Artificial or Natural
by MikeGeneThe difference between artificial and natural objects seems immediately and unambiguously apparent to all of us. A rock, a mountain, a river, or a cloud "“ these are natural objects; a knife a handkerchief, a car "“ so many artificial objects, artifacts. Analyze these judgments, however, and it will be seen that they are neither immediate nor strictly objective. We know that the knife was man-made for a use its maker visualized beforehand. The object renders in material form the preexistent intention that gave birth to it, and its form is accounted for by the performance expected of it even before it takes shape. It is another story altogether with the river or the rock which we know, or believe, to have been molded by the free play of physical forces to which we cannot attribute any design, any project, or purpose. Not, that is, if we accept the basic premise of the scientific method, to wit, that nature is objective and not projective.
Hence it is through reference to our own activity, conscious and projective, intentional and purposive-it is as makers of artifacts-that we judge of a given object's "naturalness" or "artificialness." Might there be objective and general standards for defining the characteristics of artificial objects, products of a conscious purposive activity, as against natural objects, resulting from the gratuitous play of physical forces? To make sure of the complete objectivity of the criteria chosen, it would doubtless be best to ask oneself whether, in putting them to use, a program could be drawn up enabling a computer to distinguish an artifact from a natural object.
Such a program could be applied in the most interesting connections. Let us suppose that a spacecraft is soon to be landed upon Venus or Mars; what more fascinating question than to find out whether our neighboring planets are, or at some earlier period have been, inhabited by intelligent beings capable of projective activity? In order to detect such present or past activity we would have to search for and be able to recognize its products, however radically unlike the fruit of human industry they might be. Wholly ignorant of the nature of such beings and of the projects they might have conceived, our program would have to utilize only very general criteria, solely based upon the examined objects' structure and form and without any reference to their eventual function.
-Jacques Monod
Chance and Necessity, 1971
May 21st, 2008 at 7:06 am
A very interesting quote, from a book that had a profound effect on my thinking.
And so, let's take Monod seriously and ask if it would be possible to decide if, for example, the "blueberries" discovered by the Martian surveyor robots are the result of life processes or not. Conversely, we might ask whether there is an objective method to distinguish quantitatively between Martian "blueberries" and the E. coli flagellum.
For example, is there a method of calculating the degree to which one would be correct in assuming that the latter is intelligently designed, whereas the former is not? This is a basic part of most scientific analysis: distinguishing between null and alternative hypotheses. So, can it be done in the case of design? That is, can one calculate the degree of confidence associated with an hypothesis of design?
If you can, then ID is ready to fight for its rightful place in the natural sciences. If not, then until such calculations become practical, ID will remain at most an intellectual curiosity and a footnote to the history of evolutionary theory.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — May 21, 2008 @ 7:06 am
May 21st, 2008 at 9:26 am
Not necessarily to everyone.
These judgments are often just the result of modern culture. Many people, such as animists, think that all objects are imbued with a spiritual essence. And we are all aware that in ancient times everything from the regular flooding of the Nile, to lightning, to the movements of the planets with their strong influence on human affairs, were all considered to be designed. Even today, there are those who claim that the Moon's apparent size compared to that of the Sun, or the puddle-logic of the particular values of the physical constants, are evidence of design.
I'm not sure of the sense of that statement. The scientific method doesn't posit that nature is objective, but that observations should be objective, that is, subject to independent verification.
A computer isn't required, as long as the algorithm is carefully defined.
In any case, this illustrates the problem of 'design detection'. What we are really considering is the process of categorization. We do that by comparing objects to what are known, and by proposing and testing hypotheses. When spaceships were actually sent to Mars, they proposed tests for life that made sense based on what was known. When the surprising results came in, new hypotheses were proposed and tested. When we consider whether an object is an artifact, we use the same process. We compare it to known objects, propose hypotheses, then test them.
Comment by Zachriel — May 21, 2008 @ 9:26 am
May 21st, 2008 at 11:34 am
Objective standards? Emotions both conceal and reveal our contrivances. The only objective standard can be the universal grammar known to the mystics!
Comment by Stephen — May 21, 2008 @ 11:34 am
May 21st, 2008 at 11:51 am
If more ID supporters approached the problem of Design detection from the perspective of "could I create a computer program to detect design" rather than resorting to "design is intuitively obvious" then they might better understand a lot of the critics complaints.
And Stephen, thanks for continuing to be so amusing. You posts, although never related to the topic being discussed, are always funny.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — May 21, 2008 @ 11:51 am
May 21st, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Hi Todd,
Even in the absence of a computer program couldn't one still claim that a design inference in a particular situation might be plausible, lending to further research to see if that plausible shifts to possible or maybe improbable? This seems to be in-line with what Mike Gene, Behe and others are stating.
But Mike also brings in a unique way of viewing this issue in chapter 3 of the Design Matrix – Echoes of Technology.
Where our techological advance in fields of engineering help to further elucidate our understanding of molecular biology. Not so much in the sense that we now have technology to poke and prod the inner workings of the cell…. but that our advances in engineering runs parallel to our ability to better describe and understand exactly how the cell functions – in regards to metaphorical reliance on our engineering technologies to describe the inner workings of the cell on a molecular level.
Comment by Doug — May 21, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
May 21st, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Every day we all make design inferences based on analogy to artifacts of known origin, but without more rigid and formalized definitions it is simply an assumption that these analogies can be applied to any artifacts of unknown origin. Also analogy alone is merely suggestive of design and seems incapable of proving design to an objective standard.
You can certainly proceed under the assumption that the analogy between human technology and biological organisms is meaningful, but only people predisposed to agree with that assumption will support your argument. If you build your entire work on a shaky assumption then it seems poised to come tumbling down the moment that assumption is challenged. So far efforts to push that assumption from "possibility" to "plausibility" have left me unimpressed.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — May 21, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
May 21st, 2008 at 1:51 pm
The problem that I see is not just that the "design inference" in biology is subjective. Rather, it is simply not clear what the design inference infers. It is not a human being that is being inferred as a cause, nor necessarily a biological being, nor necessarily a conscious being, nor necessarily an intentional being… so what is it supposed to be?
Comment by aiguy — May 21, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
May 21st, 2008 at 2:05 pm
an intelligent being hence the name
Comment by fifth monarchy man — May 21, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
May 21st, 2008 at 2:12 pm
I'd say evolutionary processes constitute an "intelligent being" because they have memory and are capable of learning and they are purposeful because they incorporate negative feedback. So I guess ID Theorists can infer evolutionary processes as the intelligent designer, right – even though these processes are blind natural processes without conscious intent?
Comment by aiguy — May 21, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
May 21st, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Hi Todd,
I was going to mention this in my initial post. In that chapter I mentioned Mike even states:
But it's still a weird concidence the descriptive terms used in our fields of engineering serve so well as terms used in our description of molecular biology. Also considering that there are other metaphors that could be borrowed from geological sciences, astronomological sciences (the natural sciences), but when analyzed closely these metaphors fall short of an apt description. Not the same with our applied sciences/technology. As our technological standing increases in complexity and sophistication, the ability to use this knowledge metaphorically to illuminate the nano-scale workings of the cell develops.
Also stated in that chapter:
Comment by Doug — May 21, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
May 21st, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Mike,
Did ol' Jacques think such a computer program was possible or plausible?
Comment by Bilbo — May 21, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
May 21st, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Hi Bilbo,
The quote from above is how Monod starts his book. He is using it more as a thought experiment to flesh out the unique properties of life and cites three: teleonomy, autonomous morphogenesis, and reproductive invariance. These are fancy ways of saying teleology, order that grows/emerges, and faithfully passing on traits through reproduction (although I'm sure the purists will quibble). The teleonomy/teleology poses the biggest problem because, as he notes, it violates the very premises of science. His book seeks to resolve this problem by framing the teleological aspects of life in a non-teleological gestalt. But he's playing with fire.
Comment by MikeGene — May 21, 2008 @ 10:37 pm
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:32 am
As 'teleonomy' was specifically coined (Pittendrigh, 1958) to distinguish between actual and apparent purpose, the quibble is appropriate. Consider a long-necked organism. Even knowing that a longer neck was selected over time, we might say the 'purpose' of the long neck is to reach the high leaves on a tree. This is an artifact of language.
Comment by Zachriel — May 22, 2008 @ 8:32 am
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
I don't think the usefulness of these descriptive terms is a coincidence, nor do I think its particularly surprising. Both human machines and biological organisms are operating in a universe built from the same components (atoms, electrons, etc) operating under the same laws (chemistry, physics, etc). Many of these devices are solving the same sorts of problems (pumping fluids, transporting solids, distributing energy). Given how malleable English (all language really) is it would be far more surprising if no analogies could be draw between human machines and life. That these seemingly necessary analogies which work at various levels of detail indicate some deeper meaning is where I disagree with Mike. Life differs from human machines in many more ways than it is similar and the similarities seem like simple requirements of operating in the physical world.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — May 22, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
May 22nd, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Mike has suggested Analogy, Discontinuity, Rationality, and Foresight, as characteristics of artificial objects. Are these objective terms or subjective? I suspect that they are objective, but that our ability to quantify (which is what science values) them is difficult. Thus Mike has come up with a scoring system, where we assign a numerical in each of the four categories, from -5 (strongly undesigned) to +5 (strongly designed). He writes:
Comment by Bilbo — May 22, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
May 22nd, 2008 at 5:16 pm
I might agree that being "objective" doesn't require the ability to quantify on an absolute numerical scale, but it certainly requires all observers to be able to reach the same conclusion. In the case of Mike's Design Matrix scores they are completely subjective, however. There is no basis for mutual agreement built into the method at all. They are the very definition of subjective.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — May 22, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Hi Bilbo,
Yes, maybe the Matrix might lead us to the realm of the objective, although if so, it would be a long journey and probably require a community of experts. In the meantime, the Matrix may merely capture the essence of a design inference, as spelled out by Monod:
For as I write in the book:
Comment by MikeGene — May 22, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Hi Todd,
This brings up the difficulty in defining "objective." If objective "certainly requires all observers to be able to reach the same conclusion," then what are you to do with all the people who don't accept evolution? It would seem you'd have to begin qualifying the observers, which means your definition of objective would be subjective.
There is nothing wrong with this, especially if Monod's observation is a necessary element of design detection. And while the DM does not provide a basis for mutual agreement, it is an open-ended method that a) brings about better awareness of one's own subjectivity while b) providing a better understanding of another's subjectivity. It helps us move beyond the realm of suspicion, as the score itself can serve as both an impetus and a focal point for new research ideas that can in turn feed back into the score, either strengthening it or weakening it over time.
Comment by MikeGene — May 22, 2008 @ 9:29 pm
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Hi Todd,
I think it's surprising for the fact that (as Mike showed in his book) these mechanical engineering terms, while applicable to molecular biology, fall short in their usefulness for chemists and physicists. Neither the field of of mechanical engineering nor the interior world of the cell fall outside of the scope of chemistry and physics, the former is not completely reducible to chemistry and physics. So the claim of possibly the latter is not completely reducible either appears to be a valid question to test.
Completely agree with you, Todd. That's why the metaphorical usefulness of mechanical engineering terms is so intriguing. We know that the products of our technological and engineering prowess are not simply the result of the laws of chemistry and physics. While they do not contradict those laws, those products are also not entirely reducible to those laws. There's another factor at play. And to borrow even more heavily from Mike's book (if I haven't already done that), that other factor channels the laws of chemistry and physics to produce that idea or to give mechanical form to that thought.
If no analogies could be drawn we would have a heck of a time trying to explain or understand what is exactly occuring at the molecular level. It's because of our technological advance that our ability to comprehend the cellular workings increased; via the utilization of metaphors.
But if the cell would have ultimately looked like an amorphous glob containing random interactions there wouldn't even be need to worry about the possibility. What we find are proteins whose function is highly dependent on their form, specific spatial arrangement playing a necessary role.
With our technological advances in a short order of time we know that this field is not static. It's developing, and as it develops it allows us even more insight into the world of the cell.
It would have been one thing if our knowledge of chemistry and physics alone would have been enough to understand the cell, but what is allowing us that level of undestanding is our own ingenuity in engineering and design.
Comment by Doug — May 22, 2008 @ 10:51 pm
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:38 pm
From Mike's book:
Comment by Bilbo — May 23, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Todd, when there's a lull in threads, I was thinking of taking your examples of a beaver dam and an arrowhead, and applying the Design Matrix to them, to see what we would get, and if our scores would be similar.
Comment by Bilbo — May 23, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Doug,
The language of chemistry and physics alone cannot describe our machines even though our machines operate on nothing but chemistry and physics. Instead we build abstractions on top of chemistry and physics and name those abstractions. I'm not sure why I should expect life to be any different. In fact as a product of the very nature we are studying we might expect this. The fact that 1) our brains operate using layers of abstraction and 2) our brains seem to work rather well seems to imply that layers of abstraction are a fundamentally meaningful way of analyzing the world around us. Would our brains even operate using layers of abstraction if that structure did not match nature itself? We can only speculate, but I would guess they are related.
Agreed, when these simple parts are combined the result does seem to be somehow greater than the parts. But as I mention above this may simply be the utility of abstraction. Abstraction works so I don't find it surprising that it would be used in so many places.
It is certainly true that analogy makes things a lot easier to understand, but creative humans have managed to create whole new lexicons from scratch to solve difficult problems before. For example, things like differential calculus have their own "language" that's a foreign as Linear B to someone that hasn't studied the field. Had it been required biology could have created its own specialized jargon as chemistry and physics have done but it wasn't required. The main thing complicated jargon would have done is prevented laypersons like myself from having any hope of understanding biology. It remains to be seen whether the involvement of laypersons in biology will help or hinder the advancement of biology.
I don't really see it as fundamentally different whether it's our chemistry ingenuity or our physics ingenuity or our mechanical ingenuity that lets us understand the cell. Its all just layers of abstraction and I don't see any hard barrier between these layers that would force "nature" only to use layers 1 through X while us humans get to use layer X+1. You could just as easily say that all of the cell should be definable in terms of quantum physics, you shouldn't need the higher level abstraction of chemistry to explain anything. Why even chemistry should be completely reducible to physics so we shouldn't chemistry at all!
Comment by Todd Berkebile — May 23, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
May 24th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Mike,
The evidence for evolution is very much objective. Consider things like a fossil, its physical reality is not a matter for debate. We all agree about its size, shape, and weight. When we sequence DNA we can all read and understand the resulting sequence without arguments over what is indicated. Even data like the results of radiocarbon dating is objective although some people reject them validity of the resulting number. Besides, many people who reject evolution aren't even aware of the evidence, they simply parrot what their fundamentalist ministers tell them. Its rare to encounter someone who understands the evidence for evolution and still rejects the theory.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — May 24, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
May 24th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Hi Todd, while reading your comment it's hard to see if you understand that the debate isn't so much over evolution happening or not. It's a debate over the mechanism (RM + NS).
You're making the same mistake Behe was talking about in EoE. Evidence for common ancestry as being evidence for the proposed mechanism. Then you point to common ancestry and the evidence for it, then fault "fundamentalist ministers" for arguing against evolution. Equivocating the two: common ancestry and the mechanism.
Comment by Doug — May 24, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
May 25th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Doug,
Although it is quite clear that random mutations occurs and it is equally clear that some genes get propagated and other genes do not I make no assumptions that "evolution" equals "RM+NS." It seems to be only ID supporters who ever even try to make the claim that evolution=RM+NS, I've never seen a biologist make such a case. There are many known evolutionary mechanisms and likely many more waiting to be discovered.
I realize the people on this blog tend not to deny the existence of evolution, but rather tend to focus on how their personal deity of choice might be guiding evolution. This view is completely compatible with an understanding of the available evidence, it simply pushes an unknown agency into the knowledge gaps. But the people I talked about above do in fact completely deny the idea of evolution and common descent. You know these people exist as well as I do. You'd like to think the well-reasoned ID camp is larger than the denialists, but I see little evidence of that.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — May 25, 2008 @ 11:38 am
May 25th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Hi Todd,
You are confusing data with evidence. Yes, we all agree about its size, shape, and weight. Yet to convert such data into evidence you need to interpret these data according to the context of mental constructs. Evidence exists in the mind and is an example of human beings assigning meaning to their world.
But you are simply trying to qualify who counts and who doesn't count. Thus, what you consider "˜objective' is a matter of opinion.
Comment by MikeGene — May 25, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I don't know of any who claims it doesn't occur.
I wanted you to clarify. You know 'evolution' is a loaded term. And in your comment it was hard to find out exactly what you were refering to. You were conflating the common ancestry with the mechanism. So when you expressed mild shock over some not accepting evolution it was difficult to see what you meant when you were referencing a linear sequence of fossils.
Also, it's not only ID supporters who claim that evolution is randomness culled by orderly natural selection. Nor are you being honest when you say, "it seems to be only…". It appears that when you read RM you assume single point mutation, then take your assumption to be what all ID supporters assume.
It's hard having these discussions with you because you play with the flexibility of the words being used.
See what I mean?
Are any of these other mechanisms not ultimately random? If not, could you explain to me what the consequences of a discovered mechanism would be if that mechanism was goal driven.
And here's where you crumble apart with your introduction of 'personal deities'. We're talking about the evidence, you turn it into a theological discussion.
Gaps? You mean that fundamental mechanism we were initially talking about? Randomness being culled by selection. Try to stay out of the propaganda for a bit.
Then my advice to you; stay on topic when you're not discussing with those people.
Ground breaking, Todd. Again…. stay on topic.
How do you know what I'd like to think? Opposed to you, Todd… this is a past time for me. Not a witch hunt. If you're biggest concern with the people in the world is, "heaven forfend!! They don't all believe what I do!!!" I think you should consider yourself in good standings.
But regardless, Stay on topic.
Comment by Doug — May 27, 2008 @ 12:26 pm