|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2009 : 13:43:12 [Permalink]
|
Hawks, I've been reading over the Panda's Thumb thread some more, and I found this comment of yours puzzling. | So, we agree, then??? ID doesn’t predict X any more than it predicts ~X. It doesn’t predict good design any more than it predicts bad design? And if ID doesn’t do this prediction, why would listing examples of bad design somehow count as evidence against ID? |
ID theory, as often presented to skeptics, doesn't predict good design, which is true. Yet you admit that ID proponents often make arguments that require assumptions of good designs nevertheless. What I don't understand is why you are adamant that such fallacious arguments should not be rebutted on the grounds that ID proponents are being inconsistent. So what? If they are throwing a bunch of shit at the wall to see what sticks, why not address all of it?
You are reminding me here a bit like some atheists I've run across who declare that the Problem of Evil is a bad argument for atheism since it doesn't rule out a malevolent god. This both true and irrelevant, since the Problem of Evil isn't posed as an argument for atheism. It's a counter-argument against specific claims of divine benevolence. Similarly, examples of bad biological design aren't intended to be an argument against ID, but as a counter-argument against specific assertions that intention can be inferred from good design. In short, you are faulting people for making a "bad" generalized argument they aren't really making. The posters at PT keep trying to tell you that, even citing the specific arguments of ID proponents which they are intending to address, yet you don't seem to be listening...
|
"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 12/04/2009 13:45:31 |
 |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
 Posted - 12/04/2009 : 14:34:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Hawks, I've been reading over the Panda's Thumb thread some more, and I found this comment of yours puzzling. | So, we agree, then??? ID doesn’t predict X any more than it predicts ~X. It doesn’t predict good design any more than it predicts bad design? And if ID doesn’t do this prediction, why would listing examples of bad design somehow count as evidence against ID? |
ID theory, as often presented to skeptics, doesn't predict good design, which is true. Yet you admit that ID proponents often make arguments that require assumptions of good designs nevertheless. What I don't understand is why you are adamant that such fallacious arguments should not be rebutted on the grounds that ID proponents are being inconsistent. So what? If they are throwing a bunch of shit at the wall to see what sticks, why not address all of it?
|
I am not claiming that such arguments (e.g. bad design) should not be used when someone claims that we should only expect good design. If person A says that we should only find something perfect and we find something blatantly crud, then person A is obviously wrong.
What I AM claiming is that ID doesn't make any claims to begin with (from a bayesian likelihood point of view). If person A claims that ID says that we should expect only good design, then person A is wrong no matter what we find empirically. Likewise when someone says that bad design is an argument against ID, they are wrong for the simple reason that ID makes no claim that can be refuted. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2009 : 15:47:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
...ID makes no claim that can be refuted. |
Perhaps this is the bone of contention.
I know of not a few people who'll get into a snit if one anthropomorphizes science by saying things like, "well, science has found..." They don't like that one bit. "No!" they'll say, "'science' hasn't found squat. Scientists have done the finding, using the process we call 'science'. That's what you meant to say."
Perhaps the whole Panda's Thumb ID thing that you started could be solved simply by saying that "ID" doesn't do anything, it is the ID proponents who are making claims or not making claims. ID doesn't act independently of its preachers, just like science doesn't act independently of scientists.
I know it sounds pedantic, because when we say, "science says," what we mean is that the scientists who did a bunch of researcher concluded something in particular. And that seems to be what several of the PT people are trying to point out: ID hardly exists at all outside the minds of its propagandists, so trying to divorce the concept from people like Dembski and Wells may not be realistic. Hence the "who are you to say what ID is?" sort of replies.
Sure, we could create a generic ID conjecture that's more internally consistent, but that's not what its ringleaders think of as ID, so why bother? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2009 : 16:31:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
"No!" they'll say, "'science' hasn't found squat. Scientists have done the finding, using the process we call 'science'. That's what you meant to say."
|
No, that's not what I'm getting at, at all.
When claiming that a theory can predict something, one usually has in mind one or several specific hypotheses. For example, one could say that evolution predicts that there should be fossils found that are transitionals between fish and amphibians and that these should be found in rocks from the late Devonian.
One can say this because, for example:
1) Lobe finned fishes first appear in the fossil record 390-380 mya.
2) The first tetrapods first appear in the fossil record 363 mya.
Ergo: Transitional forms between fish and tetrapods should have arisen 380-363 mya ago.
I.e. we have pretty good reasons for why evolution would predict the existence of such fossils.
ID, on the other predicts good design because:
1) ID supporters claim it does.
ID, also predicts bad design because:
1) I think it should (just for the sake of argument).
ID, also, doesn't predict anything in particular regarding the quality of the design because:
1) ID is all about design detection.
2) ID says nothing about the designer.
So what I'm getting at is that ID can hardly be allowed to predict something just because someone says that ID predicts it. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2009 : 18:06:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
No, that's not what I'm getting at, at all. |
No, I'm saying that is, perhaps, what the people who are arguing with you are getting at.| So what I'm getting at is that ID can hardly be allowed to predict something just because someone says that ID predicts it. |
But that's what makes it so funny. That's all that the ID proponents have.
Really, anyone who claims, "ID predicts..." ought to either be the originator of the prediction, or else preface that phrase with "So-and-so says that." And then part of the game is to find a different ID proponent who proposes that ID predicts the opposite. Or the same ID cheerleader at a different time.
All claimed ID predictions so far have been ridiculous non-predictions, anyway. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2009 : 11:37:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
| So what I'm getting at is that ID can hardly be allowed to predict something just because someone says that ID predicts it. |
Statements which one associates with a theory need not come from predictions. For example, I ascribe to evolution, so I must also believe that animals compete to survive. This isn't a prediction from evolution, but rather a prerequisite. Hence I would include the statement "Animals compete for survival" to be lumped in with the theory of evolution.
|
Ah, but "Animals compete for survival" is too generalised to be used as a prerequisite for evolution. Ants in a colony do not compete with each other for survival. They just work.
| Likewise, a prerequisite for just about all IDers is that the designer is the Christian god. They wouldn't accept ID if it were any other way. |
From observation, that seems like a reasonable assumption.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2009 : 08:38:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Statements which one associates with a theory need not come from predictions. |
Indeed. When talking about predictions I mean the ability of ID to say "Given that something intelligent did something, I predict observation X". In such a case, ID is completely useless. What ID actually really says is "Given observation X, something intelligent did it". ID's prerequisite is really only that it can say when something was done by something intelligent vs when it was done by something not intelligent. Here, ID fails again.
| Likewise, a prerequisite for just about all IDers is that the designer is the Christian god. |
It's a prerequisite for IDers, perhaps, but not for ID.
| They wouldn't accept ID if it were any other way. |
In most cases, I think this is very true.
So I agree with your statement, "ID doesn't predict anything about the designer", but it does assume things about it.
|
My claims about ID are only about "ID science", not about it's political and religious role. IDers often assume god and they often want ID widely circulated for religious reasons.
I'm not saying that ID predicts nothing about the designer. I'm saying that it makes NO assumptions about it. Moreover, such assumptions CAN'T be made. Because of this, ID can't make any predictions. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2009 : 21:39:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
My claims about ID are only about "ID science", not about it's political and religious role. IDers often assume god and they often want ID widely circulated for religious reasons.
I'm not saying that ID predicts nothing about the designer. I'm saying that it makes NO assumptions about it. Moreover, such assumptions CAN'T be made. Because of this, ID can't make any predictions.
|
Intelligent Design does make at least one assumption (or maybe it's a prediction) about the "designer" though. Namely that the "designer" is intelligent.
It is not entirely inaccurate (though it is perhaps a bit prejudicial) to refer to evolution as "unintelligent design". |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2009 : 09:35:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
| It's a prerequisite for IDers, perhaps, but not for ID. |
How do you separate the two?
|
If ID was a real theory, we should be able to justify any assumptions we use if we were to claim that ID expected the designer to have made perfect stuff (something we might expect Jehova to have done) rather than imperfect things (something we might expect Edward the clumsy alien to have done). ID, as such, doesn't make any such assumptions and moreover it is impossible for anyone to do so (make valid assumptions, that is).
Now, I know that IDers do make assumptions regarding the designer. Their assumptions are usually taken from the bible and are a completely unsupported belief. I would hardly call that valid by any means. The assumptions are, then, simply justified by the say-so of (what is presumably) the majority of ID supporters.
Ergo, it is IDers and not ID that says that something regarding the designer.
----
Given that I am a terrible writer, it might be easiest if I supply a quote from Elliott Sober that better explains what I am getting at:
It is crucial to the scientific enterprise that auxiliary propositions not simply be invented. By inventing assumptions, we can equip a theory with favorable auxiliary propositions that allow it to fit the data. Conversely, a theory also can be equipped with unfavorable auxiliaries that lead it to conflict with the data. An important strategy that scientists use to avoid this nihilistic outcome is to insist that there be independent evidence for the auxiliary propositions that are used. When testing the laws of optics by observing eclipses, we do not arbitrarily invent assumptions about the positions of the earth, moon, and sun. Rather, we use propositions about their positions for which we have independent evidence.
When we test the laws of optics by observing eclipses, the auxiliary propositions we use are “independently justified” in the sense that our reasons for accepting them do not depend on (i) assuming that the theory being tested is true or (ii) using the data on eclipses. The reason to avoid (i) is obvious, since a test of optical theory should not be question-begging. But why avoid (ii)? The reason is that violating this requirement would allow us to show that any theory, no matter how irrelevant it is to the occurrence of eclipses, makes accurate predictions about them. For if O describes an observation about the occurrence of an eclipse, and O is used to justify the auxiliary propositions we use to test theory N, then we can simply construct the auxiliary proposition “not-N or O;” this disjunction must be true if O is, and this auxiliary proposition, when conjoined to N, allows N to entail O.
The important scientific strategy of rendering theories testable by finding independently justified auxiliary propositions does not work for mini-ID. We have no independent evidence concerning which auxiliary propositions about the putative designer’s goals and abilities are true (Kitcher 1984). Surprisingly, this is a point that several ID proponents concede. For example, the influential ID textbook, Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins, states that “the message encoded in DNA must have originated from an intelligent cause. What kind of intelligent designer was it? On its own, science cannot answer this question; it must leave it to religion and philosophy” (Davis and Kenyon 1993:7). In the same vein, Philip Johnson (1991) says that the designer’s motives are “mysterious” (p 67) and “inscrutable” (p 71). |
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2009 : 09:37:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dv82matt
Intelligent Design does make at least one assumption (or maybe it's a prediction) about the "designer" though. Namely that the "designer" is intelligent. |
This much is true. Unfortunately, that doesn't lead us to expect any observation more than any other. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2009 : 11:39:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
If ID was a real theory, we should be able to justify any assumptions we use if we were to claim that ID expected the designer to have made perfect stuff (something we might expect Jehova to have done) rather than imperfect things (something we might expect Edward the clumsy alien to have done). ID, as such, doesn't make any such assumptions and moreover it is impossible for anyone to do so (make valid assumptions, that is).
|
But ID is NOT a real theory....no matter what it's proponents would like you to believe. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2009 : 14:43:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
Originally posted by dv82matt
Intelligent Design does make at least one assumption (or maybe it's a prediction) about the "designer" though. Namely that the "designer" is intelligent. |
This much is true. Unfortunately, that doesn't lead us to expect any observation more than any other.
|
I would argue that it does lead us to expect some observations and not expect others. IDists avoid making these predictions (except when it suits them) because if they did then the observations would tend to falsify their hypothesis, and because they are not really interested in the scientific implications of ID in the first place.
ID should predict that we will find "design" of approximately equal competence across the biosphere (or at least explain why it doesn't). ID should predict that if a design problem has been solved in one species then it should be likewise solved in all species that would benefit from that design (or again explain why it doesn't). The fact that ID does not predict these things indicates to me that IDists don't consider the scientific implications of their conjecture.
Instead IDists search for parallels between evolution and design and predict those things. Or they make entirely subjective predictions such as about the purposefulness of the universe.
I think the problem of detecting intelligence when presented with something that appears designed is interesting and non trivial but ID is only using that as a fig leaf to cover its blatant political and religious agenda. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Interesting discussion at Panda's Thumb
