Critical Thinking Exercise
by chunkdz
You are a space alien, minding your business, cruising the galaxy when you encounter an anomolous object. Upon inspecting the object you notice that it contains a gold phonograph disc with symbols etched upon the cover, which is electroplated with pure Uranium 238.
The disc was designed 100,000 years earlier by an Earth astronomer who anticipated this momentous occasion, and sent the disc into space aboard a spacecraft. The astronomer was counting on two things. First, that an advanced spacefaring civilization would find it; and second, that they would have surpassed a developmental milestone which would allow their civilization to determine that the object and the disc were purposefully designed.
What developmental milestone did the astronomer hope that your alien civilization had achieved?
A) Invention of the phonograph.
B) Development of symbolic language.
C) Invention of radiometric dating.
D) Development of critical thinking.
E) Invention of science.
Answer below the fold.
If you answered D) Development of critical thinking you are correct.
While the phonograph would have been a fortuitous coincidence, it would not be necessary for your people to detect design.
Symbolic language would be helpful in decoding the message on the disc, but this is separate from the detection of design.
Radiometric dating would be a useful archaeological tool, but not crucial to design detection.
Science, burdened by the requirement for objective independent knowledge of the designer would be hopelessly impotent in detecting design.
Critical thinking is the only known tool that can detect design in such an instance. Any civilization that was incapable of critical thinking would have no basis for inferring that the disc was designed with a purpose.
April 28th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Interesting thread, Chunk. How would you define "critical thinking"?
Comment by Bilbo — April 28, 2010 @ 3:07 pm
April 28th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Carl Sagan: “The spacecraft will be encountered and the record played only if there are advanced spacefaring civilizations in interstellar space. But the launching of this bottle into the cosmic ocean says something very hopeful about life on this planet.”
Well, after 100,000 years, ~99.998448653% pure. Sort of like Ivory soap.
Hmm. If you check out the surface of the disk, there are impressions of the vibrations the creature makes when it sings by squirting air through its meat. They apparently talk by flapping their meat at each other. Try not to think about it, but listen.
Yikes! It wants to talk to us! Then I imagine it wants to explore the universe, contact other sentients, swap ideas and information. Officially, we are required to contact, welcome, and log in any and all sentient races or multi-beings in the quadrant, without prejudice, fear, or favor.
Unofficially, I advise that we erase the record and forget the whole thing.
Comment by Zachriel — April 28, 2010 @ 4:00 pm
April 28th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
The designer was obviously hoping they could decode the disk. I don't think he gave any thought at all to whether they'd be capable of some preliminary step we might call "determine that it was purposefully designed." In particular, he almost certainly just assumed they'd just guess that it was purposefully designed and proceed from there.
But, yes, I think only D is interesting. As Bilbo quite rightly points out, "critical thinking" isn't actually well defined here, but I think it works fine as a casual term for suggesting an ability and interest in analyzing an object in a way that would reveal the decoded message.
Comment by don provan — April 28, 2010 @ 4:04 pm
April 28th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
The exercise kinda reminds me of a funny little movie 30 years ago, The Gods Must be Crazy", where rather than aliens and a gold disc, you had Bushmen and a coke bottle.
Comment by David S — April 28, 2010 @ 4:23 pm
April 28th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Thanks, Bilbo. I kind of like this definition.
Comment by chunkdz — April 28, 2010 @ 4:47 pm
April 28th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Thanks, Bilbo. I kind of like this definition:
I alluded to this in the OP.
Good point, assuming it was really 100% pure to begin with. A possible clue to aid critical thinking?
Sorry, but that would suggest that the aliens had independent knowledge of the designer. I'm not even certain that our aliens know that meat exists.
I think the designer was trying very hard to make it easy for the aliens to recognize design. At any rate, you are correct in that critical thinking can lead to an intellectually disciplined guess.
I disagree since decoding the message is ancillary to detecting design.
Comment by chunkdz — April 28, 2010 @ 5:05 pm
April 28th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Science. The byproducts tell us how long it has been since it was refined.
Notice the reference to experience. When we examine an object, we compare it to our library of known objects.
That's the problem, of course. We don't know what the aliens know or what they can compare the artifact to. An intelligent octopus may not recognize refined metals. That's the issue with a disemboded hypothetical. If we try to fill in the gaps, you say that's not it, but don't give any clues. So we have to guess again and again.
The disk was purposefully devised so that if the finders investigated the disk in detail, they may be able to determine facts about the designer. That the disk has slapping and whistling noises is a clue.
Many traditional people think that everything is designed, mountains and rivers have spirits and were put there for a reason. So if they found a gold disk or a coke bottle, they would probably think it was designed too. But that doesn't tell us anything we don't already know.
Comment by Zachriel — April 28, 2010 @ 8:11 pm
April 28th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
For aliens that like heavy metal pizza.
Comment by Tom MH — April 28, 2010 @ 9:36 pm
April 28th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
I'd have to see some evidence of that. I doubt they lifted a finger to "make it easy for the aliens to recognize design". I'm pretty sure they focused only on decoding.
But maybe I'm missing something. Perhaps you can explain specifically what they did to "make it easy to recognize design", I'd get a better idea what you're thinking. For example, what did they do to the disk to make it more obviously designed than the spacecraft it was attached to?
Nope. You can try to decode it without giving one fig about whether it was designed, let alone actually "detecting" design. Indeed, the fact that you could successfully decode it might well be the biggest clue you get that it was designed, in which case design detection obviously comes second.
Comment by don provan — April 28, 2010 @ 9:52 pm
April 28th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
No one is saying that science isn't useful. But science cannot detect design without some independent knowledge of the designer.
Notice that this is not science. It's critical thinking.
And it wouldn't need to. It would only need critical thinking skills.
If the aliens were familiar with slapping and whistling, then they might make an inference by analogy. But this is not science. It's critical thinking.
Critical thinking is a skill, and as such can be refined and perfected. The better we become at critical thinking, the better our choices and beliefs become. It's imperfect, and subjective, but very capable of detecting design. Science, on the other hand, does not have a prayer of detecting design without some independent knowledge of the designer.
This is why our astronomer hopes that a critical thinking civilization finds his disc.
Comment by chunkdz — April 28, 2010 @ 10:24 pm
April 28th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
According to Ann Druyen, who helped design the Voyager records, design was a primary concern. The discs were as much an artistic expression of design as they were an encoded message.
There is a message to be decoded, but it resides within a design of artistic beauty. Druyen even laments some of the artistic choices.
I don't think she was choosing "No Woman No Cry" because it would be easier to decode. I think she chose it because of it's beautiful design.
Sure. And you can detect design without ever decoding the message.
If this were to happen, would it be because of science, or critical thinking?
Comment by chunkdz — April 28, 2010 @ 10:46 pm
April 29th, 2010 at 5:19 am
chunkdz
This critical thinking you are talking about, is that like what archaeologists use to detect design? that is what the supposed aliens would be doing, afterall, looking at a artefact from an unknown culture.
That is quite different to chosing it because it makes it easier to detect design.
Don Provan said: "I doubt they lifted a finger to "make it easy for the aliens to recognize design". I'm pretty sure they focused only on decoding." Is there anything to suggest they did try to make it easier to detect design, rather than for aesthetic reasons?
Comment by The Pixie Again — April 29, 2010 @ 5:19 am
April 29th, 2010 at 8:00 am
That is incorrect, as already pointed out. A thoughtful octopus may not recognize it as design, at all. There are some reasons to believe that aliens may share some characteristics with humans, but that is not necessarily the case. But if so, then it's those points of similarity that may lead the alien to suspect design. It looks like something they've seen before.
The other problem is that you think that "Aha, design!" is critical thinking. It's not. A critical thinker will go "Hmm. Design?" and investigate further.
Furthermore, you might want to justify your answer:
Carl Sagan: The spacecraft will be encountered and the record played only if there are advanced spacefaring civilizations in interstellar space. But the launching of this bottle into the cosmic ocean says something very hopeful about life on this planet.
The American astronomer, Carl Sagan, was instrumental to the Message to the Stars project, and chairman of of the committee that selected the messages.
We can infer characteristics of the designer from its artifacts. We do it all the time. When Paley found the watch, he should have easily concluded human design. And he should have been able to investigate this hypothesis by collecting additional evidence. If you found a watch on Alpha Centauri, then depending on the degree of similarity, you might conclude human-like organisms were involved. Again, you investigate the hypothesis by collecting additional evidence. The details do matter. With the Golden Record, investigation will reveal the sound of slapping and whistling meat apparently communicating some sort of message.
-
Deep down Louisiana close to New Orleans
Way back up in the woods among the evergreens
There stood a log cabin made of earth and wood
Where lived a country boy named Johnny B. Goode
Who never ever learned to read or write so well
But he could play the guitar just like a ringing a bell
Go go
Go Johnny go
Go
Go Johnny go
Go
Go Johnny go
Go
Go Johnny go
Go
Johnny B. Goode
He used to carry his guitar in a gunny sack
Go sit beneath the tree by the railroad track
Oh, the engineers would see him sitting in the shade
Strumming with the rhythm that the drivers made
People passing by they would stop and say
Oh my that little country boy could play
Go go
Go Johnny go
Go
Go Johnny go
Go
Go Johnny go
Go
Go Johnny go
Go
Johnny B. Goode
His mother told him "Someday you will be a man,
And you will be the leader of a big old band.
Many people coming from miles around
To hear you play your music when the sun go down
Maybe someday your name will be in lights
Saying Johnny B. Goode tonight."
Go go
Go Johnny go
Go go go Johnny go
Go go go Johnny go
Go go go Johnny go
Go
Johnny B. Goode
Comment by Zachriel — April 29, 2010 @ 8:00 am
April 29th, 2010 at 8:57 am
Now you're just wasting my time. A concern about designing it well was, of course, very important. They engaged the whole world to design it, for heaven's sake. But that is not at all the same as saying they tried to make it "easy to detect design".
Well, this, of course, is the core of the disagreement between IDers and critics. IDers claim that "detect design" actually means something independently of specifically identifiable tasks such as "decode the message" or "identify tool marks". Critics say that detection of design happens only through the more specific activities based on hypothetical characteristics of the designer such as what he knows (decoding) or what tools he uses (tool marks).
Comment by don provan — April 29, 2010 @ 8:57 am
April 29th, 2010 at 11:36 am
Chunkdz laid a debate trap and some bit on the bait:
We can decode the genome, so by that same reasoning that is a big clue the genome is designed.
:
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 29, 2010 @ 11:36 am
April 29th, 2010 at 11:41 am
Sal's comment neatly sums up why ID is just another attempt at anthropomorphizing nature. Humans can write code, so every time we perceive something as code it must have been written by humans or something that acts like humans.
Did I omit anything?
Comment by olegt — April 29, 2010 @ 11:41 am
April 29th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Olegt:
Yes you did. The fact that if we discover a code it must have been written by something human-like *to the extent* that it also possesses rationality and foresight. IOW, "Acting like humans" needs to be qualified. There is no way to infer from code to "walking on two legs" for example. The only "human like" qualities that we could infer to would indeed be a few qualities such as foresight and rationality and even creativity — the ability to fashion something that isn't defined by physical law. ie: there is no physical law which states that in the word "cat," "c" must come before "a," nor is there a physical law which states that "cat" must represent a specific, usually furry, four legged mammal.
Oh, and of course, we could infer that a "brain" — a computation center — of similar complexity as humans is required for the existence of that code, depending on the complexity of the code itself.
Yes, just in case you are about to ask, I do believe that a computation center/information processing system capable of foresight, rationality, and creativity was also required for the generation of the code found in life. I wouldn't want to be inconsistent now would I?
Comment by CJYman — April 29, 2010 @ 12:36 pm
April 29th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
… so basically, the trap that chunkdz laid, that Sal alluded to is right on the mark.
Comment by CJYman — April 29, 2010 @ 12:38 pm
April 29th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
That is correct. Even a critical thinking octopus might not.
But a scientist octopus has no hope whatsoever of detecting design. Unless of course, he employs critical thinking.
Again, this is not science. It's critical thinking. Science is hopelessly impotent at detecting design unless it has independent objective knowledge of the designer. You are talking about inference by analogy.
Or not. That's a matter for critical thinking. We cannot test the designer hypothesis if there is no independent objective evidence of a designer. And if a hypothesis is not testable, then it's not science.
Don't you love it when critics start telling you what you believe?
Usually, they are very, very wrong.
Not science.
Comment by chunkdz — April 29, 2010 @ 1:05 pm
April 29th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Well, Don, they could have hidden the coded messages on the inside of the tubular legs of the craft. Or they could have made the disc look exactly like the rest of the craft so that it didn't stand out. Or they could have encoded on the disc the sounds of white noise, cosmic background radiation, and complete silence.
But they didn't. They created a beautiful work of art representative of the most beautiful parts of ourselves, and made it easily accesible. Rational design. Foresight. Discontinuity.
Unless you can come up with some way to test your hypothetical characteristics of the designer you are not in the realm of science.
And as such, your above assertion supports the conclusion that critics and non-critics alike detect design via critical thinking, not through science.
Comment by chunkdz — April 29, 2010 @ 1:24 pm
April 29th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
I'd say there are some similarities, yes.
Don't you think aesthetics reveal design?
Comment by chunkdz — April 29, 2010 @ 1:35 pm
April 29th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
CJYman wrote:
So, tell me how this is not anthropomorphizing.
Comment by olegt — April 29, 2010 @ 1:42 pm
April 29th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
ID proponents could be right, or they could be wrong in their suspicion that life is designed. How would it be confirmed? It could be confirmed if Designer appears one day and demonstrates His power or it could be disconfirmed by the OOL researchers.
Formally speaking, it is merely a falsifiable or provable hypothesis. Informally speaking, for many it is a believable one. I won't argue that life is formally shown to be designed, but for some it is a believable claim. I sincerely respect if someone has decided there is insufficient evidence. No argument from me.
I merely pointed out the implications Don Provan's very insightful observation that if something can be decoded, it is a big clue that it is designed.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 29, 2010 @ 1:50 pm
April 29th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
I'd say there are some similarities, yes.
Sure. They could have hidden the design within the structure of the craft. They could have simply encoded the message magnetically in a chunk of iron oxide.
They didn't. They made it easier for a critically thinking society to detect design.
Comment by chunkdz — April 29, 2010 @ 1:52 pm
April 29th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
I don't see the path that chunkdz is taking to separate critical thinking and scientific thinking in this example. In this example the umbrella of 'critical thinking' is nothing more than application of the scientific method and critical thinking and scientific thinking are synonomous.
The space alien/society uses hypothesis generation to formulate which questions to ask…..data/evidence is gathered based on the components outlined in chunkdz's definition and the data is evaluated to see if it supports, or fails to support the hypothesis. The process is repeated as the hypotheses/questions are further refined.
How does the record convey more information concerning design than the craft it is attached too? I don't see how in this hypothetical the space alien would assume that the craft is natural with a designed object attached. Seems like a package deal to me.
Comment by Acipenser — April 29, 2010 @ 2:59 pm
April 29th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
olegt:
It doesn't matter that there involves "anthropomorphizing" to the extent of dealing with qualities such as rationality, foresight, and creativity. Would it be against "critical thinking" or even science to anthropomorphize to that extent if a manuscript were found on Mars or SETI were to send us instructions on how to make a time machine? This brings us back to the issue of being consistent that we were discussing here.
Comment by CJYman — April 29, 2010 @ 3:20 pm
April 29th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Probably because that was not the path I took.
But scientific thinking and the scientific method are not synonymous. And critical thinking is certainly not synonymous with science.
Then simply explain how your alien design hypothesis could be falsified. Without any shred of independent objective evidence of the designer I predict that the Alien Academy of Science will shrug your hypothesis off as perhaps "an interesting if pseudoscientific bit of navel-gazing."
What you've described above is critical thinking in action. It is not science.
Didn't say the disc conveys more information, didn't say that the aliens would think the ship is natural.
Again, the astronomer could have hidden the message, or encoded the message on an asteroid or a piece of debris. He didn't.
Comment by chunkdz — April 29, 2010 @ 4:05 pm
April 29th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Yes, they could have made it hard to find, or hard to decode, or ugly, and they didn't. They didn't because they wanted it to be easy to find, easy to decode, and beautiful. Still not the same as makng it "easy to detect design".
Think about it: wouldn't making it hard to find, or harder to decode, or ugly be at least as much of an indication of "design" as what they did?
Exactly. That's why ID is a non-starter: it denies the designer has any hypothetical characteristics.
Comment by don provan — April 29, 2010 @ 5:00 pm
April 29th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Not true. Some hypothetical characteristics include, but are not limited to, "human-like" intelligence, rationality, and foresight.
Who told you that ID "denies the designer has any hypothetical characteristics"?
Comment by chunkdz — April 29, 2010 @ 5:34 pm
April 29th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
Critical thinking is science when conducted properly. There is no other way to conduct any science without critical thinking and when you apply critical thinking you are doing science. There is no difference whatsoever.
But perhaps I misunderstand your usage and/or separatioon of science and critical thinking. How do they differ? How can you conduct an exercise in critical thinking without applying the scientific method? A short description of the process might help.
false on all fronts.
Huh? How is what IU outlined not the basic tenent and process of science? As with all hypotheticals you are certainly free to make up anything you wish to include in the scenario. Which is why hypotheticals have limited utility in discerning anything.
Your focus in the OP is certainly on the record to the point of ignoring the craft alltogether. The analysis would include the entire package not one component. As Don states hiding the message would convey an equal amount of information about the natural versus constructed status of the craft/record even if it was hidden on an asteroid. What would happen if the space aliens found the asteroid(s) that have our spacecraft sitting on them before voyager is found? Does the scenario or process of critical/scientific thinking change in any fashion?
I think you are trying desperately to make a case where there is none to be found, IMO of course.
Comment by Acipenser — April 29, 2010 @ 8:19 pm
April 29th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Science entails critical thinking.
Of course it's science.
Instead of correcting the restatement, you avoid being specific. How is that meant to advance the discussion?
Of course it's science.
Comment by Zachriel — April 29, 2010 @ 8:26 pm
April 29th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Scientific thinking is part of the scientific method.
Science entails critical thinking.
Through investigation.
Comment by Zachriel — April 29, 2010 @ 8:30 pm
April 29th, 2010 at 9:13 pm
According to the above exchange, if I infer that the designer of life posessed the skills to purify homochiral nucleic acids then you think this is science.
I think it's time for you to define science for us.
Comment by chunkdz — April 29, 2010 @ 9:13 pm
April 29th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Because I had already specifically defined "critical thinking" early on in this discussion, well before you misrepresented me.
Please don't presume to lecture me about "advancing the discussion" even as you blatantly misrepresent my position.
Comment by chunkdz — April 29, 2010 @ 9:20 pm
April 29th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Perhaps it's because your point isn't clear.
"Aha, design!"
You haven't actually used critical thinking as you have presupposed your conclusion. That is, unless you mean it as a hypothesis. In which case, you suppose (not infer) there is a designer, and that you then intend to search for evidence of how it purified nucleic acids, and work your way up the causal chain.
Comment by Zachriel — April 29, 2010 @ 9:46 pm
April 29th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
Sorry, that's not an excuse to blatantly misrepresent someone's position.
Most intellectually honest people simply say "Could you clarify that?" rather than erect a strawman and blame me for it.
Try to keep the discussion honest or you'll get the boot.
Comment by chunkdz — April 29, 2010 @ 10:23 pm
April 29th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Two questions about this.
First, what objective criteria did you use to falsify design?
Second, what objective evidence would lead you to detect design?
Comment by chunkdz — April 29, 2010 @ 10:32 pm
April 29th, 2010 at 10:41 pm
It was an example of something which you seem to think is science.
Remember?
Comment by chunkdz — April 29, 2010 @ 10:41 pm
April 29th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
I think it's time for you to offer a definition of science.
The scientific method is not exclusive to science. It's been used for millenia, long before science ever arrived on the scene.
If it was found, yes. The purpose of camouflage is to hide design. But our astronomer didn't do that, for obvious reasons.
I eagerly await your concise definition of science.
A definition for "scientific thinking" would be nice too.
Comment by chunkdz — April 29, 2010 @ 10:49 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 6:19 am
Sorry, but you misstated our intentions.
If you try to keep it civil, we may agree to continued participation. That's up to you.
Like many ID Advocates, you use inference as an end-point. You infer design and call it a day. (Feel free to clarify your position, but your previous comments seem to support this interpretation of your views.) That seems to be part of your overall confusion. Ironically, then you conclude it is science that is helpless in making the design inference, and not your distorted idea of critical thinking. (And again, free free to argue your position. Undoubtedly, you don't think your idea of critical thinking is distorted.)
Science entails critical thinking, so any knowledge available to critical thinking is available to science. But science is a process of discovery, so any inference, no matter how obvious it may seem, is held tentatively. Hypothetico-deduction provides us a means to not only collect evidence supporting or undermining our tentative inference (whether an educated guess, derived from critical thinking, or simply an inspiration), but extending our understanding of the phenomena.
One doesn't falsify vague claims. The claim was that the rock formation was an artificial, human-like face. By taking that claim at face value(!) and investigating, it was determined that the formation did not form a face at all, but that the parsimonious explanation was that it was an illusion of perspective and wishful thinking.
Here you use the word "detect" much like you used "infer", as an end-point. Remember, science is a process. The most common evidence for design is similarity to known artifacts. Further investigation may reveal more details that could support or undermine the hypothesis.
You may want to justify your answer from above:
Carl Sagan: The spacecraft will be encountered and the record played only if there are advanced spacefaring civilizations in interstellar space. But the launching of this bottle into the cosmic ocean says something very hopeful about life on this planet.
The American astronomer, Carl Sagan, was instrumental to the Message to the Stars projects, and chairman of of the committee that selected the messages.
Comment by Zachriel — April 30, 2010 @ 6:19 am
April 30th, 2010 at 7:44 am
Many? There isn't one who does that.
Comment by ID guy — April 30, 2010 @ 7:44 am
April 30th, 2010 at 7:46 am
Intelligence, rationality, and foresight are behaviors, not characteristics.
Let's go back to your original statement: "Unless you can come up with some way to test your hypothetical characteristics of the designer you are not in the realm of science." How would you test for your hypothetical characteristics now that ID has allowed you to infer their existence?
By the way, you really let your drawers down when you threw in "human-like" to qualify intelligence. Of course, ID provides nothing at all that distinguishes "human-like" intelligence from any other kind of intelligence. Specifically, ID doesn't require that the intelligence be an agent: it could just as well be a process, for example. Nor does ID require that the intelligence be self aware or conscious. You should think about what made you feel compelled to modify "intelligence" in a way that has nothing to do with any actual ID theory. How would you test to identify "human-like" intelligence and rule out intelligence not like what humans have?
Comment by don provan — April 30, 2010 @ 7:46 am
April 30th, 2010 at 7:57 am
You've completely missed the point. The purpose of camouflage is to hide the object. Camouflage itself is "evidence of design".
Comment by don provan — April 30, 2010 @ 7:57 am
April 30th, 2010 at 8:50 am
Don:
Of course it does. That's why the flagellum is it's poster boy, it looks like a machine designed by a human. Analogy is really big in ID circles.
Comment by Guts — April 30, 2010 @ 8:50 am
April 30th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
No. I simply pointed out that what you did was blatant. Only you know what your intentions were.
But thanks for yet another blatant misrepresentation.
I'm actually trying to keep you civil. Consider this a final warning. Blatant misrepresentations will not be allowed.
Critical thinking is about deciding what to believe or how to act. Decisions based upon critical thinking are not set in stone, however.
Bingo.
So the most that science can determine is that the object did not look very much like a face. Science can say nothing about whether the object was designed or not. "It doesn't look designed" is not a scientific statement, it's a statement of personal perception.
You have stated that analogy is evidence for design. Analogies are found through simple observation. A bedouin sheepherder can do this without the need for the scientific method or a testable hypothesis.
Unfortunately, without any knowledge of the designer, science will never be able to generate a falsifiable hypothesis. In the absence of a testable hypothesis you are left with a simple everyday investigation, collecting analogies and facts, and deciding what to think about them. Critical thinking.
Comment by chunkdz — April 30, 2010 @ 1:19 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Yes, IF it is discovered. The point, Don, was that the designers didn't try to camouflage their message. They adorned it in gold with pretty pictures and beautiful music. Designs. That was my original point or have you forgotten what you were arguing about?
Critical thinking. We compare the perception of design to our knowledge base, attempt to remove biases, and formulate a belief based upon a rational assessment.
Comment by chunkdz — April 30, 2010 @ 1:35 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Oh and by the way, Zach, I'm still waiting for you to deliver me a definition of science. I'll probably hole your comments if they don't at least contain a good faith effort to define your term.
Comment by chunkdz — April 30, 2010 @ 1:43 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Sorry, but your manner on this thread has not been conducive to a reasonable discussion.
*plonk*
Comment by Zachriel — April 30, 2010 @ 2:16 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Is *plonk* the sound of you throwing your sippy-cup on the floor?
Comment by chunkdz — April 30, 2010 @ 2:34 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
I don't know if you expect me to fall all over myself in rushing to provide a definition to a request made by you especially in light of your totally ignoring a previous request by me for clarifiication.
prior to your request I made this plea for clarification:
so before I would consider presenting a definition I will wait for your response to the above quote from my second post in this thread.
excuse me but science has been on the scene for as long as humans/animals have been evaluating how the world works and affects them as individuals.
If the methodology (i.e., critical thinking) follows the guidelines of the scientific method (which critical thinking must do in order to be considered critical) then it falls under the label of science. That some experiments (e.g., when is it safe to pull out into traffic) are simpler than others does not mean that science/critical thinking is not the applied method to the decision making tree.
Comment by Acipenser — April 30, 2010 @ 3:45 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
I buy the following definition of "critical thinking" offer by chunkdz:
Here's my proposition: Scientific thinking is a dominant factor in Critical Thinking, but not the sole factor.
Analogy 1: Kobe Bryant is a dominant factor in the success of the Los Angeles. But he is not the sole factor. Kobe, alone, will lose to any team, even the lowly New Jersey Nets.
This does not minimize the talent, skill and importance of Kobe Bryant.
The same is true for scientific thinking. It is probably the most important tool in the tool belt. Even though I like to josh and joke, I do not want to minimize the importance of science, nor the efforts done by scientists.
But scientific thinking is only a part, albeit a large one, of critical thinking. Just as Kobe must have a supporting cast for the Lakers to win, science must too have a supporting cast — philisophical thinking, historical thinking, experiential thinking, analytical thinking, imaginative thinking and, even, intuitive thinking. All those types of thinking, in my opinion, fall within the purview of critical thinking.
Comment by David S — April 30, 2010 @ 3:53 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Okay.
Here's an example of critical thinking.
When I first heard about partial birth abortion, I wanted to know what I should think about it. Was it moral? Should I endorse it? Should I decry it? Should I participate?
I began by learning about the procedure. I learned about whether late term babies experience pain. (They do). I read up on the proposed law and reflected upon the ramifications. Having once lost a child, I felt certain emotional biases toward the child, but decided to cancel this out against the emotional testimonies of mother's who have done the procedure, thus removing to the best of my ability my own bias. I attempted to put myself in the babies' proverbial shoes, I attempted to put myself in a mother's shoes. I weighed the ethical ramifications within the medical field. I listened to arguments from both sides of the issue. I looked for alternatives that were better or more humane. Etc.
In the end, critical thinking about the issue led me to decide that partial birth abortion is immoral, and should never be practiced unless the life of the mother were in immediate peril.
Now Acipenser is telling me that I have just done science. Acipenser is saying that the rational and logical evaluation of the evidence through disciplined and skillful conceptualization IS SCIENCE. Acipenser is telling me that science has demonstrated that pertial birth abortion IS IMMORAL!
But strangely, I never used the scientific method. I never even had a hypothesis. Just a desire to know what I should think about an issue. And even if I had a hypothesis, I could never hope to falsify it, and I could never get a science lab to replicate my results with any consistency.
Critical thinking possesses a subjective element that science cannot abide.
Critical thinking textbooks are filled with similar critical thinking exercises about slavery, immigration laws, religious rituals, contemporary legal cases, anything on which we can form an opinion about. You can even critically think about which religion you should choose – (let that sink in) A quick web search brought up a host of other critical thinking topics which students are learning to navigate using their critical thinking skill set.
Here's a sample question from the California Critical Thinking Skills Test.
Here's a sample question from the International Critical Thinking Reading and Writing Test:
Acipenser, Critical Thinking is less a methodology and more a skill. To glean meaning and purpose from the words of the Declaration of Independence does not require the scientific method, or simply some objective scientific analysis of vocabulary. It requires reflection, historical context, reasoning skills, and conceptualization.
Is there overlap between science and critical thinking? You bet. But one place where science cannot go is in testing a designer who cannot even be demonstrated to exist. This is the whole reason why Judge Jones, the NCSE, the AAAS, and hundreds of scientists named "Steve" declared that ID is not science – because it cannot test for a designer that can't be observed.
Our aliens are in the same boat now. Perhaps they too perceive design, but have no independent objective knowledge of the designer. Are you, Acipenser, telling me that science can detect their designer – against the collective wisdom of Judge Jones, the NCSE, the AAAS, hundreds of 'Steves', and Chunkdz?
Comment by chunkdz — April 30, 2010 @ 5:15 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
chunkdz,
If you honestly thing "critical thinking" is a way to test a hypothesis, I think we're done. You yourself just called critical thinking a skill, which makes our exchange the equivalent of "How do you add two numbers?" being answered with "Learn to add." I don't think you're applying critical thinking to this conversation.
Comment by don provan — April 30, 2010 @ 5:44 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
It's also an attitude.
Comment by chunkdz — April 30, 2010 @ 5:59 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
chunkdz:
Of course you had a hypothesis and you outlined it in your opening:
these were the hypotheses/questions you were asking prior to determining which methodology you were going to apply to determine if there were support for the questions or if it were falsified by the available information. You vaguely mention some methodology you used but the details were so vague no one could ever replicate them given the paucity of information provided. The results of your query are also so vague that no one but you could hope to understand the process you used to determine the conclusion. I realize that this might be a result of the format we are discussing this issue but it leaves any hope of determing the veracity of your conclusion by the wayside. In discussion of critical thinking exercises (such as you outlined) more detail is needed before any conclusion can be made about there even being a critical thinking exercise let alone any comment on the conclusions drawn.
As for the declaration of being a critical thinker in this process you've already outlined several instances of recognized bias but provide no clarification on how these biases were dealt with in the process. Stating that you tried to put yourself in someone elses shoes is certainly insufficient for an outside observer to ascertain the process that you used to eliminate bias.
If your methodology were consistent and drew on avalable information the results would certainly be able to be replicated. That you think they could not be replicated says more about the degree of critical thinking (versus lapses in critical thinking with things like emotional thinking clouding the process) that was applied rather than the overall conclusion.
The critical thinking exercise must include a recognition of the limitations of all assumptions made during the process since they may all skew the results one way or another. Without ackowledging and presenting the assumptions utilized and how thier strengths and weaknesses may influence the conclusion weakens the critical thinking aspect of the exercise. For example what limitations and weight were placed on the exercise of 'placing one into the proverbial shoes of the unborn'? What available knowledge is there to support such a notion is possible or is it basically a case in wishful thinking which has no place in a critical thinking exercise.
To me the exercise you outlined represents an attempt at critical thinking but falls short on any number of levels we can discuss….one of which I outlined above. If you look at the steps you've taken you have conducted a scientific investigation to a degree but appear to have lapsed into non-critical thinking in some areas, i.e., wishful thinking that you can actually put yourself into a unborn's shoes.
I disagree. Critical thinking is a methodology as outlined in your definition. The skill comes in applying the methodology to prevent and recognize all the non-critical thinking thoughts that creep into the process and have great effect on the strength of the conclusions, e.g.,. wishful thinking and intuitive thinking.
The principal reason ID is not considered to be science is that ID proponents do no research, present no methods and the verification of these methods, have no evidence/data for the existence of a designer that they assume to exist prior to even developing any methods or theories, and they depend on analogies to human activities and arguments from incredulity. Someday they (IDers) might actually recognize that a presentation of data may get them a lot further than rhetoric or criticism of established theory.
If a designer is actively interacting with the world/universe then the results of these actions can be tested for their existence or non-existence. For example testing the hypothesis of prayers being answered is an experiment that can (and has been) done.
With so little to go on about your space aliens they may well conclude that voyager appears to be designed or not. We have no idea what conclusions they might reach since we have no idea what tools they have available at their disposal.
Comment by Acipenser — April 30, 2010 @ 6:09 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Yet blind, undirected chemical processes is considered science even given it doesn't have any positive evidence for it and no way to test it?
What do you have Acipenser?
As for ID proponents not doing research well that is just plain false.
The book "The Privileged Planet" was based on the research of Gonzalez.
Dr Behe irreducible complexity is based on research.
The whole design inference is based on observations and experience.
OTOH your position is based solely on not allowing the design inference.
And that is just sad, as in pathetic.
Comment by ID guy — April 30, 2010 @ 6:34 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
A hypothesis is not a question. Even if you put "/questions" after it.
The exercise I mentioned took place over several years and included much too much to include on a blog response. It is just a brief and very incomplete example.
According to the Foundation For Critical Thinking, intellectual empathy is a very valuable intellectual trait and important to critical thinking. It is a way to counter our natural tendency toward egocentrism.
I suspect that you may be trying to define critical thinking in such a way that anything that seems unscientific must not be included in critical thinking.
According to Richard Paul, whom I borrowed my definition from, "critical thinking is based on self-corrective concepts and principles, not on hard and fast, or step-by-step, procedures".
I outlined a skill set, not a methodology. I'm surprised you would characterize it as such.
Why don't ID'ers publish research in scientific journals? Because science cannot test for a designer for which there is no independent objective knowledge. Little surprise then that science is completely impotent in detecting design.
You did mention analogy though, a valuable tool for detecting design.
Yup. It's just a critical thinking exercise.
Comment by chunkdz — April 30, 2010 @ 7:31 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Excuse me for interjecting in an ongoing debate, but I must ask…
If OOL researchers are successful in coming up with a viable pathway from non-life to life, how does that show that life is not designed?
Comment by Daniel Smith — April 30, 2010 @ 7:45 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Yes, a hypothesis can take the form of a question. For example the question: Does temperature affect fermentation? is a valid hypothesis. It is not in the better format of an "if then" statement but it is still a valid hypothesis.
I have no way to evaluate the time frame but I agree with the brief and incomplete nature of the response. So brief and incomplete that it is impossible to evaluate if critical thinking was a part of the process leading to the conclusion.
Intellectual empathy is a valuable trait but it has its' limitations. For example what experiences/data/evidence indicate that it is valid to put yourself 'in the proverbial shoes' of the unborn? The critical thinking breaks down completely if the thinker fails to recognize that this is nothing more than wishful thinking disguised as critical thinking….it is a fallacy and any conclusions inferred from that portion of the exercise must be considered fallacious and pure speculation at best.
No, I am pointing out some of the different aspects of thinking that are not critical in nature and are too be avoided and these often invade our thought processes.
Much like science and the critical thinking exercise is one that proceeds by a procedure and not a willy nilly affair. You format a question, you collect the data, analyze that data, determine if the data supports or fails to support the notion you are questioning. From there iterative repetition refines the question until the critical thinker is able to reach a conclusion.
IDers can't even provide the validation for the methods they propose to be used in design detection let alone even begin to test for design.
The tool is only as valuable as its limitations allow. In the case of ID human experience is its limitation. IN my experience the failure to recognize the limitations and assumptions built int the analogy is a major failing of ID.
and as with all hypotheticals virtually worthless for discerning anything whatsoever.
Comment by Acipenser — April 30, 2010 @ 8:38 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
Sounds like a great 2nd grade science project, but a terrible hypothesis.
Webster's:
Wikipedia:
Dictionary.com:
Acipenser, a hypothesis is an answer (a tentative one), not a question. If well formulated it should be risky, testable, and falsifiable.
Comment by chunkdz — April 30, 2010 @ 8:54 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
False. We can begin by looking for clues. Rationality. Foresight. Discontinuity. Analogy. Hallmarks of design.
Comment by chunkdz — April 30, 2010 @ 8:59 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
No it is true. IDers cannot provide the data that validates their paroposed methodology.
limited to what humans produce and how they act as a basis for the analogy.
It certainly is not the best form of a hypothesis but it is still a hypothesis nonetheless. Much like the question: Does molecular size affect diffusion across a membrane?
That is a valid hypothesis but can be restated in a better format such as a provisional statement to obtain a refined hypothesis.
I agree but you need to include the basic research question that the hypothesis is derived from in order to be complete.
Comment by Acipenser — April 30, 2010 @ 9:35 pm
May 3rd, 2010 at 7:59 am
Please tell us about the methodology used to determine that blind, undirected chemical processes can account for the origin of living organisms and their diversity.
Of course we can- it is all about our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.
And to refute any given design inferences all one has to do is show that matter, energy, chance and necessity are all that is required.
Comment by ID guy — May 3, 2010 @ 7:59 am