The Other Movement
by BradfordA New York Times editorial entitled Evolution and Texas is a practical illustration of a teflon movement that avoids labels indicating existing political and financial motives. The ousting of Christine Comer sparked the editorial response. Comer's departure is not applauded but neither is the spin attached to the incident. From the linked article:
Is Texas about to become the next state to undermine the teaching of evolution? That is the scary implication of the abrupt ousting of Christine Comer, the state's top expert on science education. Her transgression: forwarding an e-mail message about a talk by a distinguished professor who debunks "intelligent design" and creationism as legitimate alternatives to evolution in the science curriculum.
The first sentence initiates the spin. Cromer's firing is cited as undermining the teaching of evolution. How is the teaching of evolution compromised by Comer's departure? The answer. It is not.
The distinguished professor referred to is Barbara Forrest. Barbara Forrest has gained fame and income as a result of her high profile opposition to intelligent design.
The legitimate alternative to evolution phrase is a scare strategy that is at the core of the anti-ID movement. There is no threat to the inclusion of evolution within science curriculums. But it is a useful hobgoblin. More from the article:
It was especially disturbing that the agency accused Ms. Comer Âby forwarding the e-mail message  of taking a position on "a subject on which the agency must remain neutral." Surely the agency should not remain neutral on the central struggle between science and religion in the public schools. It should take a stand in favor of evolution as a central theory in modern biology. Texas's own education standards require the teaching of evolution.
The agency should remain neutral on the issue of intellligent design. Why? Because it lies outside what should be the real focus of science educators namely, furthering the education of students in Texas. There is no point to devoting time and resources to a struggle against intelligent design. Taxpayers are not funding that. Educational curriculums are not threatened. Anti-IDism should be done on one's own time and not at the expense of the government.
There is no struggle between science and religion in public schools. But it is a useful propaganda ploy to pretend such a struggle exists. Indeed Texas does require the teaching of evolution. That curriculum is not threatened; hysteria notwithstanding.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Bradford, I am feeling some confusion here about the role of ID and evolution in education in Texas. You say "There is no threat to the inclusion of evolution within science curriculums." Is there a threat to include ID within science curriculums? You kind of imply not.
And yet, here we have someone forced to resign for not being neutral on this issue. Surely if the Texas education agency is neutral on ID and evolution then it will promote them equally. To do otherwise would hardly be neutral. Here we have a well-established scientific theory, supported by the vast majority of biologists, and then we have ID, which could perhaps be called a framework, rather than a hypothesis even (okay, Mike has a hypthesis, but realistically are they talking about front–loading of DI ID?), with (as yet, perhaps) scant support from the scientific community. Any education agency should be just as neutral on this as it is on astronomy versus astrology – i.e., not at all.
There seems a real threat here that an agengy that claims to be neutral will include ID in the curriculum or will drop evolution. Either way, there is your undermining of evolution.
Comment by The Pixie — December 4, 2007 @ 10:37 am
December 4th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Where is the evidence of an intent to include ID in the curriculum? Where is the evidence of an intent to drop evolution? You are proving my point about a hysterical overreaction.
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2007 @ 10:44 am
December 4th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Bradford,
If you were to plot this event on a continuum, where one end is "threat to include ID" and the othe "no threat", do you believe it would rest squarely between the two extremes, or do you maybe, just maybe, think it might be somewhere on the side pointing to threat.
We can argue how close it is to the threat end, but to argue that it doesn't point in that direction is a bit obtuse, don't you think?
Sure, it's not an imminent threat, like say mushroon clouds from Saddam, bit it's clearly leaning in that direction.
Comment by trittico — December 4, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
My understanding is that the Texas agency has a new policy to be "neutral" on the subject of origins; from the Times article:
To be neutral, the TEA has to support ID as much or as little as it supports modern evolutionary theory (MET). That would seem to mean that if it supports teaching MET, then it must also support teaching ID. Or it opposes the teaching of both. I said that before; I am not sure how to make it any clearer.
Maybe I am missing something here. I live in the UK, but I get the impression that this is the organisation that determines how science is taught to a huge number of children. If that orgaisation has a stated aim of being neutral on MET versus ID, well that is undermining science education when science and scientists so clearly stand on the MET side. I believe the organisation determines what textbooks are used. If the TEA is to remain neutral, will they buy or recommend as many pro-ID books as pro-evolution books? Do they decide the curriculum? If they are neutral, surely they will require equal time for MET and ID.
If the chair of the organisation forces the resignation of someone for publising a talk that puts forward the mainstream science side of the story, well that undermines science education. I am sorry, but I am having difficulty imagining how you can claim otherwise.
Comment by The Pixie — December 4, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Your conception of neutrality is skewed. Switzerland has been historically neutral. It did not support both Nazi Germany and the UK equally. It ignored the conflict. That was what Ms. Comer was supposed to do. Ignore the conflict while on government time. Texas does support the teaching of evolution. ID is not taught. If there is a perceived bias against neutrality it is against, not favoring ID. That much is fine. Campaigning for issues on government time is not OK.
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Hi The Pixie,
you wrote:
School boards are often keenly sensitive to litigious issues. In this respect, Texas has made it clear that they wish to not give the appearance of institutionally supporting the most litigious factions in the controversy (in this case the NCSE).
In short, your assertion that Comer was forced out because she was "publicising a talk" only tells the superficial story. Follow the money…
Comment by chunkdz — December 4, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Why do people persist in thinking that ID is a position that denies evolution? I understand this posture when duplicity or scare headlines are the reasons. But people who are honestly trying to grasp what ID is??? Stop listing to the critics! Stop listening to ID's special interest groups! THINK!!!
ID, when all of the special interests are factored out of it, simply represents a viewpoint that life is NOT the result of a fortituitous accident. A design assumption lies at the heart of ID. This assumption is the antipode of what is currently presented in the biology books. The biology textbooks would have us believe that, in among our organs and cells, as in the organs and cells of other creatures, there are purposeless, and, therefore, meaningless dead ends. This permits thinking such as If I don't know what it is for, then it is for nothing. to creep into science, because such a view is perfectly logical when an assumption of luck stands as the prime mover for the source of life.
ID simply takes the position that everything in the organs and cells was designed and has a purpose. Evolution is not at issue.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 4, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
AnaxagorasRules:
The duplicity and scare tactics are evidence of the movement. There is a widespread effort to falsely depict ID. ID critics share common goals and tactics as well. It is evidence of the not discussed, but very real, other movement.
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Bradford
It is the task of the education agency to promote good education; that means good science education; that means mainstream science; and that means modern evolutionary theory. I am objecting to an education agency that at best is shirking its responsibility and and at worst is abusing its position to promote ID at the expense of mainstream science.
chunkdz
What a sorry situation if education is dictated by who can sue the most! I really hope you are wrong.
I suspect the underlying reason is that the chair of the TEA is an IDist or creationist, and Comer is an evolutionist. What do you mean by "Follow the money"
AnaxagorasRules
1. Because it is so strongly (if not entirely accurately) linked to creationism
2. Because some of the most trumpeted ID arguments are actually (or at least come across as) anti-evolution arguments (EF, CSI, IC come to mind)
3. They do not, but use "evolution" as a sort hand to indicate the modern theory of evolution (as I admit I sometimes do)
Right, so we all agree that ID is a positon that denies the modern theory of evolution.
Hey yeah! So lets replace that with If I don't know what it is for, then surely has some purpose. That is much better science, right?
Comment by The Pixie — December 4, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Hi, Pixie,
No. This is how it would work:
If I don't know what it is for, then let's find out what it is for.
The assumption that "it" has a purpose is an antecedant premise which does not need to be mentioned specifically. But it could be:
If I don't know what it is for, then let's find out what it is for, because it has a purpose.
Such an assumption is at least as valid as the assignation of purposelessness when functions cannot be gleaned, which is a conclusion that the "fortuitous accident" premise allows. And yes, to assume that the various components of cells have a purpose [edit: an assumption which the design premise forces] is better science, in my opinion.
I won't argue with your other items. I believe that ID needs to prune off some of its leaves, and that it needs to do so quite vocally. I have no idea who can do this. But that does not mean that I will adopt a counter view that seems intuitively idiotic (and no, I'm not talking about evolution).
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 4, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
This is a phoney charge Pixie and further evidence of the tactics of the movement. You are a faithful foot soldier. Educational government agencies are not charged with the responsibility to advertise Barbara Forrest's paid speech appearances. They shirk their responsibility by playing war games with IDists instead of doing their work. You are simply lying by claiming that the relevant agency was promoting ID. I've already challenged you to produce evidence and you come up with nothing but empty claims. Texas already teaches evolution and your continual whining on that score is pointless.
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
I really don't get this at all. She was fired for forwarding an email about a talk? There had better be more to this story that just that. For crying out loud, if I were the most rabid IDist on the planet I'd be extremely interested in receiving an email about a Barbara Forrest talk"”I'd surely want to attend. If I became aware of a Barbara Forrest talk, or a William Dembski talk, or a Mike Gene talk, or a PZ Myers talk in my vicinity, I'd certainly pass it along and post it on my blog.
It doesn't even read as if she is taking a position on Forrest's talk. When forwarding, did she add editorial comments? Hey, let's watch Babs kick some fundy butt!! LOL!! If not, how can merely forwarding information be construed as taking a position? Madness.
And it is not a resources issue. If people were routinely dismissed because of emails that, while not offensive, are not strictly job related, they'd be nobody left to turn out the lights.
Based on the information available, this seems totally ludicrous. I hope she is reinstated.
Methinks that ID Incorporated would be beatifying Comer if she had been dismissed, just as nonsensically, for forwarding an email announcing a Jonathan Wells talk.
Comment by David Heddle — December 4, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
I don't disagree David. I would not have fired her or anyone else for an e-mail. However, anti-IDists are attempting to make something more out of this than is evidenced by the known facts. The inclusion of evolution in currriculums is not compromised by Comer's departure.
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Agreeing with Bradford, with the caveat that, as always, I never completely trust journalism and would like more facts to go on. The only context I can see so far is "fired for forwarding an email". The article itself is light on details.
That said, I'm not taken with the Times' illustration of things. I question whether Barbara Forrest's concerns with ID are limited to 'the science curriculum', I think the ID topic is far more complicated than 'ID versus evolution', and find their attitude that ID as a topic is not one that the state can remain neutral about to be strange at best. Maybe more details will come out, though.
Comment by nullasalus — December 4, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
AnaxagorasRules
Going back to your earlier post:
Thinking about what you said a little more, I think you have this wrong. Biologists already approach biology in this way; they assume the cells, the components of the cells, the organs, etc. have a function. See for example this web site: Cells Structures and Functions. Quite the reverse to your claim, biologists assume there is function, and then go and fnd it. The whole deal about "junk DNA" is how surprising it was to find something with aparently no function. And still biologists are looking for function in it!
Bradford
Educational government agencies are charged with promoting good education. I feel, and it sounds as though Comer does to, that part of that remit is taking a stand against ID. So I would say that forwarding an e-mail about Barbara Forrest's paid speech appearances falls under that remit. Howwver, I can appreciate why you would not!
All I can do is say how it appears to me. We have a new chair who, according to the article, is sympathetic to ID. We have an employee sympathetic to evolution. The employee is forced to resign over a pretty inconsequential issue. I may be jumping to conclusions, I accept (kind of like you jumping to the conclusion that I am lying, because I am on the opposite side of the debate).
I am not too sure what counts as "continual" whining on a blog, but I guess you need your hyperbole.
Texas currently teaches evolution. There is a new chair in the TEA, apparently sympathetic to ID, who has already sacked one evolutionist for forwarding a pro-evolution e-mil, and has introduced a new policy to be neutral on this issue, when before the policy was pro-evolution. Which of these are empty claims?
Comment by The Pixie — December 4, 2007 @ 7:02 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Providing students with a good education has nothing to do with Barbara Forrest's speech. The e-mail itself is inconsequential but fighting ID on company time is out of line.
A policy opposed to on the job activism is a wise one. Comer et. al. are free to do whatever they wish after leaving work.
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Bradford:
How do you know it's "on company time"
And even if it were on company time, it's simply outrageous that someone should get fired over forwarding an email announcing a talk. Talk about moral bankruptcy. Do you feel this is more justified than denying tenure to GG?
Comment by Raevmo — December 4, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Hi The Pixie,
You wrote:
What planet have you been on for the last century?
Absolutely. Just look at him. Typical IDiot creationist haircut.
You couldn't be more right. Just
look at that scowling bloated evilutionist face.
Oh never mind.
Comment by chunkdz — December 4, 2007 @ 7:54 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
It is inferred. But the exchange with Pixie makes it evident Pixie advocates activism as an employee obligation. I do not favor the firing.
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Bradford, you're really not helping your case by claiming there is no threat. The TEA is headed up by openly admitted creationists who in the coming year will be undertaking a major review of the state's science standards. The fact that they found a ridiculous premise to fire one of the few pro-mainstream science advocates still around isn't dangerous? That the head is saying things like that textbooks should start including arguments against evolution (i.e. what most scientists see as the exact same creationist arguments that we've heard for decades).
You may not think any of that is a bad thing to have happen, but it's just flatly silly to say its not a threat to those of us who think that ID has little scientific merit, and creationists should not be determining what's taught in biology classes.
"Why do people persist in thinking that ID is a position that denies evolution?"
Because the vast majority of people calling themselves ID proponents spend most of their time cheering on virtually anything that's anti-evolution, or scoffing over every bit of new evidence that more solidly establishes common descent, despite the fact that many ID proponents say that they think common descent is sound?
Come on.
"ID, when all of the special interests are factored out of it, simply represents a viewpoint that life is NOT the result of a fortituitous accident. A design assumption lies at the heart of ID. This assumption is the antipode of what is currently presented in the biology books."
You mean biology books written by people who believe that God created everything like Ken Miller, one of the most outspoken opponents of ID?
Things like that make your narrative very troubled. If what you are saying is true, people like Ken Miller should have no problem at all with ID, since it supposedly merely says what they already believe.
Furthermore, I'm not sure how you can factor the "special interests" out of ID. The general philosophical ID might fit your picture of things, but virtually every ID organization and major proponent of ID around today in the ID movement fits into what I would call the "special interests" side of things.
Comment by Bad — December 4, 2007 @ 8:13 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Bad:
Excuse me? If Texas is looking for textbooks that mention the shortcomings of NDS for explaining new empirical observations incoming over the past couple of decades, there are some out there. My grandson has had two of them in the last two years (Bio-I and II, Jr. and Sr. level) here in NC. Last year's was a consortium effort put together by NGS, had some nice material on the accompanying website. This year's offering is All Evolution All the Time, but does introduce some of the recent non-NDS hypotheses when it gets to those shortcomings.
If other states can find textbooks that introduce evolution but don't lie about the insufficiencies of current theory to explain evidence (and don't contain past textbooks' emphasis on anti-theistic arguments), Texas can too. If TEA is to evaluate the pretty good new textbook offerings, they don't need someone gumming up the works who believes NDS is sacrosanct – and lobbies for that ridiculous position on the public dime.
I wouldn't have fired her. I'd have revoked her access to the wider web and public email via her work computer.
Comment by Joy — December 4, 2007 @ 9:28 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Hi, Pixie,
No doubt it is ironic that scientists presume function in their work and yet deny design as a core premise. This implicit presumption is even more of a paradigm now, largely for reasons like the Junk DNA debacle.
Junk DNA
That little fiasco never would have occurred with a design premise.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 4, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
I am an ID'er and given the one email that I have seen, I would support a lobby to get Cromer her job back. I can see no problem with it. However, more is claimed to have been going on…
In documents obtained Wednesday through the Texas Public Information Act, agency officials said they recommended firing Comer for repeated acts of misconduct and insubordination.
Unfortunately, I am unable to make a determination as to what is fair in this case.
Wrt Darwinism, it is a theory of selective filtration. ID is a theory of origination. Because microevolutionary "filtration" and macroevolutionary "origination" are different functions, conflict between the two theories is impossible… Except on this particular planet where war is valued and gladiators are glorified.
Comment by William Brookfield — December 4, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Some critical reading skills are called for. You state I'm not helping my case by claiming there is no threat but what is my case? The central theme of the blog entry is what? I cited an editorial as evidence of an often repeated tactic used by anti-IDists. That being spinning a story to create scary hobgoblins which will alllegedly materialize due to a cited incident. The scary hobgoblins are the removal of evolution from school curriculums and a replacement with ID material whatever that is. The departure of Ms. Comer is a call to arms to defend the teaching of evolution? You can do better than that.
I suspect chunkdz might be right in stating:
but even if not I need to see something more substantial than might happen, could have beens and admitted creationists weighing in with their views.
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2007 @ 10:07 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
The Darwinist true believers who are wailing about the TEA's conspiratorial "anti-science" agenda, and that poor victim that the TEA's "creationist" meanies "fired," might just do a little homework.
In the first place, Comer was NOT fired.
In the second, Comer was _asked_ to – and did – resign[ed] because she had, according to TEA officials, committed "repeated acts of misconduct and insubordination."
Thirdly, the email that Comer forwarded on company time was an NCSE announcement "selling" a Forrest lecture: "Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse" / Barbara Forrest, that addressed the "ties between ID and earlier generations of creationism," "focused on her work in the Dover trial and her book _Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design_."
Now, do, please, explain what relevance Forrest's polemical propaganda has to primary / secondary public-schoolchildren's "science" education?
It isn't Bradford's case that desperately needs "help."
Comment by turandot — December 4, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
William Brookfield wrote:
I agree with Heddle that the story, as depicted in the editorial, makes little sense. Either there was a gross overreaction or there is more to the story. It could be a straw that broke the back situation or something else but hysterical fears are not justified by the evidence so far available.
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
turandot wrote:
Thanks turandot. It's good to witness data substituting for fear rather than the reverse.
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Joy wrote:
Good point Joy. Merely containing an exposition of evolution is not a complete standard by which to assess a textbook. The inclusion of superfluous side arguments cuts both ways. If the inclusion of references to a creator are deemed inappropriate then why would endorsements of philosophical materialism be any less so?
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2007 @ 10:35 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Bradford:
Welcome.
I do hope that the Darwinists who have been so awfully busy indignantly defending Comer and the institution of "science" from the barbarians at the gate will explain, first, what on earth Forrest's "philosophizing" has to do with science education, and second, why Darwinism is so critical to science education. After all, as Jerry Coyne honestly pointed out last year:
"In the end, the true value of evolutionary biology is not practical but explanatory. It answers, in the most exquisitely simple and parsimonious way, the age-old question: "How did we get here?" It gives us our family history writ large, connecting us with every other species, living or extinct, on Earth. It shows how everything from frogs to fleas got here via a few easily grasped biological processes. And that, after all, is quite an accomplishment."
I'll add that until it's _known_ – certainly – exactly what Comer's "repeated acts of misconduct and insubordination" constitute besides vague references to "a series of unauthorized presentations at professional meetings and other reported transgressions," Darwinist fundamentalists would do well to spare us their indignant, accusatory outrage….
Comment by turandot — December 4, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
turandot wrote:
Yes indeed. The outrage is just awaiting an excuse to bubble forth. I'm willing to go where future new incoming data leads us on this story. If previous indiscretions by Comer are substantial and spelled out I'll withdraw my benefit of the doubt.
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2007 @ 10:55 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Bradford:
Actually, grandson's textbook [NGS] last year did cite theistic beliefs as "what some people believe" about the origin of life and evolution. It also made some intriguing references to 'directed evolution' via a sort of endogenous adaptive mutagenesis, explaining that current theory's reliance on random mutations doesn't account for the many different mechanisms of genomic change currently known and under study. Just basic "this is where current theory falls short, these are ideas out there, nobody knows yet, lots of biologists are working on it." Nothing to write home about – a little like the situation in physics over the past few decades. Only a physics student doesn't get that until college.
The past 'standard' textbooks were seriously edited some years ago to get rid of the superfluous and prejudicial anti-theistic arguments. That is also a result of the public's disgust with the way evolution has been taught – yes, some parents DO check out their kids' textbooks. So now Haekel's drawings are usually left out, the Bishop Ussher nonsense is gone, and lengthy discussions of genetics and genomics are becoming common. These are where NDS insufficiencies are most evident, and where other hypotheses are most welcome. Heck, this year's textbook has a whole chapter on the systems approach, and that approach is echoed in the latter chapters that suggest modern evolutionary theory is in the process of morphing into something quite non-NDS.
But that's basically a college-level textbook, it's not the one used to teach all the students how to pass the state test. Still, I see it as a hopeful trend.
Comment by Joy — December 4, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
December 5th, 2007 at 6:21 am
There is a copy of the memorandum that recommends the termination of Comer's employment at TEA here (though I had problems getting it to load properly):
http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/pdf/11/112907science_memo.pdf
Bradford
Well I guess we must agree to disagree. A talk that helps prevent creationism getting into science education is good for science education in my opinion.
Here is an interesting quote from the above memorandum: "the email clearly indicates that the group opposes teaching creationism in public education. Sending this e-mail not only demonstrates a serious lack of good judgement, it also violates the directive Ms Comer was given not to communicate in writing or otherwise with anyone outside te agency in any way that might compromise the integrity of the TEKS development and revision process." I think it is shocking that an education agency does not oppose teach creationism in public education. I thought you even had laws about that in the US. Again, we will have to agree to disagree on that.
turandot
A quick search for the word "fired" on this thread reveals that some IDists also used that word. Why are you not insisting that those on your side of the culture war do their homework too?
Let us all be quite clear: This was a forced resignation.
Kind of like those IDists, "awfully busy indignantly defending" Gonzalez from the Darwinist conspiracy? You really like your hyperbole, turandot.
Forrest is making an effort to keep creationism out of science education. Creationism in science education is a bad thing, so keeping it out of science education is a good thing.
That is easy. As Jerry Coyne honestly pointed out last year: "In the end, the true value of evolutionary biology is not practical but explanatory. It answers, in the most exquisitely simple and parsimonious way, the age-old question: "How did we get here?" It gives us our family history writ large, connecting us with every other species, living or extinct, on Earth. It shows how everything from frogs to fleas got here via a few easily grasped biological processes. And that, after all, is quite an accomplishment."
Sure. And I am confident you will agree with me that until it's _known_ – certainly – exactly why Gonzalez was denied tenureID fundamentalists would do well to spare us their indignant, accusatory outrage"¦.
Comment by The Pixie — December 5, 2007 @ 6:21 am
December 5th, 2007 at 7:37 am
Some more information:
Austin American Statesman article about the forced resignation:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/11/29/1129sci ence.html
See also more details here (warning: anti-ID site):
http://www.texscience.org/reviews/tea-science-director-resigns.htm
A newspaper article about the appointment of Don McLeroy as chair of SBOE:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/DN-sb oe_18tex.ART.State.Edition1.3bba4d6.html
What Wiki says of Dr. Don McLeroy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_McLeroy
Finally, this (anti-ID) blog has a copy of that email:
http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2007/11/29/expelled-texas-education -agency-fires-staffer-for-announcing-talk-by-barbara-forrest/
Next summer the TEA will be looking at science education. Can anyone here say they feel confident that the position of modern evolutionary theory in that science education is not threatened? Anyone want to go on record as saying that Texas will not change the curriculum to play down evolution, and/or to magnify the perceived flaws?
Comment by The Pixie — December 5, 2007 @ 7:37 am
December 5th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Yes, let's. Comer was given the option of tendering her resignation or being terminated – because she had made a series of unauthorized presentations at professional meetings and committed other serial acts of misconduct and insubordination, for which she has no-one to blame but herself.
Tu quoque!
Aside from the fact that ISU's decision to deny Gonzalez tenure and the TEA's decision to demand Comer's resignation are not analogous by any stretch of the imagination, it seems to me that your criticism reflects a double standard. Darwinists are quite willing to instigate discrimination against those they suspect are "enemies" and then if those "enemies" complain, retort "Get a backbone!," but when one of their own is targeted, legitimately or not, then cries of "Unfair!" are heard 'round the world….
The TEA is a taxpayer-funded state institution, not a political action organization that takes its marching orders from self-appointed busybody ideologues.
Darwinism does _not_ answer "how did we get here?" or how "everything from frogs to fleas got here via a few easily grasped biological processes." That's the point.
Since when is teaching Darwin's theory of evolution, warts and all, "playing down evolution / magnify[ing] the perceived flaws?" It's not as if honest evolutionary biologists don't themselves admit that the theory's got its "flaws," and it's not as if promissory notes are falsifiable….
Comment by turandot — December 5, 2007 @ 8:27 am
December 5th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Bradford,
Its fine that you don't want to connect the dots of pro-ID governor who appoints a creationist to head the SBOE who finds a reason to fire TEA's science curriculum director just before Texas' science standards come up for review; we don't need you to do that for us. Maybe McLeroy really isn't planning to introduce creationist anti-evolutionary arguments into Texas science classrooms; we'll see soon enough. If you want to put your money where your mouth is though, I'd be happy to take that bet and give you odds that we'll see a major effort to insert "critical analysis" of evolution or whatever it is the DI is pushing right now into the Texas science curriculum. Remember your version of ID may not be at odds with evolution; but for a creationist like McLeroy, its all about getting kids to doubt common descent, especially in regards to humans.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 5, 2007 @ 11:52 am
December 5th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
David:
Agreed. If all she did was forward an email, then her getting canned for it is completely unjust, and any IDer who defends it undermines their defense of Gonzalez, Sternberg, etc.
Comment by Deuce — December 5, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
December 5th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Aagcobb wrote:
That's the whole point. We will see what unfolds but have not yet arrived there. Where have you been? Did you start reading The Design Matrix? If not get going on your homework assignment. It could become a reference source for IDists and an educational resource for the rest of humanity.
Comment by Bradford — December 5, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
December 5th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Hi Bradford,
I got to the point where I found the whole ID debate tedious, since its not really going anywhere except around in circles. Texas could get very interesting, though.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 5, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
December 5th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
turandot
There seem to be some similarities to me, but perhaps that is just me. Both people feeling they have been dealt harsh blows to their careers because of their standing in the evolution vs ID debate. Both have people on their side of the debate saying it was not fair, and people on the opposite side saying get a backbone. Take a step back, you might be surprised.
I would like to believe that. we will have to see what (else) McLeroy does.
You quoted it; I assumed you agreed with.
Comment by The Pixie — December 5, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
December 5th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
The Coyne quote I posted makes two points. The first is that "evolutionary biology is not practical but explanatory." The second is that evolutionary biology "answers, in the most exquisitely simple and parsimonious way, the age-old question: How did we get here? It gives us our family history writ large, connecting us with every other species, living or extinct, on Earth. It shows how everything from frogs to fleas got here via a few easily grasped biological processes."
Evolutionary biology is _practically_ useless and does not answer the age-old question, ""how did we get here?" Darwinism is, by its author's description, "a whole metaphysics" that postulates [in a nutshell] that life unfolds on its own in conformity to the laws of nature. That postulation is only as persuasive as the _assumption_ it's predicated on – and that postulation ignores two questions , the answers to which are central to how we got here: the origin of the physical laws that cause[d] and govern[ed] the unfolding of life / living organisms and the origin of life itself.
The creation vs evolution war is philosophical and the casualty is American public school education. I don't care whether American children have the vaguest conception of "evolution." I do care, awfully much, that American children are literate, able to think critically, and mathematically competent.
"Creationists" have made an ENORMOUS contribution to science. Two modern examples: Dr. Damadian's MRI technology and Dr. Sanford's bioengineering and gene-gun technology. What has "evolutionary biology" ever contributed to the march of science or "the relief of man's estate?" Zilch.
The Darwinist fundamentalist crusaders' sky-is-falling hysteria, incessant meddling and litigiousness is fueled by socio-political activism, not bettering science education. Indoctrination is antithetical to education….
So, _why_ must American public-school children be spoonfed Darwinian orthodoxy?
Comment by turandot — December 5, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
December 5th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Those are awfully superficial similarities, it seems to me.
There hasn't been so much as a whisper that Gonzalez was insubordinate or engaged in misconduct. On the other hand, there is quite a body of evidence that Gonzalez is a very bright, high-achieving scientist and a good teacher and that ISU's tenure denial was discriminatory. Zoiks, even the Iowa ACLU is quite suspicious.
ISU will not neither forthrightly discuss the reasons Gonzalez was denied tenure nor publish even a page of the pertinent paper trail. The TEA, on the other hand, has published the document[s] relevant to Comer's "forced resignation" and explained why Comer was asked to resign. Any private-sector employee who pulled just one of the stunts Comer did would've been canned faster than you can blink. State employees are all but immune to dismissal – unless and until they've well and truly screwed the pooch by even the most "progressive" judge's standards.
Comment by turandot — December 5, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
December 6th, 2007 at 7:23 am
turandot
Well, okay. I do not think anyone is claiming you can use evolutionary biology to build a bridge, or a computer or even create a new species, so certainly it is not practical in the sense that we cannot harness it technologically.
And it is grerat that we both recognise the explanatory power of evolutionary biology.
And I agree there too. So what was the problem?
But the quote says otherwise. The quote says it does answer that question. I am confused. How can you honestly quote Coyne (telling us that he was honest) saying the evolution answers the question to support your claim that evolution does not answer the question?
This seems to be some bizarre use of quote-mining I have not come across before where the carefully selected quote clearkly disagrees with your claim, and you just pretend otherwise. I admire your nerve.
The first question is a problem for all science. Shall we abandon relativity because it ignores the question of where the laws of nature come from? I think not. I think it is enough that we have good evidence (but not proof of course) that those laws exist; where they came from would be nice to know, but not required for us to accept relativity as a good, well-supported model.
The second question is analogous to the first. Again, I think it is enough that we have good evidence that organisms exist; where life originally came from would be nice to know, but not required for us to accept modern evolution theory as a good, well-supported model of how they evolved.
Very true, and sadly it threatens UK education too.
Of course not. You are on the creation/ID side, which flourishes in ignorance.
This is bordering n the dishonest, but I suspect you lack the objectivity to see it.
An honest comparison would be between the contribution to modern science by "creationists" compared to the contribution by "evolutionists". The vast majority of scientists accept evolution, so I feel safe claiming that "evolutionists" have contributed rather more in the last 100 years than "creationists".
Or you could compare what "creation biology" has ever contributed to the march of science compared to "evolutionary biology". Again, I feel safe claiming the latter has given us rather more than the latter.
Can you see how comparing the contribution of "creationists" to the "evolutionary biology" does not make sense?
Exactly the same reason they must be spoon fed the periodic table "orthodoxy". It is basic mainstream science. I know that is tough on people who would find evolution contradicts their religious beliefs, but that is just the way it is.
A fair few people are claiming Gonzalez failed to get tenure because of his ID activities. It would seem Comer was forced to resign because of her anti-ID activities. Gonzalez seems to have a good career record otherwise. So does Comer. Even the anti-ID ACLU is – you say – perhaps on Gonzalez side. Even some IDists on this thread are on Comer's side. Of course the two cases are not exactly equivalent, but the similarities are there if you care to look.
Comment by The Pixie — December 6, 2007 @ 7:23 am
December 6th, 2007 at 7:59 am
turandot:
The Pixie:
Pixie, I believe you missed the point which is the assumption that underlying forces of nature are sufficient to explain a causal pathway to life, in the absence of an additional telic or guided intelligence component, is on weak empirical grounds. The usual response by your side has been to argue that the absence of empirical support for causal pathways to life is a function of contemporary ignorance. But that in itself is a claim that places its advocates squarely in the faith camp.
But an answer is required of one who states in the same comment: "You are on the creation/ID side, which flourishes in ignorance." If you acknowledge that a very basic question, relevant to the cause of life itself, is unknown then you are hardly in a position to impute ignorance to your opponents. At the very least some humility from you is in order or a plausible explanation answering the basic question. When neither is forthcoming then neither is a refutation of intelligent design which does not artificially restrict itself to what occurred after a cell came into existence.
Comment by Bradford — December 6, 2007 @ 7:59 am
December 6th, 2007 at 8:59 am
There is a transcript of a talk from 2003 by McLeroy here:
http://www.tfn.org/publiceducation/textbooks/mcleroy/index.php
There is audio available too, though I have not listened to it.
I guess that wold make Mike Gene a Darwinist!
Sounds to me like the most important evidence for McLeroy is scripture. It does not matter what we see in the fossil record, or in the DNA, it is what the Bible says that is all important. Such a position is antithetical to science.
This guy is a million miles from Mike Gene's ID; why does Telic Thoughts want to support his efforts to trash science education?
Science is based on methodological naturalism (at least he says naturalism and not materialism), i.e., the belief that science can only study what science can study. If creationists want to study things science is incapable of studying, they are free to do just that. Just do not expect any scientific results…
How does McLeroy handle scientists who are also Christians, theistic evolutionists:
So evolution is wrong because it is based on philosophical naturalism, and if you are a Christian who accepts evolution, you are just wrong anyway.
Many evolutionists have pointed out that the usual ID arguments are the same ones the creationists have been using for decades.
Here is the most damning part, with respect to this thread.
This guy is chair of an education agency. Does anyone here want to go on record stating that McLeroy will not be doing the same in his new position? Bradford, are you still claiming evolution is not under threat?
Comment by The Pixie — December 6, 2007 @ 8:59 am
December 6th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Barbaba Forrest's take can be read here (where I got the above link from):
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/ForrestComer.pdf
Bradford
I am not sure I get you. Are you talking about abiogenesis? "causal pathways to life" sounds like you are. Evolution assumes that life started; it makes no claims about how it started, or what those causal pathways might be. The simple answer is that we do not know how it happened, though some people have proposed possible solutions (at least to various parts of the problem). Is that a "faith" claim? I do not think so.
I support a side that promotes knowledge, education and understanding. I would dearly love for all concerned to understand what the theory of evolution really means. I would dearly love to know how life began. Sadly, neither are possible. I not understand why our ignorance of the origins of life invalids anything I have said.
I have no idea what humility has to do with the discussion. You think my argument is weak because I come across as arrogant (sorry if I do)? An argument stands or falls on its logic, not its presentation, Bradford.
Ah, there is that ignorance I would love to banish. Evolution is a process that occurs in living things. Natural selection is about organisms competing. Random mutation is about changes in the genetics from one generation to the next. Therefore, you need at least two things capable of reproducing. Therefore evolution cannot occur until living things have appeared. There is nothing artifical about the restriction (compared to the ID restriction not to consider the designer).
Comment by The Pixie — December 6, 2007 @ 9:14 am
December 6th, 2007 at 9:19 am
The Pixie:
In support of your position you used this quote:
Getting the Bible out of a discussion of empirical data is advisable is it not Pixie?
Keeping the discussion focused on scientific evidence and philosophical assumptions- that's sensible too.
The relevant question is what is meant by the word weakness? If weakness is linked to poor supporting empirical data then it is not a problem If it is linked to strong supporting data then McLeroy will have a problem. Recently Albert de Roos posted a guest blog entry about endosymbiosis. He has criticized the notion in the past but that does not mean he either has no basis for his criticism or that he debunks all mainstream theories. He clearly does not. I don't react to possibilities. There are enough real problems. If McLeroy acts inappropriately he will be criticized here and elsewhere.
Comment by Bradford — December 6, 2007 @ 9:19 am
December 6th, 2007 at 9:29 am
When neither is forthcoming then neither is a refutation of intelligent design which does not artificially restrict itself to what occured after a cell came into existence
Irrelevant to my point about the origin of life.
Obviously.
There is something artificial about an argument that criticizes a notion that encompasses both abiogenesis and evolution but acknowledges that it has no plausible explanation for the former so let's talk about the latter. I'm willing to endorse anything for which data is supportive. That includes much about the properties of nucleic acids and ID inferences drawn from that. Consider a designer? Not a problem.
Comment by Bradford — December 6, 2007 @ 9:29 am
December 6th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Bradford, getting back to your post topic that the firing of Ms. Cromer doesn't threaten the teaching of evolution in Texas, the statement made by the agency at the time of her firing directly refutes your point. The agency's spokesperson stated,
TEA directly linked the email, which publicized an out-spoken ID critic, to the upcoming standards revision process. The statement makes it clear that employees cannot make statements in favor of the current science standards as opposed to McLeroy's preference for teaching creationist anti-evolutionary arguments. That wouldn't be a problem unless TEA was contemplating inserting anti-evolutionary arguments into the science curriculum.
p.s. If you really believe McLeroy isn't planning to add the "weaknesses" of evolutionary theory to Texas science standards, my offer to put a bet on it still stands.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 6, 2007 @ 10:30 am
December 6th, 2007 at 10:41 am
I'm quite happy to state on the record that "'evolution'" is not "under threat" – because the Chair of the Texas State Board of Education, an _elected_ representative since 11-98 [and re-elected in 2002 and 2006], advocates that "dissenting opinions get a fair hearing." Furthermore, I am aware that Texas public school curricula decision-making is the most democratic in America. The Texas State Board of Education _proposes_, and the state legislature _disposes_. Texas public school texts are chosen by school districts, not the TSBE / TEA.
McLeroy's point, which you've ignored, is that the assertion many Darwinian evolutionists make, that "evolution" refutes the "God hypothesis," is a lie. And I think most people, whatever their metaphysical beliefs, would agree that philosophical naturalism [physicalism] and Christianity are antithetic.
Comment by turandot — December 6, 2007 @ 10:41 am
December 6th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Aagcobb:
If you have an example of an employee making statements favoring creationist positions and not getting disciplined then you would have supporting evidence. I'd feel more comfortable if current science standards were linked to current research results published in respected journals rather than paid speeches delivered by advocate Barbara Forrest.
One of the reasons I mentioned Roos, endosymbiosis and OOL was to illustrate that critiques can be both legitimate and consistent with the general themes of standard theories.
I believe that if McLeroy takes on widely supported ideas he will lose out in the end but based on my experience when the fears of critics do not pan out we are not treated to apologies for jumping the gun.
Comment by Bradford — December 6, 2007 @ 10:55 am
December 6th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Pixie:
I think this is not a good example of what you wish to communicate, Pixie. First, we don't really know WHAT the "laws of nature" are, so where they come from is irrelevant to the faith that there ARE "laws of nature." If life springs from not-life by natural law, we would see life springing into existence all around us all the time. We never observe this (Pasteur scientifically demonstrated this nearly 150 years ago). Thus the claim that life springs from not-life by natural law is scientifically vacuous. Natural law appears (by ALL our observations) to forbid life springing from not-life spontaneously. Asserting otherwise is an unsupported avowal of faith.
Per your example – for all its successes, relativity has been known for several decades to be incomplete (or just plain wrong). It still serves for explaining what it does explain until something better comes along. The model is applied FAPP where it serves well enough descriptively. FAPP, in physics. It has no descriptive or explanatory power in biology.
Evolutionary theory – NDS at the current time – has not been taught as merely FAPP useful even though it is known to be incomplete (or just plain wrong). It has been taught as 'fact' and 'truth' and is held sacrosanct and above all criticism by its worshippers. We see these qualities asserted regularly in these debates by DarwinDefendersTM.
Your fear is that Texas school children may join other states in using textbooks that treat current NDS merely FAPP useful until something better comes along. The real threat to NDS worshippers is coming from within biology. They are desperate to prevent the public from being told that it is now known to be incomplete (or just plain wrong). As if keeping the public ignorant could somehow save it from the forward march of science itself.
Comment by Joy — December 6, 2007 @ 11:19 am
December 6th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Why the silly red herring? Do I need to list the many practical non-evolutionary microbiological / biochemical / physiological, etc., etc., hypotheses that _have_ contributed to the march of science and "the relief of man's estate?"
What does explanatory power have to do with the truth? Alchemy has explanatory power….
Quote-mining? Why the cheap shot?
First, you note that we agree that "evolution" has explanatory power, then you accuse me of pretending that the quote agrees with my claim….
I don't dispute that "evolution" _explains_ the questions. I dispute the truth of the explanation.
Physicists don't use the theory of relativity to lend the air of authority to their metaphysical claims. The theory of relativity makes testable predictions. And so forth.
Then how do you explain that your responses to me are either cheap shots or logical fallacies?
You're on a roll.
Which is exactly the comparison I was making. After all, it is evolutionary biologists that practice evolutionary biology, isn't it?
If you feel so safe claiming that "'evolutionists' have contributed rather more in the last 100 years than 'creationists,' then why didn't you cite, oh, two of those contributions?
The periodic table is a lovely example of fruitful _experimental_ science. The chemical elements aren't abstractions., not historical, science.
It would seem that Comer was asked, not forced, to resign because she committed serial acts of misconduct and insubordination.
Back to "flourishing in ignorance."
Comment by turandot — December 6, 2007 @ 11:35 am
December 6th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Joy,
Excellent points. Here is probably the very best plan we have right now to create life from non-life. There is nothing even remotely spontaneous about it.
Comment by Anton — December 6, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
December 6th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Bradford
It is also vital if you want to sneak creationism into schools under the Trojan horse of ID (or the new Trojan horse; teach the controversy). He said "we are all Biblical literalists, we all believe the Bible to be inerrant" If the empirical evidence disagrees with scripture, which do you think he will go with? I kind of think it will be the Bible, but I would be interested to see how you spin it.
Roos is arguing about a small part of evolutionary theory. If he is right, evolutionary theory will change. Afterall, endosymbiosis was not in Darwin's theory originally, so it is hardly the end of the theory if it gets excluded again. This is just part of the detail.
There are plenty of issues in evolution, but the broad theory is well established. Common descent, selection and variation are not about to be rejected now. Even if Mike Gene is right about front-loading, modern evolutionary theory will survive just fine, albeit in a new version. Common descent, selection and variation will still be there.
I would like to believe that, but…
turandot
There is that "dissenting opinions get a fair hearing." Do you advocate the same for astrology and homeopathy as you do for ID/creationism? Let us give dissenting opinions in physics a fair hearing, and teach astrology. Or do you only want "dissenting opinions get a fair hearing" when it is your opinion that dissents? Let us be honest, we all know the answer there.
I agree. The existence of theistic evolutionists shows it to be untrue. But I really do not think that is McLeroy's point.
True. So taking that altogether, one would imagine that McLeroy would be battling to get evolution taught well so everyone understands it is perfectly compatible with Christianity. The reality is that McLeroy is a Biblical literalist, a creationist, who rejects evolution because of what the Bible says.
Well that is the point. Some science has practical applications, some does not. It is all science, just the same. The thing about evolution, as we both agree, is its great explanatory power.
No, alchemy has now been abandoned because it fails to explain much of what we observe of the universe. It gives a superficial explanation of some things, but is soon found wanting.
Oh. well at least you, Coyne and I agree that evolution answers the important questions. Oh, wait. Hmm, what exactly do you agree with Coyne about? What were you thinking when you posted that quote? It was not quote-ming, you say, and yet Coyne's position is quite different to your own. In what sense do you thinkit supports your claim? I really have no idea, and I am beginnibg to doubt that you do.
Biologists should not do that with evolution (and I accept some do). And the theory of evolution makes testable predictions.
Ah, so it could be poor writing. Reread what you posted. You seemed to be comparing the contribution of creationist to the whole of science, but restricting evolutionists to how evolutionary science has contributed to biology. Why not ask how creationists doing creation sciece have contributed to our knowledge of biuology in the last 100 years? Oh, wait. Because the answer is zip. Zilch. Zero.
Sure, see this page of Nobel prize winners in medicine and physiology.
Ah, I see. So you fall in the school of redefining science. A school exclusively of IDists and creationists, of course, who have an agenda to marginalize evolution. A good example of what this thread is about, in a sense.
The chemical elements are not abstractions, but relativity is. Shall we chuck that? ID is (or claims it might one day) be about what happened in the past. Do you feel that excludes it from science?
Joy
Agree so far.
It is not quite as simple as that. Conditions on this planet are not what they would have been before life appeared. We have an atmosphere that is 20% oxygen, but oxygen is pretty reactive stuff, even attacking iron. When the Earth formed, there would definitely be no oxygen present (the presence of oxygen today can be attributed to plants, of course). Those first organisms could well have been sensitive to oxygen, and impossible to form in today's atmosphere.
Of course, there is no proof that that is what actually happened. We do not know, and quite likely never will. But scientists are coming up with hypothesis of what could have happened, and have done tests to confirm the possibility. It is not scientifically vacuous (by the way, what experiment have been done to support FLE?).
Of course relativity has no descriptive or explanatory power in biology!
As you say, relativity serves well for explaining what it explains. What more can you ask of a theory? And sure, it will be rejected when a better theory comes along (or may be not, we still use the Newtonian model), because of course all science is tentative. But until then physicists use relativity.
Well thank you so much Joy for explaining to me what my fear is. I thought my fear was that school children may be taught a distorted picture of what science and evolution are about, according to the dicates of people with a religious agenda to promote creationism.
Of course evolutionary theory is incomplete. That is why biologists are still working on it. But it is a very very small minoroty that would say it is "just plain wrong". Really, Joy, can you find any evidence at all of any mainstream biologists who believe that? If you cannot (and you might want to invoke a conspiracy to explain that absense), how would you know that that was the case? Wishful thinking?
By the way, Joy, no one worships NDS. You have fallen for creationist hype, I am afraid.
Comment by The Pixie — December 6, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
December 6th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Anton:
Thanks for that link, Anton! The titles of the sections are intriguing:
"¢ Supramolecular Chemistry and the Information Paradigm
"¢ From Preorganization toward Self-Organization and Programmed Systems: Design
"¢ Self-Organization by Design and Selection: Self-Design
"¢ Supramolecular Science, the Science of Informed, Complex Matter
Those are the sections that jumped out at me with a quick scan. If you (or any biologist here) can analyze and summarize this research I'd love to see it! It does seem that biochemistry isn't shy of looking at a Design-Selection system, and PNAS isn't shy of publishing such things. And while "Informed, Complex Matter" still places the impetus of life in matter (I do not believe that life is a property of matter), science itself can handle a paradigm that includes design. This is all quite EAM-ish, which is brownie points for me!
I was worried it would be just another speculation of how raw mineral matter manages to turn into life. Today it's Life on Earth May Have Originated as the Organic Filling in a Multilayer Sandwich of Mica, which apparently supersedes the previous Clay Material May Have Acted as 'Primordial Womb' for First Organic Molecules.
Seems to me that any assertion of inorganic matter spontaneously poofing into life requires an explanation of why it is that we NEVER see this happening anywhere, under any conditions.
Comment by Joy — December 6, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
December 6th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Good Lordy, I must admit I DO LOVES ME SOME JOY!
Joy baby, please publish your memoirs asap!
Comment by chunkdz — December 6, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
December 6th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Getting the Bible out of a discussion of empirical data is advisable is it not Pixie?
I'm not buying the thoughtless cliches of the anti-ID movement. There is the reality of evolutionary based biology and there is the fantasy of a Trojan Horse.
He can believe whatever he wishes. My only concern is with the educational system. You can't teach the Bible in public schools even if that is your desire. That's just reality.
I'll cut you some slack because you are not as familiar with the American legal system. The educational curriculum in Texas will not appreciably change and any changes will not include teaching Christianity.
Comment by Bradford — December 6, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
December 6th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
It is strange to me that a childless foreigner would be so concerned about what children are taught in one section of our country.
It's kind of creepy.
Comment by angryoldfatman — December 6, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
December 6th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Ditto to Chunkdz comment above!
The Pixie wrote:
Oxygen or no oxygen, no known chemistry supports a process where life pops into existence from non-life. Unless you have a reference for us.
Comment by Anton — December 6, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
December 6th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Bradford
Here is what McLeroy said again: "There wasn't a board member that wasn't trying to get the weakness of evolution into the debate. We never brought up religion. We never brought up intelligent design." It is not clear cut, I will accept, but my interpretation is that they adopted a strategy of specifically avoid religion because they knew it would defeat them. Read the whole transcript; see what you think.
Then in the summer, we can see what evidence they have used to compromise the teaching of evolution.
Everyone can believe what they want. That is fine. So let us concentrate on the education.
1. Do you think he will change the curriculum or textbooks to reflect in any way his own personal beliefs about evolution? I think the answer is yes, as he already has a track record of doing so (see here), and he is in a more powerful position now.
2. Do you think his personal beliefs about evolution are based first and foremost on the evidence or on scripture? Remember thathe said "we are all Biblical literalists, we all believe the Bible to be inerrant" so I have to think it is scripture.
3. Given the above, is it possible, likely or even certain, do you think, that he will compromise the teaching of evolution?
Ah, so maybe if he wanted to promote creationism and to compromise the teaching of evolution he would keep the Bible out of the discussion. "There wasn't a board member that wasn't trying to get the weakness of evolution into the debate. We never brought up religion. We never brought up intelligent design."
angryoldfat
Wow, Joy can tell me what my fears are better than I can, and you can determine how many children I have. You guys are amazing. Or something.
I actually have three kids, angryoldfat, so you might want to polish up the old crystal ball. I appreciate I am merely a "foreigner". Sadly, we end up getting a lot of US exports, and creationism is just one we could do without (not that they are all bad). See here for our own brand of creationists trying to push their religious beliefs inside the usual Trojan horse.
Anton
So at worst, that puts abiogenesis on the same pegging as ID or creationism. However, scientists are actually doing real science to find possible processes that do just that – as your link proves.
Comment by The Pixie — December 6, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
December 6th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Pixie
I'm a Biblical literalist and I find your stereotyping offensive. Are you saying folks like me are not able to think with an open mind or follow the law? Should we be disqualified from holding jobs in education?
The Bible is silent about the details of the evolution of life and even if it was not you have no right to prejudge me based only on my personal beliefs about scripture.
I believe in common decent and an old earth and I have absolutely no problem with most of modern evolutionary theory. I find no conflict between these things and the Bible. You seem to have no clue what folks like me believe.
Thank God for freedom of religion at least in this country.
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 6, 2007 @ 7:21 pm
December 6th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
I figured you were childless, Pixie, because as a parent myself, I'm already having to excise from my sons the radical utilitarianism preached by the likes of Peter Singer. His philosophy intrigues the British intelligentsia like Dawkins much more than any teachings from their national church – an entity we are constitutionally forbidden to have, by the way.
Utilitarianism, being a natural outgrowth of materialism, has been much more dangerous to European societies than any form of Christianity (even the governmentally controlled ones like in your Kingdom).
After seeing what it did to the attitudes of medical professionals in the Weimar Republic and even here in the 1920s and 1930s (and up to the 1970s if one counts the needless surgical removal of "vestigial" organs), I would be very worried about that threat to my children. And to myself once I got to a ripe old age.
Also, I'd be worried about much, much closer threats from real religious fanatics. But that's just me being a parent, as opposed to some sort of international secular humanist activist.
Comment by angryoldfatman — December 6, 2007 @ 10:46 pm
December 7th, 2007 at 12:48 am
The Pixie said:
Would you mind informing the many abiogenesis researchers of your conclusion?
Indeed. And listen to what the Nobel-prize winning chemist JM Lehn has to say about that process.
Comment by Anton — December 7, 2007 @ 12:48 am
December 7th, 2007 at 11:57 am
fifth monarchy man
Sorry if you took offence. Perhaps I should have said Biblical errantist (though McLeroy seems to equate the two: "Because we are all Biblical literalists, we all believe the Bible to be inerrant"). In any case, I accept that people understand these terms to mean different things. For myself, I specifically meant a creationist who accepts a literal interpretation of the Bible, including a six day creation and a global flood. I believe that would be consistent with McLeroy (who certainly rejects common descent), but not yourself.
Thinking then specifically of a young Earth Biblical literalist-inerrantist such as McLeroy (rather than yourself):
Thinking with an open mind: If a scientist is a Biblical inerrantist, and he finds a load of evidence that supports common descent, and nothing outside the Bible that contradict common descent, do you think he would accept common descent or reject it? My understanding is that a Biblical inerrantist would reject anything that contradicts the Bible, whatever the evidence. The alternative would be giving up his Biblical inerrantism (which is of course possible, but generally unlikely).
Following the laws: If the Bible says you must do one thing, but the law of the land says another, which would the Biblical inerrantist follow? I have a feeling religious people consider the laws of God to be higher than the laws of man.
angryoldfatman
I really have no idea what chain of logic gets you from the above to me being childless.
And to state it so dogmatically. There was no "I guess" or "I think it like", just the assertion, leading to the opinion that I was "creepy". What is creepy about someone with no children talking an interest in education? Is it creepy when childless teachers take an interest in aeducation? Is it creepy when students take an interest in education? I do not think so.
To be honest I am not aware of anyone using utilitarianism over here at all. It is not something I worry about at all.
Surprisingly, in between worrying about terrorism and the rise of utilitarianism, and excising Singer's preachings I still find time to post here. And raise a family too!
Anton
So what is your point? Although Lehn talks about design, my guess is that he is investigating the possibility of a spontaneous process.
Comment by The Pixie — December 7, 2007 @ 11:57 am
December 7th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Hi The Pixie,
I'll make you a deal. We'll cancel our plans to build the Telic Thoughts Creation Museum in downtown London if you agree to take back Dawkins, and the Spice Girls.
Comment by chunkdz — December 7, 2007 @ 11:58 am
December 7th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
The Pixie said:
A reasonable guess, I suppose, but wrong.
Comment by Anton — December 7, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
December 7th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Pixie,
I'll comment on that, since I am both a scientist and I affirm biblical inerrancy"”but not literalism. My view is that we have two types of revelation, special (the bible) and general (creation) and two disciplines for studying them"”theology for special revelation and science for general revelation. Now, since I don't think God is a god of confusion, special and general revelation, in as much as they overlap, which isn't much, cannot be at odds. However, theology and science"”both man made, are often at odds. At such times we must be willing to consider the possibility that either or both is wrong. With the question of whether our universe had a beginning, at one time theology was correct and science was incorrect, though now they agree. With the age of the earth, it is not either form of revelation that is wrong (they can't be) but the theology that demands a young earth interpretation. Alas, YECs are adamant about, in effect, extending their affirmation of biblical inerrancy to theological inerrancy, and that doesn't fly.
Along similar lines I think that a Christian can be a theistic evolutionist. Why? Because the evidence for evolution is strong. Christian theology doesn't ever demand that you ignore your senses. Blind faith is not a Christian virtue; if it were Gideon and Barak would have been condemned rather than ending up in the faith Hall of Fame (Hebrews 11). In the end you might be wrong (about theistic evolution) but fortunately we are not judged by our score on a theology exam.
Comment by David Heddle — December 7, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
December 7th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Earlier Aagcobb wrote:
Let's pretend that the proverbial shoe is on the other foot. Let me paraphrase Aagcobb's statement as follows:
Shouldn't that be just as suspicious? Why or why not? I think the New York Times would simply ignore the story as I have paraphrased it and move on to something (if not anything) else. But, why should there be any difference?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — December 7, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
December 7th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
I guess this would be partially related to the OP here.
Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says
The article calls him a creationist, but who knows what that means anymore. Of note..
So much for those crazy ID people who say there are people who reject evolution, yet don't let it known for fear of the repercussions.
I like what's implied there. And everyone's favorite Happy Nice PR person…
And of particular note..
Too many questions left unanswered for my taste here. Especially since the old mistake/ploy of confusing creationists with ID proponents is in play in the article. But it'll be interesting to see this play out. If Abraham rejected all evolution whatsoever and as a result couldn't contribute anything to the research team, I could see justification for his firing. If his views are more complicated – perhaps he accepts evolution but has questions about mechanism or philosophy, that's another thing. I'd like to see how long he was on the project and whether he did any work prior to his firing. Either way, thought it was interesting enough to pass on.
Comment by nullasalus — December 7, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
December 7th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Anton
I have read this a bit more carefully, and, yes, I was wrong. However, I think you are too. I found an autobiography by Lehn, from it:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1987/lehn-autob io.html
Certainly a lot of what Lehn has achieved is about design, but it is human design. It is about his research group designing supramolecules. I see nothing to hint at ID or creationism there, or in the rest of that passage.
The article you linked to mentions abiogenesis in the introduction. But that is only some background. The thrust of the article is about the design of supramolecules by his research group. He says:
When he say "supramolecular chemistry", he means the specific field of chemistry he has worked in, a field that "aims at developing highly complex chemical systems". This is not about pondering how large molecules formed 4 billion years ago, it is about building large molecules today and tomorrow in the lab. Sure, there is a connection between the two – that is why Lehn brings it up in the introduction – but he is not offering us a possible route to abiogenesis (or to front-loaded evolution or whatever).
In the summary, he says:
This is not a discussion of how life formed long long ago, but how mankind could build life in the future. That may be of the utmost significance for FLE, but I see nothing to suggest that that has crossed Lehn's mind.
David Heddle
Maybe this is a problem in definitions, and I am confusing what you call "biblical inerrancy" and "theological inerrancy". McLeroy says: "Because we are all Biblical literalists, we all believe the Bible to be inerrant" and he also rejects common descent. The evidence for common descent is very strong; the only reason I can think of to reject it is because the Bible says otherwise, so I am guessing from this that McLeroy takes the Bible as a higer authority than the evidence. Sounds however I label him, someone will take offense, so I guess I will call him "Someone-who-believes-scripture-over-evidence". Neither you nor fifth monarchy man are "Someone-who-believes-scripture-over-evidence".
Now the issue is do you want "Someone-who-believes-scripture-over-evidence" to have influence over what children are taught in science? Sure, if he can put aside his beliefs, and will promote an evidence-based science anyway. Sadly, for McLeroy's this seems not to be the case. He has a history of using his influence tp promote his religious believes, whilst being careful not to be seen doing so.
Oh, sure, I have no problem there. Unlike McLeroy.
Comment by The Pixie — December 7, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
December 7th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Pixie,
If I understand the question correctly, the answer is easy. I'd rather have PZ Myers teach my kids evolution than a YEC teach them creationism. I can give them spiritual instruction at home.
Comment by David Heddle — December 7, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
December 7th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
This is priceless. It is about design. But not really because the intelligence is human. Therefore if humans design it is not intelligent.:lol::lol::lol:
Comment by Bradford — December 7, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
December 7th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
The Pixie wrote:
I beg to differ…
If this isn't an outline for a prototypical FLE system I don't know what is.
(Sounds eerily similar to a book I just read…)
Comment by chunkdz — December 7, 2007 @ 7:12 pm
December 7th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
If I have to tell you what's creepy about someone with no children taking such an interest in what children are being taught in a relatively small area on the other side of the world enough to spend the time you do on this blog, then maybe you need to spend more time with your own children.
No, because 1) they're getting paid to do so and 2) they're hopefully taking an interest in things that impact their jobs and immediate surroundings, unlike yourself.
Correct, but we're talking you, not a student. Unless you're a parent who is a student. In which case I'm being robbed in my country if people in yours can afford to properly feed, clothe, shelter, and educate three children, go to school themselves, AND find time to comment on an adversarial blog.
Perhaps you should begin worrying.
That's the problem, you're not excising anything if you truly believe what you post here. That's why I'm truly amazed you have children; most who share your views don't feel that children are good for the world and are refusing to produce any.
And speaking of imports, we here in the U.S. seem to be importing more from your island than vice versa, like Dawkins' books and dangerous socialist healthcare, not to speak of (as chuckdz mentioned) blandly manufactured entertainment.
Comment by angryoldfatman — December 7, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
December 7th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Comment by angryoldfatman — December 7, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
December 7th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
To John_A_Designer:
I would think the difference between this scenario and one in which a creationist science curriculum director was fired would be obvious. Inserting creationism into a public school science classroom is unconstitutional; OTOH educational agencies are supposed to conspire to insert science into science instruction.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 7, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
December 7th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Aagcobb is referring to the creative imaginations of ID critics. Gotta keep it outta science.
Comment by Bradford — December 7, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
December 8th, 2007 at 12:02 am
Actually as a small "c" creationist I would agree with that. Creationism is a religious view and should not be taught in public schools. I am sure there are a lot of regular contributors to Telic Thoughts who agree with me. Are you saying that would be okay to fire a creationist science curriculum director simply because he or she is a creationist? What about his/her constitutional rights? Doesn't the constitution guarantee Americans the freedom to believe and exercise any religious belief they choose? Does a person's particular religious view disqualify them automatically from holding a government job? It seems to me that you are assuming that a creationist science curriculum director would be motivated to interject creationism into a public school curriculum simly because he or she is a religious person. So, you don't think that it is possible for religious people to be deeply interested in science, or to love science for the sake of science? Isn't that a prejudiced view?
Why would you need to conspire at all?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — December 8, 2007 @ 12:02 am
December 8th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Bradford
I have seen this sort of flipping before and I cannot decide if it is a deliberate ploy or just woolly thinking.
What exactly are you claiming with intelligent design? Think carefully here, Bradford. Are you going to include all design? Does ID merely claim some things are designed? Of course they are. We all know that computers and cars and coats are all designed. To pretend that anyone disagrees with that position is just dishonest.
I have always understood ID to be making the claim that life on this planet is designed (and that there is evidence of that). That is rather more contentious, and is the claim that ID opponents dispute.
So regarding this "priceless" comment of mine: Of course the design is design and is intelligent. But it is very clearly not the design process that ID is hoping to find if it is human design.
chunkdz
I see nothing in the quotes you provide to make me think Lehn is considering non-human design (in fact, I am not even sure you claiming there is). Eg, when he says "Self-organization by design has been pursued…" he means his research team have pursued that design. And "The ultimate goal is to merge design and selection in self-organization to perform self-design…" indicates the goal for his research team, not some supposed creator of life on Earth.
I agree. That was why I said "That may be of the utmost significance for FLE" last time. But there is nothing there that makes me think Lehn has even heard of FLE. And that was why I said "but I see nothing to suggest that that has crossed Lehn's mind".
angryoldfatman
Someone with no children hanging around playgrounds is creepy. It is creepy because it is likely he does that because he gets off on watching children; he has a sexual interest in them. I have no idea how such a person could get any kind of enjoy of that nature from arguing about science eduction.
And I really do not see how spending time with my children is going to enlighten me on that score.
But you said I was creepy if I had no children. I could be a childless teacher, and that, by your own admission, would make me not creepy.
How about a scientist arguing about science education? Science education does impact on science: who goes into as a career; how it is funded; how it is perceived by the general public. Is a childless scientist allowed to take an interest in science education without you considering him creepy?
We are talking about the claim that someone arguing about education is creepy if they have no children. It now turns out that you can take an interest in education even if you are childless in at least some situtations (being a teacher or student), without being creepy. So it was a bit of an odd claim.
I see nothing to connect that to utilitarianism.
What utter nonsense! Most people across the planet accept modern evolutionary theory, and the vast majority have, or will have, children. The fact that you can find a few isolated cases is very poor support for your claim. As it happens, in this case I see nothing to suppose the people involved accept modern evolutionary theory, are atheists or care a fig about creationism in science education. For all we know they could be IDists.
Thank the Lord the US does not manufacture bland entertainment… Oh, wait.
Comment by The Pixie — December 8, 2007 @ 8:04 am
December 8th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Bradford:
This is a pretty incoherent response, really. Here's the train of logic I'm seeing:
You: anti-Id folks are pushing unfounded fears
Us: but those fears look darn pretty justified to us
You: they cannot be because the future events you fear have not yet occurred
The result that last confusing response makes me worry that you don't understand what people mean by "fear." If those things had indeed already happened, we would be talking about them. But given that they are merely expectations, I think it's well within legitimate debate to say that in our opinion we think they are very likely and very serious. And it's simply incoherent for you to say that they are unfounded merely because they haven't happened.
It's like you walking into a toxic gas leak and telling people that they should not fear dying of exposure because no one has died yet.
You're welcome to think that peppering science textbooks with creationist PRATTs (Points refuted a thousand times) is no big deal, but we happen to think that it is. You don't have to agree with our judgment to agree that it seems likely, given that it is the STATED agenda of the man in charge and he just had a big obstacle to that goal removed.
Comment by Bad — December 8, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
December 8th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Pixie:
Wrong. For example, the capacity to manipulate biomolecules for a purpose is exactly what IDists (and everyone else) would expect. That is a human capacity but could also be a capacity of any intelligent agency.
Comment by Bradford — December 8, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
December 8th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Bad:
You are entitled to your fears. Whether or not they become realities is another matter. What I oppose is formulating public policy based on unsubstantiated fears. If you wish to prepare for a possibility then go ahead. I have no objection.
Comment by Bradford — December 8, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
December 8th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
It looks to me like "supramolecular chemistry" is alchemy. I don't believe in magic matter.
Comment by Joy — December 8, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
December 8th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
John_A_Designer,
Obviously someone should not be fired simply for having a religious belief in creationism. If we are simply reversing the situation that exists in Texas, the comparison would be to a creationist who sent an email on her office computer promoting a talk by a leading IDist, who the administration had reason to believe intended to advocate for adding creationist anti-evolutionary arguments to public school science curriculum.
And you are right; one has to conspire to violate the law, but not to simply do your job and teach science in the science classroom.
Comment by Aagcobb — December 8, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
December 8th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
"These investigations provide steps towards a progressive understanding of the passage from condensed matter to organized matter, of which living organisms represent the highest expression."
Hi Pixie,
Er… I think this phrase should actually read "towards a progressive understanding of the passage from condensed matter to confused matter." "Life" is nothing but confused matter — deeply confused matter. We are all just meaningless dead matter that has become confused and "thinks" it has "meaning" a "purpose" a "self" a "survival" a "consciousness" and all those other silly Weinberg-ian tooth-fairy thingies. In materialist "reality" we're all just dead, pointless matter behaving in a very silly "organized" teleological fashion. So please everyone, just stop being silly-matter and go back to being dead …thanks.
Comment by William Brookfield — December 8, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
December 8th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Bradford
Let us go back to that priceless comment of mine.
I say that the article is about design, and we seem to agree on that. I say it is about human design, i.e., design by humans. Again, we seem to agree. So I guess we agree that the article is about his research group designing these supramolecules. So far so good.
The sticking point seems to be my claim that there is "nothing to hint at ID or creationism there". Am I right in thinking that you believe Lehn's article gives support to the claims of ID? I am guessing ID rather than creationism.
Specifically what ID claims would they be, Bradford? From your reply, you give the impression that Lehn's article supports the ID claim that somethings are designed. But is ID so vacuous as to make such a trivial claim? No one is disputing such a claim. It is, to be blunt, a straw man. I really hope that that was not what you meant.
A more common definition of ID is the claim that life on this planet was designed (and that there is evidence for that).
How does Lehn's article hint that life on this planet was designed?
Mankind has been manipulating biomolecules for a purpose for decades, long before ID was around, so this is hardly what IDists "would expect" (assuming they know the first thing about chemistry or biochemistry) – it is what we all know. Given nature is capable of manipulating biomolecules for a purpose you would be pretty brave (or foolish) to believe mankind would not be able to do so to eventually.
It is not even a prediction that could falsify ID, trivial though it is. If we hypothetically had reasonable grounds for supposing human-like intelligent could not manipulate biomolecules for a purpose, that would not prove ID wrong; design and creation by some kind of all-powerful, extra-universal creator (if you can imagine such a thing) would still be viable option, and ID not falsified.
The fact that mankind can do it offers no evidence at all that it happened on Earth at the start of life on the planet. And no one is disputing that the supposed designer would have the capability to do this, given that the supposed designer could be an all-powerful God.
There is nothing to suggest Lehn has even heard of ID.
So how does Lehn's article hint that life on this planet was designed?
Comment by The Pixie — December 8, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
December 8th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
What Lehn's article does is provide the indicators needed to discern evidence of design. A designer needs a capacity to purposefully manipulate biochemicals to attain outcome x. Human scientists have reached that level. It is their intelligence that enables this. Any event signifying a directed outcome would also infer intelligence. Intelligence does not have to be human.
Comment by Bradford — December 8, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
December 8th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Bradford
If that is true, then it will be great for ID. So what are those indicators? A quote from the article might be helpful.
Who would have thought that it? The designer of life had to be able to manipulate the building blocks of life. Oh, and he has to be able to do it purposefully. And that purpose has to be towards some outcome. This is revolutionary stuff. You should e-mail Dembski and Behe with this remarkable new ID development.
Just in case you had not spotted, I am being ironic here. Because the conclusion you reach is so very obvious. Can you find anyone who would disagree that the creator of life had to be able to manipulate biochemicals? This is the straw man fallacy at its finest.
And this certainly is not one of those "indicators needed to discern evidence of design". We certainly are not going to discern evidence of design on the basis of that patently obvious statement. Not unless we get the chance to assess the technology available to the supposed creator.
Sure. But there is nothing there to suggest non-intelligent processes cannot achieve the same end. So this would not seem to hint at ID.
And again this is not one of those "indicators needed to discern evidence of design" (unless you are wanting to open ID up to human design!).
But it does not say that in the article, does it? If it did, then I missed it. Perhaps you could quote the paragraph, because I saw nothing in there to suggest that they inferred intelligence at any point.
So this could be one of the "indicators needed to discern evidence of design", but it would not appear to come from Lehn's paper (and I am doubtful it is true anyway).
True. But I suspect that the vast majority of atheists believe in ETIs (because we see nothing special abut this planet in a vast, vast universe), while the theists believe in divine intelligence, so we already accept that. So Lehn's article has not helped your case here at all (even supposing it mentioned this point, which it does not).
Comment by The Pixie — December 8, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
December 8th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Well, I did predict that this would happen (although not publicly at TT), but it now appears that critics who usually hear "creationism" when "ID" is mentioned now hear "creationism" when "Front Loading" is mentioned.
Further evidence that you can't argue with an altered dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.
Comment by chunkdz — December 8, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
December 8th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Pixie
It is impossible to show that non-intelligent process cannot achieve that same end. You can't prove a negative.
What it does suggest is that intelligent processes can accomplish things that we have no evidence that non-intelligent process can achieve, this is an ID claim therefor the article supports ID.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 8, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
December 8th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Pixie:
You need to open your eyes Pixie. Everything about biology suggests that natural forces do not generate cells. As Joy has pointed out if natural forces generated cells we would observe it happening. What we actually observe is cells coming only from other cells. Science tells us that undirected pathways to cells necessitate the presence of existing cells.
Comment by Bradford — December 8, 2007 @ 11:29 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 12:13 am
Hi, Pixie,
I'm surprised no one called you on this. Either you didn't state what you meant very well, or it might be possible that you think plants are how oxygen came into the world. Oxygen is one of the basic chemical elements that make up the periodic table, and as far as I know, no lifeform was required for the emergence of these basic elements. If you accept that life came from the ocean, which is what conventional wisdom would have us believe, then surely there was oxygen in abundance around that pre-life time, or how could there have been water from which life could emerge? Water is a lifeless substance. [If I'm guilty of some sort of brain fart here, please let me know, anyone.]
Anyway, the question of why aren't there observations of life emerging from natural causes today is relevant, and needs a better counter argument than oxygen's reactive properties. Especially since lifeforms are generally composed of around 65 percent oxygen (by mass).
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 9, 2007 @ 12:13 am
December 9th, 2007 at 12:14 am
chunkdz:
This reminded me of Richard Lewontin's statement:
Critics hear creationism every time they see a door slightly ajar. FL does not slam the door shut so it must be creationism or worse yet the dreaded Trojan Horse.:wink:
Comment by Bradford — December 9, 2007 @ 12:14 am
December 9th, 2007 at 12:25 am
Pixie wrote:
Someone with no children taking an undue interest in children he or she has no responsibility for is creepy no matter what the circumstance is.
I'm beginning to have doubts again that you really have children, or if you do have them that you actually raise them.
You see, though I'm concerned that British children may be forced soon to attend mosque services every Friday, I'm more concerned about my own children, enough so that I'm having to teach my youngest son standard mathematic algorithms after the school he attends has neglected to do so.
I guess they think spending my tax money to teach him how to be a New Global Citizen (i.e., functionally illiterate, unquestioning towards "experts", enslaved by life-shortening hedonism, etc.) is better than equipping him with basic academic skills.
You think differently. Bully for you. Pick a good rug.
Childless teachers are a bit creepy, but less so than you because they are responsible for a set of particular children via their occupation.
Once again: creepy = undue concern for children one is not responsible for.
The fact that you "do not see" this is disturbing to me, especially since you immediately referred to "creepy" as having sexual connotations. And again, it feeds my doubt about you having children.
I can't say I'm surprised. At first you can't see what's creepy about undue attention to other people's children, then you can't see the connection between the government forcing starvation on a man who can't care for himself and utilitarianism.
I hope for your sake others see the connection before you do.
Other Europeans are having trouble seeing the connection as well, so don't feel alone. Until you're all alone, that is.
Accept modern evolutionary theory and have children, yes. Absolutely wish that no other child in the rest of the world should accept anything else, no.
And if these women are talking nonsense, then sadly so are many fellows wearing holy white labcoats in your country. Which many of us have been saying all along.
Comment by angryoldfatman — December 9, 2007 @ 12:25 am
December 9th, 2007 at 5:33 am
Hi, Pixie,
Regarding the belief that there is nothing very special about this planet, I would counter that by saying, and I quote, "The human brain contains well over 10 billion nerve cells and an almost infinite number of interconnections between them. It may be the most complex structure in the universe." This from Atkinson & Hilgard's Introduction to Psychology, 14th edition. Puts the human mind pretty high up on the totem pole, doesn't it?
And what is the reason why athiests believe that there is nothing special about this planet? Is there something other than the vastness of the universe that they can point to as justification for thinking of earth as ordinary?
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 9, 2007 @ 5:33 am
December 9th, 2007 at 9:49 am
fifth monarchy man
I know. And yet a lot of ID seems to be trying to do just that (EF, IC, CSI).
The article supports the claim that life might have been created by an intelligent designer, and so (as I alreay said) the article is significant for ID. The article does not give evidence for the claim that life was created by an intelligent designer. Do you see the difference?
Bradford
And as I pointed out, conditions today are quite different to the early so we would not expect it to happen. Perhaps you need to open your eyes?
If you are looking at biology, you are looking in the wrong place. Biology is about systems that are already alive. Abiogensis is chemistry (coincidentally, Lehn is a chemist, by the way).
By the way, what are the indicators of design that you discerned from Lehn's paper? You claimed they were there, but are strangely silent on what they are.
AnaxagorasRules
I should have been more specific and said elemental oxygen, O2, rather than the element oxygen, O, the latter being found in H2O, CO2, etc. The element oxygen was around before life appeared approximately as much as there is today (less some lost to space, some gained through nuclear processes). However, when the planet formed, it was very hot; any elemental oxygen (O2) would quickly react with any hydrogen (of which there would have a lot), carbon, iron, silicon, etc. around to form water, carbon dioxide, and various rocks, etc. So before plants got going, there would have been plenty of the element oxygen around, but zero elemental oxygen (O2).
It is elemental oxygen (O2) that is reactive. As the oxygen in the atmosphere has increased, organisms have had to evolve a resistance to that, or die out. Our skin provides us with excellent protection against elemental oxygen. But it is that reactivity that allows us to live; our bodies use the energy released when oxygen reacts with our food – that is why we have to breathe.
I wonder how Atkinson and Hilgard can come to that conclusion. There are about a hundred billion stars in our galaxy; some galaxies have a hundred billion galaxies in the universe. So around ten sextillion (that is a 1 with twenty two zero after it) stars altogether, and I feel pretty confident that Atkinson and Hilgard know only about one planet around one of those stars.
angryoldfatman
Oo, sneaky goalpost shift. We were actually talking about taking an interest in education.
Do you think someone with no children taking an undue interest in education he or she has no responsibility for is creepy no matter what the circumstance is?
Of course you are. It challenges your stereotype. Far easy to rationalise that I am lying than to address a problem with your stereotype.
But I would hazard a guess that tutoring your son does not take all your time. Do you find you have time to post on the internet? It is possible to raise a family and post on internet blogs. You manage it. Why should I not? I am sufficiently concerned with my children's education that I am a governor at their school, so I can make sure the school does not neglect any basic aspect of their education.
And rest assured British children will not be forced to attend mosque services. I really wonder where you might have got that idea from.
Ah, there is that stereotyping again. So much easy than actually thinking. If you did think you would wonder why I, an atheist arguing against religion in scools, would be happy letting my children go to a mosque. But, hey, why should a stereotype make sense.
I said I could see what was creepy about that. I said I could not see what was creepy about taking an interest in education.
Are you confusing "ration utility" with "utilitarianism" Rational utility would seem to advocate the killing of the useless members of society, i.e, once they no longer have any utility. Utility in utilitarianism is quite a different quantity; it is the amount of happy across a society. Utilitarianism is about maximising that utility.
What planet are you on? The web page your referenced have absolutely no suggestion that those childless people demand that other people's children accept modern evolutionary theory. I appreciate you have a stereotype to feed, but at least try to read the supposed evidence you provide to support your claims.
So come on, angryoldfatman, can you find anything at all to support your claim that people who insist children are taught modern evolutionary theory to the exclusion of other claims have no children of their own?
Comment by The Pixie — December 9, 2007 @ 9:49 am
December 9th, 2007 at 10:59 am
You can point out any irrelevancy you care to but it does not change the fact that forces of nature today are the same as they were billions of years ago. It's your mind that needs opening as well. What did you learn about molecular biology that leads you to believe a functional nucleic acid arises in a prebiotic environment?
That was enlightening. So what is it about chemistry that led you to think a chemical process on a lifeless planet leads to a cell?
Lehn recognizes the need for the input of human scientists. Without that intelligent input a life outcome is a fantasy.
Comment by Bradford — December 9, 2007 @ 10:59 am
December 9th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Hi, Pixie,
I'm not following you here. O is a gaseous element that reacts with its environment to form various substances. It has always done this, and it does so because of the effect that the fundamental forces have on the elements. I believe the force most responsible for the combination and recombination of the elements (including oxygen) into various substances is due mostly to what is called the electroweak force. These are fundamental forces, I repeat, stable and persistent enough that all of chemistry relies on their permanence. Life itself relies on the permanence of the fundamental forces. O is doing what it has always done, what it must do, in fact, in accordance with the fundamental forces. In fact its very tendency to react is probably one of the chief reasons (if not the chief one) why so much of a lifeform's mass is made up of oxygen, since life involves a continuing sequence of chemical reactions. Pick up a biology book and see how necessary oxygen is in the chemical reactions that take place inside the body. But back to the original question, why do we not see the occurrence of life springing from non-life?
Now this:
One star is one structure, one thing. One brain is one structure, one thing. The comparision is between one thing and another thing. The numbers of things do not factor into the complexity of that thing's internal structure. In fact, the more rare a thing is, the more special it is thought to be. This is a common paradigm that should be readily apparent. I really think you need to rethink some of your beliefs. Or at least your arguments for believing them.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 9, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Bradford
The forses odf nature are the ae, but the coditions are different. I have a glass of water beside right now. In a different environment that water would be ice. The laws of nature are the same, the conditions different.
What did you learn from Lehn's artoicle that leads you to believe that an intellugent entity created life?
I see nothing to supposae ot coud not happen, and nothing to suppose the existance of an intelligent creator. If that sound vague, well, fine, it is not a position I have a great "faith" in, more a very strong suspicion.
Lehn recognises the role of the human scientist in the human science he was reviewing. And he should know, he was there doing it. And he undoubtly wants the credit for it. So what?
After that, you make yoyr "faith" statement. What in Lehn's article supports that claim? Anything, or is this just wishful thinking. You made the claim. Back it up with quotes from the article. At this point, I am wondering if you can.
AnaxagorasRules
Elemental oxygen (O2 gas) reacts explosively with elemental hydrogen (H2 gas), to produce water (H2O). The hydogen and the oxygen atoms are still there after the reaction, but they are now part of the water molecule. Obviously water is pretty inert, so much so tht you can use it to put out a fire. Elemental oxygen will burn very nicely with carbon (eg coal), to produce carbon dioxide, but again carbon dioxide is pretty much inert. There are a whole load of chemicals that will spontaneously react with oxygen (as opposed to hydrogen and carbon that need some energy input to start the reaction) such as iron (rusting) and silicon (I think).
I suspect that the early building blocks of life were oxygen sensitive (or at least some were). We do not see new life appearing today, because as soon as those oxygen sensitive compounds form, they react with oxygen and fall apart again. Alternatively, it could be that to make those building blocks of life you need whatever was in the atmosphere then (eg possibly ammonia or methane, either of which might have been around, given the abundance of hydrogen, as far as I know).
That misses my point. Their argument is analogous to me saying my local sports team is the best in the whole world, when they have never played anyone outside my town. How can I claim they are the best in the world from such a small sample? It is only once they have played from a representive sampling from across the globe that I can start to assess whether that is likely to be true. And chances are, it is not.
Comment by The Pixie — December 9, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Pixie:
A strong suspicion based on what? Are you aware of the vast number of nucleotides that must align in exactly the correct sequence to enable coding for just those proteins that catalyze basic function required by all living cells? Metabolic functions, replication functions, transcription and translation, genomic repair and more. These are not frills. They're basic to life and involve thousands of proteins even in prokaryotic organisms. You must have a suspicion based on something other than touchy feely emotions. You don't need Lehn's article to understand cellular biology and basic biochemistry. The article was vague and rather typical in leaving undefined pathways to the imaginations of the OOL faithful.
Comment by Bradford — December 9, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Hi, Pixie,
That's not analagous at all. One is a comparison of complexity, the other of quality. You were presuming an ordinariness of the earth by way of the vastness of the universe, which is analagous to neither. Your presumption seems to be propped up only by the thought that since the universe is so large, then there must be something in it that is more complex and intricate than the human brain. It's hard to differentiate that from an unsupportable wish, though I'm sure the belief is satisfying some need in your psyche.
The alternative you give sounds like you are saying that oxygen-based life sprang from non-oxygen-based life (or that non-oxygen based life was the first basis for life?). Does it not make sense that oxygen-based life required oxygen at the start to get going? It is the very reactiveness of oxygen that might have been life's catalyst. Implying that oxygen is the reason why we don't see oxygen-based life springing from non-life today makes no sense. A better argument would have been to say that conditions today are different than they were a few billion years ago. A better argument, but still not a good one, because all of the necessary ingredients of life are abundantly present.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 9, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
AnaxagorasRules:
Well said. OOL arguments come down to variations of presumptions and wishes. Given enough time and enough planets in the universe… Pixie and others are entitled to their wishes and presumptions but are not entitled to infer they are derivitive of sound scientific data.
Comment by Bradford — December 9, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Thus swings biochemistry expert Bradford his tired old shtick. Given the increasing complexity of life on earth over evolutionary time, it is entirely reasonable to postulate that the simplest life forms that exist today evolved from simpler ancestors, all the way to the first self-replicating molecules. Since those simple ancestors have left no fossilized remains, the best science can do at this point is modeling and lab experiments. And ignore the uneducated gullible creobots who are rooting for failure of this enterprise.
Comment by Raevmo — December 9, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
The free oxygen content of the atmosphere during past epochs can be determined geologically. The earliest atmosphere had only a very small percentage of free oxygen formed by the photochemical dissociation of water. Free oxygen is highly reactive and won't remain in the atmosphere, but will combine with other elements. The vast majority of the Earth's free oxygen was formed and maintained by photosynthetic life.
Nevertheless, oxygen is essential for the formation of complex organic compounds, which form spontaneously under a variety of anaerobic conditions.
Comment by Zachriel — December 9, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Ana:
It doesn't get much more stupid than that. If you sample only a tiny part of the sample space, then the best estimate of the complexity of most complex entity in the entire space is not equal to the complexity of the most complex entity in the tiny subspace you're sampling. Basic mathematics.
Comment by Raevmo — December 9, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
So you answer one tired old shtick with another? Given the increasing complexity of life over evolutionary time… Evolutionary time entails existing cells replete with functional genomes and replication capacities. None of which are present on prebiotic earth- the time period in question. Why is it entirely reasonable to assume that life evolved from self-replicating molecules? Are you an authority on SRMs? When is the last time you read a paper detailing how an SRM evolved into anything resembling a biological system of interacting parts? Fortunately you have an apparent out with the lack of fossils huh? That way you can shrug and point to experiments that model nothing approaching the level of your imaginative claims.
Comment by Bradford — December 9, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Anaxagoras Rules:
You managed to outdo him by a large margin in the stupidity department. Let's dissect this rubbish.
AR was not sampling anything. Rather he was correctly pointing out the weakness of Pixie's analogy. The original comment from which this stemmed was:
There is enough known about the universe to infer that human brains or similar structures are not likely to be commonplace. That in turn would make earth special indeed. You do not have to sample the universe to appreciate that generalization. Why would you be motivated to dispute it?
Comment by Bradford — December 9, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Incidentally, extrapolations of increasing complexity are based on the evolution of existing life forms. Assuming that chemicals outside living cells display a tendency toward increasing complexity is not an extrapolation. It is an entirely different concept. But increasing complexity is not the criteria needing documentation. What is needed is a chemical basis explaining the cause of coding systems on a lifeless planet.
Comment by Bradford — December 9, 2007 @ 8:00 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Bradford:
You must be joking. Since when is a tiny sample sufficient grounds to make confident claims about the entire universe? I'm sure the reader can see the wackiness of your claim.
I like science. It annoys me to see scientific progress being undermined by religious propaganda. People like you are a plague on our society.
Comment by Raevmo — December 9, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Astronomers are able to make general predictions about the universe as a whole. Life supporting conditions are not commonplace.
Why would you be motivated to dispute it?
I like science too and it annoys me when people like you try to spin data to support your non-scientific beliefs.
You need professional help.
Comment by Bradford — December 9, 2007 @ 8:29 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Hi, Raevmo,
If you can conclude that the brain is not the most complicated thing in the universe, simply from the small size of the sample, then it is not I who is stupid LOL! Either you need a brushup in basic logic, or perhaps you've missed the entire thread between Pixie and me, regarding her presumption of earth's ordinariness. The latter would be your only saving grace. I am not arguing that the human brain is the most complicated thing in the uinverse. I am arguing against pixie's claim that the earth is ordinary because there must be something more complex, to her thinking, due to the universe's vastness. Big difference, oh maestro, between arguing against something and arguing for the contrary position (which I was not doing). If you are not taking Pixie's side, then perhaps you should make that known. Here is the original quote that started this off between me and her:
Me:
And yes, I'll go out on a limb and say that the human brain is at least special. Wheeweee, my peepee's out on that one!
BTW, what percentage of the universe has been sampled? I have no idea, but if you do, let me know. I'll have a pretty good comeback for you!
[Edit: BTW, my quip about athiests was in response to this statement by Pixie]:
Pixie:
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 9, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Anaxagoras [edit, got my A-Guys mixed up]:
I seem to recall Pixie once telling me she's a he. He'll correct you if that is so. In the meantime I think you'll find a lot of "The Hopeful" among the anti-theist crowd are very much into ET. And could no doubt entertain the possibility that if there's evidence of intelligent design in Earth life, ET is a likely culprit. They almost overlap a fringe under ID's big tent.
In fact, that's right where I expect a lot of the die-hards will fall when design can no longer be reasonably denied. If there is intelligent life out there – somewhere – it's a reasonable explanation for design here. The fallback position has already been established with multiverses. I don't care how anybody rationalizes design to themselves. I just think a design approach would prove immensely useful – FAPP – to humanity. Whom science purportedly serves.
Comment by Joy — December 9, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Joy:
Pixie is a he. I'm almost certain.
Comment by Bradford — December 9, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Hi, Bradford,
Pixie sure walked off a cliff when she [edit: or he?] said the earth is ordinary because the universe is so vast that something more complex must be in it somewhere. This is a simple wish. The interesting question to me is, why this wish? A displacement of a lack of self-esteem perhaps? Conferring a feeling of smallness from herself/himself and assigning it to the earth and its environs? Freud and Jung wrote extensively about this sort of psychological mechanism…displacement, that is, as a means that the psyche uses to help it deal with complexes too difficult for the ego to face.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 9, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
December 9th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Anaxagoras:
Oh, that argument could easily be turned around on you. It's that "faith" thing again. The true underlying argument is the dichotomy of origin mythologies. Great Origins (we are more than we appear to be) versus Humble Origins (we're just glorified pond scum). And that's a theological issue (thus of course a psychological and philosophical one).
In this debate you'll find projection prevalent as well.
Comment by Joy — December 9, 2007 @ 11:48 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 1:04 am
Hi, Joy,
I am well aware that my wishes have a psychological basis, and I take pains to keep them differentiated from my "facts" as best as I can. I don't know about anyone else, but I use reason and logic to help me do that, and all the integrity that I can lay my hands on. Of the types, I am an introvert, meaning that I worry more about my own thoughts about the external world, than about what others think about that world. But I also want to be right, which is why I put myself through extensive self-study, the nature of which makes my actual college days look like a cake walk.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 10, 2007 @ 1:04 am
December 10th, 2007 at 8:06 am
Bradford
A lack of anything else like, and an appreciate of how chemicals can organise.
The article was not even about OOL!
This is a curious claim. What do we know about the universe that would make us think the human brains is is the most complex structure in it (hmm, I see you are downgrading that to "not likely to be commonplace"; cunning)? You seem to use that fact to infer that that makes the Earth special, which is what is so odd. I could envisage an argument that the Earth is unique (though I would dispute that we can know that), and therefore we can infer the brain is unique. But here you are arguing that we have grounds for supposing that the human brain is the most complex structure in the universe that does not depend on the uniqueness of our planet.
So out of ten sextillion stars, how many will have planets with life supporting conditions? One in a hundred would be "not commonplace", but let us say one in a million (I am just guessing, Bradford, I am not sure where you get these "general predictions" from, perhaps you can give us the actual figure). That would be ten quadrillion stars with planets able to support life.
And again: What did you learn from Lehn's article that leads you to believe that an intelligent entity created life?
AnaxagorasRules
I am a "he" by the way.
Both are comparisons of quality, in one case the quality is the complexity of the structure, in the other it is sporting ability. In both cases the statement is made that the entity is the best in a huge area, without any knowledge about the competition in the vast majority of that area.
I am arguing against the assumption by Atkinson and Hilgard that the Earth is special, by way of the vastness of the universe.
My argument is that we have no way of knowing. I am arguing against Atkinson and Hilgard's presumption that there is nothing more complex and intricate than the human brain. That is the unsupportable wish (though I'm sure the belief is satisfying some need in your psyche).
I am arging that we have no way of knowing, and given the vastness of the universe (did I mention ten sextillion stars) that is vast, vast ignorance.
Er, what? I thought you made the claim (after Atkinson and Hilgard) that "The human brain contains well over 10 billion nerve cells and an almost infinite number of interconnections between them. It may be the most complex structure in the universe." That is what I have been arguing against. Do you want to withdraw that?
Now, this was in response to me "But I suspect that the vast majority of atheists believe in ETIs (because we see nothing special abut this planet in a vast, vast universe), ". Are you claiming that there is something special about this planet? The only argument I have seen so far is the dubious one about the human brain. And certainly I have see nothing to suggest that most atheists do see something special about this planet; it just has not come up. And my basic point is that we are all happy with the idea of non-human intelligence, atheist and theist alike, which again seems not to be contested.
I am saying that oxygen-needing organisms spang from non-oxygen-needing organisms. They are all oxygen-based – that is vital, as the non-oxygen-needing organisms are actually oxygen producers. Non-oxygen-needing organisms are plants, oxygen-needing organisms are animals, by the way.
Ah, and what are they?
Joy
That would be Mike Gene's FLE! And I think that anti-ID crowd would accept that rather more easily than the creationist crowd.
Comment by The Pixie — December 10, 2007 @ 8:06 am
December 10th, 2007 at 10:19 am
A strong suspicion based on what?
"Chemicals can organize" and based on this you have a strong suspicion in the plausibility of OOL? The lack of a telic or intelligent causal component is ruled out a priori. It is no surprise then that OOL, which is very weakly supported by scientific data, wins out in your mind by default.
Astronomers do not need to sample the entire universe to draw conclusions about it. Conditions hospitable to life are rare. That is not very controversial in the realm of astronomy. Life forms with human-like brains would be rarer still. An inference that earth is special with respect to this phenomenon easily flows for all but the ideologically motivated.
My argument is not based on Lehn's article.
Comment by Bradford — December 10, 2007 @ 10:19 am
December 10th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Anaxagoras Rules:
This attitude contrasts with that of the anti-ID movement. Anti-IDists are blindly loyal to weakly supported scientific ideas like OOL and impervious to facts that run counter to their ideology. There is a fundamental lack of intellectual integrity in the movement.
Comment by Bradford — December 10, 2007 @ 10:28 am
December 10th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Bradford
Ah, I see we disagree about what "strong suspicion" means. I was hoping to indicate that we do not know, but that this is what I tend towards. I am certainly not ruling out a telic component. I am also not ruling the "lack of a telic or intelligent causal component" either!
How rare? One in a thousand? One in a million? One in ten sextillion? No one is disputing some degree of rarity. What is at issue is whether the Earth is unique or not. Astronmers will need to survey a significant fraction of the universe to be able to decide that; my guess is they have not done that.
I see. So when you said "What Lehn's article does is provide the indicators needed to discern evidence of design." you were just making vacuous claims that you do not really believe. Why did you not say so before?
Good stereotyping. Mike would be proud.
Comment by The Pixie — December 10, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
I'm surprised you persist with the sampling argument. Scientists are able to make generalizations within their fields based on the assumption that laws are universal. We do not need to sample all cells of all organisms to draw conclusions. Ask a professional astronomer if he believes conditions like those on earth are extremely rare.
My argument is not based on Lehn's article.
One of the points inferred was the need for scientists to generate the chemical outcomes discussed. That's the essence of intelligent design- an intelligent agent setting up the conditions needed for an observed outcome. The vacuous claim is the one that assumes human intelligence is unique and not a reference point for detecting intelligence.
Anti-IDists are blindly loyal to weakly supported scientific ideas like OOL and impervious to facts that run counter to their ideology. There is a fundamental lack of intellectual integrity in the movement.
Just the truth verified daily by the statements of anti-IDists.
Comment by Bradford — December 10, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Bradford
I am tempted to just repeat my last post, as you seem to have done.
Yes, we all agree that live-bearing planets will be rare. However, for the original claim (remember that: "The human brain contains well over 10 billion nerve cells and an almost infinite number of interconnections between them. It may be the most complex structure in the universe") you need intelligent life to be so rare it is restricted to one planet in ten sextillion. I think your claim that astronomers will support that statement is wrong. Please back it up, or admit we do not know!
So are you or are you not claiming that that is an indicating that is needed to discern evidence of design? Or is it yet another red herring?
Thank you, thank you for having the integrity to back me up. See, AnaxagorasRules, even Bradford is now agreeing with me that the claim "The human brain … may be the most complex structure in the universe" is vacuous.
Comment by The Pixie — December 10, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Raevmo (to Bradford):
LOL!:grin:
What a supercilious dork!
Comment by chunkdz — December 10, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Whose society is the plaque being put on, again? Bradford, really? Seemed like a nice enough guy.
Why do atheists always remind me of the Borg on Star Trek or Mr. Smith from The Matrix movies? Resistance is futile, you plaques.
Nice; let's put those guys in charge. Pronto!
Regards, and remember (for the kids'/society's sake):
Listen up, maggots. You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else.
Beautiful
Comment by Rob R. — December 10, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
The claim is that the human brain may be the most complex structure in the universe. Life itself is likely to be extremely rare and intelligent life, on a human scale, rarer yet. The data known to astronomers lends more support to the above claim than the data of biologists to the claim that life arose on earth through chemical pathways. The claim is not an absolute one in any case. "May be" is not a definitive claim but the complexity of the human brain and the rarity of conditions for life, let alone intelligent life, is worth noting.
The remainder of your comment is incoherent.
Comment by Bradford — December 10, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Rob R.
With some notable exceptions the ones at TT remind me of the mentality Middlle-Eastern terrorists have- arrogant, uncompromising, only able to see one point of view and eager to demonize the enemy.
Comment by Bradford — December 10, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
OK, I apologize for my rudeness and insults towards Bradford and anyone else who felt insulted. It won't happen again. Or maybe it will, if I feel like it.
Comment by Raevmo — December 10, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
December 10th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Raevmo,
By all means, please just keep saying exactly what's on your mind!
Comment by chunkdz — December 10, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 7:37 am
Bradford
So would you agree that while the "human brain may be the most complex structure in the universe", there is a high probability (greater than 90% say) that there are other intelligent lifeforms out there, and a fair probability (greater than 40% say) that some have brains more complex than our own?
Given ten sextillion stars, I personally think it likely that there are easily in excess of millions of intelligent lifeforms out there, so the 90% figure is actually way, way low. And if there are so many, then the chances of one of them (rather than us) having the most complex brains is going to be a rather more than 40%.
Sorry, if my last post was not clear. I will try again. This all comes down to your claim some time back:
So, "the indicators". Not some of the indicators, but the indicators. The indicators that will get us evidence of ID. This is great news for ID (in fact, how about a new blog on this article, which would seem to be very significant to FLE in particular?).
Since then I have been trying to find out what those indicators are that you found in Lehn's article. And it is kind of like getting blood from a stone. Your latest response:
So of all the indicators needed to discern evidence of design you inferred, which did you tell us about? "The need for scientists to generate the chemical outcomes discussed." Hmm, I am having a problem here. See, that really does not sound like an indicator for design. Perhaps you could explain further.
Rob R.
Because they are on the other side. If you were on our side, the IDists would look like that. Both sides are trying to win the debate, in part by trying to get more people of their side.
That would be plagues!
Good stereotyping. We are seeing a lot of that on this thread.
Somehow a snowflake is beautiful and unique, despite their having been countless snowflakes. A person can be beautiful and unique, despite their being six billion of us on the planet. So I would suggest that this planet can be beautiful and unique, despite ten sextillion stars. But it would be the height of arrogance to suppose you are the most beautiful, most intelligent person on the planet, or that we are the most beautiful, most intelligent species in the universe.
Comment by The Pixie — December 11, 2007 @ 7:37 am
December 11th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Pixie:
If one bases an analysis on laws relevant to chemistry and molecular biology then the chance of life arising are nil. That's a scientifically based assessment. If one assumes plausible pathways to life (none having anything to do with intelligent causality of course) then all the subsequent probability arguments can be assembled based on this initial assumption. That initial assumption would be based on blind faith.
Comment by Bradford — December 11, 2007 @ 9:28 am
December 11th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Bradford
Hmm, I suspect that is a statement of "faith", rather than anything based on science, but I could be wrong. It certainly makes one wonder why scientists are working on abiogenesis if it has already beenm established that it never happened. So What is the science that the assessment is based on?
So going back to my question, So would you agree that while the "human brain may be the most complex structure in the universe", there is a high probability (greater than 90% say) that there are other intelligent lifeforms out there, and a fair probability (greater than 40% say) that some have brains more complex than our own? Are you saying we just cannot tell how likely it is that there are intelligent lifeforms with more complex brains than ours?
Comment by The Pixie — December 11, 2007 @ 11:31 am
December 11th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
If one bases an analysis on laws relevant to chemistry and molecular biology then the chance of life arising are nil. That's a scientifically based assessment.
The chemical properties of nucleic acids. What properties of nucleic acids, including the nature of the bonds that link their constituent substances, would lead a rational person to conclude a chemical pathway causes a functional sequencing of nucleotides which act as symbolic storage units for specified amino acids? In the event of some fortuitous accident that arranges codons in just the right sequential pattern within a minimal genome, what is the chemical based explanation for the generation of a code and translation mechanisms? I'm not interested in stories, only a scientifically based explanation of the science behind prebiotic reductionist scenarios.
Comment by Bradford — December 11, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
That's a claim.
Those are questions. You can't support your claim by pointing to areas of scientific or personal ignorance.
Nor can you support your claim by insisting that others fill those gaps in knowledge.
In any case, there is nothing in the "laws relevant to chemistry and molecular biology" that precludes abiogenesis. The most you can say is that there is no valid theory of abiogenesis.
Comment by Zachriel — December 11, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Bradford:
Yeah right. Except for stories about the Baby Jesus and how He magically poofed DNA into the world.
Comment by Raevmo — December 11, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
I'm not interested in stories, only a scientifically based explanation of the science behind prebiotic reductionist scenarios.
Unlike EAs I do not present my origin stories as empirical in nature. I do not expect anyone to believe in Christ based on a scientific claim. I also will not tolerate you or anyone else pretending your non-telic concepts are scientifically derived without a challenge. You deleted what preceeded my statement but are invited to furnish an answer to the question posed.
Comment by Bradford — December 11, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
I pointed to areas of knowledge not ignorance. We are very much aware of the chemical properties of nucleic acids. The question was based on what we know. I'm not interested in a non-telic arguments based on ignorance. Let's discuss the known factors.
Comment by Bradford — December 11, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
There is nothing about laws of nature or weather conditions that preclude the possibility that markings etched on the Rosetta Stone could have occured in the absence of intelligent input either.
Comment by Bradford — December 11, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Just to refocus everyone's attention on the original remark that led to the brain complexity issue:
Pixie:
In which case, I responded with:
Me:
And then Pixie responded with:
Atkinson's and Hilgard's conclusion was that the human brain may be the most complicated structure in the universe. This is a valid claim until proven otherwise. Why the big fuss with their statement??
Then Raevmo jumped the shark with this:
At that point, two things were clear: that Raevmo had quite plainly bruised himself with that remark, and that Pixie was simply confusing a wish with reality.
Just wanted to re-establish the framework.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 11, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
AnaxagorasRules
You seemed to be offering the Atkinson and Hilgard quote as a counter to my claim that "the vast majority of atheists believe in ETIs (because we see nothing special abut this planet in a vast, vast universe)". The Earth is special to us, as it is our home, and in that regard it is unique. But if we strip away our humano-centrism, it is just one planet of eight in our solar system, orbiting one star out of some ten sextillion. Okay, the Earth is special because it has spawned life, and I should have allowed that (but I did not think what I was saying was contraversal, so was not as careful as I might have been). We do not know if every star has one or more life-bearing planets, or whether it is only one in a million.
The Atkinson and Hilgard quote seemed to be giving this planet, and the intelligent life on it, an extra special status, albeit provisionally. They seem to be saying that is not unreasonable to suppose that our brains really are the most complex structures in the universe.
Consider: Why did they choose to include the whole universe, rather than just the solar system? They could have reasonably made the claim that our brains are the most complex structurtes in the solar systems without the "may be"; a pretty reasonable claim. Instead, they chose to include the whole universe. I think they are making the implied claim that (in their opinion) it is a good bet that the humam brain actually is the most complex structure in the whole universe.
Okay, I could be over-analysing, but that is where I am coming from. I think it is likely there are over a million intelligent species across the universe (at a very conservative estimate). I see no reason to suppose we are special amongst them. It seems to me a safe bet that some of them naturally have more complex brains than ours. It seems pretty likely that some have been around a lot longer than us, and have produced technological wonders more complex than our brains.
So what is your position? Would you agree with me that there are undoubtedly vast number of intelligent species out there? Would you agree with me that, while it is possible our brains are the most complex, it is just as likely that any of the other intelligent species wins that particular competition?
Comment by The Pixie — December 11, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Anyone remember the topic of the thread?
Comment by a Christan leader:
http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=9521
Comment from Comer herself:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/TX/577_the_latest_on_the_co mer_contro_12_7_2007.asp
I have seen next to nothing from pro-ID or pro-creationism sites (perhaps the pro-science sites happen to get listed higher at Google). However, this article does quote McLeroy:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/12/06/1206sci ence.html
Comment by The Pixie — December 11, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
The Pixie:
It's a line from Fight Club, don't be so sensitive. The guy had just called Bradford a plague on society, thought some levity was in order. Thanks for the spelling help though, you're a peach. You Borgs are all alike.
Which other intelligent species did you have in mind? I think you've missed the point (or I did). *shrug* Who's making the argument from ignorance here? (<—honest question, not being facetious, just confused)
Regards.
Comment by Rob R. — December 11, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Hi, Pixie,
They are claiming that the human brain may be the most complicated structure of the universe. There is nothing implied because the "may" is out in the open, explicit in the statement. And sure, I'll agree that they could also have reasonably made the claim that the human brain may not be the most complicated structure in the universe.
What I would say is that there might be more intelligent species out there, and there might be more complex structures than human brains.
And just as validly I'll say that there might not be these things. I say that the first claim is open to more abuse, however, because it has the appearance of a wish. What does vastness have to do with complexity? Vastness has to do with size. And trillions of stars has to do with quantity, with each star thought to be a structure in and of itself. A careful thinker, in this area, I think is better off sticking to what is known. That position, at least, frees one's assertions from psychological implications, which this issue certainly has.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 11, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Why is it that when Jacques Monod talks about how he thinks we're alone in the universe, there's typically atheist assent, but when (for example) Guillermo Gonzalez or such talks about how he thinks we may be alone in the universe, suddenly there's atheist dissent? It's almost as if it's not the content of the claim that's of question, but the philosophical view it comes with.
One thing that opened my eyes when I was considering atheism was watching the arguing tactics used on, of all people, the mormons. See, they're interesting in that they hold so many of the same social and political views of the more mainstream and popular faiths, while having practically the opposite view of scientific arguments. Mormons expect there to be intelligent life throughout the universe, whereas most christians are the very least are at ease with the thought of being alone. Mormon cosmology strongly implies an eternally pre-existing universe, whereas most christians at the least see a Big Bang singularity and 'start' of the universe as at least complementary to their views. It goes on and on.
So, when I go to a Catholic forum, there are atheists talking about past-eternal inflation and how there's certainly intelligent life other than humans in the universe. When I go to a mormon forum, there are atheists talking about how the big bang was the start of the universe and nothing came before it, and humanity is likely utterly alone in the universe, etc. Both claim to be expounding the views of rationality and science in their views.
It's anecdotal, but it's what I've seen. And it's part of the reason I watch these criticisms over what is and isn't likely in our universe with skepticism. For some atheists, the data must always clash with religion, or it isn't really data at all.
Comment by nullasalus — December 11, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
AnaxagorasRules
I strongly suspect life on this planet resulted from abiogenesis, and it would seem to have started pretty quickly at that. Sure, for that to happen, you need the right conditions, but just in this solar system, we have a fair selection of planets already. Just on Earth there is a range of conditions in different regions, and it has changed over time too, so really you do not need a planet to be too specific, I would guess. So perhaps one in a million stars are suitable, and of those one in a hundred has a suitable planet. But in a universe of ten sextillion stars, that would be hundred trillion planets with life.
You see the thing about vastness it it gives so much opportunity for unlikely things to happen.
If Atkinson and Hilgard had said they did not know if the brain was the most complicated structure in the universe we would not be having this discussion. The statement they made reads to me as though they think it is likely.
I do wonder what the Christian position would be, if he assumes God created this planet and mankind as special (and I know not all Christians do). What is the point of those ten sextillion stars, if we can only see a few thousand with the naked eye? Surely one galaxy is enough? And why are we not at the centre of it?
nullasalus
I disagree with Monod.
Is it possible you only encounter debates with atheists when they are clashing with religion? If you go to a mormon forum, it seems a good bet that any atheists there are arguing against some aspect of mormonism. Go to a catholic forum, guess what the atheists are doing?
Comment by The Pixie — December 11, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Zach:
A prediction of "over a million" that you know you'll never live long enough to know is correct or erroneous. Based on what we know right now, it's even sillier than guesses about how many extra dimensions there are in reality than we can empirically perceive. They're using math, you are just making wild guesses you know you'll never have to be confronted with. How very not brave of you.
Why, and how so (specifically)? More cells? Different architecture? Alternative elements? Be specific, Zach. We want to get your predictions carved into stone so that if anybody ever investigates them in the next few millennia, we'll have it written down.
"Have produced?" Show us one, Zach. I realize you're holding out for ET on Pixie's faith, but do try to be at least a little bit scientific. You can't project to a retro-diction unless you've actually discovered, existent empirical evidence. Even you know that much.
Comment by Joy — December 11, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
The functional utility of nucleic acids is determined by the identity and sequence of their codons. That's not an assertion- just basic science.
Comment by Bradford — December 11, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Well, they had questionmarks at the end, but let's look more closely.
Definitely a question. Assuming no one can answer your question doesn't preclude the possibility. (Furthermore, your argument applies to life generally. Who would suspect that the chemical properties of a few elements would be capable of being alive?)
Definitely a question. Assuming no one can answer your question doesn't preclude the possibility. (Furthermore, it is quite possible for coding systems to evolve from simpler relationships.)
Let's try a bit of science. We have two competing hypotheses. 1) Random actions of wind. 2) Purposefully carved in Greek with a phonetic alphabet and with markings found on structures known to be built by Egyptians. Oh, and one more clue. The Rosetta Stone was found on a Planet of Stonecarving Apes.
Comment by Zachriel — December 11, 2007 @ 7:13 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Pixie:
Sorry, Pixie. Life right here on planet earth (not "intelligent life," just "life") inhabits every microclime and extreme condition our planet has to offer, wherever we've looked. Deep sea smokers, alkaline, boiling mud flats, deep-plate rocks, you name it. With AND without oxygen, in the most extreme of conditions (heat, cold, pressure, etc.).
We have done some exploring of our nearest neighbors, and on not a one of them have we seen any conclusive evidence of existent life. Not a one, despite versions of earth life that could probably colonize any or all of them quite successfully. But worse, you're talking "intelligent life," aren't you? Until I see some actual evidence of that your position is no different from the Raelians or Mormons.
Comment by Joy — December 11, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
The Pixie,
You disagree with Monod? Wonderful. I'm sure there are others, atheist and (certainly) theist, who share the sentiment.
Sure, but that's pretty much the point. On both forums, I see atheists claiming to be using reason and science exclusively to counter religious views. Yet their conclusions and claims clash in both cases. As I suggested, I don't think science, reason, and evidence is what motivates the atheists' view in those situations. Instead it seems to be 'Any interpretation that clashes the most with the religious view I dislike'.
If the disagreement were as simple as 'Well, I see your point, but this is how I see things', it would be one thing. Instead, the game becomes showing that it's irrational and science-hostile to believe that humans are unique in the universe. Unless, of course, the religion in question supposes that there are others with human-like intelligence in the universe. In which case, it's irrational and science-hostile to believe humans aren't unique in the universe.
Comment by nullasalus — December 11, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Let's continue. The genomes of living organisms are unlike the Rosetta Stone and millions of other examples of coded systems in that they are of a molecular nature rather than of a size visible to humans. However in other respects they are precisely the same. All are made functional by virtue of an encoding convention that affords meaning to symbols. Symbols are related to function. One grasps the meaning of this message not simply by examining the symbols themselves but by noting their sequential juxtaposition to each other and groupings we call words. One similarly understands that an initiation codon has a similar function to the capitial letter of the first word of this paragraph and a stop codon corresponds to the ending period. Codons symbolize amino acids much like letters do with words and peptide chains grouped together compose a larger unit we call proteins which act as functional units much like the individual comments we send. However, since scientism has succeeded in ruling certain thoughts out of bounds a logical thinker is directed to the idea that, despite all the obvious symbolic parallels, the molecular symbolic system must have been the causal result of mindless, blind forces of nature. Bah Humbug.
Comment by Bradford — December 11, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Bradford, has it occurred to you (and many others around here) that for years you have done nothing but criticizing science without making a single positive contribution? Isn't that depressing? I mean, after decades of ID research, what are the benefits for humankind? I'm guessing the balance is slightly negative. Perhaps a few thousand people extra died needlessly. Maybe more. Anyhow, I wonder how you square that with your conscience.
Comment by Raevmo — December 11, 2007 @ 8:25 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Hey, it's Raevmo – talking about conscience! Gas chamber jokes will be supplied in short order.
The aggravation of scores of short-tempered, narrow-minded anti-theists, along with plenty of people gaining a new appreciation both for science and how it can be viewed philosophically and in application. I'd call it a resounding success on both counts.
Comment by nullasalus — December 11, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Not true. 99+% of science can move forward with no regard to how life originated or subsequently diversifed.
You don't want to go there. Maybe there should be some blogging about the dark influence of Darwinian fitness concepts on some nasty figures of the 20th century.
Comment by Bradford — December 11, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Null:
Yes, very funny indeed that millions of Jews were gassed or otherwise murdered because they were viewed as Christ-killers. I like to call it Intelligently Gassed (IG).
Comment by Raevmo — December 11, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
The Nazis had some warped ideas about racial fitness. Where did they get them?
Comment by Bradford — December 11, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Bradford:
You mean figures like Stalin who despised the idea of heritability and let Lysenko set back Soviet biology for decades? Very much like the current ID ideologues are trying to do.
Comment by Raevmo — December 11, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Bradford:
Probably from the Bible. Full of God-condoned genocide after all.
Comment by Raevmo — December 11, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Joe was dedicated to anti-theism and an inaccurate view of biology.
Comment by Bradford — December 11, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
See, Raevmo makes a great example of the problem I have with ID, believe it or not. I'm sure he'll be happy to serve as an example that may offer some criticism of the concept.
We can call this quote "intelligently designed". After all, it came from a mind (Well, "Mind" – It's Raevmo). But what was designed? How? For what purpose?
He's saying that the holocaust was very funny. Did he mean that to be sarcastic? You'd normally think such, but this is Raevmo – his track record indicates he's somewhat unhinged, so it's possible he really does think it's funny. Just as he may actually think the holocaust was perpetrated for the glory of Christ (a crazed mind is still a mind, just as bad design is still design). And again, maybe he does refer to the acts as Intelligently Gassed. How can we put it past him?
But, there's another option. Maybe he doesn't really believe any of these things – it could just be him trying to be funny. Sure, he's failing miserably, but it doesn't mean he's not trying (I cite Chevy Chase as an example here.) And there's plenty of jokes he could be trying for – hell, he could even be a hardcore theist pulling an Andy Kaufman bit, except instead of a loudmouth wrestler, he's doing an Angry Internet Atheist routine.
Here's the problem for ID: There's no way to tell what the real deal with Raevmo's utterances is. Insanity? Stupidity? Farce? Who knows. "Asking him" doesn't work, because then we're left to judge the truth of what he's saying. Hell, it may not even be him who's designing what he says – he could be off his meds. Or on his meds. He could be designing his posts by committee, asking the folks at Internet Infidels what they think of his awesome posts. And that's before we get to Dennett-like considerations, where Raevmo may not really have any beliefs to speak of, and sentences where he expresses what he thinks or believes are essentially flawed. Or questioning the origin of his beliefs – maybe a preacher's son stole his lunch, job, or girlfriend at some point. Who's to say?
And believe it or not, that sums up a big problem I have with ID: Until there is a way to scientifically determine whether Raevmo's alphanumeric streams are honest or dishonest, borne of insanity or stupidity, evidence of belief or evidence of pointless chemical interactions, attempts to discern design and intention (or lack thereof, naturally) in nature can only get so far. If we can't ascertain Raevmo's damage-on-display, how can we be certain of what was intended on the grandest scale? You can propose design or the lack thereof, you can argue how a creator would have or would not have designed a given mechanism or process. You can make reference to what you think the trait or process was supposed to do, or not supposed to do. But proving it one way or the other – even providing compelling evidence – ends up more in the philosophical category.
So there you have it. The Raevmo Objection.
Comment by nullasalus — December 11, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Raevmo:
Huh. If you're as old as my parents (both dead now), your experience with genocide would include the Holocaust. Which, if I recall correctly, was primarily aimed at Jews (with some Romany and a lot of general 'defectives' thrown in for good measure). I doubt that came from the Bible.
You might recall concerted efforts at genocide in Korea or Vietnam, or maybe Cambodia under Pol Pot. I don't think that had anything to do with the Bible. If I recall correctly, some of those were the last great Opium Wars. No religion involved.
More recently there was all sorts of non-religious mass murder and mayhem against indigenous people in Central America back in the '80s. South America having had much better luck with that sort of thing decades before. Then there was what used to be Hungary, which gave in to its 1000-year genocidal itch in the '90s. That wasn't religious apart from identification of the in and out groups based on something that pre-dated Archduke Ferdinand by 900 years. Or Rwanda. That was a ghastly example, and it didn't have anything to do with the Bible either.
Grow up and accept responsibility for what happens in your own lifetime, Raevmo. Blaming others for what happened in someone else's lifetime is a waste of time and effort. Nobody cares.
Comment by Joy — December 11, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
nullasalus:
The Raevmo Objection might work if this weren't a communications forum. The Raevmo does manage to communicate, in semi-coherent English. It's using the code and stringing sentences with viable syntax. It might be a 'bot, but 'bots are very much intelligently designed. Thus not a good objection.
Whatever it is, it is intelligently designed. That of course doesn't mean it is itself intelligent, or even conscious. An artifact need display neither of those qualities. As for actual life forms I've known and loved, I have never found the measuring scale of more or less intelligence to be pertinent in the least to the existence of these actual life forms I've known and loved. I think they were all intelligently designed, even if they weren't designed to be intelligent.
For actual life forms I've known and disliked intensely, I have to concede that they were probably intelligently designed too. Much as I hate to admit it about most spiders and some kinds of snakes and certain human beings…
Comment by Joy — December 11, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Joy,
Ha, true enough I guess. Though I actually wonder what happens if you start taking a Dennett or Churchland view seriously enough. Once you're denying that pain, belief, desire, etc 'really exist'.. well, the fact that someone can assert that and not be laughed out of the room among professionals says enough. Fundamentals of human experience being 'a mistake of folk psychology' means all bets are off when it comes to minds.
I really do mean that I consider discerning intent to be tremendously difficult. At the same time, I have great respect for ID endeavors. If nothing else, it's made me look at science in a whole new light, and with renewed interest. I don't think I'm alone in that. (Speaking of which, I better get around to reading Mike's book. Maybe I'll be pushed further along the ID route.)
Comment by nullasalus — December 11, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
nullasalus:
To tell the truth, I don't view the existence of objective intelligence and/or consciousness in the artifacts as particularly pertinent to the issue of whether or not the artifacts are intelligently designed. Worse, this isn't anywhere close to a viable scientific objection to an inference of design.
All the inference requires is the supposition that there's something somewhere that actually is intelligent and has the means to instantiate designs.
What the Dennett-ites are trying to do is argue that we cannot infer design based on any human quality we might attribute to a cosmic designer. Because humans aren't really conscious and aren't really intelligent and cannot be a baseline from which to infer intelligence or design. Yes, it's sadly misguided and pitifully desperate, but some people just couldn't possibly handle the idea that they are not themselves the pinnacle of intelligence and design. It's their very consciousness (and intelligence) that makes them fight against the idea that conscious intelligence is real, and can design.
It may well be pathological. But it's irrelevant to the question of ID in life and evolution. Watches aren't intelligent or conscious. Neither are computers, light bulbs, gas ranges or wringer washing machines. All are intelligently designed.
Comment by Joy — December 11, 2007 @ 10:59 pm
December 12th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Joy,
I agree about the scientific part. Mind you, I'm not saying that I don't think ID's general claim is correct (I believe it is), or that a scientific case can't be made (I abstain from that in general, and comment only hesitantly when I see claims made – I have a lot to learn about specific scientific disciplines, and when I say I'm skeptical, I mean that truly. My mind can be changed, certainly on particular claims). And of course, you don't need consciousness in an artifact for it to be designed, as you said. But..
That's pretty much it. Not that I believe it myself, again. But if someone is willing to go that route (or a number of comparable routes in philosophy), well, the mere concept of design/intelligence is thrown up in the air. Once we're at the point where 'I feel pain' or 'I have a belief' is considered a controversial statement, hey – the topic has been obscured to a point practically beyond scientific progress. It's like solipsism, minus one mind.
I should clarify. I believe ID is very strong philosophically (and persuasively so). I can see claims about science having validity. I think when Behe asks how far you can get with mutation, the question is legitimate and has scientific value. I think when MikeGene (and Behe – I saw him mention it) talks about how a process may be front-loaded, the same applies. And I think when Dembski talks about attempting to use math to discern between design and random, he's unbelievably ambitious – but so is anyone who thinks that, say, the hard problem of consciousness can in principal be addressed by science. My problem comes in at discerning intent, nothing more.
And it cuts both ways. I think the reason some critics get so frantic about ID is because it reveals a nasty secret: Someone can look at everything from DNA to cosmology and talk about how they see 'cold, pitiless indifference', sure. But someone else can look at those same things and see agency, purpose, and something truly special. If the science won't settle the issue, it comes down to persuasion. Which puts, say, Dennett in the position of saying 'Take a long, hard look at me. If you really think what you see is the product of brilliant design, you should see what happens to my beard when I eat chili.'
Comment by nullasalus — December 12, 2007 @ 12:20 am
December 12th, 2007 at 2:32 am
Hi, nullasalus,
There is a very abstract and easy thing to overlook here. Remember now that a human being is actually a heterogenous mixture, a substance built up from cells which have grouped into tissus, bone, organs, and organ systems. This is very important to keep in mind. The cell is the lowest level of organization that can perform all the activities required for life. Let's for now depart from the macro pattern of a human being and traipse down to the cellular level. Does the cell exhibit design? Well, a cell is also an aggregation, a pattern made up of smaller substances, many different types of molecules. Even the subcellular organelles, and the nucleus, can be legitimately looked at as patterns. Built up by atoms. Specifically the subgroup of atoms that interact to form the organelles, nuclei, tissues, etc. right up to the human lifeform.
Do the atoms exhibit design? And that is where my dollar comes down on the table, and I say yes, because the periodic table exhibits a stable structure. All of chemistry and biology depends on the stability and permanence of that structure. We know that laws govern the motions and interactions of those elements. It is one hundred percent common sensical, to my way of thinking, to start off with a design premise as representing the foundation of one's system of thought.
The key is to leave it at that. A design premise and nothing more. It leads to error and confusion, in my opinion, to suppose that design requires some kind of consistency in the motives and morals of macro patterns, like human beings. Thought itself is an emergent property far removed from the reality of the primary elements which comprise us, and is at a level of abstraction higher up than even our physical forms. By abstraction I don't mean that human beings aren't real, I just can't think of a better word at the moment to differentiate the fundamental atoms from the forms they build. The atoms are unquestionably at a more fundamental level of reality, as an element by definition is more fundamental than the substance it is a part of.
I'll argue with anyone that at the primary level of the elements there is order and structure. And on that basis a design premise is logical.
Notice that a design premise does not require speculation about the designer. In fact, that argument is a philosophical one, and while it has its merits, I wouldn't involve science with it.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 12, 2007 @ 2:32 am
December 12th, 2007 at 7:03 am
Joy
It was me, not Zach
Given ten sextillion stars, a million intelligent species seems a big enogh number to sound like a lot, but small enough to be very much on the consevative side. I did not mean it as a prediction.
Hey, yes, by all means let us go down the "how do we measure complexity" road. So, AnaxagorasRules, exactly how do Atkinson and Hilgard measure complexity? Joy and I demand some answers, otherwise these claims are meaningless.
Pretty likely to have produced, Joy, not "have produced". So the same kind of "faith" that AnaxagorasRules has that the human brain may be the most complex structure in the universe.
Or the IDists?
The Raelians and Mormons have faith, while I am guessing. And my guess is that life will form on a lot of planets, albeit a pretty small fraction of the total number of planets across the universe. It is undoubtedly true that for new life to form, you need just the right conditions (if you accept abiogenesis in the first place), but for example, if the temperature has to be precise to one degree, that may not be so much of a problem if the temperature varies by 30 degrees across different regions of one planet.
Bradford
Ah, so your scientific reasoning is based on:
1. … the fact that nucleic acids have chemical properties.
2. … some questions
With regards to number one, I did wonder if maybe you were thinking of some specific chemical property. Perhaps it is the pH? Or the molecular weight? But surely you would have said, I mean, you do know what you are talking about, right?
And then number two, well, I do not get how a series of questions can make up a scientifically based assessment. Sounds more like an argument from personal incredulity to me.
Ah, perhaps that was the chemical property. So now we know that, how does that get us (by science of course) to "the chance of life arising are nil" You continue:
With you so far. It is a bit odd to say the genome and the Rosetta Stone are different in many ways but "in other respects they are precisely the same", but not to worry.
Ah, banging that drum again. Ironic that this appears in the same paragraph as the Rosetta Stone is mentioned. What a lot of people do not realise (or so one would assume, since this particular drum gets banged so often) is that archaeologists believe the Rosetta Stone to be the result of the actions of intelligent agents. You see, those thoughts have not really been ruled out of bounds. Not that it helps your scientifically based assessment either way.
Er, okay, so what? Your so-called scientifically based assessment now seems to be based on the fact that the genome has some aspects in common with the Rosetta stone, and some different; and that science (or scientism, as you like to label it, in the absense of any real argument) disagrees with you. What am I missing here Bradford, because this sounds way short of a "scientifically based assessment".
Comment by The Pixie — December 12, 2007 @ 7:03 am
December 12th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Careful Pixie,
Your elegant and persistent discussions with Bradford may lead you down the same route as Keiths!!!
Joy
Where else have we looked apart from our own solar system? The Drake equation attempts to predict the likelihood of abiogenesis occurring. If you assume that a possible environment for life to arise would be on a planet with liquid water, how many such worlds have we discovered, let alone managed to obtain any evidence for or against life of any sort on such worlds?
Robert Shapiro's "Planetary Dreams" discusses these issues. I recall he is held in some favour by ID proponents.
Comment by Alan Fox — December 12, 2007 @ 10:45 am
December 12th, 2007 at 11:11 am
nullasalus:
Well, I did say I wasn't very happy about having to include most spiders and some snakes and certain human beings in the arguably 'designed' category! Dennett's one of 'em. §;o)
Pixie:
Ah, sorry. This thread's long enough now that it's hard to download, my participation is about over.
No, YOU are the one claiming that ETs we've never met and have no empirical reason to expect to meet have brains "more complex" than ours. That means it's up to YOU to tell us what you mean by that.
SETI is using some hefty hardware seeking "intelligent" signals, and exobiologists (now called astrobiologists) speculate all the time about what ET looks like. But SETI's never found a single "intelligent" signal and astrobiologists have never seen a single ET. Thus the proper stance is skepticism, even while admitting slight probabilities may exist.
From outside of science people can believe whatever they want. There are people who wear tin foil hats so ET can't read their minds. There are people who believe they've been kidnapped and sexually abused by ET. There are people who believe ET is a godling and they've made whole religions out of it. There are people who believe ET is a devil. And there's at least one ET-based religion that casts ETs in the roles of gods, devils and angels all at once. This isn't science, though.
Even if I accepted abiogenesis it says nothing about complexity or the existence of any specific meat-organ (brain) MORE complex than a human brain. Abiogenesis has never been observed or accomplished experimentally in any conditions real (on some planet) or imagined (on ours). We have NO scientific reason to believe that's how life got here. We have zero empirical evidence to support the idea that the laws have changed even a tiny bit in the last 5 billion years. None. Zip. Nada.
I'm skeptical because there's no evidence. If evidence ever turns up I won't be so skeptical anymore. That's different from a positive belief in something for which there is no evidence, held in spite of there being no evidence or particular reason to suspect evidence exists. I think you know this.
Comment by Joy — December 12, 2007 @ 11:11 am
December 12th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Actually, we've been looking far beyond our own solar system – and we're able to do so in part because "a planet with liquid water" isn't really a good summary of what can be looked for. Planet orbit plays a role, size, etc – just look up Rare Earth on the wikipedia for a (for a change) good rundown, along with advocates and critics.
Though I like seeing how this debate is turning out. Kind of an interesting switch, with the ID advocates referring exclusively to the data we have, and ID critics appealing to data we don't have but may possibly be the case.
Comment by nullasalus — December 12, 2007 @ 11:14 am
December 12th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Joy
My argument is that we are likely to be pretty average among all the intelligent races of the universe. The odds are rather against us being the tallest, the shorts, having the most cells in the brain, having the most connections in the brain. Whatever Atkinson and Hilgard were thinking of when they made they claim. I do not think it changes my argument what that is, so I do not feel any need to specify.
On the other hand, perhaps there is an argument that Atkinson and Hilgard should.THEY are the ones claiming the human brain may be the most complex structure in the universe. What do THEY mean by complex?
Have you any idea what fraction of those ten sextillion stars SETI has looked at yet? None outside this galaxy I am sure, so at best one in a hundred billion, and I am pretty sure it is actually much smaller than that.
It ETI had their equivalent of SETI, would they find evidence of us? Unlikely, as we are not broadcasting our presence. If they had super sensitive equipment that could pick up TV and radio broadcasts, but were more than 100 light years away, and they if trying to pick up radio signals from 1907 or earlier. I do not find SETI's failure that persuasive.
Ah, well that is where a process called "evolution" kicks in.
It is as well supported as any other theory, and it does have scientists doing research (but whatever they find, even if they mimic conditions and show it happening in a lab, that would not prove that that was what happened, I know). And we know something happened, because there is life here now. Personally, I find it the most likely scenario.
Absolutely.
Comment by The Pixie — December 12, 2007 @ 11:34 am
December 12th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Abiogenesis is as well suported as any other theory? As well supported as Newton's laws of motion, as well supported as laws of thermodynamics, as well supported as the concept of buoyancy and Archimedes related principle, as well supported as Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, as well supported as quantum theory, as well supported as our understanding of metabolic pathways like the glycolytic pathway, the Krebs cycle and the pentose phosphate pathway, as well supported as the workings of the transcription and translation functions which Pixie appears to not understand based on prior comments? Pixie, what you do not understand is the difference between your personal belief in something and a concept that is well supported by scientific data.
Comment by Bradford — December 12, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
December 12th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Bradford: The chemical properties of nucleic acids. What properties of nucleic acids, including the nature of the bonds that link their constituent substances, would lead a rational person to conclude a chemical pathway causes a functional sequencing of nucleotides which act as symbolic storage units for specified amino acids? In the event of some fortuitous accident that arranges codons in just the right sequential pattern within a minimal genome, what is the chemical based explanation for the generation of a code and translation mechanisms? I'm not interested in stories, only a scientifically based explanation of the science behind prebiotic reductionist scenarios.
The question is do you understand basic cellular processes? Here is a basic one. What is the function of the codon AUG? If you get past that one try: UAA, UGA and UAG. It's OK to contact your buddies for help.
Comment by Bradford — December 12, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
December 12th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Here's a handy chart that neatly lays out the genetic code. Amazing that this code is virtually universal among living organisms. In my view, this is the one strongest piece of evidence of common heritage.
Is it possible to argue that it indicates common design?
Comment by Alan Fox — December 12, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
December 12th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Alan:
Why not? But what is the basis for claims that the causal origin of the genetic code is chemically based? What did you learn in chemistry classes that lead you to think chemical reactions generate coding conventions?
Comment by Bradford — December 12, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
December 12th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Hi, Pixie,
Here is their quote: "The human brain contains well over 10 billion nerve cells and an almost infinite number of interconnections between them. It may be the most complex structure in the universe."
It seems pretty obvious that they are using the number of brain cells within the brain, and the almost infinite number of interconnections between them, to form their conclusion. If you like, I'll take time out of my busy day to give you the web site for their book, and you can quiz them directly! LOL!
Actually I said that the human brain may be the most complex structure in the universe, or that the human brain may not be. And I added that claiming the brain may not be the most complex structure in the universe is open to more abuse, because it has the appearance of a wish.
If you want to accuse me of anything, you could accuse me of equivocation. But before you do that, consider this: stating that two contradictory statements are true is a common occurrence in strict logic. For example:
If you show up for work Monday morning, then you will get the job.
Let P = you show up for work Monday morning.
Let Q = you will get the job.
Let ~P = you do not show up for work Monday morning.
Let ~Q = you will not get the job.
The truth table for this conditional statement is this:
P___ Q___ P->Q
T____T_____T
T____F_____F
F____T_____T
F____F_____T
The only case when the statement is false is when the person shows up for work on Monday and does not get the job. All other situations, the statement is true. In the two cases where the person does not show up for work on Monday and still gets the job, the statement is called vacuously true or true by default.
Now take this statement: If the universe is fully mapped and the brain is the most complex structure found, then the brain is the most complex structure in the universe.
Let P = the universe is fully mapped.
Let Q = the brain is the most complex structure found.
Let R = the brain is the most complex structure in the universe
Let ~P ~Q and ~R be the contrary of these things.
Now the truth table for this is:
P___Q___R___(P ^ Q)___(P ^ Q) -> R
T___T___T______T___________T
T___T___F______T___________F
T___F___T______F___________T
T___F___F______F___________T
F___T___T______F___________T
F___T___F______F___________T
F___F___T______F___________T
F___F___F______F___________T
If you work out a few of the statements in english, you will find that the ONLY case when the statement is false is if the universe is fully mapped and the brain is the most complex structure found, and the brain is not the most complex structure in the universe.
By the dictates of logic, I must concede the possibility of truth to each of the possibilities, except the one definite case where the statement is false. In one sense that could be looked at as equivocation. I see it as keeping to the tenets of logic.
I used this form of the hypothetical, because the argument:
If the universe is not fully mapped and the brain is the most complex structure found so far, then the brain is not the most complex structure in the universe because the universe is not fully mapped.
Or
If the universe is not fully mapped and the brain is the most complex structure found so far, then there are more complex structures in the universe.
Are two statements that are simply too illogical in and of themselves. As I said, they have the appearance of wishes. That's your bailiwick, not mine.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 12, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
December 12th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Not infinite by any means.
Clearly. However, it is presumed that we can never "fully map the universe". What is required is a reasonably representative sample. Most of the known universe is apparently a cold vacuum devoid of life. Among the trillions of stars, there is good evidence there will be trillions of planets. (Recent discoveries of extra-Solar planets have added significant support to this longstanding prediction.) Similar extrapolations apply to other areas of astrobiological interest.
The primordial Earth was very different from that of the modern world. It is impossible to replicate every possible configuration of matter that existed in those ancient oceans and shores, nor to conduct experiments lasting over millions of years. However, scientists can still study various micas and other catalysts to determine how they might interact with organic compounds.
Comment by Zachriel — December 12, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
December 12th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Bradford
Any other origins theory, I meant (as I hoped was implied from the last two sentences in that paragraph, which you neglected to quote.
AnaxagorasRules
I assumed it was something like that. It was no big deal for me until Joy made it one.
Comment by The Pixie — December 12, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
December 12th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Zachriel:
What leads you to think the process that generated DNA is causally explained by undirected chemical reactions? What bias tilts the view in that direction?
Comment by Bradford — December 12, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
December 12th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Abiogenesis is as well suported as any other theory?
Let's look at the last two sentences I "neglected" to quote. Here they are:
Neither of those sentences make it clear you were limiting your other scientific theory comparisons to origin theories. If they had made that distinction there would have been no comment.
Comment by Bradford — December 12, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
December 12th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
The point of that logic excursion was to show how following the tenets of conditional logic can lead to what looks like equivocation. I've already told Pixie that I think the brain may or may not be the most complex structure in the universe. I do that to keep within a logical framework. To insist that one or the other must be correct without prior knowledge (meaning this one over that one), which is Pixie's position, has all the appearance of a wish.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 12, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
December 12th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Bradford:
What do you mean by undirected? Is there any evidence there was a director around 4Gy ago?
Comment by Raevmo — December 12, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
December 12th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Bradford
Even better, here is the whole paragraph:
The big clue is at the end there, where I say "the most likely scenario". I do not find abiogenesis more likely than relativity; but you see that is not on the list of scenarios I am considering. That being because I am considering origins scenarios. Also, the second clause of the first sentence; I highlight a facet of abiogenesis that makes it stand out – scientists doing research. Scientists are doing research in any number of theories. It is only when we restrict ourselves to theories about the origins question that this because unusual, because then – and only then – abiogensis is remarkable because there is this research. Look at the second sentence, which is again pointing to the origins question, indicating that we know something happened.
I am happy to concede it was not clear. Hopefully it is now.
Hey, it was not me that claimed to have made a "scientifically based assessment". Now it seems that your "scientifically based assessment" depends on what I understand about basic cellular processes. Sounds to me like a dodge, I am sorry to say. In fact most of your attempts at supporting you claim of a "scientifically based assessment" seems to involve you asking questions. Why is that?
If you really had a "scientifically based assessment", you would have presented the science. No science, and so, I suspect, no "scientifically based assessment".
AnaxagorasRules
As I explained before, my objection was the apparent implication that we have reasonable grounds to think it likely that the brain is the most complex structure in the universe. If your position is that we do not know, then that is fine. We interprete Atkinson and Hilgard differently; not something I feel sufficiently strongly that I want to debate it.
Comment by The Pixie — December 12, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
December 12th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Design is indicated by nature. There's no necessity to have to provide independent evidence of a designer unless one intends to exclude the idea a priori.
Comment by Bradford — December 12, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
December 12th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Since this is your reaction to a comment citing the coding nature of DNA and the correspondence of codons to amino acids I'll assume you are unable to recognize science when you see it or are unwilling to engage in analytical discussions of causation based on an observed outcome- DNA and its properties.
Comment by Bradford — December 12, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
December 12th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Bradford:
Oh, I see. That really explains everything. Seriously, I think you are misunderestimating what chemical reactions can do without direction. A single cell developing into an embryo is an amazing collection of chemical reactions without any need of external guidance (just incubate a chicken egg at roughly 40 degrees C for a few weeks). If you accept that unguided natural processes can accomplish that, why is it then so hard to envision the possibility that life evolved gradually from simple competing self-replicating molecules, perhaps RNA molecules, who knows? You haven't given any scientific reason why that would be impossible without a Designer. And let's not forget to mention Hitler at this point.
Comment by Raevmo — December 12, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
December 12th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Hard to argue with a tautology.
We are not without all prior knowledge. We have a universe of matter and energy such as on Earth, with common elements that spontaneously organize into complex organic molecules; a reasonable understanding of planetary formation, including recently discovered extra-Solar planets; a strongly supported Theory of (biological) Evolution, with brains deeply rooted in the phylogenetic tree. There is still a lot unknown, but the Principle of Mediocrity would suggest that sentient life is not unique.
Comment by Zachriel — December 12, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
December 12th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Zach:
Um… what common elements are those, and what "complex organic molecules" are you claiming they "spontaneously organize" into?
Comment by Joy — December 12, 2007 @ 9:54 pm
December 12th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
This is a very guided process. The information directing the process is encoded into the genome of the organism. A preset cascade of regulatory signals ensures that each developmental step occurs as needed and in its proper sequence. What is at issue here is the accuracy of the analytical perspective. Living organisms operate according to programmed functions. Functions may be analyzed by biochemists from a chemical perspective and by biophysicists from a physics perspective just as one can view the operation of man-made technology from the perpsective of underlying physical forces. When you separate the information perspective from the biochemical perspective and treat the former as if it arises from the latter you have made an arbitrary decision to view an origins issue in a way that ensures the conclusion you are seeking. Since empirical evidence is in short supply this means that the origin of life is currently based on philosophical preferences.
If information preceeds and influences physical constructs (as it does with human generated technology) then one has a paradigm which when supplemented by physical data, has the makings of a theory of intelligent design.
Self-replicating RNA used in OOL experiments is the result of human design. I'll go into the details of this if you wish. Self-replicating molecules are examples of chemically directed outcomes. Genomes are information directive. A functional nucleic acid contains information that is sequentially sensitive to the coding convention which enables function (assuming existing mechanisms required for translation). The scientific challenge is how does a system acquire both symbolically expressed information and an encoding convention in the absence of intelligent input?
Why do you ruin an otherwise good comment with a remark like this?
Comment by Bradford — December 12, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
December 12th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
Well, I suppose you could try to argue that it might not be the case that the brain either is the most complicated structure in the universe or it isn't:
~(P v ~P)
Be my guest.
This has nothing to do with the validity that either the brain is the most complex structure in the universe or it isn't.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 12, 2007 @ 10:41 pm
December 12th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
It was once thought that the Heavens were composed of a quintessence called aether. Then Galileo discovered mountains on the Moon. It is now known that the elements that form the Earth, such as hydrogen and carbon, are common throughout the visible universe.
Complex organic molecules will form spontaneously under a variety of conditions, including on comets or in stellar nebulae. These compounds include amino acids and nitrogen-bearing polycyclic hydrocarbons. There is reason to believe that a planet with liquid water would be teeming with these and other molecules.
Comment by Zachriel — December 12, 2007 @ 10:52 pm
December 12th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
It may not be decisive, but it is certainly relevant, allows one to narrow the range of uncertainty, and provides a plausible framework for further investigation.
Comment by Zachriel — December 12, 2007 @ 11:01 pm
December 12th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
It's still the same type of argument: either there is sentient life elsewhere in the universe or there isn't. There is no getting around this:
P____(P v ~P)
T_______T
F_______T
It's still a tautology, no matter what you plug in for P. If you want to make a logical argument that draws definite conclusions from premises that are in the form of suggestibility or probability or leanings, then I think you'll always have the problem that the conclusion does not necessarilly follow the premises. In other words, it will always be true that the conclusion could be false. You'll end up with an invalid and unsound argument. You could piece together an argument that concludes a probablility of something, but a probability of something being true still carries with it the chance that it is false. This sort of argument, with premises and conclusions of probability can support hunches and steer investigations, but one must be very honest with onself here, because maybes and shoulds and mights are best left out of ones logical structure, imo. [Edit: Also the form of the argument would need to be a syllogistic one, rather then conditional. That way, truth tables are avoided and the premises and conclusion can be attacked for themselves, as either this or that premise is true or not, and as whether the conclusion necesarilly follows and is always true.]
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 12, 2007 @ 11:28 pm
December 13th, 2007 at 12:16 am
That's what I had indicated. Your previous comment,
~(P v ~P), was so vacuous, I just assumed you were joking.A's first statement is normally construed as a question concerning the relative merits of each position. Z answers on the merits. A's second statement merely repeats the equivocation.
Comment by Zachriel — December 13, 2007 @ 12:16 am
December 13th, 2007 at 12:50 am
Hi, Zachriel,
A tautology is not vacuous. A tautology is always true. Either something is or something is not. This is always true. (Pzzt!) [Edit: but about the negation of it, yes, I was joking, so you can disregard what comes before the Pzzt!, as I realize you were not thinking the tautology was vacuous.]
Not quite: It goes like this:
A: There's either an invisible pink unicorn in the garage"”or there's not.
Z: There's not evidence of any pink unicorns.
A: Have you looked in the garage?
Z: Yes.
A: Then there is not a pink elephant in the garage, and the tautology is true.
Let's do something realistic:
A: Either there is a dog in the garage or there is not.
Z: There is not a dog in the garage.
A: Then there is no dog in the garage, and the tautology is true.
The tautology will always be true. You should have quit when you said: It's hard to argue against a tautology."
My advice: don't try to.
But if you insist, let's try one more:
A: The brain is either the most compex structure in the universe or it is not.
Z: ?
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 13, 2007 @ 12:50 am
December 13th, 2007 at 1:15 am
Zach:
Actually, the aether was the medium in which celestial objects rested, back when celestial objects were believed to rest. Then it was the medium through which celestial objects moved (and light propagated), back when celestial objects were discovered to move. Then we just took to calling it "space," and we still mostly call it that when we aren't being careful enough to call it "space-time." Astrophysicists are currently in a back-to-aether loop. They'll cycle out again.
Alas, the amino acids thus far discovered aren't amino acids we could ingest and metabolize to make new or replacement pieces-parts of bodies. Hydrocarbons (mostly aromatics) have been detected in the upper atmosphere of Titan, and Venus is pretty thick with them. Lighter ones (methane) are common as well.
If life spontaneously generates from heat and/or pressure cracked hydrocarbons (or even from cracked kerogens), our oil refineries would be generating life forms as well as fuels, plastics, resins, industrial chemicals and pharmaceuticals. And while there is a minority school in petroleum geology that likes an "abiogenic" theory to explain the origin of earth's once-ample supplies, most don't believe life spontaneously generated from the range of hydrocarbons represented in the kerogen-to-benzene spread. They believe earth's once-ample supplies of hydrocarbons in the kerogen-to-benzene spread are the end product of standard life form decay processes.
Somebody's got it backwards. Or maybe the hydrocarbons common in our celestial neighborhood all got deposited by the same source, and it wasn't dead bodies of once-living things. Why, some believe that kerogen-like components of carbonacious chondrite meteorites are the material that formed the terrestrial planets – like earth. Kerogen materials have been detected in interstellar dust clouds and dust around stars.
Or maybe living bodies do come from these stellar materials and when life's done the living bodies turn back into those stellar materials [diagenic hydrocarbon (kerogen/bitumen) production]. Thus discovery of prevalent hydrocarbons in our region means basically zip per whether life is present, could someday be present, or was present long ago but died and decomposed. Or it might mean stars are alive, and we're made of their decomposed bodies.
Oh, and I wanted to mention the mica hypothesis you referenced earlier. The speculations published last week have mica playing no chemical role. Mica is a silicate mineral with high chemical stability. The speculation was that all the complex molecules and intracellular structures necessary to cells may have originated in the space between the mica sheets, and complexified themselves while learning to work in orchestrated lock-step with each other without first having to be enclosed in protein membranes (cells). Similar potassium concentrations in mica and in living cells, along with identical spacing of negatively charged RNA phosphate groups in cells and negatively charged regions in mica is why the inference was drawn.
Comment by Joy — December 13, 2007 @ 1:15 am
December 13th, 2007 at 7:19 am
Bradford
If you are saying that what you have presented is, in your opinion, a scientific basis for your assessment, then that is fine with, and helps me gain some insight into what counts as science for ID. Thank you for the discussion.
Comment by The Pixie — December 13, 2007 @ 7:19 am
December 13th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Your tautology was vacuous. Worse, it was uninteresting and uninformative.
If I remember, this concerns the statement, "The human brain … may be the most complex structure in the universe". The statement is read as there is reasonable possibility (though not a certainty) that the brain is "the most complex structure in the universe". As such, it invites discussion as to the merit of the claim. It is not asserting the empty set or some such nonsense.
Z wasn't looking for a pink elephant, but an invisible pink unicorn. Z didn't see anything invisible. Z would need a net, of course.
English must not be your first language. When someone makes such a statement, they are usually discussing the relative merits of each position. Tautologies require no empirical investigation. But that's why Z went to the garage. Because he was interested in what is in the garage.
I did quit. Twice. I purposefully and directly ignored that line of discussion. I said, for the record, "Hard to argue with a tautology". Instead, I immediately argued concerning our relevant knowledge.
You are welcome to discuss that claim.
Comment by Zachriel — December 13, 2007 @ 8:52 am
December 13th, 2007 at 9:02 am
Aether was the fifth classical element, or quintessence (quinta essentia).
That wasn't the claim, of course.
As complex organic compounds form freely under a number of conditions, we can expect watery worlds to be teeming with soups of such compounds, including amino acids and quite possibly even more exotic concoctions.
Comment by Zachriel — December 13, 2007 @ 9:02 am
December 13th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Zach:
Yeah, and alchemists believed something described as being a lot like crude oil is the 'Prima Materia' from which all transient form is generated, and from which the Philosopher's Stone is fabricated. If you change the subject mid-stream from science to Greek philosophy, you might consider including a note to that effect.
Soup can be tasty, but I wouldn't recommend asphalt or wax (or even benzene) soup to anybody I know. Life does not spontaneously generate on this planet under any conditions we've observed or invented. Your faith that it spontaneously generates anyway is… faith. Do let us know when you've actually observed life spontaneously generating in asphalt soup (and don't forget the bay leaf!).
Comment by Joy — December 13, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
December 13th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Such as…?
Comment by chunkdz — December 13, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
December 13th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
I wouldn't recommend people hang out around thermal vents or in vats of industrial waste products, but other organisms may not feel so inhibited.
That's correct with regard to the modern Earth.
We know that life is based on organic chemistry, that complex compounds will spontaneously assemble, that extant life evolved from primitive forebears, that life can exist in extreme environments, and that life did not always exist on Earth. But this does not represent a complete theory of abiogenesis.
Comment by Zachriel — December 13, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
December 13th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
First I'll add a two phrases to my original statement:
I do that to keep within a logical framework. To insist that one or the other must be correct without prior knowledge of the truth or falsity of either (meaning this one is true over that one), which is Pixie's position, has all the appearance of a wish.
"without prior knowledge of the truth or falsity of either" is said in the vein of absent the certainty of knowing which one is true.
About this:
Going back to your statement:
All along I've been saying that the brain may or may not be the most complicated structure in the universe. Sometimes I've substituted "is" or "is not", which doesn't change the meaning. The only way to end that tautology is to make it impossible for one of the situations to be true. This can only occur when a structure is found that is more complex then the human brain. Then, and only then, does the tautology vanish, because the tautology will have been shown to be in contradiction to truth (because one of the cases can never be true). What emerges from the ashes of the fallen tautology is a new statement.
An argument on the basis of suggestibility (where it is not known with certainty whether the thing suggested is true or false) will never resolve into a conclusion that determines the truth or the falsity of the thing suggested. What is being showcased then is the efficacy of one's power of persuasion. Using one's abilities, one can be seen to "win" the debate, but the truth or falsity of what is suggested will forever remain out of reach, until the tautology is destroyed. That is not to say that there can't be stronger and weaker positions in these sorts of trysts. One can be made to look like a fool or a king, but the issue at hand remains unresolved.
I'm not saying that one has to be a robotic, Spock-like personality that never entertains possibilities. Things can be inferred. I'm not concerned about whether the human brain is the most complex thing in the universe or not, nor am I concerned if there is life elsewhere in the universe or not. My interest in this thread was strictly because of its involvment of logic. Personally, I'm more interested in the fundamentals of matter. For example, it strikes me as ironic that every atom that comprises me is a non-living thing. My interests, and where I will argue and debate possibilities have to do with matter in general, not just a particular form of it, such as life.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 13, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
December 13th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
A statement with as much content as there may or may not be an invisible pink unicorn in the garage.
There is no way for a tautology to be stop being true, otherwise it wouldn't be a tautology"”by definition.
Comment by Zachriel — December 13, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
December 13th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
In science, we don't establish some absolute notion of Truthâ„¢, but we use empirical evidence to support or contradict hypotheses. All claims are considered tentative no matter how strongly supported.
The movement of the Earth remains a valid scientific claim regardless of "the efficacy of one's power of persuasion".
Eppur si muove.
Comment by Zachriel — December 13, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
December 13th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
That quote was verbatiim out of Atkinson & Hilgard's Introduction To Psychology 14th edition. If you have a problem with it, complain to them. My position has been made abundantly clear.
The tautology ceases to exist. This happens when concrete evidence of the truth of the one situation renders its negation always false.
This is a tautology:
P____~P_____P v ~P
T_____F_______T
F_____T_______T
P is allowed to be false only as long as the possibility for it being false exists.
Because rediculous statments can be made is not a reason for throwing out a well-known logical device.
The truth of the negation of 1 + 1 = 2 cannot be made. It is known to be false. It is a gross error to allow ~(1 + 1 == 2) to be true. This is an example of the antithesis of logic. Allowing 1 + 1 == 2 to be true and allowing it to be also false is to not understand what a tautology really is, or how to reasonably construct one.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 13, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
December 13th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
And the truth or falseness of such hypotheses are not solved on the basis of suggestibility, are they?
LOL! Since it is certain that the earth moves, the role of the "efficacy of one's power of persuasion", in this case, is one of education.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 13, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
December 13th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Yes. Here it is.
You put forth a claim concerning the ranking of structures by complexity over the scope of the universe. And you presented the Atkinson & Hilgard quote as evidence in this regard. I would agree with the assertion that the human brain is probably "pretty high up on the totem pole" (but perhaps not as complex as The Brain From Planet Arous).
Your equivocation is with the word "correct". When discussing an empirical assertion, such as the prevalence of complex brains in the universe, empirical extrapolations from reasonable samples is an important consideration. You are right that prior knowledge is required to decide between empirical propositions, but you are wrong that The Pixie's position was devoid of prior knowledge.
{1+1=2} OR ~{1+1=2}is a tautology even though one of the terms is necessarily false.Mathematical theorems are tautologies. *Your* tautology was vacuous.
P OR ~Pis true regardless of the premise involved. The statement doesn't disappear. It remains true. You might try asking your professor of mathematics to explain this to you.Comment by Zachriel — December 13, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
December 13th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Scientific hypotheses are not Trueâ„¢ or Falseâ„¢. They are supported or unsupported.
The Earth's movement is not logically Certainâ„¢. It is a strongly supported scientific assertion.
Comment by Zachriel — December 13, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
December 13th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Zach is hopeless, Anaxagoras. He changes the subject mid-stream, he hems and haws about his faith as if it were something more than faith, and he's an endless dictionary of sleezy tactics from the swamp's annals of how no avoid uncomfortable facts, confuse issues, avoid topics and distract, distract, distract.
You can't reason with it.
Comment by Joy — December 13, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
December 13th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Joy:
I disagree. Zachriel is an admirable beacon of clarity, knowledge and consistent scientific reasoning. A very welcome beacon indeed in this ocean of obscurity. We can all learn a lot from him or her. I love you Zach, whoever you are.
Comment by Raevmo — December 13, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
December 13th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Bradford:
What exactly do you mean by "the information perspective" In what way is a biochemical description of primitive life insufficient?
OK (although I don't understand many of your undefined terms). But what makes you think it can't happen without intelligent input?
Just to annoy you a little bit. Hitler. Hitler. Fellow Christian and hater of Jews in good Christian tradition. Cheers.
Comment by Raevmo — December 13, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
December 13th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
This morning I have already replied to you with a revised statement to remove all ambiguity and which explains my meaning. Your going back to the orginal appears like a metaphorical flight, and is intellectually unbecoming. This is the revised statement in the reply to you.
To insist that one or the other must be correct without prior knowledge of the truth or falsity of either (meaning this one is true over that one), which is Pixie's position, has all the appearance of a wish.
"without prior knowledge of the truth or falsity of either" is said in the vein of absent the certainty of knowing which one is true.
If you carefully note the truth table, you will see that it is the case that all of the variables (A,B,C) are allowed to be sometimes true and sometimes false. In english translations, this is valid only to the extent that it is reasonable, in that it is reasonable that the statements can be true or false. If you think that you can make (1 + 1 == 2) and ~(1 + 1 == 2) into a valid tautology simply by saying it, then again, you have no idea of what a tautology really is or how to resonably construct one.
If you think it is vacuous to say that something may or may not be true, absence the certainty of the truth or falseness of the situation, then you are mistaken. Long ago in this thread I said that strictly adhering to conditional logic can sometimes give the appearance of equivocation. But I will categorically state that any claim in the form of "the human brain is the most complex structure in the universe or it is not", which takes an existent thing (the human brain) and hypothesizes a universal quality concerning it, such as relative complexity to other exixtent things, is not only not vacuous, but is also the most logical stance to take. As long as the uncertainty exists. And no, the uncertainty need not be an immutable, immortal thing, never able to be resolved one way or the other.
Notwithstanding that rediculous claims, of different kinds, can be made, like with your pink elephant, your ~(1 + 1 == 2), and your "The Brain from the Planet Arous".
In my system of thought, that the earth moves is a fact, meaning I don't question its truth. Assertions, scientific or otherwise are not necessarily truths (history has shown this to be true, no?). Personally, I think you should take the assertion that the earth moves and raise it up to the level of a fact. But that's for you to decide, and you'll have to use your own discretion as to what constitutes a fact. That the earth moves qualifies as a fact for me.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 13, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
December 13th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
In what way does chemistry explain the causal origins of biopolymers like nucleic acids and proteins? In what way does the chemical nature of ink explain the notations on a newspaper? I'm willing to listen to explanations which is why I pose my sentences in question form.
BTW, Hitler headed a nation that was predominantly Christian although like other nations, most Germans give Christianity, or whatever the religion for that matter, more ceremonial attention than sincere devotion to its values. Germany was 100% German. You don't note the Germanic aspect of this? Why not?
Comment by Bradford — December 13, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
December 13th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Hi, Joy,
I'll tell you one thing. He has forever damaged his credibility, as far as I'm concerned. I'll go with him as long as he wants, even though I'm not sure what he is actually trying to argue.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 13, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
December 13th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Bradford:
Well, decades of experiments have shown how biopolymers originate from simpler precursors. Check out an introductory biochemistry text if you like. And you didn't answer any of my questions:
About the inevitable Hitler you said:
Um, because it's self-evident that Germans are Germans (and not true Scotsmen). Christians have killed Jews since forever because the latter allegedly caused the death of Jesus. Hitler just turned it into an industrial enterprise.
Comment by Raevmo — December 13, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
December 13th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Not at all. I even just requoted the original point of contention. Ironically, AnaxagorasRules complains that I did.
Except you didn't remove any ambiguity, only compounded it. As all scientific knowledge is tentative, we never have absolute certainty. We never know the absolute Truthâ„¢ or Falsityâ„¢ of empirical assertions.
You put forth an empirical claim concerning the ranking of structures by complexity over the scope of the universe. You have neither retracted nor supported your assertion.
P OR ~Pis always a tautology for any premise P. Just as the union of a set and its complement is the universal set"”even if the set is empty. That's the way it works. Please go find a professor of mathematics and ask.Uncertainty always exists concerning scientific claims. All are considered tentative no matter how strongly supported. That includes the Theory of Gravity which has already gone through several incarnations and may be due for another.
The movement of the Earth is a scientific fact. However, that you don't question its factual basis means that you are accepting the fact on non-scientific grounds. Presumably on the authority of a science that does make it a business of questioning such facts.
Comment by Zachriel — December 13, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
December 13th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Of course biopolymers can be accounted for once cells already exists. You have proposed nothing with any specificity at all that would explain how a series of chemical reactions generate a cell.
This makes no sense to anyone with a smidgeon of knowledge about world history. Jews have been persecuted on every continent by all different types of national groups. This includes South Americans, North Americans, Europeans, Asians those in the Middle East… It includes Muslims and Hindus and a plethora of ancient peoples holding now defunct religious views. It includes atheists. But it is the Christians who have been killing Jews forever. Forget about several millenium preceeding Christ and forget today's world where the greatest number of those dying because of their religion are Christians. Currently Jews are persecuted everywhere except in nations where Christianity is the predominant religion. You appear to be one who bases his views on his emotions and whatever sways you at this particular time in your life.
Comment by Bradford — December 13, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
December 13th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
Stick to the specific question of brain complexity. It is possible to discover something in the universe that is more complex then the human brain, and therefore it is possible to render a tautological statement like the one talked about here invalid. This should be obvious, in this case.
Huh? What I have said all along is that the brain may or may not be the most complicated structure in the universe. I will certainly NOT withdraw from that position. (Don't bring up that quote from Atkinson's and Hilgard's textbook, unless you also want to claim that they are wrong to suppose that the brain may be the most complex structure in the universe. That's a beef you have with them.)
One thing you must realize is that the letters P, Q, R, and such are variables which stand for statements. To try to make a tautology out of a statement like (1 + 1 == 2) by plugging it into a truth table, requires you to say 1 + 1 is not equal to 2 for one of the situations, and that is plainly idiotic. A tautology can remain valid only as long as the possibility exists for the variable to be true or false. You cannot argue 1 + 1 = 2 one time and that 1 + 1 is not = 2 at another time, and think that you've hit upon a tautology. You simply cannot. You can only validly negate a variable when it is possible for the negation to be true! For example, with the variable representing "The earth moves", I would never attempt to construct a tautology out of this, because "The earth does not move" is not true. You seem to think that all you have to do to establish a valid tautology is say whatever you want, then negate it, logically "or" the two, and presto! a valid tautology. How can you even think straight with this sort of reasoning?
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 13, 2007 @ 10:30 pm
December 14th, 2007 at 3:52 am
AnaxagorasRules wrote this to Zachriel:
That's pretty close. In fact, the 'classic' tautology is what logicians call the 'law of the excluded middle', and it is expressed in this way:
The whole point of a tautology (in fact its very definition) is that it remains true regardless of the truth value of its variables.
"There is life on Europa or there is no life on Europa" is a tautology.
"There is life on Earth or there is no life on Earth" is also a tautology.
Both statements are true regardless of the truth of their constituent statements. That's what makes them tautologies. The fact that we know there is life on Earth but don't yet know if there is life on Europa is irrelevant.
Zachriel is using the term 'tautology' correctly. How is this detrimental to 'straight thinking'?
Comment by valerie — December 14, 2007 @ 3:52 am
December 14th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Zachriel drove her into the teeth of a fierce storm which kicked the ship white with wrath. The crew stretched the boom until the sail set like a wall against the wind. The crest sloshed a foot or more onto the deck, but they knew they were masters of the sea that day.
Finally breaking through the squall-line, the sun burst forth onto the ship and crew. There is nothing like the trade winds at your back and the promise of a golden horizon stretched ahead.
Comment by Zachriel — December 14, 2007 @ 9:11 am
December 14th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Zachriel:
If the argument that life is found on earth under extreme conditions is meant to be an argument for abiogenesis it is a faulty one. The unicellular organisms referenced are able to survive harsh conditions often because they possess extremely advanced functions. For example, a unicellular organism (the name of which escapes me at the moment) has been known to be found in nuclear reactors and other harsh environments. Why? Because its genomic repair functions are the most efficient known. If humans were so equipped we would likely live well into our hundreds. Extremely fine tuned biological features do not argue for abiogenesis. You can use them as examples when arguing incremental improvements to the enth degree but abiogenesis is not about maximizing biological utility. It requires putting into existence the very mechanisms that allow for subsequent adjustments and optimization.
Comment by Bradford — December 14, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
December 14th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Hi, Valerie,
To take one of the particular "tautologies" broached in this thread, I'll use the statement 1+1=2 as an example. To put 1+1=2 into a tautological form requires this:
1+1 = 2___________~(1+1 = 2)_______(1+1=2) v ~(1+1=2)
T____________________F_________________T
F____________________T_________________T
The second row is true only by the virtue of an untrue premise. It is unsound to make a tautology out of a premise of which its negation can NEVER be true. This should be obvious. If you want, I'll go head to head with you on this also.
He is not constructing a sound tautology when he makes one out of 1+1=2. Again, this should be obvious.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 14, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
December 14th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Hi, Valerie,
To further illustrate the idea:
All people like dogs.
Spot is a dog.
All people like Spot.
This is a valid argument. The conclusion necessarilly follows from the premises. However, it is unsound because the first premise is not true. It is the same sort of situation in a tautological statement when one forces a true conclusion from an untrue premise. It becomes unsound and should be discarded out of one's mind.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 14, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
December 14th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Hi, Valerie,
I am not disputing that a tautology is of the form P v ~P, what I am complaining about is the misunderstanding about what constitutes a meaningful and sound one. The case that P v ~P is always true is sound ONLY when it is possible for the negation of P to be true. In a case like 1+1=2, such is not the case. This should be obvious, like I said.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 14, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
December 14th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
A tautology does not "force a true conclusion from an untrue premise." Its truth is independent of the truth-value of its variables.
From planetmath.org:
Read that carefully. It doesn't matter whether P stands for "there is life on Earth" or "there is life on Europa". "P or ~P" is a tautology either way, and it is true either way.
Comment by valerie — December 14, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
December 14th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
For crying out loud, Anax, you're missing the point that has been glaringly obvious for several comments now: When you say that [(1+1=2) v ~(1+1=2)] is a tautology, it is because it is necessarily true; that's what a tautology is by definition. What this amounts to in normal language is a disjunct, stated as "Either the mathematical expression 1+1=2 is true or it is not true." There is no way for it to be false because a disjunct only has to meet one condition to be true. (Consider the disjunct "Either I am posting on Telic Thoughts, or I am the Queen of England." It is true that I am posting on Telic Thoughts, which makes the disjunct true even though the second condition is obviously false – at least, I hope it's obvious.) If 1+1=2 is true, then the disjunct is true; if it is false, then one condition has still been met, and the disjunct is true. There is no requirement of "soundness" because a disjunct is not an argument, and it cannot be false. The tautology might not be useful (and generally disjuncts between a proposition and its negation aren't very helpful), but it can still be trivially true.
Seriously, this whole tautology tangent has been a drain on this post. Yes, it is true that "the brain may or may not be the most complex structure in the universe"; it's also true that my right baby toe "may or may not be the most complex structure in the universe." Neither tell us anything about which is actually true, only that the disjunct is true (i.e. one of the conditions is true). That's what everyone but you has been saying for numerous comments, so just drop it already. Your failure to admit that you're wrong is just depressing.
Comment by thechristiancynic — December 14, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
December 14th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
thechristiancynic:
You're right about the tangential nature of the tautology issue. There have been quite a few tangents including the brain complexity matter. I would add though that your last sentence misses an underlying side issue. It is extremely important to materialists that nothing about the earth be viewed as unique and certainly not most unique. That is what has goaded some otherwise indifferent people to devote so much focus on a seemingly insignificant matter. It was like showing the bull the red cape.
Comment by Bradford — December 14, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
December 14th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Hi, Valerie,
1+1=2 has only one possible state: true. ~(1+1=2) has only one possible state: false. To think otherwise is absurd. You cannot lie your way into a tautology, which is what you do when you say that it is true that 1+1 does not equal 2. What you are failing to realize is that the independence of the conclusions from the truth values of a tautology like P v ~P can only be valid when it is possible for the premises to be negated. In that case, and only that case, is the tautology sound.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 14, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
December 14th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Hi, thechristiancynic,
I've been saying the opposite, regarding this particular "tautology". Posted again:
Me to Valerie:
To take one of the particular "tautologies" broached in this thread, I'll use the statement 1+1=2 as an example. To put 1+1=2 into a tautological form requires this:
1+1 = 2________~(1+1 = 2)____(1+1=2) v ~(1+1=2)
T_________________F______________T
F_________________T______________T
The second row is true only by the virtue of an untrue premise. It is unsound to make a tautology out of a premise of which its negation can NEVER be true. This should be obvious.
The only possible value for the state of 1+1=2 is True. Period.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 14, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
December 14th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Hi, Bradford,
We do have a few closet mystics in this thread, don't we?
Who live in some nebulous land where statements like 1+1 does not equal 2 can be claimed to be true. I don't think this is so insignificant. (But it is getting boring now.)
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 14, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
December 14th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
This is simply wrong. The brilliance of logic in situations like this is that it is universal – modus ponens doesn't change depending on the values of P & Q; the form [P->Q; P; therefore, Q] is always valid. Validity and soundness are qualities of arguments, and so a disjunct like P v ~P cannot possibly qualify.
Now I think understand the breakdown, so let me state that there are two tautologies in this discussion: there is the necessarily true disjunct P v ~P and there is the definitionally (and hence necessarily) true tautology 1+1=2. (The definitional part is important, since 1+1=2 is true in certain mathematical bases but not in others like binary arithmetic.) You're putting far too much stock into the truth tables, for if the second row is impossible, then there is only one possible combination, which is true – hence making the disjunct always true and thus a tautology. I can't believe that such a pedantic issue has gone so far, but there you go.
Bradford:
Which last sentence – the one you quoted or the last in my comment? If the latter, then I'm not sure what the issue is; if the former (as I suspect), then I think that might be stretching. If anything, the "otherwise indifferent people" are merely frustrated that such a trivial statement could be so blown out of proportion. If I am to be counted as an "otherwise indifferent" person, then so be it, but I'm not a materialist by any stretch, so I don't think your generalization holds.
Comment by thechristiancynic — December 14, 2007 @ 9:28 pm
December 14th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Anax:
Smugness is never becoming, but it is far less so without any ground to stand on. The conversation has gone thusly:
Anax: 1+1=2 and its negation cannot be a tautology because it is necessarily true.
Chorus: Tautologies are always true regardless of the premise.
Anax: But 1+1=2 is always true!
Chorus: And tautologies are always true…
And so on ad infinitum. No one's said that 1+1=2 can be false (except me when I qualified that it would be false under a base two system, where 1+1=10), so you can forget about your "closet mystic" theory.
Comment by thechristiancynic — December 14, 2007 @ 9:33 pm
December 14th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Hi, thechristiancynic,
I am not talking about conditionals. I am saying that this is not a sound tautology, with sound meant in the same sense that it is used in syllogistic logic, in the case when an untrue premise produces the conclusion:
1+1 = 2________~(1+1 = 2)____(1+1=2) v ~(1+1=2)
T_________________F______________T
F_________________T______________T
You cannot put a value of true to ~(1+1=2). Ever. Period [Edit: in base ten
I have to give thechristiancynic a little gotme there.]
I bet you wouldn't say that ~(1+1=10) is true, would you, in base 2?
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 14, 2007 @ 9:53 pm
December 14th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
No, nor did I say that ~(1+1=2) is true in base ten. Your insistence on taking issue with positions that no one is espousing is rather strange. The issue is really the idea that a tautology is not "sound" if you use a premise that cannot possibly be true. Yet the logic of the tautology is that it is always true in that one condition is always true – so if the disjunct has a necessary condition and an impossible condition, then it will always be true by virtue of the fact that one condition cannot be false (even though the other cannot be true). You dispute this, and I'm not sure what else to say to you except that I've never seen or heard anyone differentiate between a sound and unsound tautology but you. I would be open to evidence to the contrary.
Comment by thechristiancynic — December 14, 2007 @ 10:35 pm
December 14th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Hi, thechristiancynic,
I wish that were the case. Zachriel was arguing with me yesterday, and Valerie is arguing with me today, on just this issue. All I'm saying, really, is that you can't assign a truth value of true to ~(1+1=2) ever, base 10. Valerie today is arguing that you can give it any truth value you want if the form of the statement that is desired is a tautolgy. In my thought process this is what happens when I build a table made up of (1+1=2) along with its negation:
1+1 = 2________~(1+1 = 2)____(1+1=2) v ~(1+1=2)
T_________________F______________T
At this point it makes no sense to add any more rows, because the rows will have the same values. This might seem trivial to you (and it should), but I am getting flack over this because a couple of the people here (really only one now) think that they can do this:
1+1 = 2________~(1+1 = 2)____(1+1=2) v ~(1+1=2)
T_________________F______________T
F_________________T______________T
I am fighting tooth and nail against this, on the virtue that you cannot give a premise values that it can't possible take. This may seem trivial to you, and why don't I drop it. It's because this issue sprang directly from the brain complexity issue, where I was accused of arguing vacuously because I was arguing that: There might be a more complex structure than a brain in the universe, or there might not be. That IS a tautology, but a sound one. And then the discussion took off to what you see now. I'm trying my best to argue on the side of reason.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 14, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
December 14th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
This is the most basic Boolean algebra. If you want to assign a truth table, the truth-value of the premises are known.
{1+1 = 2} is True~{1+1 = 2} is False
{1+1 = 2} OR ~{1+1 = 2}
True OR False = True
My guess is you confusing this with an argument by contradiction.
Comment by Zachriel — December 14, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
December 14th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Hi, thechristiancynic,
By breaking the tautology down, row by row, I use soundness by way of analogy to unsound syllogisms that are unsound by virtue of an untrue premise. I know that soundness is not typically spoken of with tautologies, but I have also never seen a tautology that so blatantly lies about the truthness of a premise.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 14, 2007 @ 11:35 pm
December 14th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
Don't you understand that that is NOT a tautology??
1+1 = 2________~(1+1 = 2)____(1+1=2) v ~(1+1=2)
T_________________F______________T
Zachriel, that is not a tautology! It is always true, but only because 1+1=2 is always true. P v ~P will always be true. But you cannot call every case of P v ~P a tautology.
[Edit: If you agree that the above is not a tautology and that one cannot be reasonably made out of it, then our bit of confusion is done. Only Valerie is left.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 14, 2007 @ 11:40 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 12:50 am
Hi, Zachriel,
This has been my position all along:
Let P = there may be something more complex than the brain in the universe.
~P = there may not be something more complex than the brain in the universe.
Spoken completely: There may be something more complex than the brain in the universe, or there might not be.
P_________~P________(P v ~P)
T__________F___________T
F__________T___________T
This has been my position all along. I can reasonably maintain this position as long as the premise can possibly be negated. If tomorrow it was suddenly discovered that something more complex than the brain exists, then I would no longer be able to hold this position. The tautology would cease to exist, or if you don't like that phraseology, then I would simply discard the tautology as being unsound. I would then adopt P as always true.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 15, 2007 @ 12:50 am
December 15th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Tautologies are always true. P OR ~P is a tautology for any premise.
A valid purpose of such a tautology might be to cleave the universe in order to begin a discussion of the relative merits of each position. We do have significant (albeit far from complete) knowledge that could be relevant to such a discussion.
It would be clearer to state it as a single proposition. There is nothing more complex than the brain in the universe. If you find even a single counterexample, then the proposition would be falsified. But not having a counterexample does not imply that the proposition and the contrary proposition are of equal merit.
Invisible pink unicorns exist or they do not exist is tautologous statement. However, each premise is not of equal likelihood. Let's consider just Invisible pink unicorns do not exist. The discovery of a single invisible pink unicorn would certainly falsify the proposition, but this still doesn't mean the two premises have equal validity. We are not without prior empirical knowledge and we might be able to assign a reasonable possibility to each premise.
Your 'falsifiable statement' is actually a universal negative. To falsify by exhaustive search requires searching the entire universe. But there is another method, the scientific method. We tentatively accept the hypothesis, then try to test its empirical implications.
You might want to think about the difference between deductive certainty based on axioms, and scientific claims. We judge scientific theories by their fit to the data and their ability to make specific and distinguishing empirical predictions. Even the most strongly supported scientific theories are considered tentative and subject to being revised or discarded.
Comment by Zachriel — December 15, 2007 @ 11:07 am
December 15th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
I suddenly realize what the real difference between you and I is with this (1+1=2) premise. What is causing it is a superficial reasonableness. It occured to me when I wrote this to you last night:
Me to you:
Because it is in a tautological form, and because it looks reasonable, you think it is a reasonable tautology. But it is not a reasonable tautology. In fact, I was being unreasonable when I allowed the truth table of 1+1=2 to take that form.
Let's take 3 premises, and I'll explain why I think this:
1. (1+1=2)
2. The earth moves.
3. The brain may or may not be the most complex thing in the universe.
What are the truth tables?
With P standing in for the premises:
1. (1+1=2) Truth table: in the form of P (no tautology).
2. The earth moves. Truth table: in the form of P (no tautology).
3. The brain may or may not…. Truth table: P v ~P (tautology).
I would never normally entertain the possibility that (1+1=2) can be negated. Nor would I ever entertain the possibility that the earth does not move. But I would entertain the possibility of negating the brain premise, because I think the possibility for its negation to be true to exist.
This is why I've been saying that 1+1=2 cannot be made into a reasonable tautology. But after unthinkingly putting it into a tautological form myself, I realized that what I'm saying is not so obvious. The three examples above should clear my stance on the 1+1=2 issue.
If anything is allowed to be put into a P v ~P form, then every single mathematical statement can be said to be a tautology. In fact, mathematics itself could be said to be a tautology if the statements are allowed to be put into a P v ~P form. Worse, not only mathematics but everything could be said to be a tautology if allowed to be put into a P v ~P form. But in many cases, like mathematical statements, the negation should never be entertained because the possiblity of negation does not exist. In that case, the truth table should simply be:
Premise
true
No other possibility exists for a premise that is always true.
But, what is to stop a quick thinking opponenet from saying, "What happens if your premise is 1=0? Don't you then have to put it in the form of P v ~P so that you can arrive at the true case?" My answer is no, because my premises are what I believe to be true, so in this case my premise becomes 1 does not equal 0, and there is no possibility of negating that premise.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 15, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Anax, it's clear that you are insisting that there is some characteristic (soundness, "reasonableness", whatever) that applies to tautologies. I challenged you before to show someone else who makes such a distinction; otherwise, you are doing so arbitrarily and expecting the rest of us to fall in line with it when we recognize the common definition of a tautology (a logical structure that is true regardless of the veracity of the premises). You have the burden of proof here, not us.
Comment by thechristiancynic — December 15, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
The difference is that you don't know what is meant by tautology. It has nothing to do with the content of the premises, but the formal structure of the argument.
tautologous, true by virtue of its logical form alone.
It is a tautology. Just as an empty set is a set. Just as zero is a number. If the first premise is true, and the second premise is false, the disjunction is true. That's the definition of a logical disjunction.
Valid mathematical theorems are tautological. However, not all mathematical statements are tautologies. Some are false.
Then you say the premise is false.
You seem to ignore arguments that don't fit what you expect. Science consistently questions its claims, including the movement of the Earth. The only reason you know the Earth moves is because it is a bit of science you were taught.
Comment by Zachriel — December 15, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
Oh, I understand completely what is meant by a tautology. What you don't understand is that you should never entertain an impossibility, such as a ~P when P is 1+1=2. In my thinking, I do not entertain impossiblities. You do. That's why you keep bringing up unicorns.
If the first premise is always true, there is no disjunct. There is only:
Premise
true
That is your truth table.
When I entertain a premise that I think might be false, then and only then will I put it in the form of P v ~P, such as with the brain premise. Only then is it reasonable to do so.
Science can question the movement of the earth all it wants. I don't.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 15, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
What are you talking about? You can't see my beetle!
Comment by thechristiancynic — December 15, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Hi, thechristiancynic,
What I won't entertain, at this time, is that I can see it. [Edit: just because you are the base 2 guy, I qualify this by saying "not entertain" is meant in this sense:
I cannot see thechristiancynic's beetle = True. That is the truth table.]
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 15, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Then you might do well to stop acting as though you can.
Comment by thechristiancynic — December 15, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Hi, thechristiancynic,
LOL! You don't have to take my word for it, but I was in the process of responding to just that sort of remark (actually editing my statement was what I was doing), expecting you to make it.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 15, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
I really hope the Wittgenstein reference isn't lost here. Otherwise, this whole thing has lost a lot of its humor.
Comment by thechristiancynic — December 15, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Hi, thechristiancynic,
Just in case you are entertaining the possibility that I can see your beetle, let me tell you that I cannot. Do you think it is possible that I'm lying?
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 15, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
For the record, tautologies really have nothing to do with possibility… [Edit: Except insofar as it is impossible for genuinely tautological statements to be false under any condition.]
Also, I hope you can't see my 'beetle' – that would indeed be tragic for you!
Comment by thechristiancynic — December 15, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Hi, thechristiancynic,
Again I'll disagree. Tautologies are about possibilities. When you lay out the variables in a logical statement, you don't begin with thinking that you have a tautology. If you happen to end up with one, then you are permitted to take the tautological expression and substitute TRUE for it. You can then use that TRUE in conjuction with other expressions.
An always true premise starts out with a TRUE. The truth table for it is simply this:
True Pemise
True.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 15, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Your disagreement is noted. However, in the absence of consensus on the topic by experts in the field of logic, forgive me (or not) for not thinking too highly of your disagreement.
Comment by thechristiancynic — December 15, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Hi, thechristiancynic,
That's fine. In digital electronics, the equivalent of an always true premise is a line tied to the power supply, for example 5 volts plugging into various inputs of multi-input logic gates, representing a logic HIGH in positive logic. I have seen this many times.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 15, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
My beetle is better than your beetle.
If P is {1+1=2}, then ~P is false. Not very entertaining perhaps, but proper propositional logic nonetheless.
Comment by Zachriel — December 15, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
I may never convince you that it is wrong to consider ~P at any time when P can only be true. All I can do is tell you the reasons why I think this is so.
Here's something to consider. If you open up any discrete mathematics textbook (and I mean a bonafide textbook, not a wikipedia entry) and go to the section that contains the definition of a tautology, meaning where the definition is put forth, I will bet you dollars to donuts that, in the example truth table shown to illustrate the definition, and in the case where only one premise P is involved, you will never see this:
P____~P_____(P v ~P)
T_____F________T
What you will see instead for the case where there is only one premise, is this:
P____~P_____(P v ~P)
T_____F________T
F_____T________T
There is a reason for that. The reason is that the truth table for an always true premise does not belong in a tautological form:
Always True Premise
______T_________
There is no other possible combination for an always true premise. There is no justification for considering its negation, which you explicitly must do the moment you insert the consideration into a truth table.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 15, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
I just considered it. You ignored that I did.
If P is {1+1=2}, then ~P is false.
Comment by Zachriel — December 15, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Anax,
I think I see the root of your error: an inability to think abstractly.
You acknowledge that P or ~P can express a tautology, but then you mistakenly insist that the tautology "ceases to exist" if P is always true.
You've expressed some familiarity with digital logic, so let me give an example in terms of a logic gate:
Suppose we have a two-input OR gate with inputs A and B and output Z. The truth table looks like this:
___A____B____|___Z__
___F_____F____|___F__
___F_____T____|___T__
___T_____F____|___T__
___T_____T____|___T__
Now suppose we place the OR gate in a circuit where input A is tied high (i.e. "true") and input B is tied low (i.e. "false"). This eliminates all of the lines in the truth table, except for this one:
___T_____F____|___T__
Does this mean that the OR gate is no longer an OR gate? Does the OR gate "cease to exist" Of course not. It is still an OR gate, carrying out an OR function. It's just that the full range of that OR function is not being exercised, because the inputs are tied to fixed values.
In exactly the same way, {1+1=2} or ~{1+1=2} is a tautology, carrying out a "tautological function". It's just that the full range of the "tautological function" is not being exercised, because the "input" is being "tied" to a fixed value.
Tying the input of an OR gate to "true" doesn't cause the OR gate to cease to exist, nor does it render the OR gate "unsound". Likewise, substituting an always-true premise for P in the tautology P or ~P does not cause the tautology to cease to exist, nor does it render the tautology "unsound".
I hope that clears things up for you.
Comment by valerie — December 15, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Hi, Valerie,
What I am saying is that when P is always true, then it is not a tautology. The truth table for an always true premise is:
Always True Premise
______T_______
There is no other possible combination. This is the crux of my argument. There is no justification for considering ~P in this case.
That is completely different from my meaning when I say a tautology ceases to exist. This is what I mean when I say a tautology ceases to exist:
Let P = The brain may be the most complicated structure in the universe. This is a tautalogy, because the truth table for this is:
P_______~P________(P v ~P)
T________F___________T
F________T___________F
If tomorrow, it is suddenly discovered that there is a more complicated structure in the universe, than I will no longer have as a premise that there may not be a more complicated structure.
I will now say, let P = There is a more complicated structure in the universe than the brain. The truth table is:
___P___
___T___
There is no other possible combination. This is not a tautology.
That is what I'm saying.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 15, 2007 @ 9:42 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
What I'm saying is that ~(1+1=2) should not even be expressed because it should not be considered. The only truth table for 1+1=2 is
1+1=2
__T__
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 15, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Hi, Valarie,
I am not even suggesting any such thing. For a realistic situation in a digital electronic circuit, let's take a 6 input AND gate. Suppose two of the inputs are not needed. This is often the case when standard electronic modules are used. In other words, in this particular case a 4-input AND gate is all that is needed, but we are going to make do with a 6-input AND gate. The two extra inputs will be tied to a logic HIGH voltage level. This will NEVER change. Those two always true inputs are equivalent to two always true premises.
In the truth table that the AND gate represents, the negation of those always HIGH signals is NOT considered. The output of the gate may or may not be a tautology, it depends on the inputs. [Edit: realistically it won't be, because if it was then the whole gate could be swapped out for a single line tied to a voltage level, reprsenting an always TRUE.]
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 15, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Hi, Valerie,
Yikes! I almost missed this! Do you realize what you are doing here? Let P be the always qualified high input and let Q be the always low. Here's the truth table:
P______Q_____(P v Q)
T______F_______T
This corresponds to P v ~P how? This is far removed from the point I'm trying to make. But I will call it a tautology.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 15, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Of course it can be considered. Please read it again. Do you agree or disagree that If P is {1+1=2}, then ~P is false?
Comment by Zachriel — December 15, 2007 @ 11:19 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 1:10 am
Anax wrote:
Anax,
It looks like I gave you too much credit for being able to think abstractly.
I did not claim that an OR function by itself is tautological. I claimed that an OR gate implementing an OR function remains an OR gate implementing an OR function when its inputs are tied to fixed values.
Similarly, a tautology remains a tautology when its "inputs" are tied to fixed values.
I could have made the same point using a "tautology gate", but I assumed you were smart enough to draw out the analogy. Sorry about that.
The AND gate continues to implement the full 6-input truth table, but the surrounding circuit only exercises a portion of this truth table. This should be obvious, because the AND gate could be swapped into a circuit that uses all six inputs. It would function correctly, proving that the full six-input functionality was there the entire time, even when it was not being utilized.
Likewise, a tautology remains a tautology even if its "inputs" happen to be fixed in a particular case.
It's funny that you're actually getting moralistic about this.
Do you realize that if mathematicians were to follow your advice, they would have to jettison one of their most useful tools, which is proof by contradiction?
Comment by valerie — December 16, 2007 @ 1:10 am
December 16th, 2007 at 1:28 am
Hi, Zachriel,
What I will tell you is 1+1=2 is true. And my truth table is:
1+1=2
__T__
I won't put 1+1=2 into a conditional form just because you do. I won't consider any negation of an always true premise. It doesn't matter if the premise is one of many variables, or just one variable sitting all by itself like 1+1=2. I will not budge from this.
By example, I'll show you why: Take a 3-input AND gate in which only 2 of the inputs are needed to derive the desired information. I have encountered this sort of thing often:
Let P = 5-volts. This input is the "extra" one.
Let Q = Polar Gimbal Angle Good.
Let R = 5-KHZ Clock Signal.
The output is (P AND Q AND R). This is the truth table (positive logic).
P______Q______R______(P AND Q AND R)
H______H______H_____________H
H______H______L______________L
H______L______H______________L
H______L______L______________L
The only meaningful outputs are when the clock signal is high, but all the possible states that determine the output should be included for completeness. The hoped for state is the first one, indicating all is groovy with the Polar Gimbal. The third combination is an owie no no, and now its time to fix the problem and show why you get paid the big bucks.
Please notice the following: because the output expression is in terms of P, Q, and R, ~Q and ~R are not considered even though Q and R can change state! I would never encounter a truth table that included their negations, because their negations are not involved with how the output is expressed. Only the states of P, Q, and R should be included.
However, JUST to satisfy you, I'm going to make a truth table of all possible states of the three variables:
P___Q___~Q___R___~R____(P AND Q AND R)
H___H____L____H____L___________H
H___H____L____L____H___________L
H___L____H____H____L___________L
H___L____H____L____H___________L
I broke out ~Q and ~R and put them in their own columns only because the negations of Q and R do occur. I have never encountered a truth table such as this that has columns which considers states not used in the output expression.
But that's as far as I go. I will not construct a truth table which includes a column that considers an invalid state. Nor have I ever seen one that does, and I have seen thousands of schematics. I have worked with this stuff for years. I'm not saying this from a couple of weeks experience.
Come up with a different sort of premise, one that can change state, then no problem. But 1+1=2 only gets this:
1+1=2
__T__
This is hardwired. It is soldered in. This fits beaufully and elegantly into my logic system. Perfect, sensible truth tables. I constrain myself to dealing with reality as it exists, and allow for possibilites such as P v ~P only when the negation of P might be true, such as with the brain structure issue. Sure I can think of unicorns and pink elephants, just like you can, but when the tip of my pencil touches down on the paper and starts constructing my truth tables, I don't allow for things like unicorns or pink elepants. I take that they don't exist as always true.
In other words,
Unicorns don't exist = TRUE.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 16, 2007 @ 1:28 am
December 16th, 2007 at 1:32 am
Hi, Valerie,
No they wouldn't. Remember, I'm taking the stance that I'm taking only on unassailablly true premises. Come up with one that isn't definitely true, and the truth table I construct will be a tautological one.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 16, 2007 @ 1:32 am
December 16th, 2007 at 5:26 am
Zachriel asked Anax:
Anax's jaw-droppingly timid answer:
Anax,
Are you seriously telling us that you are not confident enough in your own logical judgment to tell us whether the negation of a true statement is false? Please, please enroll yourself in an introductory logic class.
He didn't. The conditional "if P is {1+1=2}" is different from the conditional "if 1+1=2". Do you see the difference? This is the sort of thing I'm referring to when I point out that you find it difficult to think abstractly.
Fortunately, mathematicians, logicians, computer scientists and engineers are smarter than that. They understand that the negation of an always-true premise is false, and they deal with this fact routinely in their work.
No, the reason you don't see a column for every variable and another for its negation is because engineers aren't stupid. They know that if input A is a logic 1, then ~A is necessarily a logic 0, and vice-versa. They don't need an extra column in the truth table to state the obvious. It has nothing to do with whether or not the negations are "involved with how the output is expressed", as you claim. The output of your 3-input AND gate can be expressed in terms of the variables as (P and Q and R), or in terms of their negations as ~(~P or ~Q or ~R). Either way, the truth table is the same, and only one column per variable is required.
You've completely misunderstood Zachriel's objection if you think that adding a ~Q column and a ~R column should somehow "satisfy" him.
It boggles my mind that you consider this some kind of moral stance. A responsible engineer does consider what will happen when the hardware fails and enters an invalid state. For example, suppose I'm designing a finite state machine which is a single point of failure in a flight control system. If my state machine enters an invalid state for any reason, don't you think I should design it to get back to a valid state as quickly as possible? How can I do that if I refuse to consider invalid states? Would you rather kill several hundred airline passengers than violate this goofy principle of yours?
That's scary. Is someone double-checking your work?
I wrote:
You replied:
Yes, they would. Proof by contradiction requires taking a falsehood as a premise and showing that it leads to an absurdity. You claimed that a falsehood "should not even be expressed".
Anax, what do you think your namesake would have to say about someone who can't come to terms with his own mistakes, even when they are pointed out to him repeatedly, as in this thread?
Comment by valerie — December 16, 2007 @ 5:26 am
December 16th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Hi, Valerie,
No, what I am telling you is that I am so confident that 1+1=2 is true that it is like an axiom to me. You can negate 1+1=2 all you want if you like, and if it makes you feel bold and daring to consider ~(1+1=2) and declare it false, then have a blast.
????
This was Zachriels's statement:
That is a conditional. The truth table to a conditional is this:
__P____________Q_____________P -> Q
__T____________T_______________T
__T____________F_______________F
__F____________T_______________T
__F____________F_______________T
That is the form of a conditional if then statement. You must realize that?? I do not need a conditional form to determine anything about 1+1=2 in terms of itself, and if I were to do so I would be bastardizing the very intent of a conditional. When Zachriel says if P then ~P about 1+1=2 he is in effect simply saying that P is true, but he's doing in a form that was never meant for that sort of thinking. I skip that nonsense and simply say P (1+1=2) is true. A conditional form will only come into play with me when it can rationally go into the truth table. In other words when I have a P and want to conclude some Q.
1+1=2
__T__ Is wayyyy more assertive and confident.
Now suppose someone says, "If 1+1=2, then everything is hunky dorey." I would say that yes, I would have to sandwich that stupid thing into a conditional form, and I would have to argue against the conclusion being true. But that is so far far away from my point that I sure hope you realize that.
And ~(thePowerSupply) is an impossibility. You'll see that that is the only condition I did not consider even in the table where I broke out ~Q and ~R. That is what I wanted to illustrate…an analogy to a real situation where truth tables have practical meanings.
He at least should have a clearer picture of what I mean when I say that I will not construct a truth table which has a column that considers an impossibility. If you look at it again, you'll see that I did not include a ~P, which would have been a negation of the power supply.
LOL! I was the checker. If I handed you a schematic with some rough notes on the circuit, and told you to write up a detailed description and include a truth table, and this was to be part of the tech manual on a piece of equipment, and you turned in anything analogous to what you have been telling me, you'd be gone before you knew what hit you.
Taking 1+1=2 as anything other as TRUE does not need any further manipulation to be absurd. You can treat 1+1=2 like an axiom. Axioms are just true.
What you have pointed out to me is that you do not understand forms and what belongs in them.
[Edit: But I have made one mistake. I want to give you and Zachriel some time to see if you catch it. Some time later today, I'll mention it if no one else does.]
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 16, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
I want to clear up something. In your last comment to me, when you posed your "do I agree or disagree with that if 1+1=2 is true, then isn't ~(1+1=2) false", my reply was that I wouldn't put that in a conditional form and that I would just say that 1+1=2 is true.
The reason why I assumed that you meant it in the sense of a conditional form is because much earlier we had the same dialogue, and I gave you the same response. At that time, you did not reply back that you did not mean the statement to be taken in the sense of a conditional form.
However, if you DID NOT mean the "if…then" phrase to be taken in the sense of a logical if then conditional statement, and I KNEW that, I would then, given the necessity to communicate and not get bogged down in tedious semantics, simply say yes and agree, leaving it at that.
However, because we are talking about truth tables and forms, I would also tell you that a better way to have worded your question would be, "Is it possible for (1+1=2) to not be true?" I would simply say no, and that's that. If you wanted to know why I thought so, I would simply say that it is not possible for something that always is to not be. 1+1=2 always is. It can never not be.
[Edit: BTW, if you've read my last reply to Valerie, this is not the mistake that I referred to at the end.]
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 16, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Anaxagoras Rules:
This reminds me of some exchanges I have had about the sufficiency of evidence for ID, OOL and other such ID related issues. Not distinguishing a statement, that all parties assume to be axiomatic, from one that could be shown to be false or falsified allows for much argumentative mischief.
Comment by Bradford — December 16, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Hi, Valerie,
If P is less than 2-volts, then there is a malfunction.
If the XYZ signal is low, then check the XYZ circuit.
Have I ever led you to believe that I am arguing against these sorts of if P then Q conditionals?
What I am telling you is that the truth tables do not contain columns that consider an impossible state.
That does not mean that a troubleshooting procedure does not involve many conditional if thens, which finally resolve to "if xyz is ___, then replace some ____. This procedure is not done with truth tables.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 16, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Hi, Bradford,
Defininitely.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 16, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Hi, Valerie,
I almost missed this gem! What I think you should do is design it the way it should work, and describe it the way it should work. That is the best possible way to allow technicians to fix the problem when there is a malfunction, because they will have a clear description of how the circuits should work. You should seperate the description of normal operation from the guidelines of what to do when the equipment breaks down. You should never conflate the two. Following the description of normal operation is tedious enough, especially when dealing with very complex equipment; when abnormal conditions are interspersed between the normal circuit description…what a mess that would be. Even the chintzy little pieces of crap manuals that come with simple equipment have the sense to keep the normal operation sections and troubleshooting sections seperate. Cripes.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 16, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
AnaxagorasRules,
Is {1+1=3} true or false?
Comment by Zachriel — December 16, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
1+1=3 is false. Its truth table is:
1+1=3
__F__
The analogous to an always false premise, in digital electronics, is ground (in positive logic).
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 16, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
I'm liking these analogies to digital electronics. Here is another one. Clearly, in the situation of a logic gate that has one of its inputs tied to a logic high voltage, there should never be the case when
The 5-volt input = L (analogous to ground) is true.
That axiomatic assertion of denying the possibility of 5-volt = L can only be made in a sane world. If the world were to be insane then anything can happen. The analogous to insanity in digigal electronics is a breakdown of the equipment, which requires troubleshooting.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 16, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Of course it is. You have just 'entertained' an impossible statement.
The negation of {1+1=2} is also false.
Comment by Zachriel — December 16, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
See my previous statement that touches on an analogy to this.
Also notice that in my reply to you the only thing I said about 1+1=3 is that it is not true. People make untrue assertions all the time. People interact, worldviews come into contact. The real point I am making with you is not about quibbling. We might as well stop if it comes to that. Let's stick with forms and truth tables.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 16, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
The negation of {1+1=2} is false. Negation,
Wikipedia: Logical negation is an operation on one logical value, typically the value of a proposition, that produces a value of true when its operand is false and a value of false when its operand is true.
Britannica (may require subscription): Given a proposition p, then ~p ("not p") is to count as false when p is true and true when p is false
It should be clear to most readers that you are wrong on this point. You have shown no willingness to either support your position with appropriate cites, or to modify your views accordingly. And if you are wrong on such a simple matter that can easily be verified in a textbook, the validity of all your reasoning is doubtful.
Truth Table for Negation (from Rutgers)
Comment by Zachriel — December 16, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
And to cut to the chase, there is one mistake that I will admit to. With 1+1=2, again here is the truth table:
1+1=2
__T__
I now say that it is a tautology in that form.
The definition of a tautology:
A Tautology is a statement form that is always true regardless of the truth values of the individual statements substituted for its statement variables.
This:
1+1=2
__T__ Satisfies the definition. This is a tautology in this form.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 16, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Hi, Zachriel
Again notice that the statement implies the possibility that P can be true or can be false. 1+1=2 CAN ONLY BE TRUE. You cannot duck from this. Don't even try it.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 16, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
Sure, in the absence of a concrete premise, you must allow for the possibility that P can be negated. When P is unattached to any premise, it must be allowed to take ~P as possibly being true. The negation truth table is where it belongs then. It's an abstract, floating P, a placeholder with no meaning. But once you slap 1+1=2 and call it P, it can no longer be put in the truth table for a negation. It can only be put in:
1+1=2
___T__ No other possibility in a sane world.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 16, 2007 @ 8:49 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
AnaxagorasRules,
Here is your homework assignment:
1. Understand, and be able to explain, the difference between a) negating a proposition and b) asserting the truth of the negated proposition.
2. Understand, and be able to explain, the difference between "If {1+1=2}" and "If P is {1+1=2}".
3. Understand, and be able to explain, the difference between a contingently true expression and a tautology.
4. Study, and be able to explain, the concept of proof by contradiction (aka reductio ad absurdum). Concentrate particularly on the necessity of assuming what is to be disproved.
5. Consider whether it is more desirable for an airliner flight control system to fail for a split-second, or permanently, during flight. Ask yourself whether a responsible engineer would consider likely modes of failure in designing such a system.
6. Stop trying to bluff people who are more knowledgeable than you.
Until you demonstrate real progress on these points, this thread is nothing more than a vain attempt on your part to soothe your tattered ego.
Comment by valerie — December 16, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Zachriel:
Zachriel, would you then agree to an inductive norm at TT which states that if I (or anyone else) cites a reference to document an erroroneous biological assertion by a commenter, then the validity of the reasoning of the commenter is henceforth suspect?
Comment by Bradford — December 16, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Hi, Valerie,
Oh, please. You lost all credibility, as far as I'm concerned when I wrote this:
Me:
Your reply was:
That was it as far as I'm concerned. You are a sloppy thinker. Again, the definition of a tautology:
A Tautology is a statement form that is always true regardless of the truth values of the individual statements substituted for its statement variables.
Somehow you interpreted that definition (or whatever the verbiage of your definition said) to mean that you could disregard the truth of the truth values. How else could I interpret your comeback in response to the specific "tautology" that I complained about? From that time on, the fat lady had sung. Your credibility was gone.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 16, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
Abstract variables, when not attached to any premises should be allowed to take on all possible values, and to assume that all possibilities are valid. I am so clearly saying this, over and over, that I have to think you are just ducking now.
You say the truth table for 1+1=2 is:
1+1=2_______~(1+1=2)______1+1=2 v ~(1+1=2)
__T_____________F________________T
I'm saying it is:
1+1=2
___T__
You cannot rely on textbook definitions that have to allow abstract placeholders like P and Q to take on all possible values and have to allow that all possible values can be true.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 16, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Hi, Valerie,
If you think I don't admit when I'm wrong, you are sadly mistaken. Way back in the forum, months ago, I went head to head with Keiths on something to do with neural circuits. It was long and drawn out, and he kept making good points. I finally capitulated. I'm only ever interested in being right. When being right means I have to agree with who I was arguing with, so be it. That is not the case here. Not even close.
And my main point is that this is not the truth table for 1+1=2
1+1=2____~(1+1=2)_____1+1=2 v ~(1+1=2)
__T___________F_______________T
My point is that this is the truth table:
1+1=2
__T__
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 16, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Being wrong on an empirical fact doesn't throw into question one's ability to reason. Rather, when shown in error, all that is required is to respond appropriately to the new information.
AnaxagorasRules is wrong. He is wrong on the fundamentals of reasoning. That's why it reflects on any argument he might make. His more important error is that he has repeatedly neglected to provide reputable cites, and refused to consult with a mathematician or other relevant source in order to verify his understanding. By checking those sources, he might discover the source of his error.
I have no expectation of convincing the unconvincible. Anyone can look up the basic definition of a logical negation and determine who is correct on this particular matter.
Comment by Zachriel — December 16, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
Are you so sure that I have not been looking for a source anywhere that shows an always true premise (that has a meaning) in a P v ~P truth table?
Are you really so sure??? You shouldn't be.
Your problem is that you are confusing a textbook definition that allows for all possibilities in the absence of real meanings to the variables, thinking that means you should do the same thing with real variables that have meaning. That is not always the case.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 16, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Zachriel and Anaxagoras Rules:
Either it will rain today or it will not rain today.
That's a tautology is it not? Keep the same format but try this:
Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=5
Is that a tautology?
Comment by Bradford — December 16, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Zachriel, is this a tautology?
Either life evolved through a process that gives evidence of intelligent design or life evolved through a process that does not give evidence of intelligent design.
Comment by Bradford — December 16, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
I've got your number now. This is what your shtick is:
You'll allow that anything is possbile but only those things strongly supported by science should be believed to be true.
That fits you to a T.
I do not allow anything to be possible. My truth tables verify that.
You, on the other hand, must put every premise into a either-or, because to you anything is possible. Your assertions are guided by scientific consensus. The consensus is that unicorns don't exist, so you believe that unicorns don't exist (at least that's the position I think you'd take.
You have an extremely mystical belief system.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 16, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Hi, Bradford,
Either it will rain today or it will not rain today
_______________T_____________________ Is a tautology
Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=5
___________F________ Is not a tautology.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 16, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Not very close. Not everything is possible, e.g. in propositional logic, {P and ~P} will never be True.
You are welcome to believe anything you want, but if you say a claim is strongly supported by science, then it should be strongly supported by science.
Comment by Zachriel — December 16, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Thanks Bradford.
Yes, that's a tautology of the form {P or ~P}.
Both premises are false, so the disjunction is false.
No. That is not a tautology because there is an implied premise that life evolved.
Comment by Zachriel — December 16, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Hi, Bradford,
Without the "Either" in front, I would have put the statement "It will rain today or it will not rain today" in an P v ~P format.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 16, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
Is that your one exception for what cannot be possible?
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 16, 2007 @ 10:58 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
Consider this: 1000 years ago we would still be arguing. I would still be arguing the same point that I'm arguing now, and so would you. And in the case of "the earth moves", you would be leaning toward rediculing that belief because of the strongly supported scientific consensus that was in place at that time.
This irony cannot be lost on you, can it?
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 16, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Hi, Bradford,
My original answer doesn't satsify me. I need to take another crack at this.
Let P = It will rain today.
P____~P_____P v ~P
T_____F_______T
F_____T_______T Is a tautology.
Let P = 1+1=4
Let Q = 1+1=5
P_____Q_____P v Q
F_____F_______F ____ Not a tautology.
But for the second one I would never have those premises as P and Q, left to my own auspices. I'm just putting it in that form because you requested it in the form of an "or".
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 16, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Bradford: Either life evolved through a process that gives evidence of intelligent design or life evolved through a process that does not give evidence of intelligent design?
This is addressed to both Zachriel and AR. Zachriel's response intrigues me because it looks to me as if the logic is not quite tight enough. Whenever I see the phrase "implied premise" I begin to suspect that what is implied for Z may not be viewed as implied by AR. This indicates practical limitations on the use of formal symbolic logic does it not?
Comment by Bradford — December 16, 2007 @ 11:49 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 12:01 am
Hi, Bradford,
What is pretty clear to me is that Zachriel does not treat a P as what he believes to be true. In his system a ~P could just as likely be true, no matter whether the P is even a 1+1=2. He'll just "or" them together and not worry how he phrased the question.
My P's are worded in what I believe to be true. I try not to "start" an argument with what I think is false. Of course, I can slip up and do it unthinkingly. But when I get focused, and put what I believe into truth tables. I word my P case as what I think is true. If it turns out that that case is ALWAYS TRUE, then the truth table becomes
___P___
___T___ There is no other possible combination. I don't allow for impossibilites. Zachriel does. He uses "strongly supported scientific consensus" to steer toward the P or the ~P that is most likely true.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 17, 2007 @ 12:01 am
December 17th, 2007 at 12:07 am
A tautology refers to the formal aspects, or syntax, of a propositional formula. It is a statement which is true regardless of the premises. There is no question of your additional premise. Your statement can be parsed as follows:
P = {Life evolved}
Q = {Evidence of Intelligent Design}
(P and Q) or (P and ~Q)That is not a tautology. If P is false, then the propositional formula is false. Hence, it is not a tautology. This is the algebraic equivalent.
P and (Q or ~Q)You could restate as Given that life evolved, either life evolved through a process that gives evidence of intelligent design or life evolved through a process that does not give evidence of intelligent design.
True and (Q or ~Q)Then it would be tautological.
There are two aspects to argument, syntax (propositional logic) and semantics (validity or applicability of premises). The discussion concerning negations concerns only syntax. However, most arguments require both.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2007 @ 12:07 am
December 17th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Hi, Zachriel,
On what basis can you break ID out from Life Evolved?
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 17, 2007 @ 12:17 am
December 17th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Zachriel:
This might be worth a separate blog entry. Identifying the propositional logic with symbols as well as the semantics involved in common arguments over themes discussed at TT could be a more interesting approach to things.
Comment by Bradford — December 17, 2007 @ 12:26 am
December 17th, 2007 at 12:29 am
AR: On what basis can you break ID out from Life Evolved?
P & X = Q?
What would X represent?
Comment by Bradford — December 17, 2007 @ 12:29 am
December 17th, 2007 at 12:38 am
Hi, Bradford,
I agree…especially the case when meaningful statements are standing in for the variables
From Zachriel:
I am hardcore about this. Premises deserve only the truth table that makes sense, in the sense of "least possible consideration allowed". P v ~P only when it makes sense. Axiomatic assertions when appropriate, like "the earth moves", should never be "ORed" with their negations. One should distinguish between what is allowed in the absence of meaningful premises for the variables, and what should be allowed when the variables have meaningful statements.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 17, 2007 @ 12:38 am
December 17th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Hi, Bradford,
This is one of those cases where it can get rediculous. The athiest says X "is the guy in the cloud coming down and….", or something such. My problem with that sort of X is that "the guy in the cloud coming down" should be given a value of ALWAYS FALSE, especially from an athiest, for cripe's sake. Meaning that that X is duplicitous.
A believer needs no X.
An agnostic…? A real dilemma to come up with an X. "The guy coming down from the cloud…." Again is not an X because it is always FALSE.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 17, 2007 @ 12:48 am
December 17th, 2007 at 1:04 am
Sounds like a prescription for dealing with the real world.
P & X = Q?
What would X represent?
My view is that when symbolic logic comes into play, critics are forced to be more forthright in their critiques. If X constitutes witnessing the act of an intelligent agent then let the critic specify this. The identified X (or an analogous Y) can then be inserted into other scenarios where the critic is known to be far less fastidious about the level of evidence required. I see some utility in this approach.
Comment by Bradford — December 17, 2007 @ 1:04 am
December 17th, 2007 at 1:55 am
Hi, Bradford,
Since reading this blog, I can't recall ever hearing an X coming from the anti ID people that wasn't rediculous.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 17, 2007 @ 1:55 am
December 17th, 2007 at 3:38 am
Hi, Bradford,
I'm so undevious that I missed the implication you were making. Yes, that would make the critics sit up a little straighter, wouldn't it? Hmm…what would be analogous to "the guy coming down from the cloud…" maybe, "life springing up into existence on a daily basis from inanimate matter?" You saw how they squawked earlier on this thread about that.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 17, 2007 @ 3:38 am
December 17th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Either life evolved through a process that gives evidence of intelligent design or life evolved through a process that does not give evidence of intelligent design.
Your statement doesn't concern Intelligent Design, per se, but evidence of Intelligent Design. There are a number of logical possibilities.
1. Evolution via Intelligent Design, with evidence.
2. Evolution via Intelligent Design, but no evidence.
3. Evolution without Intelligent Design, hence no evidence.
4. No evolution.
But regardless of the evidence, there is a logical possibility that life did not evolve, hence your statement is not a tautology. The statement is false if evolution did not occur.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2007 @ 8:48 am
December 17th, 2007 at 8:52 am
There is little doubt that most such misunderstandings are due to ignorance of basic concepts, including the scientific method, conflation of logical and empirical possibilities, and as demonstrated in this thread, even fundamental propositional logic.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2007 @ 8:52 am
December 17th, 2007 at 9:05 am
It's like arguing with someone who doesn't believe in zero.
The logical value of {1+1=2} is True.
The logical value of its negation is False"”by definition.
That's all there is to it. You're trying to claim that the negation is not a well-defined concept for a given True statement. That's just silly. Everyone knows that {1+1 is not equal to 2} is False. The negation of every True statement is False"”by the definition of negation.
AnaxagorasRules, this isn't something you argue about. It's something you learn, like arithmetic. If you insist upon using the language of propositional logic, you should learn the vocabulary.
There's an infinitude of logical contradictions. Only a tiny fraction of what can be conceived is possible.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2007 @ 9:05 am
December 17th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Leaving aside the issue of available evidence (and assuming the existence of life), we have,
Life evolved via Intelligent Design.
Life evolved not via Intelligent Design.
Life did not evolve, but Intelligent Design.
Life did not evolve, not Intelligent Design.
Not all of these are of equal empirical merit, but when discussing tautologies, we are concerned with logical possibilities. (There may be overlap between the categories. We can avoid this by considering Intelligent Design to mean any degree of Intelligent Design, just as a drop of rain makes for a day with rain as in your example. Or we could just add more logical possibilities.)
Life evolved or life did not evolve is a tautology.
Life was designed or life was not designed is a tautology.
The Earth moves or the Earth does not move is a tautology.
The Earth moves is *not* a tautology. It is a strongly supported empirical fact, but is not logically required. We are perfectly capable of considering the possibility that the Earth does not move, even proposing entailed predictions. Indeed, we might do just that in an attempt to falsify the Earth's movement.
In number theory, we might put forth the statement that primes are finite in number. Following through on the consequences of this statement, it can be shown that it leads to a contradiction. Hence, the statement is false. So we certainly can 'entertain' false statements. Just like Euclid.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2007 @ 10:43 am
December 17th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
So perhaps it would be wise to first discover if you think evolution occurred, before a rational argument can begin?
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 17, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
There something I commented to you recently that you haven't responded to, and you may have missed it in the plethora of comments (admittedly I've been keeping this thread very busy). But I'd like to know what your response is to it. Here it is again:
Consider this: 1000 years ago we would still be arguing. I would still be arguing the same point that I'm arguing now, and so would you. And in the case of "the earth moves", you would be leaning toward rediculing that belief because of the strongly supported scientific consensus that was in place at that time.
This irony cannot be lost on you, can it?
[Edit: Or phrased, better, was it lost on you?]
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 17, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
No, you might put forth the theory that primes are finite in number.
Someone else, like me, would only put forth that theory if I thought there was a possibility that there could be a finite set of prime numbers in [2, infinity).
Since I don't, however, the statement that should be put forth is that there is no finite set of primes in [2, infinity)
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 17, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
????? YOUR truth table is going to be one of these next two:
The earth moves_____the earth does not move______(does v does not)
______T_____________________F______________________T
or
The earth moves_____the earth does not move______(does v does not)
______T_____________________F______________________T
______F_____________________T______________________T
Either way, it is a tautology in your world.
In MY world:
The earth moves
______T______ Satisfies the definition of a tautology, it is a tautology.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 17, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
That wasn't Bradford's question, which concerned propositional logic.
No.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
A thousand years ago, logic was more than a thousand years old.
A thousand years ago, modern science was hundreds of years in the future, fruit of the Renaissance. By the way, how do you know the Earth moves?
No.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
Why on earth would you think the earth does not move? What rational reason. "Because I can" is not a rational reason.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 17, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Me, Euclid, and just about everybody who takes Number Theory 101. Are you claiming the proof is invalid because it 'entertains' the possibility that the primes are finite in number?
No, that is not a tautology. A tautology is a propositional formula that is true under any possible truth assignment of its propositional variables. On the other hand, the Earth's movement is a fact derived from observations of the natural world. It is not derivable from the axioms of propositional logic.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
I am not perfect, and can make a mistake. With "the earth moves" I take that chance because of:
1. Visual observations of the stars that agree with what I expect to see as the earth rotates.
2. Corroboration that I accept as truthful: from astronauts.
3. From the fact that the equipment I worked on had circuits that took into account corriolis accelerations, which occur as a result of rotating bodies.
Number 3 locks it up tight for me.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 17, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
Of course not. What I'm saying is nobody should entertain the possibility of an impossibility. Not in a sane world.
In an insane world, the analogous being in an equipment breakdown situation…a real possiblity…then you do consider insanities…you not only consider that a 5-volts signal (within a small allowance for slightly under or slightly over) can be 5-volts, you also think that the 5-volt signal could be ground, or anything in between.
In the insane world of equipment breakdown the truth table for a 5-volt signal is:
5-volt signal________~(5-volt signal)_______(5-volts v ~5-volts)
____T___________________F____________________T
____F___________________T____________________T
The only axiom in this situation, with equipment failure is:
The equipment is insane
________T___________ This a tautology until the malfunction is fixed.
[Edit: And you should keep the sane seperate from the insane]
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 17, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
AnaxagorasRules,
You point to strong empirical support for the Earth's movement. But to be a tautology, it must be derivable from the axioms of propositional logic.
Primes of the natural numbers cannot be finite, it's impossible. Euclid and virtually every mathematician since 'entertains' the possibility of the impossible. They do this explictly and knowingly. And then they teach this insanity to children.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
The definition of a tautology:
A tautology is a statement form that is always true regardless of the truth values of the individual statements substituted for its statement variables.
This:
The Earth Moves
_____T_______ Satisfies the definition.
I think you are reading something into the defintion in relation to how a tautology can be used with propositional logic. How tautologies can be used is not part of the definition of what tautologies are.>/i>.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 17, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
One of the most famous proofs in history, a classic of proof by contradiction in Euclid's Elements.
You just got through telling us that you inferred that the Earth moves from various empirical phenomena.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
I cannot remember a single time that I was taught a theory in which the proof was given in terms of considering it not being true.
And axioms are just true, period, and used to build upon. I treat "The earth moves" as an axiom.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 17, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
As long as your "regardless" does not mean that you can disregard the truth of the truth variables, then I have no problem with that sentence. However, for the rest:
The Earth Moves is a statement. Period.
The earth moves
_____T_______ ______Is a statement form. It satisfies the definition.
You of all people should realize that it is usually a mistake to read into a mathematical defintion something that is not expressly stated in it. You are welding how a tautology is used to what a tautology is.
[Edit: Btw, I can vaguely remember seeing truth tables like this with my equipment. They were so trivial that I never really focused on them. But that was how precise our manuals were. These truth tables for power supplies and ground were only included for completeness. The truth tables ONLY had what could only be possible in a normal, sane situation of the equipment working properly.]
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 17, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
Btw, if you can hunt up a definition of a statement form that expresslly denies MY example. From a bonafide discrete mathematics textbook. Then I will drop my claim that my axiomatic "The earth moves" is a tautology. I have no problem with that. My axioms then simply won't have truth tables. They are just true, and I insert them into logical expressions where needed.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 17, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Jeesh. Read what you just wrote. Regardless, without regard, disregard.
"Statement form" from your definition references the formal aspects only of the propositional formula. The syntax, not the semantics.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
The reason why is much earlier this was proposed as a tautology:
1+1=2___________~(1+1=2)_______1+1=2 v ~(1+1=2)
__T_________________F__________________T
__F_________________T__________________T
You did not complain about this. I have to assume that you actually might think that you can disregard the truth of the values. [Edit: this was not your tautology...I just added that note because I wanted to be clear that you observe the truth of the values that you insert into the tables.]
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 17, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
When you set out to prove something, that means that you have to consider you might be wrong. The result of the proof renders null and void the uncertainty. But mathematicians are not teaching insanity, as you put it. They are simply showing how the premise went from uncertainty to certainty, in a methodical manner. In the process of arriving at the proof, they have to consider ~P, since not knowing is assumed.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 17, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
AnaxagorasRules wrote:
Anax,
I see you have not completed your homework assignment, which included this item:
You also wrote:
Which means you did not complete step 4 of your homework assignment:
If this continues, I am going to have to recommend that you choose a career in which you follow rote procedure, without understanding the theory behind what you are doing.
Oh, wait…
Comment by valerie — December 17, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Hi, Valerie,
As I told you last time, your credibility is gone. You've written some pretty stupid things about digital electronics, trying to apply your logic to real situations. You probably don't realize how stupid. To correct you would be cruel to you, because in thoroughly correcting you, in giving you a detailed descriptional walkthrough of the equipment I would empirically be talking about, would be like trying to explain algebra to a baby.
I'm just going to try to ignore you. But I'm not perfect.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 17, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
I then asked: So perhaps it would be wise to first discover if you think evolution occurred, before a rational argument can begin?
Your reply:
What specific question? This next one? Bradford had copied it from me and relayed it out as a comment, I think, to both of us. I had already directly asked it of you:
On what basis do you break ID out from Life Evolved?
And if that was not the question you were referring to, then do you break ID out from Life Evolved? The alternative, as far as I can see, is that either ID subumes Life Evolved, or Life Evolved subsumes ID. Or maybe a union instead a subsume. This thread was actually starting to get interesting again at that point.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 17, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
I'm sure you have a vivid fantasy life in which you correct Zachriel, thechristiancynic and me over and over in brilliant and unanticipated ways.
Meanwhile, in real life, remember item #6 of your homework assignment:
Comment by valerie — December 17, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
I've found something that contains the sense of what I mean when I build my truth tables. Here is the excerpt, and following that is the link to the paper. I am bolding the point I've been making all along:
That excerpt is at the bottom of page 6. I had to use the form of "a" and "~a" rather than the standard symbol, as I don't know the unicode value for character symbols offhand.
Notice the bolded word "suggest".
This is the paper
The heuristic alternative is used when building truth tables for digital circuits, no occasionally about it. There is definitely no possible reason in a real, sane world for ~(1+1=2) to be considered metaphysically at all. And I certainly use the latter method (conceivability) to construct my truth tables.
However in an insane world of equipment breakdown like I said, there is a logical AND metaphysical necessity to include ALL negations of all the signals. With the equipments I worked on, truth tables were never ever included in the troubleshooting sections. An 8-input gate would have 256 possible input combinations, for crying out loud. Just one functional circuit would contain up to dozens (dozens!) of gates like that, some over a hundred, and dozens of functional circuits…2-input, 3-input, and so on. Multiply that times 100. And then consider that the numbers of books that dealt with each equipment were encompassed in three volumes, with each volume being comprised of up to 10 books! Just not practical to do, and it wouldn't help the troublehooting process, not one iota. The only truth tables that help the troubeshooting process are the ones for the real world, the sane world. The technician goes back and forth, looking for bad signals…i.e. signals not in accordance with what they should be.
What you think is so cut and dry is not.
Also, I'm not quoting this guy like he's the bible, either. He's just one source. I'm about ready to wrap this truth table generation issue up once and for all. My latest thought is that logical constants should not go into definitional truth tables at all. The logical constant just goes into whatever expression that calls for it, with a true value. For example, a constant line representing 5-volt from the power supply is a logical constant. It has no truth table.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 17, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
I repeated Bradford's question. I repeat it here again. My answer was appropriate for the question.
Answered here. Intelligent Design could logically occur with or without evolution. Last Thursdayism is Intelligent Design. All hail Queen Maeve!
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2007 @ 7:30 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Except you misread it. Modal logic concerns "possibility" statements. Pigs can fly and Napoleon might have won at Waterloo are perfectly valid statements in Modal Logic. I don't think that supports your position.
Oh, and as I said, you misread the paper.
Jeesh. Read what you just wrote. Regardless, without regard, disregard. You can disregard the truth values in a tautology. They are irrelevant. That's the point. It is the form of the statement, not the content that makes it a tautology. By your own definition.
You didn't even know about proofs by contradiction.
AnaxagorasRules, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. Propositional logic is like arithmetic. It isn't something you argue about. This should be more than sufficient discussion to clue you in that you might want to investigate a little bit concerning your understanding of the subject.
Comment by Zachriel — December 17, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
Well I suppose you think I'm not playing by the rules because I won't allow a conceivability argument to take place. What you don't seem to get is that in practical situations a negation is not intuitively valid, and definitely not metaphysically necessary, and conceivability arguments have no place being in the system at all.
We agree!
Nope!
Now slow down, Zachriel. I know you're working the other thread, but you are missing the point I brought up. Look at the following truth table, take careful note of the second row. This truth table was proposed much earlier…not by you…but you did not comment on it.
1+1=2___________~(1+1=2)_______1+1=2 v ~(1+1=2)
__T_________________F__________________T
__F_________________T__________________T
That second row does in fact disregard the truth of the truth values. The truth is always ~(1+1=2) is False. The second row does not indicate that. That is why I split hairs and asked you whether or not you think you can disregard the truth of the truth values. I'm not claiming that you think you can. I'm merely asking, just so that I know how you are actually interpreting the definition of a tautology. This is not a pointless question, given that truth table.
I am still convinced that one shouldn't negate a logical constant in practical situations. In a practical situation I can't accept your negations of constant truths.
But I'm not rigid about that in ALL situations. In abstract, philosophical arguements, where I'm involved in an argument where the thing being argued is uncertain, then I would of course say okay and allow the negation. Even if you were arguing against something that I thought was certain, I'd allow it. Otherwise there would be no argument at all that could get started. But if you started bringing in rediculous impossible things like unicorns and pink elephants, the generosity that was extended to you would be reeled in and you'd have go play ID = LastThursdyism with someone else.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 17, 2007 @ 11:18 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 12:12 am
Anax says:
Anax,
You should have done your homework. Item #1 would have helped you here:
Comment by valerie — December 18, 2007 @ 12:12 am
December 18th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Propositional logic is like arithmetic.
{1+1=3} is a well-defined proposition. It is false.
~{1+1=3} is a well-defined proposition. It is true.
From the definition of negation and disjunction, {P or ~P} will always be true for whatever value P. For instance, if you let P be {1+1=2}, then using your truth table, you will find the disjunction to be true. If you let P be {1+1=3}, the disjunction will still be true. Just like X-X=0 for all X.
We can create more complex formulas, and if we use the rules of propositional arithmetic, our results will always be sound. Just like numerical arithmetic, we have a communicative law, an associative law, and a distributive law.
e.g.
(P or (Q and R)) ≡ ((P or Q) and (P or R))These laws derive from the axioms of propositional logic. And various theorems can be similarly derived.
Comment by Zachriel — December 18, 2007 @ 10:55 am
December 18th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
But two weeks later, as we now know the creationis/ID assault on Texas education is larger than the New York Times could have guessed, and we know it's the intent of the chairman of the State Board of Education to inject intelligent design/creationism stuff into the curriculum standards, and we know that creationists are working to skirt the Constitution to get creationism into public schools once again through the ICR — yeah, we hear your protests that ID isn't creationism. Tell it to the creationists. Tell it to the IDists who say it IS creationism, and that it's their religious right.
Comment by edarrell — December 18, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
edarrell, you posted two identical comments so one of them was moved. Please provide evidence of changes in Texas school curriculums.
Comment by Bradford — December 18, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
Ironically, I was prepared to just accept your reply, not comment on it, and get on with something else that has occured to me. But this is actually in line with that.
I think your logic and my logic might be two different systems of logic. Your term is "propositional logic". My term would be "digital logic". The two systems in some areas appear similar. Perhaps they overlap, or perhaps they are seperate, and are similar in only a superficial way. For example, it's more convenient for you to say "or" rather than disjunct, but you seem very familiar with "disjunct". I say OR because that's what digital logic calls it. It's not only convenient, it's the term that is natural to me. Perhaps digital logic took what it needed from propositional logic and consructed its own system based on nature. I have a question for you. To set the stage for the question here are two observations:
1. I had a very successful career as an electronic technician. Because of the nature of my work, it would not have been possible for me to not be aware of anything I needed to know to do my job. Propositional logic of the type you are talking about was never a part of my job. Digital logic was, boolean algebra was. Never was there anything involved with the sort of logic you are talking about.
2. Recently you mentioned the example of how proof by contradiction was used to prove that there is no finite set of primes. That's not a very practical thing to know. I like math, so don't think I mean that in a disparaging way. There would be no electronics without math. Math was a vital component of my job. Just think of the laws of electricty, electronics, and electro-magnetism. This was all practical math, because the math related directly to matter.
So the one burning question that I have, and don't take this like a challenge, because I'm asking out of interest now. Can you give me an example where propositional logic of the sort you are talking about, whether constants are negated or not, are used in a practical sense, as being a necessary part of the work? Somewhere in industry?
[Edit: My only real experience with propositional logic was in the classroom setting, when I took discrete mathematics. I was probably wondering what good was it then, too
And don't conflate that to mean I think algorithms are useless. I'm a programmer also, so I value algrorithms very much.]
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 18, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Computer science is based on Boolean Logic. Classical propositional calculus is equivalent to Boolean algebra. And negation works just the same. If the input is True the output is False, and vice versa. The underlying semantics (meaning) doesn't matter. It certainly don't matter to an electronic circuit.
Things you should take away:
The negation of {1+1=2} is false.
{P or ~P} is a tautology.
The Earth moves is not a tautology.
Comment by Zachriel — December 18, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
But computers are another case where the similarities only go so far. Programming languages do not allow any modification to a variable declared as a constant. To attempt to programmatically code it to allow it to change results in a compile error. The only way to change a constant variable is by going to the source code, assigning it a different value, and recompiling.
I was looking for an example in industry that uses propositional logic in the full complete sense that you use. Perhaps such an animal does not exist. The only place I have ever encountered propositional logic (before this thread) that uses your semantics and methods and conventions was encapsulated in a little section of the discrete mathematics textbook that was used in the course that I took that was part of my CS degree. That was it.
In my electronics career, which was my main one, nowhere in the path was propositional logic formerly used. In obtaining my degree in electronics, the mention of propositional logic never crossed my path, not even in name. It was digital logic integrated with boolean algebra, taught as a complete, organic, systematic whole, with constraints based on nature, with real circuits, and with the theory verified in labs. Never were metaphysical necessities, intuitive validities, and conceivabilities discussed in my training or in my work as a technician. Those terms, however, are rampant in papers having to do with propositional logic. I've seen that with my own two eyes with internet searches the past few days.
I don't program games, but there might be some cases in them where you would want to do things in which your propositional logic could be most nearly be replicated. With "psuedo" constants…constants that are called constants but not really declared that way.
// not this way: const bool onePlusOneEqual2 = true;
but this way:
bool onePlusOneEqual2 = true;
Then later:
onePlusOneEqual2 = false; // allowed
A software program. And the variable wasn't really a constant to begin with. Digital logic is so specific and constrained, and is so governed by what nature will only allow, that I think it's really a different species then propositional logic. (keep in mind that I keep my sane world seperate from my insane world, and in the insane world even propositional logic is useless because everything must be assumed to be deranged until known otherwise). Propositional logic seems more like a concept, an abstract tool, and from it different hybrids have split off into different focus areas, where the whole toolkit is not brought along, and where even the semantics have changed. All of propositional logic and all of digital logic are not equivalent. You can do things in propositional logic that you can't do in digital logic. You can't take certain things, like power supplies, and negate them.
Other than that very short exposure to propositional logic in the discrete mathematics class, propositonal logic never again crossed my path in a way that was in the spirit of its full formal presentation. And that exposure came after my career as a technician. That's just the way it was. That was reality, and that was the basis of this entire argument from my end.
Along the way, I've come to understand a little better what you were talking about. At first I thought you were simply crazy.
[In other words, if I give you a wire, tell you to connect it to the powersupply, feed the other end to a circuit that needs it always there in order to work, but also make it possible for the voltage to be switched to ground, AND have the circuit continue to work normally, it cannot be done.]
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 18, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
We have a logic signal. Call it P. It may be True or it may be False. Take P and put it through a NOT-Gate. Call the output of the NOT-Gate ~P.
Now take the original signal P along with ~P and wire them to the inputs of an OR-Gate. All wired up.
Now change the value of the original signal P back-and-forth between True and False. Notice that the output of the circuit is always True. It doesn't matter the original logic or purpose or meaning of P. Whether P is the value of {1+1=2}≡True, or {1+1=3}≡False, or an entire community of logicians working for generations to find P ceremoniously handing you the True/False result on gold-trimmed paper even if they are wrong after all, the output of the circuit will be True. True *regardless* of the value of P. True because of the *form* of the circuit.
(If you replace the OR-Gate with an AND-Gate, the output will always be False.)
Not simply.
Comment by Zachriel — December 18, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
Get into the real world: Take a wire. Hook one end to the 5-volt powersupply. That is P at that connection. It is a 5-volt level. The other end of the wire hooks into the circuit at the powersupply input for the circuit. Do what you want in between the ends. If you invert it to ~P it will effectivly be 0-volts or ground. Invert ~P back to P and it will be 5-volts again. The circuit MUST have 5-volts at the input to work. Your instructions are to also make it work with GROUND at the input. That is an impossible task I just gave you. And there's a good chance, depending on how you go about the assembly, that you'll be popping powersupplies and circuit boards like firerackers as you try to complete this task…in the interest of your own safety, I order you to wear saftey gloves and goggles so you don't hurt yourself by flying shrapnel or get electrocuted as you proceed.
Now, take your propositional logic and apply it to that problem. Use intuitive validities, metaphyisical necessity considerations, conceivability arguments, anything you want…ignore reality if you want. The only thing you cannot ignore is the instruction about the wire and the requirement that the circuit MUST have a 5-volt input. And you have that one wire. And it must also work with ground at the input. [Edit: and there is only the one input connection.]
Don't be silly and try to think of a way you can do this. You can't.
Digital Logic (in electronic form) is not equivalent to propositional logic in abstraction.
But with software, yes. I agree that it could be done in simulation. I could do it, and have already worked out how I would go about it. I could write a program that put a box on the screen, with a green light to indicate that the box was working, have a button labeled Switch To Ground, have three textboxes and another button to act as the + operator, and when you click the button to switch to ground, the box will keep working and adding numbers. I can program that, so I know. You as the observer and user of the adder, would only know that it was working. The only thing you couldn't do with a computer program, because of language constraints, is actually change the truth values of a declared constants programmatically. But you could simulate anything.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 18, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
The comments here are so incredibly amusing that I hardly have words. Zachriel, valerie – you two are either far more patient than I am or have far more time. (And no, that statement is not a tautology…)
Comment by thechristiancynic — December 18, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Hi, thechristiancynic,
LOL! We have gotten past the tautology issue.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 18, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Your "LOL!" makes me think you got the joke, but your following statement undercuts that. Not that it matters, anyhow.
Comment by thechristiancynic — December 18, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Hi, Raevmo,
I have already made that note to myself. I can think abstractly, just not propositionally.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 18, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Hi, thechristiancynic,
Not sure what you are referring to.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 18, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Hi, Raevmo,
I never get embarrassed when I learn something. My temper only flares when the discourse gets nasty. I think me and Zach have calmed down. And if you noticed, I haven't been bringing up tautologies lately
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 18, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
Also, NO inversions on the signal are allowed between the input connection and the internal circuit.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 18, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
As an afterthought, it occured to me that the task I gave you is self-defeating. Even if there were enough wiggle room for you to complete it, even if several more iterations had to take place, with more and more constraints, so that finally I made you give up and say, "I can't do in this reality." It wouldn't help my case, because the situation itself would be so abnormal and impractical, it would prove your case more than mine.
Maybe digital electronics is equivalent to propositional logic. Of course I wouldn't know that at this point, but I'll grant you could be right.
Good job hanging in there.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 18, 2007 @ 9:33 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
NOT Gate
OR Gate
Comment by Zachriel — December 18, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
Yes, I know of such things. This argument is over. My money is on you at this point. See my last comment: proof by contradiction. I couldn't be right either way.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 18, 2007 @ 10:53 pm