There is a lot of debate in the comments to recent posts about whether the argument from ID is circular. I thought it would be worth calling this out as a separate item.
I plead that participants in this discussion (whether they comment here or on UD):
- make a real effort to stick to Lizzie’s principles (and her personal example) of respect for opposing viewpoints and politeness
- confine the discussion to this specific point (there is plenty of opportunity to discuss other points elsewhere and there is the sandbox)
What follows has been covered a thousand times. I simple repeat it in as rigorous a manner as I can to provide a basis for the ensuing discussion (if any!)
First, a couple of definitions.
A) For the purposes this discussion I will use “natural” to mean “has no element of design”. I do not mean to imply anything about materialism versus supernatural or such like. It is just an abbreviation for “not-designed”.
B) X is a “good explanation” for Y if and only if:
i) We have good reason to suppose X exists
ii) The probability of Y given X is reasonably high (say 0.1 or higher). There may of course be better explanations for Y where the probability is even higher.
Note that X may include design or be natural.
As I understand it, a common form of the ID argument is:
1) Identify some characteristic of outcomes such as CSI, FSCI or dFSCI. I will use dFSCI as an example in what follows but the point applies equally to the others.
2) Note that in all cases where an outcome has dFSCI, and a good explanation of the outcome is known, then the good explanation includes design and there is no good natural explanation.
3) Conclude there is a strong empirical relationship between dFSCI and design.
4) Note that living things include many examples of dFSCI.
5) Infer that there is a very strong case that living things are also designed.
This argument can be attacked from many angles but I want to concentrate on the circularity issue. The key point being that it is part of the definition of dFSCI (and the other measures) that there is no good natural explanation.
It follows that if a good natural explanation is identified then that outcome no longer has dFSCI. So it is true by definition that all outcomes with dFSCI fall into two categories:
- A good explanation has been identified and it is design
- No good explanation has yet been identified
Note that it was not necessary to do any empirical observation to prove this. It must always be the case from the definition of dFSCI that whenever a good explanation is identified it includes design.
I appreciate that as it stands this argument does not do justice to the ID position. If dFSCI was simply a synonym for “no good natural explanation” then the case for circularity would be obviously true. But is incorporates other features (as do its cousins CSI and FSCI). So for example dFSCI incorporates attributes such as digital, functional and not compressible – while CSI (in its most recent definition) includes the attribute compressible. So if we describe any of the measures as a set of features {F} plus the condition that if a good natural explanation is discovered then measure no longer applies – then it is possible to recast the ID argument this way:
“For all outcomes where {F} is observed then when a good explanation is identified it turns out to be designed and there is no good natural explanation. Many aspects of life have {F}. Therefore, there is good reason to suppose that design will be a good explanation and there will be no good natural explanation.”
The problem here is that while CSI, FSCI and dFSCI all agree on the “no good natural explanation” clause they differ widely on {F}. For Dembski’s CSI {F} is essentially equivalent to compressible (he refers to it as “simple” but defines “simple” mathematically in terms of easily compressible). While for FSCI {F} includes “has a function” and in some descriptions “not compressible”. dFSCI adds the additional property of being digital to FSCI.
By themselves both compressible and non-compressible phenomena clearly can have both natural and designed explanations. The structure of a crystal is highly compressible. CSI has no other relevant property and the case for circularity seems to be made at this point. But FSCI and dFSCI add the condition of being functional which perhaps makes all the difference. However, the word “functional” also introduces a risk of circularity. “Functional” usually means “has a purpose” which implies a purpose which implies a mind. In archaeology an artefact is functional if it can be seen to fulfil some past person’s purpose – even if that purpose is artistic. So if something has the attribute of being functional it follows by definition that a mind was involved. This means that by definition it is extremely likely, if not certain, that it was designed (of course, it is possible that it may have a good natural explanation and by coincidence also happen to fulfil someone’s purpose). To declare something to be functional is to declare it is engaged with a purpose and a mind – no empirical research is required to establish that a mind is involved with a functional thing in this sense.
But there remains a way of trying to steer FSCI and dFSCI away from circularity. When the term FSCI is applied to living things it appears a rather different meaning of “functional” is being used. There is no mind whose purpose is being fulfilled. It simply means the object (protein, gene or whatever) has a role in keeping the organism alive. Much as greenhouse gasses have a role in keeping the earth’s surface temperature at around 30 degrees. In this case of course “functional” does not imply the involvement of a mind. But then there are plenty of examples of functional phenomena in this sense which have good natural explanations.
The argument to circularity is more complicated than it may appear and deserves careful analysis rather than vitriol – but if studied in detail it is compelling.
Slightly tangential, but related to the topic of circularity.
Gödel’s incompleteness results have to be among the most abused in all of mathematics and science. Check out this quote from an opinion piece in the Asia Times:
Thanks for the laugh.
Yes, I have seen lots of crazy ideas that are said to be proved by Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. I guess when people don’t understand it, they allow their imaginations to run wild.
For myself, I see Gödel’s theorem as a very technical result in mathematical logic with no relevance to the real world.
There’s a famous mathematical story. When Gödel’s theorem appeared, the famous English mathematician G.H. Hardy said that of course we should have known this — we know that when one has inconsistent axioms we can prove anything true or anything false. Including proving from them that the axioms are consistent! So a proof of consistency is not valid.
He was then asked “do you mean that if I grant you that 2+2=5 that you can prove that McTaggart is the Pope? Without hesitation he said of course: “2+2=5 but we also know that 2+2=4. So 5=4. Subtracting 3 from each side, 2=1. Now McTaggart and the Pope are two, therefore McTaggart and the Pope are one.”
The funny thing is, that is not just a word game, it is a legitimate proof.
Keiths
Yes, that’s a sort of circularity but it is still true that it may exhibit dFSCIgpuccio@12:15 pm and not be designed. So in that sense it is not circular.
No, we’ve been modifying the DNA of cells that later become living creatures.
My whole point in specifying living creatures is that waiting for organisms to get to adulthood before the “designer” gets feedback on the prototype “design” change, forces the “designer” to have to deal with the same problems evolution does, i.e. “Let’s try this and see if it works”.
“Design” has two ways out though.
1) Simply show the mechanism by which the designer can foresee future needs and effects on a population and their competitor populations, and this removes trial and error.
2) Instead of changing the population, change the environment to match the abilities of the population taking into account competitor populations.
Either requires the designer to have the abilities of the god in Genesis.
The difference between a circular argument for ID and a non-circular argument for ID:
Circular:
1. X can’t be produced by RV or a known necessity mechanism.
2. Therefore X exhibits dFSCI.
3. Therefore X can’t be produced by RV or a known necessity mechanism.
Non-circular:
1. If you remove a part from X, its function ceases.
2. Therefore X is irreducibly complex.
3. Therefore X could not have evolved.
The second argument isn’t circular, but it’s incorrect. Step 3 does not follow from step 2.
What IDers need is an argument that is both correct and non-circular. Good luck to them.
And don’t forget the next step in both arguments:
4. Therefore we can make the default assumption that X is designed!
So correct, non-circular and not relying on Sherlock Holmes.
Gilbert Harman
In relation to ID, what does the hypothesis “therefore design” actually explain? There is no design hypothesis to infer. Someone among ID theorists should perhaps address this omission.
ETA
Having an ID hypothesis that was some kind of alternative explanation for the observed pattern of diversity in past and present life would then enable an inference to the best explanation to be drawn. Omitting this vital step reminds me of another argument that glosses over important details.
Mung 192. I just noticed this:
Mung I count 15 comments from you last night on the The TSZ and Jerad Thread alone. Only a few of them were for me. How on earth I can be expected to pick out the comments for me from all the others? Do you think I read every comment on the thread? I look out for those from Gpuccio as he is intelligent and I am in the middle of a dialogue with him. I reply to others if I notice them. If you really want me to respond then post here.
PS I have noticed your comment 202 and will respond separately.
Mung 202
You write:
This sort of answers my question but I am not at all sure that Gpuccio would be happy with your answer! I am not sure what you mean by the “search for a search” problem. If you are referring to the LCI this is highly controversial and I do not accept it at all. But anyway what would be the problem in practice?
Removed because it was accidentally posted in the wrong thread.
Out of the “infinity” of worldviews, there are at least two general ones. The view that complex phenomena are the work of capricious (read intelligent) daemons or spirits, and the view that phenomena are the working out of regular processes.
As many of us have pointed out, there are thousands of phenomena that have come under the umbrella of “regular phenomena.”
There are no instances of explanations going the other way.
When an argument depends on gaps in knowledge, it is just a matter of time before it becomes obsolete. I have followed the evolution debate since about 1956 and have watched hundreds of arguments fall by the wayside.
http://www.herbert-armstrong.org/Plain%20Truth%201960s/Plain%20Truth%201969%20%28Prelim%20No%2005%29%20May.pdf
Warning: this is an 18 megabyte pdf file.
Here’s an example of an obsolete claim (my bolding). I encountered this while I was in college, back in 1969. It was recognizable as rubbish then, even more so today. But that didn’t stop a glossy magazine from making the claim. Just as the Discovery Institute continues shamelessly to publish rubbish regarding the Second Law.
To recap:
The argument was never demonstrated to be circular.
The argument that it is circular fails.
Could you stick a little mustard on that burger, Mung? The thread’s been dead for a while. It would help if you could summarise the argument on circularity as you perceive it, and explain why you think it fails. So far, you’ve just said “This Is So”.
If you repeat something often enough it becomes true.
It would help if you could summarize the argument on circularity as you perceive it, and explain why you think it succeeds.
Sorry, the thread’s been moribund even longer now. You wish to kick the corpse: provide some substance.
Otherwise it’s just a pointless assertion-fest. To borrow your game:
To recap:
The argument was demonstrated to be circular.
The argument that it is circular wins.
The claim that the argument was demonstrated to be circular cannot be sustained from either evidence or argument.
er … The claim that the argument was not demonstrated to be circular and can be sustained from either evidence or argument has not been sustained by either evidence or argument. Gee, this is fun!
You blinked. So you lose.