fact designed deliberately (in comparison to a polished granite
> > > cube).
> >
> > Indeed, we know the rocks are fake because we either know the
> > manufacturing process, or can deduce the manufacturing
> > process from a careful examination of the rock.
>
> You might be able to figure out that an amorphous or "natural"-looking
> rock was in fact deliberately formed, but sometimes it might be very
> difficult indeed. This is not the case with a polished granite cube. It
> is very easy to tell that such a cube was clearly designed regardless
> of who did it or how they formed this cube.
...using your knowledge of human stonemasons and their tools and
techniques as a guide...
>
> If you put a "natural-appearing" granite rock next to a polished
> granite cube, even you could tell which one looks designed even though
> both of them could have been designed. Why is that? What's the
> difference? In other words, the knowledge that humans are capable of
> making a particular look is not enough to adequately assume humans
> design. You need something else to go along with that knowledge. You
> need knowledge about the potential and limits of non-intelligent
> processes working with granite. Without this knowledge, you really
> couldn't tell which one was or wasn't most likely designed.
The term "natural appearing" simply means that you appeal to the
canonical set
of known naturally occurring objects. It is quite possible for there to
be naturally occurring
objects to appear superfically to be manufactured, if we do not happen
to have that particular form
in our canonical set of known naturally occurring objects. Your example
fails because
you are prespecifying the object, and thus creating a circular
argument. Again, given
an object of truly unknown origin, meaning that we can't tell if it is
manufactured or
non manufactured when we compare it to both natural objects and
manufactured objects.
In short a true unknown appears both manufactured and non-manufactured.
It is only
through further scientific investigation that we might be able to
answer the question of
whether it is manufactured. Indeed, only if we determine the
manufacturing process
can we make the claim of manufactured stick.
>
> > > Now, why do you think that is? Is it not because mindless natural
> > > processes can also produce such a look? Why is the designed nature of a
> > > polished perfectly symmetrical granite cube so much easier to detect?
> > > Come on now, be honest. Is it because you automatically know who made
> > > the cube and what process was used in its manufacture? Really? Or, is
> > > it because of your knowledge of the limits of mindless processes when
> > > it comes to making such granite cubes?
> >
> > It is because we know that humans carve rocks and we know how humans
> > carve rocks. Period.
>
> Not true. We also know that humans can and do carve amorphous looking
> granite rocks. Therefore, this knowledge is not enough to assume design
> in the polished granite cube over the amorphous-looking granite rock.
> You also have to know something about the limits of non-deliberate
> processes when it comes to working with granite.
You have to know both, which is what ID people do not admit to.
>
> > > The only real difference between the two types of rock forms is that
> > > one can easily be made by mindless natural processes while the other
> > > cannot reasonable be made by any mindless process that is known or
> > > likely to be discovered.
> >
> > Nonsense. If we were to find a polished cube on Mars, we would suspect
> > that it is a manufactured item only because we have a familiarity with human
> > manufactured items, and a knowledge of how one would go about making such an
> > item. We would look for other evidence of the manufacturers which would include the
> > technology corresponding the support technologies of human societies. We would
> > look for organisms with the physical structures (such as hands) to hold and work
> > materials to make the tools needed to do the carving. Our first models of such a
> > collection of beings would be humans. In short, we must have knowledge of the
> > manufacturers and their technology to claim "manufacture".
>
> And why don't you assume such deliberate activity when you see
> amorphous-looking rocks on Mars? These rocks could also have been
> deliberately designed. Yet, you don't assume design why? Only because
> you know that non-deliberate processes commonly produce such rock
> forms. There is not other reason. You have to know something about the
> potential of both deliberate and non-deliberate processes to make an
> adequate scientific prediction of deliberate activity. You simply
> cannot do it by knowing the potential of humans alone. You also have to
> know at least something about the potential of non-deliberate
> processes.
1) the size of the canonical set of manufactured items is vanishingly
small when
compared with the number of non-manufactured items. Most items
likely are
not manufactured.
2) our theory, which basically uses humans and the techniques we employ
as an analog
for our understanding where we might expect to find or not find
manufactured items,
tells us that likely of the entire volume of material on Mars, the
only manufactured
items that humans sent there. So, unless we are given other
information, such as physical
evidence of other manufacturers and their manufacturing processes,
we have no real reason
to look for manufactured items. If we saw stuff that reminded us of
stuff we do, then
we would investigate further. A perfect granite cube would remind
us of stuff we do,
but if further investigation showed us cube-crapping silicon-based
life forms, then our
canonical set of non-manufactured items would increase to include
these additional
organisms.
(For the folks at home, Pitman still can't tell the difference between
science and religious
apologetics.)
>
> > -John Stockwell
>
> Sean Pitman
-John
Stockwell
Hieros Gamos
> Without the potential
> for falsification, there is no science.
The null, 'There is no intelligent designer' is falsifiable.
Seanpit
Richard Forrest wrote:
> Seanpit wrote:
> > Richard Forrest wrote:
> >
> > > > > How do you distinguish between "non-deliberate" and "deliberate"
> > > > > processes without an hypothesis of what those processes are?
> > > >
> > > > Oh, give me a break! Don't tell me you are now finding difficulty
> > > > figuring out the difference between deliberate and non-deliberate?
> > >
> > > How can you distinguish between deliberate and non-deliberate if you
> > > don't know the process?
> >
> > You study and learn about the processes involved.
>
> And how do you study a process you have not identified?
You study those processes that you have identified and think to be
"non-deliberate" - like wind and rain and lightening etc. You study to
see what effects these might have on granite and if these effects have
consistent predictable ways that they interact with granite and what
the limitations of such interactions are. Once you've done this for a
number of different non-deliberate processes, and you notice a pattern
emerging, you can reasonably start to extrapolate this pattern to form
a hypothesis about how all non-deliberate processes, in general affect
granite - i.e., that they all have pretty much the same effect on
granite as well as the same limitations.
Once this boundary has been fairly well delineated, one can have very
good predictive value in the hypothesis that asserts that any granite
form that goes significantly beyond the boundary of what the known
group of non-deliberate processes even comes close to producing has
moved into the realm of deliberate causes since there is no other
option besides deliberate and non-deliberate causes.
And please, don't come back and try to float the "magic" option or the
"I don't know" option. Neither of these negates the fact that the real
origin of a particular granite form, regardless of if you know what it
was, was either deliberate or non-deliberate. These are the only actual
options for the real origin of a granite form.
> > You can't know how
> > granite will react to non-deliberate processes unless you do a little
> > investigation first. It is because you've learned about the difference
> > between weather patterns and humans that you can predict how one will
> > always act on granite vs. how the other might act.
>
> So without a knowledge of process, you cannot determine if it is
> "deliberate" or "non-deliberate".
Without the knowledge of the non-deliberate processes, no, you can't
determine if it has a deliberate or non-deliberate origin.
> Thank you for confirming my assertion.
LOL - your assertion?! It was your assertion that knowledge of the
identity of the deliberate designer is needed, along with knowledge of
motive and mechanism before ID can be detected. That is your assertion.
Note that your assertion is very different from my position. I'm
arguing that knowledge of the specific identity, motives, and
mechanisms of the designer are not needed to detect ID at all. The
only knowledge needed is knowledge about the limits of how
non-deliberate processes interact with the material in question. That's
it. Yes, knowledge is required, but not the type of knowledge you
demand.
< snip >
> I can predict precisely the form the surface of a granite block will
> take when cut with a rock saw.
>
> Can you predict the form a granite surface will take when exposed to
> natural weathering?
As I've pointed out to you several times already, non-deliberate
processes, like weathering, have a very predictable "random" or
fractal-type effect on granite. Such forces never form perfectly
symmetrical polished cubes in granite and will never do so. This
prediction, though not 100%, carries with it a very high predictive
value. Wanna bet?
> > Humans are not nearly as limited.
>
> Humans are limited by their technology. We can cut granite into flat
> slabs. We can crush granite to use as roadstone. We can, if we are
> very, very patient (and since the days of the ancient Egytpians noboby
> seems to have had that patience) carve granite into sculptures.
Humans are not limited to forming fractal-type formations in granite.
All non-deliberate processes are limited to forming granite in this
way.
< snip >
> > > We know that objects we manufacture have simple forms because we know
> > > how they are manufactured.
> >
> > Not true. We can also manufacture granite forms with very fractal-type
> > chaotic geometry that look very "natural".
>
> We can?
> Please give us an example of this.
You can't be serious? You don't believe that someone could turn a nice
"simple" polished granite cube into an amorphous fractal-type granite
rock in a rather short time? - deliberately? Hmmm? Come now . . .
< snip >
> I gave you the example of a very regular crystal of pyrite.
>
> Without a knowledge of how such crystals are formed, how could you
> determine that it was the outcome of natural processes?
You couldn't. Like I've pointed out to you over and over again,
knowledge about the interaction of non-deliberate processes with a
particular material in question *is* indeed needed while knowledge
about the identity of the designer(s), their motives, and/or their
mechanisms *is not* needed. Don't you remember me saying this to you
several times already?
< snip >
> > Their prior experience
> > with granite and with non-deliberate forces acting on granite, would
> > tell them that such a cube was almost certainly not formed by any
> > non-deliberate cause.
>
> Because they could form an hypothesis of how that cube was made.
You can always figure out how anything could be made deliberately by
someone with enough power, technology, and creativity. That is why ID
can explain everything. Therefore, being able to make a hypothesis
about how something might be made is not enough to support the
hypothesis that it could *only* have been made deliberately vs.
non-deliberately.
Of course, I've pointed this out to you several times already. Why act
like you don't remember this either?
> > Non-deliberate forces are just too predictable.
>
> So what are the characteristics of "non-deliberate" forces?
Yet again, they predictably form granite into random fractal-type
forms.
> By the way, they are not.
Yes, they are.
> The motion of the planets in the solar system is not predictable over
> periods of tens of millions of years.
What is predictable over millions of years is that the motion of the
planets will always follow an elliptical path - not a square one or a
triangular one - only an elliptical one. See, very predictable.
> Can you predict the precise form the eroded surface of a block of
> limestone will take?
I don't need to be able to predict that to be able to predict that
whatever particular form it will take, the form will have a random
fractal-type form. That is what is so predictable. I didn't say
everything was predictable, but certainly things are very predictable.
> I can predict precisely the form it will take if cut by a saw.
And it the fact that you can also predict that non-deliberate processes
acting on granite will never produce such predictably smooth and
polished surfaces, as can be created with a diamond saw when
deliberately guided to cut granite into a perfect cube, that helps you
tell the difference between deliberate and non-deliberate. It is the
predictable non-predictability that is so characteristic of
non-deliberate processes. They are non-predictable in a predictable
way. All the different infinity of patterns produced by non-deliberate
processes share certain fractal-type "natural looking" features.
> > They always act on granite in pretty much the same way - forming it
> > into random fractal-type forms.
>
> Which we know because we have a knowledge of the processes involved.
That's right . . . and knowledge of these processes obviates the need
for any knowledge of the identity of the designers or their motives or
the actual mechanisms they chose to use.
> A pyrite crystal does not form a "random fractal-type" form.
That's right. This knowledge is very helpful. The knowledge that
granite does form random fractal-type forms is also very helpful for
the detecting of ID. Notice that nothing about the identity or motives
or mechanisms of the designers is needed here.
> We recognise it as natural because we know the processes involved.
Right! - We know how the non-deliberate processes affect different
materials. We understand the limitations of what such processes can do
to different materials. This knowledge is all that is needed. Knowledge
about the intelligent designers is not needed in order to detect
deliberate design.
< snip >
> > That is how SETI scientists make their hypotheses. They don't need to
> > know the identity of the alien intelligences or anything about their
> > technology or their mechanisms of creativity in order to determine that
> > their activities are indeed deliberate and highly intelligent. All SETI
> > scientists really need to know is the limits of how non-deliberate
> > processes interact with the particular object or material in question.
> > That's it.
>
> No it isn't, and you evidently haven't read the link I provided.
>
> Read this:
> http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_intelligentdesign_051201.html
>
> And please stop equating the SETI investigation to intelligent design.
>
> Just in case your browser is not working:
> "n fact, the signals actually sought by today's SETI searches are not
> complex, as the ID advocates assume.
I never said SETI scientists were looking for "complex" signals.
> We're not looking for
> intricately coded messages, mathematical series, or even the aliens'
> version of "I Love Lucy." Our instruments are largely insensitive to
> the modulation-or message-that might be conveyed by an
> extraterrestrial broadcast. A SETI radio signal of the type we could
> actually find would be a persistent, narrow-band whistle. Such a simple
> phenomenon appears to lack just about any degree of structure, although
> if it originates on a planet, we should see periodic Doppler effects as
> the world bearing the transmitter rotates and orbits.
>
> And yet we still advertise that, were we to find such a signal, we
> could reasonably conclude that there was intelligence behind it.
Now, I wonder why this might be such a "reasonable conclusion"? Hmmmm
. . . can you guess? Will it have anything at all to do with
identifying the actual intelligent agents behind the signal? - their
motives or their mechanisms?
> It
> sounds as if this strengthens the argument made by the ID proponents.
> Our sought-after signal is hardly complex, and yet we're still going
> to say that we've found extraterrestrials. If we can get away with
> that, why can't they?
I wonder? ; )
> Well, it's because the credibility of the evidence is not predicated
> on its complexity.
Oh please - - This is just nuts. I'm not proposing ID behind a
granite cube based on its "complexity" either. ID is not based on one
particular feature. ID is based on knowledge that a particular feature
goes beyond what any known non-deliberate processes is capable of
achieving in its interaction with a particular material or set of
materials. ID is not based on the identifying the actual intelligent
agent responsible or their motives or the mechanism they used. It is
only based on identifying that this or that phenomenon has gone
significantly beyond what known non-deliberate processes do on a
predictable basis.
> If SETI were to announce that we're not alone
> because it had detected a signal, it would be on the basis of
> artificiality. An endless, sinusoidal signal - a dead simple tone -
> is not complex; it's artificial. Such a tone just doesn't seem to
> be generated by natural astrophysical processes.
Do I hear an echo in hear? Come on now, where have I heard this
before? Oh yeah, this is what I've been saying all along myself. ID
is based on the ability to rule out natural processes to explain a
given phenomenon. Again, it is not based on identifying the
intelligent agent, motive, or mechanism.
> In addition, and
> unlike other radio emissions produced by the cosmos, such a signal is
> devoid of the appendages and inefficiencies nature always seems to add
Again, note the predictability of non-deliberate processes and that
this predictability is the only basis for SETI and their search for
alien ID.
> - for example, DNA's junk and redundancy."
It is interesting to note that there is less and less junk DNA these
days. Sure, there is some, which does clearly have non-deliberate
causes, but there is far less than scientists used to think there was
just a couple years ago.
But, this is rather beside the point. DNA goes far beyond what any
known non-deliberate process is capable of achieving when it comes to
the information that it contains. The integrated nature of the systems
that arise from this coded information are often quite amazing. The
minimum size and specificity of the genetic real estate needed to code
for many of these systems is stunning. No non-deliberate process comes
remotely close to producing anything at such levels of integrated
system interaction - at a level that requires a minimum size of tens of
thousands of fairly specified base pairs. Not one example of the
evolution of any novel function at such a level can be demonstrated nor
can even one step in the evolutionary pathway toward such a system be
demonstrated at such high levels of functional complexity. We aren't
talking about just any type of complexity here. We are talking about
integrated systems where all the parts must be their in their proper
order for the system to produce its higher level function at all - even
a little bit. Such systems just don't evolve - ever. You have no
examples beyond very low levels - not one that requires more than a
couple thousand fairly specified bp.
< snip rest, already discussed many times >
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Richard Forrest
Seanpit wrote:
>
> You study those processes that you have identified and think to be
> "non-deliberate" - like wind and rain and lightening etc. You study to
> see what effects these might have on granite and if these effects have
> consistent predictable ways that they interact with granite and what
> the limitations of such interactions are. Once you've done this for a
> number of different non-deliberate processes, and you notice a pattern
> emerging, you can reasonably start to extrapolate this pattern to form
> a hypothesis about how all non-deliberate processes, in general affect
> granite - i.e., that they all have pretty much the same effect on
> granite as well as the same limitations.
>
> Once this boundary has been fairly well delineated, one can have very
> good predictive value in the hypothesis that asserts that any granite
> form that goes significantly beyond the boundary of what the known
> group of non-deliberate processes even comes close to producing has
> moved into the realm of deliberate causes since there is no other
> option besides deliberate and non-deliberate causes.
>
This does not address the question.
You claim to be able to distinguish between "deliberate" and
"non-deliberate" *without* a knowledge of process, regardless of the
object or system you are studying.
So what are the characteristics of an object or system which you use to
identfy it as the outcome of "non-deliberate causes" *without* a
knowledge of those causes?
> And please, don't come back and try to float the "magic" option or the
> "I don't know" option.
I didn't use the "magic" option - I leave that to you.
Since when has "I don't know" been a conclusion which a scientist
cannot make?
> Neither of these negates the fact that the real
> origin of a particular granite form, regardless of if you know what it
> was, was either deliberate or non-deliberate. These are the only actual
> options for the real origin of a granite form.
>
This does not address the question.
You claim to be able to distinguish between "deliberate" and
"non-deliberate" *without* a knowledge of process, regardless of the
object or system you are studying.
So what are the characteristics of an object or system which you use to
identfy it as the outcome of "non-deliberate causes" *without* a
knowledge of those causes?
> > > You can't know how
> > > granite will react to non-deliberate processes unless you do a little
> > > investigation first. It is because you've learned about the difference
> > > between weather patterns and humans that you can predict how one will
> > > always act on granite vs. how the other might act.
> >
> > So without a knowledge of process, you cannot determine if it is
> > "deliberate" or "non-deliberate".
>
> Without the knowledge of the non-deliberate processes, no, you can't
> determine if it has a deliberate or non-deliberate origin.
Yet you claim to be able to detect "non-deliberate" causes without a
knowledge of process.
>
> > Thank you for confirming my assertion.
>
> LOL - your assertion?! It was your assertion that knowledge of the
> identity of the deliberate designer is needed, along with knowledge of
> motive and mechanism before ID can be detected. That is your assertion.
Where did I make that assertion? You seem to be confusing me with
someone else.
The assertion I have made over and over again is that without an
hypothesis of process which can be tested against the evidence, one
cannot determine if an object is the outcome of "deliberate" of
"non-deliberate" causes.
>
> Note that your assertion is very different from my position. I'm
> arguing that knowledge of the specific identity, motives, and
> mechanisms of the designer are not needed to detect ID at all.
I have not made that argument.
> The
> only knowledge needed is knowledge about the limits of how
> non-deliberate processes interact with the material in question. That's
> it. Yes, knowledge is required, but not the type of knowledge you
> demand.
The assertion I have made over and over again is that without an
hypothesis of process which can be tested against the evidence, one
cannot determine if an object is the outcome of "deliberate" of
"non-deliberate" causes.
Do you agree with me?
>
> < snip >
>
> > I can predict precisely the form the surface of a granite block will
> > take when cut with a rock saw.
> >
> > Can you predict the form a granite surface will take when exposed to
> > natural weathering?
>
> As I've pointed out to you several times already, non-deliberate
> processes, like weathering, have a very predictable "random" or
> fractal-type effect on granite.
You have also argued that "deliberate" causes can have the same effect.
So how, without a testable hypothesis of process, can you tell if such
a surface is made by "deliberate" or "non-deliberate" processes?
> Such forces never form perfectly
> symmetrical polished cubes in granite and will never do so.
How can you know this unless you propose a set of generalised
characteristic which will distinguish between "deliberate" and
"non-deliberate" without knowledge of process?
> This
> prediction, though not 100%, carries with it a very high predictive
> value. Wanna bet?
I'll bet that you can't produce a list of characteristics which will
allow someone to tell if an object is produced by "deliberate" or
"non-deliberate" forces in the absence of knowledge of those processes.
>
> > > Humans are not nearly as limited.
> >
> > Humans are limited by their technology. We can cut granite into flat
> > slabs. We can crush granite to use as roadstone. We can, if we are
> > very, very patient (and since the days of the ancient Egytpians noboby
> > seems to have had that patience) carve granite into sculptures.
>
> Humans are not limited to forming fractal-type formations in granite.
I'm not aware of any manufacturing process which can form
"fractal-type" formations in granite.
Are you?
> All non-deliberate processes are limited to forming granite in this
> way.
Kaolin is not a "fractal-type" formation.
>
> < snip >
>
> > > > We know that objects we manufacture have simple forms because we know
> > > > how they are manufactured.
> > >
> > > Not true. We can also manufacture granite forms with very fractal-type
> > > chaotic geometry that look very "natural".
> >
> > We can?
> > Please give us an example of this.
>
> You can't be serious? You don't believe that someone could turn a nice
> "simple" polished granite cube into an amorphous fractal-type granite
> rock in a rather short time? - deliberately? Hmmm? Come now . . .
>
Okay, you can smash it to pieces with a hammer.
Now take one of those pieces and tell me what explanatory filter you
use to determine if it was the outcome of "deliberate" or
"non-deliberate" process without a knowledge of the process.
> < snip >
>
> > I gave you the example of a very regular crystal of pyrite.
> >
> > Without a knowledge of how such crystals are formed, how could you
> > determine that it was the outcome of natural processes?
>
> You couldn't. Like I've pointed out to you over and over again,
> knowledge about the interaction of non-deliberate processes with a
> particular material in question *is* indeed needed while knowledge
> about the identity of the designer(s), their motives, and/or their
> mechanisms *is not* needed. Don't you remember me saying this to you
> several times already?
In other words you need a testable hypothesis of process.
We agree on that.
But you claim to be able to distinguish between "deliberate" and
"non-deliberate" *WITHOUT* a knowledge of process, based on a general
set of characters.
So what is that set of characters?
>
> < snip >
>
> > > Their prior experience
> > > with granite and with non-deliberate forces acting on granite, would
> > > tell them that such a cube was almost certainly not formed by any
> > > non-deliberate cause.
> >
> > Because they could form an hypothesis of how that cube was made.
>
> You can always figure out how anything could be made deliberately by
> someone with enough power, technology, and creativity. That is why ID
> can explain everything.
And that is why it is scientifically useless.
Thank you for confirming that.
Unless, of course, you can conceive of an object or system which ID
could *not* explain.
> Therefore, being able to make a hypothesis
> about how something might be made is not enough to support the
> hypothesis that it could *only* have been made deliberately vs.
> non-deliberately.
So why do you claim to be able to tell the difference without a
testable hypothesis of manufacture?
>
> Of course, I've pointed this out to you several times already. Why act
> like you don't remember this either?
>
Actually, it seems that you agree with my position.
One cannot tell if an object or system is the outcome of "deliberate"
or "non-deliberate" processes unless one has a testable hypothesis of
process.
Given that, how can you detect intent in an object or system when we
don't know the process which produced it? That is the claim ID makes:
it claims that intelligent intervention can be detected even if we
*DON'T* know the process by which such an object or system was made.
> > > Non-deliberate forces are just too predictable.
> >
> > So what are the characteristics of "non-deliberate" forces?
>
> Yet again, they predictably form granite into random fractal-type
> forms.
In that case, are "random fractal-type forms" evidence of
"non-deliberate" processes in the absence of any knowledge of the
process?
>
> > By the way, they are not.
>
> Yes, they are.
>
> > The motion of the planets in the solar system is not predictable over
> > periods of tens of millions of years.
>
> What is predictable over millions of years is that the motion of the
> planets will always follow an elliptical path - not a square one or a
> triangular one - only an elliptical one. See, very predictable.
>
And could you reach that conclusion without an hypothesis of how such
orbits are produced?
> > Can you predict the precise form the eroded surface of a block of
> > limestone will take?
>
> I don't need to be able to predict that to be able to predict that
> whatever particular form it will take, the form will have a random
> fractal-type form. That is what is so predictable. I didn't say
> everything was predictable, but certainly things are very predictable.
>
But "deliberate" processes can, you claim, produce an identical
formation.
How does that help your argument?
> > I can predict precisely the form it will take if cut by a saw.
>
> And it the fact that you can also predict that non-deliberate processes
> acting on granite will never produce such predictably smooth and
> polished surfaces, as can be created with a diamond saw when
> deliberately guided to cut granite into a perfect cube, that helps you
> tell the difference between deliberate and non-deliberate. It is the
> predictable non-predictability that is so characteristic of
> non-deliberate processes. They are non-predictable in a predictable
> way. All the different infinity of patterns produced by non-deliberate
> processes share certain fractal-type "natural looking" features.
>
Does kaolin have " fractal-type "natural looking" features"?
How about a pyrite crystal? Does it have fractal-type "natural
looking" features?
> > > They always act on granite in pretty much the same way - forming it
> > > into random fractal-type forms.
> >
> > Which we know because we have a knowledge of the processes involved.
>
> That's right . . . and knowledge of these processes obviates the need
> for any knowledge of the identity of the designers or their motives or
> the actual mechanisms they chose to use.
I have not raised the issue of the identity of the designer.
I happen to this that it is dishonest of the DI to pretend that the
identity of the designer is irrelevant, but that is not the subject of
this argument.
>
> > A pyrite crystal does not form a "random fractal-type" form.
>
> That's right. This knowledge is very helpful. The knowledge that
> granite does form random fractal-type forms is also very helpful for
> the detecting of ID. Notice that nothing about the identity or motives
> or mechanisms of the designers is needed here.
You keep agreeing with me!
So unless we have a testable hypothesis of process, we cannot tell if
an object or system is the outcome of "deliberate" or "non-deliberate"
process.
>
> > We recognise it as natural because we know the processes involved.
>
> Right! - We know how the non-deliberate processes affect different
> materials. We understand the limitations of what such processes can do
> to different materials. This knowledge is all that is needed. Knowledge
> about the intelligent designers is not needed in order to detect
> deliberate design.
Fine.
So give me a list of the characteristics of an object or system which
are the outcome of "non-deliberate" processes.
There's not point in defining the characteristics of an object or
system which is the outcome of "deliberate" process - you tell us that
*any* object or system can be produced by "deliberate" process.
>
> < snip >
>
> > > That is how SETI scientists make their hypotheses. They don't need to
> > > know the identity of the alien intelligences or anything about their
> > > technology or their mechanisms of creativity in order to determine that
> > > their activities are indeed deliberate and highly intelligent. All SETI
> > > scientists really need to know is the limits of how non-deliberate
> > > processes interact with the particular object or material in question.
> > > That's it.
> >
> > No it isn't, and you evidently haven't read the link I provided.
> >
> > Read this:
> > http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_intelligentdesign_051201.html
> >
> > And please stop equating the SETI investigation to intelligent design.
> >
> > Just in case your browser is not working:
> > "n fact, the signals actually sought by today's SETI searches are not
> > complex, as the ID advocates assume.
>
> I never said SETI scientists were looking for "complex" signals.
Yet the DI claim to detect the intervention of a "designer" because of
the complexity of certain systems.
So what is the criterion for deciding if a signal is the outcome of
"non-deliberate" forces?
You have said that *anything* can be produced by "deliberate" forces,
so there's no point in checking for that.
>
> > We're not looking for
> > intricately coded messages, mathematical series, or even the aliens'
> > version of "I Love Lucy." Our instruments are largely insensitive to
> > the modulation-or message-that might be conveyed by an
> > extraterrestrial broadcast. A SETI radio signal of the type we could
> > actually find would be a persistent, narrow-band whistle. Such a simple
> > phenomenon appears to lack just about any degree of structure, although
> > if it originates on a planet, we should see periodic Doppler effects as
> > the world bearing the transmitter rotates and orbits.
> >
> > And yet we still advertise that, were we to find such a signal, we
> > could reasonably conclude that there was intelligence behind it.
>
> Now, I wonder why this might be such a "reasonable conclusion"? Hmmmm
> . . . can you guess? Will it have anything at all to do with
> identifying the actual intelligent agents behind the signal? - their
> motives or their mechanisms?
I am not arguing about the motives of the agents. I have, in fact said
that we *can't* know the motives of the agents without some form of
dialogue with the agents.
It comes down to mechanism.
You have said that "deliberate processes" can produce *any* object or
system. Frankly, that blows away any possible argument that ID is
science, because such an assertion is untestable. Something which can
explain *anything* is completely useless in science because it cannot
make any predictions.
>
> > It
> > sounds as if this strengthens the argument made by the ID proponents.
> > Our sought-after signal is hardly complex, and yet we're still going
> > to say that we've found extraterrestrials. If we can get away with
> > that, why can't they?
>
> I wonder? ; )
>
> > Well, it's because the credibility of the evidence is not predicated
> > on its complexity.
>
> Oh please - - This is just nuts. I'm not proposing ID behind a
> granite cube based on its "complexity" either. ID is not based on one
> particular feature.
It isn't? The arguments made by the DI are based on the assertion that
natural processes could not produce systems of "specified complexity"!
Quite how to measure the "specification" of a system, or how to set
limits is an issue they have not addressed.
> ID is based on knowledge that a particular feature
> goes beyond what any known non-deliberate processes is capable of
> achieving in its interaction with a particular material or set of
> materials. ID is not based on the identifying the actual intelligent
> agent responsible or their motives or the mechanism they used. It is
> only based on identifying that this or that phenomenon has gone
> significantly beyond what known non-deliberate processes do on a
> predictable basis.
Yes, it's called the "God of the gaps" argument.
It is asserting that an "explanation" which can explain *anything* is
the default explanation when science says "I don't know".
It is not a scientific argument.
>
> > If SETI were to announce that we're not alone
> > because it had detected a signal, it would be on the basis of
> > artificiality. An endless, sinusoidal signal - a dead simple tone -
> > is not complex; it's artificial. Such a tone just doesn't seem to
> > be generated by natural astrophysical processes.
>
> Do I hear an echo in hear? Come on now, where have I heard this
> before? Oh yeah, this is what I've been saying all along myself. ID
> is based on the ability to rule out natural processes to explain a
> given phenomenon.
You have not told us what the characteristics of unknown natural
processes are which will allow us to rule them out.
Unless you can do so, how can one tell?
> Again, it is not based on identifying the
> intelligent agent, motive, or mechanism
It is based on an untestable assertion.
You have conceeded that without a knowledge of mechanism we can't tell
if an object or system is natural or artificial. Yet you also claim to
be able to set the limits on what a natural mechanism can produce
*without* knowledge of that mechanism.
So what are the characteristics of an object or system which allow us
to make that determination *without* a knowledge of process?
.
>
> > In addition, and
> > unlike other radio emissions produced by the cosmos, such a signal is
> > devoid of the appendages and inefficiencies nature always seems to add
>
> Again, note the predictability of non-deliberate processes and that
> this predictability is the only basis for SETI and their search for
> alien ID.
>
In what way are "non-deliberate processes" predicatable?
Do you think that the weather is predictable?
> > - for example, DNA's junk and redundancy."
>
> It is interesting to note that there is less and less junk DNA these
> days. Sure, there is some, which does clearly have non-deliberate
> causes, but there is far less than scientists used to think there was
> just a couple years ago.
>
> But, this is rather beside the point. DNA goes far beyond what any
> known non-deliberate process is capable of achieving when it comes to
> the information that it contains.
You haven't told us how you determine that in any quantifiable way, so
this is mere bluster.
> The integrated nature of the systems
> that arise from this coded information are often quite amazing.
So what?
This is argument is based on incredulity, not evidence. It is mere
bluster.
> The
> minimum size and specificity of the genetic real estate needed to code
> for many of these systems is stunning.
You haven't told us how you determine that in any quantifiable way, so
this is mere bluster.
> No non-deliberate process comes
> remotely close to producing anything at such levels of integrated
> system interaction
You haven't told us how you determine that in any quantifiable way, so
this is mere bluster.
> - at a level that requires a minimum size of tens of
> thousands of fairly specified base pairs. Not one example of the
> evolution of any novel function at such a level can be demonstrated nor
> can even one step in the evolutionary pathway toward such a system be
> demonstrated at such high levels of functional complexity.
The scientists involved beg to differ.
Here's the annotated biography on the evolutionary origins of the
immune system which Behe decided that he could dismis without even
bothering to read the papers listed.
http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/exhibits/immune/immune_evo_annotated_bib.html
Please go through these papers one by one and point out where their
arguments are flawed or not supported by the evidence.
> We aren't
> talking about just any type of complexity here. We are talking about
> integrated systems where all the parts must be their in their proper
> order for the system to produce its higher level function at all - even
> a little bit.
Which can be produced by known evolutionary processes. To claim that
such systems cannot be produced by evolutionary processes, the nature
of such complexity is defined by the DI in a way which *excludes* the
evolutionary explanation.
To quote from the Dover ruling: "By defining irreducible complexity in
the way that he has, Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon
of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant
evidence which refutes his argument."
> Such systems just don't evolve - ever.
Another empty assertion.
The ID argument boils down to the assertion that if they define such
systems in such a way as to exclude the standard evolutionary
explanation, evolution can't explain them.
It's not honest, is it?
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> The null, 'There is no intelligent designer' is falsifiable.
One normally falsifies positive assertions.
But let us play your game. Produce empirical evidence for an intellgent
designer of life on our planet utterly distinct from natural processes.
Such evidence must be unambiguous and have only one interpretation. I
await such evidence, but I will not hold my breath in the mean time.
Bob Kolker
neverbetter
Seanpit wrote:
> Note that your assertion is very different from my position. I'm
> arguing that knowledge of the specific identity, motives, and
> mechanisms of the designer are not needed to detect ID at all. The
> only knowledge needed is knowledge about the limits of how
> non-deliberate processes interact with the material in question. That's
> it. Yes, knowledge is required, but not the type of knowledge you
> demand.
Look, you're making no sense. If you don't know who the invisible
designer is and you know nothing about the mechanisms he uses when he
works, how on earth do you presume to know that the processes you think
are non-deliberate aren't the mechanisms he uses when he works? It's no
use arguing that they're predictable or produce a fractal look because
without knowledge of the designer, his preferences and his mechanisms
there's nothing to preclude the possibility that he likes to be
predictable and loves a fractal look.
> > I can predict precisely the form the surface of a granite block will
> > take when cut with a rock saw.
> >
> > Can you predict the form a granite surface will take when exposed to
> > natural weathering?
>
> As I've pointed out to you several times already, non-deliberate
> processes, like weathering, have a very predictable "random" or
> fractal-type effect on granite. Such forces never form perfectly
> symmetrical polished cubes in granite and will never do so. This
> prediction, though not 100%, carries with it a very high predictive
> value. Wanna bet?
If we know nothing about the designer and the mechanisms he uses, how
do we know that weathering isn't one of his mechanisms?
> > > Humans are not nearly as limited.
> >
> > Humans are limited by their technology. We can cut granite into flat
> > slabs. We can crush granite to use as roadstone. We can, if we are
> > very, very patient (and since the days of the ancient Egytpians noboby
> > seems to have had that patience) carve granite into sculptures.
>
> Humans are not limited to forming fractal-type formations in granite.
> All non-deliberate processes are limited to forming granite in this
> way.
If we know nothing about the designer, how do we know it isn't him
who's treating granite this way? Maybe he LIKES fractals in granite?
Maybe granite is his notes when he does book-keeping.
> < snip >
> > I gave you the example of a very regular crystal of pyrite.
> >
> > Without a knowledge of how such crystals are formed, how could you
> > determine that it was the outcome of natural processes?
>
> You couldn't. Like I've pointed out to you over and over again,
> knowledge about the interaction of non-deliberate processes with a
> particular material in question *is* indeed needed while knowledge
> about the identity of the designer(s), their motives, and/or their
> mechanisms *is not* needed. Don't you remember me saying this to you
> several times already?
If we know nothing about the designer, their motives and their
mechanisms, how do we know that the things we suppose non-deliberate
processes aren't how the designers work?
> > I can predict precisely the form it will take if cut by a saw.
>
> And it the fact that you can also predict that non-deliberate processes
> acting on granite will never produce such predictably smooth and
> polished surfaces, as can be created with a diamond saw when
> deliberately guided to cut granite into a perfect cube, that helps you
> tell the difference between deliberate and non-deliberate. It is the
> predictable non-predictability that is so characteristic of
> non-deliberate processes. They are non-predictable in a predictable
> way. All the different infinity of patterns produced by non-deliberate
> processes share certain fractal-type "natural looking" features.
How do you know the non-deliberate processes producing fractal features
aren't mechanisms used by your designer if you don't know who he is,
what his motives are and what mechanisms he uses? You yourself have
argued that humans are able to make natural-looking granite. Why
wouldn't your designer be?
> > > They always act on granite in pretty much the same way - forming it
> > > into random fractal-type forms.
> >
> > Which we know because we have a knowledge of the processes involved.
>
> That's right . . . and knowledge of these processes obviates the need
> for any knowledge of the identity of the designers or their motives or
> the actual mechanisms they chose to use.
If we don't know the actual mechanisms they chose to use, how do we
know that they didn't choose to use any of the processes you have
labelled non-deliberate?
> > A pyrite crystal does not form a "random fractal-type" form.
>
> That's right. This knowledge is very helpful. The knowledge that
> granite does form random fractal-type forms is also very helpful for
> the detecting of ID. Notice that nothing about the identity or motives
> or mechanisms of the designers is needed here.
How do you know that pyrite and granite aren't produced by some of your
designers mechanisms if you know nothing about his mechanisms?
> > We recognise it as natural because we know the processes involved.
>
> Right! - We know how the non-deliberate processes affect different
> materials. We understand the limitations of what such processes can do
> to different materials. This knowledge is all that is needed. Knowledge
> about the intelligent designers is not needed in order to detect
> deliberate design.
If we don't know what the designers do, how do we know that
non-deliberate processes are something they don't do?
snip
TomS
<1146076181.6...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Seanpit stated..."
>
>
>TomS wrote:
>
>> Myself, I prefer to point out that the advocates of "design"
>> bring up the issue of "how do you explain such-and-such", and
>> end by refusing to offer an explanation of such-and-such.
>>
>> There is *no* explanatory power to the concept of an intelligent
>> designer.
>
>Ah, but there is very good explanatory power to the hypothesis of *not*
>by accident (i.e., not non-deliberate). If a given phenomenon can be
>shown to go beyond what the very consistent patterns of non-deliberate
>processes produce, then the hypothesis of the deliberate does indeed
>gain predictive value.
How is the "hypothesis of the deliberate" any more predictive
than the "hypothesis of lateral arabesqueness"?
>
>If you argue that the hypothesis of the non-deliberate cannot be
>falsified, then it isn't scientific to argue that a non-deliberate
>process, like Darwinian-style evolution, did anything. In order for
>anyone to scientifically hypothesize or theorize about a non-deliberate
>cause, there must be the potential for falsification and support of a
>deliberate cause.
I'm not bringing up the issue of "falsifiability".
And I'm not saying that any process is "non-deliberate".
I am saying that adding the "concept" of "deliberate" is not
enough to explain anything that is otherwise unexplained.
It can explain something to say "deliberate, and for this purpose",
or "deliberate, using these tools", or "deliberate, by this kind
of a deliberating agent". But just "deliberate"?
>
>The ID Theory does indeed gain very good predictive value when it comes
>to things like polished granite cubes because of the fact that no
>non-deliberate process even comes close. Therefore, the ID ONLY Theory
>gains predictive value since only deliberate action produces such a
>granite form - to a very high degree of predictive value.
How does a piece of granite become cubic and polished, except
by the action of natural forces? You can make certain predictions,
given the assumption of natural forces, about a polished granite
cube - for example, you might find microscopic traces of tool marks,
or you might find some of the pieces which have been removed, and
you certainly will be able to find the chemical composition of the
granite.
What does saying "it was done deliberately" - that alone, without
any suggestion or interest in Who did it, or When, or Where, or Why,
or How - what does that *predict* about the cube? If we rest content
with "it was done deliberately" while explicitly excluding any
investigation into the Methods and Materials, into the Motive, the
Opportunity, and Means, what have we accomplished?
Von R. Smith
> Von R. Smith wrote:
<snip>
> > > I know something about non-deliberate processes and how they affect
> > > granite that can reasonably be valid for all non-deliberate processes.
> >
> > How do you know that they are valid for all non-deliberate processes?
>
> By extrapolation of the few to the many - just like I extrapolate my
> knowledge about the limits of cow jumping from the few to the many.
> This is how scientific hypotheses work. Science helps us make general
> predictions based on limited knowledge. While this is never 100%, it is
> helpful because of the predictive value it creates whenever the
> hypothesis is tested and doesn't fail.
OK. So let's follow your line of reasoning from another set of
premises. All known deliberate processes are initated by human beings,
and are subject to the logistical and physical limitations of human
capabilities. According to you, then, I can validly extrapolate that
*all* deliberate processes are initiated by human beings, and are
subject to the logistical and physical limitations of human
capabilities. By your standards, I "know" that these limits apply to
all deliberate processes. Therefore, if I can establish that a
particular process exceeds the known capabilities or logistical reach
of human beings, I can "know" that the process must be non-deliberate.
This method stands until somebody falsifies it by demonstrating the
existence of a deliberate process that is not human.
Now, tell me how my method of inferring non-deliberate processes is any
less cogent than yours, and why scientists shouldn't adopt it in
assessing whether life on Earth, or your granite cube on Mars, was
intelligently designed.
Hieros Gamos
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4bbdukF...@individual.net...
> Hieros Gamos wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > The null, 'There is no intelligent designer' is falsifiable.
>
> One normally falsifies positive assertions.
Wherever did you get that odd idea?
Check with your local scientists. Or see
http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm for example.
Nobody ever has to prove that the conjecture, 'There might be X' (whatever X
is imagined to be, but is not in evidence) is false. The burden of proof
cannot be shifted to the non-believers in any case.
In any scientific investigation it is always the falsifiable null ('There is
no intelligent designer', or 'There are no ETs' for example) that is being
tested. The null stands forever, or until knocked down by some solid
evidence of the thing in the conjecture.
> But let us play your game.
I am not playing a game, I am having a discussion about
verification/falsification, and what is to be falsified in any scientific
investigation.
> Produce empirical evidence for an intellgent
> designer of life on our planet utterly distinct from natural processes.
That is the task of the proponents of a creator, to prove that 'There is no
intelligent designer' is false. I am not a party to the conjecture that
there might be a creator, I am atheist.
All I am saying is that 'There is no intelligent designer' is the
falsifiable hypothesis in this case, and the full burden of proof is on the
affirmative.
It is the null, 'There is no intelligent designer' that is being tested in
this case, as much as the true-believers like Dembski, Seanpit, et al would
love to get away with shifting the burden of proof to the non-believers.
Okay?
Hieros Gamos
> It is because you don't know of any non-deliberate
> process or even a likely non-deliberate process making anything close
> to a polished granite cube that you can adequately hypothesize design
> when you see such a cube.
You are arguing that it might be intelligently designed because there is no
proof that hypothesis is false.
That is the logical fallacy of argument _ad ignorantiam_ (argument from lack
of proof of the negative).
Von R. Smith
Seanpit wrote:
> Von R. Smith wrote:
>
> > There have been many times that people cleverer than you or I have
> > proposed, in complete seriousness, that some non-human intelligent
> > agency is the "only reasonable explanation" for some phenomenon X.
> > Every one of those proposals to date has failed.
>
> Many have failed, but not all.
No? I must have missed something on the news. Tell me which ones have
succeeded. What non-human deliberate processes have been confirmed to
exist, and are now generally accepted as a viable explanation of some
phenomenon?
> That's the nature of science. Some
> valid scientific hypotheses do indeed fail. That doesn't make such
> hypothesis unscientific. Just the opposite. These hypotheses are always
> needed as at least null hypothesis or else your notion that
> non-deliberate processes were actually responsible wouldn't be
> scientific since there would be no possibility of falsification.
>
> > Why do you suppose
> > that is? Where do you think these other inferences went wrong? What
> > is that you think you've fixed, that one should trust you to have
> > finally gotten right this time round?
>
> Not all such hypotheses have failed. When they did go wrong, they went
> wrong for the same reason that any other scientist goes wrong - they
> didn't know everything. That doesn't make the notion that everything is
> therefore non-deliberate an adequate default position to explain every
> phenomenon.
Why not? We know that natural processes exist everywhere, and have
good reason to think that they are responsible for most phenomena.
Even IDers concede this, and only seek a few special exceptions. We do
not know that any agents capable of deliberation exist other than
humans, or that they exist anywhere in the universe except earth, or
that they have exotic abilities exceeding our own very limited ones.
How, then, are non-deliberate processes *not* an adequate default
position?
> Such positions are often not falsifiable short of knowledge
> about everything and are therefore not useful as scientific hypotheses.
You seem to have missed my point: the problem is not that proposing
some intelligent agency to explain some phenomenon is unscientific per
se; it is that your method of inference to it is logically flawed in
principle and has an abysmal track-record in practice. It isn't
scientific to use a method already known not to work. If you disagree
with my characterization of your method, show me a success story: show
me one novel (i.e., not human) intelligent agency that has been
discovered using your method. And my criteria for successful discovery
is that there is consensus among scientists that it exists, and is
responsible for the effects claimed for it.
If you want to say that you're guessing that some HYPE designed life,
fine. But you are going to have to show me something more than your
willingness to indulge in hasty generalization, false dichotomy, and
special pleading if you want me to consider your hypothesis compelling,
or worthy of serious investigation.
>
>
> > A Theory of Non-Deliberate Processes (and that is, in effect, what you
> > are claiming to have in hand) would be Nobel Prize material. Do you
> > have anything on it that you could submit for peer review?
>
> Sure, when it comes to certain things like granite and DNA.
>
"When it comes to certain things..." I'll take that as a "no".
> < snip >
>
> > > > ID fails to do this largely because, by refusing to
> > > > speculate as to the nature, activity, and motives of the Designer, it
> > > > cannot even tell us what a reasonable positive case for ID would look
> > > > like.
> > >
> > > You limit science to only positive predictions.
> >
> > No, I do not. My point is that, whatever use one might have for
> > negative predictions, one still needs positive evidence for positive
> > claims.
>
> That's not true when you have an "either/or" situation.
In practice, one rarely knows ahead of time whether one actually faces
an "either/or" situation. The dichotomy you construct may or may not
exhaust the possibilities, and (what is more to the point for this
discussion) your ability to eliminate categorically one of the
possibilities might not be what you think it is, especially if you
can't even define the dysjunct in question rigorously. Whenever
possible, one always looks for positive evidence for a positive claim.
The case for a hypothesis without such evidence is weak.
> Of course, I
> suppose there is at least some positive evidence for ID of polished
> granite cubes in that it is very easy to show that such cubes could be
> deliberately made with a wide variety of deliberate methods - none of
> which need to be known ahead of time to determine deliberate intent and
> method of some sort.
>
> < snip >
>
> > > Why then would you not
> > > accept the deliberate origin of a polished granite cube until you found
> > > positive evidence for the identity of the designer of that specific
> > > cube as well as the motives of that designer?
> >
> > Given my answer to your setup question, why would I?
>
> Because you know the predictable limits of non-deliberate processes
> acting on granite? That really is all you need to know.
And yet, contrary to what you assert, we do not actually know that
non-deliberate processes are incapable of producing a polished cube of
granite. We don't know of any non-deliberate process that would, but
by itself that does not warrant the conclusion that there couldn't be
one.
Below, you pretty much indicate that you don't actually know this,
since the strongest defense you will present for your position that it
is a valid hypothesis.
Your entire argument rests on the idea that, if we cannot currently
think of any natural process that can produce a given phenomenon, then
we should conclude, without any need for futher investigation, that
there isn't one. I can think of few attitudes more anti-scientific
than this. So no, that is not nearly all that one needs to know.
> There simply is
> no need to I.D. the actual agent or motive or method before ID can be
> adequately hypothesized for a polished granite cube.
>
> > > Come on now, would you really never accept the deliberate origin of
> > > such a cube until you actually found the designer? I just don't
> > > believe you. That just isn't rational given your own knowledge about
> > > the predictable limits of non-deliberate processes when it comes to
> > > granite.
> >
> > The problem with your cube of granite example is that you and I already
> > know that we *have* found the designer, or at least a very likely
> > candidate for one.
>
> Not if such a cube was found on Mars. If it was found on Mars, or any
> other alien planet, are you seriously telling me you'd have your doubts
> about it's intelligent origin?
If I lacked evidence for possible aliens, yes, I would. Until such
evidence comes to light, an undiscovered natural process is just as
reasonable an hypothesis as an undiscovered intelligent being.
>
> > Suppose, however, that I know of no designers capable of making such a
> > cube, nor could I think of any compelling reason to expect a designer
> > to make such a thing even if it could.
>
> There is no evidence to pre-suppose any limits on the power and
> potential of intelligent design. All the evidence that we have
> indicates that there are no such limits. Only non-intelligent
> non-deliberate processes have clearly predictable limits.
For that to be true, there would have to be evidence of a lack of such
limitations on human designers; however, that is not what we oberve.
On the contrary, all evidence from our experience with human designers
makes it quiet clear that there are strong limits on intelligent
design: the need for a physical substrate to support the intelligence;
our finite ability to appropriate the logistics to execute our
projects; the knowledge and proficiency available to us at any given
time; the need to acquire such knowledge and proficiency through
learning and practice; dependence upon an extensive social and cultural
infrastructure for the production, fostering, and distribution of such
learning and practice. Finally, and most importantly, the constraints
of natural processes themselves. For it to be reasonable to propose
that a particular phenomenon is designed, one would need evidence for a
designer with the appropriate capabilities and logistical reach. In
the absence of such evidence, one can just as reasonably speculate
exotic mineralogical processes for the granite cube, or even an exotic
unintelligent silicon-based life form that eats native Martian rocks
and poops granite cubes.
I know that lots of people like to think that intelligence is magical,
that its presence makes anything that one can imagine possible;
however, experience does not bear this out. It is wishful thinking,
not science; worse, it is self-contradictory: unless you invoke the
supernatural, then any actual limits on non-deliberate processes will
ultimately constrain deliberate ones as well. We can manipulate nature
to do things it doesn't normally do; we cannot manipulate it to do
things it can't do. A refrigerator can no more violate the Second Law
of Thermodynamics than can an ocean. In fact, we *need* our inventions
to be completely subject to the laws of nature in order for them to be
effective. We can make airplanes that fly precisely because we know
that they will be affected normally by gravity and fluid dynamics. If
they weren't, then they would not behave predictably.
>
> > Suppose that I also know for a fact that natural processes can
> > sometimes form very small cubes of related rock-types.
> > Suppose that in addition I have some idea of what sort of traces such
> > processes might leave behind on the off chance that they *did* manage
> > to form a large granite cube. Suppose furthermore that when I examine
> > the cube in question more closely, I find evidence of those traces.
>
> If this where true, you might have something. For now though, this
> isn't even close to being true with regard to granite.
Well, as I am sure you can figure out, my analogy here points to the
evidence for evolution. We know that evolution happens, and we find
evidence, not only that all life has descended with gradual genetic
modification from common ancestors, but also that individual structures
have descended from earlier structures the same way. By your own
admission, then, evolution "has something".
>
> > Suppose that the consensus among professional geologists and
> > mineralogists who study granite for a living is that the natural
> > formation of such a cube, while remarkable, rare, and really cool, is
> > well within the realm of possibility.
>
> Again, if this were true, you'd have something. So far it isn't even
> remotely close to being true. That is why the ID hypothesis for
> polished granite cubes has such high predictive value.
But it is true in the case of evolution, which as you and I both know
is both the point of this analogy and the subtext of the entire
discussion.
>
> > Suppose, finally, that the only objections being urged against such an
> > hypothesis were the bald assertions and hand-wavings of some medico who
> > came into the discussion clearly already wanting to believe that his
> > dad had made the cube.
>
> He/she wouldn't have a strong a case if you knew of any
> mindless/non-deliberate process that was already capable of making such
> cubes.
>
> Don't you get it? It is only because there are no such non-deliberate
> granite cube-making processes, nor are any such processes remotely
> likely given what we already know, that the design hypothesis for
> polished granite cubes has such high predictive power.
What high predictive power? Name one prediction of a non-human
designer that is now generally accepted by scientists to be correct, or
even likely to be correct.
>
> > Under *those* circumstances, I suspect a natural origin for the granite
> > cube would look quite promising to any reasonable person, and *that*,
> > Dr. Pitman, is more similar to the context in which we currently
> > consider the origins and history of life than is your analogy.
>
> You'd be right if this little scenario of yours were true. It isn't
> true for granite and it isn't true for DNA. That's why the ID ONLY
> Theory is so powerful.
Sure, if "I can't explain it so it must be magic" is your idea of a
powerful theory.
>
> > > > > If any
> > > > > non-deliberate process is ever found that produces even one polished
> > > > > granite cube, then the hypothesis is indeed falsified. Until then, it
> > > > > gains very real predictive value.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Only if one gives "deliberate process" a reasonably rigorous
> > > > operational definition; otherwise, such a prediction will yield only
> > > > vague hand-waving.
> > >
> > > Fine - make a reasonably rigorous operational definition for a
> > > non-deliberate process. I think most would accept that weather
> > > patterns, wind, rain, volcanoes, forest fires, lightening, etc. would
> > > all qualify as non-deliberate processes when it comes to their action
> > > on granite. I certainly would - how about you?
> >
> >
> > I don't know.
>
> B.S. You certainly do know - or at least you have a very strong
> opinion. You just don't want to admit it in this context because it
> would mess up your argument.
Why would my *opinion* be relevant? I thought we were describing a set
of phenomena that shared some objective characterics that made them
highly predictable. I am asking you what those objective
characteristics are. Failing that, I don't see how my *opinion* about
whether or not a given process is non-deliberate places physical limits
on what it does.
>
> > Some cultures believe that volcanoes and weather are
> > controlled by gods or local geniuses.
>
> That's not what I asked you. I asked what you believe about these
> processes.
And I asked *you* for an operational definition of a non-deliberate
process. As usual, you offer only impressionistic examples of
"obvious" non-deliberate processes. Suppose I observe a granite cube
forming in the absence of human agency. What tests would I then run to
determine whether or not the processes producing it were
non-deliberate?
>
> > I see no reason to believe that
> > they are, but I suppose I could be wrong.
>
> Yes, you and I could be wrong. Such processes may in fact be
> deliberate. But, as far as we can tell, they do in fact have the
> appearance of being truly random in action and production.
Yes, but here you come dangerously close to making your entire argument
circular: you seem to be saying that a process is non-deliberate
*because* its products consistently lack an appearance of designed
structure. How does one determine a process to be non-deliberate
*independently* of this?
>
> > As long as my understanding
> > of how these phenomena affect granite doesn't hinge on metaphysics, I
> > really don't care if the lightning is from Thor or not. I'm not the
> > one who thinks these concepts of "deliberate" vs. "non-deliberate" are
> > useful constructs, and I'm not even sure how they would be used in such
> > a context.
>
> The concepts of deliberate and non-deliberate are very useful
> constructs in many field of science - to include forensic science,
> anthropology, etc. Come on now. You can't be serious when you say that
> such concepts have no use in science.
In these fields, one has an operational notion of what sort of
deliberate processes we are looking for, and one looks for *positive*
evidence of those processes. Ask a medical examiner to determine
whether or not somebody was killed by voodoo, zapped by alien
death-rays, or smitten by Allah, and he or she will probably laugh at
you and ask something like: "How the Hell am I supposed to do *that*"?
What would your answer be, Dr. Pitman? How the Hell *is* the M.E.
supposed to do that?
>
> > > > > In the same way, I don't have to know about all cows to reasonably
> > > > > hypothesize that no cow will ever be able to jump on or over my house.
> > > >
> > > > No, but I do need to know *something* that I can reasonably suppose to
> > > > be valid for all cows. I bet I can tell you a lot more about cows
> > > > than you can about the supposed Intelligent Designer.
> > >
> > > I know something about non-deliberate processes and how they affect
> > > granite that can reasonably be valid for all non-deliberate processes.
> >
> > How do you know that they are valid for all non-deliberate processes?
>
> By extrapolation of the few to the many - just like I extrapolate my
> knowledge about the limits of cow jumping from the few to the many.
> This is how scientific hypotheses work. Science helps us make general
> predictions based on limited knowledge. While this is never 100%, it is
> helpful because of the predictive value it creates whenever the
> hypothesis is tested and doesn't fail.
Hypotheses of non-human intelligent causes for natural phenomena have
always failed; can you name any that have been confirmed?
>
> > > The same is true about non-deliberate processes and how they affect
> > > living things that can be very reasonably extrapolated to all
> > > non-deliberate processes in the very same way that you extrapolate your
> > > knowledge about a limited subset of cows to all cows.
> >
> >
> > Depends on the knowledge and the subset. If my subset of cows are all
> > black, does that mean I can extrapolate that all cows are black?
>
> Yes, you can. This is a perfectly valid scientific hypothesis. It
> doesn't matter if you could be falsified. The hypothesis hold until it
> is falsified. The more and more black cows you see before you find one
> that isn't black, the more and more predictive value your "all cows are
> black hypothesis" gains. It's like if I make a hypothesis that all
> crows are black. Is that not a valid hypothesis? - It could be
> falsified, but until it is, it is a perfectly valid scientific
> hypothesis.
But you are not claiming merely to have an hypothesis about the
limitations non-deliberate processes. You are claiming that such
limitations are *known*. How do you *know* that your hypothesis is
correct? Or are you now saying that, in fact, you do not know any such
thing?
>
> > If
> > all of my subset of cows live on my own farm, does that mean that I can
> > extrapolate that all cows live on my farm?
>
> Yes . . .
>
> > Why can I do this for a
> > cow's ability to fly, but not for color, or what farm they live on?
>
> You can . . .
No, you can't. There are cogent extrapolations and weak ones.
Generalizing that all cows are black simply because all the cows you
have seen are black is weak. Ditto extrapolating that all cows live on
my farm. Why? One problem is that the extrapolations are merely
empirical, without any underlying theoretical consideration that would
lead us to expect them to hold true generally, as opposed to being a
fluke, or an artifact of poor sampling methods.
The extrapolation that cows aren't good high jumpers, on the other
hand, can be tied to a consideration of their physiology. It isn't
hard, upon taking a good look at a cow, to think of reasons *why* it
doesn't jump very high, and why one ought to expect those reasons to
apply to other cows as well.
When I ask you how you know that your generalizations about
non-deliberate processes will hold in the general case even for unknown
processes, I am asking you for such theoretical considerations. You
haven't given me any, and I suspect that you cannot.
Also, I noticed that you didn't ask me how I sampled my data set? Why
not? Sampling techniques are crucial to the validity of any attempt to
generalize from the few to the many. Claims from studies that use poor
sampling will get fried in peer-review, even if there is no data that
actually contradicts those claims. One would have to use seriously
flawed sampling techniques to find only black cows, or to find cows
only on my farm.
>
> > There are reasonable answers to these questions.
>
> Not until you have more knowledge . . . The most reasonable hypothesis
> given a limited data set is the hypothesis that is most consistent with
> that data set.
Ah, there's the rub. How does one decide which hypothesis is most
consistent with a given data set? How does one decide which
generalizations about the data set are relevant to formulating an
hypothesis? Your method does not tell us.
>
> > There are good
> > extrapolations and bad ones,
>
> Nope, they are all "good ones" as long as they are consistent with your
> data set. That is how science works.
No, it isn't. For example, scientists will fry a study that
extrapolates from a data set that is improperly sampled, or draws
conclusions they consider overreaching from the data presented, even if
the conclusions are perfectly consistent with that data. Expressions
such as "hasty generalization", "sampling bias", "construct validity",
and "extrapolation beyond known fit" would never come up if the mere
lack of contradictory data were sufficient to make a generalization
scientifically viable.
>
> > as well as methods and precautions for
> > figuring out which ones are which. What methods did you use?
>
> The scientific method combined with inductive and deductive reasoning
> to form valid scientific hypotheses.
Somehow I doubt that.
>
> > > > I doubt that you would accept the conclusion that, because cows cannot
> > > > jump on your house, that no mammal can. Would you accept such an
> > > > hypothesis? How can you be so confident that your insight about
> > > > "mindless" processes can, in fact, be cogently generalized over all
> > > > such processes, as opposed to some subset of them? How can you be sure
> > > > that "mindless processes" are even a coherent category that share some
> > > > set of traits besides the arbitrary one that defines them?
> > >
> > > How can I make such generalization about non-deliberate processes? -
> > > Because I've studied many different kinds of non-deliberate processes.
> > > I've not just limited myself to "cows", so to speak. I've found a very
> > > consistent predictable pattern in all of the different mindless
> > > processes I've studied. This pattern shows predictable limits to how
> > > non-deliberate processes can affect granite, and even living things. It
> > > is quite reasonable, then, to extrapolate the predictable limits of a
> > > small subset to the larger whole - just like you do with your
> > > extrapolation of knowledge of the limited jumping ability of a few cows
> > > to all cows.
> >
> > You might as well have written: "Trust me, I just know" for all this
> > paragraph tells me.
>
> Oh please - This is how science works.
> Science always works by
> extrapolation of the subset to the whole.
But it doesn't work from just *any* extrapolation from a subset to a
whole, as I pointed out above. And it doesn't claim such
extrapolations as *known* simply because they have been proposed.
> If all knowledge were already
> known, there would be no need for science because there would be no
> need for predicting anything. There would be no potential for
> falsification.
>
> You seem to be arguing that if there is any chance of falsification, as
> in a hypothesis like "all cows are black because I've only seen black
> cows", then there is no science.
No, that is not even close to what I am arguing. I am pointing out
that you cannot claim something you extrapolate from the whole to be a
*known*, especially when you cannot tell me why you think your
extrapolation is even cogent, let alone true.
> You forget that science is based on
> testability and the potential for falsification. Without the potential
> for falsification, there is no science.
I didn't forget any such thing. Try again.