tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post115788910136345266..comments2023-05-14T05:58:07.794-07:00Comments on Languedoc Diary: A neutral venue: Ken Miller is a CreationistAlan Foxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16470368958109056177noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1159875800665780982006-10-03T04:43:00.000-07:002006-10-03T04:43:00.000-07:00I was actually enjoying the exchange with crandadd...I was actually enjoying the exchange with <B>crandaddy</B>. I was hoping he would get sufficiently specific, but alas, he never did. I'm still not sure what his point was. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps next time, starting from a different aspect of the problem.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1159872178847374302006-10-03T03:42:00.000-07:002006-10-03T03:42:00.000-07:00I too think this thread has run into the sand. I w...I too think this thread has run into the sand. I was hoping to hear a bit more from Carl, but, never mind. Thanks to everyone for their thoughts.Alan Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16470368958109056177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1159841839109726552006-10-02T19:17:00.000-07:002006-10-02T19:17:00.000-07:00crandaddy: "What I'm trying to say is that you *ca...<B>crandaddy</B>: "<I>What I'm trying to say is that you *can't ever* directly detect design because you *can't ever* directly detect a designer.</I>"<BR/><BR/>We are definitely miscommunicating. You keep saying "design" and "designer". There is nothing that prevents one from using scientific methods to investigate each aspect of "design"; the artifact, the art, the artist. <BR/><BR/>I can only assume you mean you are attempting to detect design in biology. There is no such evidence. Nor have you attempted to even present such a case. <BR/><BR/><B>crandaddy</B>: "<I>Design detection can't be like other sciences because you're not studying the physical world.</I>"<BR/><BR/>What are you trying to say here? Are you trying to use scientific methods to detect the Creator of the Universe? In philosophy, as in science, it is important to have a clear definition of the terms of discussion. There is nothing that prevents the study of the various aspects of "design". <BR/><BR/><B>crandaddy</B>: "<I>You can't start with the cause because the cause is an intentional state and as such, is not subjectible to empirical observation.</I>"<BR/><BR/>We did discuss this already. We can certainly determine through a process of experimentation that Mother is aware of us and is purposefully trying to encourage mimicry and learning. The claim that intention cannot be detected is false. You did not previously attempt a detailed discussion even when presented with this simple case for analysis.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1159840070507598822006-10-02T18:47:00.000-07:002006-10-02T18:47:00.000-07:00What I'm trying to say is that you *can't ever* di...What I'm trying to say is that you *can't ever* directly detect design because you *can't ever* directly detect a designer. Design detection can't be like other sciences because you're not studying the physical world. You're studying mental phenomena--informational content derivative of and not intrinsic to its physical medium. You can't start with the cause because the cause is an intentional state and as such, is not subjectible to empirical observation. First, you determine whether or not a pattern is intelligently produced. Then you try to follow its causal chain back to a source--a seemingly uncaused cause. We can't ever detect a designer. The best we can do is associate a designing intelligence with a physical body (e.g. a human) because that's where the causal chain seems to terminate.<BR/><BR/>I have a funny feeling that we're just going to argue around in circles, so why don't we draw this to a close. I'll give you the last word.Crandaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09764337930603149736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1159836769074808402006-10-02T17:52:00.000-07:002006-10-02T17:52:00.000-07:00crandaddy: "You appear to be saying that we need t...<B>crandaddy</B>: "<I>You appear to be saying that we need to have knowledge of the designer in order to detect design.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Perhaps I didn't emphasize enough. We *can* reach reasonable inferences with limited data. We *do* reach reasonable infererences with limited data. Data is always limited, and so all scientific conclusions are considered tentative. <BR/><BR/><B>crandaddy</B>: "<I>What knowledge do we need, and how do we attain it?</I>"<BR/><BR/>I already indicated how. We collect evidence, form generalizations (theories), make predictions (hypotheses), and test the predictions, even try to falsify them. And nothing exists in a vacuum. We compare our evidence to other such situations to attempt to find commonalities. <BR/><BR/>Consider forensics. We have the body (artifact), the cause of death (art), the suspect (artist). We test our hypothesis concerning the suspect by looking for motive and opportunity. We check the criminology lab for similar situations. We continue to collect evidence and continue testing our tentative conclusions. Then a defense attorney tries to falsify our conclusion. And even then, sometimes we're wrong. <BR/><BR/>This probably doesn't answer your query because you are attempting to detect design where detectable design probably doesn't exist. I think you will find it helpful to analyze concrete examples.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1159833451399508552006-10-02T16:57:00.000-07:002006-10-02T16:57:00.000-07:00Zachriel,You appear to be saying that we need to h...Zachriel,<BR/><BR/>You appear to be saying that we need to have knowledge of the designer in order to detect design. What knowledge do we need, and how do we attain it?Crandaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09764337930603149736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1159755175130598072006-10-01T19:12:00.000-07:002006-10-01T19:12:00.000-07:00crandaddy: "You say that design detection is scien...<B>crandaddy</B>: "<I>You say that design detection is science when the cause is associated with a corporeal entity such as a human, but when it goes by the name 'Intelligent Design' and claims applicability to situations in which the cause cannot be traced, you emphatically say it's not science.</I>"<BR/><BR/>"Design" can be detected. This is done by collecting evidence of the artist, the art, and the artifact; the perpetrator, the modus operandi, and the motive. From the evidence, we form a tentative conclusion, a theory. From the theory, we state a working hypothesis and prediction, which we test. We then modify, abandon or confirm our original theory. Through iteration of the process, we build confidence in our conclusions. It is certainly possible to make reasonable inferences from limited data. <BR/><BR/>However, Intelligent Design falsely claims to have scientific evidence. Worse, Intelligent Design is scientifically sterile. <BR/><BR/><B>crandaddy</B>: "<I>My point is that your determination that Mother acts purposively when she plays Peek-a-Boo is made by observing the patterns of her gestures and not by virtue of the fact that it is she who makes them.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Not quite. We learn to *communicate* with the object called Mother, first by mimicry, later by language. Eventually we reach an understanding by this process of mimicry that she is conscious as we are. Peek-a-Boo is fundamental empiricism. <BR/><BR/>A more difficult example might be a stone that looks like it could be a tool. Still more difficult is comedy.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1159742369563389072006-10-01T15:39:00.000-07:002006-10-01T15:39:00.000-07:00Zachriel,"Intelligent Design is not a valid scient...Zachriel,<BR/><BR/><EM>"Intelligent Design is not a valid scientific theory."</EM><BR/><BR/>We have a funny situation here. You say that design detection is science when the cause is associated with a corporeal entity such as a human, but when it goes by the name "Intelligent Design" and claims applicability to situations in which the cause cannot be traced, you emphatically say it's not science. I, on the other hand, say that the reasoning process behind both is one and the same and am unsure whether to call it science or not. :-)<BR/><BR/><EM>"I strongly suggest that you abandon the term because of its association with a particular political movement. Your continued use of the term leads to conflation."</EM><BR/><BR/>I can associate myself with the movement without being its puppet. I think that they're generally on the right track, but I reserve space for points at which we may diverge--the scientific status of ID being one of them.<BR/><BR/><EM>"I really don't get your point. Try to apply this to Peek-a-Boo and mimicry as a test of whether Mother responds in a manner consistent with consciousness."</EM><BR/><BR/>My point is that your determination that Mother acts purposively when she plays Peek-a-Boo is made by observing the patterns of her gestures and not by virtue of the fact that it is she who makes them. You have to look at the world through your physicalistic glasses to see my point. In this physicalistic world, there is no Mother, and there are no patterns. There is simply a physical body moving. It doesn't matter if that body is a boulder falling off a cliff, a particle of dust flying through the air, or a human body's arms and hands moving around. Intentional states are not intrinsic to any physical body in motion.<BR/><BR/>Alan,<BR/><BR/>Ontology is the study of the nature of being. It's the study of what is real or what actually is. Epistemology is the study of our knowledge--what we can know and to what extent we can know it.<BR/><BR/>Let's say Mike decides to go spelunking one day. He gets deep down inside a cave, shines a light on a wall, and sees an image of a man holding a spear and facing a buffalo. Mike could say this: "That image was intentionally painted on that wall to represent a hunting scene." This is an ontological statement; he is saying what the image <EM>actually is</EM>. The problem with such a statement is that the ontological status of the image is not what Mike claims it is as a matter of necessity--he could be wrong. He could also say this: "This image was <EM>most likely</EM> painted on that wall <EM>because</EM> this cave is accessible to humans, the image is not likely to have resulted from chance and necessity,...." This is an epistemological or epistemic (I use the terms interchangably.) statement--it does not extend beyond the scope of his own knowledge. Mike is using rational grounds to support a conclusion which may or may not reflect the ontological status of the image.<BR/><BR/><EM>"In fact, one objection I have to Dembski's work is there is no convincing biological model or example. Or is there?"</EM><BR/><BR/>"Convincing" is a relative term. What convinces one person may not convince another. Strictly speaking, I'm not completely convinced that any one biological example is designed. Perhaps Dembski's math would help to expunge any reservations I hold, but alas, it's too complicated for me to follow. When I look at the biological world, I see the <EM>appearance</EM> of design everywhere and am left to wonder why I should believe that it is only illusory and not actual. Is Darwinian evolution <EM>really</EM> the most parsimonious explanation? Maybe there's not a right or wrong answer to this question. Maybe it depends on what the answerer is willing to accept <EM>a priori</EM>.Crandaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09764337930603149736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1159719873456908242006-10-01T09:24:00.000-07:002006-10-01T09:24:00.000-07:00CrandaddyI have been trying (and failing) to teach...Crandaddy<BR/><BR/>I have been trying (and failing) to teach myself philosophy via Google.<BR/><BR/>Ontology is about giving things names and epistemology is about what things are...and then my brain exploded. Perhaps you could rephrase <I>"There is a difference between belief that something is designed and belief that something is best explained as the result of design. The former belief is ontological; the latter is epistemic. The latter is based upon rational grounds; the former is not necessarily."</I> for me.<BR/><BR/>No maths;<BR/> <BR/>In fact, one objection I have to Dembski's work is there is no convincing biological model or example. Or is there?Alan Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16470368958109056177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1159626100686056542006-09-30T07:21:00.000-07:002006-09-30T07:21:00.000-07:00crandaddy: "Science is not black and white. There ...<B>crandaddy</B>: "<I>Science is not black and white. There is not some clearly and indisputably defined demarcation line which separates science from non-science. Instead, what we have are varying shades of grey.</I>"<BR/><BR/>There is a gray border area (more properly a chaotic border) between science and non-science, but that is not to say that it is a broad continuum. Some assertions have scientific validity. Some do not. Intelligent Design is not a valid scientific theory. <BR/><BR/><B>crandaddy</B>: "<I>Science or not, ID does offer a competing explanation for the origin of specified complexity and cannot simply be dismissed as a faith.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Intelligent Design *claims* to be a scientifically supportable assertion. This is a false claim. "Specified Complexity" is diversionary. The <A HREF="http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/evolution-defined.html" REL="nofollow">Theory of Evolution</A> makes specific, verifiable and valid scientific predictions of empirical phenomena. That makes it science. <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/" REL="nofollow">NATIONAL ACADEMY of SCIENCES</A>: "<I>The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested.</I>"<BR/><BR/>You will notice that "Intelligent Design" is normally capitalized as a proper noun. You use the phrase "<I>science or not</I>", but Intelligent Design *claims* to be science. I strongly suggest that you abandon the term because of its association with a particular political movement. Your continued use of the term leads to conflation. <BR/><BR/><B>crandaddy</B>: "<I>ID as philosophy should not be a problem.</I>"<BR/><BR/>There is a long history of such philosophical and metaphysical ideas. There is no Constitutional impediment to the inclusion of design and creation discussions in the study of philosophy or culture. Even "Intelligent Design" can be discussed. You probably won't be happy, though, as it is typically included with the other pseudo-sciences. <BR/><BR/><B>crandaddy</B>: "<I>Could you explain the inductive process which distinguishes design from non-design?</I>"<BR/><BR/>I already provided the example of Peek-a-Boo. This starts as a test of object persistence, but quickly advances to the determination that Mother is doing it on purpose to encourage mimicry. <BR/><BR/><B>crandaddy</B>: "<I>Hence, recognition of external intelligence is made independently of the cause.</I>"<BR/><BR/>I really don't get your point. Try to apply this to Peek-a-Boo and mimicry as a test of whether Mother responds in a manner consistent with consciousness. Repeat as often as necessary to convince yourself that 1) Mother continues to exist even when she can't be seen. 2) Mother *wants* us to mimic her actions. We do this by a process of cognitive mirroring. 3) It's fun.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1159576820748591532006-09-29T17:40:00.000-07:002006-09-29T17:40:00.000-07:00"Falsely claiming that ID is a scientific subject ...<EM>"Falsely claiming that ID is a scientific subject which is a better explanation of how life evolved than modern evolutionary theory, and attempting to get ID taught in school as a scientific subject is not acceptable."</EM><BR/><BR/>Science is not black and white. There is not some clearly and indisputably defined demarcation line which separates science from non-science. Instead, what we have are varying shades of grey. I am one who thinks ID lies somewhere in the grey. Some, like Dembski call ID science; others, like yourself, say it's not. I won't take either side because I think it could fall on either side of the line depending on how you look at it. Science or not, ID <B>does</B> offer a competing explanation for the origin of specified complexity and cannot simply be dismissed as a faith. There is a difference between belief that something <EM>is</EM> designed and belief that something is <EM>best explained</EM> as the result of design. The former belief is ontological; the latter is epistemic. The latter is based upon rational grounds; the former is not necessarily.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the teaching ID <B>as science</B>, I'm unsure as to whether this would be acceptable or not. ID as philosophy should not be a problem. Furthermore, it should not be excluded from curricula as a violation of the Establishment Clause because the concepts which form the basic foundation of ID arguments are not religious.<BR/><BR/><EM>"I have a few questions about ID, that I have never been able to get answers to. I get banned from pro-ID sites for being sceptical, and anti-ID sites tend to dismiss ID out of hand. If you have time, could I try one or two out on you?"</EM><BR/><BR/>Alright, I'll see if I can answer them. No math questions, though. :-)<BR/><BR/>Zachriel,<BR/><BR/><EM>"The human mind is more than capable of forming inductions."</EM><BR/><BR/>Could you explain the inductive process which distinguishes design from non-design? That is, could you tell the specific pattern which leads to the generalization?<BR/><BR/><EM>"You seem to want 'conclusive proof'"</EM><BR/><BR/>I don't want conclusive proof. I just want to know what would constitute rational grounds for belief that a physical effect displays design.<BR/><BR/><EM>"People infer intent from long study of other people"</EM><BR/><BR/>But Zachriel, the fact remains that when I see a person, all I can see is a physical body, and when it acts, all I can see are physical actions. I can tell that a person is intelligent by seeing the patterns they produce, comparing those patterns to patterns which I produce intelligently, and then tracing the patterns to the cause. If you start with the external cause, you <B>must</B> start with the physical, and as long as physical cause begets physical effect, there can be no room for the mental. Hence, recognition of external intelligence is made independently of the cause.Crandaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09764337930603149736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1159443695689064672006-09-28T04:41:00.000-07:002006-09-28T04:41:00.000-07:00crandaddy: "I'm seeking reasons sufficient for the...<B>crandaddy</B>: "<I>I'm seeking reasons sufficient for the formation of a justified belief.</I>"<BR/><BR/>This problem is not limited to the detection of design, so I assume then it is only an example. The human mind is more than capable of forming inductions. We might think that Mother disappears every time she is out of our sight, then reappears when she is back in our sight. But eventually, we come to understand that she exists even when we can't see her. We could formalize this by playing peek-a-boo. Scientific knowledge is based in peek-a-boo, the experimental method. <BR/><BR/><B>crandaddy</B>: "<I>I dunno. Why? ;-)</I>"<BR/><BR/>The scientific method has led us to understand that these strange fossils buried in the rocks are the remains of long-extinct organisms. <BR/><BR/><B>crandaddy</B>: "<I>What is characteristic of the effects that an intelligent agent produces which signifies their purposive information? I can't get inside your head and tell what your intent is. I have to infer it from the physical effects that you produce.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Yes, we infer it. But as we can talk to people, we have very strong evidence the people have intention. We also have a highly developed sense of human nature. We may be sometimes wrong in our conclusions, but we are not completely ignorant. You seem to want "conclusive proof". Induction is never conclusive, but tentative. But we can play peek-a-boo until we have gained substantial certainty. <BR/><BR/><B>crandaddy</B>: "<I>So we observe an ambiguous situation within the context of a pattern and try to determine if it's intentional or unintentional by assessing its conformity or disconformity with that pattern?</I>"<BR/><BR/>Yes, it's ambiguous. And yes, we form patterns of how to recognize intention. <BR/><BR/>That's the whole point of comedy — to play along the edges of our credulity. In other words, comedians know how people reach their conclusions, then manipulate their audience (who is more than willing, and must be willing to suspend their skeptical behavior). People pay good money for the enjoyment of comedic wisdom. <BR/><BR/><B>crandaddy</B>: "<I>All I can see with my two eyes are physical causes producing physical effects, and there is nothing about physical causes and physical effects that is purposive or intentional or rational.</I>"<BR/><BR/>People infer intent from long study of other people.<BR/><BR/>You have already indicated that you accept that people capable of intention. Start with peek-a-boo. We learn this game from Mother. Eventually, you develop a mental construct of human nature. Technically, there is a mental facility of doing this by a process of cognitive mirroring. We can abstract this process, but people can do it naturally. Like vision.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps Laurel and Hardy is too advanced at this point. Comedy means understanding and even manipulating our expectations. People often forget how they learned about people. It starts with peek-a-boo.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1159442386625393332006-09-28T04:19:00.000-07:002006-09-28T04:19:00.000-07:00CrandaddyI wish you well in your search, but it wi...Crandaddy<BR/><BR/>I wish you well in your search, but it will be a personal journey. We all differ in how much we need to rationalise the world around us, and in how willing we are to accept the various scenarios on offer from religion, philosophy and, to an extent, from science.<BR/><BR/>Personal belief is not something I am normally comfortable discussing, especially beliefs of others that I find unconvincing or ridiculous, but I defend their right to hold such beliefs up to the point where actions based on those beliefs infringe the rights of others who don't share them. <BR/><BR/>So the issue for me is that those who believe in the concept of Intelligent Design have a perfect right to hold, expound and develop those ideas. Falsely claiming that ID is a scientific subject which is a better explanation of how life evolved than modern evolutionary theory, and attempting to get ID taught in school as a scientific subject is not acceptable.<BR/><BR/>I have a few questions about ID, that I have never been able to get answers to. I get banned from pro-ID sites for being sceptical, and anti-ID sites tend to dismiss ID out of hand. If you have time, could I try one or two out on you?Alan Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16470368958109056177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1159417898461311022006-09-27T21:31:00.000-07:002006-09-27T21:31:00.000-07:00Actually I believe it's five comments up, Alan. S...Actually I believe it's five comments up, Alan. Sorry.Crandaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09764337930603149736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1159417748433651362006-09-27T21:29:00.000-07:002006-09-27T21:29:00.000-07:00Alan,I'm not necessarily seeking a mechanistic cau...Alan,<BR/><BR/>I'm not necessarily seeking a mechanistic causal account as a scientist would. I'm seeking <EM>reasons</EM> sufficient for the formation of a justified belief. It's very much philosophical. See three comments up.<BR/><BR/>Zachriel,<BR/><BR/><EM>"Why does the Earth look stationary? Why do mountains seem permanent? Why are there animal fossils buried in the rocks?"</EM><BR/><BR/>I dunno. Why? ;-)<BR/><BR/><EM>"No. It takes evidence."</EM><BR/><BR/>Good. It looks like we're in agreement here. :-)<BR/><BR/><EM>"Yet, you seem to attempt an appeal to pure reason when in fact it is evidence that provides a scientific answer. Keep in mind how science works. All scientific conclusions are considered tentative and subject to revision in the light of new evidence."</EM><BR/><BR/>But that's just it! How is external intelligence recognized? What is characteristic of the effects that an intelligent agent produces which signifies their purposive information? I can't get inside your head and tell what your intent is. I have to infer it from the physical effects that you produce.<BR/><BR/><EM>"On pratfalls. Does he only do it on stage? Is there a pillow strategically placed? Is there evidence of clumsiness, or of agility and grace playing a part just a bit too well? Is there a twinkle in his eye when he denies his intention?"</EM><BR/><BR/>So we observe an ambiguous situation within the context of a pattern and try to determine if it's intentional or unintentional by assessing its conformity or disconformity with that pattern? If that's what you're saying, it looks correct.<BR/><BR/><EM>"Because it's evidence and the more evidence we have the stronger our conclusions. The fundamental principle in forensics is that 'Every contact leaves a trace'. Not being able to provide a modus operandi strongly indicates that we don't have all the necessary facts to reach a conclusion of guilt or innocence."</EM><BR/><BR/>All I can see with my two eyes are physical causes producing physical effects, and there is nothing about physical causes and physical effects that is purposive or intentional or rational. The same goes for Michelangelo's painting of the Sistine Chapel as for the paperweight falling off my desk.<BR/><BR/><EM>"It doesn't, other than when the facts indicate so. Most tools on Earth, for instance, were manufactured by humans. But apes and even birds use tools."</EM><BR/><BR/>Let me rephrase the question: Why does a justified belief that something is designed hinge on knowledge that a particular type of physical body has caused it?Crandaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09764337930603149736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1159369116492779792006-09-27T07:58:00.000-07:002006-09-27T07:58:00.000-07:00crandaddy: " Things in nature look designed. Why i...<B>crandaddy</B>: "<I> Things in nature look designed. Why is the appearance only illusory and not actual?</I>"<BR/> <BR/>Why does the Earth look stationary? Why do mountains seem permanent? Why are there animal fossils buried in the rocks? <BR/> <BR/><B>crandaddy</B>: "<I>ID cannot just be reasoned away.</I>"<BR/> <BR/>No. It takes evidence. <BR/> <BR/><B>crandaddy</B>: "<I>Why is the pratfall intentional in some instances and accidental in others?</I>"<BR/> <BR/>Yet, you seem to attempt an appeal to pure reason when in fact it is evidence that provides a scientific answer. Keep in mind how science works. All scientific conclusions are considered tentative and subject to revision in the light of new evidence. <BR/><BR/><B>crandaddy</B>: "<I> Why is the pratfall intentional in some instances and accidental in others? I still don't know the rules which separate purpose from nonpurpose.</I>"<BR/><BR/>It is not a "rule", but a scientific judgment supported by evidence and subject to revision. There is no magic trick involved that gives us an answer one way or the other. It requires careful application of the scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation, repeat. <BR/><BR/>On pratfalls. Does he only do it on stage? Is there a pillow strategically placed? Is there evidence of clumsiness, or of agility and grace playing a part just a bit too well? Is there a twinkle in his eye when he denies his intention? <BR/><BR/>Evidence is always incomplete. We might be wrong, so we always endeavor to uncover more evidence and must always be willing to reexamine our conclusions. <BR/><BR/><B>crandaddy</B>: "<I>Why is knowledge of modus operandi important?</I>"<BR/><BR/>Because it's evidence and the more evidence we have the stronger our conclusions. The fundamental principle in forensics is that "Every contact leaves a trace". Not being able to provide a modus operandi strongly indicates that we don't have all the necessary facts to reach a conclusion of guilt or innocence. <BR/><BR/><B>crandaddy</B>: "<I>Why does a justified belief that something is designed hinge on knowledge that a human body has caused it?</I>"<BR/><BR/>It doesn't, other than when the facts indicate so. Most tools on Earth, for instance, were manufactured by humans. But apes and even birds use tools.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1159347754336677662006-09-27T02:02:00.000-07:002006-09-27T02:02:00.000-07:00Crandaddy asks:Why is the appearance only illusory...Crandaddy asks:<BR/><BR/><I>Why is the appearance only illusory and not actual?<BR/><BR/>Why is the pratfall intentional in some instances and accidental in others?<BR/><BR/>Why is a goal a true goal? <BR/><BR/>Why is knowledge of modus operandi important? <BR/><BR/>Why does a justified belief that something is designed hinge on knowledge that a human body has caused it?</I><BR/><BR/>John Davison has often remarked that a scientist can only ask "how" not "why". It does seem that your questions are philosophical. "How does this work" is an easier question to consider than "Why does this work".Alan Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16470368958109056177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1159337279600741092006-09-26T23:07:00.000-07:002006-09-26T23:07:00.000-07:00"Then, you should probably divorce yourself from t..."Then, you should probably divorce yourself from the term 'intelligent design' which has a strong association with a movement that falsely claims scientific support in order to advance a political agenda."<BR/><BR/>I support ID because I think the reasoning behind it is correct. Things in nature <EM>look</EM> designed. Why is the appearance only illusory and not actual? The burden is on the materialist to show how something that looks purposive can plausibly be reduced to nonpurposive causes. If a plausible causal account is provided, I'll happily accept it as valid science, but ID cannot just be reasoned away. The appearance of design is there. It must be explained somehow, and actual design is a legitimate contender on the explanatory playing field.<BR/><BR/>"We have agreed that people are purposeful, so the question is how effective they are at achieving their goals. We study these goals, the methods and the results; that is, the artisan, the art, and the artifact. And we have the greatest confidence in our knowledge of the situation when we know the perpetrator, the motive, and the modus operandi."<BR/><BR/>I've given you that humans are purposive in general, but we still don't know which acts are purposive and which aren't. Why is the pratfall intentional in some instances and accidental in others? I still don't know the rules which separate purpose from nonpurpose. Why is a goal a true goal? Why is knowledge of <EM>modus operandi</EM> important? Why does a justified belief that something is designed hinge on knowledge that a human body has caused it?Crandaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09764337930603149736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1159226483827081502006-09-25T16:21:00.000-07:002006-09-25T16:21:00.000-07:00crandaddy: "Thus, in order for there to be any pur...<B>crandaddy</B>: "<I>Thus, in order for there to be any purposive information of the physical world, the volitive direction must proceed from a conscious state which conforms to laws of logic and mathematics.</I>"<BR/><BR/>People do irrational things for irrataional reasons all the time. It can still be intentional. <BR/><BR/><B>crandaddy</B>: "<I>But maybe "rational" isn't the best word for me to use; I'll use 'purpose' instead.</I>"<BR/><BR/>That is probably closer to what you are trying to communicate. Not all purpose is rational even when intentional. <BR/><BR/><B>crandaddy</B>: "<I>BTW, you should also know that I don't insist that ID is science. It's ID the philosophy and not ID the science that interests me.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Then, you should probably divorce yourself from the term "intelligent design" which has a strong association with a movement that falsely claims scientific support in order to advance a political agenda. <BR/><BR/><B>crandaddy</B>: "<I>For the sake of argument, I'm going to concede the following point...</I>"<BR/><BR/>Very unusual. ;-)<BR/><BR/><B>crandaddy</B>: "<I>However, I realize that not all of my actions are purposive (I make mistakes.),... What are the rules which determine how I identify purposive action?</I>"<BR/><BR/>There is a general solution to the problem. Consider the classic pratfall. It means to fall on your buttocks. But the word is associated with physical comedy. Why? Did the person mean to fall on their buttocks? Well, the comedian certainly did, but the character he plays did not! <BR/><BR/>Comedy is often a study of the interface between intention and results. Laurel and Hardy want to deliver a piano and we laugh as they take one step forward and one long slide backwards into the swimming pool. It is because of this imperfection or even opposition in matching intention to results that it makes it fun to watch, and provides a clue to answering your question. <BR/><BR/>We have agreed that people are purposeful, so the question is how effective they are at achieving their goals. We study these goals, the methods and the results; that is, the artisan, the art, and the artifact. And we have the greatest confidence in our knowledge of the situation when we know the perpetrator, the motive, and the modus operandi. <BR/><BR/>Watch Laurel and Hardy for the skinny.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1159145671659608782006-09-24T17:54:00.000-07:002006-09-24T17:54:00.000-07:00Zachriel,"And are you conflating rationality with ...Zachriel,<BR/><BR/>"And are you conflating rationality with consciousness?"<BR/><BR/>Rationality (the conditon of conformity to logical and mathematical laws of a thought or series of thoughts) is a mental phenomenon. For there to be rationality without consciousness doesn't seem possible. Purposiveness is also a mental phenomenon with the same dependence on conscious states. For a cause to purposely inform physical matter, there must first be a conscious state which is <EM>about</EM> the terminal physical form that is the object of the volitive direction. All actual physical forms conform to the laws of logic and mathematics. Thus, in order for there to be any purposive information of the physical world, the volitive direction must proceed from a conscious state which conforms to laws of logic and mathematics. So if we see a cause produce an effect which reflects purpose, we can assume that the cause is, at least to some minute extent, rational. But maybe "rational" isn't the best word for me to use; I'll use "purpose" instead.<BR/><BR/>"Meanwhile, please tell us how to calculate the CSI of a typical stone tool."<BR/><BR/>I'm not a mathematician. Because of this, I neither defend nor attack Dembski's mathematical work. BTW, you should also know that I don't insist that ID is science. It's ID the philosophy and not ID the science that interests me.<BR/><BR/>Now....<BR/><BR/>For the sake of argument, I'm going to concede the following point:<BR/><BR/><EM>It is reasonable to assume that the humans who share this planet with me who are alive and physiologically normal are conscious, purposive beings because I am one of them, and I am conscious and purposive.</EM><BR/><BR/>However, I realize that not all of my actions are purposive (I make mistakes.), and I know that the object of my intent varies. I pick up some paint and a paintbrush and apply it to a canvas. I could just want to randomly slap paint around in no consciously defined pattern, or I might want to paint a picture of my mother. How is the observer to tell? What are the rules which determine how I identify purposive action?Crandaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09764337930603149736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1159018397918177492006-09-23T06:33:00.000-07:002006-09-23T06:33:00.000-07:00Who, What, When, Where, Why, Howcrandaddy: "But wh...<B>Who, What, When, Where, Why, How</B><BR/><BR/><B>crandaddy</B>: "<I>But why is the attribution of intelligence to humans made in the first place?</I>"<BR/><BR/>Well, zombie-philosophizing can be interesting for a late-night conversation. But, humans do have the capacity for language, subtle words to describe their subjective psyche, and a great deal of innate perceptive ability to discern psychological states in others. These abilities remove most reasonable doubt most of us have about our neighbors being zombies — most of them anyway. But this is strictly metaphysical, not scientific. The empirical evidence clearly indicates that humans are all related organisms, including the one you see in the mirror. And we can make a variety of valid empirical predictions concerning their behavior (e.g. ingestion) and physiological characteristics (e.g. aging). <BR/><BR/>And are you conflating rationality with consciousness? If someone figures out the answers to an eight-grade algebra test, we take that as a sign of rationality, pretty much by definition. <BR/><BR/>But zombie-philosophy is metaphysics, and has little to do with Intelligent Design, which claims an <I>empirical</I> basis for their assertions. <BR/><BR/><B>crandaddy</B>: "<I>It just seems to me that something akin to Dembski's complex specified information must be invoked in any explanation of how one comes to an understanding of an intelligent source external to oneself.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Your claim that "complex specified information must be invoked" is completely contrary to how scientific determinations of design are actually made, which is by testing generalizations (theories) by proposing empirical predictions (hypotheses). <BR/><BR/><B>Who, What, When, Where, Why, How</B><BR/><BR/>The fundamental principle of forensics is that 'Every contact leaves a trace.' This means that when we examine a situation from the viewpoint of forensic science, we look for evidence of the actor, their motives and their modus operandi. And we can often detect design even in non-complex objects and situations. <BR/><BR/>If we examine a stone that appears to be chipped into a tool, we look for evidence of the artist and of their art to help us decide if the object is, in fact, an artifact. With a stone tool, we might look for flakes. If they are associated with a firepit or scrapped bones, then we use this as evidence to help us make a determination. But we don't stop looking for evidence, because we want to then learn as much as possible about the people who made the tool. <BR/><BR/>Once having built a body of evidence on these sorts of stone tools, then we can often just look at a new purported tool and make a determination, perhaps even predicting what will be found in the vicinity based on our accumulated knowledge. This predictive ability allows us to gain confidence in our conclusions. Sometimes, we might even replicate the manufacturing process, something which has been done with <A HREF="http://www.stoneageinstitute.org/c_research.shtml#ExperimentalArch" REL="nofollow">stone tool making</A>. <BR/><BR/>Keeping in mind that all our scientific findings are considered tentative, as our knowledge is refined, questions become more along the lines of which culture made a particular tool, how and why they made them, whether they traded them with others, how long the technology was used, etc. So archaeologists continue to have controversies along the edges of what is known as they uncover more and more evidence. <BR/><BR/><B>crandaddy</B>: "<I>it looks like the most perfectly formed arrowhead you’ve ever seen.</I>"<BR/><BR/>You've already formed a tentative hypothesis. Most of us would find an expert, who might compare the purported arrowhead to others associated with various cultures. They might be able to tell you, based on the accumulated knowledge of archaeology, <B>who, what, when, where, how, and why</B>. Or perhaps that the stone is a known type of rock with a natural origin. Or that there is no way to make a determination. But if you are interested, you could look for more arrowheads in the area, and perhaps find signs of those who may have manufactured it. <BR/><BR/>That's how it's done. Not by jumping to any conclusions based on "complex specified information". Meanwhile, please tell us how to calculate the CSI of a typical stone tool.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1158992903459053332006-09-22T23:28:00.000-07:002006-09-22T23:28:00.000-07:001. What do you mean by "behaving much as you woul...1. What do you mean by "behaving much as you would"?<BR/><BR/>People see exhibitions of apparent rationality in rock formations, alphabet soup, and grilled cheese sandwiches all the time. Signs of rationality <EM>can</EM> be produced by entirely nonrational physical causes. When I see a human cause, all I can see is a physical cause producing physical effects. Why is the effect caused by the human intelligent, and why is the human the source of that intelligence?<BR/><BR/>I know the process of observing patterns and attributing them to causes begins in infancy, so by the time we're adults, we just take the intelligence of other humans for granted. But why is the attribution of intelligence to humans made in the first place? That's what I want to know.<BR/><BR/>2. It's effect-to-cause reasoning. I know a cause (a particular emotion) tends to elicit a particular physical response in my own experience. If I see somebody else make the same sort of movements and noises that I make when I'm angry, for example, then I can say that the emotion of anger is the likely cause. It's a recognition of patterns and an estimation of the cause based on personal experience--just as with detecting rationality.<BR/><BR/>3. <EM>Observing patterns in what they produce is no better evidence for their rationality than all the other things you observe about them.</EM><BR/><BR/>Why not?<BR/><BR/><EM>Patterns indicate rationality because you tend to produce patterns and you know you are rational.</EM><BR/><BR/>Patterns <EM>can</EM> indicate rationality because I <EM>can</EM> produce patterns, and I know the cause is my own rationality. So when look for external sources of rationality, I look for patterns for which the cause cannot be determined because I can't get inside someone's head and see their rationality.<BR/><BR/>Back to the stones....<BR/><BR/>I don't know if the tendril is, itself, intelligent because you haven't given me enough experience with it to make that estimation, but is intelligence a factor at all? Let's see. I move a rock from its original location. A tendril emerges which, out of all possible ways it can move (and I presume it has a virtually infinite range of motion), moves in such a way as to put the rock I moved back into its original positon. So the tendril follows a pattern I set--movement of a particular rock with respect to its original position. What about the barrier? I place an object as a barrier. Out of all possible ways the tendril could move, it moves in such a way as to remove the barrier. The tendril follows another pattern I set--movement of an object with respect to its position as a barrier. It looks to me that if the tendril isn't intelligent, it's been "programmed" by someone or something that is. Of course, Darwinian evolution could have done it ;-) .Crandaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09764337930603149736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1158925616484162012006-09-22T04:46:00.000-07:002006-09-22T04:46:00.000-07:00Mark Frank: "Wrt to the stones."Inuksuk can be com...<B>Mark Frank</B>: "<I>Wrt to the stones.</I>"<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inukshuk" REL="nofollow">Inuksuk</A> can be composed of as few as a single stone.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1158905514752902592006-09-21T23:11:00.000-07:002006-09-21T23:11:00.000-07:00I will try again with a slightly different formula...I will try again with a slightly different formulation.<BR/><BR/><I>C: No rationality apart from one's own can be directly observed.</I><BR/><BR/>As before, I don't agree with this but I will accept it because your argument still doesn't seem to follow.<BR/><BR/>Consider<BR/><BR/>1. You may not be able to observe someone's else's rationality but you can make a good guess because they are behaving much as you would, and you know you are rational. Of course, it is possible that their goal directed behaviour is the result of a puppet master directing their muscles but it a simpler explanation to suppose they are rational. <BR/><BR/>2. You can make similar statements about other aspects of the mind. e.g. "No pain other than one's own can be directly observed" or "No emotions other than one's own can be directly observed". We do not detect eeither pain nor emotions by the patterns they produce. We observe the external behaviour of the person/animal and this gives us sufficient evidence. Why not something similar for rationality?<BR/><BR/>3. Observing patterns in what they produce is no better evidence for their rationality than all the other things you observe about them. Patterns indicate rationality because you tend to produce patterns and you know you are rational.<BR/><BR/>Wrt to the stones. Let us remove the two elements that suggest to detect design. Here is very bizarre example. Suppose we are now on an alien planet. There is a pile of stones of no obvious pattern at all. You move one of the stones. A vegetable-like life form sends a tendril at observable speed and replaces the stone and then retracts the tendril. You move the stone. It repeats the replacement. You erect a barrier to the tendril and move the stone again. The tendril reemerges, removes the barrier and replaces the stone.<BR/><BR/>Do you not see any evidence of a design/intention in the behaviour of the tendril? Yet it is a completely unknown life form and there is no pattern in the placement of the stones?Mark Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-1158872273920906672006-09-21T13:57:00.000-07:002006-09-21T13:57:00.000-07:00Suppose I temporarily accept the premise - that yo...<EM>Suppose I temporarily accept the premise - that you learn about other beings minds, intelligence and intentions by analogy with your own The conclusion still doesn't follow.</EM><BR/><BR/>I think I see a point of confusion which I should have cleared up in my last comment (silly me). The summary of my argument includes the word "Therefore" which suggests that the conclusion follows from the premise as a matter of logical necessity. Although I think both parts are true, the latter is not a necessary outcome of the former. Given the former, it may be possible that we cannot detect outside intelligence at all. (I don't know of anybody who is willing to accept that, but it's still a possibility.) We might just say that we identify humans as intelligent <EM>a priori</EM>, given that they are alive and fulfill certain physiological requirements, but this, too, has its problems.<BR/><BR/>I'm actually advancing two seperate arguments here--with the first being expanded as follows:<BR/><BR/>P1: No physical phenomena are inherently rational.<BR/><BR/>P2: All that can be directly observed apart from oneself are physical phenomena.<BR/><BR/>C: No rationality apart from one's own can be directly observed.<BR/><BR/>This defeats the argument that knowledge of causal agents and processes is vital to the formation of a justified belief in external design since any knowledge of such things must be physical at the most basic level o analysis.<BR/><BR/><EM>An analogy with your own situation will allow you to use many different signs of intelligence in other beings - acting towards a goal, avoiding obstacles to that goal, expressions of disappointment when unable to reach the goal, practising strategies to help reach the goal etc. These are all evidence for design and are not patterns.</EM><BR/><BR/>But why is the goal-directedness actual and not illusory? Just because you recognize a goal in your own mind and see implementation of means to ends to accomplish that goal doesn't mean that the cause behind that process is intelligence. Look back at my post on Joe's dilemma. Look at the formation that's not the Olmec head. I looks like a face. Does it not? We see that some physical causes have created a rock formation which exhibits derivative intentionality (the quality of an object not intrinsic to it which is of or about something)--a known marker of intelligence. Why isn't this thing designed?<BR/><BR/>Concerning your example of the stone piles, I call them as designed for two reasons: First, I see repetition of a pattern--construction of a particular type of rock pile--with no identifiable physical cause. The more complex the specified form is, the less likely it is to have been caused by chance, and the more likely it is to have been designed. Second, I would have previously identified humans as intelligent agents--not because of any physical processes but by comparing the effects they produce with my own and identifying the cause of those effects.Crandaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09764337930603149736noreply@blogger.com