|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Irreduceable Complexity | |||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Isn't irreduceable complexity just a fabcy kind of
argument from incredulity ? Effectively it's saying that because no-one has imagineda step-wise progression that could lead to something-or-other then that something-or-other must have been designed. A mouse trap, if you remove one component won't function.That's true, but we can imagine a number of similar, yet less complex alternatives that could have lead to the spring trap design. So, is a mouse trap irreducably complex if we can show anevolution of thinking behind the eventual object. And that's even with an object that we KNOW in advance wasdesigned. So, is IC just an argument from incredulity, and can any claimedIC be refuted by any feasible sounding route ? If so, then it's not only about incredulity, but subjective too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Do you have an opinion on my suggestion that IC is justan argument from incredulity ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Kind of not the point I was trying to get across Whether ANYTHING can be considered IC is my problem. I used the mousetrap since I've seen it put forward as anexplanation of what IC means. You could balance a sledge hammer on a stick tied to some baitand call it a mouse trap ... and a pre-cursor of the modern spring loaded mousetrap ... so what I was saying is that taking part away from something as it is now, and braking it, doesn't mean it couldn't have developed from something a little different. My main quesiton was whether IC was an argument fromincredulity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: What if you reduce the mass of the hammer, and a compensatoryelastic material to pull the reduced weight down so that we have similar momentum. Then increase the 'pull' further by coiling the elastic materialand reduce the hammer weight further. Is that an incremental change ... if it is does that make amousetrap not irreducibly complex ? Or do we just then say that a hammer on a stick is irreducibly complex ? It seems that what IC is basically saying is:: 'I cannot imagine an incremental process that can lead tothis result.' That's an argument from incredulity, surley ? To validate it we would have to imagine every possible way thatsomething could hace come into being, and if we were certain that we had expended ALL possibilities then perhaps we are left with design. So we come down to 'have we expended all possible incrementaldevelopment scenarios or not ?'
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
So that means that they cannot exist if someone investigated
it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I think the trinity in the solar system is pushing it a little,
since there are planets with more than one moon, and there are loads of stars ... and they aren't the ONLY bodies in the solar system (comets pass through and there's this big asteroid belt thingy). The DNA/RNA/Proteins is a little oversimplified too isn't it? I guess we could see three's in pretty much anything, after allisn't 3 (along 7 and I think 11) common 'mystic' numbers across most mythological writings ... maybe something to do with them being prime numbers ... or craps in dice
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I agree with mark24 on this.
What you seem to be saying is that IC supports ID. But we cannot be sure that anything IS IC, becuase we havenot sufficiently investigated supposed IC in that context. That makes IC and argument from incredulity in my book. Also:: Take a component from a working artifact, such that itno longer works means the artifact is IC ... but doesn't that pre-suppose purpose ? Suppose we have an object that, should we remove one component, we cannot use it for its original purpose, but it can be used forsome other purpose. Does that invalidate IC as an argument for design ? I'm thinking of a simple spear at this point. Take awaythe shaft and your left with a knife, take away the point and you are left with a staff. They are in the same class of object (waepons) but serveradically different functions in use (knife for stabbing, staff for bludgeoning, spear for throwing).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
When is a fairy story not a fairy story any more?
And what makes an untested hypothesis a fairy story anyhow? Logic suggests that if we remove something (or replace a partwith something else) we may get a 'system' which has a different set of emergent properties than the one we started with. At the 'system' level, the outcome is not a simple combinationof the parts, because we have features of the 'system' which are only of relevence at the level of the 'system'. If we can, by substititions and deletions obtain some different'system' from an existing one, then by substitutions and additions we can get back again (barring hysterisis I guess). What IC seems to be saying to me is 'I cannot imagine a route,but I haven't looked that hard at all of the possibilities.' That's an argument from incredulity. Discounting alternative function outright is just being stubborn Of course, alternative function poses a bigger problem in thecontext if ID, which may be why its rejected. If a part of 'design' is 'intended use', then a function developingfrom different functions refutes 'intent' ... and is an indicator against design. ... fairy story I guess ... but many fairy stories and myths dohave a basis in fact (even Noah's flood ... but that's another story )
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: I've already asked this, but I'll ask it here in isolation :: Does having a working anything, which will not work withoutone part, automatically mean that there is no incremental process that could have lead to it? I mean, my car won't run without it's engine manaement ECU, but thatdoesn't mean cars have always had them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Are you saying that something can be 'a bit irreducibly complex' ? Does that make any sense at all?
quote: Why would they be 'evident'? It's taken years of research to even find out that theyexist in the first place, so why assume that an incremental development scheme (which few are actually looking for on a case by case basis) would have been found yet? Everything you have said so far, in my opinion, supports theview of IC as argument from incredulity. In the systems with 'parts out of thin air' ... are the'parts' the irreducibly complex sub-systems?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I mentioned comets and asteroids too, but the answer seems
to be that it doesn't matter about them 'cause we don't see 'em all the time, and they don't fit into a trinity red, green, and blue are the primary colours of light,though. All the other colours are a mix. if two or more in varying proportions/intensities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I'm sure if you look hard enough, and manipulate the
scenario enough that you can find threes in anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: So how do you decide that something IS IC? ... and how can something be 'a bit IC'? If it is a well supported belief, by what is it supported?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I thought I'd bump this since it seems that IC has reared
it's ugly head again |
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1505 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: The point being made is, more or less, what I am saying about ICarguments. Just because you cannot see it doesn't mean it isn't there. That's not assuming it is there, but 'not seeing' and 'notexisting' are very different.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024