Intelligent design anyone?

[MiguelBladesman]

Originally posted by Tom

 

OK, change it to "no basis in the picture of reality that is painted by our observations".

 

 

 

No, my position is really the opposite: That reality cannot be prescribed by some a priori argument. All we know of reality is through our observations, and a brainless, disembodied super intelligence is not compatible with any of them, and that is my point. There is no reason to believe that such a thing exists.

 

Tom: Your statement is massively flawed and irrational.

 

"All we know of reality is through our observations...etc" -TOM

 

Pardon Tom, but, please provide a single scientific source where the observation AND measurement involved quantification of either matter or energy that was termed, REALITY?

 

In that regard, I seem to recall the REALITY I encountered, was the precise size of some big bully's fist, but all kidding aside, please your argument around to the pragmatic and empirical.

 

The above stated plainly, your second statement:

 

"...and a brainless, disembodied super intelligence is not compatible with any of them..." [observations] -Tom

 

By logic Tom, if, as you state plainly, if there is no "brainless, ... etc...." entity, then why are you arguing against the same?

 

What I see you doing is suggesting that only science is necessary to mankind, and religious and philosophical thought ought to be treated with hostility. Is that correct? Where'd that come from? It certainly is not the position of most of the fundamental science that I have learned about.

 

I'm curious about that REALITY thing.

[MiguelBladesman]

Originally posted by Radical Edward

 

one of the things I have never seen a IDT proponent, or any other "religious scientist" do is submit his ideas to peer review. In refusing to do this, they attempt to use science as a weapon against itsef, while simultaneously ignoring one of the most fundamental tenets.

 

Radical Edward,

 

I agree with you completely concerning the discipline of science.

 

But I believe the original question here, was posted not with a requirement that we answer within the strict confines of science. It's rather a philosophical question also as I see it.

 

Anyway, I've got 4 hats. One is my "science" hat. One is my "philosophy" hat. One is my "religion" hat. Last, but not least is my FILSON bowhunting hat.

[MiguelBladesman]

Originally posted by Radical Edward

 

where does your intelligent design fit into all of this?

 

Radical Edward:

 

Don't misunderstand me; there's not much Intelligent Design to me. I'm different; but I daresay there's other parts of humanity that suggest elements of ID.

 

I draw my inference for ID from the beauty, both the Light and the Dark beauty.

 

Then there's the entire notion of Intelligences, that seem to indicate design. Nearly everything experienced has one designation or other.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by MiguelBladesman

Tom: Your statement is massively flawed and irrational.

 

"All we know of reality is through our observations...etc" -TOM

 

Why is it irrational to state that all our knowledge of reality comes through our perceptions? Can you name me one bit of knowledge that doesn't origninate there? What other inputs from the outside world do you have?

 

Pardon Tom, but, please provide a single scientific source where the observation AND measurement involved quantification of either matter or energy that was termed, REALITY?

 

I am talking about our knowledge of the universe as physical reality. And despite your objection, I am sticking to my statement that all we know of that reality comes from observation. Simply calling it "irrational" for no apparent reason isn't going to convince me to abandon it.

 

In that regard, I seem to recall the REALITY I encountered, was the precise size of some big bully's fist, but all kidding aside, please your argument around to the pragmatic and empirical.

 

Are you asking me for something here? I can't tell.

 

The above stated plainly, your second statement:

 

"...and a brainless, disembodied super intelligence is not compatible with any of them..." [observations] -Tom

 

By logic Tom, if, as you state plainly, if there is no "brainless, ... etc...." entity, then why are you arguing against the same?

 

I thought the reason was obvious: The original post in the thread asked us about such a thing.

 

What I see you doing is suggesting that only science is necessary to mankind, and religious and philosophical thought ought to be treated with hostility. Is that correct?

 

You are half right: I reject religious thought.

 

Anything for which there is zero evidence (such as a mind without a brain) is completely incredible.

 

Where'd that come from? It certainly is not the position of most of the fundamental science that I have learned about.

 

Fundamental science has no use for religion, and I don't know where you would have learned otherwise.

[Skye]

But I believe the original question here, was posted not with a requirement that we answer within the strict confines of science.

The question was posted in the 'General Science' section on a site called Science Forums, which to me means it is asked within the confines of science. I think this is has been your main cause for disagreement as your belief seems to be based on personal experiences, which you admit aren't scientifically verifiable.

[MiguelBladesman]

Tom:

 

Pardon me, but you neatly sidestepped the necessary definition of REALITY.

 

Equating reality with externals that are perceived by sense, falls categorically under the notion of proof by appearance. Any study of optical illusion will demonstrate that senses are unreliable.

 

You introduced REALITY into the dialogue here Tom. Just define it will you, so that we aren't perennially committed to fallacy by 'glittering generality' or 'slippery slope' argumentation?

[rdjon]

Just to put in my 2p worth...

 

Of course organisms are designed. They are designed by selection pressures and their environment. This means that if any one came up with a definition of design, then organisms would appear to be designed, because they are. As for intelligent design, that says to me a proponent doesn't think evolutionary pressure can come up with organisms, it needs some "blueprint" created by a higher being. That, to me, makes it a religous idea, not a scientific one.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by MiguelBladesman

Equating reality with externals that are perceived by sense, falls categorically under the notion of proof by appearance. Any study of optical illusion will demonstrate that senses are unreliable.

 

this would be a Converse Accident fallacy wouldn't it?

 

optical illusions are designed specifically to detect the functions and weaknesses of the human optical system, however the majority of experimentation does not rely on the human optical, or for that matter, sensory system. The sensory systems used in experimentation utilise far simpler rules and requirements, and the outcome of a measurement is far less ambiguous.

 

take the optical illusion where a straight line is made to look curved by superimposing it on a series of concentric circles. Your eye thinks the line is curved, however, using a cunning tool which does not rely on human perception, a ruler, you can see that the line is straight after all.

[blike]

As for intelligent design, that says to me a proponent doesn't think evolutionary pressure can come up with organisms, it needs some "blueprint" created by a higher being. That, to me, makes it a religous idea, not a scientific one.

 

Not necessarily that evolutionary pressures cannot come up with organisms themselves, but they point out that there are certain mechanisms within living processes to which gradualism could not have developed, because all the parts rely on each other. Without one part, the process fails to have a function and/or has a negative affect on the organism, and would either be selected against or not selected for at all. This is their main argument.

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by MiguelBladesman

Pardon me, but you neatly sidestepped the necessary definition of REALITY.

 

By "reality" I mean all that exists as concrete objects (as opposed to abstractions). I define concrete objects as anything that occupies space.

 

Equating reality with externals that are perceived by sense, falls categorically under the notion of proof by appearance. Any study of optical illusion will demonstrate that senses are unreliable.

 

I am not just talking about knowledge that comes from the senses, but also scientific instruments by extension.

 

You introduced REALITY into the dialogue here Tom.

 

I did not introduce it. I may have been the first to use the word "reality", but when asking a question about a scientific theory at a science forum, it is obvious that we are talking about the observable universe, aka physical reality.

 

Just define it will you, so that we aren't perennially committed to fallacy by 'glittering generality' or 'slippery slope' argumentation?

 

OK, so let me know if you are satisfied with the definition I gave.

 

Edit: Fixed quote bracket.

[Giles]

I'm not sure what the problem is.

 

Obviously reality must be everything that exists, that's tautological. We can't guarantee we can accurately perceive everything that exists - in fact we've had no luck finding true a priori statements - but so what? All we need for science is that we can make true or false logical statements defined in empirical terms.

 

a spade in this view is just something with the perceived attributes of a spade. If in 'true reality' it has lots of other attributes, like the ability to predict the future, i don't think anyone would argue that this stops it being spade if these attributes are completely undetectable.

 

The whole point of the scientific method is that although perception is unreliable, it's not all that bad. It may not be logically necessary (ignoring the anthropic principle for now) that the scientific method works well in any conceivable world, but fortunately in this one it does.

 

Anyway, dragging this back to the subject of design...

 

clearly, complicated things like DNA aren't evidence for design per se, they're just evidence for some kind of mechanism that is capable of producing complexity. The same goes for galaxies. Obviously ID is one such mechanism, but in the last few centuries we have found better ones (i.e. mechanisms which make fewer claims which lack corroboration, and many more claims that are corroborated) .

[Tom Mattson]

Originally posted by Giles

Obviously reality must be everything that exists, that's tautological. We can't guarantee we can accurately perceive everything that exists - in fact we've had no luck finding true a priori statements[/i] - but so what? All we need for science is that we can make true or false logical statements defined in empirical terms.

 

Exactly. All I meant by my statement is that there is nothing in the picture of reality painted by our best evidence to support the ID case.

 

clearly, complicated things like DNA aren't evidence for design per se, they're just evidence for some kind of mechanism that is capable of producing complexity. The same goes for galaxies. Obviously ID is one such mechanism, but in the last few centuries we have found better ones (i.e. mechanisms which make fewer claims which lack corroboration, and many more claims that are corroborated) .

 

I can understand a person's urge to suggest that we are "designed". But why say it was purposeful? I see no reason to postulate that humanity was designed by anything other than natural forces, as rdjon noted. As far as ID goes, I don't have a problem with the "D". It's the "I" that I find superfluous, and indeed specious, for the reasons I mentioned.

 

And that's all I've been saying all along.

[jakepi7]

What is intelligent design? I thought evolution was a proven fact based on studies examining certain forms of bacteria that have short life spans. Evolutionary effects could be witnessed.

[MiguelBladesman]

Originally posted by Radical Edward

 

this would be a Converse Accident fallacy wouldn't it?

 

optical illusions are designed specifically to detect the functions and weaknesses of the human optical system, however the majority of experimentation does not rely on the human optical, or for that matter, sensory system. The sensory systems used in experimentation utilise far simpler rules and requirements, and the outcome of a measurement is far less ambiguous.

 

take the optical illusion where a straight line is made to look curved by superimposing it on a series of concentric circles. Your eye thinks the line is curved, however, using a cunning tool which does not rely on human perception, a ruler, you can see that the line is straight after all.

 

Radical Edward:

 

"The majority of experimentation does not rely on the human optical or for that matter, sensory system." -Radical Edward

 

EXACTLY! That is what I want to point out when I suggest that terms like "Reality" or "physical reality" are bereft of scientific meaning. Particularly, RE, is your statement that "sensory" perception is not relied upon.

 

Visual proof is the least reliable. Moreover, and far deeper in its implications for science, is the simple fact that observed results are never accepted as "proofs". They are probabililites.

[Giles]

I really don't think that it matters that the definition of reality is a metaphysical rather than scientific proposition, because that statement 'that object is real' is a scientific proposition as i've outlined above.

 

Originally posted by MiguelBladesman

Observed results are never accepted as prooft. They are probabililites.

The first sentence is correct. Assigning probabilites to statements like "e=mc^2" or "the mechanism of evolution is darwinian" is a logical fallacy.

 

Science works because it makes statements that can't be verified but can be falsified. I've already explained empiricism.

 

There are good reasons why Karl Popper is considered the definitive philosopher of science.

 

 

 

jakepi, showing that darwinian models can work in nature isn't the same thing as showing they account for the history or life on earth, which is the contested point.

[MiguelBladesman]

Originally posted by Giles

I'm not sure what the problem is.

 

Obviously reality must be everything that exists, that's tautological. We can't guarantee we can accurately perceive everything that exists - in fact we've had no luck finding true a priori statements - but so what? All we need for science is that we can make true or false logical statements defined in empirical terms.

 

a spade in this view is just something with the perceived attributes of a spade. If in 'true reality' it has lots of other attributes, like the ability to predict the future, i don't think anyone would argue that this stops it being spade if these attributes are completely undetectable.

 

The whole point of the scientific method is that although perception is unreliable, it's not all that bad. It may not be logically necessary (ignoring the anthropic principle for now) that the scientific method works well in any conceivable world, but fortunately in this one it does.

 

Anyway, dragging this back to the subject of design...

 

clearly, complicated things like DNA aren't evidence for design per se, they're just evidence for some kind of mechanism that is capable of producing complexity. The same goes for galaxies. Obviously ID is one such mechanism, but in the last few centuries we have found better ones (i.e. mechanisms which make fewer claims which lack corroboration, and many more claims that are corroborated) .

 

Giles, with the exception of your claim that it's tautological that "reality must be everything that exists"...

 

...because you are arguing (like me ) simultaneously philosophically AND scientifically; but since you are arguing, like Tom, "reality" can you source this in science? For example, did Richard Feynman, in his field of work, develop a theory of REALITY?

 

I'm not denying that the physical exists. I'm just stopping short of attributing to the physical [which we all share ] the qualification, REALITY. It's a critical distinction.

[Giles]

Originally posted by MiguelBladesman

For example, did Richard Feynman, in his field of work, develop a theory of REALITY?

Yes, he developed several theories which said reality had certain (empirically defined) properties. So far his theories appear to be sound, but they are open to falsification. ergo, they are scientific.

[MiguelBladesman]

Originally posted by Giles

Yes, he developed several theories which said reality had certain (empirically defined) properties. So far his theories appear to be sound, but they are open to falsification. ergo, they are scientific.

 

Good then Giles. Source those properties of reality in Feynman for us will you? The last thing we want is for people to be obscure on what reality is, eh?

[Tom Mattson]

Miguel,

 

You are completely missing the point here, and dragging the thread way off topic. We don't need a comprehensive theory of reality to talk about intelligent design. You initially criticized my statement that a disembodied super-intelligence has "no basis in reality". My response was along the lines of, "OK, fair enough, what I meant was that it finds no support in our best evidence." That is a true statement, but you still thought it was irrational (although you did not give any reason for that).

 

Why can't you just accept my clarification and move on from there? This is getting tiresome, not to mention boring.

[Giles]

Feynman's theories aren't 'sourced' in reality you twit, they are sourced from his head. No one takes induction seriously anymore.

They describe reality.

[MiguelBladesman]

Originally posted by Tom

Miguel,

 

You are completely missing the point here, and dragging the thread way off topic. We don't need a comprehensive theory of reality to talk about intelligent design. You initially criticized my statement that a disembodied super-intelligence has "no basis in reality". My response was along the lines of, "OK, fair enough, what I meant was that it finds no support in our best evidence." That is a true statement, but you still thought it was irrational (although you did not give any reason for that).

 

Why can't you just accept my clarification and move on from there? This is getting tiresome, not to mention boring.

 

I cannot accept your ..."clarification" because your logic is hazy, especially because we are not discussing minutiae or particulars, but sweeping generalizations, offered wholesale, like "physical reality".

 

I do find it regrettable that you are bored with this. I'm fascinated with the clear and obvious boundaries and it's a disappointment to me that you are so satisfied with articulating glittering generalities . Now if you sourced something specific from Richard Feynman, that would be interesting. Feynman is straightforward and honest.

[MiguelBladesman]

Originally posted by Giles

Feynman's theories aren't 'sourced' in reality you twit, they are sourced from his head. No one takes induction seriously anymore.

They describe reality.

 

Ah.....I see this more clearly now; you want me to accept "on faith" your rhetorical generalizations.

 

Hmm....and "twit" I suppose, is a reflection of a deeply studied consideration of the facts: a specificied reality, articulated by Richard Feynman. Gee, that's okay; I was just hoping to read it chapter and verse is all. I'm suspicious when the disciplined adherence to empirical principle erodes.

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by MiguelBladesman

Ah.....I see this more clearly now; you want me to accept on faith your rhetorical generalizations.

 

No, you use empirical evidence to justify them.

 

You don't have a clue about the scientific method, do you?

 

Read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn and some Karl Popper.

[MiguelBladesman]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

 

No, you use empirical evidence to justify them.

 

You don't have a clue about the scientific method, do you?

 

Read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn and some [urlhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0415285941/qid=1057073984/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/103-1973763-6743805?v=glance&s=books]Karl Popper[/url].

 

Jakiri, are you kidding me? You're criticizing my insistence upon empiricism?

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by MiguelBladesman

 

Jakiri, are you kidding me? You're criticizing my insistence upon empiricism?

 

Induction is different from empiricism.