Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Plea to understanding: SCIENCE vs INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(15)
Message 12 of 230 (653712)
02-23-2012 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jchardy
02-23-2012 2:44 PM


jchardy,
You have made the classic error of confusing ID with teleology.
quote:
A teleology is any philosophical account which holds that final causes exist in nature, meaning that design and purpose analogous to that found in human actions are inherent also in the rest of nature.
Intelligent Design is a specific teleological movement that was constructed so as to propose the important parts of Creationism (namely, that evolution is false) without mentioning the parts of Creationism that lead to legal troubles in the context of education (namely, that god is true). It is not a movement that I think you are a member of.
The main problem with teleological accounts is that they assert the existence of a purpose-giver, but do not provide any evidence for the existence of said purpose-giver, or indeed what purpose they are even giving. It is, as you mention, an article of 'faith'. And faith is just indefensible. I challenge you to try it.
What is the purpose of a hammer? It is to drive nails into things.
What is the purpose of a human? What end is achieved by the existence of rabbits? What is the function of mountains? And to whose ends?
In science, Purpose per se is never the reason something ends up the way it does.
I disagree. Human artifacts can be studied by science, and science can conclude that the artifacts were created for a purpose and may even infer what that purpose was
Except with applied science (i.e., outcomes using scientific discoveries implemented by man’s will), the studies characteristic of science discount any immediacy of purpose at all.
Again, I disagree. Evolutionary biology is all about purpose. What is the purpose of the rabbit's tail? What is the purpose for the appendix? What is the purpose of flagella? If there is no purpose for something that we can detect: it might called a quandary for evolution. How can you work out how something evolved, if you don't know what purpose it serves?
And we can examine tool use in other animals, and infer what the purpose of those tools is. That is: we can study those things that are implemented at the will of animals besides humans.
In fact, to imply there is purpose in the processes of the universe is, to many (if not most) scientists a strong indication of deranged and simplistic thinking.
The modern scientific position on this would be that it was a strong indication of 'normal human thinking'. We are, after all, pretty good agency detectors. We don't need deep thinking to do it, and we will even infer agency where there is none. False positives in this regard are favoured by evolutionary mechanisms - it's better to be safe than sorry when it comes to inferring agency...agents are potential rivals/predators after all.
Children frequently think in terms of purpose without prompting. That rock over there is there so the sheep can scratch their back. Flowers are there to look pretty for us.
Getting out of the habit of purpose oriented thinking is something that requires some considerable training, I believe.
Of course, if we have too many false positives we might end up being called 'paranoid' or 'conspiracy theorists', or perhaps 'teleologists'
In addition, ID adherents clearly separate themselves from fundamentalist creationists.
Not clearly enough. Indeed, at the Dover trial one of the people who were pushing the ID agenda, Bill Buckingham famously got mixed up:
quote:
It's OK to teach Darwin, but you have to balance it with something else - such as Creationism.
Or Dembski, who angered YECs with what seemed like a denial of their doctrine later said:
quote:
In writing The End of Christianity today, I would also underscore three points: (1) As a biblical inerrantist, I accept the full verbal inspiration of the Bible and the conventional authorship of the books of the Bible. Thus, in particular, I accept Mosaic authorship of Genesis (and of the Pentateuch) and reject the Documentary Hypothesis. (2) Even though I introduce in the book a distinction between kairos (God’s time) and chronos (the world’s time), the two are not mutually exclusive. In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1- 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch. (3) I believe that Adam and Eve were real people, that as the initial pair of humans they were the progenitors of the whole human race, that they were specially created by God, and thus that they were not the result of an evolutionary process from primate or hominid ancestors.
and
quote:
Yet, in a brief section on Genesis 4-11, I weigh in on the Flood, raising questions about its universality, without adequate study or reflection on my part. Before I write on this topic again, I have much exegetical, historical, and theological work to do. In any case, not only Genesis 6-9 but also Jesus in Matthew 24 and Peter in Second Peter seem clearly to teach that the Flood was universal. As a biblical inerrantist, I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and bow to the text, including its teaching about the Flood and its universality.
source
Most adherents to Intelligent Design (ID) do not deny scientific facts nor observations, but leave the door wide open to inclusion of new and meaningful information providing the hope of clarity.
In my personal experience, most ID adherents that have graced this board have wound up denying some scientific facts at one stage or another.
If all scientists and educated faithful can come to an understanding that each deserve to believe what they individually want to believe, rejecting nothing, -- including either’s concepts of possibility or probability; and in that process reject dogma,-- the vitriol will cease and a conversation can commence.
The scientists are already at that position. But the IDists are calling the scientists unprofessional liars and conspiracists, accusing them of ostracizing the IDists and other unpleasantries. And not only that but the IDists have decided to circumvent normal channels. Instead of trying to win scientific consensus through the force of their argument and the weight of their evidence - they try to gain scientific consensus through the education of school children. That is, ID has famously engaged in propaganda to further their cause - and have regularly aimed that at parents and children.
You should distance yourself from ID. It is not a political movement you want to be involved in any way with. I suggest you embrace the more neutral philosophical position of teleology.
The vitriol from scientists is at the unfairness, misinformation, lies and outright unpleasant tactics employed by the main ID protagonists over the years. I believe it is fully justified. If a teleologist from a different branch such as yourself were to come along without those tactics, then I'm sure we can all have a fantastic discussion without anger or vitriol of any sort.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jchardy, posted 02-23-2012 2:44 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by lbm111, posted 02-24-2012 7:04 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 16 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-24-2012 11:01 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 35 by jchardy, posted 02-24-2012 11:48 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 22 of 230 (653821)
02-24-2012 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by lbm111
02-24-2012 7:04 AM


Re: purpose in science
I have to agree that at a fundamental level science cannot account for purpose.
If by 'fundamental level' you mean that a teleological purpose which is essentially definitionally immune from scientific scrutiny, then yes - we agree.
I would agree but does that make it right from a scientific point of view?
Your agreement does not make it right from a scientific point of view, the fact that it is right from a scientific point of view takes care of that.
Much scientific language is framed in terms of 'purpose' but ultimately if it is to be scientifically tested it must come down to empirically observable experiment
Experiment isn't required, and is not always possible.
we can never observe 'purpose' hence it is superfluous to scientific knowledge
We may never observe teleological purpose, I'd agree (though many teleologists, for instance the IDists, would probably disagree). However, we can infer purposes based on the evidence: The purpose for a hammer. The purpose of the heart. But teleologists want to say that there is also a purpose for the human. And they are very quiet when it comes to telling us what that purpose is.
How would you measure how much purpose a rabbit's tail had? Has it got more units of purpose than a flagella?
I suppose it might be possible in some sense to quantify purpose, I don't think it is necessary to do so in order to infer purpose from evidence.
From a scientific point of view saying that a rabbit's tail has a purpose is as fanciful as saying god created the earth.
Does the heart serve a purpose? I think most people, scientists included, would concur that the heart's purpose is to facillitate the circulatory system.
Maybe the 'purpose' for the rabbit's tail fits better with some empirical data you have whereas the existence of god contradicts it but that is surely irrelevant.
I don't think it is irrelevant if one's conclusions fit better with the evidence while other's conclusions contradict it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by lbm111, posted 02-24-2012 7:04 AM lbm111 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by lbm111, posted 02-24-2012 7:22 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 23 of 230 (653824)
02-24-2012 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Tanypteryx
02-24-2012 11:01 AM


I disagree. I think the proper word is function, not purpose.
I don't think either word is more proper. My point was really that science can study both 'purpose' in the intentionally created function sense and 'purpose' in the non-intentionally created function sense.
If there was some intended function of the universe, it is feasible that science could study the evidence and conclude this, just as we do from artifacts and animal tools.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-24-2012 11:01 AM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 25 of 230 (653841)
02-24-2012 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by lbm111
02-24-2012 7:22 PM


Re: purpose in science
Ok so you're not talking about scientific investigation here? what sort of science do you do if you don't doexperimental verification?
Have you ever heard of astrophysicists experimenting on star formation?
The sort of science that would answer your question is often called Observational science
You can infer anything you want - go wild! providing scientific proof is another matter.
Science is about inferring things from the evidence. Scientific proof would just be further lines of evidence that is coherent with the initial inference.
Can you seriously imagine publishing a scientific paper that proves a hammers purpose is to hit nails as opposed to say hitting people over the head
I can certainly imagine a lively scientific debate about an ancient hammer, as various clues about it are discussed and their implications for its original use: tool or weapon. I can certainly imagine papers supporting both views might get published, if their was sufficient controversy about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by lbm111, posted 02-24-2012 7:22 PM lbm111 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by jchardy, posted 02-24-2012 11:17 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 43 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 5:05 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 48 of 230 (653898)
02-25-2012 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by jchardy
02-24-2012 11:48 PM


Re: I TELEOLOGIST
You bet I’m a teleologist! I don’t distance myself from ID because the general concept of Intelligent Design appears to me to be frequently somehow misrepresented and matches most closely teleological foundations.
I'm talking about ID as it is practiced by its founders/vocal proponents such as Dembski and Behe. They seem keen to deny scientific evidence, makes facts up, outright lie and other things that are poor form (such as the Sternberg controversy). It involves such nonsense as irreducible complexity and specified complexity and the like. The ID position is that the evidence is already in, and it confirms the existence of of an IDer.
What kind of misrepresentation are you worried about?
It can be made fundamentalist to the extreme by some, and its demands can be dogmatic as well, -- but so can Science.
Science is not dogmatic. From wiki
quote:
Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioners or believers
While there are established beliefs in science, nothing is held to be beyond dispute or doubt. Doubt in fact, is built into the very fabric of science. There are some things which are called 'dogmas' in science, but it kind of tongue-in-cheek - a scientist could challenge them and still be called a scientist.
The words written below indicate that the ID folks have heaped personal abuse on science. I can see why such negativity has evolved, but it doesn’t have to be that way if there is equal acceptance — by Scientists and Atheists - of the beliefs -- by a component of ID proponents -- who believe that design was the foundation of everything from the Big Bang onward; not per force, but by nuance
I don't know any scientist that would have a problem with a person believing in some grand designer. Many scientists are religious and do in fact, believe this very thing - so you'd be in good company.
But ID doesn't claim to be a mere belief, they claim that ID is scientifically proven and that scientists are suppressing the truth and are misleading children so it becomes a 'moral crusade' to expose children to the Truth of ID through whatever tactics they think they can get away with.
If the nuance, or a nudge toward this goal or that, is what scientists or atheists find unacceptable, then so be it. No problem.
That isn't what scientists or atheist find unacceptable. Unncessary, maybe. A waste of time, perhaps. But it only becomes unacceptable when you go beyond 'nudging' and start pushing hard.
But we must all avoid demonizing or demeaning the other because of beliefs, and we should NEVER interfere with the education of our children on the basis of those beliefs.
Exactly the point of scientists, and exactly why they have a problem with IDists who are consistently demonizing and demeaning them and their work and are frequently interfering with the education of our children on the basis of their beliefs.
If you want to just talk, I don't think you'll find any significant problems. If you want to paint scientists as dupes or conspirers, that's when you might have a problem. Just look at the film 'Expelled' as an example of IDist propaganda to demonise those that accept evolution or reject god (with comparisons to Nazis and Stalinists etc).
I find it most repugnant when it occurs emanating from the Creationists as much as I do from Science and I find it most repugnant when that dogma emanates from Atheists, whom I consider just another form of Religion.
Could you explain what you had in mind when you thought of the repugnancy of the demonisation engaged in by science or atheists?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by jchardy, posted 02-24-2012 11:48 PM jchardy has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 50 of 230 (653902)
02-25-2012 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by jchardy
02-24-2012 11:59 PM


teleology and ID
I consider this the more important exchange in this discussion.
You replied to Panda, but I believe it was a reply to me. Anyway, thanks for the compliment.
I include the entire discussion component here with my responses bracketed by ***--***. It began with the statement:
That does make it difficult to read. Try reading this to learn how to make the formatting easier to read.
The affirmation of faith should never be a requirement if we are to communicate meaningfully. The key is to accept the fact that Science is and has been beneficial, but it does not negate faith.
I'm not sure what 'negate faith' means. Science does essentially conclude that faith is an insufficient reason to accept belief in something.
Faith should avoid interacting (and especially manipulating) the law to some end. Such interactions are destructive and counterproductive to us all
Sounds like you're a secularist.
A teleologist would say that every item may or may not have a rational purpose. The universe appears to operate to its own rhythm which we humans have attempted to define through science. Those attempts have provided us remarkable means to improve our existence, but the attempts themselves were really to satisfy our curiosity. In a way, purpose, was a spin off we call applied science. But it was our need to know, -- our curiosity about who we are; where we are; where we came from and where we are going --- that really spurred science in the first place. It all emanated from our remarkably creative biologic quantum computer — our brains interacting with our mind and — some would say — with our spirit or souls.***
That does not address the point you were quoting when you said it. That is:
quote:
And that is the main problem with teleological accounts: they assert the existence of a purpose-giver, but do not provide any evidence for the existence of said purpose-giver, or indeed what purpose they are even giving.
I (as a teleologist) am not offended, but it seems that teleology is at least as valid as any other discipline (including multiple components of science), --- most of them being unproven as absolute truth or fact.
All scientific knowledge is tentative and is thus 'unproven as absolute truth or fact'. The difference is that teleology has no supporting evidence for its defining feature: A purpose and a purpose giver.
Unlike with say, what we know about the respiratory system, or ant behaviour, or the mass of the moon. All tentative, all unproven as absolute truths.
Teleology is 'valid' (in the sense that all ideas are valid), but it isn't supported by evidence. And that's the essential claim of the ID movement: That teleology is supported by the evidence. And that is not true.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by jchardy, posted 02-24-2012 11:59 PM jchardy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by jchardy, posted 02-25-2012 3:30 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 51 of 230 (653903)
02-25-2012 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by lbm111
02-25-2012 5:05 AM


Re: purpose in science
when we look at human intelligence this is not the case. We just assume humans have this intrinsic property called "intelligence" - no evidence, no statistical control.
It isn't an intrinsic property, it is an emergent property derived from having a healthy brain. Not all humans have a healthy brain, and not all humans are intelligent. But there is significant evidence that humans, in general, are intelligent.
Obviously such papers could be published. There are many lively debates on all manner of topics. This is exactly my point it is not scientifically proven if there is room for lively debate.
Your point was that it was ludicrous to imagine someone publishing a paper that proves a hammer's purpose is to do x rather than y. My response that it was not ludicrous to imagine such papers being published
To answer your question: I also see no reason to suppose that the debate is intrinsically unsettlable. That is: After some debate, the length of the shaft, the heft of the weight point towards its use as a weapon for instance. It is then as proved as it is possible to be in scientific terms.
Scientifically proven, simply means 'has been argued about, and one point of view has won the argument based on reasoning and evidence'. It is perfectly reasonable to say that it can be scientifically proven that a hammer is for driving nails, that a heart's purpose is to pump blood etc. It might later transpire to wrong, but that's science for you - falsifiable.
Edited by Modulous, : rogue apostrophe execution squad now on standby.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 5:05 AM lbm111 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 2:08 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 66 of 230 (653942)
02-25-2012 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by lbm111
02-25-2012 2:08 PM


Re: purpose in science
going back to the hammer - a paper could be published detailing what the hammer was used for certainly. You could identify marks for example that indicated it was used to hit small iron objects such as nails, or look at the shaft, the heft or the weight. All of these are valid points but they do not prove the purpose of the hammer. They prove at best what the hammer was once used for.
Once we have proven what it was used for, we can use several other pieces of evidence:
Humans build tools for certain purposes.
Tools built for a certain purpose tend to be used for those purposes.
We can then infer that a tool that has been used for hammering nails, that appears optimised towards the end of hammering nails, was built for the purposes of hammering nails.
The purpose is an unwarranted hypothesis.
Why?
Science should stick to the facts and say what the evidence shows happened otherwise you get in a position IDists can claim that the evidence shows things it doesn't.
The evidence shows that a person designed and built a hammer for the purpose of driving nails into something. That's sticking to the facts. I fail to see how this gets us into any problematic position with regards to IDists.
If the IDists can use the evidence of the shape and structure of the universe to infer the reason why it was built, that would be perfectly acceptable.
If they use evidence to show the existence of an entity that utilizes the universe towards some end, that would be fine.
I wouldn't mind that, one bit. It's exactly what ID should be doing, since it would in effect be, science (assuming they stick to the rules, of course).
Scientifically proven means that based on explicit premises, logical conclusions are deduced and verified via empirical data.
I dispute the wording strongly, but I expect we are really meaning the same thing when we talk of something being scientifically proven.
I would rather say that to scientifically prove something, one acquires new evidence, preferably as independent of the original evidence as possible, that was either a predicted consequence of the theory (strong proof) or is shown to be consistent with the theory (less strong).
Thus, if you think the hammer was a weapon you might predict a longer handle. If evidence came along that the handle we have has been broken, and is missing a section: this would be at least partial proof of the weapon claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 2:08 PM lbm111 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 4:11 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 67 of 230 (653943)
02-25-2012 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Percy
02-25-2012 2:07 PM


anger
If you think anger is on-topic for this thread, then I don't think that it is.
I read the thread to be about the anger (from both sides of the debate) that hampers fruitful discussion. From the OP
quote:
If all scientists and educated faithful can come to an understanding that each deserve to believe what they individually want to believe, rejecting nothing, -- including either’s concepts of possibility or probability; and in that process reject dogma,-- the vitriol will cease and a conversation can commence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 02-25-2012 2:07 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Percy, posted 02-25-2012 3:44 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 74 of 230 (653957)
02-25-2012 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by lbm111
02-25-2012 4:11 PM


Re: purpose in science
Humans build tools for certain purposes.
Tools built for a certain purpose tend to be used for those purposes.
these appear to be perfectly ok statements but they are premises not evidence.
They are facts, supported by the evidence to such a degree so as to deny them would be perverse. We can use such facts as evidence.
to say Humans build tools for certain purposes is an assumption.
No. It's an observed fact.
but an IDist could use the same logical form
And I implore them to do so!
God builds organisms for certain purposes.
organisms built for a certain purpose tend to be used for those purposes.
Would you like me to give you evidence of humans building tools for certain purposes?
Would you like to give me evidence of gods building organisms for certain purposes?
Would you like to give me evidence that organisms are being used for the purposes they were built for?
Hopefully that should show the difference between teleology and non-teleology. I cite indisputable facts, backed by the evidence. You retort by saying the IDist could cite disputed facts, backed by no evidence whatsoever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 4:11 PM lbm111 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 4:31 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 78 of 230 (653963)
02-25-2012 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by lbm111
02-25-2012 4:31 PM


Re: purpose in science
Would you like me to give you evidence of humans building tools for certain purposes?
yes
Really? You didn't even decide to put the effort into explaining why the obvious responses won't satisfy you? You're going to actually ask me to provide evidence of something that no reasonable person doubts? What next, do I need to provide evidence that the grass is green?
Let's use a relevant example then. A watch. A watch is a tool that is used for the purposes of timekeeping.
Do you doubt that humans build watches? Do you doubt that the purpose for building watches is so that the time can be 'kept'?
If you want a paper, why not try 'The Function of Paleolithic Flint Tools', Lawrence H Keeley. The Abstract:
quote:
The microscopic examination of the working edges of certain stone implements used by ancient hunters makes it possible to distinguish among such uses as scraping hide, cutting meat and sawing wood.
source
Here we have a science paper that analyses tools to determine their purpose.
Now it's your turn:
quote:
Would you like to give me evidence of gods building organisms for certain purposes?
Would you like to give me evidence that organisms are being used for the purposes they were built for?

I see you did me the courtesy of expanding:
quote:
because it will be an example of humans creating objects and then using them. This is not evidence of purpose it is evidence that humans created something and then used it.
It is evidence that the tools were created with some purpose in mind. Why else would you create a watch if it was not for the purposes of timekeeping? I am beginning to suspect you are using a strange meaning of the word 'purpose' - perhaps you can explain what you mean by it?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 4:31 PM lbm111 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by jar, posted 02-25-2012 5:02 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 80 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 5:31 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 81 of 230 (653971)
02-25-2012 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by lbm111
02-25-2012 5:31 PM


Re: purpose in science
We use the word 'purpose' (or intelligence' for that matter) as a shorthand to describe a series of processes.
I don't disagree. We use all words this way: science tells us there is no such thing (really) as planets and cows...they are all just pertubations of waves in a Quantum Field. The word 'cow' is a placeholder for a certain class of waves in said Quantum Field.
But neverthless, science can study cows and planets. And intelligence and purpose.
my point is partly that we use the word purpose because we lack the evidence (in this case neurological data about the hunter) to give a full scientific description of the creation of the axe.
And that equally applies to the IDists. If we assume the IDer exists, it doesn't explain how the IDer works. So the IDist cannot give a complete account and uses placeholders such as 'intelligence' and 'purpose'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 5:31 PM lbm111 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 5:58 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 83 of 230 (653979)
02-25-2012 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by lbm111
02-25-2012 5:58 PM


Re: purpose in science
why is the IDer or god or whatever other word not also valid as a placeholder?
I've not suggested that it is not valid as a placeholder. I'm just suggesting that there is no evidence supporting the existence of the thing/s that it is the placeholder for.
On the other hand, there is evidence for other kids of purpose and intelligence which science has done a marvelous job of studying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by lbm111, posted 02-25-2012 5:58 PM lbm111 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by lbm111, posted 02-26-2012 6:55 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 89 of 230 (654057)
02-26-2012 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by lbm111
02-26-2012 6:55 AM


Re: purpose in science
every instance of intelligence can ultimately be shown to be a result of a mechanical (or random) process hence it is pointless to use the placeholder intelligence.
once we know that it is an automatic reaction for an organism to recoil from a hot flame then it is no longer a sign of intelligence but a sign of a mechanical response taking place.
Just because problem solving is mechanistic, it does not mean it doesn't exist or that it is pointless to call it intelligence. Either way, I'm beginning to think the point you want to discuss is off topic here and is much better suited to is there any case for Intelligent design in man made products .
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by lbm111, posted 02-26-2012 6:55 AM lbm111 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by lbm111, posted 02-27-2012 6:40 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 98 of 230 (654166)
02-27-2012 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by lbm111
02-27-2012 6:40 AM


Re: purpose in science
yes i started that thread to discuss exactly this topic.
Then perhaps you should focus there.
if something is mechanistic what reason is there to say that it is intelligent?
Because intelligent broadly means 'capable of solving problems'. The more complex the problem, the greater the intelligence. It's a word that has meaning. Walking is mechanistic, why call it walking?
you could say an electron is "intelligent" to jump to a lower energy level when the wave function predicts it should but it would be highly misleading to suggest that electrons have intelligence
And it is precisely because it would be highly misleading to suggest that electrons have intelligence that I would advise against it.
On the other hand it would not be misleading to suggest that humans have intelligence, since they do. To keep this vaguely on topic - intelligence can detected and even measured to some extent. So far, we've detected no intelligence behind life, the universe and everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by lbm111, posted 02-27-2012 6:40 AM lbm111 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by lbm111, posted 02-29-2012 7:08 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024