Researching research
by MikeGeneI've been too busy to blog lately, but I ran across something in the comments section of one of our blogs that looks interesting. Rock writes:
If the IDers don't do research then what are we arguing about? It could be that we are arguing about the research they've done! I've read a book by Dembski, which I thought was original research"”"The Design Inference." Aagcobb will now disabuse me of my impression that it is "research." I also read Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box." Mostly he compiles research done by others (which I thought took some research), and I don't believe he refers to any of his own published research, but I suspect that his thoughts are to some extent based on his own research. I could be wrong about that and he could just pulled it outta his"¦ uh, hat. I recently asked if Mike Gene had continued to "research" an idea he had about cytosine deamination, which I thought was an interesting "research" topic. I don't think I would have asked the question if I hadn't read his preliminary "research." Maybe Aagcobb could tell us what he thinks "research" is? How in the world would you know if "there is anything substantive to IDism" (or not) if you are completely unaware of the research they've done?
I would think that we can all agree that not all research is equally valid or equally rigorous. Yet Rock raises a good question "“ what is research?
October 21st, 2005 at 1:06 am
In the context of this discussion? Rhetoric.
Comment by matt_nadler — October 21, 2005 @ 1:06 am
October 21st, 2005 at 8:12 am
The following is what evolutionists have taught me about research:
Research is that which confirms what everyone already believes. If it doesn't confirm it, no matter how much work went into it, it ain't research.
Comment by Joe G — October 21, 2005 @ 8:12 am
October 21st, 2005 at 8:46 am
Joe G says The following is what evolutionists have taught me about research:
Research is that which confirms what everyone already believes. If it doesn't confirm it, no matter how much work went into it, it ain't research.
I suggest you read an enjoyable little book called "Night Comes to the Cretaceous" in which scientists developed a hypothesis which lots of established scientists firmly did not believe, but for which evidence was quickly developed through research, resulting in it becoming widely accepted in the scientific community.
Comment by Aagcobb — October 21, 2005 @ 8:46 am
October 21st, 2005 at 9:13 am
Aacobb,
I know there WAS a time when people and scientists were open to new ideas. I also know that book, Night Comes to the Cretaceous", did not challenge the theory of evolution.
However I speaking at what goes on today. It is obvious that Gonzalez was conducting scientific research when he came to the design inference. It is also obvious that Behe, Minnich and other IDists were doing just that- scientific research that led them to a design inference. It is also obvious that all anti-IDists deny they were doing any such thing. Even though that denial is like denying gravity exists.
Karl von Linne was conducting scientific research (of his day) when trying to discern what were the Created Kinds. Would his research even be allowed today (at some public university)?
Comment by Joe G — October 21, 2005 @ 9:13 am
October 21st, 2005 at 9:47 am
Joe G says However I speaking at what goes on today.
First, the development of the cometary collision theory to explain the K/T extinction event isn't exactly ancient history. Second, Krauze in the article just prior to this one pooh poohs the whole idea that there is a Darwinist conspiracy to stifle research which contradicts orthodoxy.
If the ID inference is such a powerful idea, where is the bountiful harvest of exciting research proposals based on it? Not matter how you cut it, IDism's research production is virtually nonexistent compared to the vast amount of research being done based on mainstream evolutionary theory.
Comment by Aagcobb — October 21, 2005 @ 9:47 am
October 21st, 2005 at 9:56 am
Aacobb:
First, the development of the cometary collision theory to explain the K/T extinction event isn't exactly ancient history.
Do you have a point?
Aacobb:
Second, Krauze in the article just prior to this one pooh poohs the whole idea that there is a Darwinist conspiracy to stifle research which contradicts orthodoxy.
Reality demonstrates there is censorship of ideas that do not go with the "mainstream".
Aacobb:
If the ID inference is such a powerful idea, where is the bountiful harvest of exciting research proposals based on it?
We have been down this road before. You obviously didn't understand it then and I doubt you have changed.
However Wm Dembski has presented many research proposals based on ID. Ignoring those proposals won't make them go away.
Aacobb:
Not matter how you cut it, IDism's research production is virtually nonexistent compared to the vast amount of research being done based on mainstream evolutionary theory.
What reaserch is being conducted under the premise that all of life;s diveristy owes its collective common ancestry via some blindwatchmaker process to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms?
And why are you avoiding the following (from the OP):
"Maybe Aagcobb could tell us what he thinks "research" is? How in the world would you know if "there is anything substantive to IDism" (or not) if you are completely unaware of the research they've done?"
Comment by Joe G — October 21, 2005 @ 9:56 am
October 21st, 2005 at 10:12 am
Joe G says Do you have a point?
Yes, you implied that that wouldn't happen now, when it actually happened just a few years ago.
However Wm Dembski has presented many research proposals based on ID. Ignoring those proposals won't make them go away.
But they are kind of irrelevant of noone follows up on them, aren't they? And if I recall correctly, they weren't specific research proposals, more like categories designed to impress us with how scientific IDism is.
What reaserch is being conducted under the premise that all of life;s diveristy owes its collective common ancestry via some blindwatchmaker process to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms?
I linked to an article in a recent post in which research was based on the theory that humans and mice share a common ancestor about 100 million years ago.
"Maybe Aagcobb could tell us what he thinks "research" is? How in the world would you know if "there is anything substantive to IDism" (or not) if you are completely unaware of the research they've done?"
You're right; its possible that IDists are doing vast amounts of secret research they only share amongst themselves, but I find this hard to believe given how avidly they crave scientific respectability and how much propoganda they crank out to the media.
Comment by Aagcobb — October 21, 2005 @ 10:12 am
October 21st, 2005 at 10:48 am
Aacobb:
Yes, you implied that that wouldn't happen now, when it actually happened just a few years ago.
What happened? How do you know how many people supported what hypothesis for the "K/T extinction event" I think people were pretty open to anything. IOW no one had anything "set in stone".
However Wm Dembski has presented many research proposals based on ID. Ignoring those proposals won't make them go away.
Aacobb:
But they are kind of irrelevant of noone follows up on them, aren't they?
This one goes in Krauze's "Whatever, dude" thread. Thanks.
Aacobb:
I linked to an article in a recent post in which research was based on the theory that humans and mice share a common ancestor about 100 million years ago.
Mechanism, dude. It's all about the mechansim.
But anyway I missed that post. My apologies. Could you point me to that article?
Maybe Aagcobb could tell us what he thinks "research" is? How in the world would you know if "there is anything substantive to IDism" (or not) if you are completely unaware of the research they've done?"
Aacobb:
You're right; its possible that IDists are doing vast amounts of secret research they only share amongst themselves, but I find this hard to believe given how avidly they crave scientific respectability and how much propoganda they crank out to the media.
Thanks for avoiding the questions. However that was predicted. There isn't anything secret about the research conducted by Gonzalez that was behind his inference the universe was designed.
You do understand this is about scientists conducting scientific research and being allowed to come to a design inference. Asking what research is being done with that design inference is a very ignorant approach to the issue. However the discovery institute does give us the following:
"Scott Minnich holds a Ph.D. from Iowa State University. He is currently associate professor of microbiology at the University of Idaho and is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design. Previously, Dr. Minnich was an assistant professor at Tulane University. In addition, he did postdoctoral research with Austin Newton at Princeton University and with Arthur Aronson at Purdue University. Dr. Minnich's research interests are temperature regulation of Y. enterocolitca gene expression and coordinate reciprocal expression of flagellar and virulence genes.
Biochemist Michael Behe used the flagella to illustrate the concept of irreducible complexity and Minnich takes the argument to the next level crediting the design paradigm to leading to new insights in his lab research at University of Idaho.
Minnich is widely published in technical journals including Journal of Bacteriology, Molecular Microbiology, Journal of Molecular Biology, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Journal of Microbiological Method, Food Technology, and the Journal of Food Protection."
As for dealing with the media, seeing that is where/ how ID is being attacked it is obvious that is one place IDists have to deal with it. Also if IDists didn't have to waste valuable resources handling the obvious ID ignorance that is beinf perpetrated by you and your ilk perhaps we would start to see more of what you ask for.
You are the very reason why ID needs to be taught in public schools. Once that is done it will be obvious it, the design inference, belongs in a science classroom.
As for now the DI should hire more people like myself to deal with the media and leave the researchers to do their thing.
I am sure I could provoke a few baseball bat fanatics, like PvM, and then the culling process begins… (insert maniacal laughter here)
Comment by Joe G — October 21, 2005 @ 10:48 am
October 21st, 2005 at 11:42 am
Joe G says What happened? How do you know how many people supported what hypothesis for the "K/T extinction event"? I think people were pretty open to anything. IOW no one had anything "set in stone".
Read the book; uniformitarians were vociferously opposed to any catastrophic explanation for events in earth's past.
This one goes in Krauze's "Whatever, dude" thread. Thanks.
I noticed you to respond to the point that Dembski didn't really make specific research proposals.
Mechanism, dude. It's all about the mechansim.
But anyway I missed that post. My apologies. Could you point me to that article?
My apologies; I think I actually posted that article on ARN. Its here, and it is based on the mechanism, the fact that natural selection would cull out mutations to functioning code while allowing mutations in noncoding dna to replicate.
Comment by Aagcobb — October 21, 2005 @ 11:42 am
October 21st, 2005 at 12:17 pm
Aacobb:
Read the book; uniformitarians were vociferously opposed to any catastrophic explanation for events in earth's past.
Yes I understand that the alleged "mainstream" of "scientific community" was responsible for many banishment of many ideas that were later taken as "scientific fact". One that comes to mind is the scablands of the Northwest.
Aacobb:
I noticed you to respond to the point that Dembski didn't really make specific research proposals.
He did. Your irrelevant point was that you think no one is pursuing any ID-basedc research. Apparently Dr. Minnich is and it is apparently fruitful.
Natural selection isn't being debated. Natural selection alone cannot do anything. And there are scietific studies that show NS is only responsible for 16% of the overall change.
The article you linked to demonstrates the reason ID needs to be taught. There is NOTHING that relates HIV/ AIDS to the NDE. There is NOTHING that links bacterial resistance to the NDE.
Also we are learning that "non-coding" like "junk-DNA" is a misnomer, or at least needs to be better qualified.
Seeing this isn't Krauze's thread perhaps my posts will stay.
MikeGene if you have an issue with what I post in your threads please, pretty please let me know:
frisbee_kid@yahoo.com
Comment by Joe G — October 21, 2005 @ 12:17 pm
October 21st, 2005 at 12:22 pm
Just about any dictionary should answer Mike Gene's question, "What is research?" I just consulted Webster, to make sure, and he does indicate that IDers do research. In the original topic I misunderstood the point of Krauze's "fictional conversation." I thought Krauze was highlighting how these discussions so often turn on an endless refrain of non-issues. Aagcobb then reinforced by misapprehension by immediately raising a non-issue that I impulsively (and stupidly) dignified with a response. (Which obviously frustrated Krauze. Sorry, Krauze.)
Aagcobb, amazingly, did just raise an important issue. What happens when anyone does some research. Publicizes it. It is attended to, discussed and debated, its merits are weighed, and its not judged irrelevant, but is then simply neglected or forgotten? There are many examples of this in the history of science. One of the most widely known is Gregor Mendel's research on speciation (inheritance). The research was not obscure. It was on a subject of consuming interest to natural philosophers. It was good original research. It was publicized. It was discussed and debated. It wasn't assessed either "relevant" or "irrelevant." In retrospect it was supremely relevant and some people thought so at the time as well. But, mysteriously, it was simply neglected and forgotten!
The fallacy Aagcobb perpetuates (which is what he only ever seems to do"”but even that serves a scientific purpose or end) is that the "relevance" of scientific research can be in any meaningful way assessed by the scientific community's response to it! This is just a species of the "argument from authority" (and the related "argument from consensus"). But that's quite a significant conundrum isn't it? On what other basis am I to assess the merits of scientific research if it isn't on the basis of the response of the scientific community?!
Here's a novel idea"”I will assess its relevance and merits on the basis of my own scientific knowledge and experience. I realize that most people engaged in these discussions can't do that. They must rely on authority and consensus because they are not competent to independently weigh scientific arguments. Authority and consensus are not scientific criteria for evaluating scientific matters. Not ever. Authority and consensus are sociological categories. Not scientific.
But the case of the IDers is not like that of Gregor Mendel. The IDers research is really not very original. It is based on ideas truly ancient and which have been debated for millennia. The IDers make a good point. I think they are correct in this: These fundamental issues have not been decided scientifically, or the basis of scientific relevance and merit, but by neglect, or by lapse into or the imposition of (unscientific) authority and consensus.
It is history in the making. An historical experiment is being conducted right before our eyes. It is the very thing that really attracted my attention in the first place. How does the scientific community respond when its common beliefs and authority are challenged or questioned? Does it respond "Scientifically"? "Rationally"? Does it respond in the way we may have been taught to expect from scientists individually and as a community?
Comment by Rock — October 21, 2005 @ 12:22 pm
October 21st, 2005 at 1:37 pm
Joe G says Apparently Dr. Minnich is and it is apparently fruitful.
Apparently is nice, but in the case of evolutioanry theory we have actual insights, lots of them, published in scientific journals. Can you tell us anything about the insights Minnich has garnered using the design paradigm? Has he published any research based on these insights?
Also we are learning that "non-coding" like "junk-DNA" is a misnomer, or at least needs to be better qualified.
If its a misnomer, why did the concept of noncoding dna prove so useful in the research I cited to you?
Comment by Aagcobb — October 21, 2005 @ 1:37 pm
October 21st, 2005 at 1:57 pm
Rock saysBut that's quite a significant conundrum isn't it? On what other basis am I to assess the merits of scientific research if it isn't on the basis of the response of the scientific community?!
Here's a novel idea"”I will assess its relevance and merits on the basis of my own scientific knowledge and experience.
As Rock says, if we can't rely on the scientific consensus to assess the merits of scientific research, that leaves the vast majority of us up the creek without a panel. However, he does have a point. Regardless of how other scientists feel, if one scientist finds that a field of research has practical value in his work, then it is relevant and meritorious.
So this is an idea which may help those of us without the relevant knowledge weigh the merit of a hypothesis without relying on the expressed opinions of "authority". Regardless of what scientists, many of whom may be just armchair experts, say, what practical value does it have to working scientists in the relevant fields? Do many scientists gain insights from the design inference which inspires original research and has practical application in their work? How does that compare to the research being generated based on evolutionary theory? This seems to me to be a more objective measure than what "authorities" say, since people may be mouthing support for a familiar concept which is nevertheless a dry well, and it also isn't unusual for people to say one thing and do another.
Comment by Aagcobb — October 21, 2005 @ 1:57 pm
October 21st, 2005 at 5:34 pm
What is research? Well the Merriam-Webster dictionary puts it this way:
Now, with respect to ID/Evolution/Biology or just plain science, we need to distinguish scientific research from other forms of research. Historical analysis of political trends in 15th Century Italy is certainly research (per #3 above), but the methodology would have little to do with science, as science is normally conceived. On the other hand #2 above would certainly fit with what we normally think of as scientific research.
But, it would be incorrect to say that only #2 is compatible with science. Science has at various points been about both #1 and #3 as well.
Given that all three modes of research mentioned in the M-W definition are compatible with science, it would seem difficult to mount a case that ID isn't research generally or even scientific research specificallly.
Then there's the issue of peer reviewed research. What exactly does that mean? Who are the peers that get to do the reviewing? How are they chosen and by whom? Is a research study published in Nature peer reviewed but one published in, say, PCID not peer reviewed? Why or why not?
Historically, a lot of good scientific research was published without peer review…including that tome by Darwin, the title of which eludes me at the moment. Dembski's book "The Design Inference", on the other hand was peer reviewed. Yet there are those (mainly Darwinists) who insist that Darwin's book was scientific and Dembski's was not. Why is that?
Aacobb writes:
The questions raised here deal with the heuristic value of a particular paradigm. Some have argued that the heuristic value of evolution to real biology is virtually nil. One defender of this notion is Phil Skell, who recently had an article about this in, I believe, "The Scientist" (or maybe it was NAture…I can't recall right now). Phil has been a regular contributor to several of the internet discussion sites. He may be right.
I've read some other commentary (names escape at the moment) that a lot of biological research attributed to the evolutionary paradigm would be better understood in the light of a design paradigm. There may be some merit to that.
The bottom line, though, is it is all research.
Comment by DonaldM — October 21, 2005 @ 5:34 pm
October 21st, 2005 at 7:59 pm
I think Aagcobb is making a crucial point here:
I think that in many ways it's less important whether or not Intelligent Design is "true," in some objective sense, than whether it is useful , i.e., does it open up avenues for new and different insights into the evolution of life.
As Aagcobb further points out, thousands of research papers are published each year in professional journals without any design inference. Which leads me to the tentative conclusion that such an inference is neither necessary nor particularly helpful.
I've asked this question before: is there any original research out there, which uses the assumption that life was designed, and from that assumption (or inference, whichever you prefer) achieves some fresh understanding of biological processes, without which assumption such understanding would not have been forthcoming?
Comment by ericmurphy — October 21, 2005 @ 7:59 pm
October 21st, 2005 at 8:03 pm
Frank J. Tipler has an excellent essay about the abuses that have grown around the peer review process. Here's a an
- The notion that a scientific idea cannot be considered intellectually respectable until it has first appeared in a "peer" reviewed journal did not become widespread until after World War II. Copernicus's heliocentric system, Galileo's mechanics, Newton's grand synthesis — these ideas never appeared first in journal articles. They appeared first in books, reviewed prior to publication only by their authors, or by their authors' friends. Even Darwin never submitted his idea of evolution driven by natural selection to a journal to be judged by "impartial" referees. Darwinism indeed first appeared in a journal, but one under the control of Darwin's friends. And Darwin's article was completely ignored. Instead, Darwin made his ideas known to his peers and to the world at large through a popular book: On the Origin of Species. I shall argue that prior to the Second World War the refereeing process, even where it existed, had very little effect on the publication of novel ideas, at least in the field of physics. But in the last several decades, many outstanding physicists have complained that their best ideas — the very ideas that brought them fame — were rejected by the refereed journals. Thus, prior to the Second World War, the refereeing process worked primarily to eliminate crackpot papers. Today, the refereeing process works primarily to enforce orthodoxy. I shall offer evidence that "peer" review is NOT peer review: the referee is quite often not as intellectually able as the author whose work he judges. We have pygmies standing in judgment on giants. I shall offer suggestions on ways to correct this problem, which, if continued, may seriously impede, if not stop, the advance of science.
To read the whole thing go here.
Comment by onething — October 21, 2005 @ 8:03 pm
October 21st, 2005 at 9:54 pm
onething:
I remember reading Tipler's "The Physics of Immortality" (unfortunately, I lent my copy and don't have it anymore), and one of the things that impressed me about it was his statement that a prediction of his truly-fascinating theory (I think it was called the "Omega Point" theory) was that the universe would eventually re-collapse. If the universe could be shown to expand indefinitely, he said, his theory would be falsified.
Today, about ten or so years later, it seems to be the consensus that the universe is going to expand forever. I wonder if Tipler's made any statements on his theory since.
Anyway, to your point: yes, the concept of peer-review is fairly recent. However, science is much more specialized now than it was even 50 years ago, to say nothing of a hundred years ago. It seems inescapable that if specialized journals (on subjects as narrow as gravitational physics, stellar spectroscopy, x-ray crystallography, etc.) are going to be sure they're publishing credible research, they're going to have to rely on peer review. Non-specialists simply aren't going to have the expertise to winnow out the chaff. Obviously there are abuses of the process (many would say Meyer's editor at the PBSW abused the process), but at some point there has to be some kind of gatekeeper, don't you think? Otherwise, how will non-specialists know whom to cite and whom not to cite?
In my own field, we have what might be considered the equivalent of peer review in the form of precedent. If I'm going to cite an opinion, I have to be sure its findings haven't been subsequently overturned by a higher court. It's the same thing with peer review. If you're going to cite a paper on, say, the improbability of novel protein synthesis, you need a) to find out where the paper was published, which at least lets you know whether it was vetted by other experts in the field, and b) how subsequent research and analysis has treated the original findings. If a paper survived peer review, and holds up to subsequent criticism by experts in the field, then one can be reasonably confident the research is credible.
Can you think of any other way to accomplish the same end?
Comment by ericmurphy — October 21, 2005 @ 9:54 pm
October 21st, 2005 at 11:04 pm
ericmurphy:
I think that in many ways it's less important whether or not Intelligent Design is "true," in some objective sense, than whether it is useful , i.e., does it open up avenues for new and different insights into the evolution of life.
One thing is for sure we will never find out if this inquisition gets its way. Another thing is for sure if ID is true then the only way to get any use out of any research is to allow it. I mean if science can progress under false premises, what good is it?
ericmurphy:
As Aagcobb further points out, thousands of research papers are published each year in professional journals without any design inference.
How many of those are useful? How many are just observations with no practical use whatsoever?
How many scientists are afraid to attempt to publish a design inference due to the mob mentality against such a thing?
ericmurphy:
Which leads me to the tentative conclusion that such an inference is neither necessary nor particularly helpful.
I would bet if we limited peer-reviewed articles to what was "necessary" or "helpful", we would have an article drought.
ericmurphy:
I've asked this question before: is there any original research out there, which uses the assumption that life was designed, and from that assumption (or inference, whichever you prefer) achieves some fresh understanding of biological processes, without which assumption such understanding would not have been forthcoming?
Pasteur used the assumption that life was the result of special creation and therefore spontaneous genertaion was BS. His experiments proved life just didn't spontaneously generate.
However we could turn that question around:
Is there any original research out there, which uses the assumption that life was the result of some blindwatchmaker process, and from that assumption (or inference, whichever you prefer) achieves some understanding of biological processes, without which assumption such understanding would not have been forthcoming?
Comment by Joe G — October 21, 2005 @ 11:04 pm
October 22nd, 2005 at 12:31 am
Joe G:
I assume by "inquisition" you mean the Kitzmiller case. Seems a bit harsh to me. Anyway, it's undeniable that a rule preventing the teaching of ID in public schools will have some effect on ID research in general, but let me point out that the current stricture on teaching it in public schools certainly hasn't prevented Behe from publishing, and it probably hasn't even slowed Dembski down. Besides, there have been plenty of unpopular theories in the past (heliocentrism would be an obvious example, which was much more restricted than any Kitzmiller decision will ever make ID) which eventually became the consensus opinion. It may take longer, but if there really is something to ID, it won't be repressed for ever, or even for very long.
I hope you're not misinterpreting my use of the term "useful" to mean "able to cure the common cold, save millions of lives worldwide, or create faster-than-light travel." When I say, useful, I mean "useful in the sense of having explanatory power." Ann Elk's observation that brontosauruses are small at one end, much, much bigger in the middle, and small again at the other end" is certainly true, but isn't of obvious explanatory power.
And after all, what possible use is general relativity to everyday life? What utility does gravitational physics in general serve? That's not what I was talking about.
Given the overwhelming popular enthusiasm for creationism of one stripe or another, I don't think ID proponents are exactly hiding under their beds fearing the pitchforks and torches.
See my comments about my use of the term "useful" above.
But Pasteur could have arrived at the same conclusion without any assumption of special creation. Sterilizing a container filled with growth medium, sealing it, and noting that nothing grows spontaneously in it does not flow naturally from an assumption that life was designed. That Pasteur might have assumed special creation doesn't prove your point, because the assumption wasn't central to his research. Einstein assumed the universe was static in formulating the theory of general relativity, but the assumption was not central to the theory, and disproving that notion did not disprove his theory.
Sure there is. The entire field of paleontology is based on the idea that various organisms are not derived from special creation, but in fact are the result of common descent with modification. It would not have been possible to derive the ancestry of the modern horse from Hyracotherium through Mesohippus and Archeohippus to Equus, especially given their temporal distribution, without assuming that those various organisms were not specially created, but instead were the result of evolutionary change, resulting in a tree of common descent.
Now, of course, you're going to say that ID is compatible with common descent, which is true (I'm going to restrain myself here and not say it). But my point is, assuming at this point that life was designed does not explain anything that simply dispensing with the assumption would be unable to explain. In the same way, dispensing with the luminiferous ether had the same effect on physics.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 22, 2005 @ 12:31 am
October 22nd, 2005 at 8:15 am
ericmurphy:
The entire field of paleontology is based on the idea that various organisms are not derived from special creation, but in fact are the result of common descent with modification.
Again you demonstrate you can't follow along. The question asked pertained to blindwatchmaker processes. There isn't anything in paleo that relies on blindwatchmaker processes. And our understanding of the history of life portrayed by paleo is not enhanced by assuming blindwatchmaker processes were responsible. IOW it is not a useful of helpful concept in any use of the words.
However now we have gone down a tangent.
What would you consider research? Ya see I consider research what scientists do when looking through microscopes and telescopes. Making observations and coming to some degree of understanding. Right now all IDists want is to be able to conduct research and not be forced to have one and only one inference. That approach should seem very unscientific to the objective person. What IDists want is to be able to conduct scientific research and be allowed to come to a design inference without having to worry about the jobs or any repercusions. And yes it is an issue.
When there are only 3 possible options to our existence and people want to disallow tow of those "just because" there is a problem. Plain and simple.
Comment by Joe G — October 22, 2005 @ 8:15 am
October 22nd, 2005 at 9:53 am
Do many scientists gain insights from the design inference which inspires original research and has practical application in their work? How does that compare to the research being generated based on evolutionary theory?""”Aaagcobb
Another excellent question. (And I liked that expression, "Up the creek without a panel.") ericmurphy asks the same question.
Let me cite an authority on the matter: "I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection."
That is a design inference.
If you don't think that is a design inference/argument then you'll have to explain to me what you think such an inference or argument is.
It is the single most compelling argument Darwin makes to support his theory and it has proven to be a quite productive scientific research program. I'm sorry, but you have failed to understand something quite fundamental to modern evolutionary theory if you thought it constituted some sort of "anti-design" argument. It's OK. A lot of people don't understand evolution. Maybe nobody really does! LOL
I realize that the distinction is lost on many people, but there is a difference between an inference of design, or an argument from design and an argument from design to the existence of the Creator. The distinction was understood anciently. Seems as if some of the TelicThinkers have sought to make that distinction clear. (Ya don't need a spade to beat it into my head. I get it!) William Dembski understands the distinction, and even recognizes that the former, the argument from design, can be opposed to, even falsifying of the latter, the argument from design to the existence of a creator (or designer)! Does that sound odd to you? Are you confused yet?
A trivial example: I infer that this computer is a design. I feel pretty confident in that inference. It is indeed quite a trivial inference to make, isn't it? Furthermore, I argue that this computer could only be the invention of Alexander Graham Bell. Ya see the point?
It gets even better! Engineering design theory is based on exactly the same general principles that biological evolution theory is! Is that news to you? That's not surprising to me. The "argument from the ignorance of design," I believe, is the most commonly repeated argument made in these discussions. And that argument from ignorance is made by everyone, regardless of whatever position they assume, IDers and their critics alike. (Even me! LOL)
And the productivity, the heuristic value, the cogency, the usefulness, etc., of the design inference/analogy has been demonstrated in other scientific fields, not just biology.
The design inference/argument inspires and supports research. I sincerely believe that science as we know it (or some of us know it) wouldn't exist without it.
Comment by Rock — October 22, 2005 @ 9:53 am
October 22nd, 2005 at 10:09 am
ericmurphy:
When I say, useful, I mean "useful in the sense of having explanatory power."
What does that mean? In grade school I had explanations for all my alleged mis-deeds. Yet my experience was no matter how good the explanation it had no power whatsoever. Actually the better the explanation the less power it had.
"Useful" to me is something that can be used. In order to do that it needs to be verified. Observed, tested, repeated, verified and then put into (practical) use. But hey I'm an engineer and that is what drove me to it- finding uses for things we know, ie things we have tested, repeated and verified.
"Helpful" to me is something that can help us understand. In that sense ID helps us better understand our existence, as well as a driving force for future research. (in the same way it, the design inference, drives any investigation)
Comment by Joe G — October 22, 2005 @ 10:09 am
October 22nd, 2005 at 6:25 pm
Joe G:
If there's anyone here who can't follow along, it's you. Here we are, discussing what makes research valid, and you go off on a self-admitted "tangent," demanding that I come up with some sort of proof, satisfactory to you, that paleontology relies on "blind watchmaker processes." That has nothing to do with this thread, and nothing to do with what I or anyone else is talking about. It's as if every time I say anything on any topic, you immediately demand that I demonstrate the sufficiency of "blind watchmaker processes," which frankly is getting monotonous. At the same time, you manage to drag the level of discourse down to what I would expect to see among junior high school shop students.
My point, which actually is relevant to the topic of this thread, is that there isn't anything ID can explain that cannot just as parsimoniously be explained by NDE. In other words, ID doesn't add anything to the study of biology. As far as I can tell, ID researchers have so far spent essentially all of their time trying to justify a design inference. Even if that inference is justified (and it's the consensus opinion that they haven't come close to doing even that), it isn't clear, and you've said nothing to clarify it further, that any such inference of design advances the state of the science at all. As Aagcobb pointed out:
We've got the DI funding 40 full-time fellowships. How many research papers should we expect from 40 researchers working for, say, ten years? How does that number compare to the number of actual papers (peer-reveiwed or not) generated by DI fellows? And how much of that research has been taken by other researchers, further developed, folded into existing paradigms, and become part of the body of knowledge of biology and evolution?
There's more to doing research than making observations and taking measurements. Sure, that's the beginning of research, but where is ID going after that (to the extent it even is making observations and taking measurements)? What fresh understanding has ID contributed to the field? You're constantly saying that after a design inference is made, the next thing is to understand that design. Well, what has ID done about understanding the designs it says it can detect?
No one is preventing Behe or Dembski or Wells from doing research. What they need to do is convince the scientific community that the fruits of that research amount to a significant contribution to the biological sciences. So far, they've been unable to do so.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 22, 2005 @ 6:25 pm
October 22nd, 2005 at 6:59 pm
ericmurphy:
is that there isn't anything ID can explain that cannot just as parsimoniously be explained by NDE.
But paleo isn't explained by NDE. Life isn't explained by NDE. the bacterial flagellum isn't explained by NDE. Sexual reproduction isn't explained by NDE.
ericmurphy:
As far as I can tell, ID researchers have so far spent essentially all of their time trying to justify a design inference.
And your point is what? Isn't that how things get started- justify the research. Detection and understanding. Once more people and researchers get involved will we be able to do more.
ericmurphy:
Even if that inference is justified (and it's the consensus opinion that they haven't come close to doing even that), it isn't clear, and you've said nothing to clarify it further, that any such inference of design advances the state of the science at all.
The "consensus opinion" still doesn't have any opposing criteria by which to be judged- other than "we refuse to accept a designer", so that opinion hardly counts for anything. And as has been pointed out many times the design inference adds quite a bit to any investigation.
Again you say that ID isn't fruitful. What are you comparing that to? Give us a reference to what NDE has added. Here it is the 21st century and we still don't know what makes a species what it is.
It is obvious that Eric wants more out of ID in ten years than evolutionary scientists have ever offered.
Comment by Joe G — October 22, 2005 @ 6:59 pm