Inductive Argument for ID Revisited
by BilboAwhile back I offered what I considered to be an inductive argument for ID here:
http://telicthoughts.com/inductive-argument-for-id/#more-1609
Even though it wasn't an argument from ignorance, it was criticised as being such. Recently, MiKe Gene has brought up the topic of proteins here:
http://telicthoughts.com/an-amazing-design-material/
What I consider to be interesting is that we can make an inductive argument for ID in regards to proteins. First, let's review the form of an inductive argument:
(1) All known Bs are Cs.
(2) X is B.
(3) Therefore X is probably C.
There is an inherent weakness in any inductive argument: How do we know our sample of Bs is large enough to allow a valid inference to C? And the answer is: We never know. That doesn't stop us from using inductive arguments in order to draw probabilistic conclusions. What it means is that we should realize the weakness, and be cautious about our conclusions. With that in mind, here is the following argument:
(4) All known origins of proteins (not reproduced by a cell) are intelligently designed. ( We know this because we human beings are now able to design proteins, and we don't know of any other way they originate.)
(5) The original cells contained proteins. (A premise that will be discussed below.)
(6) Therefore the proteins of the original cells probably were intelligently designed. (From (4), (5), and inductive reasoning.)
The major objection to this argument is premise (5). One can argue that the original cells did not contain proteins. In fact, I think this is the argument that RNA world proponents would adopt. They would argue that the original cells consisted of RNA, and that proteins came much later.
Which is why I also have the following inductive argument:
(7) All known origins of RNA (not reproduced by a cell) are intelligently designed. (We know this because we human beings are now able to design RNA, and we don't know of any other way they originate.)
(8) The original cells contained RNA. (From the RNA world proponents.)
(9) Therefore the RNA in the original cells probably were intelligently designed. (From (7), (8), and inductive reasoning.)
From what I have read, most origin of life scientists abandoned the "protein first" hypothesis, because the production of proteins from amino acids, without the aid of the machinery of the cell, or of intelligent intervention, seemed far too implausible.
If what Robert Shapiro has written recently is correct, the problem of producing RNA without the aid of the cell, or by intelligent intervention, is much worse.
We seem to have at least a weak inductive argument for intelligent design, whether the first cells contained proteins or RNA. Of course, many origin of life researchers are now considering other options, such as metabolism first scenarios. It will be interesting to see what they come up with.
Meanwhile, there are ways of strengthening the inductive argument. One of them is by considering arguments from Analogy, Discontinuity, Rationality, and Foresight. I've offered one for proteins, here:
http://telicthoughts.com/smile-for-the-camera/
I imagine a similar one can be offered for RNA. If we take the weak inductive arguments for proteins and RNA, and combine them with the weak arguments for Analogy, Discontinuity, Rationality, and Foresight, we should get a stronger overall argument. How strong? Time may tell.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
For a sample of what Robert Shapiro has written, go here:
http://telicthoughts.com/ool-r...
Comment by Bilbo — April 30, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Your incredibly weak argument seems to boil down to this: except for non-intelligent life, only intelligent life has been able to produce proteins. Therefore intelligence came first.
Comment by Raevmo — April 30, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
First, for clarity I would recommend wording (4) as "All proteins of known origin are intelligently designed."
Second, I would point out that your sample set used in point #4 is so small as to be statistically meaningless. We have designed a handful of proteins out of the millions we know know about.
Third, I would point out that the correlation you are observing is a trivial consequence of how you are collecting the data. Its guaranteed to be a biased sample.
Fourth, the statement "All proteins of known origin are intelligently designed" is not even true. We have witnessed random mutations that have resulted in new proteins being generated by cells that were not previously generated by earlier versions of those cells. To exclude such examples rendered the result meaningless.
Fifth, the same argument applied to RNA sequences leads to the same response.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 30, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I love this part. All known origins of proteins (except the ones that are not designed by humans) are intelligently designed. That's one heck of an exception.
Secondly, we can use your inductive argument to show that the first cell was actually designed by a human being. Just replace 'intelligently designed' with 'designed by a human'. The induction has the same strength and validity.
Comment by hrun — April 30, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Or how about this induction that show that intelligent design must be wrong:
All known intelligences are cell-based.
There were no cells around when the first cell came into being.
Thus, it follows that no intelligence could have created the first cell.
Inductions are fun!
Comment by hrun — April 30, 2008 @ 8:27 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
hrun:
No cells or intelligence on planet earth. A small sample.
Comment by Bradford — April 30, 2008 @ 9:04 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Raevmo:
Only exceeded perhaps by the weakness of traditional approaches. At least the premise is right on target.
Comment by Bradford — April 30, 2008 @ 9:06 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
No, Bradford. The induction still holds:
All known intelligence is cellular.
There were no cells around (ANYWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE) when the first cell in the universe was created.
Thus, no intelligence could have created the first cell.
Of course we can also prove that humans actually created the first protein on earth:
All proteins are created by humans (except the ones that are created in cells).
There were no cells around when the first protein appeared on earth.
Thus, humans created the first protein.
As I said, induction is awesome.
Comment by hrun — April 30, 2008 @ 9:08 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Or designed by an intelligent designer. Intelligence is the applicable feature of humans.
Comment by Bradford — April 30, 2008 @ 9:08 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Heya Bilbo,
Sniping aside, I've pondered similar. I'll keep my own thoughts holstered for now, but this sort of concept touches on Nick Bostrom's simulated reality theory for me. The in-principle potential of intelligence is one worth pondering on some grand scales. Especially since intelligence seems to obviously exist, but true chance is only postulated to exist.
Comment by nullasalus — April 30, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Bilbo, when the sharks begin to circle it's because you've you've drawn blood.
Comment by Bradford — April 30, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
How do you know? Why not an opposable thumb?
The induction remains of the same strength. Have you seen any other intelligence than humans create a protein? I thought not. So, the induction that humans created the first protein is as strong (actually even stronger) than the induction that an intelligence created the first protein.
You see, because all known instances of human beings actually created proteins. But not all known instances of intelligence (e.g. apes, dogs, …) created proteins. So, intelligence is not necessarily a good identifying feature of 'things that are able to create proteins'.
Comment by hrun — April 30, 2008 @ 9:12 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
hrun:
You live on a small speck within the universe. Your postulates are very speculative.
Comment by Bradford — April 30, 2008 @ 9:12 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Or designed by an intelligent designer. Intelligence is the applicable feature of humans.
Ha. It's the opposable thumbs of researchers then. It wouldn't have anything to do with all that schooling and experience. I know babies with opposable thumbs. Which is the more distinguishing feature for a researcher. Opposable thumbs or knowledge and experience?
Comment by Bradford — April 30, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
What in the world do you mean? Are you arguing that cell-based organisms were around in this universe before the first cell appeared in the universe?
Comment by hrun — April 30, 2008 @ 9:17 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
hrun
You have a point. Let's call it advanced intelligence for now.
Comment by Bradford — April 30, 2008 @ 9:17 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
How would you know all forms of intelligence in the universe must be cell based as we understand cells?
Comment by Bradford — April 30, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
You're no fun. Get out those six guns and start blazing away.
Comment by Bradford — April 30, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Says you. But that does not invalidate my induction.
Look, try and argue against my induction and I will argue against Bilbo's induction in the same manner.
Again, how does this relate to the induction?
Is it not true that all known proteins (that were not created by cells) were created by humans, intelligent beings, creatures with opposable thumbs, bipeds, …?
So, that means, we can, per induction argue that the first protein was created by humans, intelligent beings, creatures with opposable thumbs, bipeds, …
And for everybody else who might not have noticed: I'm not arguing that any of these are good or useful inductions. They are all equally ridiculous.
Comment by hrun — April 30, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Why call it advanced intelligence if we have a much more accurate term to describe it: Human beings!
Comment by hrun — April 30, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
By induction.
How would you know that proteins are only created by intelligent beings?
Comment by hrun — April 30, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
True but if I point out that Newton invented the calculus which is the more relevant characteristic of Newton with regard to this- his brain or his hair color?
Comment by Bradford — April 30, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
I don't know? How do you know?
Have you observed numerous different things that created proteins and looked what characteristics they had in common? So far, you have a sample size of one. How do you know that only one feature of humans (namely intelligence) is the common feature of 'things that create proteins'.
What's actually going on is that your bias is showing. You assume that only intelligent things create proteins and pretend that you are using induction to support this assumption.
Look, Bradford. I am using exactly the same assumptions as Bilbo is for his induction. Why are you not arguing against his induction? Look carefully at his point (4): [W]we human beings are now able to design proteins, and we don't know of any other way they originate. From his point (4) and (5) my slightly modified (6) follows in exactly the same manner.
Comment by hrun — April 30, 2008 @ 9:27 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
I don't but the fact that, not just human beings, but highly trained and intelligent ones, are needed to piece together polypeptides in extra-cellular environments clues us in on a few things.
Comment by Bradford — April 30, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
hrun,
Of all the properties you list - intelligence, opposable thumbs, bipeds, humans, etc - which can you conceivably discard as utterly necessary with regards to intentional creation?
It seems like all that remains is 'intelligence' and 'some capability to interact with the physical'. Hell, if you go by front loading, all you need is considerable intelligence and a singular creative act.
More importantly, what can 'unintelligent force' do that intelligence can't? If you buy Bostrom's simulation theory or similar arguments, 'nothing'. And since intelligence seems to definitely exist, and 'undirected force' is merely postulated, Ockham's Razor demands what?
Comment by nullasalus — April 30, 2008 @ 9:29 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
True but if I point out that Newton invented the calculus which is the more relevant characteristic of Newton with regard to this- his brain or his hair color?
You punted.
My bias is showing? So we are not to make any inferences based on what we know about cells and proteins that counter your biases?
Comment by Bradford — April 30, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
I added this as an edit to my previous post:
Look, Bradford. I am using exactly the same assumptions as Bilbo is for his induction. Why are you not arguing against his induction? Look carefully at his point (4): [W]we human beings are now able to design proteins, and we don't know of any other way they originate. From his point (4) and (5) my slightly modified (6) follows in exactly the same manner.
Comment by hrun — April 30, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
I was arguing about how ridiculous Bilbo's inductive argument is. Did you make an inductive argument?
Nothing wrong with your bias showing. Just don't pretend that it's an inductive argument. You are arguing from what you think is critical to design proteins. We knew that already before Bilbo's induction.
Comment by hrun — April 30, 2008 @ 9:37 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Again, as I already told Bradford: You are adding stuff to the inductive argument. Look at Bilbo's argument up there. Read carefully point (4) and (5). Now look at my point (6'):
(6') Therefore the proteins of the original cells probably were designed by human beings. (From (4), (5), and inductive reasoning.)
How is my point (6') not valid, while Bilbo's (6) is supposedly valid? What's the difference?
Comment by hrun — April 30, 2008 @ 9:39 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
hrun,
I'm asking on my own - Bilbo's smart, he can defend his own view. Are you saying you won't answer, because you only want to argue against Bilbo's specific view? If so, fair enough. I thought it was assumed I'd be taking my own tact on this. I never do much defense of someone else's position, I just comment to them directly.
Comment by nullasalus — April 30, 2008 @ 9:46 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Well, if you are asking on your own, then here is my direct answer:
I am specifically arguing against how ridiculous such inductive arguments are. You are not making an inductive argument.
Comment by hrun — April 30, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
hrun,
Wonderful. Care to comment on the argument's merits, rather than its classification? I'd honestly enjoy hearing it. Blame Bradford, he accused me of not being fun. I can't take that sitting down.
Comment by nullasalus — April 30, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
You punted.
It's not ridiculous. One could note that amino acids have been found to form outside cellular environments. Spark discharge experiments will do it. They form in racemic mixtures. That does not bode well for natural scenarios if cells are at the end of this pathway.
Comment by Bradford — April 30, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
hrun:
Is this a chicken-egg scenario to you with you opting for the protein egg leading to the chicken (or intelligent human)?
Comment by Bradford — April 30, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Nah. It'll be too time-intensive.
Comment by hrun — April 30, 2008 @ 10:33 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
If the argument is not ridiculous, then how about my inductive argument that shows that humans created the first cell? Is that one ridiculous? Why? It uses EXACTLY the same assumptions and conclusions as Bilbo's argument.
And there you go again with an argument that is not inductive. That's perfectly fine. I will not say that your argument is ridiculous (even though there has been work done on how homochirality can occur even without the presence of human designers (or enzymes). But my point is that Bilbo's argument is ridiculous, because we can argue with the same set of assumption and using the same logic that the first proteins were created by human beings.
Do you at least agree that my conclusion follows directly from Bilbo's assumptions (4) and (5)? And do you at least agree that I am using exactly the same logic to come to my conclusion (6')?
Comment by hrun — April 30, 2008 @ 10:41 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
You and Bilbo can make separate inductive arguments which follow from your premises. As usual it will be other information used to bolster and debunk inductive arguments. Inductive arguments can be true.
Comment by Bradford — April 30, 2008 @ 11:03 pm
April 30th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Oh boy. Bilbo is making an inductive argument using the assumptions made above. I show that using the same assumptions and the same logic leads to human beings creating the first cell.
This clearly shows that Bilbo's inductive argument as presented above is nonsense.
Now, you might be able to make other arguments that intelligent beings designed the first protein. Then you would use different assumptions (and no induction). Those I would not call nonsense (or at least if I would I would give different reasons).
Comment by hrun — April 30, 2008 @ 11:17 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 1:04 am
Sure it might be true, but then again I might make a statement by stringing together random words and state it as an axiom and I might get lucky and have it be true. I think the point hrun is making is that the truth of an inductive argument will not be proven using inductive arguments (unless you are talking about a formalized system). As such the utility of an inductive argument used in the context of biology is highly questionable.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — May 1, 2008 @ 1:04 am
May 1st, 2008 at 7:31 am
Here is the general argument:
(1) All known origins of proteins (not reproduced by a cell) have a property X.
(2) The original cells contained proteins.
(3) Therefore the proteins of the original cells probably had a property X. (From (1), (2), and inductive reasoning.)
Suppose X is "was intelligently designed". Premise (1) is true, but does the logic hold?
Now suppose X is "was designed by human biochemists in the last 50 years"… Again, premose (1) is true. Does the logic still hold? If you answered yes to the first question, then - as the logic is identical - the logic must still hold.
How can you pretend inductive reasoning is valid if you accept it for the conclusions you want, and reject it for conclusions you do not want?
Comment by The Pixie — May 1, 2008 @ 7:31 am
May 1st, 2008 at 8:00 am
Human make canals, so anthropomorphic gods make rivers.
You have two cases. Synthetic RNA and cellular RNA. We know the origin of the first. We don't know the origin of the second. (Well, we have some ideas, but leave that aside.)
A single datum. That's a very weak induction. You can't reasonably extrapolate or interpolate from a single data-point. Indeed, that's about as weak of an induction as could possibly be conceived"”even in principle. But that's okay!
Science is not naïve induction. Take your preliminary concept, and form a valid scientific hypothesis. Assuming that the original RNA was intelligently designed, what specific and distinguishing novel prediction can you make? What can you tell us that we don't already know?
"”
hypothesis, a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its empirical consequences.
Comment by Zachriel — May 1, 2008 @ 8:00 am
May 1st, 2008 at 9:03 am
I'd more likely point out that a protein centric approach is not what one should look to if seeking to find the origin of cells. A better focus would be the origin of information storing nucleic acids. If protein synthesis were to serve a purpose amino acids need not be randomly sequenced but rather ordered for biological function. Any form of reason- deductive or inductive- is ultimately constrained by biological realities.
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2008 @ 9:03 am
May 1st, 2008 at 9:20 am
So you agree that Bilbo's induction is weak, at best.
Comment by Zachriel — May 1, 2008 @ 9:20 am
May 1st, 2008 at 9:58 am
Well, Bilbo agrees with that as well, I would assume. He even pointed out in the OP that we should keep in mind the weakness of the argument.
And with that you would fall into the same pit of mud if you were to use inductive reasoning as Bilbo is doing.
Comment by hrun — May 1, 2008 @ 9:58 am
May 1st, 2008 at 10:02 am
And where would you find your rational inspiration- in putative primordial mud?
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2008 @ 10:02 am
May 1st, 2008 at 10:11 am
Huh? I don't follow? What 'rational inspiration' are you talking about?
Comment by hrun — May 1, 2008 @ 10:11 am
May 1st, 2008 at 10:14 am
Bilbo cites "original cells." How do you go about determining their causal genesis?
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2008 @ 10:14 am
May 1st, 2008 at 10:17 am
Certainly not with such inductive arguments. They lead to nonsensical conclusions that human beings are the origin of the original cell.
Comment by hrun — May 1, 2008 @ 10:17 am
May 1st, 2008 at 10:20 am
B!
Some fuzzles are buzzles.
Comment by Doug — May 1, 2008 @ 10:20 am
May 1st, 2008 at 10:23 am
Let me take a guess then. Cells contain vital polymers like proteins and nucleic acids. If we find that the respective monomers bond outside cells we have evidence for the origin of life.
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2008 @ 10:23 am
May 1st, 2008 at 10:43 am
We do? Seems to me that with that we have a potential pathway of how vital polymers could have formed– not evidence for the origin of life.
Comment by hrun — May 1, 2008 @ 10:43 am
May 1st, 2008 at 10:50 am
Good. I'll keep that in mind next time I come across an origins related paper.
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2008 @ 10:50 am
May 1st, 2008 at 11:20 am
Have you actually come across a 'origins related paper' that claimed to have 'evidence for the origin of life' because it found that 'respective monomers bond outside the cell'?
Comment by hrun — May 1, 2008 @ 11:20 am
May 1st, 2008 at 11:40 am
hrun:
Researchers themselves are careful how they describe what happened and are likely to use words like "suggest" or "speculate" when connecting events to theory. Internet mavens are not so circumspect. Look at Urey-Miller. Only amino acods there. Not even polypeptides. Yet the origins arguments citing the experiment were abundant.
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2008 @ 11:40 am
May 1st, 2008 at 11:40 am
I like the argument.
RNA is an unstable molecule by virtue of an (OH) group at the 2' position of the ribose. So it's not good as a long term information carrier. DNA only has a hydrogen at the 2' position, confering it great stability.
Ribose, depending on the environment it is in, has a half-life between a couple of hours to less than 50 years.
Even at a neutral pH ribose has a very short half-life.
In a prebiotic scenario ribose (and other sugars, but ribose in particular) is a terrible reagent.
You almost immediately need the more forgiving internal cellular environment. As well as other agents in place to buffer against the degradation of the RNA.
Back to the prebiotic scenario you have a formose reaction that does NOT selectively yield ribose. Other sugars as also produced and nothing to prevent ribose and the other sugars from binding to each other indiscriminantly.
Comment by Doug — May 1, 2008 @ 11:40 am
May 1st, 2008 at 11:41 am
That's what I thought. While researchers are careful to use arguments, inductive or otherwise in their scientific papers, 'internet mavens' are not so careful. Maybe that's why I spent about an hour arguing against this 'inductive argument for ID'.
Comment by hrun — May 1, 2008 @ 11:41 am
May 1st, 2008 at 11:47 am
I don't know why you exerted such effort. After all Bilbo himself was quite circumspect in acknowledging the limits of his musings:
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2008 @ 11:47 am
May 1st, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Hrun,
you aren't pointing out anything Bilbo wasn't incredibly forthcoming about.
Why would you argue against what you preceived to be a ridiculuous argument?
Comment by Doug — May 1, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 12:07 pm
So Bilbo (and Bradford) were aware that using exactly the same premises as above and using exactly the same logic we can argue that 'human beings' were the designers of the original proteins?
Why would I argue against what I perceive as an sound, logical argument?
Comment by hrun — May 1, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I was well aware of that caveat, since I wrote previously:
The reason why I exerted the effort was to comment precisely on that weakness. If the assumptions and logic utilized in the argument directly lead to the conclusion that human beings were the designers of the first protein, then this weakness should be pointed out. And it clearly needed pointing out, since you, Bradford, apparently were unaware of this fact. The induction leads to completely nonsensical conclusions.
Comment by hrun — May 1, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 12:11 pm
That's your personal spin, not ours. You wrote this:
Why would I want to replace intelligently designed with designed by humans when the former phrase is the more comprehensive of the two and allows for greater possibilities not excluded by logic or evidence?
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 12:16 pm
It's called being difficult for the sake of being difficult.
Human-like intelligence? Come on, hrun.
Comment by Doug — May 1, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 12:26 pm
You would do this because it is part of Bilbo's (4). Human beings are the only known source of proteins. You (nor Bilbo) have made any argument that would support your generalization that 'human' is the defining characteristic but intelligence.
And more comprehensive? Give me a break. That's not how induction works.
How about this induction: All observed swans are black. Thus I conclude that all birds are black (by using induction). Now somebody might interject that I used an invalid generalization. But hey, if you can do it (generalize from observed humans to all intelligences) why not me (generalize from one observed species of birds to all of them)?
You call it being difficult. I call it pointing out a enormous flaw in a ridiculous argument.
Comment by hrun — May 1, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Of course the assumptions lead to the conclusion that the first protein was designed by an intelligent source. Your straw man is an obvious distortion and a parody which has rebounded back on you.
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 12:31 pm
hrun:
This is a continuation of your less than honest smoke screens. What you actually did was take an assertion like "it was a black bird that ate the corn" and distorted it to "a crow ate the corn." You then tried to pin the less inclusive statement on us when the wider possibilities are what we intended (and what the logic itself allows).
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 12:44 pm
How so?
Let's look at Bilbo's statements again:
Bilbo rightly observes that all known origins of proteins (that are not produced by cellular processes) are actually produced by human beings.
He decides to GENERALIZE 'produced by human beings' to 'intelligently designed'.
It's the same form of GENERALIZATION that I make when instead of 'inducing' that all crows (I guess I meant to type crows previously) are black I 'induce' that all birds are black.
Why in the world would you call this a straw man if I actually rely solely on the statements of fact and logical conclusions that Bilbo relies on? Could you explain?
Comment by hrun — May 1, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 12:46 pm
You scenery chewing…………
Enormous - ridiculous?
The only thing ridiculous is your inability to see that Bilbo said "human beings are NOW able to design proteins".
hrun said:
More like the nonsensical thought that NOW means billions of years ago.
Comment by Doug — May 1, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 12:50 pm
That's not a generalization. Human beings are acting as intelligent agents when they design proteins.
Comment by Doug — May 1, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 12:59 pm
As you note "Bilbo rightly observes that all known origins of proteins (that are not produced by cellular processes) are actually produced by human beings." Bilbo then proceeds to his inductive statement: "Therefore the proteins of the original cells probably were intelligently designed." His statement "probably were intelligently designed"; invokes a group that would include humans but humans could be a subset of a larger group. Your inductive statement substituting humans for intelligent designers is a distinctly different inductive statement. You then proceeded to destroy the strawman you created.
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 1:04 pm
All known origins of proteins (not reproduced by a cell) are intelligently designed.
Is that the same as saying, Bilbo, that all proteins known to have been designed were designed? What about proteins "reproduced by a cell"? Could they have been designed too?
Rather than "All known B's are C's," you might say something like, "Of all known B's some are known to be C's." Of all known proteins some are known to be designed. Of the remainder there may be some question about their origin. Do they "look designed"? If some subset of B (or even all of B) were designed then how were they designed? How do we design proteins?
Do the proteins we design look anything like proteins whose origin is unknown?
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond...
Comment by Rock — May 1, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 1:18 pm
As you point out, Newton's brain is an "applicable" feature of humans in this context. So we may conclude, by your own reasoning, that all proteins are created by things with brains. Right?
Comment by aiguy — May 1, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Doug, do you have any idea how induction is supposed to work?
Comment by hrun — May 1, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Yes, exactly. Bilbo generalizes, by choosing one specific characterstic of human beings.
Bilbo has zero evidence (in his inductive argument) that not just humans, but other intelligent agents as well can create proteins. I asked before, have you observed any other intelligent agent (other than human beings) create proteins?
Comment by hrun — May 1, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Bradford: Intelligence is the applicable feature of humans"¦. True but if I point out that Newton invented the calculus which is the more relevant characteristic of Newton with regard to this- his brain or his hair color?
Nice non-sequitur aiguy.
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Since none of us observed the first protein or first cell and you have zero evidence of a non-celullar, non-intelligent source you must be arguing that your biases take precedence over mine or Bilbo's.
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 1:35 pm
It's only a bias if one makes such a ridiculous inductive argument. Bilbo is doing so. I'm not.
[I'm showing that by applying the same statements of fact and the same logic you come to ridiculous conclusions-- that does not mean that I am in fact arguing by induction that the first protein was designed by a human being.]
Remember, I'm not even arguing against the first protein being designed. I'm arguing that the induction used by Bilbo is nonsensical.
Comment by hrun — May 1, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Come on, Bradford - I made no non-sequitor, and you have made no argument. Hrun and I are simply pointing out that by generalizing the one instance of "intelligent agency" that we know of which can make proteins (that is, human beings), you have hypothesized a class of things from a single instance. There is no evidence that there are any other members of this class, and there is some reason to believe that if any other "intelligent agents" did exist, they would be similar to humans in other ways besides their ability to create proteins.
In fact, if the only "applicable feature" of humans/intelligent agents you wish to discuss is the ability to make things like proteins, then of course explaining proteins by intelligent agency is merely explaining them by "that which can create proteins" - not a helpful explanation.
Comment by aiguy — May 1, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 1:48 pm
As Bradford pointed out, the reason Newton could invent the calculus was not because of his hair color, but because of his brain. I think Bradford is quite right here. So can anyone suggest why we should think that any other entity that could do something smart like inventing calculus (or flagella) wouldn't need a brain?
Comment by aiguy — May 1, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Aiguy, you're just begging the question.
Comment by Jean — May 1, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 2:05 pm
There is no evidence of other members of this class and no evidence of pathways to cells so what do we do- shut inquiries down for lack of evidence or base competing theories on a different set of assumptions and proceed from there? Fearfullness of exploring possibilities not to your liking is a non-starter.
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Bilbo is setting forth a position that he acknowledges is possibly wrong and subject to further discoveries, information etc. That's very reasonable.
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 2:09 pm
So far I've been told I'm offering non-sequitors and that I'm begging the question, but nobody seems to be able to say why.
Compare:
YOUR ARGUMENT:
1) All complex functional things like proteins (outside of those we find in biological systems) are created by human beings.
2) We know that human beings use their intelligence to create proteins
3) Thus we infer that something used its intelligence to create the proteins we find in biology
MY ARGUMENT:
1) All complex functional things like proteins (outside of those we find in biological systems) are created by human beings.
2) We know that human beings use their brains to create proteins
3) Thus we infer that something used its brain to create the proteins we find in biology
Why is your argument correct, but mine is question-begging and illogical?
Comment by aiguy — May 1, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 2:10 pm
He is also attempting to avoid even consideration of alternate possibilities because of personal preferences.
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 2:13 pm
In such a situation, we abandon these useless inductions-from-single-examples and keep looking for actual evidence. If there is no evidence for pathways to cells and there is no evidence for extra-terrestrial (or supernatural) brainy protein inventors, then obviously the correct answer is WE DO NOT KNOW. That is certainly the answer that I subscribe to.
Comment by aiguy — May 1, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 2:14 pm
No. What we do is we refrain from making such inductive arguments.
Fine. What about my position. I acknowledge the same caveats as Bilbo: The designer of the first protein was a human being.
Nope. Aiguy is also pointing out how useless such inductive arguments are.
Comment by hrun — May 1, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 2:15 pm
So why limit brains to humans and why not use minds instead of brains since it affords more options beyond your very limited earth experiences. We know what your biases are but why the control freak urges and the need for others to swallow your view of things?
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Induction is not used in scientific theories?
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I'm confident Bilbo will assent to the we do not know position. People ponder, think and blog. Lighten up.
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 2:24 pm
On the sample size of one? And in addition with unsupported generalizations? No! Certainly not!
Surely. And if people blog on threads where comments are enabled, then sometimes people comment on those ponderings. And if the argument put forth in those blog-posts is, let's call it, lacking in rigor, then some people may comment on that. Lighten up.
Comment by hrun — May 1, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I do not limit brains to humans - obviously lots of animals have brains of different sorts. I even think that computers constitute a brain of a sort. Still, everything we know about intelligence (minds) suggests some complex information processing apparatus is required. If you'd like to hypothesize that the cause of biological proteins was something with a brain, that is a sensible hypothesis… but it is rather old suggestion (e.g. Crick's panspermia), and it languishes for lack of evidence, and because it simply pushes back the question of the origin of biological complexity.
As for minds existing without brains: In our experience, minds only arise in the presence of working brains. If we stop your brain from operating we can say with complete certainty that your ability to design anything will cease. You have already conceded that Newton's brain was critical to his ability to invent the calculus.
I like when people speculate about intelligence, consciousness, minds and brains, and origins. There are all sorts of ideas that I find fascinating, and have no desire to control what people believe. The only reason you take me for a close-minded control freak is because I hate when people pretend that scientific evidence supports their position about God. I hate when Dawkins does it, and I hate when Dembski does it.
This infernal and specious over-generalization from human beings to "intelligent agency" is the critical misstep that people make when trying to prove God via scientific evidence, and I always like to point out how dumb it is. That's all.
Comment by aiguy — May 1, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Aiguy,
I see no one trying to 'prove' God here. If anything, I see an argument the OP himself classifies as 'weak inductive', and which no one is asserting is a certainty. It's the stuff of speculation, relying on certain premises to lend strength rather than demonstrate inarguably.
I don't think this is nearly comparable to what Dembski does, certainly not what Dawkins does. When do either go 'Now, this argument I'm about to give you is weak and speculative, but it broaches some interesting ground I think is worth investigating'? It's not really the preferred style.
Comment by nullasalus — May 1, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 2:51 pm
nullasalus,
I think you are right about Bilbo in the OP, yes. Still, the ensuing discussion centered on the validity of generalizing from human mental abilities to a class of things called "intelligent agents", and inferring (speculatively or not) that this class of things includes some non-biological member that could create proteins (and life, presumably). So while nobody here said anything about God, and nobody here argues this constitutes an inarguable proof, it is precisely the same (specious) argument made by Dembski and those who do attempt to ground theism in science. So I like to show why it is fallacious.
Before this horrible politicization of ID, blogs like this would never lead to emotional arguments… nor would they draw anywhere near the audience they enjoy now. There would just be a few of us geeks who like science and philosophy, tossing around ideas. But at this point, sadly, the stakes are high - not because of you or me or Bilbo, but because of the people who would most certainly want to use pseudo-scientific arguments to political ends.
Comment by aiguy — May 1, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 2:54 pm
With only one data-point, it's not an induction. At best, it's an argument by analogy.
Comment by Zachriel — May 1, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Zach,
Argue with hrun and Bilbo. I'm using their description.
Aiguy,
I guess the gulf between you and I is, I don't see 'ID' as the point at which that started to happen. Pseudo-scientific arguments were being played towards political/social ends far in advance of the Discovery Institute's founding; I'd argue they were reacting to the climate, not creating it. Grounding atheism in science isn't new; at this point, it's a long cultural tradition, and every bit as (in)valid as the theist moves.
Personally, I'm more relaxed about it all. Maybe because I feel more comfortable with a fight that illustrates the controversy of all sides, than with a sedate mood where only one side is being passed off and taken as reasonable.
Comment by nullasalus — May 1, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Nullaslus,
I suppose I'd be more "sedate" if I wasn't convinced that 'ID' proponents were explicitly motivated by a strategy to advance normative positions on the back of bad science. If I believed, for example, that evolutionary biologists were attempting to argue for eugenics on the basis of science, I would be seeking out their blogs and taking their arguments apart as best I could. I don't see that happening, though. I do, however, see web sites that argue that science has shown we were designed by a purposeful designer, and this means we need to respect the purposes that this designer had in mind. This is a terribly frightening line of reasoning, just as frightening as the insane notion that Godless evolution implies we ought to kill Jews.
Comment by aiguy — May 1, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 4:11 pm
aiguy,
Really? I never see the two connected on ID sites, honestly. DI's feeds, UD, TT, ARN.. Yes, you have theists who believe that they can see evidence of design in nature. (I believe as much - but I think (pro or con) the argument is the stuff of philosophy, and outside established limits of science.) But no one making the 'there's design in nature, therefore we must act in this way' leap. No atheists who make the 'there's no design in nature, therefore we must act this way' leap either. More of a supporting argument in an array than an 'is-ought' game.
Can you show me where this is being done? Oddly enough, the place I'd least expect it is UD, everyone's favorite complain-site. They'll happily trumpet buddhists, agnostics, muslims, jews, and just about anyone else who think the ID view has intellectual grounding. I even saw a shinto article once. Pretty good about keeping politics (aside from DaveScot's global warming deal) out of their topic posts too.
(As an aside: I had some Jehovahs Witnesses visit me recently. At the time, I was a towering, groggy slavic gentleman who was sleeping 30 seconds prior, so they read me a quick bible quote, tossed me some literature, and vamoosed. Awake and Watchtower both had a couple pages discussing the ID argument in a very loose fashion - but even there, there was no is/ought.)
Comment by nullasalus — May 1, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Another hobgoblin. If life gives evidence of having been intelligently designed those who think so should state their views and cite their reasons. Painting their motives invites the opposite response and is a non-science point.
It is critics who have politicized the discussions and who needlessly inject negative emotionalism into the mix.
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Who argues that "we need to respect the purposes that this designer had in mind" because "science has shown we were designed by a purposeful designer?"
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Wow! 98 comments already! I'll try to read through them, but my time at the library will expire before I have time to respond.
Comment by Bilbo — May 1, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I think we can make your premise 4 more precise:
4) All known proteins (not reproduced by a cell) were synthesized by humans
5) The original cells contained proteins
6) Therefore the proteins of the original cells were probably synthesized by humans.
Comment by Nick — May 1, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 5:04 pm
nullasalus,
Sure - here are just a few examples I found in a 20-second search where people argue that if we are intelligently designed to be heterosexual we ought to act that way:
From worldnetdaily:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/...
http://www.narth.com/docs/refl...
http://www.afajournal.org/2003...
Again, I grant that these are not ID types making normative arguments; rather they are religious types co-opting ID (or the language of ID, since it isn't recognized science yet) to substantiate their own arguments. But we all know that the main players at the DI are all about connecting ID to politics… because they have said as much in the Wedge document.
Bradford,
I didn't argue that this inference was fallacious because of the advocate's motives (I argued that it was fallacious because of the fallacy of over-generalization). I simply explained that these motives were why I cared about making these arguments.
Again, I'm NOT saying anyone here is guilty of politicizing anything. I'm just interested in disabusing folks of various bad arguments that are likely to be co-opted by activists elsewhere.
Comment by aiguy — May 1, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 5:09 pm
aiguy
And there are the mirror opposites of the DI who return the favor.
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 5:12 pm
I have about three minutes left. Too many to respond to. I thought all of you (critics and proponents) had good things to say. I don't know if I can get to anot