Suspicions and Evidence
by MikeGeneThe debate about evolution and intelligent design eventually comes down to demands for evidence. Yet evidence is simply data that are interpreted in the light of previous experience and belief. What's more, evidence comes in different flavors. For example, the type of evidence that might be used to guide a police investigation may not suffice as "evidence" in the context of a court room trial. In fact, an investigator is likely to look at the data differently from a defense lawyer. The investigator may initially rely on lower standards of evidence to follow up hunches and be sensitive to cliues. The lawyer will insist on the highest possible standards to defend his client.
Even though evidence that merely sparks or supports a suspicion is insufficient to effect a satisfactory conclusion to a case, it is an essential starting point for any investigation. For instance, consider the mundane example of a woman who suspects her husband is cheating. She may not be able to prove he is cheating nor is she sure he is cheating. But she could probably tell you a few things that lead her to suspect he is cheating. Maybe he suddenly spends too much time at the office. Maybe someone has been calling the house and hanging up when she answers. And maybe one night he came home late and had the faint smell of perfume on his clothes. None of these reasons allow her to be certain he is cheating, and she realizes this. But her suspicions sensitize her such that she is more likely to recognize clues as clues. So she looks more closely and begins to find more, perhaps a phone number in his wallet. She calls the number and a woman answers the phone. While convinced her suspicions have been borne out, she might recognize her husband is likely to react with extreme skepticism when she confronts him. Perhaps she decides to strengthen her belief further, making it so probable that it will be difficult to deny. So she hires a private investigator to document the adultery with photographic evidence. Thus, the ambiguous data that lead to an initial suspicion ultimately results in a more rigorous attempt to confirm or dismiss those suspicions.
As we all know, the debate about evolution and intelligent design is highly polarized, where many on both sides have staked out extreme positions. According to the pro-ID side, ID is not only science, but also the best explanation for certain biotic phenomena. According to the anti-ID side, ID is without any evidence and nothing more than nonsense/wishful thinking.
To fit this to my analogy above, it's like a wife who accuses her husband of cheating and the husband accusing the wife of being paranoid/delusional. To settle that emotionally charged dispute, the wife would need to have the photograph in her hand.
But some of us are pro-ID in the sense that we merely suspect there is something to it. For us, we have no photo, just behavior that is odd and other assorted clues. What we would like to do is to investigate, not accuse. Without a suspicion, there can be no investigation. To investigate, you need clues. And without an investigation, where is this stronger evidence needed to move beyond the realm of suspicion supposed to come from?
Thus, when those involved in the Culture Wars tell me that they have a photo of the adultery, I see only suspicious behavior and cannot go along. When the other side claims there is no evidence because there is no photo, I still see the suspicious behavior and cannot go along.
All I can do is simply keep my eye on the Rabbit and see where he goes.
December 29th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Mike:
I also wonder why the critics seem to believe their interpretations of evidence are evidential of anything but their interpretations. As if everyone else must be slaves to their metaphysical philosophy just because they are slaves to their metaphysical philosophy.
The sun appears on the eastern horizon and moves across the sky so that it dips below the western horizon. That's the evidence. It has been explained in a number of ways over the millennia that humans have been telling themselves stories about why this happens. The evidence is still the evidence, it's still doing what it's always done. Our interpretations have changed drastically several times.
Comment by Joy — December 29, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
December 29th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Hi Mike,
Nice Post.
It is a good summary of the main theme of your book.
Of course, the devil is in the details.
No one is going to stop you or I from exploring our hunches. People might even agree our hunchs are possibly correct and make "helpful" suggestions for specific experiments to test them. Others might make "helpful" suggestions that our ideas will go a lot further if they conform better with the prevailing opinion on one side or the other of the Culture War.
The reaction to my last major post on A Third Choice was that it didn't move the ball politically. It just wasn't keeping with the purpose of exercise. Joy summed it up very elegantly when I asked for her reaction to my disappointment in a lack of interest in Orch OR or EAM.
link
I hope Joy won't be too angry with me for dredging this up. If you go to the link I provided it will be clear that I had asked her for this kind of honest response.
In recent threads I have been accused of both playing politics and being naively ignorant of it. I had hoped it was obvious that I was not ignorant of the politics of the situation. I have openly been providing counter-spin and shield bashing in many of my comments. I am pretty sure you, Mike, are aware of that. A counter attack is still an attack. Political posturing is still politics even when done as a response. We all know this. At least I think we all know this.
The point is that we can either deal with the politics and metaphysics openly or continue with a let's-pretend game which foster suspicion and provides excuses for less-than-complete dialog.
Is it possible for people on opposite sides of the Culture War to agree to disagree on interpretation while mutually look for evidence that can be agreed upon and supported?
Mike, you have gone a long way towards doing this. You have accepted most, if not all, of the data points provided by mainstream evolutionary theory.
In one of our first exchanges, I pointed out that relying on people who agree with you philosophically is dangerous to critical thinking. I have come to notice you are far better at hearing out negative arguments than most Culture Warriors.
Frankly, I am finding difficult to figure out a strong close to this comment. I don't have a specific recommendation, so I will just leave it as my attempt to shine some light on the situation.
For what it is worth, I liked your post.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 29, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
December 29th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
TP,
Considering the case of Stuart Hameroff, it may not be possible for people on the same sides of the "culture war" to agree to disagree on interpretation.
Comment by nullasalus — December 29, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
December 29th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Mike
Well there is that business about making predictions and then testing them. In science, anyway. I appreciate your ID is not science, but modern evolutionary theory is.
Absolutely. So where is that ID investigation?
Right. So she investigates, find a phone number. She hypotheses this is the number of her husband's lover, leading to the prediction that if she calls the number, this hypothetical woman will answer. Then she tests the prediction.
So you are really just sitting on the fence?
Comment by The Pixie — December 29, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
December 29th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
I've often wondered how much of the evolution/ID debate is really about evidence and how much of it is about the best way to interpret the evidence. When Darwinians challenge IDers to come up with some empirical results that strikes me as a strange demand. The empirical data is being churned out every day in labs all across the world. The question is whether that data fits best into a mechanistic model based on serendipitous mutations and natural selection or a telic model based on intention and intelligence. Just because materialists insist that only material explanations can count doesn't mean that material explanations are the best available.
Comment by Dick — December 29, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
December 29th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
The Pixie,
The mechanics are. The conclusions drawn about agency (presence or lack) are not. The problem is that the two get blurred, intentionally and not.
Dick,
I agree. Mechanism is one question, non/intentionality is another. Sometimes the two cross over. Behe makes a criticism of evolution that he bases questioning whether mechanism can operate as declared. Whereas, if I read him right, Mike's tact is to accept how a mechanism operates and look at it from a design perspective.
Comment by nullasalus — December 29, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
December 29th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
I believe it is almost entirely a matter of interpretation. In The Design Matrix Mike made a comment that really resonated with me. He mentioned how struck he was by the reaction of biologists to the genetic code. They (and others) act as if this were an ordinary biological feature. It is far from it. The Big Bang and quantum physics get the attention of philosophers while the genetic code flies under philosophical radar. A symbolic molecular coding system is presumed to be a consequence of unobserved chemical reactions. But why? Because we find parallel results in chemistry? No, that's not it. There are vague references to complexity arising. But the type of complexity cited (crystals for example) is of a different nature. All of this leads me to believe a philosphical predilection underlies which lense we choose to view data through. If the lense orients one to a telic perspective it is not likely to see the light of day.
Excellent point. Data is neutral with respect to where it comes from. Whether researchers believe in ID or oppose it the data remains the same.
I agree. You must be a perceptive thinker.:mrgreen:
Comment by Bradford — December 29, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
December 29th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
You wrote…
I am not sure whether you are referring to Stuart Hameroff as a person or his ideas or both.
He, personally, seems a nice enough fellow.
It is his ideas can be quite disturbing. While the details are complicated, the fundamental theme is not. Data from quantum mechanical experiments clearly show observations directly effects reality. The presumption (interpretation if you will) is that the consciousness of the observer is directly linked to quantum effects and visa-versa. This isn't a new idea. This idea was the motivation causing Schrödinger to offer his thought experiment, Schrödinger's Cat seventy three years ago.
What is new is people like Hameroff and Penrose are pointing out the obvious. Quantum physics isn't an isolated science or reality. Data points from the fields of biology, cosmology and quantum physics should all be reconciled with each other if we are to understand what is really going on.
Quantum physics can no longer be ignored in biology. DNA strands are being used to build nanocomputers at the quantum level. It has been recently discovered that the efficiencies of photosynthesis are a direct result of quantum superpositions at temperatures previously thought impossible (link). Several scientists, in addition to Penrose and Hameroff, are linking consciousness to quantum theory (link). I suggest the study of "bioquantum physics" is here to stay.
Now, if the Culture Warriors can pause for a moment and look at this they will see that the battlefield has changed. The term "materialism" has long lost its meaning when matter is no more substantive than the "force" of gravity (gravity isn't a "force" it is inhomogeneous artifacts in the space-time geometry that is our universe).
There is so much new data coming in that it is senseless to argue the final answer. OOL discussions are going to get turned on its head with the discovery of nanobes, especially since nanobe evidence has been found in space (link). It becomes silly to argue the fidelity of Miller-Urey of early Earth if life didn't start on Earth.
The Great Zombie debate also becomes ridiculous if it turns out that consciousness is, indeed, directly connected with the entire universe via quantum physics.
Of course there will always be the stubborn people that will absolutely refuse to accept anything that goes against their dogma (on both sides of the Culture War). These people do so at the risk of being left behind.
It is my suggestion that we (in Telic Thoughts) forgo that and move on even though we may disagree politically and philosophically.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 29, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
December 29th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
TP,
I'm only pointing out that Hameroff apparently saw himself as a culture war player, tried to offer what he called a secular spirituality with a scientific basis, and was thereafter given what is as close to excommunication as one can get in the "culture war".
Move on to what? I really can't see what you're saying should be the real discussion, especially since the quantum question, if I recall right, has been explored here a number of times rather than denied out of hand. Believe me when I say that, even with Penrose aside, the quantum role in these discussions isn't ignored, even outside of ID. Stephen Barr now and then writes about its relevance to philosophy for First Things, etc.
Comment by nullasalus — December 29, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 2:24 am
Hi Nullasalus,
You wrote…
My turn to ask "huh?".
Here is a link to Dr. Hameroff's Curriculum Vitae
Apparently Dr. Hammeroff has 140 peer-reviewed articles and chapters under his belt. Here are a few of them…
Dr. Hameroff has received multiple grants and has "…given hundreds of invited talks locally, and at conferences and Universities throughout the world."
If you are talking about people like P.Z. Myers, Nick Matske, Dembski and Wells, I will agree they seem to be ignoring Hameroff and Orch OR. I have been trying to change that situation.
I haven't noticed Stephan Barr posting on Telic Thoughts. The point being that we can only deal with what we do here. Mike mentions quantum physics and nanotechnology multiple times in The Design Matrix.. It is my hope that this will foster more discussion on the subject. Hopefully that we can deal with the subject openly and positively and forgo worrying about whose philosophy it helps or hurts.
Borrowing from Mike's opening post. Let's keep an "…eye on the Rabbit and see where he goes."
Let's do Science!
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 30, 2007 @ 2:24 am
December 30th, 2007 at 2:40 am
It's a conspiracy!
Comment by valerie — December 30, 2007 @ 2:40 am
December 30th, 2007 at 2:46 am
TP,
Sure, but when did I deny any of that? I said that when Hameroff tried to broach this topic (even to people 'on his side' of the culture war - though he seems to have switched), no one stood for it. Remember my original comment?
I say this as someone interested in the subject, from Penrose to Barr to Stapp to others: Okay. What's there to discuss at this point? You yourself have written more than one guest post here about it. And as far as I know, developments in that vein don't come about daily. Or weekly.
Are you saying every day should be 'By the way, have you heard about Orch-OR and nanobes?' day at TT? Or better yet, 'Have you heard about Orch-OR and nanobes, and don't bring up philosophy'? The funny thing is, I think most people on the pro-ID side would approach Penrose's view with interest. It's Dan Dennett's boys who'll be anglin' fer a bruisin'. *ahem* So to speak.
Comment by nullasalus — December 30, 2007 @ 2:46 am
December 30th, 2007 at 6:50 am
nullasalus
Could you elaborate here? The mechanics of modern evolutionary theory, how natural selection happens, what it achieves, how various types of mutation occur, all these are science, that is people have made tested predictions from the numerous claims. And none of those claims involve agency.
Are you saying that you accept that, but still draw the conclusion that agency is required?
Thought Provoker
"Materialism" has lost its meaning for anyone who understands science. It is still a great word for IDists rallying their ignorant troops (eg the Wedge document).
Bradford
And yet many, many scientists are religious. I do wonder why they have this underlying philosphical predilection. If you are right….
Comment by The Pixie — December 30, 2007 @ 6:50 am
December 30th, 2007 at 11:42 am
All of this leads me to believe a philosphical predilection underlies which lense we choose to view data through. If the lense orients one to a telic perspective it is not likely to see the light of day.
It's not hard to figure out. The philosophical bias is not based on belief in God. It is based on a philosophical commitment to bottoms-up causality which has been useful in physics but failed mightily as a biological approach.
Comment by Bradford — December 30, 2007 @ 11:42 am
December 30th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
TP:
Substantive or not matter and energy is all there is according to materialist culture warriors. Carl Sagan loved to repeat the phrase and was not taken to task for it by mainstream science despite the obvious metaphysics wedged into it.
Comment by Bradford — December 30, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
nullasalus:
The Pixie:
If I may be so bold. You just did what null was speaking of, The Pixie. How was it determined that the mechanics of evolution are atelic? It's an interpretation of the data, not the data itself, no? Or, are you saying that science (specifically MET) has already discovered how to detect agency, and ruled it out? Is that what is meant by 'intellectually fulfilled atheism'? As nullasalus said, and it's how I, as a layman, have always seen it; "Mechanism is one question, non/intentionality is another."
I always have trouble understanding where the demarcation line between science and philosophy lays. I'm not sure how one can discuss issues of agency in purely scientific terms. You seem to think that it can be done,… and has already been ruled out (via MET.) Is that correct, The Pixie? If so, how so?
Thanks and regards,
-Rob
Comment by Rob R. — December 30, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Very good RobR. Of course noone is able to demonstrate that the mechanisms of evolution are atelic. Worse yet there are no pathways to the very biological systems which would make evolutionary mechanisms possible. It's interpretation of data from start to finish.
Comment by Bradford — December 30, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Do you remember our recent discussion over your admiration for Ernst Mach?
You said…
And I asked…
"Ah, but will you stick to that policy no matter how uncomfortable?"
What empirical evidence exists that there is something beyond matter and energy?
Note, I suggest repeatable and independently verifyable evidence of something more comes from quatum physics experiments.
What evidence are you offering?
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 30, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
I'm not even attempting to offer empirical evidence for this issue. My point is there is no empirical evidence one way or the other so why is it that only theists are accused of wedding metaphysics to science when that was Sagan's et al's intent?
Comment by Bradford — December 30, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
The Pixie,
Rob R. already pointed it out.
As a default, I accept all of the mainstream data and mechanisms of MET. I'm certainly open to new developments in every way, from ID proponents and not - maybe Behe's edge is correct. Maybe epigenetics matter more than we think. But identifying natural mechanisms and limitations isn't enough to get you to 'there was no creator'.
Do I personally believe there was a creator at work? Absolutely. Do I think my conclusion is science? Not really - it's an interpretation of the data, based on philosophical views more than anything. So is the conclusion that there was no creator at work. You simply do not need to judge on the presence of a designer to do the science. The problem is that some (hey, many) people want to have it both ways - where ruling out a designer is scientific, but arguing in favor for one isn't. It's just Dembski's explanatory filter in reverse, except not even that. It's assumed.
Comment by nullasalus — December 30, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
There is no scientific evidence of telic causation in biological evolution and robust non-telic mechanisms have been identified. Hence, telic causation is an extraneous entity. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
That is incorrect. Scientific validity means specific and distinguishing empirical predictions entailed in the hypothesis.
Science is more than capable of identifying and studying telic causes, e.g. archaeology and forensics. There's just no such evidence in biology and substantial evidence that argues against it.
A scientific claim is validated by testing entailed predictions. Philosophical claims are validated by reasoning from axioms (which may be shared beliefs or understandings).
It's quite possible to philosophically investigate principles of agency. Indeed, many areas of philosophy are concerned with subjective experience that has been resistant to scientific investigation, e.g. aesthetics or morality. But that doesn't make such musings science (though philosophy is often informed by science).
Comment by Zachriel — December 30, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
{bump}
Comment by Zachriel — December 30, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
And here we go, all the excesses and contradictions in one neat passage. Agency and questions of teleology are philosophical, and while the musings may be informed by science, they aren't science themselves. But there's clearly no teleology at work in science, and there's no evidence in favor of it, and plenty of evidence against it (And the evidence typically turns out to be either a misunderstanding, or an assumption.)
See, Zach believes you can detect Intelligent Design using science, and the conclusions are also science. Just as Dembski-ish as Dembski. Except, he believes the answer is 'the filter turns up nothing, there is no design'. And not only that, disagreeing isn't science - it's philosophy.
It's a tortured, obviously unworkable view. Zach can't defend it - which is why all he does is repeat it and hope it sticks.
Comment by nullasalus — December 30, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
That is incorrect. Claims of agency acquire scientific validity when they lead to specific and distinguishing empirical predictions. I would be happy to address any particular point you might make, but all I see is a flourish of handwaving.
Comment by Zachriel — December 30, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
It's not extraneous. Something is extraneous when an effect can be explained without it. The effect of life cannot be linked to an atelic a cause. The telic aspect of causality is the missing ingredient.
One more thing. At the most fundamental level of causality atelic causality is a philosophical assumption.
Comment by Bradford — December 30, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
What is the distinguishing empirical prediction leading one to believe the origin of DNA results from an atelic process?
Comment by Bradford — December 30, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
My point is that any reference to agency whatsoever - whether presence or lack - is not necessary for the science. Mechanisms are mechanisms, and they remain so whether they were put into motion by an intelligent force, purposeless forces, or a mix. Viewing whether or not an agent would have or did employ these mechanisms is not science - it is philosophy, and (a)theology. You disagree? Then prove it. Show me where the science breaks down in evolution if you assume nature unfolded according to a plan. And 'well evolution assumes there was no plan' doesn't cut it, and is tantamount to admitting my point.
Designer views don't need to 'lead to specific and distinguishing empirical predictions' - and what's more, you know it. Further, someone can suggest a differing mechanism inspired by their thoughts of agency, be correct about the mechanism, and still wrong about the agent - either in specifics, or its existence either way.
Comment by nullasalus — December 30, 2007 @ 7:23 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Rob R.
I was talking about the mechanisms of modern evolutionary theory (MET), i.e., the mechanisms that make up the model scientists currently accept. Look in a good evolution textbook and you can determine for yourself what those mechanisms are, and discover that no external agency is involved. I am not sure quite what null was talking about, whether he was thinking about the models in MET or what really happens.
Having hopefully established beyond reasonable doubt that the mechanisms of MET are all atelic, the question now is are those good models for what is seen in nature, and I think maybe this was your real point?
This is where the thing about predictions and testing comes in. All those atelic models in MET have been accepted as mainstream science because they make predictions, predictions that are notaby better (that is, give a better fit with the empirical data) than the competing models (but not necessarily perfect, of course).
I think that is different to mere "interpretation of the data".
Sorry, i have no idea what that means. Do you accept that the mechanisms of MET are good, that they are atelic, but nevertheless are good modes for what really happened and is happening? Where does that leave your ID?
Science is about making generalisations (so the woman worried about her unfaithful husband is not science) from which you can draw testable predictions. Philosophy is about making untestable generalisations.
nullasalus
Even though the mechanisms are all atelic.
Sure. So be a theistic evolutionist. Seriously, why ID?
Then lets agree that both positions are non-scientific. What we can say for sure is that MET has a whole load of atelic mechanisms, and absolutely no telic mechanisms, and we both agree that those mechanisms are a good model for nature, right?
It is exactly his filter reversed. Demski is rooting for ID, so takes ID as the default. Others are rooting for atheism, so take atheism as the default.
Comment by The Pixie — December 30, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Hi Zachriel,
I'm glad you bumped this. The next step is to arrive at some consensus about the type of data that would support the suspicion and the type of data that would undercut the suspicion. But this is something for investigators to hash out, as those without the suspicion have no reason to investigate, now do they?
You yourself have proclaimed that "there is no reason at this point to suspect so-called Intelligent Design" so it stands to reason that your contribution will be to nitpick and naysay in an attempt to get others to agree there is no basis for a suspicion (to merely suspect, you need something evolution cannot explain, evidence of telic manufacture, or an image of a humanoid embedded in some genome).
From where I sit, you come across as a wife who claims she'll suspect her husband is cheating if someone can only show her the photo.
Comment by MikeGene — December 30, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Why should it matter to you whether or not he considers himself one or the other? What significance do you find in it?
Comment by Bradford — December 30, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
The Pixie,
You can define any mechanism as 'atelic' so long as you utterly bracket it off. Call fermentation atelic, but an agent can use it towards an end. Was the fermentation in that situation telic because an agent used it? If not, then 'atelic' is essentially meaningless in discussions like this. If so, it just backs up why telic and atelic is outside of science - and why it's superfluous to describe it as such one way or the other. Unless a science of agency that can handle propositions like that arrives on the scene.
I've outlined my reservations about the ID concept before on here - I have some big philosophical worries/doubts about whether intention on that level can be proven scientifically. But I'm open to having my mind changed, I think ID illustrates a major bout of philosophical/atheological hypocrisy and misunderstanding when it comes to science, and I also think ID could well be the beginning of a new and valid scientific discipline, even if it strays from its original concept.
When you get right down to it, ID is just a label. Over at UD, I've seen Dembski (I think) opine about how Ken Miller belongs in the ID camp. Maybe my views are more TE by definition, but my sympathies and hopes are more complicated.
Disagreed for reasons stated. The mechanisms are a good model for nature - tacking on atelic and arguing no telic mechanisms is pointless, and even inaccurate (No telic mechanisms? Tell that to my neurons.) (Edit: Or my microtubules, in case TP is reading this.)
I see a difference, in that Dembski is at least offering up some kind of method to discern design from non-design, versus an assumption.
Comment by nullasalus — December 30, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Mike
There is agreeing on a methodology, and then there is applying the methodology. In science, the agreed methodology is about testing predictions (that would be the "consensus about the type of data"). It is the woman who is suspicious, so yes, she does the investigation. Exactly what data she looks for, that is up to her to decide what will support her case.
You come across as a husband who has a suspicition (and has published a book about it), but just cannot bring himself to actually find out for sure.
Bradford
Theistic evolution is pro-evolution, pro-science. ID is anti-evolutuion, anti-materialism. I think that is a significant diference.
nullasalus
Fermentation is a process, not a mechanism. A mechanism (in science, anyway) is a detailed, step-by-step description of how it happens. If that step-by-step description does not involve an external agent, then the mechanism is atelic, even if the process is happening in a stainless-steel vat brewing beer. The process is telic in this case, but the mechanism is the same when a rotten apple ferments.
The process of evolution could be telic; that is what theistic evolutionists believe. But as Dembski said "ID is no friend of theistic evolution."
Oh, well maybe Dembski has changed his mind. UD is an excellent example of ID as anti-science, by the way.
Ah, now I see a fundamental difference between what we could call internal purpose and external purpose. A person, a cat, whatever has internal purpose; it seeks food, etc. for its own benefit. A lawnmower has external purpose; it cuts the grass for the benefit of its owner; it exists for the benefit of someone else.
Now I thought we were talking about external purpose. Like with fermentation, when it is used to make beer for us to drink. As opposed to when you look at the mechanism, you will find that what is happening is actually for the benefit of the yeast - internal purpose. I would describe fermentation as atelic, even though it can be used purposefuly by mankind and even though it has a purpose for the yeast.
Your neurons are part of your purposefulness. You have internal purpose. But whether some external agency designed you that way - well, surely that is the very issue we are debating? Are there mechanisms involving your neurons that involve some external agency?
Comment by The Pixie — December 30, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
You wrote…
You may wish to take care here. If you really think you have an understanding on a "method to discern design from non-design" (Dembski's or any other), I suggest you present it. You would have the undivided attention of all TT participants, especially mine.
I had Salvador T. Cordova walk me through step by step Dembski's equations and methodology for detecting design from a set of chance hypotheses. Here is the link to that exchange.
We referenced a 2005 Dembski paper titled Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence.
The results of that analysis demonstrated that Dembski's methodology didn't do what many thought it did.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 30, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
To the contrary, theistic evolution makes a claim that science is powerless to adjudicate one way or the other. It is non-science rather than pro-science.
Is Mike Gene anti-evolution even though he has made favorable statements about evolution or does your perception take precedence over reality? Materialism is a philosophy about which empirical evidence can be used to support pro or con arguments about it.
The difference is a highly subjective one on your part and none too helpful in distinguishing empirical from non-empirical claims.
Comment by Bradford — December 30, 2007 @ 9:53 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Pixie to nullasalus:
Pix, we've been around and around on this at least a hundred times, yet here you are once again defining ID for your own internal purpose - confirming your stereotype - and denying that ID supporters can buy the identified mechanisms of evolution while still considering the process to be intelligent design. The telic designing that manifests itself in life forms adapting over time needn't be 'external' at all. It just needs to reflect the capacity of life to adapt over time, becoming ever more successful an agent (could be surviving and having the most offspring, could be a Ph.D. in biology, could be a gazillion bucks from a pyramid scheme…) via that process.
I know of no one in the ID ranks who thinks life is some godling's lawn mower. Though I do know people who use sheep as lawn mowers.
I don't know about nullasalus, but external agents had a whole lot to do with the design of my thinking. My parents gifted me with the machinery, then spent some years and investments on making sure I learned the things they considered it important for me to know. Then they sent me to school, where government agents got paid pretty good money for 9 months a year to drum other stuff into my head.
I presume it was that way for you, too. And if you've got a day job (aren't an independently wealthy jet-setter with a stable of employees who work to make you richer), half or more of the time of your life not spent sleeping is spent doing some external agent's bidding. Almost all humans are someone else's tool. Looks to me like life uses evolution's mechanisms - including a lot of epigenetic ones biologists know little or nothing about - for its process of intelligent design. Which is then subsumed by broader, non-biological sociological systems towards their telic purposes.
Will you now claim that parenting, education, and honest work are atelic too?
Comment by Joy — December 30, 2007 @ 10:02 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
When we say that the planets move according to well-established scientific laws, we mean we have a robust non-telic explanation and that there is no evidence of telic intervention in their motions; hence, claims of agency are scientifically extraneous.
Again, incorrect. When we scientifically examine how a building comes to be, we look for evidence of the builders and their purposes. We test our hypotheses against the evidence, just like any other scientific hypothesis.
Comment by Zachriel — December 30, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Bradford: At the most fundamental level of causality atelic causality is a philosophical assumption.
Planetary motion is not fundamental. The causal source of basic natural forces and the universe itself is not subject to definitive answers based on empirical data. Some things are beyond the scope of science.
Comment by Bradford — December 30, 2007 @ 10:33 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
My comment concerned scientific evidence and my response was to that point. I have no objection as long as you aren't making an unsupported scientific claim.
There is no valid scientific explanation as to why there is something rather than nothing.
Quite so.
Comment by Zachriel — December 30, 2007 @ 10:44 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Zach:
You're digging that hole pretty deep. Why do you keep insisting that science can determine telic causes from non-telic causes, then assert that science has determined there are no telic causes? You may believe this, but it's not an accurate account of scientific knowledge at this point in time. Particularly in biology, where it primarily deals with population dynamics to quantify selection even as it pretends it can wall-off actual causation by appeal to effect.
Heck, even when we say the planets move according to well-established scientific laws, you can't pretend there is any philosophical difference between "Laws of Nature" and "Laws of God." That has already been established in philosophy, which is where philosophical assumptions belong. You can't negate Bradford's point that you're appealing to philosophy by appealing to philosophy.
Besides, our calculations of mass and resultant gravitational effects are evidence of regularity. Regularity is not the cause of regularity, it's an effect of something that causes regularity. That we have means to make those calculations is useful to us - FAPP, but tells us nothing about what causes matter to have mass, or mass to exert gravity. Causes can be ignored for practical purposes of simply quantifying effects. Quantifying effects does not establish causation.
Roger Penrose has suggested that consciousness is part of the equation - a fundamental parameter of space-time itself. Others are working toward the same ideas, though we don't have a way to test them directly. Which makes Orch-OR precisely as 'scientific' as string theories, brane theories, multiverses, bubbles, and other of the 'Wild Ideas' out there in sciencey-speculation land.
If consciousness is a parameter of universal reality it could well explain intelligent design. You might even come to accept it one day. Or not. The reason all those speculative alternatives are out there taking up so many big brains these days is because we know the standard model is wrong/incomplete (and we suspect the same of GR). I suspect biology will find itself in much the same boat eventually if it's not already there. Merely asserting that you Still Have Faith in the wrong/incomplete model doesn't make it less wrong/incomplete, or stop science from actively seeking better models.
Comment by Joy — December 30, 2007 @ 10:56 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Science is a specific methodology for matching observation with theory. It is quite limited in its domain. However, we can confidently state that an assertion of telic causes with regards to planets moving in their orbits is an extraneous entity, and therefore of no *scientific* merit.
If you want to believe in angels pushing planets on crystal spheres, please do, but there is no scientific support for such a view, and substantial scientific evidence otherwise.
Comment by Zachriel — December 30, 2007 @ 11:09 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
TP,
I don't. I've been clear about this - and clear about what I think of such methods, even in that same post. Read it again. Closely.
I don't think Dembski's method necessarily works. But it's different to present even non-working or in-development 'work' and just operating off an assumption. Which is the game Zach and others play - 'the view I have should be the assumption and everyone else should have to disprove it.' But the assumption, in either direction, is extraneous. Does nothing. And everyone knows it.
Which is why it gets asserted, never argued. I count a try and an arguable failure different from a just 'it is, because'.
The Pixie,
And calling it atelic or telic still gets you nowhere, and adds nothing. See where we're at? You're arguing the mechanism is atelic even when employed in a telic process - and what does it gain you? Not a thing. It's a bracketed description, a definition. You may as well call a rand() function in computer programming atelic, because all it is is a defined command. It doesn't do anything on its own, it just sits there. But if you want to force in some philosophical/political baggage, you can argue it should be called atelic. Or telic. Depends on your politics, doesn't it.
Really? Why? Because most of the time they just sit around criticizing other people's proposals they dislike, and quoting ones that back their views? Can you think of any other site that does that? I can - and they aren't ID places.
Joy actually provides a pretty good answer for me here - but I'll go further and say that where to draw the line when it comes to my neurons, what counts as agency, what counts as intention, etc - are philosophical questions as well.
But your examples, really, just show what I mean: Where you're saying 'atelic' and 'telic' is downright arbitrary, and gets the science nowhere. Which is why, when I called Zach out to show me how science breaks when we pull telic/atelic out of the evolution picture, he quietly dodged. Because it won't break. Mechanisms are mechanisms - they function and operate. Shoe-horning 'atelic' in there (Does science really make use of this term? Couldn't even find it on dictionary.com, as if that matters) gives the description nothing. Unless it's just there for some strange unpurposeful-as-default hope.
Zach,
Fan-tastic. When we're talking about buildings, I'll keep that in mind. Until then, I'll take your ignoring of my challenge as the expected dodge - telic/atelic isn't fundamental to the descriptions. They add nothing, removing them takes nothing. Whether to consider the data telic or atelic is a strained sideshow that says more about influencing people's views than providing an accurate depiction of the science. And Occam's Razor would chop it off.
First buildings, now this. You do a great job of replying to questions no one asked, and criticizing ideas no one has asserted. All while repeating assertions you won't defend. Does anyone ever get convinced by that routine?
Comment by nullasalus — December 30, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
December 30th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Zach:
I suppose that would depend on what "angels" are, and how "crystal spheres" is defined. Science has no definition of cosmic size crystals and no idea what angels are. You're back to philosophical name games again, as with the concept of "Laws." Only this time applied to causation, by appealing to agency and mechanism.
You cannot validly assert that causation is atelic because you want it to be. Science flat doesn't know. Just because angels and crystals are the only telic agency your brain can come up with - for express purposes of ridicule - doesn't mean there is no telic agency. You confuse your ideological bias with what science knows, and what suspicions may have *scientific* merit.
If you're willing to accept that science operates in a limited domain, you've no reason to assert that it makes ANY conclusive determinations about the nature of things outside its limited domain. Suspicions and speculations can make use of the methodology to match observation to theory, and that can expand science's domain a bit (as it's long been known to do). You seem to find that idea quite troubling.
Comment by Joy — December 30, 2007 @ 11:41 pm
December 31st, 2007 at 6:26 am
Bradford
Even so, it is generally the case that theistic evolutionists are pro-science. I guess they understand what science can and cannot do.
I was thinking about the ID movement, as exemplified by the DI. I should have been clearer.
Did I claim it was helpful in distinguishing empirical from non-empirical claims? I do not remember doing that.
Joy
In the fermentation discussion in my last post I said that the mechanism was atelic, but the process could still be telic. I am happy to say the same about evolution. Oh, wait, I did: "The process of evolution could be telic; that is what theistic evolutionists believe." So perhaps, Joy, if you could could hold back on your stereotyping, and actually read what I post, you might be able to respond to what I post, rather than what you think the stereotype should post. How about that, eh?
I am suggesting that the biochemical mechanism involving neurons are atelic (I should have been clearer, but in the context, I was talking about biochemical mechanisms). I believe that they are there for your purposes (internal purposes I would call them), and not (primarily) for the purposes of any other intelligent agent. I do not think your parents designed them, nor any government agents.
nullasalus
I am wondering what we are arguing about here. My first sentence to you on this thread was: "Could you elaborate here?" What I am doing is trying to understand what you are saying. And making precious little progress, it feels like at the moment. I am arguing that the numerous mechanisms of evolution are atelic. I think you agree. Does that tell me the process is atelic? No, as I thought I said last time. Yes, yes I did. "The process of evolution could be telic; that is what theistic evolutionists believe."
Blame Rob. R for "atelic", he used it first.
How we define telic/atelic is, yes, arbitrary. But if we can agree on those definitions, then there should be no problem. I suggest a good definition is that something is telic if its primary purpose is for another agency. The primary purpose of a sheep eating grass is for itself (internal purpose) - even if it gets your grass cut. The primary purpose of a lawn mower is to keep the grass short for the owner (external purpose). Now if we genetically engineered an animal to cut grass by eating it, that would be telic. It would be eating the grass to survive, but it primary purpose - the reason it exists in the first place - is to keeping the grass short.
Occasionally I see people confusing internal purpose and external purpose in this debate; someone will show humans (say) have purpose, therefore they are telic, therefore teleology is true. You say your neurons have telic mechanisms. Well, okay, they have purpose, but that purpose is yours. They have internal purpose. There is no reason to suppose from that that they were designed that way by any intelligent agency, that they have a purpose for some external agency.
So I believe we need to be quite clear what we are talking about so we avoid that mistake. Maybe you think telic should include internal purpose, and I can appreciate why you might. But this web site is called "Telic Thoughts". Are they thoughts that have a purpose? Or are they thoughts about some external purposeful agency? I rather think the latter. Are the IDists here promoting the obvious and trivial claim that intelligent agents are purposeful? Or that life serves some purpose to an external agency?
Does that get science anywhere? Well hopefully it means we understand each other better, which I would say is a good thing.
Here is the abastract of a paper that discusses an evolutionary mechanism:
http://www.plantphysiol.org/cg...
The proposed mechanism is atelic because it does not involve an external intelligent agent. It will not say that, I know. It also does not say that the phase of the moon was not a factor. here are lots of factors that were not involved at all, and none of them get a mention. But this is what I mean by an atelic mechanism - a step-by-step description of how the process happened that does not invoke an external agent.
Comment by The Pixie — December 31, 2007 @ 6:26 am
December 31st, 2007 at 10:41 am
Hi Nullasalus,
You wrote…
I read it again. This situation is the same as the first time I read it. You offered a qualification (a "difference") by stating…
"I see a difference, in that Dembski is at least offering up some kind of method to discern design from non-design, versus an assumption."
Those were your exact words. You gave Dembski credit for accomplishing something significantly different than others.
An assumption obscured by the smoke and mirrors of bombastic prose is still just an assumption.
This kind of discussion reminds me of the infamous Donald Rumsfeld logic. "There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist."
Generally, the default position is that the burdon of proof is on those suggesting something exists. While Zach could do better at explaining it, he doesn't have to show an absence of telic influences, you have to provide something more than just an assumption (even a reason for suspicion). Otherwise, the default presumption is that telic influences are not necessary and, therefore, are not involved.
To hammer home the point, note how this works when we are talking about Orch OR. Suart Hameroff is arguing for a change in thinking and explaining WHY and HOW. This is quite difference than simply asking "WHY NOT?" and purposely avoiding discussing mechanisms.
Now, are you or are you not offering Dembski's "some kind of method to discern design from non-design" as a reason for suspecting telic influences?
If you are, could you please explain this method. If you are not, then it isn't a difference and we are back to the Status Quo presumption of waiting for a reason to at least suspect the existence of something we have no evidence for.
P.S. You also wrote…
If you really want me to get into what I think of Dembski's motives and methods, I will but I suspect you may already have a good idea of what I would say.
Comment by Thought Provoker — December 31, 2007 @ 10:41 am
December 31st, 2007 at 10:43 am
I have carefully and sparely delineated what counts as science. If you want to hold non-scientific views or assumptions, I have no objection.
I answered this:
any reference to agency whatsoever
You made a sweeping generalization. And a false one. I provided a valid counter-example. Instead of responding to that, you used more flourishes.
I wrote an answer to this, but deleted it as it depended on your acknowledgment of your previous error. You have yet to do so.
That's the nature of sweeping generalizations. You swept up buildings with everything else that might be telic. You left a false statement uncorrected. Yet you accuse me of dodging.
Still incorrect. Agency is required for reasonable explanations of all sorts of things from The Pyramids to The Internet.
Comment by Zachriel — December 31, 2007 @ 10:43 am
December 31st, 2007 at 10:47 am
I don't make that assertion. I make the assertion that telic causes in biology are scientifically superfluous.
Science is quite limited in what claims it can make. However, angels pushing planets on crystal spheres is not a valid scientific claim. If there are angels, they are carefully hid, and a much more direct scientific explanation is available based on a very simple principle. That doesn't mean angels don't exist, or even that they don't cause the planets to keep in their orbits. Just that there is no scientific merit to the claim.
Comment by Zachriel — December 31, 2007 @ 10:47 am
December 31st, 2007 at 11:26 am
Zach:
Yes, you are right. For so long as biology relies on an ideologically atelic uber-theoretic and pretends that it has no need for knowledge of causality, the possibility that causation may be telic is entirely superfluous. Yet science (as opposed to just biology) does in fact deal with telic causation all the time, and includes telic causes and processes as part of its useful methodology. You might want to limit your generalities to where they apply.
Of course it's not. You've pulled an ancient and never claimed to be scientific theological claim out of the history bag and use it to illustrate a modern scientific point. I'd even agree readily that the earth isn't flat. It's certainly not the least bit flat here at my house, though there is a strand of sand between the dunes and the sea where I used to live that is as flat as semi-solid ground gets. So that probably depends a lot on one's perspective from ground level observation.
Angels may be 'hid' from your microscope, your telescope and your brain, but they are most certainly not 'hid' from human experience. Every cultural interpretation of humanity's capacity for spiritual experience describes spiritual beings that look a lot like angels, which quite often interact with human beings, even appearing to them corporeally on occasion.
Because throughout the history of human beings there are so many people who have had direct - i.e., empirical - experience of angels, of course science cannot validly claim such beings do not exist. Such claims are even more dubious lately, when it has become scientifically apparent that more than 3+1 dimensions of space, time and space-time are operative in shaping reality.
"Scientific merit" again depends on what the uber-theoretic in the specific discipline or sub-discipline of science is at the time you make such a claim. Should humans start being born capable of directly perceiving one or more of the extra dimensions of reality impacting life and death on planet earth, eventually they won't be stifled by throw-backs who insist they can have no such capacity (ignore it, kid. It's just your brain misfiring).
Seems to me like a die-hard evolutionist would know this and be entirely willing to suspend judgment on how much of reality human beings have thus far evolved to directly perceive. Looks like a total no-brainer to me. So I will say once again that it's bothersome to me when you confuse your invested faith in an entirely provisional uber-theoretic in one increasingly challenged sub-discipline of science with science itself.
See, the issue isn't what I believe or disbelieve about science, life, reality or the number 42. It should be about what's actually real. To say out of one side of your mouth that 'science' is a deliberately constrained and artificial means of looking at reality, while claiming out of the other side of your mouth that this constrained and artificial view determines for all what is and isn't real, is itself without scientific merit.
A truly informed scientific view would accept provisionality and actively seek to know more than is artificially constrained under the temporary current theoretic.
Comment by Joy — December 31, 2007 @ 11:26 am
December 31st, 2007 at 12:08 pm
The claim of agency in biology is scientifically superfluous because there is no scientific evidence of such agency.
Quite so, as I pointed out previously.