Taking emergence really seriously

#81
It's you're, not your. You used the form improperly.

Actually, what is and what is not a scientific claim is very clearly defined. As I can tell you're not well versed in these matters, let me elaborate.

Scientific claims are claims that which can be studied scientifically. ' For instance, what causes the sky to be blue? ' is a legitimate scientific inquiry. It's asking a question about nature that can be studied scientifically.

What if I wanted to study whether or not sentient bunnies who are invisible and don't interact with the physical world come to my room every night and tickle my cat before disappearing into another dimension? There doesn't seem to be a reliable scientific test we can do on that hypothesis. Thus, any inquiry would not be scientific.

You seem to not be able to differentiate between me saying that ID is a legitimate scientific question, and me saying that ID is legitimately proven scientifically. We can probably write this off as you merely thinking in terms of black and white, which is kind of ironic.
OK. Let's make this a little easier for both of us by introducing some clarity. I don't want to be accused of misinterpreting anything you say as you seem to get upset very easily. Before we know it you'll be resorting to larger, bolder fonts and, god help us, colours.

Remember, it was you that mentioned lack of evidence for ID. Perhaps you could present the evidence that underpins your support of ID. We can then examine if and how any 'legitimate scientific inquiry' could be applied, its "worthiness", and whether your claim (ID) has more legitimacy to further study than your bunnies example.

You are clearly aware of my inadequacies, help me out here.
 
#82
That's Iyace's modus operandi. If you don't answer a question to his satisfaction he'll call you stupid.
Here's a good answer.
ID is a theology based premise.
You can't put God under a microscope.

I should keep a record of how many times Iyace makes grammatical errors, spelling errors. It
Then how can you know if the ID hypothesis is false, if it isn't a genuine scientific inquiry?
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#83
ID is a theology based premise.
You can't put God under a microscope.
But you can examine the odds of mutation being adequate enough for evolution to occur in a given time frame, as well as search for the presence or lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record.

At the moment I can't think of a way anyone could prove a deity - or another entity - was responsible for guiding evolution, but it seems like people could might find ways to improve on what we can know about the past via future scientific advancement.

The problems with the ID movement are separate from the question of design. It's actually better, IMO, for kids to understand what portion of the IDers claims are amenable to scientific investigation - namely the adequacy of the current theory - and which are merely speculative. To simply assert the current paradigm is just an attempt at paternalism rather than the encouragement of critical thinking.

And for reasons I noted previously, resting hope on the legitimacy of the current paradigm as a buttress against particular political positions is an incredibly bad idea IMO given the potential for the theory of evolution to be found wanting. I'd rather have people already aware of the alternatives - such as the atheist-teleology Nagel proposes - than people thinking "Well I guess that Religion X was right all along about everything."
 
#84
But you can examine the odds of mutation being adequate enough for evolution to occur in a given time frame, as well as search for the presence or lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record.

At the moment I can't think of a way anyone could prove a deity - or another entity - was responsible for guiding evolution, but it seems like people could might find ways to improve on what we can know about the past via future scientific advancement.

The problems with the ID movement are separate from the question of design. It's actually better, IMO, for kids to understand what portion of the IDers claims are amenable to scientific investigation - namely the adequacy of the current theory - and which are merely speculative. To simply assert the current paradigm is just an attempt at paternalism rather than the encouragement of critical thinking.

And for reasons I noted previously, resting hope on the legitimacy of the current paradigm as a buttress against particular political positions is an incredibly bad idea IMO given the potential for the theory of evolution to be found wanting. I'd rather have people already aware of the alternatives - such as the atheist-teleology Nagel proposes - than people thinking "Well I guess that Religion X was right all along about everything."
We could go round till the cows come home. So instead of doing that. Start with the site talkorigins.org.
 
#85
OK. Let's make this a little easier for both of us by introducing some clarity. I don't want to be accused of misinterpreting anything you say as you seem to get upset very easily. Before we know it you'll be resorting to larger, bolder fonts and, god help us, colours.

Remember, it was you that mentioned lack of evidence for ID. Perhaps you could present the evidence that underpins your support of ID. We can then examine if and how any 'legitimate scientific inquiry' could be applied, its "worthiness", and whether your claim (ID) has more legitimacy to further study than your bunnies example.

You are clearly aware of my inadequacies, help me out here.
I'm not sure what you're asking, to be honest. There are sure-fire ways to test for intelligence in living systems. Do patterns in DNA resemble tampering? If those codes look similar to codes due to natural selection, how do we differentiate between the two? What is doing the intelligent design, should it exist? Are there specific periods of life systems that contain rapid changes that cannot reasonably be due to natural selection ( although this would not directly lend support to ID ). These are all legitimate scientific questions that ID should pursue, thus making it a genuine scientific inquiry.

Just because ID is championed by the religious doesn't make it an illegitimate scientific question. Intelligent design could be crafted from aliens, for all we know. In fact, there are multiple ID proponents who espouse that. Just because you and I aren't proponents of ID doesn't make it not a legitimate field of study. I guess that's just a psuedoskeptical tactic, though. Everything that you don't support is illegitimate and psuedoscientifc.
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#86
Care to outline the major points of why ID is not genuine scientific inquiry?

Sorry I had to repeat it, but you evaded my question. I didn't ask why it's not a legitimate proposal ( I don't think it is ), or why we shouldn't accept it ( I don't think we should ). I just asked why it wouldn't be a topic that should be inquired about scientifically.
It could possibly be inquired about scientifically, but it isn't. I thought you were asking why the current project isn't scientific, not why it isn't scientific in principle.

First they need to determine how they are going to detect design, then try to detect some. Dembski's current method of detecting design involves ruling out all possible naturalistic (non-design) causes. That's a tough job. If they can't jigger that down to something actually manageable, then that's a dead end.

The other approach is to find positive evidence of design. I'm not sure how to do this. If you could prove that certain types of information cannot arise naturalistically, that would do the trick. So would finding the reference manual.

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#89
If reality is made of particles and fields, like the Higgs field/Higgs boson, is there a particle-field that enforces the speed of light/permittivity/permeability?
I sort of see what you're getting at, that we can't ever stop the issue of infinite regress without positing some kind of First Cause or Eternal Axiom.

But while there is always cause for doubt about axioms, that doesn't make them inherently false or in definite need of a maker. Though I do agree that positing a creator or creators(s) is not logically incorrect here. Yet God could be many/one, good/evil/neutral, lawful/chaotic/neutral, already dead, etc.
 
#90
It could possibly be inquired about scientifically, but it isn't. I thought you were asking why the current project isn't scientific, not why it isn't scientific in principle.

First they need to determine how they are going to detect design, then try to detect some. Dembski's current method of detecting design involves ruling out all possible naturalistic (non-design) causes. That's a tough job. If they can't jigger that down to something actually manageable, then that's a dead end.

The other approach is to find positive evidence of design. I'm not sure how to do this. If you could prove that certain types of information cannot arise naturalistically, that would do the trick. So would finding the reference manual.

~~ Paul
See my above post to malf. It pretty much reflects yours.
 
#91
Though I do agree that positing a creator or creators(s) is not logically incorrect here. Yet God could be many/one, good/evil/neutral, lawful/chaotic/neutral, already dead, etc.
So you stick with the biblical concept of the creator external to the creation? I'd have thought that if we accept idealism then there is no external. Creator and creation are one. There is nothing else.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#92
So you stick with the biblical concept of the creator external to the creation? I'd have thought that if we accept idealism then there is no external. Creator and creation are one. There is nothing else.
Sorry, that wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list of possibilities.
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#93
See my above post to malf. It pretty much reflects yours.
I think the IDers face a tough battle if they want to come up with an actual science project. They are basically saying that intelligence is required because we haven't yet figured out how it all works. Those god-of-the-gaps arguments are difficult to turn into science.

~~ Paul
 
#94
ID is smoke and mirrors. The former creationists tried very hard to get their ideas their god back into the public schools that didn't work out. Along comes a new kind of creationist, a savvy bunch. They rebranded themselves by creating a new identity, but it's the all the same. Their purpose is to discredit evolutionary theory, get their beliefs and their God back in science class and ultimately into all levels of society.
Ok - but you've got to put motives aside - they are not relevant to whether or not the papers are sound.
 
#95
I think the IDers face a tough battle if they want to come up with an actual science project. They are basically saying that intelligence is required because we haven't yet figured out how it all works. Those god-of-the-gaps arguments are difficult to turn into science.

~~ Paul
Yup. In a similar vein, scientists will also have to rule out all forms of self - guided evolution to maintain the current theories, though.
 
#96
Well the fact that university biology departments around the world consider ID 'not genuine scientific inquiry' might give a person pause.

Let me guess, all these profs are just dumb sheeple taken in by the conspiracy?
Well the crucial point - indeed the main point of this thread - is that if consciousness and intelligence can emerge in any adequately complex system, then why can't it have played a part in the natural history of the earth?

Now let me be utterly clear - I don't think emergence does explain consciousness, but I just want to point out that if it did, it would open up a Pandora's box of interesting possibilities - all sorts of intelligent interventions - including ID - would become viable within materialism!

David
 
#97
Well the crucial point - indeed the main point of this thread - is that if consciousness and intelligence can emerge in any adequately complex system, then why can't it have played a part in the natural history of the earth?

Now let me be utterly clear - I don't think emergence does explain consciousness, but I just want to point out that if it did, it would open up a Pandora's box of interesting possibilities - all sorts of intelligent interventions - including ID - would become viable within materialism!

David
Hmm... Does that mean if the consensus opinion supported natural selection, that would make it "true"? :eek:;)
 
#98
What's scientifically illegitimate about asking the question whether intelligence is involved in evolution? Only this: if you define science as a priori excluding such a possibility, then perforce it's illegitimate.

A scientific question is any question that can be investigated using reason, and has some empirical referent. This applies very widely, even to subjects like historical research or whether it was next door's dog that crapped on my lawn two days ago. Can it be investigated using reason whether what appears as designed in nature actually is designed? Certainly. We have empirical referents, like cells and DNA and proteins, and we can use reason to determine the likelihood of their arising as as result of RM + NS given the hypothesised way that those two principles are supposed to work.

We can argue about whether we believe that resulting data that indicates that RM + NS are insufficient is correct, but I don't think we can argue that the very question is unscientific. Unless, that is, we're ideologues who want, a priori, to rig the goalposts so that certain questions are inherently illegitimate. How fortunate that on this forum there are no such people, eh? ;)
 
#99
See my above post to malf. It pretty much reflects yours.
As you are not a proponent of ID (but just like to defend it), you understand that just because something looks designed it may not be the case that it is... But the problem to me is the "intelligent designer". Testing/investigating that would seem to be outside the remit of the natural sciences (nothing at all like your example "what makes the sky blue"). Your sentient bunnies are looking just as worthy of study, if not more so.
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
Yup. In a similar vein, scientists will also have to rule out all forms of self - guided evolution to maintain the current theories, though.
What is "self-guided evolution" and why is it in the same vein?

Edited to add: Do you mean mechanisms by which organisms can affect the probabilities of mutations and such like?

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
Top