Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Plea to understanding: SCIENCE vs INTELLIGENT DESIGN
lbm111
Member (Idle past 3916 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 02-24-2012


Message 15 of 230 (653792)
02-24-2012 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Modulous
02-23-2012 7:12 PM


purpose in science
I have to agree that at a fundamental level science cannot account for purpose.
Modulous - you state that evolutionary biology is concerned with purpose and it is a natural mode of thought to infer agency. I would agree but does that make it right from a scientific point of view?
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 and we can never observe 'purpose' hence it is superfluous to scientific knowledge.
We can observe a rabbits tail, an appendix or a flagella but never ever can we observe a 'purpose'. How would you measure how much purpose a rabbit's tail had? Has it got more units of purpose than a flagella?
From a scientific point of view saying that a rabbit's tail has a purpose is as fanciful as saying god created the earth. 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Modulous, posted 02-23-2012 7:12 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Modulous, posted 02-24-2012 3:34 PM lbm111 has replied
 Message 38 by jchardy, posted 02-25-2012 12:04 AM lbm111 has not replied
 Message 133 by rick, posted 03-04-2012 6:31 AM lbm111 has not replied

  
lbm111
Member (Idle past 3916 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 02-24-2012


Message 24 of 230 (653838)
02-24-2012 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Modulous
02-24-2012 3:34 PM


Re: purpose in science
Modulus - Experiment isn't required, and is not always possible.
Ok so you're not talking about scientific investigation here? what sort of science do you do if you don't doexperimental verification? I'm a fan of Gedanken experiments as much as anyone but you cannot suggest that these generate scientific fact.
However, we can infer purposes based on the evidence: The purpose for a hammer. The purpose of the heart.
You can infer anything you want - go wild! providing scientific proof is another matter. Exactly what empirical, quantifiable evidence can be provided for the purpose of a hammer? 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Modulous, posted 02-24-2012 3:34 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Modulous, posted 02-24-2012 8:01 PM lbm111 has replied
 Message 26 by Warthog, posted 02-24-2012 9:59 PM lbm111 has not replied
 Message 115 by Larni, posted 03-01-2012 1:15 PM lbm111 has not replied

  
lbm111
Member (Idle past 3916 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 02-24-2012


Message 43 of 230 (653874)
02-25-2012 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Modulous
02-24-2012 8:01 PM


Re: purpose in science
quote:
The sort of science that would answer your question is often called Observational science
  —"modulous"
Yes certainly astrophysics and other disciplines rely on observational science. As the link you posted says they use multivariate statistical techniques to approximate experimental control with statistical control.
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.
quote:
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.
  —"modulous"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Modulous, posted 02-24-2012 8:01 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2012 11:44 AM lbm111 has replied
 Message 63 by jchardy, posted 02-25-2012 2:35 PM lbm111 has not replied

  
lbm111
Member (Idle past 3916 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 02-24-2012


Message 58 of 230 (653927)
02-25-2012 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Modulous
02-25-2012 11:44 AM


Re: purpose in science
yes now we are getting somewhere - so intelligence is an "emergent property". emergent as opposed to something intrinsic like say the chemical composition of the brain. We can observe and measure the chemical composition or a variety of other aspects of the human brain but we are not going to observe "intelligence" It is not something we measure. It is a supposition in our theories that we use to make our lives easier. A shorthand to explain behaviour that we don't yet have a complete neurological explanation for. until recently facial recognition would be seen as strong evidence of intelligence - now facebook can easily recognize faces!
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. The purpose is an unwarranted hypothesis. 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.
Scientifically proven means that based on explicit premises, logical conclusions are deduced and verified via empirical data. If it is falsified later it must be because the premises are wrong or the data you have studied is shown to be a subset.
i.e newton is proven to be wrong by Einstein because one of the premises - that newton's theory holds in all cases - is in fact wrong when applied at relativistic speed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2012 11:44 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2012 2:55 PM lbm111 has replied

  
lbm111
Member (Idle past 3916 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 02-24-2012


Message 72 of 230 (653955)
02-25-2012 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Modulous
02-25-2012 2:55 PM


Re: purpose in science
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.
these appear to be perfectly ok statements but they are premises not evidence.
to say Humans build tools for certain purposes is an assumption. You can build an argument based on the assumption that anything a human builds and is identified as a 'tool' was designed for a purpose. those assumptions may tally with your personal experience and you can convince most people why the hammer has the purpose you claim.
but an IDist could use the same logical form:
Once we have proven what it was used for, we can use several other pieces of evidence:
God builds organisms for certain purposes.
organisms built for a certain purpose tend to be used for those purposes.
both arguments are insufficient. there is no evidence of purpose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2012 2:55 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2012 4:17 PM lbm111 has replied
 Message 74 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2012 4:22 PM lbm111 has replied

  
lbm111
Member (Idle past 3916 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 02-24-2012


Message 75 of 230 (653958)
02-25-2012 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Dr Adequate
02-25-2012 4:17 PM


Re: purpose in science
to say Humans build tools for certain purposes is an assumption.
No, we can watch them doing it.
but an IDist could use the same logical form:
No. There's a difference between inferring something we can observe as a cause and inferring something that we never see as a cause. Namely that the second one would be silly.
we can watch them making something. we cannot watch their purpose in making it.
"humans build tools" is an observable
"humans build tools for certain purposes" is an assumption
although i would argue the word "tools" is obviously heavily implicit with meaning regarding its creation.
more accurately
"humans create objects" is an observable
"humans create objects for certain purposes" is an assumption
try replacing the word 'humans' with the word 'animals' and you will see it is less obvious now replace with the word "genes"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-25-2012 4:17 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
lbm111
Member (Idle past 3916 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 02-24-2012


Message 76 of 230 (653959)
02-25-2012 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Modulous
02-25-2012 4:22 PM


Re: purpose in science
Would you like me to give you evidence of humans building tools for certain purposes?
yes - 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.
We are entitled to hypothesize that there was a purpose or that there was intelligence or that they were made to do it by alien mind control and none of those are falsifiable.
In all cases it seems natural to assume purpose or intelligence by a process of 'putting ourselves in their shoes'
If i was a stone age hunter I would want to make an axe to hunt prey etc... but that is a very slippery slope
Edited by lbm111, : No reason given.
Edited by lbm111, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2012 4:22 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2012 4:53 PM lbm111 has replied

  
lbm111
Member (Idle past 3916 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 02-24-2012


Message 80 of 230 (653969)
02-25-2012 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Modulous
02-25-2012 4:53 PM


Re: purpose in science
modulous writes:
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?
sorry clicked submit too quickly on the last post
perhaps i am using a strange meaning but I want to look at it rigorously. You are of course right that in the every day commonly accepted interpretation - flint tools are designed with the purpose of scraping hide and watches are designed with the purpose of keeping time.
What i disagree with is that we have more fundamental evidence to assign purpose to human made objects. I don't argue that it is a highly useful way of describing the world and in every day speech its useful. I might say a cup of tea is 'divine' but that doesn't mean I believe in heaven
We use the word 'purpose' (or intelligence' for that matter) as a shorthand to describe a series of processes. For example the series of processes that compelled the neurons in an ancient hunters brain to configure themselves in such a way that he picked up a flint and sharpened it. he went from not having an axe to having one and in the interim some thoughts went through his head such that his body carried out the actions of making the axe. Now obviously that hunter is long since deceased so we are not able to examine his brain, instead what we do is gloss over it and call the sum of all those neurological processes the 'purpose' for the axe. We assume he thought in a similar way to the way we might think and say he probably did x to achieve y.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2012 4:53 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2012 5:45 PM lbm111 has replied

  
lbm111
Member (Idle past 3916 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 02-24-2012


Message 82 of 230 (653975)
02-25-2012 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Modulous
02-25-2012 5:45 PM


Re: purpose in science
modulous writes:
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.
yes i agree and we use these placeholders in our everyday existence. In fact our everyday life is full of these place holders which make up human language. There are a multitude of things we do not have data for or cannot get data about (such as the neurological makeup of a stone age hunter).
we are forced to use fuzzy terms as place holders to describe these gaps.
modulous writes:
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'.
why is the IDer or god or whatever other word not also valid as a placeholder? ultimately we will see that the this palceholder ( as with every other place holder) is a peturbation in the Quantum field adn it will then be an irrelevant term but until the stage that we have a full description of the quantum field we are free ( in fact compelled) to use place holders in our everday lives
Edited by lbm111, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2012 5:45 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2012 6:13 PM lbm111 has replied

  
lbm111
Member (Idle past 3916 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 02-24-2012


Message 88 of 230 (654029)
02-26-2012 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Modulous
02-25-2012 6:13 PM


Re: purpose in science
but there is just as much empirical evidence for that placeholder as for many others - most notably "intelligence"
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Modulous, posted 02-25-2012 6:13 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Modulous, posted 02-26-2012 4:07 PM lbm111 has replied

  
lbm111
Member (Idle past 3916 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 02-24-2012


Message 97 of 230 (654141)
02-27-2012 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Modulous
02-26-2012 4:07 PM


Re: purpose in science
yes i started that thread to discuss exactly this topic.
"modulous" writes:
Just because problem solving is mechanistic, it does not mean it doesn't exist
if something is mechanistic what reason is there to say that it is intelligent? it happens because it has to happen.The problem solving process does exist but it must be viewed objectively in the same way as any mechanistic process.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Modulous, posted 02-26-2012 4:07 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2012 12:10 PM lbm111 has replied

  
lbm111
Member (Idle past 3916 days)
Posts: 32
Joined: 02-24-2012


Message 110 of 230 (654320)
02-29-2012 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Modulous
02-27-2012 12:10 PM


Re: purpose in science
Then perhaps you should focus there
happy to continue the discussion there

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2012 12:10 PM 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