Information Filters
by BradfordMike Gene posted an entry entitled Gap-Centrism at The Design Matrix. Mike references a blog entry at An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution called The Origins Debate through the Lens of Piagetian Theory. From Marlowe C. Embree's blog piece:
To a Piagetian theorist, intellectual growth and development come through the refinement of so-called schemata. A schema is a way of thinking about or understanding the world, a “lens” or “window” through which one views reality. Thus, schemata are like “mini-theories” or “mini-paradigms”, and can include so-called “metanarratives” or “superstories” that provide a comprehensive explanation of all of reality. As such, religious (and secular) views of the nature of ultimate, metaphysical reality are types of schemata.
This sounds very close to my own perception of how one views reality. Embree's well written article can be accessed at the link. I'll highlight just one more brief passage:
While, as an evangelical, I believe that true conversion in the Scriptural sense of the term - call this big-C Conversion — is not humanly explicable and requires a supernatural referent, there is little doubt that dramatic viewpoint shifts of various kinds, which we might call little-c conversions, have an obvious Piagetian explanation.
I agree with the author who notes a concept sometimes dubbed spiritual blindness. After years of exchanges I've come to believe that atheism compromises one's ability to objectively evaluate historic paradigms. I've undergone several conversion transformations during my own lifetime. I recall my first discussion about what some would call intelligent design and others creationism. It took place in the eighties before Dembski was well known and noone had yet heard of Behe. The one conversing with me was intelligent, articulate and a Christian but what I recall most was my own attitude. I felt superior. More knowledgable. I was insufferably arrogant and sought the company of others who were like minded. At the time I was as mainstream as you could get. Carl Sagan was my idol and support for abiogenesis was part of my schtick. My religious, political and origin views have since changed but not because of radical transformations in the availability of information relevant to those spheres. What changed was me. More specifically my schema as Embree might put it.
Let's look at this quote from Mike Gene's blog:
And here we find the reason why so many people, on both sides of the origin debate, embrace “god-of-the-gaps.” A gap is anomalous information and both sides need the gap in order to force accommodation. This is easy to see in the case of many creationists and IDists, who insist phenomena exist which cannot be explained by evolution. But the critics likewise demand gaps. For example, over the years I have asked them what type of data might exist that would cause them to suspect life was designed. Almost all struggle with this question, but when pressed, most they say they need something that evolution cannot explain. They ridicule a search for gaps while at the same time demanding such gaps.
Mike aptly shows the flip side of the gap coin. I would add that sometimes gap charges are thoughtlessly flung. Gap arguments can be confused with differing interpretations or a sense that Nature limits empirically supportable claims. More from Mike:
Or consider my hypothesis of front-loading evolution. Over the years, my critics have been able to find only one “counter-argument” against it – they argue that since FLE does not entail anything that cannot also be explained by mainstream evolutionary theory, FLE is superfluous and should be dismissed. But this is not an argument; this is a complaint. And it is complaint that boils down to this: “We should ignore FLE because you show no gaps in our way!”
Very good Mike. The gap mentality is deeply embedded indeed.
September 25th, 2008 at 10:55 am
A Gap is a *lack* of information, such as not knowing what causes the planets to move in arcs across the sky.
That's why hypothetico-deduction was devised. It separates valid empirical claims from metaphysical confusion.
A specific and distinguishing empirical prediction entailed in the hypothesis. More particularly, there is a link of causation between the artist, the art, and the artifact.
Unless it makes a distinguishing prediction that is entailed in the hypothesis, it is scientifically superfluous. That doesn't mean angels don't really push planets on celestial spheres to look just like gravity, just that lacking scientific support, they are extraneous entities.
Comment by Zachriel — September 25, 2008 @ 10:55 am
September 25th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Mike's FLE has shown where the real angel pushing polemics lie. After Darwin published his theory an associated argument surfaced and resurfaced again and again. That argument debunked Paley's watch argument based on Darwin's theory of evolution. Design was debunked because an evolutionary process was said to be devoid of purpose. But FLE is telic. If an absence of distinguishing predictions makes an attachment of purpose superfluous then the absence of an ability to mechanistically distinguish the two alternative views of evolution makes Paley debunking illogical. Mainstreamers need to come to grips with the reality that their own views on purpose are without empirical foundations. Available scientific data cannot be the means by which the telic/non-telic arguments are settled.
Comment by Bradford — September 25, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
September 25th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Why assume all Gaps are instances of a lack of information?
You would be assuming a gap (in the sense of a lack of information) only because you believed that there needs to exist a mechanical or materialistic way to bridge that gap.
Do you know that all gaps are indeed bridgeable with materialistic approaches?
It appears that your metaphysics are leading you to assume certain things about the nature of reality. Which is fine, we all do it. But, it's not science to declare that all gaps are instances of a lack of information. Certainly not always bridgeable by mechanistic accounts.
Comment by GringoRoyale — September 25, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
September 25th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
That is not why hypothetico-deduction was devised.
Inductive approaches were believed to be scientific. And by the looks of it, alot of folk on-line debating this topic appear to be quite happy with inductive approaches. You and I had alittle spat a year back when discussing how theory formation and the relationship between hypothesis and evidence/data is subjective.
I stated that there is no logical connection between collected points of data and the theory they are believed to support. Data always underdetermines a theory. I could be mistaking, but I believe you denied this.
It wasn't to seperate empirical claims from metaphysical confusion, it was by virtue of the fact that a scientific theory can't be proven true by inductive measures.
Comment by GringoRoyale — September 25, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
September 25th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Mike Gene:
I wonder who all those unnamed critics are. Could they be a figment of Mike's imagination? I have never heard a critic of ID make that argument, but I suppose it's possible that Mike talked to different critics. If FLE makes exactly the same predictions as the simpler standard evolutionary theory, then perhaps the only way to distinguish them is to catch the designer in the act of front-loading. Traces of an ancient biochemistry lab for example. Until that happens, there's no reason to give any credibility to FLE creationism.
Comment by Raevmo — September 25, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
September 25th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
They are only extraneous entities with respect to science. If one has direct metaphysical experience with the entities that "push planets around", scientific considerations and attempts at explanations are extraneous. The value of various kinds of gaps is a philosophical and/or metaphysical issue, to which the knee of science must bow.
Comment by kornbelt888 — September 25, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
September 25th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
The ancient biochemistry lab was planet earth. A common remark in exchanges over the origin of life is that time has erased whatever evidence might have existed. It's not an unreasonable argument. But if the historic evidence is erased for a non-design conclusion we would expect the same for a designed one. Unlike standard evolutionary theory you lack a reputable model that offers origin predictions let alone distinguishing ones.
Comment by Bradford — September 25, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
September 25th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
How are you measuring the complexity of MET against the complexity of a telic agent?
Unless you've forgotten, MET is a theory (or set of theories) invented and swirling about the minds of some very complex telic agents. How is it that MET is simpler (in light of its source) than a telic source for life?
It's quite clear that your are a materialist looking for materialistic answers to everything. That fine and dandy. But you do realize that such statements are merely statements of faith based on your own particular philosophy. I'm wondering if you have a copy of it enshrined on your office wall?
Comment by kornbelt888 — September 25, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
September 25th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
At best, Paley's Watch is an analogy.
Of course, vague and insubstantial claims of purpose are not subject to scientific validation, but we have strong evidence that purposeful organisms planned and built the Empire State Building.
Comment by Zachriel — September 25, 2008 @ 7:37 pm
September 25th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Because that is what the term means (more properly, a gap in knowledge).
No. But not all Gaps are equal.
No. I can't even enumerate all the Gaps.
That's what the term means.
You're probably thinking of God of the Gaps, filling the Gap with any of a number of colors of metaphysical pastes.
Comment by Zachriel — September 25, 2008 @ 7:49 pm
September 25th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
And vague and insubstantial inferences of non-purpose, based on references to biological organisms, are not subject to scientific validation. Paley's watch is more than an analogy. It is an argument for design based on the nature of the observed object. The interacting parts and the purpose those parts impart are part of a generalized template argument for an approach to design detection. Whether the argument stands is an open question. I did not invent Paley debunking. It was around before I was born and is contengent on an assumption that evolution cannot be of a telic nature. It is superfluous to science but not to culture warring. The DI was formed after I was born so get which side fired the first shots in the culture war?
Comment by Bradford — September 25, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
September 25th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Sure there is. In many cases, we can rigorously define that relationship, usually with statistics.
We normally would use underdetermination when comparing competing theories. If two theories more or less predict the same data, then they are considered underdetermined. In some sense, all theories are underdetermined. But that's the nature of science. That doesn't make all theories equivalent, and there is often significant and rigorous ways to determine the best fit to data among competing theories.
Well, it seemed to work that way for Newton. He didn't have to deal with all sorts of extraneous concepts. For instance, he didn't have to explain the source of gravity. He just had to predict its action. But I won't defend the point further here.
A theory can't be proven true by hypothetico-deduction either, no matter how powerful the prediction. (Induction is usually a simple type of hypothetico-deduction. We extrapolate and predict.)
Comment by Zachriel — September 25, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
September 25th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
That's fine. ID makes pretentions to scientific validity.
That's true. But you do realize that the complexity of planetary movements that once were imagined to require equally complex manipulations by telic beings can be simplified to a few basic rules of motion.
Comment by Zachriel — September 25, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
September 25th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Not erased, but attenuated, derived. There is significant evidence concerning events surrounding the origin of life.
Comment by Zachriel — September 25, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
September 25th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
I provided a specific example to show when "available scientific data can be the means by which the telic/non-telic arguments are settled".
Nevertheless, "purpose" can be treated as an extraneous entity for many theoretical purposes, such as predicting the trajectory of a planet.
Comment by Zachriel — September 25, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
September 25th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
There is considerable speculation. Unless we see things happen naturally we are speculating.
Comment by Bradford — September 25, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
September 25th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Zach said:
But that's not my point. We use that term to label something in our universe that doesn't currently have a mechanical/materialistic bridge. Because it is assumed that all gaps are bridgeable by these means…. eventually.
Maybe it isn't gap. That we have a full understanding of all mechanical processes, and this gap will remain. When you were saying a gap is a lack of information you were assuming that from the perspective of a materialist: sky hooks need cranes.
But that is a metaphysical statement. We don't know that all gaps are bridgeable…. and it is just as possible that a full mechanical explanation can be had and a 'gap' remain (I'm only quoting gap for the sake that there is not a lack of mechanical information… but from the perspective of a physicalist/materialist a sky hook remains).
So, we can't state that all 'gaps' are instances of a lack of information. Certainly not 'information' as it would be understood from a physicalist/materialist.
Comment by GringoRoyale — September 25, 2008 @ 10:41 pm
September 25th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Zach said:
I feel this just pushes the gap back. We have contingency "a few basic rules of motion" and it can be argued that those telic being/s play the role of the necessity that accounts for contingency.
Since basic rules don't conjure themselves into existence.
Comment by GringoRoyale — September 25, 2008 @ 10:46 pm
September 26th, 2008 at 9:14 am
kornbelt:
If I understand it correctly, FLE = MET + Telic Entity Occasionally Sneaking In Some Fresh Info. That makes FLE more complex, doesn't it?
I wouldn't call myself a materialist, since I haven't seen a definition of matter that I fully agree with. There are probably plenty of "substances" out there that we failed to discover so far.
Comment by Raevmo — September 26, 2008 @ 9:14 am
September 26th, 2008 at 9:28 am
We use it to describe an area of ignorance. The problem occurs when *making a claim* absent specific evidence or even a way to test it. God of the Gaps.
Now, there is little doubt that in many cases, scientists will propose 'materialistic explanations' as hypotheses for testing. But that's because they have reason to believe in these cases that a 'materialistic explanation' may be available, and that such an explanation is reasonably parsimonious. If they haven't a clue, then the problem is usually left to metaphysics.
We think of telic entities as capable of complex behavior. So the complicated motion of planets or the moodiness of weather lends itself to an analogy with angels and gods. But now the movement of planets is resolved to simple rote rules. May as well suppose Intelligent Falling, because that's all the motion of planets turns out to be.
Comment by Zachriel — September 26, 2008 @ 9:28 am
September 26th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Some ID proponents do that. Not all, obviously.
Sure. But there are no rules, actually, "out there." Only conjectures, models, and hypotheses formulated by telic beings such as yourself. Where did your telic processes come from? Why do you trust them?
Call it "angels obeying God" or call it "laws of nature". Which one you choose depends on the philosophical paste you happen to enjoy eating. The parsimony principle is no help in such a case unless you can demonstrate the source of the "laws", and why matter should go about "obeying them."
In short, the fact that we can perceive simpler "rules" doesn't answer the question of why the actions occur. "Rules" are merely descriptive, not explanatory.
Comment by kornbelt888 — September 26, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
September 27th, 2008 at 8:23 am
The parsimonious theory is rules alone, not rules plus angels, or rules plus unicorns, or rules plus metaphysical paste. You may consider it "no help" in answering whatever philosophical problem you are grappling with. But it is nonetheless the parsimonious theory. Angels and unicorns and paste are extraneous entities.
Rules are descriptive. That is correct. In the case of gravity, the rules are explained as due to curves in space. But just Newton's rules alone constituted a valid scientific theory.
Anything else? I have no philosophical objection to a belief in angels. Just to claims of a valid argument of their existence.
Comment by Zachriel — September 27, 2008 @ 8:23 am
September 28th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Only to science, which has obvious limitations. The position that "The parsimonious theory is rules alone" is only true if the philosophical paste you're eating allows for rules in the first place, and that human reason is valid in this respect. The eating of paste must come first.
Now, if one had metaphysical certitude that angels moved the planets according to, say, God's command, then your view might be the parsimonious one, but it would be less complete. In such a case the rules would be a description of what telic entities are doing as a regular matter, as an obedience to God's will. As is stands, it is incomplete, because we don't how gravity is unified with the subatomic. Incomplete parsimonious rules may allow you to feel comfortable dismissing the angels, but in this case it's no different than a zoo animal who sleeps while the zookeeper refills his food and water dishes, awaking to find food and water every morning and concluding that the darkness of night is responsible. The darkness of night hypothesis more parsimonious than the idea of the zookeeper. (And for heaven sakes, if there were a zookeeper, he may eventually make demands on us. We can have none of that.)
At any rate, angels moving the planets are not scientifically verifiable to all at present as the cause of the effect associated with rules. But that merely shows the weakness of science to answer the question at present. Mind you, I'm not saying you should believe that angels are moving the planets…. unless you have reliable evidence that they are. Some of those who believe they do, may in fact have, or have had in the past, such evidence, and whether or not they could demonstrate it to you is quite irrelevant to reality. But I could understand why someone such as yourself might whine about it. People like you seem to think that everything true and important should be vouchsafed to you, as if reality were democratic.
Zachriel, were did you come by the philosophical paste that asserts that human reason is valid, and that science is the most superior means to answer questions such as the nature of planetary movement?
Comment by kornbelt888 — September 28, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
September 28th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
My primary interest in these forums is science—certainly not the rehashing of centuries-old and hackneyed metaphysical arguments.
Heaven Forbid I would 'dismiss' angels. But they are extraneous to the science of orbital dynamics unless you can provide distinguishing evidence between the Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Angelic Motive Force (Gravity + Angels).
You are at least trying to think this through, but you are bandying about the word "conclude" incorrectly.
At this point, the animals only have a correlation between the food and the darkness. To show causation (responsibility) requires more evidence. For instance, learning to control the lights, staying awake, or testing a hypothesis concerning the actual origin of the food.
The Theory of Gravity has been tested a number of ways. For instance, Halley's measurement of the retardation of the pendulum—a wonderful example of a subtle prediction that would otherwise be unexpected.
What is the specific and distinguishing observation that is *entailed* in the darkness theory? What is the actual hypothesis? All you have is a correlation. We agree that the Sun rises in the East. That was never in doubt. But how do we relate this to the Earth's motion or gravitational attraction?
Not even close to my position. Science is not democratic, but evidence-based. And my primary concern is only when people make unjustified scientific claims.
Did I make those claims? Sometimes I neglect to put "scientific" in front of "evidence" in a discussion about scientific evidence, but I endeavor to be clear on that point. Science is a particular way of looking at the world. Not the only way, or even the most important way. But very effective within its realm.
Comment by Zachriel — September 28, 2008 @ 9:58 pm