|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
 Posted - 06/13/2005 : 12:47:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Given more than one explanation which explains the evidence with equal power. That's an important clause in the Razor which is often overlooked. A general "the less complex, the better" idea is the over-simplification of this guideline which I was chiding markie for in the other thread mentioned in the OP.
So it really does come down to evidence. Given the available evidence we some to the most streamlined, elegant conclusion as we can. But unfortunately the tendency is to believe that the evidence available is more final and absolute than it really is. Thus the theory itself is adhered to with more dogmatism than is warranted.
An example which comes to mind concerns the acceptance of abiogenesis. In the earlier days of microscopy there was only enough resolving power to see the cell and it's protoplasm. Thus a cell was regarded as essentially a blob of undifferentiated protoplasm. So it seemed it wasn't far fetched that such simple living cells could spontaneously form from non living things, and evolve. But with better evidence, information, we now understand that cellular life is much more complex than that. Theories attempting to explain life mechanisms are appropriately become more and more complex.
A question relevant to this religous form is: How complex does it have to get before, well, a supercomplex Being is given consideration as the ultimate cause of such complexity?
PS It should be noted that complexity of itself is not so awe inspiring as is the coordination and unification of complexity which characterizes life. (And Deity I might add.)
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 13:22:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
But unfortunately the tendency is to believe that the evidence available is more final and absolute than it really is.
Where is the evidence which supports such a statement?quote:
Thus the theory itself is adhered to with more dogmatism than is warranted.
Only if your premise is correct. I doubt it is.quote:
An example which comes to mind concerns the acceptance of abiogenesis.
Given that any theory of abiogenesis is necessarily in its infancy, I've got no idea of who is "accepting" one as necessarily true.quote:
In the earlier days of microscopy there was only enough resolving power to see the cell and it's protoplasm. Thus a cell was regarded as essentially a blob of undifferentiated protoplasm. So it seemed it wasn't far fetched that such simple living cells could spontaneously form from non living things, and evolve. But with better evidence, information, we now understand that cellular life is much more complex than that. Theories attempting to explain life mechanisms are appropriately become more and more complex.
A question relevant to this religous form is: How complex does it have to get before, well, a supercomplex Being is given consideration as the ultimate cause of such complexity?
When we have evidence of such a "supercomplex Being." We don't have any now, and pointing to the "coordination and unification of complexity" of life as such evidence is nothing but circular reasoning. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 13:24:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
A question relevant to this religous form is: How complex does it have to get before, well, a supercomplex Being is given consideration as the ultimate cause of such complexity?
When it is shown that natural processes can not account for the complexity then we would abandon natural abiogenesis. So far we are not there yet, despite the amazing complexity of the cell. Its amazing the complexity that arises from a reproducing slightly varing system under a selective pressure and a varying environment.
We have already discovered how chemical systems can evolve into systems of reproducing distinct units that metabolize and grow (note this is chemical evolution, not biological). We are also getting an understanding of how selective pressures can affect these units. We know somewhat of how crude inheritance of chemicals inside of the "proto" cells occurs, but we're not real sure yet on how an encoding system such as DNA arose from this. However we are not totally clueless on the issue and have some plausible ideas, such as the protein inheritance model.
Even if we were to create a completely functional cell by abiogenesis in the lab, it would only say that abiogeneis is possible. It might also give us some clues to look for however in ancient sediments to see if this was what happened.
Finally to consider a super complex being was involved would require evidence for said being's existance and its fingerprints found in the forming of life.
Edited to add:
While abiogenesis is still in its infancy, there is always a huge gap between what the average lay person thinks we know so far and what we actually do know. If you are really interested there are quite a few good sources.
I recommend:
The Major Transitions in Evolution for a good overview of the current state of things at the time of the book's writing (1997).
I then recommend a trip to your nearest university library and a search through its scientific journals for even more up to date stuff.
For example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11536591&query_hl=9
Describes some of these "artificial" cells that can grow, metabolize, and even basic responses to stimuli.
For a longer list of refs: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=11536591 |
| Edited by - bloody_peasant on 06/13/2005 13:37:27 |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 13:42:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But unfortunately the tendency is to believe that the evidence available is more final and absolute than it really is.quote:
Where is the evidence which supports such a statement?
?? I thought that such is well known in the history of science. For instance, around the turn of the 20th century a well known philosopher of science (name?) stated something to the effect that essentially all that is discoverable we have discovered. I suspect he was reflecting the general scientific attitude of the time.
quote:
A question relevant to this religous form is: How complex does it have to get before, well, a supercomplex Being is given consideration as the ultimate cause of such complexity?quote:
When we have evidence of such a "supercomplex Being." We don't have any now, and pointing to the "coordination and unification of complexity" of life as such evidence is nothing but circular reasoning.
OK, then what would you consider might comprise evidence of a such a Being?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 15:57:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
?? I thought that such is well known in the history of science. For instance, around the turn of the 20th century a well known philosopher of science (name?) stated something to the effect that essentially all that is discoverable we have discovered. I suspect he was reflecting the general scientific attitude of the time.
You're basing your critique of modern science upon something someone said 100 years ago?
And it was said about physics, in particular, and disproven within 10 years. It was quickly agreed to be a rather silly prediction.quote:
OK, then what would you consider might comprise evidence of a such a Being?
That would depend entirely upon the definition of such a being. After all, if they're defined in such a way that there's no way we could detect one, then there would be no possible evidence for one. On the other hand, if they're defined as detectable beings, then what evidence would show them to exist would depend upon how they are detectable. Care to offer a definition of a "supermaterial being?" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 18:13:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You're basing your critique of modern science upon something someone said 100 years ago?
And it was said about physics, in particular, and disproven within 10 years. It was quickly agreed to be a rather silly prediction.
Note that 100 years ago it too *was* modern science! How much of the pronouncements of our 'modern' science today will look abit silly in 200 years? If we only knew ...
quote:
OK, then what would you consider might comprise evidence of a such a Being?quote:
That would depend entirely upon the definition of such a being. After all, if they're defined in such a way that there's no way we could detect one, then there would be no possible evidence for one. On the other hand, if they're defined as detectable beings, then what evidence would show them to exist would depend upon how they are detectable. Care to offer a definition of a "supermaterial being?"
Admittedly, the primary problem is that supermaterial reality is not directly measured by a materialistic science. It's like me trying to measure 'mind'. One cannot do so directly, only indirectly by measuring what material influences mind may leave in its wake. Like a skyscraper for instance.
Supermaterial beings would range from absolute God to, say, lower types of angels. Of course I harbour no hope of scientifically detecting God directly, although perhaps some lower beings may interface with the material realm sufficiently for some kind of detection, who knows.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 18:53:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Note that 100 years ago it too *was* modern science!
But, obviously, we've come a long way since then. Given the history of science, today's scientists tend to be far more circumspect in their "pronouncements" than that guy 100 years ago.quote:
How much of the pronouncements of our 'modern' science today will look abit silly in 200 years? If we only knew ...
But we don't. Previous failures of scientists are not predictive of any particular future failures, of course.quote:
Admittedly, the primary problem is that supermaterial reality is not directly measured by a materialistic science. It's like me trying to measure 'mind'. One cannot do so directly, only indirectly by measuring what material influences mind may leave in its wake.
But that's done all the time. That's precisely what forensic science is (being able to, for example, find a murderer long after he's left the scene of the crime). That's what archeologists, and cosmologists, and paleobotanists, and historians do is measure the "influences" displayed around us to deduce what happened in the past. Nobody is ever going to see a Higgs boson, but they'll be able to tell that one was created based upon the other particles which fly away from its decay.
Hell, the "Big Bang Theory" is nothing more than our best attempt at recreating a past which the theory itself says we will never be able to measure directly. If "supermaterial" things are so easy to nail down, then perhaps we're not as far from "God" as you think. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2005 : 00:20:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
and the justification for an ontology which insists that the less complex a theory is, the more true it is,
Well, since nobody here is suggesting such an ontology, why are you asking for the justification for one?
Quite frankly the idea that something must be more true if it is less complex is a nonsensical one.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2005 : 02:49:30 [Permalink]
|
| I know this has been said in the above discussion, but Occam's Razor is just a guiding principle. It isn't a law or evidence. It is a guide. Any time there are more than one reasonably plausible explanations, the choice is always tentative until more evidence is obtained. On the other hand, the principle of Occam's Razor does allow me to not introduce hypotheses willy nilly and rule each and everyone of them out. If I am looking at why the flowers in my vase wilted I don't have to rule out a curse by witches. But Occam's Razor doesn't say I need to base my conclusion between whether the natural wilting process has a simple possibility or a complex one on the complexity of the processes. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2005 : 10:47:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But unfortunately the tendency is to believe that the evidence available is more final and absolute than it really is. Thus the theory itself is adhered to with more dogmatism than is warranted.
Only in whacko-fundie-religious land.
What part of "all conclusions are tentative, to some degree" don't you seem to be able to comprehend?
quote:
Admittedly, the primary problem is that supermaterial reality is not directly measured by a materialistic science. It's like me trying to measure 'mind'. One cannot do so directly, only indirectly by measuring what material influences mind may leave in its wake. Like a skyscraper for instance.
Perhaps you need to provide a few definitions, so we can not be talking past one another. There are a few words/phrases I'm pretty sure we aren't using the same definition as you are. Start out with:
"supermaterial reality"
"materialistic science"
"material influences"
"supercomplex being"
quote:
A question relevant to this religous form is: How complex does it have to get before, well, a supercomplex Being is given consideration as the ultimate cause of such complexity?
PS It should be noted that complexity of itself is not so awe inspiring as is the coordination and unification of complexity which characterizes life. (And Deity I might add.)
Ok.... so what? Even IF we agreed on the same definitions for terms, even if I granted you the premise that some "supercomplex being" is somehow responsible for complexity, in what way would that impact the study of the natural world? Evidence is evidence afterall, and evidence doesn't give a diddly what your personal opinions are.
How does it impact our search for determining how things work?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2005 : 16:42:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But unfortunately the tendency is to believe that the evidence available is more final and absolute than it really is. Thus the theory itself is adhered to with more dogmatism than is warranted.
quote:
Only in whacko-fundie-religious land.
Well obviously there has been some dogmatism and resistance to change in science, by scientists. Just like some Christian sects differ according to, say, what biblical texts they give priority to and focus on, there are science-theoretical 'camps' which may differ from each other according to, say, what observations they choose to focus on. The nice thing about science however is that the universe doesn't contradict itself, so there is hope of eventual convergence of scientific opinion :)
quote:
What part of "all conclusions are tentative, to some degree" don't you seem to be able to comprehend?
That is ideal science, and yes I comprehend that. I also comprehend that science in practise is not always so ideal.
quote:
Perhaps you need to provide a few definitions, so we can not be talking past one another. There are a few words/phrases I'm pretty sure we aren't using the same definition as you are. Start out with:
"supermaterial reality" / "materialistic science" / "material influences" / "supercomplex being"
In a nutshell, (to me) materialistic science, unlike true science, makes the assumption that there is nothing to the universe but those material influences that can be measured directly or indirectly by science.
By "supermaterial reality" I am more or less referring to those things or qualities which to my mind transcend the material, just as, say, the meaning of Hamlet transcends the written material words on the page.
quote:
Ok.... so what? Even IF we agreed on the same definitions for terms, even if I granted you the premise that some "supercomplex being" is somehow responsible for complexity, in what way would that impact the study of the natural world? Evidence is evidence afterall, and evidence doesn't give a diddly what your personal opinions are.
How does it impact our search for determining how things work?
At our stage of science, I doubt if it would matter much to scientific progress. However, if science defies its true nature and dogmatically denies the workings of, say, mind or spirit in nature, it *may* hinder future progress.
If we consider man to be part of nature, and if we agree that man has mind, then mind is part of nature. Mind can leave in its wake things which would otherwise baffle a strictly materialistic science. And restricting mind to biological entities may be premature to say the least.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2005 : 17:52:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
In a nutshell, (to me) materialistic science, unlike true science, makes the assumption that there is nothing to the universe but those material influences that can be measured directly or indirectly by science.
Then "material science" is something of your own invention, as no science assumes anything. It is a method of testing assumptions. Some assumptions are simply unable to be tested by science, and thus fall into the realm of faith, an area science does not address.
quote:
However, if science defies its true nature and dogmatically denies the workings of, say, mind or spirit in nature, it *may* hinder future progress.
Again, science does not address issues of spirit, as that is a faith assumption. Mind, as you say, is a very much a part of material nature and affects it directly. I'm not sure how restricting the concept of mind to the biological entities we know to be in possession of them is "premature." You can speculate that there is some aspect of mind that is beyond the material, but again, that sort of speculation would be a statement of faith and fall outside the purview of science.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 06/14/2005 17:53:33 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2005 : 19:18:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In a nutshell, (to me) materialistic science, unlike true science, makes the assumption that there is nothing to the universe but those material influences that can be measured directly or indirectly by science.
By "supermaterial reality" I am more or less referring to those things or qualities which to my mind transcend the material, just as, say, the meaning of Hamlet transcends the written material words on the page.
If something interacts with "material reality", then it can be detected. Then, by definition, it is not in your "supermateial" realm.
If these "supermaterial beings" in their "supermaterial reality" don't interact with "material reality" and cannot be detected within it, then of what possible relevence are they?
And I'm going to have to ask for your definition of "mind" as well. Because obviously you aren't using anything close to the one I am using, i.e. human consciousness as an emergent property of the human brain.
And, dare I ask, do you claim to have any evidence to support your ideas about "supermaterial reality/beings" ?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2005 : 19:36:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
The nice thing about science however is that the universe doesn't contradict itself, so there is hope of eventual convergence of scientific opinion :)
Such convergence tends to take place very quickly.quote:
In a nutshell, (to me) materialistic science, unlike true science, makes the assumption that there is nothing to the universe but those material influences that can be measured directly or indirectly by science.
Unfortunately, "materialistic science" implies that there exists a "non-materialistic science." Could you describe for us how a non-materialistic science might go about its work, expanding human knowledge about the universe?
Seriously, science is nothing more than a quest for knowledge based upon experimentation and measurement. Since God, ghosts, demons and fairies (etc.) regularly refuse to lend themselves to experimentation and measurment both, they cannot be scientifically examined. This isn't a "dogmatic denial" that such things might exist, instead it is simply a realistic pragmatism that such things cannot be poked and prodded like material things.quote:
At our stage of science, I doubt if it would matter much to scientific progress. However, if science defies its true nature and dogmatically denies the workings of, say, mind or spirit in nature, it *may* hinder future progress.
Can you give us an example of the workings of mind or spirit in nature?quote:
Mind can leave in its wake things which would otherwise baffle a strictly materialistic science.
Like what?quote:
And restricting mind to biological entities may be premature to say the least.
What evidence is there supporting that position? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
