Here’s some personal correspondence between Liz and me. I presume that she checks posts before allowing publication, so if this is inappropriate I claim innocence.
Dear Liz,
As you know, I have great respect for you, even admiration, but I suggest the following.
You wrote:
The reason I get exercised about ID is that I do think, in simple scientific terms, that it is fallacious. Not because there couldn’t have been an ID, nor because science demonstrates that there wasn’t/isn’t one, but because the inference is, IMO, fallacious.
I respond:
The reason I get exercised about the proposed creative power of the Darwinian mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection is that I do think, in simple scientific terms, that it is fallacious. Not because this mechanism couldn’t possibly have produced all that it is credited with, but because evidence, logic, and simple probability calculations demonstrate that this proposition is fallacious.
Thus, it seems to me, we are separated by an immense chasm over which there is no bridge.
Gil
Let’s face it, the ID versus materialism debate has profound scientific, philosophical, theological, and even ethical implications, which is why passions run so high.
Someone is wrong and someone is right. I just want to know the truth.
In a way the whole debate on ID vs. Darwinism is premature. A fundamental problem, pointed out many times of course by many people smarter than me, is that ‘Intelligent’ is not defined in any formal sense. It can reasonably be argued that the process of variation + selection itself is an Intelligent process – as in, it can find solutions to problems faster and at less cost than brute searches. The moment we accept this, the entire controversy collapses from one about Intelligent versus non-Intelligent into one about the nature of the Intelligence. I suspect that it will then become clear that the dividing line is not presence or lack of intelligence, but the presence or lack of purpose. Where purpose, of course, implies consciousness and a mind. In other words, is biological evolution a mindless process or not?
Before we go all nail and tooth in this debate, we really, really need to agree on what is meant by this word Intelligence, and be very clear about what is included in the class of intelligent entities and what is not. If we are unwilling or unable to do this there is no hope to ever narrow the chasm.
fG
You have nailed the reason why ID advocates avoid talking about the designer. The moment you try to look at the designer or the design process, the whole thing disappears in a puff of vapor.
The designer can only be seen when you aren’t looking.
I actually disagree with Elizabeth (quelle horreur!) and Dembski when they allow evolutionary processes to be “intelligent”, by avowing that a choice-making system can be considered intelligent even when there is no predetermined goal being pursued – or as I find helpful, when there is no possibility of an irrational choice
We of the common, philosophically-illiterate, herd simply do not recognise selection-without-purpose as intelligence.
Mind you, we might just be thick!
By the way, why do I look like an angry toaster?
fG
You can set your own avatar, but I set the default to something called MonsterID which makes a unique monster based on your email address. Any site you go to with the same ID system will make the same toaster.
I had an idle minute…..
Here is a thread at Pharyngula on Abel’s review paper “Is Life Unique?”. PZ seems less than impressed.
My avatar seems to be linked to my WordPress account. I guess if you don’t set up your own you get a random image.
I’m chugging through the linked Abel paper now.
Will post something when I’m done.
I may be some time.
faded_Glory,
Because you have no toast, and therefore, no purpose.
In the meantime, it would great to see WJM address the above comment by R0b:
http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=291#comment-3400
…where R0b does exactly what WJM asks: quoting the relevant area of a paper, citing the page, and then explaining why it in particular is erroneous.
The accusations of word salad for this paper are semi-justified. Abel certainly deluges the reader in a rambling way with an avalanche of (often correct) information from a disparate variety of fields. He then aggravates the matter by liberally throwing around his own homemade terms and definitions as if they weren’t. Altogether, it’s enough to exceed the bandwidth of anyone’s brain. (In a perverse way, this probably accounts for why the article got published even though it shouldn’t have.)
That said, I think it is fairly easy to isolate the fatal flaw, which is really pretty basic and which renders everything else in the article superfluous. Despite the massive amounts of information, and all the sciency-sounding jargon he throws at the reader, his entire argument turns on a critical assumption he makes that is, at worst, demonstrably false, and at best, highly contested.
Abel constantly uses words like “purposeful,” “meaning,” “utility,” and “function.” All throughout, his arguments are intended to support one key conclusion: that whenever we find matter organized in a purposeful manner that exhibits utility or achieves a function, the “programming” of that organization cannot have arisen naturally (i.e., randomly, blindly). But the validity of this conclusion is wholly dependent upon the validity of his big, underlying assumption. His assumption is that certain arrangements of matter have purpose, utility, meaning, and function independent of our human mental characterizations of them. So in order to accept his conclusions, you must first accept his teleological premise. But he provides absolutely no justification for why we should accept his teleological premise. It’s not even clear to me that he understands that his argument relies on that premise. But if you reject his teleological premise, which the methodology of science typically does, then his 45 pages of blather are totally irrelevant.
I’m happy to accept his teleological premise in Monod’s “teleonomic” sense.
I’m half way through, and I’m not checking all the references (there are 325!) but I’ve checked quite a few and some are totally irrelevant. Extraordinarily irrelevant. This is one:
Edge of chaos
It looks as though he typed his favorite phrases into google and stuffed all his hits into his reference list.
“if you reject his teleological premise, which the methodology of science typically does”
Once again, this outdated notion that there is a single, monolithic thing called ‘THE’ methodology of (natural) science? Do people notice a pattern in the language here?
There are in fact some ‘sciences’ that face ‘teleology’ directly. Sciences that study ‘extra-natural’ and ‘non-natural’ things are a fine example.
That some scholars and lay persons are not up-to-date with what PoS has amply demonstrated regarding *multiple* ‘scientific’ *methods* in the past 30+ years does not invalidate its truth. Will you ‘adapt’ your language, folks, or stick your heads back in the sand?
On the MN thread [1st after her being dismissed from UD, after announcing the dismissal], we are still waiting for Elizabeth to redress her claim that ‘scientific methodology’ means ‘MN’. What will come of her willingness or unwillingness to adapt her language in the face of a better alternative? Does she respect PoS and recognize the WAP in her position?
I found a link to extra-natural.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/sro/rrm/rrm39.htm
and another.
http://biologos.org/blog/signature-in-the-cell-a-follow-up
A pattern emerges.
What’s an extra-natural thing? Or non-natural?
I’m entirely with Petrushka here in wondering what those alleged sciences that study “extra-natural” and “non-natural” things may be studying?
But I need to take it a step further (given that this entire post made me scratch my head): can you enlighten us what *multiple* ‘scientific’ *methods* you speak of, what the significance of the stars and quotation marks is, and why it should matter to scientists what philosophers think about their methods?
It seems I get two different monsters, depending on which computer I log in on. Makes me feel schizophrenic…
“What’s an extra-natural thing? Or non-natural?”
These are languages that ‘naturalists’ don’t understand, while others do. He or she who has ears…
If you folks would take a 1st-yr (is it called ‘freshman’ in USA jargon?) university course in ‘science (and technology) studies (STS),’ ‘philosophy of science’ (PoS) or ‘sociology of science’ (SoS), it would become quite clear for you what ‘multiple scientific methods’ means. Speaking of a ‘single scientific method’ is outdated, or suitable for grade school student level of knowledge.
Being ‘with Petruska’ in ignorance is worth no credit. Likewise, unwillingness to do the work of reading or asking professionals about these fields and their insights scores no monster points.
Gregory, you crack me up. I don’t need a sociologist to tell me what scientists do. I am a scientist.
GilDodgen, I’m kinda sensitive to the phrase “the religion of atheism”. Always strikes me as the sort of category error caused by a religious mindset, that sees everything as religious. But atheism is a religion in the same sense that NOT collecting stamps is a hobby. “The religion of not having a religion”, absurd-looking at first, becomes meaningful only when one realizes that if everything MUST be a religion, non-religion must be one too. The paradox of the religious view, I suppose.
So, you speak a language that unspecified others understand, but people that are naturalists in quotation-marks don’t. That’s about as meaningful a statement as the earlier one.
And I must assume that you can’t tell us what an extra-natural or non-natural thing might be. Too bad.
Well, that refers right back to my question why it should matter to scientists what philosophers think about their methods. That question too still remains open.
And you are right: I never took any STS, PoS, or SoS classes. I took actual science classes. And now I am an scientist. The kind that practices science. The kind where we are using actual scientific methods. And I am not American, so I can’t help you with USA jargon.
So, I am still curious which ‘multiple scientific methods’ you speak of (and what the significance of the scare-quotes is), as in: would you be so kind and please give an illustrative example of what you speak of? Preferably of actual scientific methods used by scientists?
olegt,
I am also a scientist (well, a mathematician, but I work on problems in theoretical physics), but I don’t agree that the philosophy and sociology of science has nothing to teach me. That would be like saying, “I don’t need a psychologist to tell me how humans think. I am a human.”
Being an individual scientist does not grant one expertise on the large-scale social structure of science, or on historical variations in the manner in which science has been practiced, or even on the way individual scientists work on problems (just as being human doesn’t make me an expert on how individual humans — including I myself — think). There is definitely room for sociological, psychological, historical and philosophical investigation of scientific practice.
Sotto Voce,
Sorry, Sotto Voce, but we’ll have to disagree on this one. My own practice of science and my observation of other scientists give me a much better picture of science than a freshman seminar in sociology of science prescribed by Gregory.
Gregory,
I’m afraid you’ve imputed a narrower meaning than I intended. I agree there is not a single monolithic procedure that is THE methodology of science. Science proceeds by virtue of an array of variant methodologies. So if you’d prefer, I’d be happy to modify my statement to, “The teleological premise is rejected by the methodologIES of science.”
I’d certainly be interested in examples of “sciences” which study ‘non-natural’ or ‘extra-natural’ things.
That’s a neat argument. From now on, when someone asks me to explain myself I’m just going to say, “I’m speaking a language people like you don’t understand.”
By the way, knowing a thing or two, as I do, about STS, PoS, SoS, and plain old S, doesn’t help me understand what “sciences” you think study “non-natural” and “extra-natural” things.
Once again, I am moved to enter a plea for the lightly-educated.
What, please, are those sciences that can or should study the “non-natural” and “extra-natural”; and how may they be used in this endeavour?
You ignore me at your peril – I am but the tiny tip of a gigantic iceberg composed of reasonably intelligent people, impatient of semantics games, and eager for accessible explanations of those concepts that some would force upon us.
Be told!
damitall,
I once tried to suggest using “real” and “imaginary” for natural and whatever-else natural but it didn’t catch on. The problem for imaginary things is, once you find evidence for one, it can no longer be imaginary.
PS you may need to add another category -”beyond imagination”!
But his premise is not a teleonomic one. Just take this one sentence, for example, which is representative of his language throughout: “Physicality [by which he means blind natural process] cannot value or pursue formal utility.” I can agree with this statement, but so what? He didn’t need to write fifty pages to convince me of that. But the reason he thinks he needs to write fifty pages to make that point convincingly is that he takes for granted that formal utility is valued and pursued in nature in an a priori sense.
Alan Fox,
That’s as maybe.
As the self-elected representative of millions, I want to know what the dickens William Murray is on about, if he’s claiming that there are sciences that can study the non-natural and extra-natural. With definitions.
AND I want to see these simple probability calculations, annotated as necessary, that purport to put fruitful evolutionary processes beyond possibility
AND I most particularly want Joe to tell me and those I represent to say how the blue blazes he can tell whether any mutation observed in nature is directed.
Without these steps up to the plate, we will have to take the view that the people who assert and rely on these things are a) blowing smoke; and b) wrong.
Whilst, (I believe) the owner of this site would be wrong to require that posters pass some arbitrary and inconsistently-applied test of fitness to post, I think there would be justification for, at least, sharp disapproval directed at those who assert, but refuse to support their assertions.
Actually, it would seem that in some ways I hold to a broader view of ‘science’ than you do. But I’m open to hearing how your view of science is broader or wider than mine, especially if it exceeds the bounds of what is ‘natural.’
Thanks for clarifying that there are *multiple scientific methods.* Yes, I would be pleased if you would modify your statement as you have done and expect that you’ll remember this modification in future uses as well. The myth of a single, monolithic ‘Scientific Method’ is ripe for exposing as un-reality.
Wrt your interest in examples of ‘sciences’ which study non-natural or extra-natural things, I’d suggest moving discussion to the thread on MN, which is where I’m addressing them with Elizabeth and others. My clear and logical arguments about these scientific fields should not be confused with ID-implicationism.
However, AI (artificial intelligence) does just that, and I am of the impression that some of the AI folk would count themselves as philosophically illiterate.
There is no agreed meaning to “intelligent”. And that’s already a problem with ID, which likewise fails to carefully define “intelligent.”
In case anyone is still slogging through Abel’s paper on “The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity,” here is a little help for those who may be a little math shy.
On page 151 there is a section 2 that readers should look at carefully. In that section is Equation 1, which is often referred to as Shannon entropy, although it is referred to as Shannon uncertainty in this paper.
For those who have a distant acquaintance with averages, you may know that if you multiply the numbers you are averaging by the probability at which those numbers occur and then sum, you get the average.
So if you look carefully at that formula, you will note that it is the average of the logarithms of the probabilities.
Another thing you need to know is that probabilities are always positive and the sum of the probabilities always adds up to one.
It is easy to show that that formula is maximized when all the probabilities are equal; and you may want to try to test this with a few numbers that add up to one
Here is a way to do it with four probabilities p1, p2, p3, p4..
P1 + p2 + p3 + p4 = 1 (always).
Now, if the product, p1 x p2 x p3 x p4, is a maximum, then the logarithm of the product is also a maximum because the logarithm is a monotonically increasing function of the numbers.
But log(p1 x p2 x p3 x p4) = log p1 + log p2 + log p3 + log p4, therefore the sum of the logarithm of the probabilities is a maximum.
If the sum of the logarithms is maximized, then the average of the logarithms of the probabilities is maximized.
You can easily check that the product is maximized when all the probabilities are equal.
For example, with just two probabilities p1 and p2, since they must add up to 1, then p2 = 1 – p1. Then p1 x (1 – p1) is maximized when p1 = p2 = ½.
You can check that Equation 1 will turn out to be the log M (when there are M probabilities to deal with) when every probability is equal to 1/M.
Incidentally, the minus sign in Equation 1 is because the logarithm of a number between 1 and zero is negative and the formula is defined to have a positive value.
I’m still traveling and need to get off this computer. More later, if there is still any interest in Abel’s paper.
Mike Elzinga,
I, for one, would be VERY interested to hear more about Abel’s paper.
This goes to the heart of the matter. Is intelligence a function of what we do or of how we do it ?
This question often comes up in these discussions, for instance when ID proponents claim that computers ‘don’t really think’ when it is pointed out that purely physical devices are capable of coming up with answers where the smartest persons fail. Chess computes can beat very, very intelligent grand masters, yet for some reason this is dismissed as irrelevant because, well, because we all know that computers are not really intelligent. And when one presses the point, the invariable answer is that they are not conscious of what they are doing.
So as I said above, I don’t think this debate is about Intelligence at all. It is about consciousness, about mind. And why would that be a surprise, really? 99.9% of ID proponents know that there is a Cosmic Mind who takes an interest in what happens on this planet, so what comes more natural than to see the hand of this mind (hmm, mixing my metaphors a bit here?) in the, undeniably, amazing features of the living world?
Sorry Elizabeth, I realise that I am skating close to the edge here, but I do think that in the interest of advancing the debate we need to be very clear about what it is we are debating. I would like to hear Gil’s views on this. Could we have Design by an unconscious process? Would that be discernible from Design by a conscious mind? How?
fG
Hi fG,
Long time no see!
I could not possibly agree with you more.
I have spent years on these boards trying to wrangle a coherent meaning for the term “intelligence” in the context of ID. The implicit definition of intelligent cause in Dembski’s view is the set-theoretic complement of fixed law and ‘chance’, which commits ID to some sort of contra-causal free will. This is reiterated when Dembski or Meyer describe intelligence as “the ability to choose”, which is either a reference to contra-causal free will or it is virtually meaningless (doesn’t a river choose a path to the sea?).
It surprises me that more people don’t take issue with this, since this means ID is predicated upon a speculation (metaphysical libertarianism) that can’t be demonstrated (and most cognitive scientists believe is false).
But then again, most people’s intuitive dualism runs deep. Just last night on 60 Minutes was a segment on the placebo effect, where the lead researcher (an MD from Harvard) spoke in clearly dualistic terms:
here
Wow!
Beyond ID’s commitment to libertarianism, most ID proponents hold that an intelligent agent is necessarily a conscious agent. (Dembski hedges on this point a bit, but Meyer says it outright, and the vast majority of ID enthusiasts on the net insist that an unconscious process does not fit the criteria of agency). It doesn’t phase them to point out that it is problematic to say conscious thought accounts for the first complex mechanism, when our experience confirms that complex mechanism is required for conscious thought. And the fact that we have no theory of consciousness yet, and no way of knowing if consciousness is even causal (as opposed to perceptual) doesn’t seem to keep IDers from multiplying their metaphysical assumptions all the while claiming to be offering a “known cause” sufficient for the origin of life.
So yes, fG, ID is all about those two ancient and unsolved philosophical problems, the mind/body problem and the problem of free will. Lately when I press people about the fact that ID needs to provide evidence that mental causation transcends physical cause, a surprising number will start citing paranormal phenomena. It always makes me wonder why ID doesn’t sponsor paranormal research.
aiguy,
Believe it or believe it not but I started a comment yesterday that began “Where is aiguy when you need him” but had to abort it as life interrupted. Does this demonstrate the power of the supernatural?
Looking forward to your further contributions.
Because paranormal research has been done and came up empty. Duke University, anyone? There have been runs in the course of ESP research, but I seriously doubt that any of the current research will be replicated.
It’s one of those phenomena that disappear when brought into focus.
Petrushka,
I suspect that the real connection is that aiguy might just use some kind of search filter that looks for “intelligent” and “intelligence” so it’s Neil Rickert’s fault!
Hi Alan -
Hahaha. I just recently started posting on UD again (under “aiguy_again”), but got kicked off in record time (I felt I was making unfailingly polite, reasoned arguments, but apparently I was arguing for the wrong things). Anyway I thought I’d come here and see what’s up, and lo and behold, a thread on my favorite topic!
Petrushka, yes, I have followed every effort to document paranormal effects, from PEAR to Sheldrake, and find nothing credible. But I’m all for IDers doing some actual research and trying to support a critical premise of their theory, viz that intelligent behavior can be exhibited by something without the benefit of some physical information processing mechanism that is itself chock full of “CSI”.
In my simplistic way, I think it should be obvious when there are supernatural events, obvious and detectable:
Discontinuities!
Supernatural events are either imaginary and might as well not exist (or do not exist (FAPP H/T Joy!)) or if they produce some effect in the real world there will be a discontinuity. If a supernatural footballer kicks a ball, the ball moves. If the “intelligent designer” designs something then there should be the real effect but no cause bar the imaginary one. Go IDers! Look for discontinuities.
Yes, it’s time for Mind/Body thread. Have had a post half written for several months. Will finish and post this week I hope
Neil,
As you have been told “intelligence” just refers to agency. Now if you cannot grasp that simple fact then perhaps you should discuss something else.
Intelligent Design is different than apparent design on one side and optimum design on the other.
You guys are pathetic.
There are discontinuities between non-life and life.
There are discontinuities between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
There are discontinuities between having gravity, the strong- nuclear force, the weak-nuclear force and electro-mag and not having them.
Well, there is a big discontinuity between I-80 and I-95 throughout most of the US, except of course for where they merge. What happens in space for highways happens in time for lineages. What is discontinuous today was not so clearly discontinuous billions of years ago. That is the whole point of the RNA World research program.
Joe G,
Joe,
By discontinuities, I did not mean gaps in knowledge; there are obviously plenty of those. I mean the observable universe behaves in a regular way that is predictable. Should a “supernatural” intervention happen that produced a real effect, that effect would have no apparent cause. “Poof!”
Still waiting for those simple probability calculations, Gil. In the meantime, can you explain why LS-DYNA has a genetic optimization package?
David vun Kannon,
You mean like this?
http://www.journalamme.org/papers_vol44_1/4419.pdf
I mean like this:
http://ftp.lstc.com/anonymous/outgoing/trent001/manuals/lsopt/lsopt_40_manual.pdf
LS-OPT is the optimization package for LS-DYNA.