Taking the Measurement of Objective Knowledge
by BradfordMike Gene authored The Key to Objectivity at his blog The Design Matrix. Quoting from the linked piece:
I defined objective knowledge as “unbiased knowledge about the world around us” and subjective knowledge as “that which exists in the mind and pertains to the one who holds the knowledge.”
The problems with these definitions are as follows:
1. All knowledge exists in the mind.
2. It is not clear that unbiased knowledge exists, and even if it did, it would constitute a tiny fraction of our knowledge.
3. Whether or not knowledge is biased is not relevant to its validity. If I hated cats, for example, that would not invalidate my subjective claim that cats tend to scratch up furniture.
4. Subjective claims are often about the world around us. For example, if I claimed that President Bush was the worst president in US history, this is a truth claim about President Bush and US history.
So we need something better that these dictionary definitions. Let me thus propose something that George Cooper offered on the ASA list:
Could we not simplify define “objective” as being that which can be measured by all parties who should obtain the same result given an appropriate range of accuracy?
Measurement is thus the key to objective knowledge. And it has to be a form of measurement whereby everyone would get basically the same result. And this explains why we tend to associate science with objectivity, as science is built around instruments that measure as part of an experimental design.
Mike's point accounts for a consensus about data itself. Yet it is possible for different people to agree on what constitutes objective knowledge and still they come to different conclusions about matters impacted by that objective knowledge. Two individuals may both agree that organic compounds, which are intermediaries of known cellular metabolic pathways, can be found in regions of warm underwater sea vents. One may conclude that this condition could have been hospitable to the formation of earth's first life forms. A second individual may find that thought not convincing. Even a consensus on knowledge itself can allow for divergent views. A consensus on values is a different matter. That tends to breed like-minded thinking.
January 13th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Measurement is certainly intrinsic to the modern scientific method. But independent observation is what makes something objective. Instruments require their own proof of consistency, reliability, suitability and accuracy.
A library is a repository of knowledge.
Bias is impossible to completely eliminate, but it can be minimized by viewing the same phenomena from different vantages by different observers and different methods.
Sometimes, but *scientific validity* depends on objectivity.
A hypothesis is a tentative *assumption*. The first person is making a conjecture which might be testable. The second person seems to be handwaving. But hypothesis-testing would ultimately decide the issue.
Comment by Zachriel — January 13, 2009 @ 11:24 am
January 13th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Alot of speculation in the scientific community is purely informed metaphysics. The speculation that these vents are hospitable to early life has no foundation in observation so I wouldn't say that objective knowledge is even involved in the evaluation of these measurements of compounds around them towards the conclusion that early life first appeared there. Must you not see life being created around these vents, some living molecules, or atleast infer through stronger observations that this is what happened: Do we see life there now which we can explain hypothetically? Could we recreate this in the laboratory? Consensus knowledge is a path closer to the truth.
I do whole heartedly agree with this though. What people think is strongly influenced by what people say, communist regeimes used this to fantastic effect to change worldviews towards marxists ideas of existentialism, which justified atrocities and oppression. In the words of my boss "If you hear it said enough times, it begins to become true".
Have you noticed the strong leaning of misanthropes towards ideas of meaningless existance? Maybe they cannot face the fact that life could be a test, or the reality that they have no control. The policies of Thatcher and Regan poured scorn on society and praised the individual and I think we are still feeling the aftershocks of a selfish society, not selfish genes.
Comment by mrehayden — January 13, 2009 @ 11:28 am
January 13th, 2009 at 11:34 am
As do religions.
Comment by The Pixie Again — January 13, 2009 @ 11:34 am
January 13th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Dear God I know….
insidious ideas of loving neighbors like you would love yourself.
Yipes…. just makes my skin crawl.
Comment by GringoRoyale — January 13, 2009 @ 11:44 am
January 13th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I was thinking of more theological claims, about the existence and nature of God, to ensure that children become indoctrinated with the religion of their parents. If you want a more extreme example, look at how some televanglists use this idea that "What people think is strongly influenced by what people say" and "If you hear it said enough times, it begins to become true".
mrehayden was, I guess, doing his bit for the culture war by bashing atheism, so I thought I would redress the balance somewhat.
Comment by The Pixie Again — January 13, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Good day Zachriel.
A library contains books. Books are the physical manifestation of ideas that originate in the mind.
Yep, that would be what's called callibration. However, since callibration would draw upon several biased views, how unbiased/objective does that make the callibration itself?
For my benefit, please define "scientific validity".
This has the potential to be an intriguing thread!
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — January 13, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Good day Pixie.
No offense, but that's cherry-picking. If I wanted to bash atheists, Richard Dawkins can provide ample ammunition for such a task. However, using an "extreme" example is not a fair depiction of the majority.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — January 13, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Pixie:
I thought he was bashing communism and rightly so. Does the word atheism appear in his comment?
Comment by Bradford — January 13, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
I'm not sure hypothesis testing could resolve this issue. If chemical sufficiency is flawed you can test all you want and come up with "not this pathway or that one either." How is the second person handwaving? By not agreeing prior to testing?
Comment by Bradford — January 13, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
mrehayden:
Bravo!
Comment by Bradford — January 13, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Indeed. Even books are meaningless to a mind that does not understand the encoded language.
Comment by Bradford — January 13, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
And if it was revealed by God Himself?
Why not ensure their own children about it? If they think it's something worthy to know about.
Also, what is ensuring? You make it out to seem as if because of this "indoctrination" the child has no decision whatsoever to disagree with it.
Either you know very little about children raised in religious homes, or you are intentionally acting this way about it.
Televanglists? I can't think of a major Christian denomination that hasn't criticized televangelism.
You're right it's extreme, if by extreme you mean hardly represented at all with in the worshipping body as a whole.
Culture war. So, none of the criticisms against certain secular projects (Great Leap Forward) should be voiced because it plays into the Culture War?
Comment by GringoRoyale — January 13, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
It's funny that it is culture warring by others and redress by Pixie.
Comment by Bradford — January 13, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
There is no perfect objectivity. Multiple vantages dampen the distortion inherent in particular viewpoints. Multiple observers dampen the effects of individual biases (though group biases may remain). Different methods dampen the effects of systematic errors. And so on. That's what we *mean* by objectivity.
Are you claiming that we can't say the Sun is an objective phenomena?
That first requires a clear understanding of objectivity.
Comment by Zachriel — January 13, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Bradford:
But that doesn't make both conclusions equally reasonable. Both individuals implicitly or explicitly use the agreed upon data to parameterize different models in order to derive their conclusions. IDists infamously use unreasonable models, such as the tornado in the junkyard, which renders their conclusions irrelevant.
Comment by Raevmo — January 13, 2009 @ 1:33 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Nice! You'd make a good politician. Any more words you want to put into my mouth?
So it appears that you have defined "objectivity". So what's preventing you from defining "scientific validity"?
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — January 13, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
And what was the name of that famous IDist who first introduced that metaphor?
Comment by Bradford — January 13, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Bradford:
Do you really want to discuss the IDists' lack of originality?
Comment by Raevmo — January 13, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Audio bytes and scoring rhetorical points.
Comment by GringoRoyale — January 13, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Scientific concensus says, "There are no examples of teleology in the development of biological systems." Is that a concensus values or a concensus of knowledge? Scientists see it as a concensus of knowledge, a summary of the fact that teleology has never been observed, either directly or indirectly. Like all scientific concensus, it is subject to change when further evidence is discovered. In fact, one might say it dares people to prove it wrong.
Let's contrast that with IC. Is IC knowledge? Of course not. No one can even define it. (Just yesterday, someone proudly said he wouldn't defend "Behe's definition of IC", as if the inventor of IC himself couldn't define it right.) It's nothing but value, and we can see for ourselves how it has bred like-minded thinking.
Comment by don provan — January 13, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
It was a question. I just want to make sure that we can agree that there is a valid distinction to be made concerning objectivity.
The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation, repeat. In brief, after observing some aspect of the world, we propose a hypothesis, a tentative explanation or assumption from which we then deduce specific and distinguishing empirical predictions. These entailed predictions are then tested, published and verified by independent observers and different methodologies. All theories are considered tentative, and may be modified or discarded as required.
scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
Comment by Zachriel — January 13, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
As opposed to what scientific data says.
Values. A robotic response.
That might have something to do with the fact that life from non-life has never been observed directly or indirectly.
Comment by Bradford — January 13, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Bradford:
The Designer didn't observe what she was doing?
On a more serious note: are bacteria in a -180C freezer alive?
Comment by Raevmo — January 13, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
GringoRoyale
Are you saying that in the majority of cases (or even a significant number) God revealed Himself revealed to Muslims and Hindus, and therefore it is reasonable for them to tell their children? Or were you thinking only of your own prefered religion (which, I guess, is the same as your parents).
Point taken. Doing their best to ensure, rather than actually ensuring.
That is what extreme means.
I was just pointing out that it was culture warrioring, and then presenting it from the other side. If you want to culture warrior, then you ahead. I am not stopping you. If you prefer to come across as not a culture warrior, try to hold back on the gratuitous atheist bashing (not that it was you doing that, I know).
Bradford
Er, Bradford, the redress is part of the culture war.
Comment by The Pixie Again — January 13, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Zach:
JJS:
There is no knowledge in a library, there are recorded facts, data, experiences, observations, ideas, histories, mythologies, stories and such that we recognize as 'knowledge' earned by others, encoded in symbols. These symbolic recordings were developed to make the passing of knowledge earned by one human accessible to other humans even if the original knower is long dead. In the absence of anyone who can decode the symbols and put the knowledge to use, the library is just a building full of semi-interesting symbols no one understands.
Evolution is the 'unfolding' of pre-recorded symbolic knowledge of how to construct biochemical pieces parts to complex biochemical machines to produce functioning systems that enable a phenomenon we call life. The code – and the knowledge it records – is subject to change over generational time due to accidental damage, external 'borrowings' of someone else's functional codes, internal rearrangements and reorganizations to tweak functions or create new ones, and the accumulation of such in successfully reproducing life forms.
We know of no life forms that can or ever have come into existence without this pre-recorded symbolic knowledge already present in the single cell from which they generate. We are unable to invent any life form that does not require pre-recorded symbolic knowledge. We know of no chemicals or other substances that magically transform from not-life into life under any circumstances, even when when the full symbolic system is present (dead life forms don't magically re-animate). We never observe raw chemicals self-order into symbolic recording systems containing the 'knowledge' to create and sustain a life form. All of our accumulated knowledge over all the millennia we have been accumulating and recording knowledge contains no evidence that it is even possible for such magical poofs to occur. Zip, nada, none.
I have always wondered why science, which prides itself on being ever-so rational and evidence-based insists that we must all believe in magic matter despite the complete lack of evidence or observation that such a thing exists. Sometimes makes me suspect that scientists aren't the most rational or evidence-dependent humans in this world.
Comment by Joy — January 13, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Could you expand on that? What examples of teleology have been found in the development of biological systems? The only "data" I've heard about teleology "identifies" teleology in the biological systems themselves. The question of whether what's been identified actually requires teleology in the development is precisely the question.
Science concensus doesn't include "might" in this useless open ended sense. What would be the point of listing the infinite number of explanations it might have?
Comment by don provan — January 13, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
It doesn't. Simple as that.
Comment by don provan — January 13, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Zach;
That’s just your subjective opinion.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — January 13, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Proving his point.
Comment by don provan — January 13, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
not objectively
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — January 13, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Was he trying to be objective?
Comment by don provan — January 13, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
This isn't "Science Consensus Thoughts", it's Telic Thoughts.
Why can't you guys seem to get that?
To spur further thought, hopefully leading to research. Plus it's fun.
Get a clue.
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 13, 2009 @ 8:04 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
You must have missed the conversation and how scientific consensus came into it.
But since you bring it up: are Telic Thoughts knowledge or values?
This is why you bring up this specific explanation which you think is interesting and useful. I was asking why "knowledge" should include a list of all possible explanations when the list is endless and there's no reason to think one possibility, even your favorite, is more likely than another. But, again, it makes more sense in the context of the conversation that you don't seem to be following.
Comment by don provan — January 13, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
DP
That is how his statement was worded.
If he intended to only give his subjective opinion he could have said…….
"I believe there is no perfect objectivity."
Or
"As far as I know there is no perfect objectivity.'
Or
'As far as I know I’ve never experienced perfectly objective reality."
Any of those statements would be consistent with his premise but as it is he contradicts himself from the get go and renders his argument unintelligible
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — January 13, 2009 @ 8:15 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Joy:
We also know of no mechanism by which EAM would even be possible. We know of no designer who could magically poof life into existence. Why do you blame science for accepting one (made up nonsense) "poof" while demanding that science instead accept a different (literal) "poof"?
You drag this "we never see biogenesis" argument out frequently and I can never understand why you think it means something. You know very well that it’s foolish to claim something could never happen just because it cannot happen under current conditions. Under current conditions planets cannot form in our solar system; by your logic you'd have to conclude that planets could never have naturally formed.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 13, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Todd to Joy:
Then let me help. When natural events are observed to happen over and over we have a reasonable expectation that the event could be part of a causal trail. When we never see it happen it just might be that it does not happen. Our knowledge of requirements of even minimally complex cellular structures shows us why biogenesis is not something we should expect to see. If nothing else the formation of encoded systems from random polymers is not something brute forces of nature are bring about. That sort of thing is a hallmark of intelligence.
Comment by Bradford — January 13, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Bradford:
Is it just me or is Todd using the exact same argument for biogenesis as I was using for the resurrection of Jesus. The only difference being that unlike biogenesis the resurrection was witnessed.
Talk about being inconsistent.
Comment by fifth monarchy man — January 13, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Dont worry Pixie thats what our public schools and universities are for, to correct the abuse perpetrated on our children by teaching what our worldview entails.
What is interesting its child abuse to teach our children our worldviews but it is not child abuse when they are taught the opposite worldviews in the public schools they attend.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — January 13, 2009 @ 9:12 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
fmm:
An interesting point fmm. We are sometimes chided for disbelieving out of personal incredulity yet science is an empirical discipline and we should not be called upon to believe in the absence of solid empirical supporting data. The personal incredulity charge cuts both ways.
Comment by Bradford — January 13, 2009 @ 9:27 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Nonsense. There's nothing about our language that makes objectivity the default intention. Furthermore, his statement was that there is no perfect objectivity, so he can still try to be objective even in light of the fact that he cannot be perfectly objective.
Comment by don provan — January 13, 2009 @ 9:35 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Behe invented IC? I think Darwin had the idea first when he wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
You're right. Mea culpa.
Neither.
I agree that "knowledge" does not include "a list of all possible explanations", except, of course, knowledge of the list itself and the ideas it contains.
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 13, 2009 @ 9:37 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Todd isn't making a case for biogenesis. He's objecting to the case made for teleology, observing that it's based on nothing more than "we haven't see it happen, so it must have happened the way I think it happened."
Comment by don provan — January 13, 2009 @ 9:39 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Todd B.:
Actually, we DO know that the designers postulated by EAM produce new life from single cells all the time. It's no more "magic" than reproduction, which many people view (in its end result) as rather miraculous. And that may be true, though we're familiar with the mechanisms that accomplish the feat – or, most of them.
LOL!!! I never claimed it can NEVER happen, I just don't claim it DID happen – sans evidence and despite all evidence to the contrary – just because I don't like the alternatives. That's your pony-trick, not mine.
Nor do I believe planets cannot form in our solar system. I suspect that one did, within the historical span of human civilization. That means it can happen again, and we can of course always observe the future capture of a wayward space rock. It's a matter of gravitational capture and interactive refinement of orbital trajectory. You may rule it out, but I don't.
From recent modeling -
and…
There's no real reason to assume that our solar system has always been particularly sedate. Why, we watched Jupiter get slammed by a comet just a few years ago. Such a thing could have happened in the past.
Besides, we can observe planets forming elsewhere now.
Comment by Joy — January 13, 2009 @ 9:43 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Bradford:
Sure, it might be that it never happens, but then again it might be that it does happen. Still biogenesis, exactly like the creation of our sun and solar system, is something one would expect to require conditions that no longer exist. After all, once life exists then all the precursors that might lead to life become food.
This is a value judgment which every biologist* disagrees with. We all agree that a modern cell wouldn't spontaneously form, no one has claimed otherwise.
Another value judgment. I see no barrier to prevent nature from bringing such a thing about.
What, you mean a good SAT score isn't the hallmark of intelligence?!?!
* Well, I'm sure you can find a crackpot someplace who calls himself a biologist who disagrees, but they are likely the exception that proves the rule.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 13, 2009 @ 9:45 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
It's a little more complicated than that. I would hazard that most teleologists believe that life was created by "God" or some superior intelligence for other non-scientific reasons, philosophy, apologetics, credibility of the witnesses, personal spiritual experiences, the fact that cells contain human-like engineering processes, etc. The lack of a proven scientific theory for OOL is consistent with such belief, and the status quo is what they expect, but it is not the basis thereof.
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 13, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
fmm:
…? What argument did I make for biogenesis? Don't remember making one recently. You mean saying it would only be expected to occur once? Not exactly an argument, but I'll bite. Are you saying there are really good reasons to expect human resurrection to have only been able to occur during one brief biblical time period but never before or since then? Did Jesus use up the planet's supply of resurrection juice?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 13, 2009 @ 9:51 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
.
Is that an objective statement or just your opinion? If it’s objective then Zachs statement is objectively false, if it’s subjective then my impression of his intentions is just as valid as yours.
Again is this just your opinion or does it have some objective basis? How much?
How do we know how objective your opinions are objectively?
Ruling out the possibility of objectivity is nothing but a fast train to insanity.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — January 13, 2009 @ 9:51 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Todd:
Todd before:
Comment by fifth monarchy man — January 13, 2009 @ 10:00 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Objectivity has a definition, and that statement doesn't make any sense. Do you just like stringing words together, or did you have a point to make?
Comment by Zachriel — January 13, 2009 @ 10:04 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
What would constitute a barrier in your opinion?
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 13, 2009 @ 10:05 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Joy:
Well, to be fair science has no theory of biogenesis. It only has speculation at this point, a few hypothesizes none of which have been adequately supported. You can't blame science for speculating. So science also doesn't claim that it happened, they only suspect that it happened. Of course not all speculation is created equal.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 13, 2009 @ 10:06 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
kornbelt888:
I was merely attempting to use the term 'barrier' in reference to your recent posts which put forth that idea. The idea you proposed by which violating something we think we know is harder to accept than simply being unknown but consistent with what we think we know.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 13, 2009 @ 10:12 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
fmm:
Ok, so assuming that was an argument for biogenesis (even though it's not and wasn't meant to be) how does it parallel your argument about Jesus' resurrection? Are you saying there are really good reasons to expect human resurrection to have only been able to occur during one brief biblical time period but never before or since then? Did Jesus use up the planet's supply of resurrection juice?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 13, 2009 @ 10:17 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Our knowledge of requirements of even minimally complex cellular structures shows us why biogenesis is not something we should expect to see.
That's a gross exagerration. Few biologists are actually engaged in OOL research and most are aware of the problems inherent to that field.
If nothing else the formation of encoded systems from random polymers is not something brute forces of nature are bring about.
It's not a value judgement but is a simple observation. Symbolic coding systems are causally connected to- intelligence. They do not arise from random reactions among biopolymers.
Comment by Bradford — January 13, 2009 @ 10:22 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
I thought you were responding to Bradford:
So I'm curious: what would constitute a barrier in your opinion to the "formation of encoded systems from random olymers"?
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 13, 2009 @ 10:22 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
A strawman. The reason it looks implausible lies in the chemical logic and the inability to demonstrate a selection based paradigm applicable to extra-cellular reactions reputedly leading to a cell.
Comment by Bradford — January 13, 2009 @ 10:26 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
By the way, do you consider QM, General and Special Relativity to be theories to be merely "something we think we know"? That sounds you're not all that impressed with those theories. At any rate, if someone popped up on the moon in one millisecond, do you think a little tweaking would "fix things" or do you think a major overhaul of physics would be required to accommodate it?
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 13, 2009 @ 10:26 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Todd B.:
Life is here. None of us live critters are arguing that it doesn't exist, you know. But thus far the only actual theories of abiogenesis – a.k.a. spontaneous generation – humans once generally believed to be true have been soundly and firmly demonstrated false. By science. Thus I'm sure you understand why it is that so many people tend not to believe much in their Johnny-come-lately theories of spontaneous generation. Fool me once (etc., etc., un-Bushmangled). I'd have to see it demonstrated before I'd believe it occurs.
Because not all speculations are created equal, and all.
Comment by Joy — January 13, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
kornbelt888:
Violating any commonly accepted natural law.
Absolutely, all science is always accepted only tentatively.
I'm not really qualified to say (but I won't let that stop me
). Perhaps someone who studies quantum teleportation might consider the feat to be compatible with current laws, but as a lay person I would guess it would require a major overhaul. Heck, I think dark matter, dark energy, and 'god particles' are potential indicators that a major overhaul might be needed.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 13, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,
Act 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,
Act 17:31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."
nuff said:
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — January 13, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Joy:
I'm curious, how exactly does your favorite EAM theory avoid the label "spontaneous generation" as an accurate description of how the first life became the first life? Oddly I see EAM as a Johnny-come-lately theory of spontaneous generation.
I would also have to see it demonstrated before I'd believe it, so we're in agreement there.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 13, 2009 @ 10:46 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
So you would consider a theory of abiogenesis that required super-luminal movement of baryonic matter to be up against a barrier? What if the theory made many successful specific and distinguishing predictions in spite of the apparent violation? How would you deal with that?
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 13, 2009 @ 10:49 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
fmm:
Gal 4:4 – So how exactly does one make a time "fullness" meter? I'd like to know how many "fullions" there will be tomorrow before I choose where to have lunch.
Act 17:30 – So we passed God's minimum IQ standards and our reward is now we are qualified for admission to hell? And this somehow relates to why resurrection couldn't happen before or after?
Man the results are incoherent when someone thinks a few bible quotes equals an argument.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 13, 2009 @ 10:54 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Oddly, I happen to think nature is capable of bringing about the OOL. It's a remarkably well-made system after all, capable of quite some feats. I even suspect some day we'll have a demonstration of sufficiently intelligent agents creating life from non-life – though sometimes I wonder if that feat will be achieved.
Then again, I think nature is capable of bringing about an OOL in the same way I think hammers, saws and nailguns are capable of building a house.
Comment by nullasalus — January 13, 2009 @ 10:54 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
First I'd have to look up all those words
Successful and repeatable predictions are the hallmark of science. They are why old theories are abandoned or modified.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 13, 2009 @ 10:57 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
To state it in another way "Violating my philosophy which is naturalism"
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — January 13, 2009 @ 10:58 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Todd B.:
EAM doesn't address origin of life, any more than Darwinism/Neodarwinism or "MET" do. It's about how life adapts and evolves.
That's quite odd, considering that EAM has nothing to say about spontaneous generation.
Comment by Joy — January 13, 2009 @ 10:59 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
nullasalus:
I know you're being jocular, but this is actually where I predict teleology to move. Once a reasonable natural path for biogenesis is formulated and scientifically validated teleology will simply retreat further back in time and merely claim the universe itself was front-loaded so that nature would yield this result. At some point we will reach the limit of human knowledge and there will still be plenty of ignorance beyond that limit in which god might be hiding.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 13, 2009 @ 11:03 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Todd:
How exactly is your argument that the conditions for biogenesis were more favorable in the past based on better premises?
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — January 13, 2009 @ 11:18 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Jocular? I'm being dead serious – this has been my attitude for a while now, which Bradford can likely attest to.
What's more, the forward march of science and (more importantly) technology has only enhanced teleological explanations for natural science and natural history – that's likely to continue. Science will never settle the issue, because science is utterly incapable of doing so – but the retreat is happening on the part of the 'there is no teleology' types. They pine for the imaginary days where there were two camps – atheists, and YECs. The deep appreciation for nature at all levels – even subsuming evolution and otherwise – through a teleological perspective is powerful and growing. Also (in my view) just as unscientific as the non-teleological perspective. But we all know this debate has never been about a concern for science.
Besides, even Gerald Joyce and others admit that what spawned life on earth is likely not a question science can answer. At best the goal is to come up with a pathway from non-life to life, and even that's become a tremendously difficult endeavor. And what's the best result they can hope for even there?
A demonstration of an intelligent agent(s) creating life in controlled conditions. You have to ask yourself whether an ideological naturalist would place more hope in the success or failure of OOL research.
Comment by nullasalus — January 13, 2009 @ 11:20 pm
January 13th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
What has happened in the universe is exactly what was bound to happen. The whole universe was front-loaded. How could it be any different? Unless you have evidence that some kind of "free" and "magical" non-deterministic reality actually exists (Quantum Indeterminacy is not evidence of this), where un-caused causes exist and make "choices" for no other reason than the fact that they do. Magic. (If there is an explanation of how they do it, they are deterministic.) All hail the Magical Choosers!
Of course, front-loading need not imply some telic creator. Maybe the multiverse idea is true and there is some kind of universe generator spewing out an infinite array of universes, and ours happened to have been front-loaded this way. Explaining its existence and nature would be one hell of a feat. All hail the Multiverse Generator!
Of course, there's that knotty issue of how anything instead of nothing exists, and why it has the nature it does. All hail the Uncreated Thing!
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 13, 2009 @ 11:53 pm
January 14th, 2009 at 12:21 am
kornbelt888,
Ha. I think determinism/indeterminism ultimately punts to philosophy no matter what science finds, but I think that's well-illustrated. The good ol' atheistic deity, so often ignored.
Comment by nullasalus — January 14, 2009 @ 12:21 am
January 14th, 2009 at 12:26 am
Judging from null and korn I guess my prediction has already come and gone. I knew ID was failing, didn't realize it had already failed and retreated from OOL to OOU.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 14, 2009 @ 12:26 am
January 14th, 2009 at 12:26 am
All Hail the good ol' atheistic deity!
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 14, 2009 @ 12:26 am
January 14th, 2009 at 12:33 am
I like how open you guys are about calling any axiom or ignorance a "deity." You seem to be taking that whole "god-of-the-gaps" thing so literally that you now think every gap is a god! I say run with it!
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 14, 2009 @ 12:33 am
January 14th, 2009 at 12:36 am
I don't know about anyone else, but I've never made any claims for ID as science thus far, if that's your drift. But I do think the question must be looked at holistically. If it's fair to question the proximate source of the first life form, it's fair to question the nature of the reality, the chain of cause and effect, that led to that proximate cause.
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 14, 2009 @ 12:36 am
January 14th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Well, I'll tell ya, any process that has the wild ass characteristics that led to life as I understand it is worthy of the moniker, I'm my book.
All Hail the Uncreated Reality that led to Life!
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 14, 2009 @ 12:39 am
January 14th, 2009 at 12:44 am
Yup, those are fine philosophical questions which are fun to ponder. Of course we will never know the answer to these questions, as I said at some point we will reach the limit of human knowledge and there will still be plenty of ignorance beyond that limit in which god might be hiding.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 14, 2009 @ 12:44 am
January 14th, 2009 at 12:47 am
Yeah, it's pretty easy to define god into existence.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 14, 2009 @ 12:47 am
January 14th, 2009 at 12:54 am
I wouldn't go that far, but since I have a religious impulse (apparently endowed by the nature that sprung me), I may as well use it!
It feels good, and so far I've found nothing more worthy of worship than the All that Led to Life. I mean, really now, what could be more worthy than that? But that's just me.
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 14, 2009 @ 12:54 am
January 14th, 2009 at 12:55 am
Ladies and gentlemen, ID-skeptical reasoning at its finest: Judge the trend of the entire school of thought by two thread commenters writing under pseudonyms, at least one of whom has repeatedly stressed he doesn't think that ID or its opposite is science since he's been posting.
Sorry, Todd, but your thinking is very out of date. Plenty of theists are seeing evolution and the natural world as reinforcing the case for God based on the order, design, and rationality displayed therein. And they're showing how the teleological worldview is not only viable when it comes to approaching science philosophically, but how it's downright superior to the alternative of 'We just got lucky!' There's no need to retreat from science when it consistently bolsters one's case.
But some thanks is needed for the hard work of all the secular science-boosters who preceded them. Without all their efforts, they wouldn't have nearly enough material to base their case upon – and we all know the non-teleological perspective was more powerful back when it was just an idea without supporting data.
Comment by nullasalus — January 14, 2009 @ 12:55 am
January 14th, 2009 at 12:58 am
Come now, Todd, that's not a scientific statement at all. How are you sure of that? What if there is some mode of consciousness where All Knowledge lies, just waiting for humans (or what may come after) to tap into and know everything? Why, then you'd be wrong.
Oh ye of little faith!
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 14, 2009 @ 12:58 am
January 14th, 2009 at 1:11 am
How am I sure that there are some things we'll never be sure about? I'm not sure. Q.E.D.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 14, 2009 @ 1:11 am
January 14th, 2009 at 1:14 am
…Yet
Comment by kornbelt888 — January 14, 2009 @ 1:14 am
January 14th, 2009 at 9:23 am
nullasalus:
I guess it could be called progress that there are more theists who don't deny evolution because it contradicts ancients documents written by ignorami. Good for them they find comfort in believing that evolution reinforces the case for their imaginary friends.
Instead of "showing", I think the word you were looking for was "pretending".
Comment by Raevmo — January 14, 2009 @ 9:23 am
January 14th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Of course it could be considered.
There's nothing new about theoretical contradictions in science. Newton's Theories were 'falsified' by the anomalous precession of Mercury's orbit. This contradiction wasn't resolved until hundreds of years later. In Darwin's time, physicists thought the Earth could only be a few tens of millions of years old, but biologists knew that the Earth was at least hundreds of millions of years old. This problem was only resolved with the discovery of a new source of energy by the Curies. Today, relativity and quantum theories remain inconsistent within certain domains.
The problem isn't about how science works, but your understanding thereof.
Why wouldn't quantum indeterminacy apply? The large-scale structure of the universe appears to be due to quantum indeterminacy, and there may be quantum interference between universes.
You say that right after suggesting possible theories of superluminal abiogenesis, and explicitly rejecting quantum indeterminacy as a factor in cosmic evolution.
Comment by Zachriel — January 14, 2009 @ 9:24 am
January 14th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Raevmo:
Shortly prior to his death Bernard Shaw said:
When an atheist loses his faith what is there to hang on to?
Comment by Bradford — January 14, 2009 @ 10:59 am
January 14th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Bernard Shaw also said:
Comment by Raevmo — January 14, 2009 @ 11:29 am
January 14th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Raevmo wrote:
LOL! If you're talking about the Bible, you've obviously never read it.
The first half of the creation story of Genesis (the one without the confusing metaphorical mnemonics of man, woman, snake, and fruit) doesn't contradict evolution (if evolution is defined as "significant change over time") at all.
Also, if one believes the Biblical Flood story, one must also believe in rapid biological diversification. I wouldn't doubt that the story (which is strangely found in practically all human cultures in many scattered places with amazing parallels between each version) provided the impetus behind the scientific search for a mechanism of biological change in the first place.
So Darwinism would probably not exist today had the Biblical Flood story remained in the same dusty mythological corners as the Epic of Gilgamesh or other flood stories.
Comment by angryoldfatman — January 14, 2009 @ 11:55 am
January 14th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
From an impartial point of view, we can sum this all up as "I think" even though the person himself may consider it something more important.
Comment by don provan — January 14, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
January 14th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Again, "looks implausible" is within "I think".
And this is just a restatement of "we haven't seen it happen…" So you've just confirmed my "strawman" is, in fact, the argument.
Comment by don provan — January 14, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
January 14th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
It's an objective statement, but it's entirely consistent with Zach's statement.
My second statement was also objective.
My opinions are, of course, subjective, but you can confirm the objective statements I made in the post you're responding to.
I agree that ruling out objectivity is a mistake, and I consider it a hallmark of the ID movement exemplified by the common ID claim that science is inherently unreliable.
But, again, the original statement denied perfect objectivity, and thinking perfect objectivity is possible is a fast train to mistakes. We know this, which is why we use science: it minimizes the problems introduced by the imperfection of objectivity by doing things like demanding terms such as "intelligent design" be well defined.
Comment by don provan — January 14, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
January 14th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
There are two reasons that occur to me off the top of my head. First, biogenesis proposals actually define initial conditions in a way that allows them to be confirmed or denying, at least in principle. Todd was suggesting how a similar look at Jesus would produce such proposals when he flippantly suggested "resurrection juice".
Second, the initial reproducer (I'd hesitate to call them "life forms") would have one huge advantage over a modern day reproducer: no competition. Nothing to fight it for resourses, nothing to eat it. This is just a simple logical way the environment would be more favorable then. As far as I know, there's no similar reason for knowing why or whether Jesus was just a one time thing that we shouldn't expect to recur. (Historically, of course, Christians have expected it to recur, and the fact that it hasn't has given Christianity a few problems over the centuries.)
Please keep in mind that the point here is not to discredit anyone's religious beliefs, but only to contrast the scientific content of suggested explanations for abiogenesis with similar explanations for Jesus.
Comment by don provan — January 14, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
January 14th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Don
I can’t speak for this vast secret underground movement but I never claim that your “science’ is unreliable only that it is weak and inept.
Oh now I get it
You are saying we know objectively that perfect objectivity is impossible.
Is this supposed objective knowledge perfect or is it possible you are wrong? How would you know?
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — January 14, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
January 14th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Don
please list three such proposals and the exact method that you propose we test them to determine if they are incorrect
Nice try at moving the goalposts Todd did not say the environment was more favorable in the past he said biogenesis cannot happen under current conditions.
We can easily create an environment in which the phantom “initial reproducer” could be with out competition and our universe is almost entirely made up of such environments. And the last I heard we had observed no life has springing into existence from non life. Despite over one hundred years of looking.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — January 14, 2009 @ 6:13 pm
January 14th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
fmm:
Hehe.
Hahaha. 
Mwahahahaha. 
You are priceless FMM, keep up the good work! You made me snarf soda into my nose. I can think of one other weak and inept thing you seem to rely on, but personally I avoid reliance on weak and inept things. Can you cite some more examples of how something can be weak and inept while still being reliable?
Stop it, stop it, my sides hurt from laughing. Hahaha. Must … regain … composure. Those are equivalent statements so stop trying (very badly) to play word games. If something cannot happen now that means the conditions are not currently favorable. Those are the same. I am not saying that favorable conditions cannot be created today, only that they don't currently exist all round us. The claim that because we don't currently see life forming all around us now that it was unlikely to have ever been possible is just plain ignorant.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 14, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
January 14th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Todd:
Sure
I have a hand pump on a old well that is very reliable but is also weak and inept when it comes to watering my lawn.
I have an old roto tiller that is very reliable but is also weak and inept when it comes to plowing the two hundred acre field across the road
I have a red rider BB gun that is very reliable but is also very weak and inept when it comes to deer hunting.
In the same way your science is reliable but is very weak when it comes to discovering truth.
Are those enough examples ?
Common on Todd,
The conditions were not favorable for a loss by the NY Giants last weekend are you saying that therefore such an event could not happen.
yet that is exactly the argument you made for rejecting the eyewitness accounts of the resurrection. Go figure
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — January 14, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
January 14th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Angry old fat man:
Wow. That's some seriously insane stuff. If you actually believe that, then God help you.
Comment by Raevmo — January 14, 2009 @ 7:26 pm
January 14th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
If something has not been observed to occur anyone can make any statements about it. They are all speculative but since observations lie at the heart of science unobserved events are empirically unsupportable. No need to argue further about whether or not it happened. It is consistent with science fiction.
Comment by Bradford — January 14, 2009 @ 7:26 pm
January 14th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Raevmo,
Yeah! Why can't he just believe that universes burst into existence without mind or reason, just happen to be ordered fundamentally, just happen to allow for life, just happen to produce minds which recognize that everything from evolution to the universe looks designed, but it's all an illusion because the better answer is lucky chance and brute force existence of everything EXCEPT a fundamental mind because just no?
You've got him beat, Raevmo. There's nothing quite as asinine as atheist magic.
Comment by nullasalus — January 14, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
January 14th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
nullasalus:
Maybe you should ask him. While you're at it, ask him who at the ark were the carriers of the 20+ human STD-causing parasites and why the Fundamental Mind chose them.
Comment by Raevmo — January 14, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
January 14th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Raevmo,
Why ask when you know the answer? Those things appeared practically ex nihilo as a result of quantum fluctuations. Or perhaps the multiverse played a role in it, like it did in the OOL. Atheist magic is quite powerful, you know!
Comment by nullasalus — January 14, 2009 @ 8:15 pm
January 14th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Raevmo
Man, you are really hung up on the problem of evil aren’t you. I believe Steve Fuller is right in saying that this the real reason folks refuse to accept the evidence for design
After you finish NT Wright’s book I can suggest a book or two to challenge you on this one if you like
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — January 14, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
January 14th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
nullasalus:
Raevmo: (interpreting)
What is the straw man? The universe came into existence because it… well… it just did. All those physically measurable constants so hospitable to life… It's just coincidental. Remember Dawkins' adage that it looks designed… but it's most defintely not you IDiots!
Comment by Bradford — January 14, 2009 @ 8:17 pm
January 14th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
null:
Instead we should believe that minds able to create universes just burst into existence? That's somehow a less asinine magic?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 14, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
January 14th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Raevmo wrote:
First off, it's hilarious that you're asking somebody you believe is non-existent to help me. It must mean you don't really think I need help.
Second, it's kind of funny you didn't riff off of any of the other "insane stuff" I wrote, just the Darwinism thing. Very telling.
Third, the Darwinism thing is actually the most plausible thing I wrote in that entire comment. Please notice that I didn't mention whether or not the Biblical Flood actually happened. In this context, it really doesn't matter if it did or didn't.
What does matter is that all of these wild-eyed moustached cranks wearing pith helmets decided to start digging up the terrain, where they found crazy creature fossils that didn't look anything like today's critters. One of the biggest reasons they started digging was to research stories from a book they'd been taught since childhood contained nothing but the truth – stories like the Flood. Of course, that wasn't the only reason, but it was a major one.
Had these nutty shovelers not heard of the Biblical Flood and so many people not believed it to be true, biology would have probably progressed as slowly as cosmology, where until the 1950s we were content to believe the bodies we observed had always been there, and that was the way it was.
Aristotle – talk about your science-stoppers!
So it's quite plain that Darwin would have probably amounted to nothing but a brooding fop if he didn't have research from his excavating friends to rely on for his writings, and those friends had not had a goofy story about a man in a boat with a bunch of beasties to investigate.
Comment by angryoldfatman — January 14, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
January 14th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
I think that the main question here is how does eternal mindlessness create mind? Is that even a logical possibility? Here is an argument that addresses that question:
P1 If something has purpose, then it is designed.
P2 Intentionality has the purpose of guiding behavior.
P3 So intentionality is designed (via P1 and P2)
P4 But clearly, our intentionality is not designed by us, although it
does enable us to convey our own designs.
P5 Thus our intentionality is the result of prior design
(via P3 and P4)
P6 But, as Fodor remind us, if something is designed, then it is the
product of intentionality.
C: So, our intentionality is the product of prior intentionality
(via P5 and P6)
Notice, no appeal to magic or fairies, just logic.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — January 14, 2009 @ 10:46 pm
January 14th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
JOHN_A_DESIGNER wrote:
You forget, you're talking to minds awash with postmodernism. To them, logic is magic and fairies.
Comment by angryoldfatman — January 14, 2009 @ 10:52 pm
January 14th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
A classic example of minds so awash with postmodernism can be seen on the open thread by Todd. He is unable to distinguish between knowledge, science and naturalism. Take note.
Wow is all I can say.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — January 14, 2009 @ 11:14 pm
January 14th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
JAD:
Can you provide support for proposition P1? I can use a rock as a paperweight, that's doesn't mean the rock was designed. In other words, purpose can simply be assigned to any object. So P1 is effectively equal to simply claiming that all things are designed. When you start with the axiom that all things are designed it's not surprising you can then show that one thing is designed.
Even if I took P1-P3 for granted, P4 still requires support. Why is this so clear?
Your conclusion creates an infinite regression. If your argument were true, then our designer's intention is also the result of prior intention. Repeat ad nausea.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 14, 2009 @ 11:22 pm
January 14th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Oh please sensei, educate me.
Start by showing me one incorrect definition I've provided of knowledge, science, or naturalism.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 14, 2009 @ 11:58 pm
January 15th, 2009 at 12:24 am
Grasshopper, I never said you gave any definition incorrect or otherwise of knowledge, science or naturalism.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — January 15, 2009 @ 12:24 am
January 15th, 2009 at 1:11 am
I drink from the font of your wisdom, master.
Please show me where I failed to distinguish these words that you have now taught me so I might correct my obvious error. 
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 15, 2009 @ 1:11 am
January 15th, 2009 at 1:51 am
Grasshopper consult Merriam Webster .Knowledge is not ie naturalism nor is the inductve method ( science) naturalism.
Off to bed
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — January 15, 2009 @ 1:51 am
January 16th, 2009 at 12:14 am
Todd B. wrote:
You partially answered your own question when you said, “purpose can simply be assigned to any object.” That is how intentionality works. But, intentionality, even in regards to something simple like a rock requires a mind. Rocks do not have any intentions, they are just rocks.
Let’s take the example of a rock paper weight. Would you choose any old rock for a paperweight? Would you select a 50lb rock? A dirty, muddy rock? An ugly rock? You’d make a series of intentional choices in choosing an appropriate rock for your paper weight, wouldn’t you?
I’ve never done that with rocks, but as an avid hiker, I do have a walking stick that people notice. I call it my Gandalf staff after the Lord of the Rings wizard. A couple of people have even asked me if I’d be willing to sell it?
Now where do the intentions reside? Did a rock intend to be a paper weight? Did the stick intend to be a hiking staff? I think not. Intentions come from an intelligent agent. The point is how can we have intentions if we are the result of an unintentional natural process? Where did intentions come from in the first place?
BTW the argument that I gave above (P1-P6) is from Angus Menuge’s book, Agents Under Fire (p 82).
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — January 16, 2009 @ 12:14 am
January 16th, 2009 at 12:57 am
JAD:
But clearly none of these questions effect whether the rock was designed. The rock has no mind. The rock had no purpose when it was created and deposited. Its not until I pick it up and set it on a piece of paper that it has purpose. At that moment the rock becomes the paperweight. Nothing changed about the rock. Yet the paperweight is 'designed' by this argument while the rock clearly wasn't.
Those are fine questions, but I don't see how Menuge's argument addresses them. To me it seems obvious that our ability to have intentions requires more than just our DNA code. Having intentions requires a fully formed brain. At some point in each of our lives we crossed a threshold from being unable to actualize our intention to be able to do so. So just like the rock humans begin without purpose and develop the ability to have intentions and assign themselves purpose. I can't answer your questions, but from what I can tell it seems that purposeless objects can simple become purposeful with no inherent change.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 16, 2009 @ 12:57 am
January 18th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Todd wrote:
That is not the only argument that he gives. On the next page he writes: “The materialist assumes that this search for ultimate explanation must lead to a reduction of the intentional to the nonintentional… [M]y… point is that… a reductionist is wrong to exclude the possibility that intentionality is irreducible.”
Indeed, there are some non-theists who would agree with Menuge here. Both John Searle and David Chalmers argue that mind and consciousness are in some sense irreducible. Chalmers, for example, argues that we need to look at the possibility that consciousness is something that is ontologically basic in the same way that space-time and matter-energy are ontologically basic. Consciousness can be explained, Chalmers thinks by underlying, but still undiscovered, psychophysical laws. I disagree with Chalmers at several points but I also think a lot of what he proposes has real merit.
Okay, the rock is given a purpose, or an intention, by a mind. I’ll agree with that. But nothing intrinsic in nature caused the rock to evolve into a paper weight. How then, can you argue then that something causes the mind to evolve from an unintentional state. Obviously, that doesn’t happen with the rock, how can it happen with the brain and mind? IOW the rock is assigned a purpose by a mind; what gives purpose and intention to mind itself?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — January 18, 2009 @ 1:26 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
So is this what you meant by "designed"? Placing the rock on the paper changes it from not designed to designed? Or are you abandoning P1 by admitting that something can have purpose without being designed? If the latter, then please redo your proof accordingly. Thanks.
Comment by don provan — January 18, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Yes, this is what I was saying. To move beyond mere speculation, one needs to actually come up with possible indirect observations that may or may not be consistent with the hypothesis. This is what actual OOL research does (including, among other things, creating speculative environments and other reverse engineering techniques), and what the teleology proposals that Todd was dismissing don't do.
Comment by don provan — January 18, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
don provan:
Actually, according to your logic an arrowhead wouldn't be designed since it is created from something (a rock) which isn't. The pattern of rock on paper is designed even thought the rock isn't. An essay is designed, even though the materials used to make ink and paper aren't designed. It's really quite simple. Matter can be used purposefully to produce design.
Comment by CJYman — January 18, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
…
Comment by Zachriel — January 18, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
An arrowhead is created at the same time it is given purpose. The rock-turned-paperweight is created at one point, then given a purpose at a later point. The way you are using the terms, it is the later point, when the rock is given purpose by being placed on the paper, that the rock could be said to be designed.
This is the critical flaw in that first step of your argument. When we ask at what point in time intentionality is given purpose (P3), we realize that we give intentionality its purpose only when we exercise it, just as Zack gives the rock purpose only when he places it on the paper. Thus P4 turns out to be exactly wrong: we are, in fact, the "designers" that gave intentionality its purpose by using it to guide our behavior. Until we guided our behavior with our intentionality, it was just sitting around like a rock.
Logically, of course, it's still possible that intentionality was designed for that purpose by some earlier intelligent designer, but your argument fails to establish that. You just assume it implicitly in P4 with some handwaving that we can now see is not justified.
Intentionality is matter?
Comment by don provan — January 18, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Don P:
Simple selection beginning of all human design. If you want to use a rock for paperweight you have to make choices about shape size and appearance etc. Earlier I wrote: “Would you choose any old rock for a paperweight? Would you select a 50lb rock? A dirty, muddy rock? An ugly rock? You’d make a series of intentional choices in choosing an appropriate rock for your paper weight, wouldn’t you?” How is that any different than selectively shaping a flint to create an arrowhead. Come to think of it all human technology evolved from selecting certain kinds of rocks. For example, to make an arrowhead primitive man had to first to find another rock to use as a hammer. Once again he had to select a rock of the right size, shape and hardness etc.
All design begins with the selection of raw materials, so selection is the beginning of design.
When we change the natural intention of something and use it for something else (using a rock as a paperweight or hammer, for example) we transfer our intentions to it. Our intentions come from our minds. Obviously, mind is not matter.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — January 18, 2009 @ 10:58 pm
January 19th, 2009 at 9:01 am
We can assign a purpose to anything, so this claim can mean anything is designed. Indeed, we can assign a purpose to something without ever crafting it in any way. The purpose of a cloud is to give us shade.
Muddled. Intention implies purpose. And again, you can assign purpose to anything regardless of its provenance.
Anything we assign purpose to is designed by this argument. Clouds are 'designed' by people to give them shade. Consider using the more exacting word "crafted". Humans craft stone tools.
Comment by Zachriel — January 19, 2009 @ 9:01 am
January 19th, 2009 at 9:33 am
From JAD
P1 If something has purpose, then it is designed.
The original purpose of a chair is to provide a seat for another person. Here one has to assume that this was the motive of the designer of the chair, and that the ability of agents to design out of free will is real and not an illusion as materialism suggests. Someone made/designed the chair to provide a seat for another person (any other motive won't take away the fact that it was designed if design is not an illusion) or design is an illusion. Termites might think (if they could) that it is just a piece of wood, but that does not mean it was not designed, as it was in fact designed if one accepts that design is real and not an illusion.
P2 Intentionality has the purpose of guiding behavior.
The behaviour (state of being) of a rock is that it has zero momentum in relation to the ground. Intentionality (by an agent) can purposefully guide and change its state of being into that of a projectile. The state of being (behaviour) of the rock can not intentionally change an agent's state of being into a projectile.
P3 So intentionality is designed (via P1 and P2)
P4 But clearly, our intentionality is not designed by us, although it
does enable us to convey our own designs.
P5 Thus our intentionality is the result of prior design
(via P3 and P4)
P6 But, as Fodor remind us, if something is designed, then it is the
product of intentionality.
C: So, our intentionality is the product of prior intentionalit (via P5 and P6)
So either design, purpose and intentionality are real and derived from prior intentionalty, or it is an illusion and just an ongoing, impersonal competition among genes and memes. If it is real, an account is owed how intentional states can arise/emerge from non-intentional states.
Todd Berkebile
In order to avoid an infinite regress, a Necessary Intentional Being whose intentionality is not dependent on previous intentional states is posited.
Comment by Techne — January 19, 2009 @ 9:33 am
January 19th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
OK. So when we selected intentionality to guide our behavior, that was the beginning of the design of intentionality. Before that point, it was just a raw material. P4 is contradicted.
So we agree CJ's bringing up matter has no bearing on our discussion of your syllogism.
Comment by don provan — January 19, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
January 19th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
You are presupposing that the designer of the chair is also the creator of the chair. This is the basic flaw in John's logic. If someone sits on a rock, the rock becomes a chair at that point. The missing link in John's argument is that he presupposes that intentionality was created by a designer of humans in order to guide our behavior, but the rock example shows that that's not necessarily the case: intentionality could have come into existence for some other reason, like a rock, and it is only when we apply it to guide our behavior that we give it a purpose, making that the point of its design and us its designer.
The key problem John has is in identifying the agent. Specifically, his P5 cites "prior design", but his logic only supports contemporaneous design.
Or they are real and are derived from something other than prior intentionality.
Or a force not dependent on previous intentional states. There's no logical reason to assume that the chain is broken at a being with intention.
Comment by don provan — January 19, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
January 20th, 2009 at 12:50 am
DP:
Rocks do not have intentionality. They do nothing on their own. It is our intentionality to use rocks for tools, projectiles, paper weights or chairs etc. It is our intentions, our internal reprehensive states, that do not exist in nature. It is those internal representative states that need to be explained. Rocks do not explain those states because rocks have no such intentional states.
The main argument generally used by advocates of strong agent reductionism (SAR), like the Churchlands, against intentionality, is not the silly idea that rocks have intentions, but rather that intentionality is an illusion. But, as Menuge argues this is a self refuting argument. He writes: “According to SAR, all that nature exhibits is the appearance of intentionality. The problem is that the very idea of an appearance, even an illusory one, presupposes the reality of intentionality. To harbor the illusion that p is to hold the false belief that p, and to do so is to be in an intentional state. In addition to insist that this only appears to be the case simply won’t do, because this appearance yet again implicates intentionality and also because what we are trying to understand here is the appearance itself; thus, “we cannot make the appearance-reality because the appearance is the reality.” What needs explaining are such things as seemings, so it gets us nowhere to say that there only seem to be seemings…” (p53)
Or perhaps more simply, an always existing something requires no further explanation.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — January 20, 2009 @ 12:50 am
January 20th, 2009 at 4:23 am
You've lost track of your argument. Let's go over it to remind you:
Todd asked you to support P1 in the face of a rock being used for the purpose of holding down paper. You supported P1 by essentially saying it was a definition: design means "put to a purpose". So let's go on:
P2 and P3 work fine with your definition, but, as I pointed out, you now need to establish when and by whom intentionality was given the purpose of guiding behavior. My claim was that since we are the ones that put intentionality to the purpose of guiding behavior, then like the paper weight, we are the ones that designed it in your sense of the word design.
No one said rocks have intention. The argument is clear: rocks come into existence, and then are given the purpose of holding papers down. While it may be otherwise, nothing in your argument refutes the idea that intentionality came into existence, and then was given the purpose of guiding our behavior by us.
So P4 is not supported. You can say intentionality was not created by us, but you have not shown that it was not designed by us in the same sense that the paperweight was designed by Todd when he placed the rock on the papers.
So the claim of prior design in P5 is not successful: if we gave our intentionality its purpose, then the design is not prior but subsequent to our creation.
This is really a simple logical flaw, so I assume you'll just go batch and patch it up and we'll evaluate your new, improved syllogism.
Why? Why doesn't its perpetual existence need to be explained? And how do you know it always existed if you can't explain it?
Is there a logical requirement for something that's always existed to stop endless explanations?
Comment by don provan — January 20, 2009 @ 4:23 am
January 21st, 2009 at 12:23 am
As I said earlier in this thread, though I agree with it, this is not my argument. It is from Angus Menuge’s book, Agents Under Fire (p 82). So even if I thought it was flawed I wouldn’t feel free in revising it in the way you suggest.
I disagree your analysis. Intentionality is part of our nature, part of our conscious mind. If you have a chance to read Menuge’s book I think you’ll see that is the way he uses the term. So, to design or create that part of myself I would have to precede myself.
I think Menuge gives a good explanation here. On page 82 he writes: “The materialist assumes that this search for ultimate explanation must lead to a reduction of the intentional to the nonintentional. But… a reductionist is wrong to exclude the possibility that intentionality is irreducible. For if explanation is ever to come to an end, it cannot be that every property is explained by only reducing it to something else. Indeed the goal of reduction is to identify some basic set of properties from which all the phenomena can be reconstructed… What but a materialist bias, precludes the possibility that intentionality is one of these basic properties?”
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — January 21, 2009 @ 12:23 am
January 21st, 2009 at 4:17 am
It's not my analysis. I'm just reviewing the logic you presented.
The syllogism presented said nothing about this and did not relate any such claim to the logic of the argument presented. Did you leave out this step somehow?
I'm just reading a step by step logical argument, laid out to convey a clear-cut, self contained argument. I shouldn't have to read a book to understand how the term "intentionality" is used: it should be spelled out in the argument, if only to have a step say, "See page NN for a detailed justification" or some such.
The argument presented, in fact, clearly wants me to believe that I need to know nothing about "intentionality" other than "P2 Intentionality has the purpose of guiding behavior" and "P4 But clearly, our intentionality is not designed by us, although it does enable us to convey our own designs." The latter, however, we've discovered is just an unsupported assertion covered up by prefacing it with "But clearly". Indeed, the entire argument appears to be based on sneaking in the claim "our intentionality is not designed by us" without us evaluating it critically. If we look at P4 closely, though, we discover it slips in intelligent design as an assumption.
But you don't agree it's flawed? Then apparently Menuge has succeeding in fooling you.
But I'm just looking at this one argument. I can't say whether the rest of the book is better.
Comment by don provan — January 21, 2009 @ 4:17 am
January 21st, 2009 at 6:37 pm
OK, let's take a look.
What do you think he means by "materialist" here? I think he just means "people that don't agree with me", and he's using the term "materialist" to invoke the ID bogeyman to suggest that anyone that disagrees with him must be disagreeing because of some faulty worldview. What do you think?
Anyway, since what materialists, whoever they are, do isn't germane to his case, we'll just ignore this sentence.
Uh-oh, another bogeyman: "reductionist", used to invoke the idea that anyone that disagrees with him must be mindlessly reducing everything. Well, again, his case doesn't depend on what redunctionists, whoever they are, do right or wrong, so we'll just ignore this sentence, too. (Although I can't help but point out that it's a logical contradiction to expect "redunctionists" to think anything is irreducible.)
Why do we expect explanation to come to an end? We reduce things to learn more about them. There's no reason to think that we won't be able to learn more about what we've reduced something to. Menuge may have some higher goal or requirement, and he's welcome to pursue it, but here he is just injecting his private goal into an argument about explaining intentionality.
And here he uses his personal goal to invent a concept of "basic property" and to suggest the possibility that intentionality is one of them. But the goal of reduction is not to identify some basic set of properties; the goal of reduction is to explain something in more fundamental terms. Nothing about reducing something requires any special, fundamental qualities in the reduction, and, indeed, physics is a perfect example of where we've reduced time and again in order to understand the world better and better. There is no logical point where we can identify some level of explanation as being beyond further reduction.
Since Menuge has already invoked the "reductionist" bogeyman, you will now be applying it to me based on that last statement. That let's you ignore my point, but it really doesn't help the argument. There is nothing inherent in intentionality (or anything else) that suggests we shouldn't try to reduce it, and Menuge is just arguing that we shouldn't try.
But this is somewhat beside the point. If intentionality is irreducible at all, then it is irreducible in humans, so there's no point in invoking an intelligent designer to explain human intentionality.
Comment by don provan — January 21, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
January 21st, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Suppose you were asked to serve on a jury. Wouldn’t the judge ask you to listen both sides of an argument before passing judgment? So how can you pass judgment on a book that you haven’t even bothered to read?
Ironically, you accuse Menuge of creating bogeymen, but then you immediately turn around and create a bogeyman out of Mr. Menuge.
At least read the forward to his book. It's available for free on-line.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — January 21, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
January 21st, 2009 at 10:18 pm
I haven't passed judgement on the book. In fact, I specifically pointed out that I wasn't passing judgement on the book. I'm just fairly and openly criticizing the logic of what you've presented. Did you misrepresent the book? Let's work out where this faulty logic comes from.
Comment by don provan — January 21, 2009 @ 10:18 pm
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:13 pm
John,
So do you see the problem I'm facing? You've found this book convincing, yet the two sections you've shown me turned out to be nothing but unsupported assertions, one dressed up in a syllogism, and the other laced with rhetorical devices discouraging you from questioning it. I agree that doesn't tell me the book is bad, but it does tell me that you think some of its bad parts are convincing. Can you see why that concerns me?
If I went and read the entire book for myself, and then came back and told you that it was full of this kind of problem, would you believe me? Or would you continue to think the book was good even though we've already gone over two cases where it fooled you?
(Please note that while I do say that these passages are deceiving, I do not accuse Menuge of being deceptive: like you, he may honestly consider these reasonable arguments and has himself missed the logical problems with them.)
By the way, I couldn't find the forward. Could you post a link?
Comment by don provan — January 22, 2009 @ 2:13 pm