Naive Realism Redux
by MikeGeneBradford originally posted an article about naïve realism:
Naïve realism is the conviction that one sees the world as it is and that when people don't see it in a similar way, it is they that do not see the world for what it is.
Over the years, I have tried to help people see that this contentious debate is not purely a matter of "the evidence," but instead deeply involves such things as stereotypes, confirmation bias, disconfirmation bias, and tribalism. We can now add naïve realism to the pot, as it may play a central role.
Naïve realism can be propped up with both confirmation bias and disconfirmation bias. When a group shares in the same brand of naïve realism, it can serve as the fulcrum for their tribalism. And when one group thinks it "sees the world as it is," and sees the other group as those who "do not see the world for what it is," this breeds a certain degree of arrogance and defensiveness, causing the one group to see the other as being composed of people who are stupid, dishonest, and brain-washed. Such stereotypes feed back into naïve realism in the form of confirmation bias (where the one group is constantly looking for anecdotes to support the stereotypical perception) and tribalism (where the one group experiences tribal cohesion as the result of such activity).
Overcoming naïve realism is difficult because group dialogue, usually thought to be a good way of helping people to see things from the other point of view, can actually only further polarize opinions on a topic. Ordinary dialogue does not necessarily lead to recognition of the ambivalent nature of "right and wrong" on an issue.
Group dialog is a failure because of the dynamics of stereotypes, confirmation and disconfirmation bias, and pride (both personal and tribal). This explains why group dialog "can actually only further polarize opinions on a topic," as the group dialog puts those forces into motion.
Ross's suggested solution to this problem is to have members of a group discussion each give one point of the other side's argument that they think has some legitimacy. The study that Ross has done on this potential solution to conflict had the impressive result of 100% agreement being reached using this method.
The only problem with this solution is it presumes a willingness, on both sides, to reach some form of conflict resolution. In reality, once the polarization has pushed the two groups into two camps of extremists, there is no desire for conflict resolution, only victory. This is why the two sides become fond of warfare rhetoric and posturing.
May 26th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Conflict resolution belongs in the HR department, Mike. In science respect is gained through showing concrete results, not through goodwill gestures. Until IDers come up with something that leads to practical advances in medicine or technology, they will be seen as a bunch of daydreamers, crackpots and stealth creationists. (In case it matters, I'm putting you in the first category.)
Comment by olegt — May 26, 2008 @ 10:37 am
May 26th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Mike,
Good Post! Naïve Realism is probably just as harmful as postmodern anti-realism. I do like the middle ground of critical realism as articulated by Alister McGrath (and many others).
You said:
The only problem with this solution is it presumes a willingness, on both sides, to reach some form of conflict resolution. In reality, once the polarization has pushed the two groups into two camps of extremists, there is no desire for conflict resolution, only victory. This is why the two sides become fond of warfare rhetoric and posturing.
This is very true. And I believe that if more of those involved in the evolution / faith / ID dialogue shared your gracious attitude, we would all be much better off. So thanks.
However, it is also worth pointing out that there are other factors that are maybe even more important: eg. Theological presuppositions. No matter how much good will, listening happens, it is probably "¦ um "¦ unrealistically naïve to believe that "100% agreement is reachable".
Note: Mike: You may not believe this, but I typed out the above note in my own editor, registered for this site & checked my email. The registration confirmation came in at the same time as your first comment on my own site. What's the odds of that happening? Serendipity or Design?
Comment by sdmartinca — May 26, 2008 @ 10:58 am
May 26th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Hi olegt,
This was not a post about science and what belongs (or doesn't belong) in science. The subject was naïve realism, where someone has the conviction that they see "the world as it is" and that when people don't see it in a similar way, it is they that do not see the world for what it is. Ironically, naïve realism is a position that is maintained by denying the science of psychology and sociology. As I explain above, naïve realism is tied to such things as confirmation bias, disconfirmation bias, tribalism, and reliance on stereotypes (and there is a mountain of evidence that such things are in play in this debate).
One of the reasons my book/views are very different from mainstream combatants is that they eschew naïve realism. The Rabbit/Duck is a different road than naïve realism. I do not espouse an "I see the world as it is" (at least not in any hardcore sense) because I recognize my many limitations and infallibilities and because I think this issue of teleology/nonteleology is inherently ambiguous.
Conflict resolution does not merely belong in the HR department, olegt. It is a basic value of civilized thinking and society.
Comment by MikeGene — May 26, 2008 @ 11:17 am
May 26th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Yes, and I will merely note the same thing, and from the mystical point of view, and be accused of posting items that are "off topic." But the solution returns to tolerance, and letting the felt tension find its resolution, in my view. Note that what we feel cannot be argued to be "our's," as what is felt is as much a property of the entire universe, unless we are to endorse the said "naive realism."
Full disclosure helps in returning us to ontic meaning. Disclose for example, that natural selection is context dependent, and much is the said conflict will be able to resolve itself. Failure to disclose this fact and the heated passion will reveal a felt hidden agenda, and this will be detected with no additional words given the projected arrogance in the claim that the watchmaker is blind; the arrogance is felt to contain an intelligently designed contrivance, and this becomes the ontic meaning discovered by mere intuition. Nevertheless, it is full disclosure that returns to conflict resolution by way of permitting the discovery of ontic meaning, even for the case when there is to be no hidden agenda and where sharp intuition is less essential.
Comment by Stephen — May 26, 2008 @ 11:39 am
May 26th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Mike,
You make good points and I cannot disagree with anything you said, however this seems a lot like the modern liberal "everyone is right" attitude. I do not believe truth is subjective, I simply think our ability to understand truth is extremely limited. Still, when you have two diametrically opposed views it seems certain that one side is completely wrong (while the other side is perhaps only mostly wrong
). My only point in mentioning this is that the stubbornness of naive realism becomes completely justified if it turns out your side is, in fact, right. Should people be willing to compromises a known truth in order to appease critics? Is the socially or morally correct thing always to reach a compromised middle ground?
Stephen,
I find it interesting that your hang-up concerning context and natural selection is, in your view, apparently on-topic for every single thread on this board. I would respond to this point (again) if there was a thread where that was relevant to the topic.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — May 26, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
May 26th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Todd, you find yourself drawn to me again. Perhaps you seek the following sample disclosure statement that I offer.
Sample disclosure: Natural selection is context dependent. Dawkins can say nothing about what might otherwise coopt this context, he can say nothing about that which turns natural selection in artificial selection. And regarding evolution, it is very difficult to determine where contents ends and context begins. Therefore, Dawkins is on his own when he claims that the watchmaker is blind, as he finds himself speaking for the context.
Comment by Stephen — May 26, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
May 26th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Todd, I believe you missed the point of naive realism which is not compromising what we believe to be the truth but rather acknowleding that we too have biases. When we acknowledge our own biases we can recognize others have them too without needing to stereotype them as ignorant or evil. Most of the vitriol found in exchanges has less to do with science than it has to do with others having a different perspective. We can even learn from those with whom we disagree. There is a saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Comment by Bradford — May 26, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
May 26th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Hi Mike,
As far as I understand, Ross addresses the problem of negotiating a deal in a group setting. Here's the relevant quote from the article:
I can see how it applies to international talks, business transactions, or management-employee relations.
I don't think, however, that IDers and mainstream scientists are negotiating a peace treaty. There is no point, really. ID can gain acceptance by demonstrating its practical usefulness the way mainstream biology, nuclear physics, or mathematics did. Launching PR campaigns (Discovery Institute) or offering concessions (Mike Gene) isn't going to help.
Comment by olegt — May 26, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
May 26th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Is a belief in empiricism as a key to understanding, an example of naive realism? Or does that only happen when it's used as an excuse to dismiss, say, mysticism as inherently worthless? In other words, how do you distinguish naive realism from the informed variety?
It seems to me that this is just another way of saying that humans like to think that what they believe is true – I'm not sure that it's very common that people hold beliefs that they know to be false, or even that this latter concept isn't intrinsically perverse. "'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ: think it possible that you may be mistaken." is perhaps the only sensible opposite to naive realism, and it's the lack of this little voice in Caesar's ear which is the true nut of danger.
Comment by Platonic Caveman — May 26, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
May 26th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
olegt:
No they are not. For the most part neither do they argue about accepted scientific norms. The debates tend to center around issues about which the weight of scientific evidence is inconclusive and likely to remain so.
Comment by Bradford — May 26, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
May 26th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Bradford wrote:
It doesn't take long to disprove your assertion. Here's the front-page statement from Bill Dembski's blog Uncommon Descent:
At least Dembski's ID is exactly about changing the definition of science. And I'm afraid he is not alone in that. Here's Phillip Johnson writing for Discovery Institute:
You can't dismiss these guys as insignificant within the ID pecking order, right? Changing the definition of science is exactly what they want.
Comment by olegt — May 26, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Hi sdmartinca,
I fully agree. I don't think getting such high rates of agreement are all that important. It's more important for people to disagree in a civilized manner.
Cool.
Comment by MikeGene — May 27, 2008 @ 9:03 am
May 27th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Hi olegt,
LOL. I'm certainly not proposing conflict resolution for the opposing camps in the Culture Wars. On the contrary, if you read the OP, I was the one who first pointed out a fundamental problem with such conflict resolution.
The issue here is naïve realism, something that all human beings are prone to. This paragraph is key:
I am simply adding the fact that the dynamics of confirmation bias, disconfirmation bias, tribalism, and stereotypes can interact with naïve realism. Thus, perhaps one way to recognize whether naïve realism is in play is to look for evidence that the other factors are in play.
I see you still labor under the notion that this is all about science and ID, while I am pointing to something much larger and significant than this narrow focus.
Okay, so let's go down this road.
The first question to ponder is at what point does simple, honest advocacy of science morph into naïve realism? After all, proponents of naïve realism are likely to be predisposed to reach for science in order to prop up their naïve realism.
Second, as far as acceptance of ID by science, you would need to make the argument that if ID is true, science could detect it and embrace it. For example, if Monod is right, and our ability to detect design (without independent evidence of the designers) is dependent on our own subjective awareness, then it stands to reason that science cannot adequately resolve this issue and ID's non-acceptance in science becomes irrelevant.
So we could tie these two together with some observations.
Evolution is true. That's science.
Random variations and natural selection are major mechanisms of evolution. That's science.
Life was not designed. That's naïve realism.
The notion that life was designed is nonsensical. That's naïve realism.
Comment by MikeGene — May 27, 2008 @ 9:22 am
May 27th, 2008 at 9:39 am
There is no scientific evidence that the Solar System is designed, but we do have a robust Theory of Gravity that posits natural mechanisms to explain the patterns we observe.
There is no scientific evidence that life was designed, but we do have a robust Theory of Evolution that posits natural mechanisms to explain the diversity and history of life.
By making our statements within the scientific paradigm, we avoid metaphysical overreaching. We can go even farther. Claims of design in biology are scientifically vacuous.
Comment by Zachriel — May 27, 2008 @ 9:39 am
May 27th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Really? Let me try that out:
There is no scientific evidence that Zachriel has anything intelligent to contribute to the conversation, but we do have a robust theory of idiocy that posits natural mechanisms to explain the diversity and history of his comments.
Neato! I'm scientific!
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — May 27, 2008 @ 9:51 am
May 27th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Hi Todd,
I think I disagree with you here. The ends do not justify the means. As the ancient Proverbs say,
The recognition of your own biases, a willingness to sympathetically enter into the viewpoint of your interlocutors, etc., are all things that will bring you closer to the truth. In the end, if you are right, the more people adopt critical realism the more likely they are to see it, and you will have served the right with integrity.
Critical Realism is the path between the flaming pit of lava on the right (Naive Realism) and the bottomless pit on the left (Relativism).
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — May 27, 2008 @ 9:59 am
May 27th, 2008 at 10:01 am
I submit that the issue of "naive realism" has already been resolved by Husserl's phenomenology, leading to his transcendental subjectivity.
Comment by Stephen — May 27, 2008 @ 10:01 am
May 27th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Hi Zachriel,
If you are trying to make your statements within the scientific paradigm, you should likewise include the fact that evolution and abiogenesis are different topics, that there is no robust Theory of Abiogenesis, and that abiogenesis is a belief supported by philosophy and circumstantial evidence.
That itself is a vacuous claim.
For as I noted, as far as acceptance of ID by science goes, you would need to make the argument that if ID is true, science could detect it and embrace it. For example, if Monod is right, and our ability to detect design (without independent evidence of the designers) is dependent on our own subjective awareness, then it stands to reason that science cannot adequately resolve this issue and ID's non-acceptance in science becomes irrelevant.
Comment by MikeGene — May 27, 2008 @ 10:01 am
May 27th, 2008 at 10:03 am
olegt said:
We see that olegt is carrying the banner for culture war against a "movement" that might make him game to argue endless inanities with TP (if TP were here), but which doesn't apply around here because TT is not a "movement" (or T-H-E "movement").
The definition of science doesn't have to change, if it were possible for it to change from the definition given to it by those who invent and define words (in whatever language). All that need happen is for science to assert itself as what it is against the many who seek to corrupt and redefine it.
Meanwhile, back in the real world where real people live, hardly anybody cares. What science sez about this, that or the other is superfluous information that does not affect matters of immediate concern in most people's daily lives. What's new today or passe tomorrow is of vanishing and passing interest perhaps, as tacked-on tidbits at the end of a 5-minute news break.
Science is just a tool for acquiring useful knowledge of the working details of nature so that we can control it for our practical purposes. When it stops being that useful tool and attempts to assert itself as uber-metaphysics it becomes worthless to humanity at large and is easily enough discarded. A useful tool by any name is as useful. A pointless flight of metaphysical fancy by any title is disposable.
Zach:
Unless understanding biological processes in a framework of design – as if the forms and functions serve organic purposes or (by going wrong) thwart organic purposes – allows more useful control for our practical purposes. In which case the metaphysical corruption of science that forbids consideration of design is a grievous and costly error.
Comment by Joy — May 27, 2008 @ 10:03 am
May 27th, 2008 at 11:02 am
That is correct.
The difference is there are valid hypotheses concerning aspects of abiogenesis, while Intelligent Design provides only scientifically vacuous claims. That does't mean Intelligent Design couldn't be reconstructed as a philosophical or religious concept, but we know that the ID Movement is specifically constituted as a claim of scientific validity (present company excepted).
There are many scientifically vacuous claims of Intelligent Design, and no scientifically substantive claims.
Comment by Zachriel — May 27, 2008 @ 11:02 am
May 27th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Hi Mike,
If I understand you correctly, we both think that science and ID are separate magistrates. As far as I'm concerned, science doesn't say "life wasn't designed" because it's impossible to verify such a claim experimentally. If your version of ID says "life may have been designed but we won't ever be able to prove or disprove it", well, fine. Happy bunny sightings.
Where is my confirmation bias?
Comment by olegt — May 27, 2008 @ 11:18 am
May 27th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Hi Zachriel,
If you are trying to make your statements within the scientific paradigm, it makes no sense to compare it to perspectives that are not science.
Again, this is a vacuous observation (unless it's just a culture war point).
Comment by MikeGene — May 27, 2008 @ 11:28 am
May 27th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Hi olegt,
Since we agree, no confirmation bias is in play.
Comment by MikeGene — May 27, 2008 @ 11:31 am
May 27th, 2008 at 11:34 am
So the term confirmation bias is simply Latin for those guys disagree with me?
Comment by olegt — May 27, 2008 @ 11:34 am
May 27th, 2008 at 11:43 am
MikeGene said:
It's an odd kind of naivety, given that it's a recent position, historically speaking, brought about by increases in knowledge and in systematic post-Enlightenment epistemology. These sorts of things tend to decrease naivety: they certainly have in other scientific fields.
You can of course look at things like post-war optimisitic futurism for examples of naivety in scientific and technical thought, but those are largely populist, not part of scientific mainstream development. And every field is capable of over-reaching itself, deciding on faith to continue research or thought in a particular direction that later proves barren (although surprisingly often, such ideas achieve later currency). But such states do not last long without outside non-scientific factors actively perverting the scientific process.
With evolution, however, we have 150 years of design-free thought to look back on – and few would disagree that evolutionary biology is progressing at a faster rate than ever before. That's a _lot_ of evidence for a correct approach. The design proponents have merely a repeated history of failing to break out of the religious cage: they have many claims but not datum number one, and any competent social anthropologist or psychologist can give you far more cogent explanations why ID exists as a concept than it being an evidence-based science.
Just where is the naivety here?
Comment by Platonic Caveman — May 27, 2008 @ 11:43 am
May 27th, 2008 at 11:59 am
In the paragraph immediately above this comment of yours.
Comment by Doug — May 27, 2008 @ 11:59 am
May 27th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
The statement is not a scientific claim, but a claim about science. I'm not sure of your point.
Comment by Zachriel — May 27, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
olegt wrote:
Or perhaps keeping the definition more objective? Seems like we're back to viewpoint . . .
Just to give one concrete example: You might review the facts (and the actual written documents) from Kansas. It certainly wasn't the ID crowd — whatever other ill qualities one may ascribe to them — that was trying to change the definition of science in that instance.
Comment by Eric Anderson — May 27, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Doug wrote:
Where in the paragraph? That 150 years of scientific progress is evidence in its own right? That ID hasn't broken free of religion (see Dover)? That there are stronger cultural and psychological reasons for ID's existence than there is evidence from its scientific claims?
A bit more specificity would help clarify your point, ideally with some data. That has to be the best way to counter naivety, surely: saying merely that "You're wrong" seems remarkably close to the sort of naive realism under discussion that started this thread.
Or was that the point?
Irony can be so hard to read correctly online.
Comment by Platonic Caveman — May 27, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Platonic Caveman,
With evolution, we have 150+ years of exploration of nature and mechanism. Many design proponents may have a problem with some mainstream concepts of evolution. But calling it "design free" is a considerable stretch – you may as well call it "cosmology free".
While anti-design critics have been jumping into the cage in increasing numbers.
I'm highly skeptical that ID can have true scientific success, but it still manages an important achievement without that: If ID can't be science, neither can no-ID. And if no-ID can't, then a whole lot of talk up to this point – that evolution proves there's no need for any kind of designer – is exposed as hot air, at best. The whole argument falls back into the philosophy camp, including the claims of people who argue evolution is free of design.
Comment by nullasalus — May 27, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
nullasalus wrote:
This passage reminds me of the old joke, To Catch a Lion in the Sahara Desert: Mathematical Methods:
More seriously, nullasalus, your inversive method fails because science doesn't disprove the design, it simply has no need for it.
Comment by olegt — May 27, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Maybe this is the crux of the matter. Viewing the problem of life's origins within the context of information theory rather than chemistry may be more helpful but the issue becomes do the "rules" allow for related testing?
Comment by Bradford — May 27, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
olegt,
When did I say otherwise, olegt? I've consistently taken the view on this site and elsewhere that natural science can be done without any reference to design, or the lack of design, whatsoever. And I said, right in the quote you posted, that all of those questions re: design fall back to philosophy by my view. It seems like you've somehow twisted that into 'science can't disprove design, therefore science has proven design true'. If that's the case, all I can say is go back and read what I said. Especially the bits about it all falling back into philosophy.
The difference is that not everyone asserts that "science doesn't disprove design, it simply has no need for it". Some have parleyed that into "science proves there's no design", or equivocate on what science can explore -> what actually is true. And it's that sort of abuse that ID indirectly helps reduce. Plus it's a generally thought-provoking way of looking at nature from a new perspective.
Comment by nullasalus — May 27, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
nullasalus,
I'm glad we (almost) see it eye-to-eye. That said, the following sentence in your comment gives me pause:
This is where we disagree. Evolutionary biology (in fact, the entire field of natural sciences) has no need for any kind of designer. Past success is not a formal proof, not even a guarantee of future success, but we've done quite well without appealing to design. How is that hot air?
Comment by olegt — May 27, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
olegt,
It's a delicate distinction. Here's what I said.
There are two distinct questions here. One is whether the natural sciences can proceed without reference to the existence or lack of a designer. Another is whether there is a larger need for any kind of designer, full stop. The first deals with the limitations of science, the second deals with philosophy.
With regards to the first question, I've answered that – I don't think design can be investigated scientifically. I'm willing to be proven wrong, and I value ID for a lot of other reasons. As to the second, another quote.
In other words, science not needing big-D design is because it's a subject science can't really explore anyway. If we lived in a giant computer simulation, science would have no need for the proposal that we're in a simulation.
Comment by nullasalus — May 27, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Unless we're trying to understand the origin of life and the reproductive machinery that makes evolution possible.
Comment by Bilbo — May 27, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
olegt:
Salvador Cordova's comment using software as a paradigm within which to view intelligence is timely. There are intractable problems in science which mainstreamers point to and label as gaps and to which IDists see as amenable to a design approach.
Comment by Bradford — May 27, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I don't follow this. That's like saying that if astrology – which Behe admitted in court had certain equivalences to ID – couldn't be a science, then non-astrology couldn't either. Which would upset the astronomers, as well as any other science that could be described as 'non-astrology' (although it's not a classification that has much utility).
Science says that without evidence, there is no need to invoke a designer – and that there is no evidence. That seems to me to be a pretty solid scientific stance in theory, and one that wouldn't be nullified if no evidence was ever found and satisfactory evolutionary pathways found for all aspects of life. That would render ID as non-scientific as you like: doesn't quite do the same for science.
You can argue as much as you like about the philosophy of design (my favourite one is – what if the designer used evolution as the design mechanism? Could you tell? And if you could, wouldn't that limit the designer to naturalistic processes and thus exclude the Christian deity?) but philosophy isn't a science.
But the fact remains that ID has failed to show any evidence: instead, it says that science fails to explain. Which is a bit like astrology saying that science fails to explain why you personally didn't meet a tall dark stranger last night: it doesn't really touch on science at all (which is quite capable of discussing the probabilities of meeting, but not in the business of sorting out your personal dating problems).
The stuff about naive realism is one explanation of how you can take the ID stance and then assume that all scientists are amoral atheists, and why a lot of science-minded people assume that creationists are a pretty thick bunch.
It's better to look at the evidence, then decide. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Internet.
Comment by Platonic Caveman — May 27, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Platonic Caveman, I give you The Design Matrix. By the way, have you any idea of the irony of someone arguing the way you do, and using the name of "Platonic Caveman"
Comment by Bilbo — May 27, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
PC:
That's a major theme at TT. It is usually described as Front Loaded Evolution or FLE for short. Designer fingerprints are a core theme of ID and have relevance at a prebiotic stage as well.
Why do you see this as a limit rather than a choice between options? The deity is free to allow natural processes he created to take their course and part the Red Sea also.
Comment by Bradford — May 27, 2008 @ 5:01 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
You're right you don't follow. Behe said that astrology had certain equivalences to ID? Wrong. You couldn't follow Behe's point, why should you follow this?
Behe was stating that NAS's definition of a theory is too restrictive and that many scientists operate under a different view of what 'theory' means.
Regarding the astrology statement Behe said:
PC said:
That is a very telling statement.
I'm curious, PC, what is science?
Comment by Doug — May 27, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Doug:
Historians of science will also say that the Enlightenment led directly to the abandonment of astrology as a science, because it failed the tests by which science showed itself useful. At the same time and for the same reasons, demonology was abandoned as a useful tool of justice. By saying that the very nature of the theory of ID was analogous to the pre-Enlightement concepts of astrology, Behe was absolutely placing it outside modern science and back in the medieval/early modern context that invalidates it as science – indeed, as compatible with modern reason. "A reasonable idea at the time": couldn't have put it better myself.
Bilbo:
Really?
Bradford:
So there are no tests for design that exclude evolution as the design process? I seem to remember Dembski et al coming up with stuff about specified complexity, but I'm not sure whether that's still a current concept. I never saw any tests that proved capable of distinguishing it. Likewise, I've seen no proposals for tests that may distinguish front loading.
Comment by Platonic Caveman — May 27, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Completely different. Astrology based it's foundation on empirical assumptions – moons effect on bodies of water. You glazed over my post of Behe's comment, because if you wouldn't have you might not have reference demonology.
Still not following.
He wasn't saying that the theory of ID was analogous to anything. He was saying that, in practice, NAS's definition of a 'theory' is too restrictive. That's it. But I should expect this from you, considering your derailing of posts with comments such as "COMPLETELY incompatible with Abrahamic theologies".
Comment by Doug — May 27, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Really.
Comment by Bilbo — May 27, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
How hard did you look?
Comment by Doug — May 27, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Platonic Caveman,
Behe, while I think his views on evolution tend to be remarkably tame for the hostility he gets, is not the sum of ID. But still, the cases aren't equivalent at all – one is a broad question about design in nature, one is a comparatively narrow proposal about a specific type of cause/effect relation.
Well, you've demonstrated the problem with your own assertion. It's not that there is no need to invoke a designer, full stop. It's that the question of design – positive or negative – thus far has no place in science as practiced. And why? For one reason, because the ability to distinguish between 'naturalistic processes' that occur without design, and with design, is off the table. Hell, the ability to determine the scope of what 'naturalistic processes' are capable of is itself an open, vague question.
You can ask whether this excludes the Christian deity. Wonderful theological and philosophical topic, that. But the answer straightaway is 'no' – debates about the understanding of God have been abundant for quite along time within Christianity, and within particular sects of Christianity on top of it.
And at the same time, it promotes a lot of very interesting, productive thinking – and highlights the errors others make when they mix philosophy with science, and try to pass it off as science through and through.
Others' mileage may vary, of course. And this all works back into the OP – in affairs, whether of science or philosophy, it helps to understand where a person is coming from, and not automatically write them off as a tribal (er, political) enemy.
Comment by nullasalus — May 27, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Doug:
Is that so?
Comment by Raevmo — May 27, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Doug:
I didn't glaze over Behe's quote. I don't see how he can make the comparison between the nature of theory that pre-Enlightenment astrology used and the nature of theory that ID uses, explicitly quoting the history of science, without admitting exactly that this very history shows the reason why the nature of theory changed and thus excluded ID from science. If he had a different nature of theory in mind, he should have used a different referent.
And pre-Enlightenment astrology is, I fear, a rather different beast than you imagine. It had nothing to say about mechanism and was at best ambiguous on cause and effect: rather, it postulated a universe where man's fate was mirrored in the stars (hence 'disaster') and the cosmos was tightly bound to the human experience. Not so different from ID.
As for proposed experiments to show front loading – where should I look?
Bilbo:
Platonic irony is, I seem to remember, the drawing out of meaning by simulated naivety. Do you think that apt?
Nullasus:
It's not that the question of a designer is 'off the table' per se: the observation of design is entirely scientific and, famously, SETI and archaeology are dependent on it. With genetic engineering prospering in a world where ill-will is not yet extinct, I predict that forensic biology will be looking for design soon enough – although the nature and motive of the designer will be rather more solidly known.
Science is about working out what happened, what happens and what will happen, and to exclude something that may have happened on the grounds of philosophical distaste is not part of it.
There have been plenty of cases within science where philosophical distaste has played a big part – it's a human endeavor, after all – but corrective mechanisms exist and work. Refusal to use those corrective mechanisms is telling.
Comment by Platonic Caveman — May 27, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
PC,
And I agree that ID has great potential when it comes to investigating small-d design – forensics, archaeology, etc. But big-D Design, a Designer of nature itself, is a question on a completely different plane. You already pointed out the difficulties of dealing with such a designer, without prompting by me. Your only out is 'Well, that couldn't be the God of Abraham' – if that suits you, it suits you, I suppose.
Science is also about knowing the difference between what science can do and what it cannot do. Again, without any prompting from me, you pointed out the difficulties and limits with regards to the question. You mentioned them again with regards to the simulation proposal. As for implying 'telling' motivation due to philosophical distaste; consider the accusation pithily returned.
Comment by nullasalus — May 27, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Are you claiming that a belief that links the position of stars to behavior is analogous to the belief that, among other things, the sequential positioning of nucleotides in an initial replicating cell resulted from the intentional actions of agency? If nothing else predictions of astrologers have been falsified yet since no causal mechanism has been identified as producing cellular genomes from an extra-cellular environment, except perhaps through the intentional interference of humans, how are you in a position to claim that astrology is analogous to ID? Or was that not your point?
Comment by Bradford — May 27, 2008 @ 7:19 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Sort of like gravity, eh?
You certainly don't simulate naivety. But what I had in mind was the point of Plato's parable of the cave. He thought that one could argue from the visible, physical world to the invisible, non-physical world. It sounds like you would disagree with that.
Comment by Bilbo — May 27, 2008 @ 7:19 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Bradford:
There are plenty of interesting scientific theories about biogenesis, and they're being tested within the scientific method. I can't see the analogy with astrology: i was commenting on Behe's reference to the history of science in defence of special pleading for ID's theoretical status.
Bilbo:
Which of the current theories of gravity do you find analogous to astrology? A hundred years ago, would you have made similar arguments about atomic theory?
As for Plato's Cave – I use an LCD rather than a projector, but there are shadows of plenty of invisible worlds there. As any platonic caveman would know.
Nullasus:
I was only referring to Abrahamic religions in the context of the universal simulator. As for what science can and cannot tell: try telling me. I'll try to extract the pith.
Comment by Platonic Caveman — May 27, 2008 @ 7:48 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
What was Newton's mechanism for gravity?
Oh, gotcha.
Comment by Bilbo — May 27, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
PC,
Again, you've said it yourself.
Indeed, could you tell? And whether you believe you can or not, you're in philosophy – and philosophy isn't a science.
I'm fine with the distinction; I outline why I support ID, to what extent I do support it, what hopes I have for it, etc. I also outline the reasonable limits (and yes, there are limits) of science, what it can do, what it cannot do. Trying to have it both ways – where big-d Design is a question that can't be investigated by science, but said Design clearly doesn't exist because science hasn't discovered it – is a lark. It betrays something on behalf of the proponent.
Comment by nullasalus — May 27, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Bilbo:
Newton never pretended to have a mechanism and was quite adamant in public that none was conceivable: he deduced his formulas from observation and mathematics, and it was immediately obvious that they worked stupendously well. What is your point here?
Nullasus:
I doubt I've ever said that something doesn't exist because science hasn't discovered it. It's a matter of probabilities. If you decide that yes, there is a mechanism whereby designed evolution is detectable from that arising from purely natural systems, then you can get stuck in with science. So far, not much cop – but that's not science rejecting it, it's the IDers failing to come up with the goods.
The trouble with the truly unobservable is that those probabilities are themselves unknown, so you can end up arguing forever on undecidable propositions. (Again, ladeez and gennlemen, I give you… The Internet!)
Theology has been giving that one a go, i imagine, since my non-platonic namesakes decided that since their volcano god had ensured their victory over the weather-god lot in the next valley, they'd better make darn sure they stuck to the winning formula. Just as soon as they decided what it was.
It's great fun. Science can learn a lot about humans from it. Fairly lousy otherwise, especially if you're one of the weather-god lot.
Comment by Platonic Caveman — May 27, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
You tell me, PC.
Comment by Bilbo — May 27, 2008 @ 9:45 pm
May 27th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
PC,
Science doesn't accept or reject anything – it's an intellectual concept itself borne out of philosophy. It's a question of reasonable scope, and if repeatable experiments and tests can't prove or disprove something, it's outside that scope. Back to your own quote; you recognize as much. Or at least it seemed like you did. But the limitation cuts both ways.
Snark, snark, snark. Back to Naive Realism, and how people cope with others who have serious disagreements with them.
Comment by nullasalus — May 27, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
May 28th, 2008 at 6:30 am
Bilbo:
I see you passed over the deductions based on observations and mathematics, leading to repeatability and testable predictions, behind Newton's work. Astrology had none of those, which is precisely why it didn't qualify as science.
Don't you think those are important?
Nullasus:
Nothing of the snark there. As far as I can tell, that was basically the mechanism for adoption of religion in the Iron Age (presumably long before, and certainly on occasion thereafter). The Old Testament is chock-full of tribal warfare in a co-dependent relationship with religion.
In particular, Hezekiah's successful hold-out against Sennacherib in Jerusalem was probably the key to the creation of the durable monotheistic Jewish religious culture from which so much has sprung. Maybe it really was the Angel of the Lord, or a plague of mice sent to nibble the bowstrings of the Assyrians – maybe it was external pressures. But Hezekiah knew a good thing when he saw it.
Comment by Platonic Caveman — May 28, 2008 @ 6:30 am
May 28th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Hello Platonic Caveman,
The non-teleological perspective is not recent. In fact, the core of this debate has been around for at least 2500 years.
I'm not talking about naivety in scientific and technical thought. I'm talking about naïve realism:
If one confuses their perspective of "life was not designed" with seeing the world as it is, that person is employing naïve realism. If that naïve realism is plugged into confirmation bias, disonfirmation bias, tribalism, and stereotypes, the naïve realism is easy to spot.
Yes, I recently discussed this. But you seem to be laboring under the assumption that evolution and design are mutually exclusive concepts. Why?
Yes, my book discusses this. Since then, I've been adding another crucial insight here.
Are you saying there is not one single datum that supports the design perspective?
Really? What are these cogent explanations and who are the competent social anthropologists or psychologists who offered them up?
Comment by MikeGene — May 28, 2008 @ 7:25 am
May 28th, 2008 at 7:59 am
MikeGene wrote:
Is there a single datum that supports it?
Comment by olegt — May 28, 2008 @ 7:59 am
May 28th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Bilbo,
There is a simple difference between Newton's theory of gravity and astrology. The former makes quantitative predictions that survive experimental verification, the latter does not.
A physical theory may be derived from an existing one, then it has what you call "a mechanism." Newton's theory of gravity was pure phenomenology. Phenomenological theories don't use a mechanism. That doesn't make them wrong.
Comment by olegt — May 28, 2008 @ 8:11 am
May 28th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Hi olegt,
Sure. I've just taken a break from writing a series of essays on proteins and DNA that support it. But let's bring this back to the topic of this thread:
We can thus expect a rather high degree of arrogance among the advocates of naïve realism, as perceiving oneself as having the ability to see "the world as it is" might naturally lead to a sense of superiority when looking down on those who "do not see the world for what it is." It thus would become easy to dismiss those people as being deluded, dishonest, or stupid. So much so that one might even be tempted to shout, "Tard!" This dynamic then becomes very fertile soil for disconfirmation bias.
Comment by MikeGene — May 28, 2008 @ 9:03 am
May 28th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Hi Zachriel,
My point took your original point at face value: "By making our statements within the scientific paradigm, we avoid metaphysical overreaching." If you are trying to make your statements within the scientific paradigm, it makes no sense to compare it to perspectives that are not science. Unless of course, you are trying to use science to metaphysically overreach.
Comment by MikeGene — May 28, 2008 @ 9:15 am
May 28th, 2008 at 9:16 am
MikeGene wrote:
Wait! I want to see that evidence! Is it of the If I squint hard that duck looks like a rabbit type or is there more to it?
Comment by olegt — May 28, 2008 @ 9:16 am
May 28th, 2008 at 9:28 am
LOL. I understand your need to express your disconfirmation bias in all its glory. After all, there is ONLY A DUCK (!) and anyone who sees otherwise must be deluded, dishonest, or stupid.
Y'wished me "Happy bunny sightings," olegt. Yet now I sense someone who is threatened by da bunny's shadow.
Kill da Bunny!
Comment by MikeGene — May 28, 2008 @ 9:28 am
May 28th, 2008 at 9:45 am
OK, my diagnosis has changed from confirmation to disconfirmation bias with kouneliphobia.
My question was prompted by genuine curiosity, Mike. Should I go out and buy your book (my public library doesn't carry it) or should I stick with reading Richard Dawkins? If it's all about the benefit of doubt I'll pass.
Comment by olegt — May 28, 2008 @ 9:45 am
May 28th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Hi olegt,
As someone who reads Telic Thoughts, haven't you noticed the ones here and the links to the others?
Comment by MikeGene — May 28, 2008 @ 9:56 am
May 28th, 2008 at 10:22 am
I skimmed a few of those, Mike. It boils down to coulda been a rabbit. Fine. The $64k question is why is that an interesting perspective? Are there further developments that will follow or are you squinting for the sake of squinting?
Comment by olegt — May 28, 2008 @ 10:22 am
May 28th, 2008 at 11:27 am
PC, if you had criticised pre-Enlightenment Astrology as not being scientific, because it didn't lead to repeatability and testable predictions, I never would have said anything. But you never said anything like that, before this quote. All you said was that it wasn't scientific because it didn't propose a mechanism. If you want to shift ground in the middle of an argument, go ahead. But don't turn around and blame me for "passing over" your new argument.
No need to tell me, olegt. Tell that to our caveman.
Comment by Bilbo — May 28, 2008 @ 11:27 am
May 28th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Hi olegt,
More important than the $64k question was the original question – Is there a single datum that supports it? The answer was yes. As for the $64k question, that's a very subjective question, as what is and is not interesting will depend on the person.
What looks like squinting from your perspective is focusing from my perspective. But yes, there are plenty of further developments to outline.
Comment by MikeGene — May 28, 2008 @ 11:37 am
May 28th, 2008 at 11:37 am
If you are willing to spend time on this site arguing with Mike, I really can't think of a good reason not to read his book.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — May 28, 2008 @ 11:37 am
May 28th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
With respect to naive realism, I recall my exanges with the anti-Design crowd over the topic of error correction. Their hypothesis was that biology was not designed because of the large amounts of error correction in DNA trascription and copying, etc. — they argued that a competent designer would design machinery to be error free and have no need of error correction..
Such faulty reasoning would also argue that spare tires are bad design, since cars can achieve 70mph speeds just fine without spare tires, and competent designers would make tires that don't blow out in the first place.:roll:
When I studied graduate level digital communication, it was shown to us through Shannon's famous theorem that the most information-dense representations could only be achieved by storing them in highly error- prone, but highly compact formats, and then correcting the errors during read-write operations.
A supremely competent designer in electrical engineering will store data full of errors and then correct the on the fly as read and write operations are done — this is partly the reason for Reed-Solomon and many other levels of error correction which are involved in the reading and writing of Compact Discs……
I had a very low opininon of certain biologists after my interaction with them over these topics. They seemed awfully naive about the information sciences and engineering…by way of reciprocity, they probably thought engineers building systems with deep error correction and redundancy were incompetent since we don't build them error and fault free in the first place….hence by their line of reasoning, systems with error correction are evidence of faulty and incompetent design. I'll let my fellow engineers decide which party is evidencing naive realism…
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 28, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 9:21 am
My original statements concerned specific empirical claims. We can also make valid statements about whether or not Newton's Theory of Gravity fits the definition of a scientific theory. This sort of statement is not empirical, but a question of whether Newton's claim fits the definition scientific theory or not. On the other hand, claims of design in biology are scientifically vacuous because they do not fit the definition.
Comment by Zachriel — May 29, 2008 @ 9:21 am
May 29th, 2008 at 10:59 am
MikeGene wrote:
I suppose that settles it.
It does. My question means, really, will that lead to new directions in biological research?
Comment by olegt — May 29, 2008 @ 10:59 am
May 29th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Hi Zachriel,
No, it was a reply to where I point out that the belief "Life was not designed" is naïve realism. Are you under the impression that you can demonstrate this belief is not naïve realism by alluding to the vacuous notion that "claims of design in biology are scientifically vacuous?" You would be convincing only to those who previously embraced this version of naïve realism.
Comment by MikeGene — May 29, 2008 @ 11:25 am
May 29th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Hi olegt,
Indeed. Of course, the whole notion of "support" is a mental reality, where the mind assigns meaning to data in light of the prior belief effect.
As is stands, I think that the Duck also looks like a Rabbit and you don't see it. Thus, either I am hallunicating (squinting) or you are blind (eyes closed). That is the impasse. For those who don't have a high tolerance for this ambiguity, the solution is to either kill the Rabbit or kill the Duck. To do this, either side needs an objective method, that does not depend on independent information about the designers, and that can accomplish this such that either positive or negative results are equally definitive. Neither side has such a method.
Who knows? I have already touched on this in a series of essays and have written a book that encourages teleologists to take a positive approach and offers many suggestions.
Yet, at some level, your question reminds me of people (usually non-scientists) who think all research must connect to applied research. In other words, I'm thinking of the scientist who is doing basic research on microtubule assembly only to be asked, "Why is this interesting? Will it cure cancer?"
Comment by MikeGene — May 29, 2008 @ 11:28 am
May 29th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Naïve realism, then, is being defined as a belief concerning the reliability of another's worldview.
The belief that "Life was not designed" doesn't say anything about how we might judge the reliability of others' worldviews.
(Other than the trivial statement that people who disagree disagree, something that could apply to just about any declarative statement in dispute.
Z: Chocolate is best!
B: No, that's just naïve realism.)
We may hold the belief firmly or tentatively. We might have respectful disagreements without supposing others are hallucinating or blind.
As that interpretation of your statement didn't quite make sense, I had interpreted it to mean that someone saying "Life was not designed" was overreaching by introducing a universal negative. A reworking in light of the definition of science would avoid this overreaching.
Claims of design in biology are scientifically vacuous.
Comment by Zachriel — May 29, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
MikeGene wrote:
Fair enough summary. I don't think, though, that scientists en masse are out there to hunt your bunny, most of them simply don't care. More importantly, the science side (or non-teleologists if you prefer) does not need any objective methods to rule out teleology: it ignores teleology because centuries of scientific research demonstrated no advantage of a teleological approach. What you call disconfirmation bias looks to me like healthy skepticism. The burden is on your side to show that squinting can be useful.
Tit for tat, Mike. Your answer reminds me of people (usually non-scientists) who have never written a grant proposal.
On a more serious note, I did not mentioned applied research in my last question (although I did mention it previously—because current funding of a scientific discipline is usually tiled to its relevance to applications in the past). Origin of life and such things are in the realm of basic research and if teleologists can contribute anything of value there, more power to them. They have nothing to show so far.
Comment by olegt — May 29, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
It's a statement about subjective bias. Realization that one has it is in itself constructive.
Comment by Bradford — May 29, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
The conjecture, "if life was in some way designed there may be a non-ambiguous signature of the designer within cells or genomes" has the potential of being empirically verified, thus making the ID-friendly statement scientifically non-vacuous. It might even prompt someone to action. (I hope so.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 29, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Zachriel,
Moreover, if an unambiguous signature of someone who claims to be the designer of earth-life was found in, say, DNA, that might lead one to posit that the DNA of all genomes harbor such a signature. One might propose a scientific theory based on that: the theory of the Universal Common Signature (UCS) that asserts that all DNA, past and present, contains this common signature.
With the UCS theory in hand, one might set about to empirically verify it with the DNA of all currently livings species, as well as long dead ones as they are made available, such as dinosaur DNA.
Of course, even if this theory was universally empirically supported, it wouldn't demonstrate that a putative designer of earth-lief actually exists and actually designed any part of life. But it would show that someone was capable of monkeying with earth life DNA a long time ago. And would certainly strongly suggest a designer's involvement to some degree.
But why stop at a mere signature. Maybe the signature itself contains a "cosmic website" address, telling us where to point our radios and what frequency to listen to, where a transmission continually blasted out a multimedia presentation showing how the designers made the first earth cell, and what it's nature was, and what it was front-loaded to do, etc, etc. That might convince the most hardened anti-ID skeptic that earth-life was designed.
At any rate, the point of this little exercise is this: what we would have here, after the first signature was found, and a theory was established about it's universal nature, is a falsifiable scientific theory, quite related to the concept of an intelligent designer. And quite non-vacuous.
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 29, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Your statement is of the form if A, then there may be evidence of A. If there are unicorns, then there may be evidence of unicorns. A hypothesis has to entail specific and distinguishing empirical implications. That's why the scientific method is often referred to as hypothetico-deduction.
And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Comment by Zachriel — May 29, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
If we found a unicorn, we could begin to fashion a scientific theory of unicorns from the evidence.
The point is (to those who missed it), any and all questions regarding intelligent design are not vacuous nor are they forever relegated to the world of philosophy. There are plausibly conceivable scenarios where a scientific theory associated with some aspect of ID is possible. The statement, "the designer may have left a signature, let's try to find one", is not vacuous at all. It's chock full of anti-vacuousness. Somebody needs to do science and get busy looking.
If someone found a designer's signature in a genome, the hypothesis "all genomes have this signature" is a specific and distinguishing empirical prediction.
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 29, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Hi olegt,
Indeed.
Yet the key points remain: 1) there is no objective method to rule out teleology and 2) "the science side" ignores teleology. Thus, it is no surprise that we'll get a non-teleological perspective that can always be maintained indefinitely with promissory notes.
Two more things stand out to this bunny hunter. First, if life was indeed designed, this doesn't mean that scientific progress would be dependent on some explicit acknowledgement of this point since design is not a regularity. Thus, the current irrelevance of any explicit teleological perspective is not all that meaningful. Second, and more importantly, in the process of sketching out the Duck, the non-teleological artists are sketching something that also looks like a Rabbit. That the artists are non-teleologists is what makes the Rabbit all the more remarkable.
Sure. At what point does simple advocacy of science become naïve realism? At what point does healthy skepticism become disconfirmation bias? And what point does gathering evidence in support of a hypothesis become confirmation bias? There really isn't a clear-cut boundary between these.
I've found it useful for a variety of reasons. But that burden exists only if I expect you to see likewise.
Comment by MikeGene — May 29, 2008 @ 10:10 pm
May 29th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
I can't speak for ID proper, but I believe the Genetic Entropy hypothesis by Sanford and others, if true, will completely reshape our view of human health and population dynamics and present evolution.
Genetic Entropy is empirically falsifiable in principle…..
The human genomes are decaying or they are not. It will also be possible in principle to determine if any amount of selection can rescue the genome. The Genetic Entropy hypothesis says "no"….
We will see. If Genetic Entropy is empirically verified, then Darwinian evolution cannot possibly be correct…
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 29, 2008 @ 10:35 pm
May 30th, 2008 at 7:44 am
We agree, then, that evidence is important to the scientific method.
Questions are fine, but claims of design in biology are scientifically vacuous.
Your statement, that if life was in some way designed there may be a non-ambiguous signature of the designer within cells or genomes is far too vague to constitute a valid hypothesis.
It's an exhortation, not a scientific hypothesis.
Heh.
I fixed your tense. Meanwhile, let us know when you can satisfy the conditional "if".
If wishes were horse, then beggars would ride.
Comment by Zachriel — May 30, 2008 @ 7:44 am
May 30th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Hi Zachriel,
You begin by erroneously attributing Elizabeth Hipple's description of Ross's lecture to Bradford. Pay attention.
You then try to recast it as follows:
No, naïve realism is a conviction where one confuses their perspective for objective reality, where they believe they actually see "the world as it is."
I point out that the belief "Life was not designed" is naïve realism. Are you under the impression that you can demonstrate this belief is not naïve realism by alluding to the vacuous notion that "claims of design in biology are scientifically vacuous?" You would be convincing only to those who previously embraced this version of naïve realism.
Comment by MikeGene — May 30, 2008 @ 8:08 am
May 30th, 2008 at 8:29 am
One's individual perspective is subjective by definition, objectivity being a social construct. However, one can determine and state objective facts.
"Life was not designed" is a declarative. By itself, we can't tell if it is considered an objectively held or a subjective belief, or whether it is tentatively held or held by conviction.
Z: Chocolate is best!
B: No, that's just naïve realism.
I suppose you're assuming that the person speaking is making what they think is an objective, scientific statement. If so, it is generally equivalent to saying "There are no unicorns".
O: There are no unicorns.
M: No, that's just naïve realism.
It's a universal negative. Universal negatives depend on the ability to fully explore the universe at issue.
Comment by Zachriel — May 30, 2008 @ 8:29 am
May 30th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Perhaps I misunderstood this statement. You're not saying that claims of design in biology must always be scientifically vacuous, are you?
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 30, 2008 @ 11:42 am
May 30th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
No. I'm referring to purportedly scientific claims that have been proposed all of which are either not consistent with the evidence or are scientifically vacuous. It is certainly conceivable that a valid scientific claim could be made, but it would require evidence. Also, non-scientific claims can be valid, but scientifically meaningless, e.g. much of human existence is defined by subjective personal experience.
Sorry if we have been talking past one another.
Comment by Zachriel — May 30, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
May 30th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Alrighty then. Never mind.
Comment by kornbelt888 — May 30, 2008 @ 2:17 pm