The Neglected Elements of Scientific Discovery
by MikeGeneAt some time when we are growing up, most of us learn the standard definition of the scientific method "“ make observations, make a hypothesis, and conduct an experiment. There is no doubt that this is the cornerstone of science. But when surveying the history of scientific discovery, there is often much more to science than this. It's not always a question of just rolling up your sleeves and applying the method. There are two other factors that cannot be fitted into the formula, but have played crucial roles in discovery. These two factors are personality and serendipity.
September 22nd, 2007 at 4:06 am
Sure, in those special cases there is the luck of being there to make the observation, having the personity to realise the implications and the tenacity and insight to go to the next step, and make a hypothesis. But I think the methodology is still applies just the same.
Comment by The Pixie — September 22, 2007 @ 4:06 am
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:04 am
And it remains the cornerstone. "Make a hypothesis."
A hypothesis is a tentatively held conjecture for the purposes of developing predictions of empirical observations. Workable scientific hypotheses have historically come from almost any source…
Comment by Zachriel — September 22, 2007 @ 9:04 am
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Hi Pixie,
Sure it applies. I'm just highlighting the fact that scientific discovery is often more than the methodology. In fact, some people out there treat science itself as if it were a mechanism. But it's not. I'll be writing up another related posting, focusing on some more extra-methodological factors that are important in science.
Comment by MikeGene — September 22, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Hi Zachriel,
Indeed. One (of many) hypotheses that I have raised is this: the original cells were front-loaded to facilitate the evolution of multi-cellular life.
Comment by MikeGene — September 22, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 4:11 pm
mike gene says:
ID supposedly has over 700 scientists, according to that list. And a think tank which has spent millions of dollars. And an 'international' society which sponsored conferences. And a journal to publish results. And…
…accomplishes nothing scientific.
The problem with ID is not low mass. It is no theory.
Comment by steve — September 22, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 4:24 pm
As in showing that some of life's building blocks can be generated in extra-cellular reactions. Toddlers play with building blocks too and have more to show for it.:lol:
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Hi Steve,
To a great extent, I think you are right. That is, there is indeed "no theory" that I know of. For me, ID is mostly about interesting questions, observations, and speculations. And I think the evidence for ID (if it truly exists) would be rather subtle. If that is the case, it is difficult to envision how this evidence would be better fleshed out without a community of experts from different disciplines (one need only consider the vast array of talent that was involved in cracking the genetic code). Yet with nothing more than questions, observations, and speculations, it difficult to envision an investigative community forming. It looks like we ID types have ourselves a real Catch 22.
Comment by MikeGene — September 22, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:07 pm
MikeGene seems way more familiar with science than Bradford.
Comment by steve — September 22, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:19 pm
How big a community do you need to put forth a theory of life?
Comment by steve — September 22, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Hi Steve,
The NAS defines a theory as "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." In science, it usually takes many scientists and many years to come up with a "well-substantiated explanation."
Comment by MikeGene — September 22, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Mike Gene:
And at times after work involving many scientists over the course of more than a century a well substantiated explanation is still lacking.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:05 pm
my question wasn't careful. Here's a better version:
"How big a community do you need to put forth an hypothesis of life?"
Comment by steve — September 22, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Mike
Then let us call science a "methodological framework", and allow individual scientists and research groups to do science as suits their personalities and requirements (and luck too). As long as they go down the observation-hypothesis-prediction-testing road, it is all science.
Comment by The Pixie — September 22, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Why not ask that of mainstream science? It is not just the size of the community although that is important. You also have to be looking for realistic answers.
Comment by Bradford — September 22, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:23 pm
I'm asking Mike.
Comment by steve — September 22, 2007 @ 7:23 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Mike asks:
Besides the teleological perspective, there are hundreds of perspectives that might yield results if they were assumed by a critical mass of scientists. Unfortunately, there aren't enough scientists to go around, and so we have to direct our energies toward the perspectives that seem most promising scientifically.
If anything, I would argue that ID has gotten more attention than is warranted by its scientific potential, from people who are philosophically or religiously predisposed in its favor. The fact that all of this has yielded nothing of scientific interest is a sign that the attention is, at the very least, premature.
Comment by keiths — September 22, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:24 pm
If people like Mike Gene wanted to do science while having the feeling he was uncovering the nature of god or spotting god's fingerprints or some such, I don't think evolutionists would pay much mind. Theistic evolutionists certainly wouldn't, and speaking for myself, some atheistic evolutionists wouldn't either.
It's the erroneous smearing and misrepresentation of evolution by non-scientists like Bradford that piss us off. But we'd mostly ignore that too, if not for the organized campaign to mangle science education.
(I'm new here, and I'm just guessing Mike is a scientist and Bradford is not, based on Mike's careful and measured statements, and Bradford's…statements.)
Comment by steve — September 22, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Hi Steve,
For what it is worth. I have had my share of feeling what you are feeling over the year I have been posting to Telic Thoughts.
Let me see if I can help. Bradford is pretty good at understanding things. He just doesn't like to commit. He wishes to approach things "holistically".
As you have noted. MikeGene seems in earnest. You should check out his web site, here. While his critics won't admit it, I have noticed some respect for MikeGene and Telic Thoughts.
Watch out for Joy. I let you find out about her on your own.
You will undoubtedly need a lot of patience if you want to stick around. I hope you do.
Good Luck
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 22, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:58 pm
I had to come over here and check the place out, since I put a thread up at After the Bar Closes about Telic Thoughts. Over there, we love laughing at Uncommon Descent, we find it very entertaining. Those people haven't the foggiest notion what is science and how it's done and what we've learned. But while that's entertaining, it's not very challenging. So we're trying to find the smartest, most educated IDers we can. At the moment that seems to be (some of the people at) Telic Thoughts. I'm optimistic that our wits might be honed by dealing with them.
Comment by steve — September 22, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Hi Steve,
You wrote…
Oh you are THAT Steve (SteveStory)!
I don't know if you remember. I have posted a few times on After the Bar Closes.
I don't find if as interesting posting where people generally agree with me. I like to argue too much. For what it is worth, I don't know of any other ID blog that holds a candle to Telic Thoughts for intelligent conversation.
I do get frustrated at times when things get into the ID Movement discussions. However, I have come to peace with that by differentiating between the ID Movement is represented by Dembski, Wells and DI in general and ID Science.
I am a critic of the ID Movement. I like to think of myself as a supporter of ID Science.
This attitude seems to help in the discussions here too.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 22, 2007 @ 10:49 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:02 pm
You and David Heddle have that title, then, and while I don't agree with you, that's not horrible company to be in. I don't argue with Heddle, and don't make fun of him, because despite our disagreements, he was a scientist, and knows enough to see that the ID movement and the Discovery Institute people are dishonest frauds.
As far as saying you're an ID science supporter, well, there's not any ID science, but perhaps you mean you want to see some in the future.
By the way, I do remember your AtBC posts, and they were smart. Stop by anytime.
Comment by steve — September 22, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:04 pm
I understand this. It's part of my motivation here. We want creationists to argue with, but we usually get the UD type, who don't know anything about science. We're like dogs who've been eating cotton candy. It's fine, and fattening, but we want the occasional tough bone to chew on.
Comment by steve — September 22, 2007 @ 11:04 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Mike wrote:
As an encouragement from a strange place I quote from Dawkins' The Extended Phenotype:
He then quotes from Fisher's The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection and states:
Comment by Zwischenzug — September 22, 2007 @ 11:14 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Hi Steve,
It only takes one person to put forth a hypothesis. One (of many) hypotheses that I have raised is this: the original cells were front-loaded to facilitate the evolution of multi-cellular life. But let's not forget that really good hypotheses often stem from the interactions between people, where not only can there be brainstorming from various perspectives and backgrounds, but ideas can be born at the very interfaces of dispute.
Comment by MikeGene — September 22, 2007 @ 11:20 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Is the ID community attempting to test this idea in the lab?
Comment by steve — September 22, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:35 pm
What community?
Comment by MikeGene — September 22, 2007 @ 11:35 pm
September 22nd, 2007 at 11:47 pm
The dozens of people at Discovery Institute, the 700 people who Dissent From Darwin, you, Doug Axe, Robert Marks, the people at ISCID, anyone at an IDEA club…?
Comment by steve — September 22, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
September 23rd, 2007 at 12:04 am
LOL. Are you under the impression that I network with the dozens of people at Discovery Institute, the 700 people who Dissent From Darwin, Doug Axe, Robert Marks, the people at ISCID, anyone at an IDEA club"¦?
I'm just a loudmouth on the Internet. After all, do you see any of them commenting here? Periodically, Paul Nelson drops by. But, well, that's about it.
But as for my hypothesis, a paper recently came out that has generated results/interpretations that, shall we say, should sound familiar to anyone reading my stuff over the years. I'll try to post about it over the following week.
Comment by MikeGene — September 23, 2007 @ 12:04 am
September 23rd, 2007 at 12:23 am
Paul Nelson drops by? I'm not surprised. He's been promising some ID science called Ontogenetic Depth for about a decade now. Never gets around to telling us what it is.
Comment by steve — September 23, 2007 @ 12:23 am
September 23rd, 2007 at 1:00 am
Hi MikeGene,
For the record, I pointed out to Steve in After the Bar Closes the sub title about Telic Thoughts being "independent" and suggested he read the About Us to get a sense of TT's history.
You wrote…
Is this a good time to point out the interesting aspects of RecA ("A microtubule-like structure… in charge of genetic recombination") and how microtubules appear to be interconnected quantum computers?
For Steve's (and anyone else's benefit) here is the link to your RecA – An Evolution Gene
Along with a link to my quantum quackery.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 23, 2007 @ 1:00 am
September 23rd, 2007 at 1:22 am
Hi TP,
Sure, why not? (although I had another inquiry in mind; the "vacuity" of the ID approach puts too much on my plate). But a better link would be here.
Comment by MikeGene — September 23, 2007 @ 1:22 am
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:52 am
A "really good hypothesis" leads to specific and distinguishing empirical predictions. "Interactions between people" often follow from the "really good hypothesis""”just like predictions do.
Comment by Zachriel — September 23, 2007 @ 8:52 am
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:57 am
Hi Zachriel,
Yes, I know all that. But you really need to let it sink in that I do not think ID is science. As I have said, at best it is nascent proto-science. Complaining that ID is not science (which is where your point leads) when I agree that ID is not science amounts to a vacuous complaint.
At this stage, the Dawkins quote provided by Zwischenzug beautifully applies (thanks, Zwischenzug!):
And as regular readers know, Nobel Laureate Francois Jacob is the source of my inspiration quote:
At this potential proto-science stage, fleshing out the conceptualization is of prime importance. Hypotheses do not simply poof into existence as a reflexive response to observation; they are born from perceptions and conceptualizations. At this stage, it is a question of whether those perceptions/concepts make predictions about biotic reality. That is, can the ID concept stand on its own and generate experimental results? If so, and a positive track record is generated, then we can turn to hypotheses that also entail "specific and distinguishing empirical predictions." If that occurs, and even modest success ensues, then ID becomes science.
I also happen to think that this is one of the mot difficult inquiries out there. As critics love to point out, we have no independent base of knowledge about the designer(s). This alone causes many of them to insist we all throw in the towel. Yet I carry out this inquiry on my free time and largely as a late night hobby; in other words, when I should be getting my rest. And that gets back to my essay.
Science is not a mechanism. It is a social process that involves many "˜intangibles.' So I have to wonder (as a matter of introspective curiosity, not complaint) what it would be like to hash out my ideas with a dozen-or-so experts from different disciplines. We got a itsy bity taste here at TT back in the summer, when I first raised RecA as an evolution gene: four people (TP, Nick, Doug, and myself) floated possible tests to further explore the hypothesis.
Even though the question is most difficult, even though I can only attend to it in my spare time, and even though I probe it mostly in isolation, I am encouraged by the modest payoff of this different way of looking at things.
But over the following years (maybe decades), if we ever get to the point where ID generates a "really good hypothesis" with specific and distinguishing empirical predictions and at least partial success, are you willing call it science?
Let me end with a football analogy (since it is Sunday). For years, both proponents and critics of ID have been focused on scoring touchdowns, because both sides are focused on who wins. Me? I'm more focused on whether first downs can be made! So I say this to the ID people: 1. Make yardage gains. 2. Turn those gains into first downs. 3. Stay on the field with continual first downs. 4. Get to the goal line. 5. Touchdown. I'm somewhere between step 1 and 2, and thus any focus on step 5 is a distraction.
Comment by MikeGene — September 23, 2007 @ 10:57 am
September 23rd, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Hi MikeGene,
I am aware of your views, and if I left the wrong impression, you have put forth your correction. But that was not my point.
You said that sometimes "really good hypotheses often stem from the interactions between people". I don't disagree. However, the converse is also true. Not only do "really good hypotheses" lead to "interactions between people", but we *judge* a theory by how many new questions and research programs it spawns. A "really good hypothesis" is fecund.
I would go so far as to say that thinking about the possibility is not unscientific, as long as a clear distinction is made between hypothesis and speculation, and that claims are meant to be reasonably subject to empirical validation.
Of course. And I have my magnifying glass and notepad at the ready.
But thus far Intelligent Design has been completely vacuous"”not even decent apologetics. It seems to be much more of a social movement with a deceptive scientific veneer. (This does not apply to your own speculations which are reservedly made.)
Comment by Zachriel — September 23, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
September 23rd, 2007 at 2:22 pm
steve:
How many a-e 'bots are planning to post here as "steve"
[sigh] Your stereotype is showing. You aren't likely to encounter a lot of interest here in supporting or confirming it.
There are plenty of web sites where you, all your multiple personalities, your back-slappers and your entire peanut gallery can go to chew on creationist bones. This isn't it.
Comment by Joy — September 23, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
September 23rd, 2007 at 4:27 pm
TP:
Yeah, that thread's just full of fascinating conversation about deep subjects. Though steve's admission that he's just seeking 'smarter creationists' to play with probably qualifies as refreshing honesty.
FYI, Smokey [a.k.a. JAM] was originally banned (if I recall correctly) for being your basic disruptive, insulting juvenile delinquent who constantly derailed topics and couldn't play nice. Pretty much the same personality that shines so brightly in that AtBC thread right now. Then he kept coming back under different pseuds, saying and doing the very same things, not even smart enough to use a different computer so we wouldn't know it was him (for a little while).
Truth is, we don't want or need juvenile delinquents here. The quality of our critics is respectable, and we like it that way. It takes quite a bit to get banned – you've got to demonstrate clearly more than a few times that you're a waste of time, and succeed in getting a majority of us disgusted enough to blackball you. If you want to argue about it, there are listed email contacts you can use, and you'll have to clean up your act. Simply changing your handle and starting in where you left off is not acceptable.
Several commenters have been banned during my time here, all of them for repeated bad behavior. Each and every one of them thoroughly deserved it, and I've never missed a one of 'em when they were gone – even when I wasn't too sure about the black ball, so didn't cast one. It's a democratic process, and I've never seen it misapplied.
You'd have to really make at least one of us really mad before such a subject would even come up. You haven't succeeded in doing that so far, no matter how hard you think you've tried. §;o)
Comment by Joy — September 23, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Joy:
TT has been around for about 2 ½ years now and in that time, I would estimate we have banned about 10 people (7 ID critics and 3 ID supporters). To be banned, a majority of the TT contributors have to vote for banning.
A common thread among all people who have been banned (at any site) is that they all think they have been unjustifiably banned and see themselves as being banned because their arguments we so strong. In other words, they are always blameless and it is never the result of their behavior. Never. But this self-martyrdom is actually quite insulting to others (on both sides) who have not been banned. Are they implying that the people who have not been banned are too stupid to have been banned? The people who have not been banned are here not because their arguments are weak (there are many critics here quite capable of posting very strong arguments), but because they either know how to show a minimal level of respect or know when to pull back after getting caught up in a moment of disruptive behavior.
TT is a semi-popular blog that deals with an extremely contentious issue. It draws comments and emotions from people at both ends of the spectrum. Our goal is to create at least one place on the internet where such discussions can be had while minimizing all the chest-thumping and hostility that is commonplace in this debate. If someone is here simply to cause trouble, it not only shows disrespect to the hosts, but also robs the readers of an atmosphere where people can participate without getting in shouting matches and ego battles. Are we perfect? Of course not. But here's the challenge.
If someone out there thinks they can provide a better forum for both sides to debate and discuss, a forum that allows as much freedom as possible without sullying the whole site, then do it. Show us how. If you succeed, we will look in and learn from you. If you can't do it, then you have no solid basis for complaint.
Comment by MikeGene — September 23, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
September 24th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Mike Gene:
I don't think that's an issue at all, Mike. We don't even have to be democratic about it, and it appears to me from perusing a couple of AtBC threads in the Swamp that they've no experience with that way of doing things either. They're complaining that their targets of choice don't want to play with them anymore. Boo-hoo.
I think we've done a pretty good job of keeping worthies and weeding out the delinquents. Though I admit I'd have gone farther a time or two if it were my decision to make. But it's not, so that's the deal I deal with. So does everybody else here. The whiners over at the swamp can stick their 'demands' where the sun don't shine. No one cares.
Comment by Joy — September 24, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
September 24th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
lol
Why don't you tell us what you really think?
I was hopeful that maybe, just maybe, we could enhance TT's reputation as an INDEPENDENT blog. It has been noted before that TT doesn't beat the drum nearly as much as other pro-ID blogs. And Front Loading is clearly thought of as the only ID hypothesis that even comes close to being reasonable. I also happen to like EAM, but even I can see the futility in trying to fight both sides for recognition.
Telic Thoughts is doing ok. And while you probably won't hear many admit it, I suspect people see the situation for what it is. This may work out for the best. The people would wouldn't be happy here anyway might get mad and screen themselves out.
Meanwhile, let's see what trouble I can cause with Penrose-Hameroff at After the Bar Closes. Feel free to offer any suggestions or criticisms you may have.
If you want to do it privately, my e-mail is dfcord (at) hotmail.com. It is an anonymous account that is attached to my anonymous blog. I check it periodically in case anyone comments on my blog.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 24, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
September 24th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Hi MikeGene,
You wrote…
Thanks for noticing.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 24, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
September 24th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
And if Charles Darwin didn't personally suffer from chronic dyspepsia, flatulence, and palpitations, we might have had a less dreary and dismal theory of evolution with which to work.
And if he hadn't serendipitously contracted some intestinal parasite whie exploring South America, he wouldn't have been so miserable.
Comment by Rock — September 24, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
September 24th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
TP:
Yeah. Kindest word of advice: Don't. It's a total waste of time and talent. As I mentioned, steve is refreshing for his honesty if nothing else. But the rest of 'em aren't worth the trouble. Trolls have no business complaining that they're treated like trolls by the forums they infect. It's not even semi-humorous to follow their solipsistic whining, so if you want to play in their sandbox, you'll have to do it without me.
Do let us know how it worked out in the end, though I will predict right now that it won't work out at all.
Speaking of Penrose, I saw this nifty story today and just thought I'd put it out there to demonstrate two things: 1. Roger Penrose is 'important' enough to have a totally speculative hypothesis out there they're still trying to test and/or falsify, and 2. Roger Penrose can be wrong.
Some Black Holes May Not Be Black, But 'Naked'.
On this one I think he is wrong, and note that the Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis was postulated to begin with because of the aesthetics of the situation and nothing more scientific than that. My perspective has to do with the micro-realm where you see CERN and Tevatron and Brookhaven all competing for who's going to isolate and maintain mini-holes first. They're entirely confident they can produce and isolate them. Despite their aesthetic preferences, some (or maybe all) of those will be naked as the day you were born.
…they do very strange things to time, which is why they've been so unthinkable. We don't know very much about time.
Comment by Joy — September 24, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
September 24th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
MikeGene wrote:
"Our goal is to create at least one place on the internet where such discussions can be had while minimizing all the chest-thumping and hostility that is commonplace in this debate."
And you have succeeded! I enjoy participating in (most of) the discussions here because they help me clarify my own thinking and hone my own arguments vis-a-vis this "very contenscious" subject. That was why I invited Hannah Maxson to be one of the leaders of my now-infamous "Cornell Evolution/Design Seminar"; not because we agreed about the issues (we didn't), but because we agreed about the process. Calling other people's sincere contributions "crap" isn't part of that tradition, and I avoid reading such posts whenever possible.
So, keep up the good work, Mike!
–Allen
*********************************
Allen D. MacNeill, Senior Lecturer
The Biology Learning Skills Center
G-24 Stimson Hall, Cornell University
Ithaca, New York 14853
*********************************
phone: 607-255-3357 (Allen's office)
email: adm6@cornell.edu
website: http://evolutionlist.blogspot....
*********************************
"I had at last got a theory by which to work"
-The Autobiography of Charles Darwin
*********************************
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — September 24, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
September 24th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Thanks Allen,
And I always enjoy your contributions. Your class about ID was truly a professional endeavor that best reflects the true virtues of academia (unlike some classes I can think of). Have you contemplated doing it again? Oh, and if you ever get some time and like to float some ideas/arguments here, don't forget the guest posting opportunity is also open to skeptics.
Comment by MikeGene — September 24, 2007 @ 11:42 pm
September 26th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
The results so far have been extremely mixed.
For example, when I explained that the renowned physicist Sir Rodger Penrose has hypothesized that decoherence is based on mass, one person reacted with "This is absurd…"
When I pressed for an explanation (actually I offered a graceful way out) the response was even more insistent. Here was the alternative explanation to Penrose's hypothesis…
"Where lambda is the quantum wavelength. When the quantum wavelength of the object is comparable to its size (cube root of volume if you want), it will exhibit quantum characteristics."
I must admit I haven't heard of this quantum interpretation before, but I haven't bothered to look for it either.
There has been a lot of name calling and I was asked if I believe in UFOs. Basic juvenile stuff.
On the up side. SteveStory did throw a rude comment into their version of the memory hole. I didn't think it was that much worse than others, but I think it had a mitigating effect on the level of rudeness.
Several expressed an interest in my thoughts on quantum mechanics but questioned how anything scientific could be considered "ID". When I offered my explanation of how I separate my opinion of the ID Movement from my opinion of ID science one individual gave a positive "Carry on" and one or two others took on a more honest skeptic attitude.
At this point we are discussing the definition of "design" and whether or not the hypothesis meets the definition.
While the reaction is still mostly negative, I'm hopeful this has provoked some thinking.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 26, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
September 26th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
TP:
Oh, come on! Committed ideological culture warriors don't know how to think. And they've no real interest in science. It's just a weapon they can't lift.
I did notice a slam about your brain turning into a naked singularity. Is that the comment that got sent to their dungeon? I ask because you've apparently missed the implications if Hawking/Penrose singularity theorems turn out to be wrong per the Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis. Particularly in light of atom-smasher confidence in the existence of micro-holes (or at least in their ability to create such beasties).
…it adds a significant monkey wrench to the OR stew, particularly to the consciousness equation. What if h turned out to BE time? What if there are no gravitons (or instantons)? What if time isn't some kind of dimensional aspect of space-time at all, but the primary causal operator for everything that exists in space-time? What if there's no multiverse, no 'missing matter', no 'dark energy', but just the differential (and relative) effects of time-binders and time-benders?
Now, I might be 'insane' (as was mentioned more than once in your foray into the Swamp), but I've known this for a long time too. Relatively speaking. I like Hameroff-Penrose because it's the closest anyone's gotten yet to the physical mechanisms of consciousness, and will serve – FAPP – until the next steps are taken. I'm suggesting those steps are in current flux, just like the staircases at Hogwart's School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Look out for where they settle. It might surprise you.
Comment by Joy — September 26, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
September 26th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Hi Joy,
You asked…
No, it was in the other thread. I was being told to shut up in an impolite manner that implied profanity.
I think their comment was in response to my explanation of a possible reason the universe needed life to exist. I wrote…
"One wild idea is that life will bring an orderly end to the universe because some stupid scientists manage to create a naked singularity in their lab."
I hope you aren't disappointed that I took the is-that-a-problem? tact. Apparently, I am not the only one impressed by you. Whether good or bad, you make an impact.
I hope you take it as a badge of honor that you cause such strong responses among the ID critics. BTW, I think I understand your attitude towards those "in the swamp" a little better now.
P.S. I just posted a semi-provocative sign off. It might be interesting to see the reaction.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 26, 2007 @ 7:21 pm