A Case Study in Scientific Discovery
by MikeGeneWhen scientists face the question of a teleological origin of life, many view this as an extraordinary claim in need of extraordinary evidence. Yet what exactly is extraordinary evidence? Marshall's claims were perceived as being rather extraordinary (enough to label them crazy), yet it's difficult to see in what way his accumulated evidence were "extraordinary." More problematic is that while a teleological origin of life may be considered an extraordinary event, there is no reason whatsoever to think extraordinary evidence would follow from this event. Put simply, the evidence for ID behind the OOL may be subtle. And if that is the case, can subtle, indirect evidence for X ever overcome the social and psychological dynamics that oppose X?
Figure 5 in Thagard's second paper is most illuminating.
It helps us to visualize that scientific belief is an interplay of physical, social, and psychological factors. Normally, the input from Nature prevents this web of dynamics from becoming purely an interplay of psychological and social factors. Or better yet, it is normally the case the Nature eventually asserts itself as the referee and leading guide (if only because sooner or later, a person with the right psychology in the right place at the right time comes along to hear Nature). But if we are dealing with an extraordinary event X, and the data that exist because of X present themselves in a subtle and indirect fashion, might the referee's hands be tied? Might this be a situation where the social and psychological factors no longer exist in a give and take relationship with Nature, but instead exist as dominant factors that mold Nature to their ends?
August 18th, 2007 at 9:56 am
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. "” Carl Sagan
"Today, non-teleological mechanisms behind evolution are widely accepted not because teleological mechanisms have been refuted. They are accepted because such mechanisms have been formulated and a track record of success has followed. Teleologists, in turn, have retreated into the realm of religious apologetics and typically offer nothing but criticisms of non-teleological explanations, along with various attempts to erect walls that a non-teleological cause supposedly cannot surmount."
Comment by Zachriel — August 18, 2007 @ 9:56 am
August 18th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Zachriel, there is no attribution to your second quote. Was it also Sagan? In any case let's begin by noting that Mike specifically focused on life's origins and Zachriel's quote mentions that "non-teleological mechanisms behind evolution are widely accepted." Success can accompany an absence of teleology but his does not signify that teleology is never essential or helpful.
Unfortunately this statement indicates a closed mind. Was Mike's post about RecA an exercise in apologetics? Was the exchange in the comment section about DNA repair an exercise in apologetics? Are TP, Penrose and Michael Denton religious apologists? There are some very capable IDists who are both Jewish and agnostic. They are not religious apologists and certainly not apologists for Christianity. Why not attempt a more objective response to sociological side issues that is more in keeping with a scientific spirit?
Comment by Bradford — August 18, 2007 @ 10:42 am
August 18th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Indeed. Being laughed at should not be viewed as an indicator that you are right. It simply means you are not part of the herd. To assign the laughter meaning, it is wise to ask the laughers some questions. For example, Sagan's laughter with regard to ID would be rooted in his need for extraordinary evidence. At that point, his laughter has no bite.
Zachriel quoting me:
Yep, that is how I see it. But there is no reason why this must forever remain as so. A teleological approach can exist independently of religious apologetics, it can offer more than criticisms of non-teleological explanations, and it can incorporate non-teleological causes, assigning them their proper role.
Comment by MikeGene — August 18, 2007 @ 10:46 am
August 18th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Hi Bradford,
Consider yourself out-maneuvered.
There was a quote in the movie Patton it went something like this…
"Hell, Brad, I know I'm just as much an SOB as Montgomery the difference is Montgomery won't admit it!".
If the meaning of this quote is lost on you, don't worry. It won't be lost on Zachriel.
Thank you for your recognition of my efforts. I hope you are just as appreciative of my anti-religion arguments.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 18, 2007 @ 11:44 am
August 18th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Actually, I do come across as being closed minded there, as I pronounced an unqualified, blanket statement. I should have worded that part as follows:
Comment by MikeGene — August 18, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
August 18th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Sorry. I looked, but couldn't find the attribution. It was in the article MikeGene linked to in the original post.
I wasn't maneuvering. Honest! But the irony is not lost.
Bloggers do that
all the timesometimes.Comment by Zachriel — August 18, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
August 18th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Hi Zachriel,
Oops. I wrote that about five years ago and it was among the first essays I posted on my web page (when I was using the page as an appendage for arguments on the ARN forum).
But we can use this all to return to the focus of my essay. In that essay, I raise the specter of subtle clues and how they are processed. Here is a concrete example where Zachriel, who often preaches about the scientific method and evidence, "looked," but failed to notice the bread crumbs. Consider the clues he missed:
1. When I quote someone else, especially as the substance of a blog entry at TT, I almost always put the quote in block quotes. Consider here and here for very recent, typical examples.
This is a form of context that would help one interpret my blog entry above. In this case, you'll note I did not introduce the writing or put it in block quotes, conveying the accurate impression that I am the author of those words.
2. This suspicion could have been easily verified by people with much experience on the internet "“ simply go to the address box and delete the backslash material until you get to the home address "“ http://www.idthink.net. A quick survey would have confirmed that I was the author, as the essay is stored under the following description: TeleoLogic is a warehouse of essays where I will progressively explore origins through a teleological filter. .
So as we can, even a very intelligent and perceptive person such as Zachriel can miss subtle clues. And if they can be missed on such a mundane example as this, why think they wouldn't be missed on more significant issues that come loaded with baggage? Issues where the consensus is that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?"
Comment by MikeGene — August 18, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
August 18th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Actually, I suspected it was written by you, but didn't want to attribute it incorrectly. It was linked in the original post, and I presumed others would find it if they read the essay. (I thought about it several times after several times searching for the author.) I should have attributed it with the essay title, The Dynamics of Discovery. I had decided that I could clarify any confusion in a later comment, which I have done.
Except it didn't then, and doesn't now work (even correcting for the typo in the URL).
http://www.idthink.net/back/
http://www.idthink.net/
And you should probably suspect that I would know how to do that. Even a very intelligent and perceptive person such as MikeGene can miss subtle clues, further stressing the point of his essay.
I suppose I could have done a who-is search. But that would not be definitive as to authorship. Registrant: Mike Gene Brighton Columbus, OH 43210
Comment by Zachriel — August 18, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
August 18th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Hi Zachriel,
One would think that if you had such a suspicion, that you would simply have asked me, since you know I am here. Perhaps the quote caused you too much cognitive dissonance?
Comment by MikeGene — August 18, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
August 18th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Hi All,
That was an interesting exchange. I am glad that it looks like it ended up engendering more emotions of embarrassment and amusement than anger (easy for me to say since I didn't have anything to be embarrassed about, this time).
In case anyone needs or wants an explanation of my previous comment, I offer the following explanation. Please excuse me while I lapse into sarcasm mode…
I tend to think of debates in similar ways as miltary campaigns. Tactics to be employed. Battles to be fought and mostly won, with a few (very few) strategic withdrawals.
[WARNING: SARCASM ALERT]
I especially think of it in those terms when it comes to Zachriel.
Why? Well it may have something to do with similarity in our styles.
It might also have something to do the fact he uses a picture of Bismarck on his personal blog. and other places.
[Bismarck] engineered the Unification of Germany. From 1867 on, he was Chancellor of the North German Confederation. When the German Empire was declared in 1871, he served as its first Chancellor, gaining the nickname "Iron Chancellor". link
I may be jumping to conclusion that Zachriel actually admires the man as opposed to just thinking he makes for a handsome picture.
However, there is this other web site run by someone named Zachriel that also uses the same Bismarck picture (and links to Zachriel's blog). This blog is titled CIVILIZATION III Strategies by Zachriel.
Civilization is a game that challenges players to deal with the global strategies via politics, trade and military tactics. It is a pretty challenging game.
I think it is safe to say Zachriel is probably somewhat adept at thinking along strategic lines.
I try to admit often that I engage in political spin and maneuver. Everyone does. In these particular encounters (war?) with Telic Thoughts, I have attempted the brutal honesty tactic. Yes, it is a tactic. It can be quite an effective tactic. However, it isn't easy to maintain.
My reference to Patton and Montgomery was referring to two famous generals in World War II. They were on the same side, although you wouldn't know it based on their attitudes towards each other.
Patton was known for being, shall we say, "less than tactful". Montgomery was British.
"Brad", was General Bradley who was in the unfortunate position of being Patton's immediate superior (during the Battle of the Bulge).
[END SARCASM]
Zachriel, I trust you won't take offense. I find you a worthy opponent.
I think you elevate the quality of discussion at Telic Thoughts.
Consider this my tactical maneuver to provoke you into taking yourself a little less seriously.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 18, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
August 18th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Hi Mike,
Is it really that important to get him to confess?
Even if Zachriel did it on purpose, it was a beautiful tactical maneuver.
BTW, I didn't know "we" live in Ohio. (I'm in Cleveland Area).
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 18, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
August 18th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Hi TP,
I agree with your assessment, including the part about Zachriel being a worthy opponent and elevating discussions around here. I may be wrong, but I simply don't buy the "I wasn't maneuvering. Honest!" claim. Not only did Zachriel fail to simply ask if I wrote that, he doesn't even mention that the quote comes from the same essay I linked to. Neither does he comment on it. It just hangs out there like juicy bait.
No, I'm not trying to get a confession "“ I should be mowing the lawn! But then again, it's a beautiful tactical maneuver that functions to derail the thread. If I was in one of those grumpy moods, I would have holed it. Instead, I'll go mow the lawn.
Comment by MikeGene — August 18, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
August 18th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Heh! Perhaps.
Segueing back to topic, the overall thrust of your essay is reasonable. I disagree that biological Intelligent Design will ever amount to much. This has been going on a long time and the scientific data never seems to materialize. But people keep claiming they have it! Bradford suspects it will be found in the Gap between chemistry and the genetic code. Perhaps. If someone has the evidence, I'm sure many people would be happy to look at it.
Comment by Zachriel — August 18, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
August 18th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Zachriel wrote:
We have the data. The question is: which hypothesis best explains the data? An unintentional mindless material process, or an intentional, intelligent design process?
We need not detect the designer in order to detect evidence of design. There is a very large body of evidence for the fundamental physical entities and interactions being exquisitely structured according to rationally intelligible mathematical principles. There is a very large body of evidence for the universe being very finely 'tuned' for life. There is a very large body of evidence pointing to coded information always being the result of intelligent and intentional processes. There is a very large body of evidence that biological processes are vastly more complex than even the most complex known artifacts.
The hypothesis that best explains this body of data is that the universe and life were intelligently designed.
Comment by stunney — August 18, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
August 18th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Zachriel:
What gap? It's not as if we are ignorant of chemical properties of biochemicals involved in the translation of the genetic code. There is no chemical necessity inferred by the relationship between codons and amino acids. My own view is that bioengineering a set of tRNAs, enabling the translation of an alternate genetic code, would be conclusive evidence of the symbolic nature of codons and their arising through a process of teleological assignment rather than a fortuitous chain of random chemical reactions.
But then again conclusions drawn from data are themselves subject to the vicissitudes of social values influencing those analyzing data. It is difficult to isolate metaphysical values from interpretive anlayses. That's one of the themes I draw from this blog entry.
Comment by Bradford — August 18, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
August 18th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
There is some evidence that this relationship evolved to minimize errors.
Comment by Zachriel — August 18, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
August 18th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Hi Zachriel,
And the overall thrust of your response is reasonable. Yet the last sentence is the key point that my essay calls into question. People "keep claiming they have it!" because so many people expect extraordinary evidence. Yet very few, if any, investigations are fueled by extraordinary evidence. And if it comes to something much less that extraordinary evidence, Figure 5 comes into play:
Consider the minds that look at it and judge. Does their mind hear "God" when "the evidence for ID" is spoken or written? Does it hear "politics?" Consider the input from societal pressures. If key members from "society" acknowledge that although the evidence is weak, it is evidence, they give ammunition to the ID movement and risk being viewed as traitors. Those are forces that will powerfully shape the way people "look at it."
Comment by MikeGene — August 18, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
August 18th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Zachriel linked to a research article supposedly showing evidence that natural selection explains the canonical genetic code.
Here's an excerpt from the authors' abstract:
Translation: the canonical code is very fit. Whenever something appears very fit, we are just going to pronounce that as evidence that it was 'naturally', i.e., unintentionally and unintelligently selected, because we define 'evidence of fitness' as evidence of natural selection, and never, ever as evidence of intelligent design.
Of course, something being selected to minimize the phenotypic impact of genetic errors looks to me precisely like the kind of selection an engineer or designer would make.
In other words, the research is easily as supportive of an ID hypothesis as against an evolutionary naturalist hypothesis, if not more so. Zachriel is simply too blind and biased to see and acknowledge this fact.
Comment by stunney — August 18, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
August 18th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
The problem with this type of analysis is it does not document the claim. An advantage is not synonymous with selection. For selection to occur there must be evidence of a replicating entity with a functional, replicating, genetic information storage structure. The question is: how does such an entity arise prior to the advent of a code by which the information is expressed?
Comment by Bradford — August 18, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
August 18th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
MikeGene wrote:
This "extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidence" meme needs to be exposed for the rubbish it is.
First of all, most people around the world, all through recorded history, have not thought that the existence of a designer was an extraordinary claim. It might, of course, be regarded as extraordinary against the background of a prior disposition to cling to a materialist worldview. But most people haven't been committed to a such a worldview. Anthropologically, belief in a designer is the norm, not the exception, and the claim that the world has an intentional origin has not generally been regarded as extraordinary at all.
Now one might object that it is extraordinary, because materialism is true, or prima facie true. But that's a blatantly obvious example of petitio principii. And it is very far from obvious how to account for all the phenomena associated with reason and value from a materialist starting point. It's hard to imagine how rationally conscious, morally and aesthetically aware minds could arise unintentionally from matter at all, let alone that it's in any way obvious that they did. I think the idea that blind matter operating by sheer chance generates binding moral or rational norms is very much in 'unicorn territory'. Atheists seem to think that it is obvious that materialism is obviously true. But actually, there's no obvious reason to accept this atheistic claim. And so the atheist needs to do more than simply beg the question as to the supposed obviousness of materialist naturalism, and the supposed extraordinariness this would allegedly require of evidence of design.
I mean, if human minds aren't evidence of design, what could conceivably even count as such evidence?
Comment by stunney — August 18, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
August 18th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
stunney:
Good point. The observation of fitness alone does not address the matter of the route taken to it. How does selection operate prior to the advent of a code and what is the evidence for the answer?
Comment by Bradford — August 18, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
August 18th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
I wouldn't comment on your actual question but I do agree with how you put it. I do think that the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence part is utter rubbish.
Comment by dimasok — August 18, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
August 18th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Hi all,
Get ready for a surprising tactical manuever.
Something you would never expect to come from me.
Stunney wrote….
You might get away with less than extraordinary evidence but you won't get away with not having a MODEL!
Were you surprised? no?!?
MikeGene is providing some thought provoking ideas with his RecA function. It suggests a potential front-loaded mechanism. I find the RecA microtubule-like behavior extremely interesting (can you say "quantum effects")
I provided a comment on a possible experiment to run.
This isn't the time to be sitting around moaning and groaning about how all if this is unfair. It's brain-storming time.
Let's do science!
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 18, 2007 @ 9:32 pm
August 18th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
TP:
What's going on TP? I thought you had the thought provoker thing copywrited. Looks like Mike is muscling in on your turf.:grin:
Comment by Bradford — August 18, 2007 @ 10:11 pm
August 18th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
[cough, choke, clear throat] …Geez. Most of us graduated war college decades ago. That's just "Saber Rattling 101." Can we get all the way to Lee-Hooker already?
Comment by Joy — August 18, 2007 @ 11:13 pm
August 19th, 2007 at 11:27 am
youll forgive me for asking but….wheres all this nature you guys talk about?
Comment by dantedanti — August 19, 2007 @ 11:27 am