PUC in the Gaps
by BradfordI found a post by Bilbo, which inspired me to present an inductive argument. First, let me explain that I borrowed the argument. You might call it a mirror argument. It was devised in another part of the universe (Planet Erd) inhabited by an advanced civilization of intelligent beings who use a different approach to decide the matter of their origins. What is called intelligent design here on earth is the reigning paradigm on the home planet of these beings. There, upstart dissenters claim that an unspecified series of events in geologic time led to a cell which then evolved to the point, where a species able to conceive of such a process, came into existence. The dissenters are known by the acronym PUCs (proponents of unspecified causes). Some mainstream scientists on this planet are busily engaged in researching the precise design that led to the origin of a need to believe in unspecified causality.
There exists a blog on Erd run by PUCers called Confused Thoughts. A blog entry by a CTer presented this inductive argument:
1) Research indicates that intelligent processes are implausible as explanations for origins.
2) All known processes of living organisms operate according to natural laws.
3) Therefore, by inductive reasoning, it is probable that the processes that produced living organisms on Erd were natural processes devoid of any teleological component.
What really caught my attention though was a comment made by an IDist. It was this:
The conclusion is merely PUC in the Gaps. It is a type of negative reasoning: Because we haven't found the answer in our limited searches, we will never find the answer. Confirming the induction would require searching the entire universe of possibilities.
Now that sounds familiar. I consulted with a logician who identified the logical structure of the argument. He explained that the IDist is affirming his belief in a cause consistent with ID on the one hand and, based on this, assumes that any lack of data for ID is data not yet found. So both the presence and absence of supporting data can be used in support of ID on Erd. If the data is there cite it. If not resort to the PUC in the gaps approach. Such is the power of a reigning paradigm.
June 5th, 2007 at 4:14 am
What is their approach? How did it lead them to ID? Do they use the same approach when investigating electromagnetism or acid-base chemistry?
Do they have a theory about how this design happened? Does the reigning paradigm give an indication of when life started, when their species appeared, why they were created, etc. or does it just say the design happened? I am just wondering if the scientists there are IDists (in the mainstream sense).
So I guess the reigning paradigm involves only specified events?
As opposed to the PUDs (proponents of unspecified designer).
Of course, on this planet, the PUCs do not use that argument, so who cares whether it makes sense or not? The PUCs look at the evidence out there in the rocks, in the DNA, etc. and from that build a coherent picture of what happened. Their argument does not involve saying that the opposing argument is wrong, and therefore they must be right. Looks like we both a agree that that sort of argument is just nonsense.
Comment by The Pixie — June 5, 2007 @ 4:14 am
June 5th, 2007 at 6:08 am
Hello Pixie
In fact they relied quite a bit on chemistry in trying to assess what forces or properties of biochemicals would align nucleotides and amino acids in just the right sequential order to enable their respective functions in nucleic acids and proteins.
As far as time lines go their methodologies and conclusions were very similar to those of scientists on earth. But they did make one very startling find when they compared human DNA to their own. Their biochemical make-up is very similar to ours however, their codon- amino acid association is different. Here is how it aligned:
Alanine: UAC UAU
Cysteine: GCA GCC GCG GCU
Aspartic acid: UGC UGU
Glutamic acid: GAC GAU
Phenylalanine: GAA GAG GGU
Glycine: UUC UUU
Histidine: GGA GGC GGG
Isoleucine: CAC CAU
Lysine: AUA AUC AUU
Leucine: AAA AAG
Methionine: AUG
Asparagine: UUA UUG CUA CUC CUG
Proline: AAC AAU
Glutamine: CCA CCC CCG CCU CUU
Arginine: CAA CAG
Serine: AGC AGU UCA UCC UCG UCU
Threonine: AGA AGG CGA CGC CGG CGU
Valine: ACA ACC ACG ACU
Tryptophan: GUA GUC GUG GUU
Tyrosine: UGG
When the initial astonishment subsided they realized that this type of alignment coincided with their theory of design. Their theory predicted that the symbolic linkages found in a genetic code were imposed by convention i.e. assigned as an intrinsic feature of design rather than the product of chemical determinism. The variation in codes between erd and earth reflected variations of design; a superior explanation to tRNA generation by means of selected (but unspecified) chemical reactions.
Very witty Pixie. Actually though the identity of the designer is more a talking than a valid point.
I consulted with a logician who identified the logical structure of the argument. He explained that the IDist is affirming his belief in a cause consistent with ID on the one hand and, based on this, assumes that any lack of data for ID is data not yet found. So both the presence and absence of supporting data can be used in support of ID on Erd. If the data is there cite it. If not resort to the PUC in the gaps approach. Such is the power of a reigning paradigm.
Good. So kindly tell us how this coherent picture looks from ground zero to a replicating cell.
Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2007 @ 6:08 am
June 5th, 2007 at 8:29 am
Ah, I asked the question thinking of a new approach as in an alternative to methodological naturalism, but no matter.
So what was it that led from the above to positing the unspecified designer (sounds like the reigning paradigm might just be built on the dubious logic that they cannnot imagine a way for it happen without a designer, so there must be a designer)?
I am sorry, I do not understand the significance of the alignment. In what sense are they aligned? How is it different to Earth?
I am also a little concerned that the Erdites will accept ID as the ruling paradigm on this alone (as you seem to imply).
You may not be aware of it, but on Earth the identification of the "unspecified causes" of PUC is an on-going scientific investigation.
This is an important issue. If ID is to be science, you are going to have to investigate that unspecified designer, just as the PUCs have to investigate their unknowns.
I was thinking of the entire process from Big Bang to now. Sure, abiogenesis has a long way to go, but at least scientists are doing it. What research are the scientists on Erd doing?
Comment by The Pixie — June 5, 2007 @ 8:29 am
June 5th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Hi Bradford,
I will give you credit for the attempt.
However, one of the advantages of being the challenger is that a complete model is optional. Finding weakness is in a comprehensive, internally consistent explaination is easy. Creating a comprehensive, internally consistent explaination is not.
On the planet Earth, we were steadily working our way into making such a complete model. Around 410 AD the planet Earth switched to something very close to your planet Erd. For several centuries following 500 AD, the Erdlings were confident that they were building an advanced civilization populated with intelligent people and that all things, living or not, were not only intelligently designed but also intelligently managed.
My question continues to be (and what I believe The Pixie was trying to get at)…
What is your complete model of reality?
How old is Erd?
Why can Rat neurons fly planes?
Why do Nanobes appear to be life-like?
To be in the default position, you need a default answer even if it is a guess. Even if it is a "just so" story. The Earth version of Erd had a ready answer, "God did it".
Bradford, if that is not what you are saying, please explain to us, as an Erdling, your general explaination for the things we observe on Erd.
What is your model?
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 5, 2007 @ 9:21 am
June 5th, 2007 at 9:34 am
The induction is not sufficient to draw any strong conclusions. In particular,
1) well, you don't detail the reasons as to why intelligent processes are implausible. you merely assert it.
2) "known" may say more about what Erdites know than about living organisms.
I see in a later comment you start making up additional facts. Erdites apparently have a genetic code, when your initial argument didn't even mention whether or how they reproduced.
I initially pictured Erdites as plausibly being designed, perhaps a world of robots. But if you start researching their history, modes of reproduction, etc. we might come to any of a variety of conclusions.
In other words, the induction is faulty. We can perhaps use it to guide further research, but the conclusions would depend on the results of that research.
Comment by Zachriel — June 5, 2007 @ 9:34 am
June 5th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Must be one of those second-rate Erdite logicians.
The commenter wasn't affirming any claim on origins. Rather, he was pointing out that the induction is insufficient. A very limited search is not sufficient to rule-out the possibility of Intelligent Design. Via induction, it requires either an exhaustive search of the relevant universe of possibilities, or a demonstration that the search is a representative sample of that universe. Or a different methodology entirely; e.g. the hypothetico-deductive method.
{For clarity, the colon ": Because we haven't found the answer in our limited searches, we will never find the answer" indicates the IDist commenter is rephrasing the faulty induction.}
The faulty inductor claims that a limited search is sufficient to eliminate the possibility of Intelligent Design. Please refer to the Suidae-methodology for a proper application of induction.
Note: On Erd, pigs do have wings and fly, of course.
–
argumentum ad ignorantiam, a person regards the lack of evidence for one view as constituting evidence or proof that another view is true.
Comment by Zachriel — June 5, 2007 @ 10:30 am
June 5th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
It should be pointed out that the argument from ignorance (ad ignorantiam) is a double edged sword. It can be stated either:
(a)There is no evidence against p.
Therefore, p.
Or,
(b)There is no evidence for p.
Therefore, not-p.
For example, when the atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell he was asked whether he believed in God answered with the question: "Where is the evidence?" The argument implicit in the question is really a glib but still fallacious appeal to ignorance using version "˜b'. But Russell was on no more solid ground logically than the theist who is using version "˜a'. Both are equally fallacious.
On the other hand, it should also be pointed out that there is nothing irrational or illogical with the proposition "˜p exists' (nor, the proposition "˜p does not exist') We only commit the fallacy when we try to make an appeal to non-existing evidence. For example 'God's' existence is logically possible even if it remains at the present unproven. Of course, so is 'his' non-existence.
Personally, I think that this alone is more to refute the argument by Dawkins, Harris et al. that people who believe in an "˜eternally existing transcendent intelligence' (God) are irrational. Indeed their argument is just another fallacious, though perhaps more subtle, use of version "˜b'.
However, we should also note that things are seldom really that cut and dry. IOW it is seldom true that evidence is totally non-existent. Indeed, with the debate over intelligent design the debate is really over how to interpret the evidence that is available.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — June 5, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
The Pixie Says:
The amimo acids coded for (for the most part) differ.
There is ample time to investigate the who but the what issues need to be decided first. PUCers should be understanding in that regard.
Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
You just isolated a statement from whatever else supports it. If course that type of answer cannot even be considered theological when so isolated. So what does that phrase mean to you when you hear it?
Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
But if the CTer had stated reasons for disbelieving in intelligent processes the IDist would still have made the PUC in the gaps charge minus some smoking gun alternative which tends to not be apparent in origins scenarios. The characteristic of gap charges is their assumption of high ground i.e. unidentifiable missing evidence favors our POV. If this is not the hidden assumption then gap charges are meaningless. But if meaningless then why are they made?
Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
John writes:
I agree. Absolute statements like "there is no evidence" often indicate a hardened ideological bent that frames what follows next.
Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Pointing out a faulty induction does not support the contrary position. (I think I already mentioned this.)
There is nothing that prevents the commenter, Confused Thoughts, from handwaving away what is known, then following it with a hasty generalization based only on evidence that he is willing to accept. That just compounds the error.
Maybe Erd is a colony of robots spawned from a lost Robot B9. Maybe Erdites arose spontaneously from the Erdian muck. We are lacking evidence to make a reasoned decision. The induction fails. Please refer back to the scientific method.
Comment by Zachriel — June 5, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Based only on evidence he is willing to accept. That sums up what may be going on. The "gap" may in reality be an expression of the difference between evidence and the subjectively inspired- what one is willing to accept.
Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Science is the methodology we use to help us distinguish what is subjective to what is objectively verifiable.
Consider this typical line of reasoning from 800 AD: We don't know what causes the intricate movement of planets across the sky. It must be angels pushing planets on crystal spheres.
Well, in 800 AD the evidence was not available to understand the underlying causes of planetary movements. We have a conspicuous Gap in scientific knowledge. We could point to Intelligent Agency in human manufactured machinery for an inductive argument writ large in the Heavens. But it remains God-of-the-Gaps to justify the preferred conclusion.
The correct scientific answer is we just don't know. When telescopes became available along with more advanced understanding of mathematics, it became possible to devise specific empirical predictions, such as the dramatic return of Halley's Comet. While previous scholars thought comets predicted the rise and fall of kings, Halley predicted the comet.
Comment by Zachriel — June 5, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Bradford: Based only on evidence he is willing to accept. That sums up what may be going on. The "gap" may in reality be an expression of the difference between evidence and the subjectively inspired- what one is willing to accept.
Science produces data on which people base conclusions. The reasoning by which a conclusion is determined is filled with subjective motives. If you believe the ID debate is objectively argued by your side you are laboring under a delusion.
Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
People aren't objective. That's the whole point. Science provides us a methodology of reaching objective empirical conclusions.
Make a bold prediction, a specific and distinguishing prediction. Halley predicted the return of a comet. Einstein predicted the bending of light. Mendeleev predicted new elements. Geology predicts the great age of the Earth. The Theory of Common Descent predicts that genotypes will reflect the same nested hierarchy as phenotypes.
Will the genome of a marsupial wolf more closely resemble that of a placental wolf or of a kangaroo? I know what the Theory of Common Descent predicts, and I know what differences to expect.
Eric provided an excellent example. If the genetic code is not the same in all organisms, what should we expect? This was predicted soon after the unraveling of the genetic code. ""¦ if different codes do exist they should be associated with major taxonomic groups such as phyla or kingdoms that have their roots far in the past." "” Hinegardner and Engelberg, 1963.
Comment by Zachriel — June 5, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
I was the one who said "God Did It". I am not "hearing" it. You are not saying it. You aren't saying anything that comes close to describing a complete model. That is the point. If your answer, as a Erdling, is that God created and controls everything we can start talking about the details of that model. If you don't, we can't.
Provoking
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 5, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
We really cannot. The suggested God hypothesis is a bait and switch tactic. If someone claims a belief in God and attributes God as a cause of physical phenomenon the next very predictable occurence will be a babble of atheist comments rehashing the same non-scientific bilge I've seeen repeatedly. God does not exist, there is no evidence, God is in the Gaps, God is a fantasy… Atheists love this kind of stuff. You could get a 500 comment response to a post evoking these emotions.
I have yet to see a model for the origin of life. Has anyone?
Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Hi Bradford,
If I create a model based on Penrose/Hameroff will you participate in a compare and contrast with one you create?
Offering a Challenge
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 5, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
I have not followed that thread closely however if you wish to explain and help me to catch up I'll give you some honest feedback.
Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Hi Bradford,
An "honest feedback" is that my model will be a "campfire possibility" that you don't see as a realistic possibility. I don't need to put a whole lot of effort into knowing that will undoubtably be the outcome.
I am requesting more commitment on your part. Two models, head to head.
Challenging
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 5, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
June 5th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
TP, I do not have a model for ID that extends from BB to present. What I have presented repeatedly is a model of symbolism that explains a genetic code from an ID perspective. Reactions to it have ranged from selectiondunnit to God of the gaps. Knowing this is the outcome I'm not going to repeat it.
Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2007 @ 9:03 pm