Irrational Design
by MikeGeneI popped into the comments section of an ID news story to post a book blurb. Someone responded with the following argument:
Mike Gene, "Could evolution and Intelligent Design be intimately linked in an elaborate dance we call life?"
No. There is no evidence of design, unless you want to consider the possibility that the the designer is a fucking idiot. The "design" of many organisms is fraught with problems. Our optic nerves are wired backwards from what an intelligent designer would use, although cephalopods got the right design. (I always thought that squid were God's chosen organism).
As I have shown before the "no evidence" claim is mostly rhetorical. But let's consider the argument, as it clearly is part of the Matrix "“ Irrational Design.
There are two ways to respond to this argument.
1. Rule it "out of bounds." Mainstream ID insists that we not focus on the quality of design, but simply whether or not a feature could exist without design. After all, the irrational design argument is subjective and boils down to something that "looks irrational."
My problem with this response is that mainstream ID also wants to extract some benefit from apparently rational design. Consider how many proponents of design commonly point to the sophisticated machinery of the cell as evidence of design. Are these any less subjective than irrational design? Thus, you either take all such appeals off the table or allow them. But if you allow them, you should not rig the game so the appeals simply play to someone's confirmation or disconfirmation bias.
2. The second response is the one I outline in the DM – acknowledge that irrational design counts against the ID hypothesis. Yet, as I said, you should not rig the game. If irrational design counts against ID, then rational design counts for ID. The problem here is the blind watchmaker and the degree and extent to which it can also mimic a rational designer. But this simply modifies our level of confidence. We have two ways to think about it.
a. Regardless of the blind watchmaker, we can still apply the criteria as a means to test the strength of an ID inference, functioning like a quasi-falsification test. That is, we should not expect irrational deign from life's designer. And this opens up the research doors. If one has other reasons for suspecting ID behind some feature, then evidence of irrational design may only be apparent, and a closer look may uncover evidence of a deeper rationality. In essence, it is this very thinking that allowed me to uncover the pattern seen in Figure 7-2 in my book.
b. A closer look at the blind watchmaker's ability to mimic a rational designer is needed. As I argue in the book, there are two reasons I find this appeal to be weak:
i. The only "˜engineering' criteria employed by the blind watchmaker is "it works." And "works" is defined relatively, simply coming up with some way, any way, to contribute more offspring than the next fella to the next generation. That's all. This is why we expect tinkering and hodgepodges from the blind watchmaker.
ii. It is also quite weak when explaining IC machines precisely because the IC nature of many of these machines force us to appeal to cooption "“ a fortuitous event.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:58 am
One problem with the 'bad design' argument is that, with regards to humans, you're dealing with creatures who are capable of upgrading and changing their own designs. How come eagles get to fly and humans, if we're the 'favored' creatures, don't? That would have been a more valid criticism before the Wright brothers. And sight? Considering the innovations from telescopes to spy satellites to video cameras to microscopes, pulling out 'design can't be true because cephalopods have a better-designed eye' is a short-sighted (ha ha) move.
On the flipside, I'm willing to bet that quite a number of creatures with 'superior designs' are no longer around to show off their capabilities – in large part because environment and situation changes, slowly or quickly. How many now-gone creatures used to be the ones with the most 'rightly' designed features?
That's one puzzle I see with inferring design, though; the lack of an obviously final product.
Comment by nullasalus — February 1, 2008 @ 12:58 am
February 1st, 2008 at 1:25 am
Hi nullasalus,
You bring up some interesting food for thought. My point here is that we either take the bad/good design arguments off the table, or we wrestle with them. It's interesting to me that both sides complain these arguments are too subjective, but oddly enough, only when the version that works against them is advanced.
I opt for the second choice because I have found it to be fruitful guide (helping me to find things I would not have noticed before). And that's just what an investigator needs.
Comment by MikeGene — February 1, 2008 @ 1:25 am
February 1st, 2008 at 1:37 am
Mike,
I should mention I see that same problem with discounting design. And I certainly agree that 'subjective' gets rallied primarily as a defense mechanism.
Also, I do think the second choice strikes me as valid. It's akin to approaching the subject like a trial; you'll have evidence in favor, evidence against, and you try to take both head-on. Pretty rational to me. Though the very thought that there can be any 'evidence against' someone's preferred conclusion is enough to spook some. I get the feeling that merely acknowledging that there's a discussion to be had can be hard to swallow.
Comment by nullasalus — February 1, 2008 @ 1:37 am
February 1st, 2008 at 1:51 am
Hi nullasalus,
I think you've pretty much nailed it. ID proponents seem to have a hard time swallowing that there can be evidence that counts against ID, even though we are not talking refutations. And ID critics? They've so deeply invested in the "there is NO evidence" posture for years that the idea of something counting in favor of ID simply cannot be tolerated. After all, they think all ID proponents are supposed to be either stupid, dishonest, or deluded.
Comment by MikeGene — February 1, 2008 @ 1:51 am
February 1st, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Thanks for the post. The whole "how intelligent is design?" question is one which highlights all sorts of things – the requirement to define terms, presumptions about the intention of a putative designer, what constitutes "good design" – etc. etc. However, the original comment that you quoted, Mike, seems unsustainable. The very fact that things look designed and are fit for purpose is what meant that the existence of things requires an explanation, rather than simply being the obvious product of chance processes. And if things look designed and work, then whatever else the assumed designer might have been, it can hardly have been considered an idiot.
Regarding the optic nerve, for example – surely the fact is that in both cephalopod and humans IT WORKS – it does what it is supposed to, functionally and developmentally, in most cases – rather invalidates the assertion of bad, or idiotic, design.
Regarding the "final product" – I would suggest that's where you probably move into the realm of theology. OTOH, the fact that humans are radically different from any other creature in terms of things like their creativity, their introspection, their existential dread … would to me suggest that they were the "final product". To disregard such things simply because they are biological "co-incidences" is to treat humans as less than humans, isn't it? We talk about how other animals are adapted to their environment in behavioural terms – shouldn't we think about what we are as humans in the same way?
Comment by Exile From Groggs — February 1, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
February 1st, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Howdy. I was invited here by a person who used the name "iron mike tyson" on my blog. Seems to be a decent place. My comments suddenly stopped getting posted over on Uncommon Descent, but perhaps I won't that issue in here.
Generally speaking, it seems like this blog makes relative modest and reasonable claims. You seem to understand that the intelligent design inference for life is more a patter of personal opinion than scientifically detectable. I have no objection to that opinion.
With regard to this article, I had a couple of small disagreements, or perhaps clarificaitons.
By "opens up the reasearch doors", you mean further research into the source of the design of an object, presumably. I don't see a hint a scientifically usable information in that.
Biological systems seem ot have a ot of evidence of tinkering and hodgepodge, especially among the systems that have only been around a billion generations (or less).
It seems to me that any system can be made into an IC system by the blind watchmaker, simply by stripping away parts until all that is left is irreducible. So, while you're argument would apply to de novo IC systems, the blind watchmaker doesn't need to produce de novo systems that are IC.
Comment by One Brow — February 1, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
February 1st, 2008 at 12:23 pm
These points may have been covered by others, but I want to put my thoughts into writing before I forget them. (Yet more evidence of bad design?)
1. If the "poor design" of the human eye is evidence AGAINST a designer, why isn't the "good design of the cephalopod eye evidence FOR a designer?
2. Since we can obviously detect "poor design" and "good design" in nature, what does that say about the argument that design in nature is undetectable?
3. It also follows from the above exchange that the design hypothesis is indeed testable.
4. Is pointing to extinction evidence against design. I see no reason why that should be the case. Designed artifacts go "extinct" all the time.
Comment by Mung — February 1, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
February 1st, 2008 at 12:28 pm
So, you have no objection to saying the designer took more care of cephalopods? Why would a designer make one better than the other?
Not much. The argument would be that, "if the human eye is the product of design, it is a product of poor design".
However, it does not seem to be objectively testable with regard to biology.
Comment by One Brow — February 1, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
February 1st, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Agree completely.
If Behe's Edge is any indication, not very much. Also, if we look at the example from The Design Matrix, the evidence isn't very convincing. What was your overall DM score for the PCP degradation pathway, -2.0?
It obviously didn't look designed to you. Was that the best example you could come up with? I think Art is proposing turf13 as a better alternative over at ARN.
Comment by Mung — February 1, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
February 1st, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Mike,
Relating to the poster who commented on the human eye being a really bad design if it is designed I had a class in college called sensation and perception. My professor said that it's not a matter of the human eye being a worse design than the squid but that there are different requirements for the different types of eyes. Humans have a great need for acuity in vision so humans need a larger supply of nutrients to the eye and the design of the human eye allows for that.
I found this on line too.
Comment by BrainyLack — February 1, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
February 1st, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I suspect we can argue that even "irrationality" (e.g., feelings) is irreducibly complex. This points to another category beyond chance and necessity. Freewill, if real, is also beyond chance and necessity. A quality irreducible to chance and necessity is self evident and is part of reality. The need to explain what is self evident in terms of chance and necessity is perhaps an example of an irrationality. Why do we assume our self evident feelings can be explained by a one-sided manifold that indicates only chance and necessity? I say the feeling relates better to the interpretation of the manifold. Therefore, our explanations reduce to something that is two-sided, at best we only equivocate at the deepest level. And this realization provides a better understanding of what it means to be "irreducibly complex".
Comment by Stephen — February 1, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
February 1st, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Hi Exiled,
But the problem here is that the blind watchmaker stumbles upon things that WORK and thus retains and propagates them. That something merely works is not a good metric for distinguishing between the blind watchmaker and intelligent watchmaker. Furthermore, the design of the vertebrate retina entails the need for a blind spot and probably contributes to the incidence of detached retina and one could reasonably argue these are design flaws.
I think the key is in trying to move beyond the fact that something merely works. Since this is the only "design criterion" used by the blind watchmaker, it becomes a weaker candidate for the "designer" to the degree that we are dealing with something that has features that hint of a level of design that employs something beyond this criterion.
Hi Mung,
I'd say see section 2a of my OP (this consideration shows that ID is responsive to data and there can be data that move us away from a design inference). To make something work for ID, you'd have to move into 2b and find features that don't comfortably fit with the blind watchmaker.
The PCP "looks designed" in the sense that it is a multi-component IC system that carries out sequential reactions to elicit a function that serves the cell. I do think it is a good example because of these features and its recent appearance. But yes, a closer look shows it to be a kludge. Thus, this is something we expected from a blind tinkerer. As Jacob pointed out long ago, natural selection is not an engineer.
As for "best examples," I'm not sure we can come up with such a thing. Even if we found a "best example," it would only be the best among an extremely limited sample of biotic reality. Thus, I think it would be better to spread things out and consider the typical example. What is the typical handiwork of the blind watchmaker? If we are to score, we should remember that the exception does not prove the rule.
Hi Brainylack,
Yes, there is nothing wrong with such considerations. The key is not in coming up with something to explain poor design, but in thinking about the system in more depth to draw out new insights and perhaps a better understanding of the system. Remember that Matrix scores are always tentative and receptive to new information. I only gave a -2 Rationality score because I acknowledged that some teleologists have "raised interesting speculations that justify such backward wiring." If no such explanations existed, I'd move the score deeper into the negative realm. To pull it into the positive realm, I personally would need to see some hypotheses about the eye that build on the backward wiring as a clever design strategy and thus generate new data and a deeper understanding of the eye. In other words take those explanations and turn them into science.
Comment by MikeGene — February 1, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
February 1st, 2008 at 7:52 pm
One Brow wrote:
First of all, what is your specific complaint about the human eye? This is the problem with nearly all "bad design" arguments, namely, that they are so vaguely and generally made that they are useless. What precisely is the limitation of the design; what improvements could be made; what other implications would those improvements require be made to the greater structure? These kinds of issues are never addressed in the bad design arguments, precisely because the bad design argument is PRIMARILY a philosophical/theological argument. (As an aside, the inverted wiring statement just rings silly to anyone who has actually examined the design of the human eye in detail.)
That all said, I think Mike has a very compelling point here, which is, do we take the argument off the table, or do we wrestle with it? I have found that most "bad design" arguments tend to evaporate once you actually look at the design in question. Nevertheless, I tend to agree with Mike that we need to wrestle with the issue, and I think Mike makes some very excellent points that need to be addressed. Something for all of us to chew on a bit . . .
BTW, this is of course all a different, but related, topic from the so-called "evil design" problem (which is also a philosophical/theological) argument . . .
Comment by Eric Anderson — February 1, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
February 1st, 2008 at 8:23 pm
I don't recall saying I had one. I do recall responding to a poster mentioning that a squid has better eyes, and pointing out the natural implicaiton that if you are positing a designer for human and squid eyes, the inevitable conclusion is that the designer took better care of the squid.
Yes, they share that feature with all design arguments.
One more thing they share with all design arguments.
Oddly, I've never heard that argument from a biologist who did not already accept ID.
Comment by One Brow — February 1, 2008 @ 8:23 pm
February 1st, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Did you not read my post about the need for the human eye to have higher acuity and that the extra nutrients being provided to the eye would allow for that – compared to the eye of the squid?
Comment by BrainyLack — February 1, 2008 @ 8:31 pm
February 1st, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Mike G.: "I personally would need to see some hypotheses about the eye that build on the backward wiring as a clever design strategy"
I ran across what seems to be one such hypothesis, that implies the vertebrate eye is actually optimal for higher and warm-blooded vertebrates with high metabolic rates. Since this eye originated in cold-blooded fish this would imply preadaptation or foresight, one of your criteria in the Matrix.
The argument is as follows. The inverted retina places the active photoreceptor ends in the rod and cone layer in direct contact with the choriocapillaris (blood vessel capillary layer) behind it, which very efficiently and rapidly supplies it with oxygen and removes waste products including carbon dioxide. Such close contact is necessary in higher vertebrates because the photoreceptors have very high energy demands (very high metabolic rate), in fact the highest of any cell type in the body. If the rod and cone cell layer were reversed with the active photoreceptor ends on the outside, the blood vessel choriocapillaris layer would have to be between the light and the photoreceptors. Because the blood vessel network highly absorbs light this would drastically reduce both sensitivity and resolution.
The ganglion and optic nerve layer then must be located in front of the photoreceptors, which would still reduce sensitivity and acuity, but not anywhere near as much as the blood vessel network. This remaining disadvantage is mostly eliminated by the multitudes of radial Mueller (glial) cells going through the entire retinal thickness in the direction of light propagation, acting as low absorbtion light guides through the nerve layers.
So (at least for mammals and reptiles with high metabolic rates) the existing design appears to be highly optimized for achieving maximum resolution combined with maximum sensitivity.
Comment by magnan — February 1, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
February 1st, 2008 at 8:43 pm
One brow, ants pound for pound are significantly stronger than humans. Would you also point out, "well look everyone, ants are incredibly stronger than humans. I guess the Designer cared more for them as well."
Birds have the gift of flight, cheetahs are incredibly faster.
Now you give a vague criticism. Anderson was pointing out the vagueness of 'bad design' arguments and you answer that childishly with a vague slam against 'all design arguments'. How are they all vague, one brow? You said, "all" now it's up to you to show that "all" are indeed vague.
No, as above, one more thing they share with your limited understanding of design arguments. If you have a set of observations, then you come up with an explanation for that set of observations (a hypothesis), you then go about finding more observations to either confirm or obscure your hypothesis. This seems to be exactly what many id theorists do. Whether that be Dr. Behe, Dr. Gene, Dr. Beauregard.
Are you really interested in discussing these topics as you stated earlier? Or are you more interested in throwing out sound bites and childish digs at ID?
Really? What are you implying here? Everytime you hear this argument you ask "do you accept ID?" or you've asked every biologist who doesn't accept ID and they stated that it isn't designed.
You really don't seem to be as open minded as you let on in your 1st post. You have some pretty lame responses too. You sound like a political candidate with all of your sound bytes and non-thought out responses.
Comment by BrainyLack — February 1, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
February 1st, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Wow! How profound.:roll: If a fisherman hauls a squid out of the sea is the designer still taking better care of the squid or did the designer place ID critics on the planet to illustrate banal analytical thinking?
Comment by Bradford — February 1, 2008 @ 10:24 pm
February 1st, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Hi magnan,
This is a very interesting argument. And notice how it works. We begin by acknowledging the backward wiring of the eye as a candidate for poor design instead of dismissing the point. This realization then serves as an impetus to look more closely at the system and come up with this hypothesis. The next step is to turn it into a testable hypothesis. For example, has anyone actually thought to experimentally measure the energy consumption of mammalian photoreceptors vs, cephalopod photoreceptors? Experimental results that show the cephalopod photoreceptors to be relatively sluggish might not be sexy to many ID proponents, but this type of grunt work, fitted into the overall teleological approach, is what you want. Furthermore, once someone starts doing experiments like these, all kinds of neat twists and new insights might fall out of such studies.
Of course, if we take the Rationality criterion off the table out of concerns about "˜subjectivity,' there is no teleological impetus for such research.
Comment by MikeGene — February 1, 2008 @ 10:45 pm
February 1st, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Yet there is plenty of impetus for the view that a blind selection process accounts for a broad gamut of results which include optimal systems, sub-optimal systems and everything in between. BTW, the Rationality and Foresight chapter of your book was my favorite.
Comment by Bradford — February 1, 2008 @ 11:58 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:55 am
Hi Bradford,
Thanks for the feedback. It's always cool to find out what part someone likes best.
Comment by MikeGene — February 2, 2008 @ 12:55 am
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:35 am
The comment with the long paragraph that begins "it is not unreasonable to speculate …" Sure, although I don't find that speculation particularly reasonable. Have you done any testing? Speculation is not proof.
For a surface to be able to magnify, it needs to be smooth. Cell surfaces are not smooth, and would act more to scatter light than to absorb it. The higher nutrients could be delivered from beneath or away from the visual field. Your position introduces further elements of bad design, rather than rescuing the design.
Comment by One Brow — February 2, 2008 @ 11:35 am
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:43 am
Is this not even more true of the invertebrates? They don't have the thermal regulation demands we do. Even if what you are saying is true, you are merely moving the locus of the suboptimal design, not changing the fact it exists.
Comment by One Brow — February 2, 2008 @ 11:43 am
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:58 am
A matter of proportion, not superior musculature.
I find the concept of multiple independent designers much more true-to-fact than that of a sole designer.
Is it my fault that all of his criticisms are equally ture of the "good design" argements? Do you ever see them proposed side-by-side with alternatives, trade-offs, implications to the rest of the system, etc. as Eric Anderson suggested?
Prove a universal truth? That seems a Sysiphean task. Did you have a particular argument to consider?
I agree. It's just not what scientists do. Searching for observations leads to issues with confirmation bias, etc. It allows you to find positives and negatives in a very subjective fashion. There is nothing wrong with that, of course, it just isn't science. To be science, you need to support facets of your position with controlled experimentation or by making predictions.
Time and experience will no doubt cause you to answer these questions as you best see fit.
That everyone who makes this argument has aleady been clear that they accept ID, in my experience.
It has not been necessary so far to ask. Time and experience typically supply the answer, if it is not already evident.
You really don't seem to be as open minded as you let on in your 1st post. You have some pretty lame responses too. You sound like a political candidate with all of your sound bytes and non-thought out responses.
Comment by One Brow — February 2, 2008 @ 11:58 am
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:59 am
Repeat after me:
The suboptimal design argument is theology in a bad tuxedo.
If you doubt it, keep repeating it to yourself until you feel the truth of it.
There ya go. Doesn't that feel better?
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 2, 2008 @ 11:59 am
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
I don't recall claiming to be profound.
You mean, as opposed to when the squid hauls the fisherman in?
I don['t recall anything in ID theory that says the putative designer cares for individual memebers of a species.
Comment by One Brow — February 2, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
I'm not too concerned about "bad design" for three reasons: (1) There are no known engineered systems that can be held up in comparison to biological systems as better designed. Engineered systems may possess better performance characteristics for specific functions, but all engineered systems have weaknesses similar to those that we assert are present in biological ones (2) The "bad design" argument seems to be based on the expectation that the designer(s) produce perfect designs, or that their designs meet our expectations of fitness/utility. This is increasingly silly in light of the emergence of human designed biological systems that are crude, hackish attempts at manipulating life. (3) People who assert "bad design" do so from an uninformed, reductionist perspective. For example, I could say that a Corvette is poorly designed because it gets poor fuel economy, only seats two people, is low to the ground, and has high rolling resistance due to the size of its tires. But, since I know what the design goals are, I don't make those absurd criticisms.
In general, those who assert "bad design" are trying to divert others from considering the overall hypothesis of design. Its just one of the weapons in their arsenal of intimidation and censorship.
Comment by David — February 2, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I disagree, If there were a good reason to believe this discrepancy existed (say, from some analysis of the different processes involved), it might actually be easier in the future to give someone a less-energy-needy eye replacement, among other potetial benefits. There would be lots of good reasons to perform such a study.
Comment by One Brow — February 2, 2008 @ 12:08 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:14 pm
So, if you don't know the design goals, you can't infer good or bad design? I agree that many arguments are a little too difficult to get your mind around, but some are not. For example, the human birth canal could be very easily moved further up the body
What intimidation and censorship? So far, I'm not aware of any ID proponent that has had to face either by reason of being an ID proponent. For example, Ken Miller thinks that God guided evolutionary forces to create humans. Do you see any intimidaiton or cenwsorship directed his way?
Comment by One Brow — February 2, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Hi kornbelt888,
It is if people are using the ID issue as a proxy for a theism vs. atheism argument. I would agree that any suboptimal design argument is a very weak argument against the existence of God. But to approach this issue in an objective manner, and as an investigation, both sides should restrain from making the deigner = God equation.
Comment by MikeGene — February 2, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Hi One Brow,
Welcome to TT.
Well, it's probably not uncommon to fish for research money by making it look like your research will bring about some great medical benefit, but I was talking about a teleological impetus in the sense that someone had reason to think the eye was designed.
Comment by MikeGene — February 2, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:09 pm
One Brow:
And your point is what- if it is not perfectly designed it must be the product of a blind, non-telic process?
Comment by Bradford — February 2, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Unibrow said:
While pelvic organs and their necessary outlets do sometimes develop oddly – or even proliferate – I've been unable to find a single source that claims these deformities are some sort of evolutionary development toward what this commenter suggests would so "very easily" improve human reproductive design. The bad design arguments just keep getting dumber and dumber.
And yeah, One Brow did lob this very argument – offhanded (possibly meant to slip in under the radar), but there it is in pixels on white nonetheless.
Teh stupid! It hurts us! §;o)
Comment by Joy — February 2, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Miller stays within acceptable boundaries. As long as he maintains that God's acts of guidance are undetectable he will continue to bask in the approval of critics.
Comment by Bradford — February 2, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 5:14 pm
I think Michael Denton was the first one to come up with the hypothesis that everyone is referring to here. Go here: http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/invertedretina192.htm
Comment by Bilbo — February 2, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
One Brow,
No, not just a matter of proportion. An ant can rely on its physical abilities (strength, speed) to an absurdly greater degree than we can rely on our own physical abilities.
Why did you neglect the cheetah or bird example? If the argument was as simple as you made it out to seem (the designer MUST *if He exists* have more concern for the squid) than why not use all of the examples available? You won't because you'll see it's a lame argument.
I don't.
You're shifting the target. You didn't say "all good design arguments" (relating to body and form design), you said "all design arguments" (any argument that would be used to support any type of design – whether biological, cosmological, theological).
Well, the one who's going to brashly state "all design arguments" better have the gumption to back that claim up. Why should I bail you out of the task you brought upon yourself?
You're the one assuming that when I said, "go about finding more observations" that I was leaving "controlled experimentation or prediction making" out of the fold. A hypothesis is structured with "if, then" logic. If 'A' then 'B'. You search for further observations based off of reasoning that follows from the hypothesis. The observations would be obtained via experimentation and prediction making. Did you assume I meant just wandering around an open landscape peaking in this nook or that nook in search of observations?
I don't think I need much more time. My experience is supporting it though; through reading your posts on hear and reading the posts at your blog. "intelligent design creationism" That's one of the oldest, most irrelevant scare tactics and I rarely come across it anymore, but your blog entry is no more than a handful of days old.
Comment by BrainyLack — February 2, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Mike,
It might be helpful if you could quantify rational design some how, before we enter the matrix. Terms like "elegant" and "efficient" vs. "kludged" and "hodgepodged" are descriptive, but they lack real empirical power.
There are ways to measure efficiency (for molecular machines this would be mechanical advantage/velocity ratio), and ways to measure useless redundancy (heuristics should be of help here).
Perhaps a more "engineering-like" or "programming-like" approach is what is needed. After all, it is machines and codes that we are dealing with.
Comment by chunkdz — February 2, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Actually, I believe it was MikeGene who brought up that particular argument. Making a design inference has nothing to do with the subsequent determination of the worth of the design, in my opinion, because both good and bad designs have the same design markers.
Comment by One Brow — February 2, 2008 @ 6:02 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:08 pm
It is very rude to attribute my words to some other poster.
That would likely depend upon the nature of the changes in the outlets, would it not? Since you specifically refer to "deformities", it seems unlikely they are normally operative birth canals.
My wife was not especially fond of pushing chidren through her pelvis. It would have been much easier with a birth canal located about where the Ceasarian sections are made.
I'm not an under-the-radar type.
Then stop exposing yourself to it.
Comment by One Brow — February 2, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Yes, because the strength of a muscle increases roughly proportionately with the two-dimensional area of it's cross-section (the square of it's length), while the mass it must move increases with the cube of it's length. We talked about this in biology in high school. A ant-sized man could lift about 180 times his weight, not a mere 35 or so. Why do you think there are no armored animals larger than an armadillo?
To fly like a bird humans would need to give up size and bone mass. To run like a cheetah we would need to give up have. I am unaware of any sacrifices needed for the cheetah, the bird, or us to have right-side-out eyes. So yes, I was ignoring a lame argument. If you insist, I will in the future address every lame argument you propose.
Anderson was saying that many "bad design" arguments suffer from certain defects, and I replied that this was the nature of design arguments in general, which criticism you have not answered directly. All design arguments that import good or bad design on features which don't even bear the hallmarks of design generally are vaguely made and generally useless, just as Anderson described.
Sorry, I forgot the qualifier. All design arguments *concerning the design quality that I have seen in the past ten years of reading about design arguments*. Clearer for you now?
Incorrect, sir. I made no assumption that you excluded it.
Teaching Grandpa to chew cheese, are we? For that matter, teaching it wrongly. In logic, a conditional statement is structured with "If A, then B" in which statement A is called the hypothesis. In science, a hypothesis is a reasonable guess based upon current knowledge which can be used as a logical hypothesis.
I made no assumptions about what you meant.
See?
You mean, the post where I separated the legitimate philosophical position of intelligent design from the psuedo-scientific claims of the DI?
You think making careful distinctions is a scare tactic?
Comment by One Brow — February 2, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Except, Miller seems to find them plenty detectable. Perhaps you meant "empirically undedetectable". Even then, all Miller need do is find empirical evidence.
Comment by One Brow — February 2, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Bradford,
I agree for the most part, but I think even the approval is limited. I recall PZ Myers whipping out the 'creationist' label on him for awhile, then hesitantly reversing himself after it was repeatedly pointed out how useful Miller was in combating ID.
Personally, I think the key is that Miller not only wails on ID ferociously, but he (at least, as far as I can see) limits his criticisms exclusively for what he perceives as religiously-motivated views of evolution. If he spent even a quarter of the time criticizing the opposite – the 'evolution is an atheist evangelical tool' of Dawkins, etc – he'd be viewed with as much warmth as Michael Behe.
Comment by nullasalus — February 2, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:52 pm
One Brow:
Then what was the point of the designer favoring the squid remark?
Comment by Bradford — February 2, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:29 pm
I was pointing out the natural consequence of an argument that many people who favor intelligent design would be loathe to accept, to see if Mung accepted the consequence.
Comment by One Brow — February 2, 2008 @ 8:29 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Is a lack of warmth supposed to be the intimidation or the censorship to which the poster referred?
Comment by One Brow — February 2, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Touchy One Brow. You're the one who was making the "does the Designer care more about" argument based off of a trait that a squid has that a human doesn't. I was merely expanding your logic outward.
Keep your emotions in check, one brow.
Let's learning something here, one brow. If you have a problem with a consequence of your initial comment (someone showing how pointless it is) then maybe you should not mention it.
Really, you feel this way? The same guy who just said:
So which is it for you? Do you agree with one brow that's making an issue about the worth of the design or do you agree with the one brow that's saying design inference has nothing to do with the value of the particular design.
It must have been an issue for you earlier on this thread because you said:
Nope, because as I stated you also said:
You seem to be a very confused person.
You didn't? Let's just see. You said:
Well one brow, it definitely seems like you were assuming that. "searching for observations leads to….", "it allows you to find…." "…. it just isn't science", "to be science, you need…."
Yes you did. It's also captured pretty well up above. It is frustrating as heck to talk with you. More interested in playing with words than actually discussing.
No, I mean where you conflated ID as creationism with your IDC; regardless of your personal definitions of any of them (ID, Creationism or IDC).
Like here:
This is a simple-minded argument. You're trying to box ID into the IDC category by saying any attempt to make any scientific claim from ID (again, assuming your definition of ID) leads it to now being IDC.
I think making phoney distinctions is a scare tactic.
Comment by BrainyLack — February 2, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Nullasalus,
Actually, it is hard to tell who backed down. Miller earned PZ's outrage because Miller was saying in public that the creationists should be focusing more of their attention on people like Dawkins instead of mainstream scientists. That's when PZ threatened to start labeling him a creationist. Miller and PZ then had some e-mail exchanges and ever since, PZ has left Miller alone and Miller has left Dawkins alone.
Miller has a new book coming out:
http://www.onlyatheorythebook.com/
As a TE, I had hoped he would have expanded on the last part of his first book (I incorporated some of that into The Design Matrix), but alas, I'm afraid it looks like just another round in the Culture War:
Comment by MikeGene — February 2, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:36 pm
How does a focus on one particular feature (the eyes) make that point? Organism x has better eyesight but y has a better sense of smell and z is the most intelligent of the three. Doesn't seem to me that design or a designer can be ruled in or out based on these kinds of observations.
Comment by Bradford — February 2, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:43 pm
And I pointed to the natural consequences that come when one takes one brows concern seriously.
The of course is the big fact that he really doesn't care about that concern at all:
Nothing. to. do. with. the. subsequent. determination. of. the. worth. of. the. design..
"Loathe to accept", quit chewing scenery. I'm quite content with the fact that the evidence supports intelligent design.
One brow, have you ever tested the full abilities of the cephalopod eye contrasted with the eye of a human. Comparing the abilities of those eyes in their differing environments (squid eye out of the water, human eye in the water)?
Comment by BrainyLack — February 2, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 12:03 am
Hi chunkdz,
Agreed. Right now, such terms are commonly used by biologists. As biology and engineering continue to merge, more objective metrics will eventually emerge. Remember that the DM is just "the beginning of a journey."
Comment by MikeGene — February 3, 2008 @ 12:03 am
February 3rd, 2008 at 2:05 am
Mike Gene,
But if you are willing to assign rationality based simply on a comparison to 21st century engineering standards, how much more would you be willing to assign rationality to a design that exhibits a specific level of efficiency?
Would it be acceptable for you to say that a design that measures in at >50% efficiency could be deemed rational, and <50% would be unrational?
Comment by chunkdz — February 3, 2008 @ 2:05 am
February 3rd, 2008 at 2:24 am
MikeGene,
Interesting. I don't follow PZ's screams too much, so I didn't know they had an email exchange over it. Oh, to be a fly on the wall during that exchange. Or at least a bug in the system.
If it was the case that Miller decided to cut criticism of Dawkins and the like so as not to be pushed into the same boat as Behe, well. Granted, I don't know if that happened, but if it did.. hey, it's enough to say it would be quite a situation.
Comment by nullasalus — February 3, 2008 @ 2:24 am
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:10 am
MG:
Surely you'll want to know what part one likes worst, hehe.
The chapter I found most disappointing, and containing the least amount of support for it's argument, was the chapter on the ability of RM + NS to "mimic" a designer.
Care to start a thread on that particular subject?
Comment by Mung — February 3, 2008 @ 3:10 am
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:18 am
David said:
Is that because all design involves trade-offs?
Does anyone deny that designs in biological systems involves trade-offs?
It seems to me that ID proponents would readily agree that all design involves trade-offs,
OTOH, the supporters of Darwinian evolution must deny that design trade-off's exist in biology.
This is clearly an area where ID has more explanatory power than Darwinian evolution, and should therefore be included in any any ID research program.
Comment by Mung — February 3, 2008 @ 3:18 am
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:24 am
One Brow:
I agree with Mike, design theorists need to address such cases. I certainly think that you can legitimately infer good or poor design without knowledge of the design goals!
Comment by Mung — February 3, 2008 @ 3:24 am
February 3rd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Hi chunkdz,
No, as that would just be an efficiency score and I think rationality is more multi-dimensional than mere efficiency (consider also that robustness and flexibility are likely to be tension with efficiency).
I'm suggesting something more comprehensive that better echoes an intelligent mind imposing itself on reality. That's why I begin by suggesting we consider how cleanly a system can be structurally and functionally decomposed, and how well engineering criteria apply. Of course, I am not an engineer and this is one place in the Matrix where engineers can come to the table as authorities.
Comment by MikeGene — February 3, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Hi nullasalus,
Back in the pre-DM days, I had to come up with stuff to blog about and their spat was one such topic (high profile figures like this are indeed "news").
I doubt they made any explicit agreement like this, but an implicit agreement is plausible. What we do know is that Miller said, "Evolution isn't anti-religious"¦.Rather, it's the non-scientific philosophical interpretations some humanists, such as Richard Dawkins, draw from the evidence that challenges the role of religion." This outraged Myers who then used his widely-read blog to smear Miller as being a creationist. A fight among the Chamberlainites and the Churchillians broke out. Miller and Myers exchanged e-mails and some "we have a common enemy" truce was reached. Since then, I have not seen Myers criticize Miller, a religious scientist, and we have seen that Miller has not offered any more public criticisms of "the non-scientific philosophical interpretations some humanists, such as Richard Dawkins."
Comment by MikeGene — February 3, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Hi Mung,
Ouch. Good catch.
I have at least a dozen-or-so topics waiting for new threads, but sure, I just threw something together for you.
Comment by MikeGene — February 3, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Hi Mike and nullasalus,
Here's the link if anyone's interested.
http://telicthoughts.com/it-doesnt-take-much-to-earn-that-c-word/
The two links book-ending that blog (linked at the top of the page) give more of the story too. Apparently, Myers meant to call Miller a [c]reationist not a [C]reationist. Lil' c's are cool with Myers 'cause they're on his side in this whole culture war fiasco. Politics, strange bed fellows. . . and all that jazz.
*raises finger to check which way wind is blowing*
:shrug:
Oh, and on a more serious and most important note:
Go Patriots!!!
Comment by Rob R. — February 3, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:32 pm
nullasalus:
Then all we've got is just another in-house schism just like the Protestant Reformation. There actually is a TE religion working its way through the liberal and orthodox denominations, complete with rituals and prayer beads and children's indoctrination stories and plays, all the usual trappings of religious adoration. I have not seen a single anti-religious Culture Warrior breathe a single word about it.
…which seems a little odd to me, given their pretense of knowing all about religion and hating every possible expression of reverence or recognition of the holy. Nor have I seen Miller address it. Which is even odder if in truth he is a TE who believes we cannot discern the hand of God in the workings of cosmology or blind evolution.
Comment by Joy — February 3, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Not that I'm aware. Why would you think calling an argument lame is a mark of being "touchy"
So, when someone refers to an argument as lame, they need to put a check on their emotions?
Well, when you manage to show one of my comments pointless, you'll find I have very little emotional reaction to it. For example, when you respond to the why the fact there is a trade off for flight, but not for reversed eyes, does not affect your points on birds. Of course, we can continue to talk about my emotional state if you can't handle the other issue.
I don't know the One Brow that's making an issue of the worth of a design. I know the guy who's pointing out consequences of other people's attempts to evaluate design. I know the guy who said trying to say an undesigned object exhibits good or bad design results in vague and generally useless arguments. You must have some other One Brow in mind.
Exactly, I'm exploring the consequences of his postion, not adopting the postion.
Funny, I don't feel confused.
Which of those statements says you were excluding that process from consideration? I was saying the Dr. Behe, et. al., don't perform that process in their design work, but that does not mean you were excluding it.
Perhaps if you paid more attention to the words I write, and less to your apparent assumptions of what I'm saying, you'll understand them better. You seem eager to put me in a category to which I don't belong.
I was not speaking to any potential attempt, I was speaking to a current movement which, for better or worse, is the face of the ID movement for this country, led by the DI. I would have no trouble with people doing real science to try and show design. You have any handy? Of course, since some of the hallmarks or design are simplicity of form and separation from nature, and biology shows us hugely complex forms that are integrated into nature, I don't see much success ahead for that approach. Still, it would be more honest than the IDC of the DI.
Comment by One Brow — February 3, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
I agree, these are not the question that can rule a designer out.
Comment by One Brow — February 3, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:26 pm
One Brow:
This description makes any biological entity non-designed by definition. What IDist would claim that any biological system or organism was separated from nature? Since life did not always exist on earth the relevant questions concerning design need to be focused on causality from a prebiotic initial condition. When that is the perspective design appears a much more plausible option.
Comment by Bradford — February 3, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Then, you failed to respond to the fact that you provided examples of trade-offs to counter an example of a design that is inferior for no apparent reason.
Unless, I care about more than just whether design is detectable or not.
Great. Let me know when the evidence will be publically available, so I can be content with it too.
No, I have not. Nor have I seen any good reasoning claim that reversing retnia improve performance, at least no in a way that could not bne more easily accomplished without the reversal, the existence of a blind spot, etc.
Comment by One Brow — February 3, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Is that a joke? I have seen many discussions of trade-offs in design by biologists who don't accept supernatural intervention.
Comment by One Brow — February 3, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Well, based on the Web site, The Great Story seems like harmless bit of woo, perhaps even helpful it is encourages people to pay more attention to ecology. There are more worthwhile targets for a culture warrior.
Comment by One Brow — February 3, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
On the contrary, any de novo biological creation would be separate from the rest of nature.
None. That's why they have such trouble showing biological organisms are designed.
This would include whether this prebiotic condition arose as something separate from the rest of its surroundings (indicating design) or as an intimate part of its surroundings (indicating not designed).
Yes, there is fertile ground for both options, when so little is known.
Comment by One Brow — February 3, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 6:33 pm
I'm not sure I understand your point. A biological organism would be separate in the sense that it is unique with respect to other natural phenomenon of course. Whether intelligence or teleology is a part of a causal trail leading to life is a pertinent question as well as whether or not they could be detected. Natural data is what would be referenced in support of or in opposition to the questions. Attempts to separate causes into natural and unnatural are contrived and unnecessary.
What IDist would claim that any biological system or organism was separated from nature?
I'm unaware of evidence showing that biological organisms were not designed. If you would produce evidence showing the details of how life is generated on a lifeless planet I would appreciate it. The question of design vs. non-design is very much open and unsettled.
Comment by Bradford — February 3, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Hi one brow,
I'm alittle confused too. Hopefully you can clear it up for me.
When you stated:
Did you mean that (seriously too, I don't want to put words in your mouth if I misunderstood the context).
If you did why are you concerned about the design of the human eye and the squid eye? When I read it, it seemed like you were claiming one design was better (worth of the design) than the other.
Thanks.
Comment by Doug — February 3, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 7:03 pm
I can understand your concern. I think you'll like TT though, this place is a different enviroment from DI. Check out the links off to the side. I really like teleologic. When there, there is a section called Biotic Reality which includes numerous articles by Mike Gene. Not that you'll necessarily agree with them, but I think you'll find them reassuring (in respects to the honesty of the work and subtleness of the claims).
Take care.
Comment by Doug — February 3, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 12:36 am
There's no concern to understand. He's just slamming DI and your just mindlessly agreeing with him. He's making it out to seem as if ID is just yanked around by that ruthless Discovery Institute. He's going to hold DI to one standard but he's perfectly fine with some of the explicitly violent suggestions on the part of Hitchens, Harris, Myers, Pinker toward those who have either beliefs that aren't entirely materialistic or that are religious beliefs. One brow will get his panties in a bunch over DI, but he's cool with the claims of those others.
One brow, if being consistent with your naturalism (and your views on squid eyes vs human eyes) do you look at your child as being inferior to other humans? Not of the same value as other children that don't have his condition? Or do you toss your naturalistic views aside when dealing with things close to you, like your child?
Doug, what are your concerns with DI? Or are you just placating?
Comment by BrainyLack — February 4, 2008 @ 12:36 am
February 4th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Any "fucking idiot" can crush a bug, but all the scientific geniuses in the world can't make one. Puts the whole "good design/bad design" argument in some perspective. (At least for me.)
Comment by Rock — February 4, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
BL,
I'm not saying that there are no honest folks at the DI. But are you denying that there is politicking going on over there? I think that's one brow's point.
Comment by Doug — February 4, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
A designed biological organism would show a lack of history, connectivity with the rest of biology.
Of course, this argument would not apply to a designed biosphere. In a designed biosphere, every living thing is connected. I believe MikeGene refers to this concept as "frontloading". In such an environment, there would be no objective way to distiguish intended organisms from acciedental by-products of the design, should they exist. MikeGene seems to acknowledge this is not really a scientific viewpoint, and as a philosophical viewpoint, I find it reasonable. Of course, it also means, for example, that IC systems arose without a contemporaneous influence external to the biological system.
We understand and have studied natural designers, so we can understand and see the results of natural designers.
Well, they show none of the known hallmarks of design, such as simplicity and separation from their surroundings. What sort of evidence are woud you expect to find, if there were no design?
I agree that abiogenisis is a wide-open field.
Comment by One Brow — February 4, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
I wasn't concerned about that argument, I was just pointing out a consequence to some else's argument.
Yes, I do mean that the hallmarks of design (simplicity, separation) are generally the same for both good and bad designs.
Comment by One Brow — February 4, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Yes, so far I find this website quite interesting, with claims that I don't necessarily accept, but I would not be able to claim I can deisprove. Keeps the mind fresh.
Comment by One Brow — February 4, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
"A designed biological organism would show a lack of history, connectivity with the rest of biology."
Why is that? How so? Provide me with a single example. Provide me with a single example of any designed system that "shows a lack of history, connectivity" to any other design.
One. One example.
Another "argument from the ignorance of design."
Comment by Rock — February 4, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I am? I mean, if I had to choose, I'd rather keep Ed Brayton as a blooger than PZ Myers. I agree Myers, Hitchens, et. al., are far too intolerant in many of their writings, much too willing to blame an organization for the acts of the individuals. I have no idea why you woould assume otherwise. I just don't fit into the box you've built for me, BrainyLack. Perhaps you could adjust it?
I don't find the question meaningful, frankly, and you seem to be attributing a valuation on eyes to me that I have already told you I don't hold. I don't see my eyes or squid eyes as designed and I don't have a value for either. Presumably you are referring to my oldest son, the one with PDD-NOS, and I don't see him as inferior, either. He has strenghts and weaknesses, just like every other person.
My natualistic views are the ones that lead to see my child was born from a random recombinations of genes and circumstances, like every other child. He'll never be a teacher or a psychologist, but he's already close to as good as I am at SoDoKu (just learned them two months ago) and has a much better musical ear (I am tone-deaf). If there is no design, then you don't have a justification for saying there is an ideal person, either.
Comment by One Brow — February 4, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Is there some reason I should show you an example of something I did not claim?
Now, if you want an example of something that shows simplicity and separation from the environment, I offer an arrowhead (straight, sharp edge) or a computer (smoothed, boxed surface).
Comment by One Brow — February 4, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
There are some people at the DI who strike as me honest-but-misguided, or others who are honest to their beliefs at all costs. There are also a couple who I think are snake-oil-salesmen.
Comment by One Brow — February 4, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Why is that? If Mike is correct and organisms were designed to evolve then your interpretation of history and connectivity would be skewed by an unreasonable expectation.
How did you get this criteria for design?
A direct connection between consequences of physical laws and biological outcomes. One could still maintain that forces of nature themselves were designed but I know of no way to empirically evaluate that claim one way or the other.
Comment by Bradford — February 4, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
One Brow:
I can't think of a large group of people about whom this could not be said. It applies to ID critics, politicians, corporate executives, academics, athletes…
Comment by Bradford — February 4, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
You'll note I treated the example of a designed biosphere separately from a designed organism. However, with in a designed biosphere there is no way to distinguish a designed intention from an unintended side effect.
I have yet to see a design that lacks both, but I am an amatuer. Did you have a counterexample?
We don't have that now?
Comment by One Brow — February 4, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
I was not aware the DI constituted a large group. Also, I can point to ID critics, academics, and athletes who strike me as none of the three (politicians, not so much
). This is not true of the DI.
Comment by One Brow — February 4, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Sorry, One Brow, I got confused. I thought you wrote: "A designed biological organism would show a lack of history, connectivity with the rest of biology."
My mistake.
Comment by Rock — February 4, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
One Brow:
Everything that has been said about the DI can be said about ID critics. Dishonest, political…
Comment by Bradford — February 4, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Hi one brow,
If you get a chance you should read Mike Gene's paper A Teleological Hypothesis about a Machine.
Whereby adopting a teleological perspective Mike forms a hypothesis regarding the role of enolase in the degradosome and predicts what the exact function of enolase might be.
He has a follow up entitled Update on Degradosome Function: The Importance of Location which provides a follow up on his initial prediction.
Take care.
**edit**
I'm reading my post and the spacing between words seems increased, is this an error brought on by including links?
Comment by Doug — February 4, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Show me the pathway to life One Brow and connect it to underlying laws of physcis. Why would you ask that question? Design encompasses historic events. Are you able to document the direct historic connection between consequences of physical laws and biological outcomes that led to life?
Written symbols representing Chinese words are designed. I would not label the symbolic notation used to convey messages in Chinese as simple. There is ambiguity and considerable complexity. That view comes from one with experience translating languages.
Comment by Bradford — February 4, 2008 @ 5:39 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Rock:
He did write that. There is no mistake on your part.
Comment by Bradford — February 4, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
The only mistake would be that you seemingly assume I don't assert that to be true, for reasons that are not at all clear. What have I said that makes you think I don't assert that?
Comment by One Brow — February 4, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
What makes you say that about Ken Miller?
Jeffrey Shallit?
Mark Chu-Carroll?
Jason Rosenhouse?
Comment by One Brow — February 4, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
At this point, I have only skimmed it. It looks like an interesting prediction. However, the same feature was apparently tested by scientists who were not using an ID framework. So, while ID may have led MikeGene to consider his proposition, it does not seem to have been needed for others. Personally, I would not be surprised is Ken Miller felt that his work was inspired and guided by his faith, and I have no objection to that.
Also, I think MikeGene might be a little too dismissive of the capabilities of yond Blind Watchmaker, but that's more a difference of opinion.
Comment by One Brow — February 4, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
So, by a "direct connection", you meant a historcal map detailing the inevitable steps involved.
No, I agree we'll never have that. There are too many possible paths to ever be able to say with certainty exactly what happened step-by-step. We can't even say for sure what happened in many historical curcumstqances to famous humans, which involves a much smaller scale in time and possibility.
I thought you meant current biological processess, which of course are directly ties to their underlying physics.
One Brow: Well, they show none of the known hallmarks of design, such as simplicity and separation from their surroundings.
It is clearly separate from it's surroundings. Further, I would venture that the alphabet (ours or the Chinese) is not a product of design, but of evolution, exhibiting gradual changes over a long period of time. No one person or group sat down to design either alphabet.
Do you think the languages themselves are designed?
Comment by One Brow — February 4, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
February 4th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Written symbols representing Chinese words are designed. I would not label the symbolic notation used to convey messages in Chinese as simple.
Do languages evolve over time? Very likely. Are they intelligently designed? Most certainly. Products of design are not necessarily simple.
There is ambiguity and considerable complexity. That view comes from one with experience translating languages.
Are you putting us on?
Comment by Bradford — February 4, 2008 @ 7:55 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Designers tend to make things as simple as they possibly can. If they started to create a new alphabet from scratch, do you think either the English aplhabet or the Chinese would be result from those efforts? We have made do with too few sybols, they have many more than are needed.
I don't think you can point to any place, any time, where someone sat down and mapped out English or Chinese grammar, the alphabet, the parts of speech, etc. They all arose through a slow building process, with no planned future steps and no teleological guidance. It you call *that* design, I am all too happy to say life was designed under those criteria (a slow building process without teleological guidance). However, it seems to be at odds with what most people call design.
Just because intelligence is involved does not make a process design.
Comment by One Brow — February 5, 2008 @ 11:38 am
February 5th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
The commenter One Brow wrote – using an alphabet to designate words in a language most here understand so as to convey thoughts and beliefs:
Whoa. I can't believe we've got a novice nay-sayer actually arguing that languages and writing do not display intelligent design. Seems like it's a safe bet this person isn't a linguist.
The development of languages involved mutual agreement among those who use language to communicate with each other on what the sounds are and what the words or phrases mean. Yes, it was a collective endeavor, but how anyone could assert that they weren't designed is beyond me. If two people cannot agree on what the word for "corn" is, a civilization could starve to death when everybody plants whatever they think the word means (and all are different).
Writing began as a specific activity emerging from religious/mystical traditions (the most formalized application of language) and was considered to wield magical powers all its own via the manipulation of symbols and the ability to record knowledge and events from one generation to the next. Beginning with pictographs and ideographs, the symbols held meaning on a number of levels and were usually employed by a specialized class of priests or guild artisans. Who very much collaborated on design and deployment for standardization.
Alphabets were designed phonetically (symbols for sounds) so as to broaden the applications. The Korean alphabet is one of the most recently designed, and among the most symbol-stingy. The Cherokee alphabet was designed by a single person, most others were collaborations. The intermediate forms made use of common recordkeeping styles, developing into one symbol per sound rather than whole syllable. All are intelligently designed. Most are continually honed by "authorities" in linguistics.
It looks like One Brow doesn't know what intelligence or design mean, so cannot apply the terms to that which we know to be intelligently designed. There seems no point whatsoever in attempting to discuss anything pertinent to anything with someone who doesn't even believe languages and writing (the exclusive means of communication in this type of forum) display intelligent design.
Noise, not actual intelligently designed communication of thoughts, knowledge or belief. A total waste of time.
Comment by Joy — February 5, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Actually, it has nothing to do with whether the endeavor was collective, adn everything to do with whether the the sounds were planned ahead of time or not. I'm am all too willing to acknowedge that languages were "designed" by people agreeing in the moment which sounds represented what. The 15 mechanisms of evolution do that also. Generally, the position of intelligent design presumes that there is forethought and planning in the process. I have not read a linguist who thinks languages developed by being planned out (with the exception of Esperanto, Klingon, etc.).
I looked up your examples. The Korean alphabet was a design to replace the earlier systgem of Chinese characters, which did not fit naturally with the Korean culture. It does not have the multi-sound/one-letter or multi-letter/one sound you see from evolved alphabets, but twenty-four letters for twenty-four sounds. We know when and where it was designed. This also applies to the Cherokee language, except the one-to-one ratio is for syllables instead of sounds. Again, designers designed simple things, while those that evolved are more complex.
So, who designed the Roman alphabet? The Greek? The Chinese ideographs?
Korean has lost letters as sounds have disappeared from the language.
What a relief that we have a message board that can define things even though people who study them professionally don't have agreement on them.
Who said writing does not display intelligent design? I don't see it in languages or most alphabets, but certainly most writing does.
Well, we must make do with what we have.
Comment by One Brow — February 5, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
One Brow:
Wrong. They do what is needed to effect the desired purpose.
There is no point in arguing. Just go to the dictionary.
Reality is impervious to your private conceptions
Comment by Bradford — February 5, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Hi Bradford,
Not to get into a dictionary definition war with you, but why did you choose the verb form of the word?
This is significant. Do you think ID is about detecting an action? Wouldn't that mean the design process needs to be still going on?
I always thought it was a noun. Here is the noun version from the dictionary you used…
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 5, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
It can be either, or or both. As to why I chose the verb form, it was one of haste dictating a need to leave the computer and run a personal errand. You posted the noun version and I'm glad you did. Let's take a look at some of them which fit how IDists have used the word design.
Many of these fit the ideas behind ID. A reasoned purpose or intent leading to a plan could be a way of looking at front loading for example. The purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details is almost an exact replication of an explanation used by Behe in DBB. A basic scheme or pattern that affects and controls function or development is an apt phrase that could be used with developmental biology, gene regulation, gene expression, feedback loops, nucleotide patterns within DNA and more.
Commonly understood meanings of design are consistent with the way IDists have used the term.
Comment by Bradford — February 5, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Behind ID, certainly.
However, you first brought in the definitons to show that language was designed. Not one definition in this list fits how a language like English or Chinese gets developed. They are not invented, formulated, planned out, or contrived; they are not created as a goal nor in an artistic manner. Languages are not designed, by the definition you quoted.
That is where the "can" comes in, the purpose is a limiting factor on the simplicity.
Yes, reality is impervious to my conceptions. This does not change the fact that intelligence can be involved in processes that are not design.
Comment by One Brow — February 5, 2008 @ 11:16 pm
February 5th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
One Brow:
Presumably you are a linguistic expert who can document how languages came about? By all means tell us how and show the supporting documentation.
Comment by Bradford — February 5, 2008 @ 11:20 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Very little of language evolution occurred because of "mutual agreement". Rather, languages are passed "as is" between adults to children. Most changes were due to either minor variations in usage over generations, or through contact between language groups (e.g. Anglo-Saxon and French). Until modern times, there has been very little "design" in the sense of looking towards the future of language (e.g. dictionaries, grammatical orthodoxy), and even those efforts have been only partially successful in controlling natural language development, and can be seen in the context of trying to channel the natural currents of language evolution.
There is an entire field called historical linguistics. There is little doubt that modern Romance languages; French, Italian, Spanish, Romanian, Portuguese, etc; splintered and evolved from the Latin. English has diversified substantially in just the last couple of centuries.
This process is substantially different from biological evolution, but is still largely evolutionary in the sense that for most of the history of language, changes occurred without regard to the future course of language development, but through incremental changes over generations. In the case of Romance languages, the cultural isolation of the various groups after the fall of the Roman Empire led to divergent paths akin to allopatric speciation.
Comment by Zachriel — February 6, 2008 @ 9:01 am
February 6th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Zachriel:
I'm aware of this and do not disagree with what you are saying. Since you used an evolutionary process to illustrate the point let's stick with it. It appears to me that the modification through time paradigm is appropriate and easily documented. However, like biology the history of languages encounters increasingly difficult evidentiary and conceptual problems as we go back further and further in time. How was an initial language constructed? How were written and verbal conventions established? Interesting questions for which answers are not quite so obvious.
Comment by Bradford — February 6, 2008 @ 9:42 am
February 6th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Here I was about to search out language history for you. Well, you might like this anyhow:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/020100sci-archaeo-language.html
Basic sounds for basic concepts.
We can see the beginning of language in a wide variety of species today. Most of the time it's very basic, but it is all the rudiments a clever, adaptive species with a newly-available hyloid bone would need to to go from the 20? or so basic messages of a bonobo to 100, than 1,000, then 10,000 word vocabularies.
Comment by One Brow — February 6, 2008 @ 11:06 am
February 6th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Agreed. Historical linguistics, just as with many historical fields, becomes less reliable the more remote the events in question.
No one knows for sure, but it is expect to have evolved from even more primitive communication. As there is a substantial gap in knowledge, I suppose a dove could have endowed the survivors of the Deluge, each with the gift of a different language. However, languages exhibit aspects of common evolutionary origins, and other animals exhibit various forms of communication, verbal and otherwise.
Comment by Zachriel — February 6, 2008 @ 11:11 am
February 6th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Zachriel:
Languages involve symbolism in messages and an agreed upon convention between the sender of the message and the recipient. If they evolved they did so with some intelligent input.
Comment by Bradford — February 6, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Through most of human history, language has been transmitted "as is" from adults to children. Language is replication of convention, not some explicit agreement. It's habit rather than choice.
There is no evidence of *design* in the evolution of the Latin word caballus into cavalo, caballo, cheval and cavallo.
Comment by Zachriel — February 6, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Zachriel:
The habit is a learned one and the convention established at some point in history. I learned three languages as an adult and even though I had an aptitude for it it was difficult. Not something a stone could accomplish.
Comment by Bradford — February 6, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
That doesn't mean language hasn't evolved, or that this evolution was due to some overarching design, or that the accumulation of small changes were due to a conscious desire to change the language for some future need.
There was no "point in history" when a "convention was established". Rather, there is a current of slow and unceasing change. For most of human history, people spoke the language of their fathers. It's the perspective of time that allows us to see the evolution of Latin into French and Spanish.
Comment by Zachriel — February 6, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Languages do change with time but at some point the letter p became associated with a sound and t with another etc. The original allegation that led to this namely, that languages are not the end product of design, is erroneous.
Comment by Bradford — February 6, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
The example I used, the evolution of Romance languages, concerns the spoken language. I note that the association of sounds has changed considerably over time.
Comment by Zachriel — February 6, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Since it requires intelligence to speak a language, obviously true. As I have mentioned before, intelligent input is not the same thing as design.
Interesting choice of letters. To the Greeks, the letter that looks like "p" has the sound we associate with "r". This is more typical of an evolved process than a designed one.
Comment by One Brow — February 6, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
You can claim whatever you wish but definitions of design show the error of your thinking.
Comment by Bradford — February 6, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
So, you claim that that, for any sort of intelligent input into a process, it fits the definition of design? Not the one you posted, anyhow. I already noted that how languages form does not meet any of the six listings in the definition, all you need do to rebut is take one of the six and show how the creation of language fits that definition. Which is these applies to English?
It was invented in the mind before it was used.
It was planned out and formulated.
It was created systematically.
It was created with the intention of having a specific effect.
It was the goal or purpose of a creative act (name the act).
It is the product of a highly skilled creative endeavor.
So, can you back up your claim that the definition of design you posted shows all things that have intelligent input are designed?
Comment by One Brow — February 6, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
February 6th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
OB, languages are the purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details, taking the form of symbols like the ones you are looking at, which represent concepts. Audible symbols form the parts we call words and the arrangement of words are referred to as messaging or conversation. Basic stuff which some will go to great lengths to deny in an attempt to make a tangential point.
Comment by Bradford — February 6, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
February 7th, 2008 at 10:43 am
What about "formal" languages? E.g., Simula? Designed or evolved?
Assuming, Designed or Evolved exhausts the mutually exclusive explanatory categories. I suspect that it may be a bit more complicated, but I am also informed that "simplicity" is a hallmark of design, a priori ruling out "design."
(I had a math prof who denied that modern mathematics is a "formal" language. He insisted that it was obviously Indo-European and deeply infused with concepts drawn from a peculiarly "Western" or "Newtonian" worldview.)
Comment by Rock — February 7, 2008 @ 10:43 am
February 7th, 2008 at 11:46 am
I believe you have confused languages with writing. Languages like English were not invented nor arranged, their order has come about gradually in fits and starts. Will you defend none of the six defintions for the verb "design" as applying to the beginning of English? If not, why continue to maintain it was designed?
I don't deny that messaging or conversation is an act of design. You can perform design on an undesigned thing, whether it is sculpting a rock or writing a letter.
Comment by One Brow — February 7, 2008 @ 11:46 am
February 7th, 2008 at 11:54 am
I'm not familiar with Simula specifically. In the post dated Feb. 5th, 3:10 pm, I already noted that there are designed languages.
Assuming computer programming languages don't count, the only formal language with which I am familiar would be the first-order predicate logic and the Aristolean syllogisms, which I would think are both designed in form and historically.
Certainly that which has been initially designed can undergo evolutionary processes (Unix comes to mind), and design can be applied to things that have evolved. Is that what you mean by complicated?
I'm not sure why one would rule out the other. Mathematics is a formal system based upon axioms and rules of inference chosen for their correspondence to concepts from a Western/Newtonian point of view.
Comment by One Brow — February 7, 2008 @ 11:54 am
February 7th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Hardly OB. I understand all too well that languages can be expressed in written and audible forms. Do you understand this?
Gradualism refers to the timing nature of a process not whether or not arrangement of parts took place.
My previous comment took a definition straight from the dictionary. What do you not understand?
Comment by Bradford — February 7, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
February 7th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
What makes the two terms mutually exclusive? Designed and evolved.
Comment by Bradford — February 7, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
February 7th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
That's a helliphino, Bradford. After asking the question myself innumerable times and receiving nothing other then "philosophical" or "theological" answers (not scientific), I don't know.
But here:
Hypothesis: All (human?) language has its origins in symbolism. Symbolism has its origins in the simplest mnemonic device (design) that (I bet) you can imagine: Counting by ticking off your fingers. A simple arithmetical mnemonic.
All language has its origins in arithmetic! (My professor's argument.)
Language is not reducible to phonemes, obviously. A parrot (mimic, Mung) can reproduce the sounds.
The real impetus for the elaboration (design and evolution) of language was invention (design) totally unrelated, by common descent, of shoes. (Not sandals. LOL)
Of course, there is Moses' theory: Humans didn't invent "language."
Comment by Rock — February 7, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
February 7th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Rock:
There's the element of comprehension enabled by a mutually understood and designed convention which pairs sounds or symbols to concepts.
Did you miss the memo explaining that everything is connected to common descent?:wink:
Comment by Bradford — February 7, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
February 7th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
I didn't get that memo.
And as aside to many statements made in this topic:
All designs have their (known) origin in a problem. Not a plan. Not an intention. Not a forethought. (Or a philosophy or theology.) Etc.
If one is sincerely interested in understanding anything about design I think you should understand that. Pretty basic.
Comment by Rock — February 7, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
February 7th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Rock:
I guess that depends on what you mean by "problem". Do you think artists are trying to solve problems with their art?
Comment by Raevmo — February 7, 2008 @ 7:00 pm
February 7th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Sorry, I should have been more clear for you. What I meant was, you have confused the process of language development with the process of writing (or making a speech). The latter is design, the former is not.
The parts of English were never arranged, they developed without it.
Yes, you took the definition of a noun, said it applied (even though I am disputing that point), and have apparently abandoned the argument that languages were designed, leaving yourself in the position of saying that a language is a design that was not designed.
Comment by One Brow — February 7, 2008 @ 7:14 pm
February 7th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
They are different processes. I'm not even sure what "mutually exclusive" is intended to mean there.
Comment by One Brow — February 7, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
February 7th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
I once solved the problem of patching a hole in the wall by hanging an MCEscher print. (It still hangs there.) Does that count, Ravemo?
I suppose, R, that demarcating art and science may be as difficult to as distinguishing "design" from "evolution."
(Excepting One Brow, of course, because he has at least fifteen different ways to make that distinction!)
If artists don't have problems to solve then maybe what they are doing should be called art and not science. But certainly what they are doing is design, isn't it? Sure it is. Just as was said above, the procedures of design can be applied even when there is no problem to be solved. But usually I assume, since life forms are obviously high-tech designs, we are talking about high-tech design, which no one (no human) ever engages in w/o a prior problem.
(That doesn't mean that artists don't do their artiste thing to solve problems. I understand that's why Churchill began painting.)
And assuming any material, scientific, meaningful distinction is even possible.
As much as I admire the collective intelligence of the participants in these discussions (HT:TTErs), I have little confidence in our ability to make such distinctions.
We are all (alluding to related topic) a bit myopic. The finest details necessary to make the distinctions may remain invisible to us. We can't see that closely.
And that, btw, I think is the source of all our problems.
Comment by Rock — February 7, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
February 7th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
So then words became associated with concepts by some sort of magic? Tell us how it worked. Be specific.
So the association between words and concepts were developed through incantations, shazam, botta bing, or exactly how?
Comment by Bradford — February 7, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
February 7th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Yes, they are solving the problem of artistic expression. Their ability to do so and my inability (along with other non-artists) is what enables them to form the artistic patterns that convey art to an onlooker.
Comment by Bradford — February 7, 2008 @ 10:15 pm
February 7th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
What makes the two terms mutually exclusive? Designed and evolved.
Simple. Design can be an evolving process or a one time shot. An evolution process and design can be compatible.
Comment by Bradford — February 7, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
February 7th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Rock:
Right Rock. I have a son who plays the guitar. Lot's of design entailed in the music he creates and plays. Patterns of notes result in sounds that are creatively used by those who make songs. This is all so obvious. The fact that commenters even dispute things like this show to what absurd lengths anti-IDists will go to debunk ID.
Comment by Bradford — February 7, 2008 @ 11:03 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 9:11 am
No one knows for sure. However, we know that languages evolve and diversify, e.g. French and Spanish evolved from the Latin*. We also know that animals related to humans use primitive communications involving both gestures and vocalizations. It is not unlikely that these primitive associations may have evolved into more complex forms of communication, just as writing evolved from simple clay tokens.
Maybe a dove endowed the survivors of the Deluge, each with the gift of a different language. However, there is substantial evidence that languages evolved from common origins, and that this process continues (though design elements are becoming increasingly important).
"”
* We call this process "evolution" because no one designed the Romance languages with any aforethought of creating a new language. Rather, people passed the language down to their children as-is, but minor changes inevitably occurred over time. These minor changes led to the origin of novel Romance languages. We can reconstruct this history by a process known as comparative linguistics.
Comment by Zachriel — February 8, 2008 @ 9:11 am
February 8th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Zachriel:
This is deceptive. Evolution is a process entailing gradualism and change over time. That can occur with design. It does with virtually all academic disciplines including linguistics. Humans build on what their ancestors create. An evolutionary process entailing step by step designed linkages does not negate design.
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 9:59 am
February 8th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Or perhaps they developed their language with the intention of communicating with people primarily within a set area, in which case they very well could be said to be 'designing a new language'. Especially if, over the course of their cultural development, any of prominence were aware of the divergence other languages were beginning to show.
It's far from a cut and dry issue, especially when touching on questions of what people intended – certainly when dealing with something as design-laden and centric as human language.
Comment by nullasalus — February 8, 2008 @ 10:13 am
February 8th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Yes, the term "evolution" can be applied to changes that were consciously made as improvements. The improvements would be said to be designed, even if the future course of evolutionary change was not considered. In more modern times, these changes might even be made with an awareness of future progress.
The historical evolution of the Romance languages does not fit these categories.
Nevertheless, the origin of the Romance languages are missing an intrinsic component of what most peole would consider design, aforethought. None of the gradual changes were due to conscious efforts to change the language for some future or even current purpose. They were primarily unconscious, incremental changes in accent and usage.
Comment by Zachriel — February 8, 2008 @ 10:25 am
February 8th, 2008 at 10:28 am
nullasalus:
But they could design individual components (sounds and symbols linked to concepts) without an end product in view (like Plattdeutsch) for example. Such a method would not mean that the resulting language was not designed- and intelligently designed at that.
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 10:28 am
February 8th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Are you arguing that because someone or a group of people did not purposefully say "let's design Italian from Latin" that Italian is not a product of intelligent deisgn? Because then you are attaching your own interprtetation onto the meaning of the word design.
The individual changes were of course incremental. That's not in dispute. They were purposeful however. You cannot link words to meanings, either with symbols or sounds, without a consciousness as to what is occurring.
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 10:38 am
February 8th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Please provide a single, applicable definition of design.
That is incorrect. The very slight differences in pronunciation of words that resulted in the divergence of Romance languages from the Vulgar were not introduced for the purpose of creating a new language, or even for an immediate purpose. Most of the speakers were peasants barely eking out a living and probably had little conception that languages could evolve. (Scholars continued to use Classical Latin.) Over a period of a few years, most of the changes were so slight as to be barely recognizable.
Comment by Zachriel — February 8, 2008 @ 10:54 am
February 8th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Zachriel:
Pronunciation differences allow for differences in accents within the same language. That's not all that occurred during the transition of Latin to Italian. New words were introduced into the language of the locals and others were dropped or modfied. Some came directly from invading Lombards who had a great effect on early post-Roman Italian history. Other groups had input as well. Changes very much happened as I indicated with my last sentence: You cannot link words to meanings, either with symbols or sounds, without a consciousness as to what is occurring. When the individual changes actually took place they were very much noticed by peasants who would have had to adjust to the new convention brought about indirectly by force of arms.
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 11:03 am
February 8th, 2008 at 11:17 am
They would have thought it to be a different language they were forced to confront. The adoption of words would typically occur incrementally without regard to creating something new or any overarching design considerations.
A similar example would be modern English as the combination of French and Anglo-Saxon. The Anglo-Saxon adopted words here and there, but considered themselves to still be speaking their native tongue. Each language group resisted integration, but a new language arose nonetheless.
In your last response, you forgot to provide a single, applicable definition of design.
Comment by Zachriel — February 8, 2008 @ 11:17 am
February 8th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Happenstance, association, and habit. In my family, pacifier are "bee-bos" and babies are "goos". No one made a decision to use these terms, it just arose through happenstance, association, and habit. No design used or needed.
Comment by One Brow — February 8, 2008 @ 11:28 am
February 8th, 2008 at 11:31 am
I agree, the processes can be mixed together or used alternately.
So, are you still maintaining that a language is something that is a design, yet still unwilling to use one of the defintions to show it went through the process of design, and is thus an undesigned design?
Comment by One Brow — February 8, 2008 @ 11:31 am
February 8th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Hapenstance is your term for a cognitive process and a decision to associate words with meanings. Stones don't do such things. Intelligent organisms do.
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 11:53 am
February 8th, 2008 at 11:55 am
I designated the applicable definition in a previous comment. Are you cognitvely impaired?
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 11:55 am
February 8th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
The design lies in the individual associations that are collectively referred to as a language. Linking the term mouse to a computer attachment is a designed act. The fact that it only slightly modifies English is irrelevant to its designed nature and the designed nature of all other individual words.
From a previous comment:
The phrase "purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details" was taken from the dictionary. The origin of every word in this sentence can be traced to a purposeful act involving cognition. In addition the order by which they are expressed was determined by convention- the arrangement.
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
As do I. Which is one of several reasons why language evolution is, as nullasalus indicated, far from a cut and dry issue.
In more recent times, design is a more important consideration in understanding languages, starting perhaps with dictionaries and grammar orthodoxies. But when we view them historically, they seem mostly to be used to try and slow or channel natural language evolution.
I asked for clarification.
That would mean that your sentence is designed. That does not mean that the language was designed. For instance, why do English-speakers use the word "me" rather than some other syllable for the first-person singular pronoun? I posit that it is because it was inherited with incidental modification from the Sanskrit. We would predict subtle modifications and diversifications of the pronunciation over time which might be detectable through comparative linguistics.
Comment by Zachriel — February 8, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
If an initially designed entity is subsequently modified through an evolutionary process the outcome is nevertheless a product of design. Sounds like a biological argument for ID except in this case we have not the slightest doubt that an intelligent source made the inital linkages between sounds, symbols and concepts.
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Oh
Good
Grief
Perhaps once humans started using more tools they needed to develop a way of communicating without gestures or outside of their line of sight. So they designed and developed one.
At some point in time they may have noticed they didn't have words for everything. [their buddies kept getting eatin' by lions 'cause they think they're yelling "deeeeer!" or something like that] So they designed and developed some more.
At some point in time group A wanted to distinguish itself from group B, so they designed and developed their own variations.
At some point in time group C comes along and conquers group A. They design and develop some torture devices to ensure that group A learns how to speak proper C.
And so on….
If we have to put language into evolutionary terms doesn't Lamarckian make more sense than Darwinian. At the very least? If not I've wasted the last couple years trying to understand what was only an argument over semantics. Yes, language evolved, by many acts of intelligent intervention, including the intelligent act that birthed it.
I mean, C'mon! Or, what the heck are you guys arguing about here? Is it really whether or not (to put it in ID-vs-MET terms) language is best explained as the result of intelligent agency or by random processes?
[honest, non-facetious/baiting question]: What am I missing here. Besides the love for a debate simply for the sake of having one.
Comment by Rob R. — February 8, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
That does not meet your definition.
design, the purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details.
Comment by Zachriel — February 8, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Sure it does. Like my car the original was designed and subsequently modified by new parts, replacement parts etc. A purposely arranged system of parts that was subsequently modified. Why are you resisting this? Whoever gave you the idea that design is evident only when a designer plans out every single detail of the designed entity in advance of creating it?
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
But not necessarily modified with intent, and a process of change that was often so slow as to clearly indicate it was not due to any design. For most of history, parents had every intention of passing their language down to their children without modification, and yet the language slowly changed.
Comment by Zachriel — February 8, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Agreed, agreed, and agreed. There's just no design described in what you said.
I am cognitavely capable enough to understand that you have used the definition from the list of nouns, thus saying language is a design or an example of design, but have not select even one definition for the process of language creation from the list of verbs, thus declining to say language was designed. This makes language an undesigned design, according to what you are willing to defend. If you don't like it, step up to the plate with a verb or drop the noun designation.
Comment by One Brow — February 8, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Rob R
What the critics are attempting to do is create a definition of design that is so restrictive that it precludes the possibility of imputing it to a biological process. After all if the symbols you are reading were not designed then what is?:grin:
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Hi Bradford,
Just to test the firmness of your convictions…
If God is just a watchmaker/inventor who designed the universe to run by itself, including having specific chemicals available to create SRMs for OOL, would that mean life contains design too by your definition?
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 8, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Are you cognitively capable of discerning that a design resulting from human endeavors was designed by humans?
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Bradford:
Well, yeah, good luck arguing whether or not the ability to communicate comes about via a telic process, if the communication itself is just a random happenstance.
I guess that's the point though, eh?
*sigh*
Bored. That bores me.
Comment by Rob R. — February 8, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
If God created chemicals and laws of nature that make life inevitable from chemical reactions, then yes, that would be evidence of design.
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Hi Bradford,
Are you cognitively capable of discerning that a design resulting from animal endeavors was designed by animals?
Are you cognitively capable of discerning that a design resulting from quantum effects was designed by whoever or whatever put in place the quantum wavefunction?
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 8, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Rob R:
Whatever happened to imaginative critics?:???:
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
TP: Hi Bradford,
That's what forensic scientists are for. If you want to get annoyed get annoyed at those on your side of the fence who parse words and wish to persuade us that human languages are somehow not a product of design.
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Time/causality being moot in your model, that same designer – whom "put in place the quantum wavefunction" – may have also had plans for us animals, no? The collapse resulting in our fine-tuned-for-life universe, 'cause that was the logically, internally consistent position; was deemed good (forgive the pun). So the designs of animals are ipso facto the designs of the quantum wavefunction putter iner.
How'd I do?
Comment by Rob R. — February 8, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Hi Bradford,
I am not annoyed, far from it. Just for the record…
Do your statements here have the implication that Ken Miller is a proponent (willing or not) of Intelligent Design SCIENCE even if he is a very vocal critic of the Intelligent Design MOVEMENT?
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 8, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Hi Rob R,
Not bad. Not bad at all.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 8, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
TP:
My understanding is that Miller believes God created a universe and a life filled earth but concealed his purpose and creative genius from empirical detection.
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
That's nice.
Do your statements here have the implication that Ken Miller is a proponent (willing or not) of Intelligent Design SCIENCE even if he is a very vocal critic of the Intelligent Design MOVEMENT?
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 8, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Hey TP,
you gotta problem with adding me as a friend on Facebook?
Well?! DO YA!?!?! PUNK!!!!!!!!
Comment by Doug — February 8, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Bradford:
I disagree that artists (any variety) have no 'problem' to solve by designing a work of art. Song, poetry, novel, painting, sculpture… all of it commands the artist's design work in order to convey some conceptual meaning to those who will view the work when it's done. Just as language and writing is designed to convey conceptual meanings to those the communicator wishes to communicate with. Communication of concepts then being listed under "problems" that design seeks to address.
Of course, the subjective reception of whatever 'answer' the designer provides is always up to the receiver. This can serve to confuse the design, or judge it "awful," but so what? When I was 13 my parents' generation were just sure the Beatles were out to destroy civilization – as if "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" were some sort of subversive message to the youth. At 13, I thought their design quite brilliant, and was delighted that it made my parents so mad. Part of the design's charm!
Just because the design makes some people mad, or others don't (or won't) like it, doesn't mean it's not designed.
Comment by Joy — February 8, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
I honestly don't understand the nay-sayers on this one. Language is not an "organic function" and it is not "inherited" like genes. Humans are TAUGHT language (or merely learn it by being intelligent enough to do so) by their parents, acquaintances, peers and professional teachers during the course of their young childhood and specific educational training for operation in the world. Which now takes nearly 20 years for entry-level credentials.
What they learn are all the pertinent things other people learned awhile ago. The information is passed by language, writing and numbers. All quite specifically designed to get the concepts and knowledge across to new humans who weren't there when the knowledge was accumulated.
If the word "gnarly" or "dub" or "groovy" gets added to the lexicon, it's because someone used it, others understood what was meant and use it themselves, and it eventually appears in the idiom dictionary of cusswords, insults and hip expressions. All intelligently designed and propagated through the population. If Nell or the Kennedy Twins invent their own language, remedial action is warranted so they can communicate with others of their kind. So long as they remain isolated by their own language, they'll be dismissed as hopelessly mentally deficient. We have those in every generation. Some grossly deformed ones too. We generally care for them anyway.
If language and symbolic communication is not intelligent design, there is no such thing. Is that what you people are arguing about?
Comment by Joy — February 8, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Hi Doug,
You asked…
It's fixed now, I think.
Apparently, I got laughing so hard at your request that I didn't cross the right "T" or dot the right "i".
And, of course, I was too arrogant to think I could possibly make a mistake so, there you have it.
Congratulations, you finally won an argument with me.
BTW, did you read my True Confession comment to Joy?
FMM and I are having some followup conversations that might interest you.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 8, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
How can Miller be "a proponent (willing or not) of Intelligent Design SCIENCE" if he does not believe ID is empirically detectable?
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Hi Bradford,
Is it the "design" he says is undetectable or the "designer"
By your definition of "design", Ken Miller's opinion is that the design is not only detectable, it is a given.
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 8, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
That would be the dictionary definition of the verb design, apparently. So, you are acknowledging that the dictionary definition of the verb design does not apply to biological processes. I accept your point of view.
The font was designed, the alphabet it is based upon was not.
Comment by One Brow — February 8, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I am cognitively capable enough to know that, when a first attempt to insult a person does not work, a second attempt using the same terms is likely to fail as well.
I am also cognitively capable enough to have noticed that none of the definitions you posted for "design" (the verb) was "the process of human endeavors resulting in a design". You chose the definitions.
Mind you, I don't agree that language is a design. It still is amusing to see you struggle to call it a design while refusing to use any of the definiitions of the verb design to describe the process by which it was created, thereby leaving it an undesigned design. Your cognitive dissonance, not mine.
Comment by One Brow — February 8, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Shazam. Alphabet. Botta bing. Remember anything you read is not designed.:lol:
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I'll try to clarify.
Yes, the evolution of a language is different from that of a biological population.
The teaching, which is performed with foresight, intent, and creativity, ic clearly designed. The language which is being taught is not.
I agree the sriting is design. You can generally point to a writer. No one sat down to plan out the needs of the language at it's creation.
None of which involves foresight, planning, or intentional creativity for any of the people involved.
Except, they don't plan out a language, they learn it by use, memory, etc.
Hardly. Bradford published a list of six definitions for "to design" above. He will not defend any one of them as being used in the creation of language. If no process recognized as design was used, the language was not designed.
Now, this is differenct from writing, speaking, etc., which takes an indesigned base material and designs with it, much as a sculptor takes an undesigned rock and creates a statue.
Comment by One Brow — February 8, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Yes, it would be a shame if you left the thread without one final mischaracterization of my position.
Comment by One Brow — February 8, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Miller would probably say he detects the designer in a personal, subjective way but you need to ask him.
Miller would likely agree with Dawkins that a blind watchmaker was at work. The difference between the two is Dawkins would claim the blind watchmaker existed without a creator and Miller would say that a creator made the blind watchmaker without leaving empirically detectable clues behind. But again why not send Miller an e-mail and get it straight from the horses' mouth?
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
You do not know that groovy did not entail intentional creativity. Did you interview the person who first used the term? You can't communicate a new concept without some plan however brief it is. The meaning must somehow be communicated. Foresight is not a prerequiste to design, merely an aspect of a design type.
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I took a phrase out of the dictionary and used it in two different comments. You can disagree but do not lie.
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Sorry. The alphabet used to represent all the sounds and words used in the English language was not designed. It just came together. Botta bing.:lol:
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
One Brow:
Horsehockey. The nouns and verbs all have specific meaning. The syntax is formalized. The grammar and spelling can be lax, but since I am a writer, I'll tell you it's not random. And sorry, I refuse to believe that all those years spent learning how to write those letters in block print and cursive were spent wasted on random squiggles. That's bull and you know it.
Garbage.
Oh, please! Even you could have looked those up if you cared not to look dumb. Oh, well. Desperation (or just pointless trolling) knows no bounds.
See, "universal education" is a very new phenomenon historically, and doesn't really apply everywhere even now. Lots of people can't read or write. They get along okay anyway, or there wouldn't be so many of 'em. When writing was formalized it was very much formalized. Guilds and priesthoods were in charge of writing, of carving the glyphs on rock, on maintaining the chronicles one generation to the next even as the papyrus and skins rotted from age and the inks faded over time. You do NOT carve your history on the walls of your tomb unless you expect that somebody will someday be able to read it. Rosetta, so that could be done. Heiroglyph. Runes. Cyrillic. Hebrew. Each letter of which was embued with magic powers and secret meanings for those few who held the power of "writing sounds."
Your position is just really quite irrational, probably appropos for this topic. But do have fun. This throw-away is beyond boring at this point.
Comment by Joy — February 8, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Hi Bradford,
I wasn't interested in what Ken Miller thinks.
I am interested in the consistency of your definition of design.
I suggest that by your definition everything is designed and has design, especially as viewed by a Theistic Evolutionist like Ken Miller.
By your definition, detecting design is easy.
Now, try detecting non-design.
Could you offer an example of what YOU would say is absolutely not designed.
The moon?
And I know it will be difficult, but try not to reference what an ID critic, or anyone else, would say.
What is your opinion based on your definition?
Is the moon designed?
Comment by Thought Provoker — February 8, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
TP, the issue for me is the same as it was for Darwin. Darwin recognized the design in life but attributed it to a natural process- natural selection. Dawkins used the imagary of a blind watchmaker to account for design. IDists believe that biological systems and patterns can provide evidence of foresight or a directed process. Is there evidence of design with respect to the moon? Very possibly. But the issue is can one get empirical evidence of this? I doubt it.
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
You're kidding, right?
How is Bradford's comment not an accurate representation of your incoherent 'beliefs' regarding language?
You're a moving target: as soon as someone trys to pin you down on a consequence of your reasoning (or even on direct claims you made) you slide aside and act as if that was never your position to begin with.
Comment by Doug — February 8, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Yes, but that doesn't mean the association of particular sounds to specific meanings is due to design. Traditionally, languages have been inherited from one generation to the next with only incidental variations. But these associations have drifted over time.
I don't think anyone claimed it was random. But you are correct that the modern era has seen efforts to slow or divert or otherwise influence the natural evolution of language; dictionaries, grammar orthodoxy, spelling conventions, jargon, slang, modern advertising, etc.
Excellent question.
It doesn't seem that Bradford can point to anything which is not designed.
The origin of the alphabet and the construction of meaningful sentences are quite different. There is reason to believe that alphabets evolved incrementally from primitive precusors, such as tokens.
Comment by Zachriel — February 8, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Actually, it is Bradford's Shazam argument which is unfounded. His argument is that because a sentence is designed and a sentence is composed of an alphabet, therefore the alphabet is designed. This would be like claiming that a stone house is designed and a stone house is composed of stones, therefore the stones are designed.
They are distinct issues, and have distinct resolutions. The question of the origin of the alphabet has to be argued on its own merits.
Comment by Zachriel — February 8, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
One Brow wrote:
Joy responded:
Joy,
Your comment exemplifies the black-and-white thinking of many design proponents. For you, language is either designed or random. The possibility of undesigned order simply escapes you.
Who do you think planned out the Great Vowel Shift, and persuaded everybody else to go along? Who was the mastermind who decided that the genitive case should be dropped from Old English?
Comment by valerie — February 8, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
It's fascinating to watch the twisting and turning and squirming of Bradford & Joy. Let me ask them this: was the language of non-human animals designed? For example, why do cowbirds (brood parasites that never meet their parents) have different dialects?
Comment by Raevmo — February 8, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
While it's possible "groovy" came out of nowhere, it seems much more likely that it is a shortened version of "in the groove", a term for enjoyable music that developed back when most recording were on grooved vinyl platters. No design, not need to initially plan a concept, just the typical shortening that happens in the evolution of languages.
It came together without any appreciable acts of creativity, forethought, or planning. Look up the history of the alphabet if you don't believe me.
Sorry, but your quote mine of me does not turn my comment into a lie. I have consistently pointed out that you are applying the definition of the noun, while refusing to defend the creation process with any of the definitions for the verb, resulting in an undesigned design.
Comment by One Brow — February 8, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
And if the stones are shaped to better work with the design of the house, how about then? And it's not as if arguing that alphabets evolved from tokens gets you out of the design concept even there.
Val,
That's funny. "You guys think too black and white! Also, clearly the answer is white."
Personally, the answer looks more complicated to me – saying that language isn't designed because no one sat down and said 'I am going to create a complete and new language today' is a joke. When it comes to the romance languages, about the only aspect being argued as 'undesigned' here is the divergence to the point of distinction having not been planned. But that's where the 'black and white' really breaks down – was no one aware that the people in other areas were developing different dialects? Since everyone in a given region was aware of what culture they belonged to, and who their language was designed to enable communication with, how much of the collective development was a case of conscious omission?
The 'languages at this level are not designed' claim hinges on a lack of awareness and planning. But arguing that only one kind of planning (centralized, start-to-finish direction) counts is a mistake. Your 'undesigned order' is my 'collective design' in this case. You may as well be arguing that the great wall of china was undesigned – hey, it took centuries to build, required millions of workers, they changed use of construction materials at some points, and was repaired and rebuilt several times. The original planners didn't foresee that and weren't alive to guide the end result, so I guess it's a giant unplanned structure. Or maybe it was certainly designed from start to finish, and the design was procedural and to a point collective.
Comment by nullasalus — February 8, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
I agree it is not random. It is also not designed. A thing can be undesigned and not random. For that matter, you can insert deliberate randomness into a design, as well.
Thank you for that well-thought-out rebuttal to the point.
You think I haven't?
If language were really designed, these carved histories would be much more understandable than they are.
Well, it's a shame you won't continue this discussion. I look forward to more of them in the future.
Comment by One Brow — February 8, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
This reminds me of a class in math, where in order to define a measure, we first had to define an outer measure, which was something much stronger than we wanted, before we trimmed that back to produce a measure. The teacher examplified this by taking a large hop forward and a short hop back.
My position has not changed, but soome people seemed to have hopped around it a couple of time before landing on it. You'll note Bradford did correct his characterization to a much more accurate one after my comment.
Comment by One Brow — February 8, 2008 @ 8:49 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Very little, actually. Most people in that time did not travel more than 50 miles from their home in their life, according to my understanding.
Collective design still requires collective designers.
That's actually a very good example of collective design. The main difference is that, at any point during the construction, you can point to the architects who have made the plans for the latest section. You always have a new design from which to work. This did not happen with languages. There was no designer or design team guiding the language along.
Comment by One Brow — February 8, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Here's an everyday example: when you shake a box of cereal, all the broken bits migrate to the bottom of the box. Shaking results in order. Does that make the shaking an act of design?
Comment by One Brow — February 8, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
iR u writr. ino i im nut to gud att et i dnt dou 2 gud et skul thee kep teleen mi i hadda lern hou 2 speel i dint beeleve dem iR e bist writr eberr 0 1 beeleves mi Y as thet i ofnn wunner zo tere
Comment by Joy — February 8, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
a;'kirt [ijas ypoau t'an t[ajt[oew4 kn aty ao[Óarwaow67t mgat a'tlgfh aayt;lkaejhsu wgyay tjnha a'yha pehat;thy artetjkh!-72p9u ga"o63038
a;kjbahwytn ap8i9ga opy5 0-9 gp aqderscftgv bhnm,./ 0poyujtd rtgum, l.uyr45 ['987tgvc1 `r45 28j niu87u -
Comment by Joy — February 8, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
You don't need a 'most'. You need an 'any' who returns and talks to their comrades. Or an 'any' who realizes on their own the distinction of their language.
And if they didn't follow the architect's designs exactly, it's no longer design? That's far from clear even in the case of the wall. With language, just about everyone is their own architect, arguably with some authorities in the forms of teachers.
With language, your 'design team' is still present – it's a question of how broad the dispersal is. Language 'design' never stops, plans vary from person to person even as a central plan is conceivable. You're arguing that one particular aspect – divergence of dialect to the point of instantiating a new language – was not designed, because there was no central authority guiding and laying out the language's development. My response is you don't need such an authority to achieve design on that level. You could do it with a general awareness of divergence (Traveller returns, tells people about how different those folks from far away talk), or you could do it with a general assumed scope of communication ('My world extends to these locations, my language is meant to talk to people native to these lands'), or a combination. And that's not necessarily an exhaustive list.
Just as a fun thought – let's say a military force invades a nation, and disperses the people in the 100s AD. General 1 says to General 2, 'I'm worried. Sure, we've taken their land and they're fleeing in different directions, but this is still one culture. What if they eventually unifty and return?' General 2 replies, 'Don't worry about it. They're running so far, so wide that they won't be able to resume links with each other for a long, long time. And by that point, they'll have a different culture. Hey, maybe even a different language.' If that comes to pass, did the invaders design the language? I don't think a decisive 'no' has much grounding.
Comment by nullasalus — February 8, 2008 @ 9:56 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
This is an argument from ignorance. You are in no position to know whether or not at critical developmental junctures linguistic verbal and symbolic conventions were not mandated by tribal councils or authoritarian figures. As is typically the case with ID critics subjective ideas take precedence over maintaining open minds.
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 10:51 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
How does the noun form of design not necessitate the verb form when humans are known to have created the object in question? Are you trolling?
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 10:54 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
That's your stupid spin. My actual argument is that the linkages of letters to sounds and their systematic arrangement to form words representing concepts is a clear indicator that the symbols were intelligently designed.
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
I see that Joy is running away from questions she can't answer, as usual.
Meanwhile, nullasalus wrote:
Funny, I don't recall saying the answer was white.
If a lack of awareness and planning isn't relevant, then you might as well argue that the rate of inflation is designed. After all, it's the result of economic decisions made by millions of people. They designed it, right?
Some of us prefer not to stretch the meaning of the word beyond its breaking point.
Comment by valerie — February 8, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
How does the alphanumeric system enabling messaging come about in the absence of awareness and planning?
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Why did you not ask the question directly? Did I claim the air you breathe was designed or dirt in the ground?
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Joy, did you note the total lack of specificity as to how alphabets came into existence in the absence of design? Evolutiondunnit is as specific as it gets.
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 11:10 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Instinct Raevmo. Programmed right into those intelligently designed genes. It's actually more fun watching you et. al. avoid the alphabet question. Maybe you can help Valerie. How does the alphanumeric system enabling messaging come about in the absence of awareness and planning? Evolutiondunnit? Shazam? How do alphabets come into existence without planning? How about an entertaining story before bedtime?
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 11:26 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Then we would say the stones were shaped by design.
My comment was directly to the fallacious *form* of the argument.
Because Thought Provoker asked the question directly.
I provided that information, more than once.
It evolved from simpler associations.
Comment by Zachriel — February 8, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
You keep repeating that they evolved. How is evolutiondunnit any more informative than Goddidit?
Which provides zero information. More evolutiondunnit.
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 11:43 pm
February 8th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
C'mon Zachriel give us some mutation/selection scenarios we can evaluate. What mutations led to A, B, C…? What's the evidence?
Comment by Bradford — February 8, 2008 @ 11:47 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 12:03 am
Oh, lighten up k.. val.
I said that the claim hinges on a lack of awareness and planning – and then proceeded to explain how those things can actually be present without there being a centralized force directing the process. Where you pulled 'lack of awareness and planning are irrelevant' from, I do not know. Actually I do, but it would be rude to say!
By the way, love the example. Are you saying that people cannot understand the basic workings of inflation and intentionally promote or discourage behavior one way or the other, both directly and indirectly? If inflation rates – 'the actions of millions' as you say – can't be guided by either measure, then let's fire a whole lot of officials who say otherwise. Sounds like a good plan to me, frankly.
Once again: 'The problem with you guys is you see things in black and white. Which is keeping you from recognizing white is the correct answer here.'
Bradford,
So far, my favorite rallying cry has been 'MWI did it'. Didn't that get rallied as an OoL explanation recently?
Comment by nullasalus — February 9, 2008 @ 12:03 am
February 9th, 2008 at 12:14 am
Bradford:
Yeah. Of course, maybe these are bored junior high drop-outs (which would make some sense). I notice our latecoming swamp denizens are getting backup from people I would have surmised previously might actually have met a paleographer or papyrologist once in their lives. Guess I was wrong.
Have fun with TP's troll-groupies. I've got better things to do.
Comment by Joy — February 9, 2008 @ 12:14 am
February 9th, 2008 at 12:17 am
As I previously mentioned, Tokens were used for accounting. Then impressions of tokens were used on containers (clay envelopes) of tokens. Then impressions of tokens were used as the records themselves. And that is the beginning of cuneiform writing. Interestingly, it took several generations for the tokens to be discarded"”even though all the information was recorded on the exterior of the containing clay envelope.
In any case, there was no purposeful intention of creating an alphabet.
Denise Schmandt-Besserat's work in this field is fascinating.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 12:17 am
February 9th, 2008 at 12:22 am
How does this show how the alphabet came into existence without the benefit of design? Where is the precise thinking and specific links to causes and effects that should be a part of good science?
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 12:22 am
February 9th, 2008 at 12:28 am
Because the evolution of an alphabet wasn't purposeful. It was incidental.
Gee whiz. The tokens. The envelopes. The marks of tokens on the envelopes containing tokens. Then the envelopes without tokens, but only the marks.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 12:28 am
February 9th, 2008 at 1:08 am
Bradford,
It's not there. At best, all Zach's example can do is show that some humans designed markers, and incremental changes ('designs') to the markers eventually expanded the use and diversity of the markings. 'You didn't have a person or committee sit down with no alphabet, then decide 'we shall make an alphabet today". Instead you have, at some point, a human or humans coming up with (designing) a primitive mark system of communication. Over time, they developed more marks, and went beyond an accounting system.
The problem is, design is the driving force in every way. And at every stage of development you have individuals and groups purposefully adding to or generally altering the communication process. In fact, it keeps going even after you've hit the alphabet – language development and alteration simply does not stop. So arguing 'the alphabet was a collection of incremental designs that eventually amounted to a cohesive system – and no one person or single authoritative group developed that system on their own' is.. well, I'd say 'wacky'. Not only because you have design at every stage, but because the leap from a collection of markings to an alphabet is itself a murky affair. If you're saying there's a jump between 'markings' and 'alphabet' – well, that takes humans looking at the markings and trying to standardize and transform them into a more cohesive system. Oops, the link is design. If you're saying there's no jump between markings and an alphabet – it's all on ongoing process – well, then you're still left with a process that is distinguished precisely by (for human purposes) its design at every point.
Really, it's like saying 'computer language was not created to design video games. Games were the result of evolution, not design.' It's an iffy claim at best, especially if someone early on realizes the general potentiality ('nearly unlimited') of the language as a concept. Did any of the first people working with markings grasp, in a vague way, the potential of their system? Now that's a fun question.
Comment by nullasalus — February 9, 2008 @ 1:08 am
February 9th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Thanks for your unscientific assertion.
Bradford: Where is the precise thinking and specific links to causes and effects that should be a part of good science?
You forgot the paintings in caves. Tokens to ABC… is not a cause and effect pathway. At best it is an analogy.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 1:12 am
February 9th, 2008 at 1:37 am
Good comment nullasalus. I posted a blog entry related to this.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 1:37 am
February 9th, 2008 at 2:23 am
Joy wrote:
Run away! Run away!
nullasalus wrote:
Duh. You wrote:
That's where it came from.
nullasalus:
No. Inflation existed long before policy wonks understood it or had any idea of how to influence it.
The problem with you guys is that you take a perfectly serviceable word like 'design' and weigh it down with burdens it wasn't meant to carry. For example, you say that my 'undesigned order' is your 'collective design'. That means that all of the following, according to you, are collectively designed:
1. Inflation.
2. The traffic backups on I-880 during rush hour.
3. The brown paths through the grass left by pedestrians too lazy, or in too much of a hurry, to stay on the sidewalk.
4. The shortage of Democratic ballots in some California polling stations on Tuesday.
Call these 'collectively designed' if you must, but don't be surprised when the rest of us collectively roll our eyes.
Comment by valerie — February 9, 2008 @ 2:23 am
February 9th, 2008 at 6:57 am
You're a real piece of work, Val. Mull this one over.
Inflation
n. 1. Economics. a persistent, substantial rise in the general level of prices related to an increase in the volume of money and resulting in the loss of value of currency (opposed to deflation).
Now think about this carefully. If no one understood inflation.. how were the prices rising? Were merchants just raising their prices and wondering why they had to do that?
There is no way for inflation to work without people understanding, in some way, what is going on. 'I normally charge 3 seashells for one chicken. But now people found a ton of seashells. Everyone has more than they need. … I'll just keep charging 3 seashells.' If the people dealing in money don't 'get' inflation, nothing will change. And once they understand that an excess of supply means a reduced demand, it's not rocket science to figure out ways to influence it. Really, when do you think the 'policy wonks' figured out ways to influence value in trade? Hint: They weren't wearing power ties back then.
First off, there's no 'you guys' with me. What, ID proponents? I'm intrigued by the thought and sympathetic to a lot of the views, but I've made polite criticisms in the past and stated my position there. It may be a shock, but I don't consider people who I disagree with to be 'those guys who I have to fight'.
Second, wasn't meant to carry? Why, because the word was designed for a different purpose? Do you even think this stuff through before you write it?
Third, considering you just whiffed amazingly on inflation – what can I say, you picked a horrible example to back your point up with – I'm going to kindly decline to accept your assertions of 'what else I think is collective design'. I explained myself clearly on language, and I did it again on inflation. You're looking at two human developments (language and inflation), which are practically defined by their reliance on human design and decision-making, then spouting off about how they weren't designed. In the case of language, because the design was procedural and eventually arrived at development points that wasn't the explicit result of an individual/group plan – sorry, I find that ridiculously arbitrary to the point of uselessness. In the case of inflation, because you clearly don't 'get' it'. I wonder how you'd handle the suggestion that some people welcome inflation – mind-blowing, I know.
Here's a lesson to absorb before you find yourself squirming into a brand new handle: When someone has a view you disagree with, you should really make sure you know what they – and you – are talking about before you make with the e-sass. Nothing quite like following up a 'run away! run away!' with 'inflation was around before anyone knew how it worked'.
Comment by nullasalus — February 9, 2008 @ 6:57 am
February 9th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Null,
It's probably best to take your morning Valium before you check the blogs.
For my part, it puts a smile on my face to wake up and find myself arguing with someone who thinks that inflation is designed.
Easy, boy. You were the one who introduced the 'you guys' phrase:
Take another look at the definition you quoted. Inflation is a rise in the general level of prices, not the price of a single product. A blacksmith may know why he is charging more to shoe a horse, but that doesn't mean he understands why the price of everything else is rising. Inflation will occur even in an economy where nobody sees the big picture.
It's not designed, after all.
That's a shame. I was looking forward to hearing you explain how traffic backups are 'designed' by drivers.
If you happen to reconsider, here's that list of things that are designed, by your criteria:
And for good measure, a couple more:
5. Stock market crashes.
6. Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Design is everywhere!
Comment by valerie — February 9, 2008 @ 8:51 am
February 9th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Moderators,
Could you fish my comment out of the moderation queue? Thanks.
Comment by valerie — February 9, 2008 @ 8:53 am
February 9th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Hey Bradford, can any process that has as a cause somewhere in the process an acting intelligence be undesigned?
Or is anything that an intelligence involved in automatically designed?
Comment by hrun — February 9, 2008 @ 10:15 am
February 9th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Are you claiming that Indo-European peoples *purposefully* decided to allow slight migrations and diversifications in the word for the first-person singular pronoun? Who do you think planned out the Great Vowel Shift, and persuaded everybody else to go along? Who was the mastermind who decided that the genitive case should be dropped from Old English? Are you claiming that people *purposefully* decided to devise an alphabet from tokens? Or were they just trying to count sheep and incidentally took another incremental and inadvertent step towards an alphabet they could not envision?
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 11:05 am
February 9th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Zachriel:
The tokens to alphabet stuff is a non-sequitur lacking causal linkage. It's an analogy at best.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 11:40 am
February 9th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Nullasalus and Bradford,
These guys can do 25,000+ (!) posts on UcD, mostly about DaveScot. I kid you not. That's just one thread. FYI, just so you know what you're dealing with. They can – and do – do this all day with or without anyone besides themselves to have the "discussion" with. You'll soon be labeled tards, if you haven't already, for your refusal to accept reason and logic. Many comments will ensue. This thread passed ridiculous by long ago; reason and logic are little dots in this discussions rear-view now. Stop The Insanity! (cue: picture of that weird super-hyper workout chick whom says that)
I think Joy had the right idea. She usually does though.
Have fun. *cringe*
Comment by Rob R. — February 9, 2008 @ 11:47 am
February 9th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
I have no idea why you keep saying that, or what you actually mean. Are you suggesting that tokens were not precusors to cuneiforms? That markings on envelopes did not represent an early step towards the development of writing? Or do you mean that people who counted their goods using tokens were purposefully taking steps towards the eventual development of a written language?
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Off-topicAtBC means After the Bar Closes with the associated behavior. It is meant as an overflow for The Panda's Thumb to avoid derailing discussions there.
Hundreds of people have been banned by Uncommon Descent, most often with little justification, so AtBC also acts as a place to comment on the goings-on at Uncommon Descent. Many of those banned are working scientists. There is one extensive thread dedicated just to bannings.
Also, the comment history at Uncommon Descent seems to be subject to change at the whims of the moderator, also with little justification. So, AtBC acts as an archive to preserve the history that has been redacted.
"”
Thrice banned by Uncommon Descent.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
After rereading the thread, I realize that I haven't fully credited the sublime ridiculousness of nullasalus's position.
He writes:
Ponder that. In this scenario, neither general coins a single word, alters a single pronunciation, or invents a single grammatical structure. Between them, they might not even understand a single word of their enemy's language. Yet nullasalus is unwilling to say that they didn't design the new language. "I don't think a decisive 'no' has much grounding," he says.
Wow.
Comment by valerie — February 9, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Only if that "any" also has the capability to control how other people use thier language and the desire to exert that control. Otherwise, you're goingt o get very few people who care enough about that group that lives further than they'll ever travel and creating a deliberate difference with them. Think about the scenario you're proposing: the dirt farmer saying to himself "all those strangers say 'r' with a trill, so I'm going to stop trilling so I won't sound like them". Seriously, you think that happened?
I'm sure you think you made some sort of point there, but I have no idea what it was trying to be. How could the actions of the woerkers change the creative process of the architect?
Again, a confusion of writing/speech (designed things) with the raw material upon which they act (language). If you and I had really designed our own languages, we probably could not communicate even to the the current degree.
Since the only proposed definitions for design involve an act of creation or planning, the answer is clearly "no".
Let me ask you this: Is there any act that an intelligent being can commit that does not qualify as design, as you have been using it? Why not?
Comment by One Brow — February 9, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
If you have evidence of tribal councils or authoritarian figures, present it. They aren't necessary in the development of languages.
No, just noting that you are claiming language is a design and you won't defend that it was designed, so for you language is an undesigned design. If you admit that, I'll stop noting it. If you make an attempt to correct it, I'll read it. Until then, it's a wide-open point you refuse to address.
Comment by One Brow — February 9, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 11:52 am
keiths,
Sorry, but when someone reaches that critical mass of A) Being snippy and sarcastic, while B) displaying an utter lack of knowledge about what they're talking about, that's when I have my most fun. You're a gift to me, Valerie.
Then by all means, Val, provide an example of an economy where prices rose across the board and the people raising their prices didn't know what was going on. You're telling me that a blacksmith knows 'Well, I have to charge more, because currency is worth less' and then 'I don't understand why everyone else is raising their prices?' C'mon.
Inflation does not work if people do not grasp inflation. Period. It is a description of a mechanism that is essentially a choice based on information. You're telling me 'well just because someone raises their price because they know the currency is inflated doesn't mean they understand why other people are raising their prices'. My response is, A) You're nuts, and B) Can you give me 2 tens for a five?
Well, Val, I'm on inflation – and so far you're insisting that inflation works, even when people are unaware that currency is inflated. And that just because someone raises their prices because they know currency is inflated, doesn't mean they understand why other people are raising their prices.
Tell you what, though. I'm having such a blast with you, I'm going to move on to another example on your list – just for the hell of it. But c'mon, I want to have another round of 'People raise their prices because there's too much currency, but that doesn't mean they know what inflation is'.
I know – shocking isn't it?
And I'm going to stand by it. By all means, engage me on it – but only after we've had some more fun with inflation.
OB,
But every 'any' who isn't a hermit, influences language. You're making the mistake of asserting that if a person doesn't explicitly plan a design (in this case, language) from start to finish, then there's no design in play.
It doesn't even need to go that far. 'Those people are talking differently, it's harder to understand them' is about all you need to make the entire situation more murky. And my view is that it was murky to begin with, just by the nature of language.
In a number of ways, really. Do you really think the architect(s) – particularly for the great wall – drew up the plans, then went 'Oh well, I'm done here' and found a new job before the construction started? It's unfortunately (or not, I suppose) rarely so simple. Or that an architect's plans don't or can't take into account the capabilities and style of the construction workers?
The fact that you view language as 'raw material' is probably responsible for the gulf between us in this conversation. Language is a 'raw material' in the way a lego is a raw material – a thing that is, entirely in concept, itself designed for open-ended application. There is no instance of its use free of design.
And my response is that when you have a situation like that – where a move is made to prompt an action, and that action occurs as a result of that move – that you're seeing design in play. Let me be clear: I am not saying 'general 2 designed the language', but he certainly played a conscious role in bringing it about. Hence, a decisive 'no' is not clear.
I don't think questions of design are black and white when it comes to human developments, and I think your way of viewing design is incorrect. Call it a difference of opinion if you like, but you're shrinking the options down to explicit start-to-finish design, and leaving out everything from design-by-omission to open-ended design.
I could respond by asking if there's any act an intelligent being can commit that you couldn't attribute to evolution as you have been using it. Why did a Walmart pop up 5 miles away from me? Because undesigned order (Where people built their houses, placed their businesses, developed their roads, etc) made that spot the most appealing. Why did I go to PSU? A combination of factors ranging from settlement patterns of my ancestors, genetics, parental cashflow, force of cultural direction, etc.
It'd be a mistake to take a view like that and argue there was no design in play. And I'm saying that it's just as much of a mistake to say 'Well, no one sat down and said they would design french, therefore it was not designed'. If you limited yourself to 'No one sat down and said they were going to design french', I wouldn't even argue it. Of course that didn't happen. It's that last part that doesn't fly, the implication that the language thing just happened without anyone playing an active, conscious role – noticing that the languages were starting to diverse, knowing where 'their' dialect/language was spoken, making no or minimal attempts to maintain comprehensibility between people in area X and people in area Y.
Comment by nullasalus — February 10, 2008 @ 11:52 am
February 10th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Rob R.,
I have a terrible secret: Sometimes I get bored, and can just argue and argue and argue. Especially when someone can make it fun for me (see: Val).
Eventually I'll get tired of this and go read or get something done. But yeah, the whole 'filibuster' thing is an ingrained part of e-argument culture.
Comment by nullasalus — February 10, 2008 @ 11:54 am
February 10th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Oh I've defended it allright. The action is now at Evolving Scientism.
Comment by Bradford — February 10, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Inflation may be so gradual that people are unaware of it occurring. Inflation could be caused by a specific mechanism, such as a gold-currency market being flooded with imported gold. Inflation can be caused by bottlenecks in an expanding market. Inflation can be caused by individuals raising prices in response to local market conditions. None of these require any specific action or knowledge of the participants with regards to global inflation rates.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I'm sorry, but no. If supply of a currency/good is rising and no one is aware that it is occurring, there is no market response, and therefore no inflation. If oil were formed by abiotic processes, vastly and regularly increasing supplies of attainable oil underground – but they weren't found yet – inflation is not occurring. The moment someone becomes aware of the increased supply, now we're seeing inflation in play.
More on this at the end, as I think I see where you hope to go with this.
Absolutely. But that's one for my category – in that case you're dealing with merchants trading a commodity. If there's an abundance against demand/need, they're going to price accordingly. The awareness is in play, as it must be.
Right here you seem to be trying to argue 'Well, someone may see prices going up, and not be aware of the specific reason/mechanisms in play.' But you can't get to that point without having people who are aware of the value of gold, and the effect an additional and excessive supply is going to have.
I think you're getting confused here – just because prices are going up doesn't mean inflation is in play. If market prices in my area are on the rise because demand is increasing too fast against supply, that's not inflation.
I'm sorry, but it does. If you're trying to say 'Someone can be in the market, see prices rise, and not be aware of the specific mechanism/event' – you're still left with the fact that for any inflation to occur, there has to be an awareness of supply/currency volume. Someone in the commerce chain, probably a number of people, must be aware and reacting, or inflation can't occur.
By the way – since you want to jump in on this, here's a challenge.
Zach, I'd like your input here. Can inflation exist even if no one – accent on the no one – understands it? Keep in mind that means 'can inflation exist if no one realizes that excess supply means reduced value'.
And how likely is it that an individual (blacksmith) will raise their prices in response to inflated currency, but have no clue why everyone else is raising their prices?
Looking forward to your defense.
Comment by nullasalus — February 10, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
nullasalus wrote:
That would be easier to believe if I weren't so successful at pointing out your errors. That seems to bother you. As it is, you're an answer to Voltaire's prayer. You're claiming that inflation is designed. Let that sink in for a minute.
No, I'm not telling you that the blacksmith knows that the currency is worth less. Inflation does not depend at all on such knowledge.
As long as a) people are generally willing to spend more when they have more, and b) suppliers generally will charge as much as the market will bear, then c) inflation will occur when the money supply increases too rapidly.
Consider our blacksmith. Suppose he notices that for the last three months he's had all the business he can handle, and that he's had to turn lots of customers away. He sees the opportunity to make more money, so he raises his prices. Now he's still turning customers away, but fewer, and his income has risen dramatically. The market has "told" him that it can support his higher prices, and so he happily continues to charge more.
He has contributed to inflation by raising his prices. But note that his decision had nothing to do with understanding trends in the money supply or prices in general. He doesn't even need to understand the concept of inflation. All he needs to know is that customers are willing to pay more for his services, whether that is because they have more money in their pockets or because their need for smithing services has increased. And so he charges more.
Indeed, prices might be falling in the rest of the economy, and the money supply might be shrinking. So what? The blacksmith is better off with a higher income. If customers are willing to pay more for his services, he will charge more. He doesn't need to know what the money supply or the CPI are doing.
This is basic stuff. Null, have you ever taken an econ class?
Regarding his design by invasion thesis, nullasalus wrote:
I don't doubt that. You're known for clinging to positions, out of pride, long after they've been discredited.
By all means, keep trying to justify your position on inflation and language. But don't neglect to explain to us how drivers design traffic backups. Inquiring minds want to know.
Comment by valerie — February 10, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
keiths,
Zach is intervening in the discussion in the hopes of helping you save face. You've argued that 'inflation happened long before anyone understood it or knew how to influence it'.
This is one of those 'meta' moments in e-arguing, where the person is so committed to just plain staying in the fight that they – remember this one? – lose sight of the big picture. You think that, so long as you keep walking in here snarling, you're covering up your errors. All you're doing is highlighting them.
Once again, you're a gift to me.
Oh, for crying out loud.
YOU DON'T CONTRIBUTE TO INFLATION JUST BY RAISING YOUR PRICES.
Get it through your head: Inflation is not merely 'prices are going up'. Inflation is not 'I sold more items than ever and now I have a lot of money in the bank'. Again, the friggin definition of inflation with emphasis.
Economics. a persistent, substantial rise in the general level of prices related to an increase in the volume of money and resulting in the loss of value of currency (opposed to deflation).
Related to an increase in the volume of money and resulting in the loss of value of currency. The blacksmith raising his prices has done nothing to inflation. The volume of money is unchanged; he merely has more of it. Every cent is worth as much before he raised his prices as after.
Yes, the average price of goods will rise slightly once his price changes have been factored in – but guess what? If every single merchant in the village raises their prices, you're still not seeing inflation. Prices rise in an inflation scenario because the currency is worth less.
Val, listen carefully: You have no idea what you're talking about. Your grasp of economics is abysmal. You are very, very funny.
Edit: Oh, this gets better and better.
Okay. So, the blacksmith is contributing to inflation by raising his prices, even if the money supply is shrinking.
Wow, Val.
Comment by nullasalus — February 10, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Before I address the rest of Null's comment, let me point out something that should be obvious to everyone.
nullasaurus wrote:
That's exactly right. A coal-burning power plant contributes to pollution, even if the overall level of pollution is declining year by year. Every job loss contributes to the unemployment rate, even if unemployment is decreasing nationwide. A contribution to the Red Cross remains a contribution, even if their cash reserves are declining. In exactly the same way, the blacksmith contributes to inflation by raising his prices, even if the money supply is shrinking, and even if the overall inflation level is negative (i.e. deflation).
Are you with us, Null?
Comment by valerie — February 10, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
If the same market basket increases in cost over time, that's called inflation. That's the definition. If it's a slow process, it's still inflation.
Your original claim was the people have to be aware of inflation. That is clearly incorrect. Individuals only have to be aware of the local conditions. I doubt that ancient peoples even had the concept, especially with regards to gold. How can you have too much gold?!
Local conditions aren't usually considered inflation (though they certainly contribute to the trend), but if prices rise globally, then it's defined as inflation.
This is basic economics. Economies can only expand so fast. At some point, bottlenecks in the economy occur causing shortages and a general rise in prices. This is a primary structural cause of inflation in modern economies. This is going to occur because not all sectors of the economy can expand at equal rates. The steel producer may need 10 years lag time to install new equipment, so as the economy expands, the price of steel and everything made with steel will increase. This can affect many other sectors in the economy when the economy is rapidly expanding.
I already mentioned structural inflation in rapidly expanding economies. The steel factory owner may not care one whit about economic theories. She and her workers may be working overtime, but without the new equipment, the price of steel goes up.
Economic shortages of any sort or an excess of currency can cause inflation. No one has to understand it.
That's exactly what inflation is. If you go to the grocery store and food keeps costing more and more, that's inflation, even if it's due to a poor harvest. That's how it's measured. That's what it is.
You're confusing the general concept of inflation with particular economic theories. More than that, you're being inconsistent. On the one hand, you say people have to be aware of inflation. On the other hand, you say it's due to an excess of currency which could happen with no one's awareness of economic theory whatsoever. What we could really use is a one-handed economist.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
An interesting contemporary example is the Chinese economy. A limiting factor to the rapid economic expansion there seems to be their inability to control pollution. Many of their cities are choking and these costs will certainly have to be passed on to the economy later in terms of pollution controls, clean-up and health problems. Add the lag in product inspection and modern accounting which is causing a loss of confidence in their biggest customers and investors, and you have the makings of an economic slow down.
Even with strong government control of the monetary system, and with limited consumer cash, inflation is still a significant problem for the Chinese. A bit more modest expansion and more attention to detail might be beneficial, but there are numerous political pressures, as well.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
keiths,
One more time.
Economics. a persistent, substantial rise in the general level of prices related to an increase in the volume of money and resulting in the loss of value of currency (opposed to deflation).
In the case of the power plant, the plant is pumping pollution into the atmosphere. It is directly affecting how much pollution is in the air. They have contributed a change.
In the case of a job loss, the loss has resulted in one additional unemployed person in the job market. They have contributed a change.
In the case of the Red Cross, the donor has added to the donation pool. They have contributed a change.
In the case of the blacksmith, his raised prices do not affect the money supply whatsoever. There were 600k crowns backed by X assets in the system the day before he raised his prices, and there were 600k crowns backed by X assets the day after he raised his prices.
He did not raise his prices in response to an increase in the volume of money. His raised prices did not change the volume of money. The backing of the money has remained the same. About all you have left is a strained appeal to value detached from currency volume, based on a single blacksmith's prices – and even there you're not dealing with a clear situation, since the blacksmith's rising prices can influence other prices to fall.
Sorry Val. Rollicking good try, though.
Zach,
If cost is increasing, someone is aware, therefore a market response.
How can you have too much everything? People's desires are unlimited – but their valuation of a good is dependent on abundance.
My claim was that you're not seeing inflation without people being aware of supply. No, you don't need every single person in the market aware at that moment (or, in some cases, at all) – but you're not getting a fluctuating supply, and prices informed by fluctuating supply, without awareness on behalf of some who are influencing the market.
I've been supplying the definition for the scope of inflation I refer to throughout the discussion: Economics. a persistent, substantial rise in the general level of prices related to an increase in the volume of money and resulting in the loss of value of currency (opposed to deflation). Getting into shifts in price related to market development, technical advances, and otherwise is something else. If you want to go beyond the definition I've been supplying, be my guest.
Again, I've been providing the definition of inflation I've been referring to throughout this conversation (courtesy of dictionary.com) – it links to currency volume and related valuation. If you want to spin off into a greater argument about Keynesian market theory, go for it. But to make the point about the role of intention and awareness in inflation, I only need to go as far as the given.
No, I've been focusing on a rather specific definition of inflation for awhile now – and I've been providing both it and examples consistent with it. You want to get into deeper market theory, but sorry, I don't think it's necessary here. Back to the seashells; you're not going to increase the currency supply without awareness. It doesn't need to be universal. Some people will know, and will react in the market accordingly. Sure, an individual can be unaware of the specific event and piece together 'Well, seashells are worth less now' – but even there, they're going to get the corresponding understanding of the change in common valuation.
Saying that inflation is 'not designed' is ludicrous, because you can't divorce individual valuation and intention from any part of the process – and when you get right down to it, inflation related to currency volume is essentially just a measure/averaging of individual intentions and actions. Aside from seashells, stocks are a good example. If IBM raises 50 dollars per share today, sure – it's not like every shareholder and IBM employee got together and decided 'Today we're going to all work together to raise IBM by 50 dollars'. But saying that 'the increase of IBM's share price by 50 dollars was an undesigned occurrence' is silly. You have individuals and groups consciously buying and selling, developing and acting on plans, etc. And in the end, everyone is working according to a fundamental economic principle of valuation besides.
Really, Zach, you obviously have market familiarity. When prices rise and fall, is it because 'trade/commerce wasn't designed for that to happen!'? Ever? Or is it the case that, whatever the fluxuation, the market is behaving just as it's supposed to – because when you get right down to it, the 'market' is just a measure of individuals' valuation, calculated?
Comment by nullasalus — February 10, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
nullasaurus wrote:
Apologies in advance to economically literate readers of this thread. I've found it necessary to dumb down my comment considerably, for reasons that should be apparent.
Null,
I'll ask again: have you ever taken an economics class? I have to ask, because otherwise I can't imagine why you would regard a single incomplete definition as authoritative (and from dictionary.com, no less!).
Do a Google search for definitions of inflation, and you'll see that out of the 25 definitions, only 3 list monetary expansion as the single cause. That's because economists know that inflation can also occur when the money supply is static or shrinking.
Have you ever listened to the news? When they discuss inflation, they give the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Where does the money supply factor into the formula for the CPI? It doesn't. Inflation is a matter of price increases, which may or may not be accompanied by an increase in the money supply.
The funny thing, though, is that even if you were correct that inflation never occurs absent an increase in the money supply, you would still be wrong to say that the blacksmith (or anyone else) has to be aware of the money supply in order for inflation to occur.
I explained this in a previous comment:
I didn't connect the rest of the dots, because I thought the point was obvious. But you didn't get it, so here goes:
Inflation is a general increase in prices, as you can see by looking at the definitions I linked to above. You don't get a general increase in prices unless a preponderance of suppliers raise their prices. If nobody raised prices, there would be no inflation.
Now suppose that the money supply increases suddenly. Customers have more cash, and so they spend some of it. The blacksmith gets more business, so he raises prices, as I explained above. His income increases, so he has more money to spend. Other merchants experience the same increase in demand, so they also increase prices. Sensing the increased demand, many of them hire more workers. These previously unemployed workers now have money to spend, further increasing demand. The blacksmith buys new equipment for his new workers to use, increasing the demand for equipment. Equipment suppliers raise prices. The cycle continues.
Where, in that cycle, is it necessary for anyone to know that the supply of money has increased? People only need to know that they have more money in order to decide to spend more. Merchants can decide to raise prices, as I described, without knowing or caring what the rest of the economy is doing. They only need to know whether the local market will support their own price increases.
You have an aggregate of consumers who find, individually, that they have more money. They therefore decide to spend more. You have an aggregate of suppliers, each of whom finds that he is able to raise the price of his particular product. They raise their prices.
It's called inflation. A macroeconomic phenomenon, arising from the behavior of individual consumers and suppliers, whether they realize it or not.
You're simply wrong on this one, nullasaurus, no matter how you try to spin it.
Now about those traffic backups. How do drivers design those?
Comment by valerie — February 10, 2008 @ 8:13 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
keiths,
And here's the coup de grace. 'Um, well obviously I was going by a different definition than the one we were using!' You have an amazing command of the language, Val – I explain for you repeatedly that we're talking about monetary inflation. You argue and argue yourself into a wall, then pull out 'well, I wasn't talking about monetary inflation all this time! I just wanted to see if you knew!' You're predictable to the freaking last.
Next time, we can talk about deflation – then you can insist how a shrinking money supply or even lowered prices doesn't lead to it, and explain how you meant the other definition of inflation, like "the erosion of sand, soil, etc., by the action of the wind.".
Why, that's easy – you don't even have to refer to the drivers in this case. Transportation networks are designed to support given levels of traffic under varying but foreseeable conditions. If you design a network meant to support 2000 autos/hour, and you end up with 3000 autos/hour, you can reasonably conclude you're going to have traffic backups under those conditions.
Wait, let me guess. It doesn't count if you explain network design with reference to the network designer, right?
Comment by nullasalus — February 10, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Well, you can call it Fred if you want. If you define Fred as the conscious decisions of a monetary body, then Fred is 'designed'.
Inflation, on the other hand, is a general rise in prices. Just the fear of instability in the Middle East can cause a rise in the price of oil and spark inflation. The threat of war may have causes completely unrelated to monetary policy.
If a global rise in pricing (what everyone normally calls inflation) can *ever* be caused by individual activities without awareness of the global pricing structure, then we have an example of a global pattern that is not 'designed' even though the local decisions are made by 'designers'. It's a non-purposeful and incidental result of individual decisions made for any of a variety of reasons.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2008 @ 10:44 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Valerie introduced inflation on this thread to illustrate a point.
In order to respond to valerie's point about inflation, the general rise of prices in an economy, you should use the standard economic definition. Not a definition that happens to include your conclusion. Perhaps you were confused before. Now you're not.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Zach, I've been supplying dictionary.com's definitions this whole time. It's otherwise known as monetary inflation – I mean, you've heard of that, right?
I'm surprised no one's brought balloons up in this conversation, for the love of 'addressing definitions that are different from the established one I'm purposefully supplying.'
They emerge from and with design. The 'from' is obvious. The 'with' should be – when you have a multitude of players in the market making decisions, the idea that there will be cumulative transactions in general directions is a given. You don't engage in trade without having more than one player in the game, and that presupposes actions on the part of multiple players. Even if an individual is unaware of the specific data of the market forces, they know there are multiple people valuing goods/services for given reasons.
Sorry, it's not that simple – whether you're talking about monetary inflation or even general inflation.
And I've been making my own point about inflation, and long ago gave the definition I was using to frame the question – and believe it or not, dictionary.com is not in league with me when it comes to design debates.
Her response was to get monetary inflation wrong, keep insisting she was right, then say at the end 'oh I wasn't talking about monetary inflation, despite the fact that that was the definition you kept supplying'. Whatever soothes that bruised ego, I suppose.
Comment by nullasalus — February 10, 2008 @ 11:23 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
That's fine. Now address the point.
Inflation being defined as the general rise of prices in an economy. Or do you cede valerie's point?
No design is required to form a market. Two farmers haggle over whether a cow is worth two sheep or three. A third farmer joins in. That's a market. Others join in because that's where the deals are.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2008 @ 11:36 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Thank you for pointing out valerie was incorrect on monetary inflation. Now you understand why she had to fall back to 'uh, I meant something else, really'.
Is a general rise of prices in an economy designed? Considering the only way you get to a general/averaged rise is by every seller consciously raising their prices – of course. You don't even need an individual/group orchestrating the rise. Only a recognition that sellers and buyers are arriving at value decisions, just as they're supposed to in a market situation.
Really, are you going to provide an example of prices rising in a market, and there are no decisions on the part of market members being made? C'mon Zach.
No market can form without design. Valuation is design, haggling is design. A market is another name for a group of people acting according to a mental construct ('things and actions have value, and they can be exchanged'). Remove the design, and you take out the valuation and haggling, etc. You have no market.
Comment by nullasalus — February 10, 2008 @ 11:48 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 12:03 am
nullasaurus,
Your inability to admit your mistakes is making you look ridiculous.
You wrote:
You're using the phrase "monetary inflation" incorrectly. Economists use that term to refer to an expansion in the money supply, regardless of whether there are associated price increases.
From Wikipedia's article on monetary inflation:
The definition of inflation you keep pushing defines one kind of price inflation — the kind caused by monetary inflation.
You've never taken a course in economics, have you?
But let's set that aside and look at a more important mistake. You keep pointing to the dictionary.com definition as if it saves your thesis. But as I explained to you already, you're still wrong, even if we assume your definition.
Read this again, a little more carefully this time:
Now put down that shovel and hit the ball back, for a change.
Comment by valerie — February 11, 2008 @ 12:03 am
February 11th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Keiths,
It's hard to tell when you're just plain not paying attention, or are purposefully trying to confuse things in the hopes of putting up a smokescreen.
You brought up inflation and argued there was no design in it. I immediately gave the example of seashells and a vast increase in supply dictating rising prices, and pointed out that when you're increasing currency supply in that way of -course- you're going to get raised prices, and people will know why. That's monetary inflation in action, and that's the type of inflation I was supplying the definition of – you whiffed, confused the kinds of inflation being discussed, and now you're squirming.
You should really leave this to Zach – I disagree with him, but it's clear the guy knows a heck of a lot more than you do about these subjects.
Oh, by the way – no response to my road example? Didn't think that one through either, did you?
Comment by nullasalus — February 11, 2008 @ 12:11 am
February 11th, 2008 at 1:22 am
nullasaurus,
Your desperation is showing. Read on, and then take a good hard look at yourself.
First you wrote this:
Then you backed off and wrote this:
I then gave you a detailed example showing how inflation — using your definition of the term — could occur in an economy, even if all of the participants were unaware that the money supply had increased.
Now you're trying to pretend that you were only talking about your seashell example:
The ruse won't work.
Look again at what you wrote earlier:
I showed you that it can. If you honestly disagree, show me the error in my example. Otherwise, have the guts to admit your mistake for a change.
I'm sure you'd love to change the subject just about now.
Comment by valerie — February 11, 2008 @ 1:22 am
February 11th, 2008 at 1:45 am
keiths,
Man. You aren't getting it. I said..
..and was giving examples and definitions specific to monetary inflation. Excess of seashells. "an increase in the volume of money and resulting in the loss of value of currency." I defy you to give me an example of money volume increasing and no one being aware that this is happening. The best you can argue is a special case like counterfeiting, but even then you have counterfeiters aware of what's going on.
Hell, if we swap back to the definition you fell back to – 'inflation as any increase in price' – then to disagree you have to argue that people can both raise prices for whatever reason, and yet there's no awareness that prices are raising in the market.
Again, do you even think of these things before you write them? Your big save is 'Of course inflation can occur without people being aware. And by inflation, I mean prices rising for any reason whatsoever, even down to a single individual.'? Between this and 'if everyone suddenly gets more money to spend on goods, it doesn't necessarily mean anyone realizes there's now more money'.. Man. I guess you're accusing the tooth fairy of running a counterfeiting racket or something.
Oh Lord. You're the one who asked me the question to begin with, you pressed me on it, I happily answered – and now when I ask for your response, you have none, because bringing that up is a change of subject? And certainly we can't have more than one topic being addressed in a thread, right?
I think I realize the wisdom the others have in just letting you natter on of your own accord.
Comment by nullasalus — February 11, 2008 @ 1:45 am
February 11th, 2008 at 2:56 am
nullasaurus squirms:
Null,
This is pitiful.
You keep pretending that everything's fine, as long as we use your definition of inflation. But I showed you already, using your definition, how an increase in the money supply could lead to inflation, even if all of the participants in the economy were unaware that the money supply had increased.
You claim the opposite:
One of us is wrong.
My example shows that it is you.
On the other hand, if you're correct, then there must be an error in my example.
Show us the error, instead of desperately trying to avoid the question.
Your comments are taking on a frantic tone. Believe me, it doesn't become you.
Comment by valerie — February 11, 2008 @ 2:56 am
February 11th, 2008 at 3:28 am
keiths,
Of course it doesn't – s'why I never have it.
By all means, let's hit your example. Again.
1. You fell back to a definition where even a single blacksmith raising his prices is engaging in an inflationary act – and that inflation is 'prices rising', period. By all means, please tell me how the blacksmith is both raising prices, yet not grasping the concept of prices rising.
2. You, once again.
Remember: You and Zach have both defined inflation as
If you're defining inflation in this way, how does the blacksmith not know that inflation is the cause for all the prices rising, when your offered definition of inflation is defined as the 'the general rise of prices in an economy'. He doesn't realize that prices are rising because there's a rise in prices?
3. As a bonus aside – I've said that there is no way for monetary inflation to take place without someone or some group being aware that more money is being introduced into the economy. If more gold is being added to the market, how does that happen with no one realizing it? If more minted/printed currency is available, how can that happen with no one realizing it? How can more seashells enter and no one realizes it?
Looking forward to you answering my questions!
This is what you think I'm running from? Your insisting that inflation was around far before anyone was aware of it, and that inflation is the increase of prices? If anything I'm getting bored.
Comment by nullasalus — February 11, 2008 @ 3:28 am
February 11th, 2008 at 3:47 am
Null,
Did you really think I wouldn't notice that you quotemined me?
You quoted only a part of my example, leaving off the part that frightens you, and then claimed:
No, I showed how, using your definition, inflation could occur whether or not any of the participants knew that the money supply had increased.
Here's the part you deliberately left out:
What is wrong with you, man?
Comment by valerie — February 11, 2008 @ 3:47 am
February 11th, 2008 at 4:02 am
Raevmo,
Ah, mein general, but there is a problem: Even in your example, there is no way for seashells to enter the economy at aggregate rate x without people being aware that there's an inflow/outflow. Talk about how the rate of seashells entering the economy is greater than the rate they are leaving, if you like. Or talk about the reverse. Believe it or not, the appropriate participants still know how new seashells enter the economy.
Alas, while your fine aryan sciences showed a hearty respect for herr Darwin, they have abandoned you in this example.
keiths,
Considering my definition was related to monetary inflation – a greater volume of gold/currency entering the market – that's one hell of a trick! Or are you arguing now that the person increasing currency volume is not a participant in the market?
It's necessary because it's unavoidable. Again, my questions.
1. How is the blacksmith raising his prices, yet he's not aware that prices are rising – when inflation is defined as..
2. How are prices rising in general, and nobody knows it's inflation, when the definition of inflation is 'the general rise of prices in an economy'?
3. If more gold is being added to the market, how does that happen with no one realizing it? If more minted/printed currency is available, how can that happen with no one realizing it? How can more seashells enter and no one realizes it?
Be careful on that last one. Raevmo just whiffed it.
Or you can just avoid answering my questions. Funny how I answer yours, but when I ask any – oh no, it's a thread derail!
Comment by nullasalus — February 11, 2008 @ 4:02 am
February 11th, 2008 at 5:23 am
Just to tie this up, since I think – really – we'd all rather go fight in other threads
I'll condense the dispute here.
* It's asserted that there's no design in inflation, because there isn't one person or group exactly designing the prices and averages of prices in the market.
* I respond by pointing out the design, both in market choices (what to sell at? what to buy at? add new currency? etc.) and inherent in the basic concept (there is no trade without valuation, and valuation is a decision – it's design). Remove these things, and you have no market to speak of.
* I contend that you can't add to money supply without there being agents aware that they are adding to the supply. Whether it's a counterfeiter, a minter, or just some guy getting ahold of more seashells, the intention is clear.
* I further contend that describing inflation as 'undesigned' because there's no central individual/authority micromanaging the collective transactions, is deeply flawed. Design/individual choice/valuation, is essential to the process – there is no process without these things. This doesn't change just because you call an aspect macroscopic. If a person raises a price, they're aware they're raising their prices. Their customers are aware prices are going up, and make new decisions. If you define inflation as 'a general increase in prices in the market', they can't help but be aware that they're adding to inflation – they know their own prices. They know the difference between a decrease and an increase in others' prices.
* Even if you cannot have a market without design, by all means, argue that a macroscopic change should be considered without regard to the accumulated decisions which led to it. If you say 'Well, I think that, even though everyone knows when they raise their prices, there are effects down the line they don't foresee, and therefore I don't think design is relevant'. My response will be to disagree, explain my position, then go read. These fights only last when someone starts barking about how stupid everyone else is for disagreeing – then it gets less boring, and the otherwise bored stick around.
Quite a lot left out, but hell, it's a summary. Not a lot of controversy there. If someone wants to keep on raging, more power to 'em – I just see little meat left on this skeleton.
Comment by nullasalus — February 11, 2008 @ 5:23 am
February 11th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Not according to our definition of design meaning a purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details. People may only be aware of their local conditions and not the global condition. In a traditional economy, this is a typical state of affairs.
No one has to recognize that inflation is occurring for inflation to occur. Inflation is the result of individuals acting according to their own assessment of local market conditions.
The blacksmith raising his prices does not constitute inflation (which is defined as a global condition). People might just assume the blacksmith is gouging"”and that may very well be the case. People may be completely unaware of rising prices elsewhere in the economy.
He may not know that prices are rising globally. Prices may even be dropping locally, or some rising and some falling.
Even markets of ignorant people acting only according to their own self-interest can result in inflation. And limited knowledge is the *normal* condition of market participants.
This is something that is easily modeled and has been modeled. It's not even something that there is any dispute about. In today's world, everyone is very cognizant of inflation as a worldwide phenomena, but that is not the case in classical markets.
Comment by Zachriel — February 11, 2008 @ 8:51 am
February 11th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Why hole Valerie's post? Null's tragic Nazi-gobbledygook post is still there. Was that double standard designed?
Comment by Raevmo — February 11, 2008 @ 9:31 am
February 11th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
There does seem to be a double standard when nullasalus can refer to Raevmo's "fine aryan sciences", yet Raevmo's jab at Null is considered out-of-bounds.
Null, to Raevmo:
In any case, I'll remove Raevmo's riposte for the sake of getting my comment into the thread. Null knows where to find the original.
Null wrote:
Translation: Run away! Run away!
Raevmo, to Null:
I second both questions.
Null, to Raevmo:
Null,
Has it occurred to you that the seashells might be gathered by multiple persons, in different times and places, none of whom know what the aggregate inflow is? And that this is not only possible, but likely? Likewise, has it occurred to you that the aggregate outflow is almost certainly not known by any single person either? How would you go about determining whether there's an increase in the seashell supply, much less what the rate of increase is, without knowing the aggregate inflow and outflow?
Oops.
I wrote:
Null replied:
Guess what? Just as seashells don't have to come into the economy via a single person, neither does gold or money.
Incidentally, I've noticed that you keep referring to currency and counterfeiting in this thread. This seemed strange to me at first, but now I understand why: you actually believe that the supply of money and the supply of currency/coins are the same thing.
When we talk about an increase in the money supply, you actually think that this means that someone must be printing/minting (or counterfeiting) currency or coins.
Get thee to an economics class! Currency and coins form only a fraction of the money supply, and there are other ways of increasing the money supply besides printing bills or minting coins.
Every time you take out a loan or use a credit card (but not a debit card) to make a purchase, the bank is creating money, fercrissakes.
First of all, for the umpteenth time, inflation will happen whether they know it or not, as my example shows. Knowledge of inflation is not required in order for inflation to occur.
Second, how can someone tell, from their local prices alone, whether inflation is occurring? Their local prices might be going up, while prices in most of the economy are going down, or vice-versa.
For example, suppose our blacksmith lives in a western town. One day he notices that prices are higher at the general store. Does that meant that prices are higher nationally (i.e. inflation), or is it just that the railroad started charging more for hauling groceries from back East? He has no way of knowing, unless he gathers more information.
You really haven't thought any of this through, have you?
Can you guess the answer? Hint: reread this comment.
I guess I don't blame you for wanting to bail out of this thread. It's been pretty humiliating for you.
Go lick your wounds.
Comment by valerie "” February 11, 2008 @ 8:04 am
Comment by valerie — February 11, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Oh, I hadn't noticed my comment was holed. Perhaps I should have asked Null whether he is "cognitively impaired", a phrase favored by Bradford. Or perhaps "krank im Kopf", a phrase presumably favored by http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com.
Comment by Raevmo — February 11, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Well, all the definition in play at this point (Bradford has since introduced a new one on the Scientism thread) involved intended consequences.
Again, you're suggesting that the dirt farmer is going to change how he speaks because of the manner of speech he might hear once a year, if ever.
No, and no. I'm still not seeing how those issues would change the fact that the architect is engaged in a design process. I'm sorry if my comment was unclear on that.
I do distinguish between the language itself and the use thereof, just like I distinguish between the stone and the use thereof. I do think language can occur free of design, just as stones occur without design, but I also agree that every use of language is designed, just as every use of stones is designed, becuase intention is implied byu the term "use".
Since the only proposed definitions for design involve an act of creation or planning, the answer is clearly "no".
I would agree that he designed the circumstances that would allow for language drift, but did not design the language drift.
I disagree.
The Gettysburg address.
The Venus deMilo.
The United States Constitution.
The Book of Job.
The New York Stock Exchange.
The Golden Gate Bridge.
The Great Wall of China.
The computer on my desk.
Without quibbling about the details in your example, design in response to evolutionary forces is still design.
The forces you're describing would actually reverse the diversification, not cause it.
Comment by One Brow — February 11, 2008 @ 4:01 pm