Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why only one Designer
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 286 of 377 (613761)
04-27-2011 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Blue Jay
04-27-2011 1:39 AM


Re: Going in Circles
Parsimony is also about limiting the number of assumptions. Assuming one designer rather than an unknown number is an additional assumption. Thus it is more parsimonious to leave the number of designers unspecified until the evidence is in.
Which means that the typical ID position of assuming a single designer without considering the evidence cannot be justified by parsimony.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Blue Jay, posted 04-27-2011 1:39 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Blue Jay, posted 04-27-2011 2:49 AM PaulK has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 287 of 377 (613763)
04-27-2011 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by Blue Jay
04-27-2011 1:39 AM


Re: Going in Circles
Bluejay writes:
It's only when you begin adding assumptions about constraints that the designer might be under (e.g. timeframe, economics, etc.) that you begin to suggest that a single designer could not have done it.
The argument has never been about how many designers are required nor do I recall putting any constraints on the designer. I will gladly stipulate that one designer could hypothetically have done it.
The argument, as I have explained before and as PaulK has explained and as I think even Straggler understands now, is that putting any number on it is an unparsimonious assumption.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Blue Jay, posted 04-27-2011 1:39 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Blue Jay, posted 04-27-2011 3:16 AM ringo has replied
 Message 303 by Straggler, posted 04-28-2011 5:02 AM ringo has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 288 of 377 (613765)
04-27-2011 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by PaulK
04-27-2011 1:51 AM


Re: Going in Circles
Hi, Paul.
PaulK writes:
Assuming one designer rather than an unknown number is an additional assumption.
Yes, I overlooked this step in my posts. Thanks for the correction.
But, parsimony is only useful for comparing hypotheses with equal explanatory power. Since "an unspecified number of designers" doesn't actually answer the question under discussion---i.e., "How many designers designed the universe?"---it is completely devoid of explanatory power, and an additional assumption is necessary to provide that explanatory power.
Thus, we are justified in assuming one designer, but not in assuming another designer on top of the first one.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by PaulK, posted 04-27-2011 1:51 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by PaulK, posted 04-27-2011 7:58 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 289 of 377 (613766)
04-27-2011 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by ringo
04-27-2011 2:09 AM


Re: Going in Circles
Hi, Ringo.
ringo writes:
The argument, as I have explained before and as PaulK has explained and as I think even Straggler understands now, is that putting any number on it is an unparsimonious assumption.
Parsimony is supposed to be used to provide a temporary answer where the evidence doesn't give you one; but, the way you use it, it will always fall in favor of non-answers, because you view a non-answer with zero assumptions as preferable to a useful answer with one assumption.
This is a misapplication of parsimony, and, in fact, renders it entirely useless: what, exactly, does this version of parsimony do other than forbid induction?
In this case, you can't answer the question---"How many designers designed the universe?"---unless you incorporate an additional assumption. So, parsimony does not forbid us from incorporating this assumption. It does, however, forbid us from incorporating further assumptions beyond that without additional justification.
So, "one designer" is more parsimonious than "two designers" or "many designers."
Edited by Bluejay, : switched "inferences" out for "induction"

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by ringo, posted 04-27-2011 2:09 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by ringo, posted 04-27-2011 10:23 AM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 294 by Jon, posted 04-27-2011 1:28 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 290 of 377 (613773)
04-27-2011 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Blue Jay
04-27-2011 2:49 AM


Re: Going in Circles
And even if we assume that the evidence favoured a designer, some unknown number would still be more parsimonious than assuming 1. Where's the need for an answer that would justify that assumption ?
(Personally, I would argue that none would be a more parsimonious answer, since the existence of a designer would raise much the same questions as the claimed evidence of design in the universe, questions that seem to be only answered by more assumptions).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Blue Jay, posted 04-27-2011 2:49 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Blue Jay, posted 04-27-2011 9:53 AM PaulK has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 291 of 377 (613779)
04-27-2011 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by PaulK
04-27-2011 7:58 AM


Re: Going in Circles
Hi, Paul.
PaulK writes:
Where's the need for an answer that would justify that assumption?
Arguably, there is no immediate need for it beyond completing the objective of this thread. More long-term reasons would be to clarify the proper usage of parsimony and to prevent evolutionists from wasting time on invalid criticisms of ID.
-----
PaulK writes:
(Personally, I would argue that none would be a more parsimonious answer, since the existence of a designer would raise much the same questions as the claimed evidence of design in the universe, questions that seem to be only answered by more assumptions.)
I think I agree. But, just to clarify, are you suggesting that, even if we have already assumed design, "no designers" is the most parsimonious answer as to the number of designers?
If so, I would appreciate a more in-depth explanation.
If not, then, yes, I agree.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by PaulK, posted 04-27-2011 7:58 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by PaulK, posted 04-27-2011 11:56 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 292 of 377 (613782)
04-27-2011 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Blue Jay
04-27-2011 3:16 AM


Re: Going in Circles
Bluejay writes:
In this case, you can't answer the question---"How many designers designed the universe?"---unless you incorporate an additional assumption.
Sure we can.
Given the premise that the IDists themselves use to infer design - i.e. known examples of design - we already have an implied number of more than one designer. Looking at the known examples of design - e.g. whales and sharks - we already have evidence of different design styles suggesting different designers.
No additional assumptions are required to stop there.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Blue Jay, posted 04-27-2011 3:16 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Blue Jay, posted 04-27-2011 10:35 PM ringo has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 293 of 377 (613793)
04-27-2011 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Blue Jay
04-27-2011 9:53 AM


Re: Going in Circles
quote:
Arguably, there is no immediate need for it beyond completing the objective of this thread. More long-term reasons would be to clarify the proper usage of parsimony and to prevent evolutionists from wasting time on invalid criticisms of ID.
I'd say that you were wrong on all three points. The point of this thread is why IDists insist on a single Designer - and we must remember that they use this Designer to account for both the Universe and earthly life. Clearly parsimony does not support that - the most that you have claimed is a weak preference for a single designer of our universe, not a refusal to even seriously consider alternatives. The criticism that IDists mean God is not invalid at all. It's clearly supported by the evidence.
quote:
I think I agree. But, just to clarify, are you suggesting that, even if we have already assumed design, "no designers" is the most parsimonious answer as to the number of designers?
No, although it seems to me that often special pleading is used to avoid the implication of an infinite regress of designers. Which is hardly parsimonious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Blue Jay, posted 04-27-2011 9:53 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Blue Jay, posted 04-27-2011 5:02 PM PaulK has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 294 of 377 (613798)
04-27-2011 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Blue Jay
04-27-2011 3:16 AM


Re: Going in Circles
Hello, Bluejay.
Ringo's done a pretty fine job of countering some of the points you made against one of my earlier posts, but I do want to add a couple of things in my own words:
Parsimony is supposed to be used to provide a temporary answer where the evidence doesn't give you one; but, the way you use it, it will always fall in favor of non-answers, because you view a non-answer with zero assumptions as preferable to a useful answer with one assumption.
And we do end up with a temporary answer, even if it is a vague one. The application of parsimony does not completely undo any other work we've done, it simply filters out the arguments and ranks them according to their strength. One way arguments become strong is by resting on evidenced premises that needn't be taken for granted in order to derive the conclusion. Arguments that have fewer unevidenced assumptions will thus get a higher ranking.
And, of course, while arguments that argue nothing on the premise of nothing are very strong, they are irrelevant; just like an argument that argued cost-efficiency of light bulbs would also be irrelevant. We are dealing with a specific theme of arguments: arguments in support of various numbers of designers. The conclusion of 'unknown number' is as much of a conclusion as any other number that might be offered up as a conclusion.
The issue, then, is organizing all of these arguments and evaluating their strength; it is the M.O. of reasonable people to accept the strongest argument, and showing which argument has the most strength (by following the methodology outlined above) is crucial to showing which argument is most acceptable and should thus be the current prevailing theory.
Jon
Edited by Jon, : capitaliZation

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Blue Jay, posted 04-27-2011 3:16 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by ringo, posted 04-27-2011 1:55 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 295 of 377 (613801)
04-27-2011 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Jon
04-27-2011 1:28 PM


Jon writes:
The conclusion of 'unknown number' is as much of a conclusion as any other number that might be offered up as a conclusion.
An example that springs to mind is a coroner's verdict of, "death caused by person or persons unknown." It's a tentative conclusion on the way to a more specific conclusion. It's a conclusion that invites further investigation while a more specific conclusion does not.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Jon, posted 04-27-2011 1:28 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 296 of 377 (613830)
04-27-2011 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by PaulK
04-27-2011 11:56 AM


Re: Going in Circles
Hi, Paul.
PaulK writes:
The point of this thread is why IDists insist on a single Designer - and we must remember that they use this Designer to account for both the Universe and earthly life. Clearly parsimony does not support that...
I think I've done a good job of showing that parsimony does, in fact, support this. I would like you to explain where my argument is wrong.
-----
PaulK writes:
...the most that you have claimed is a weak preference for a single designer of our universe, not a refusal to even seriously consider alternatives.
I'm not clear on what you mean here. Can an argument that appeals to parsimony ever conclude anything more than "a weak preference"? I wouldn't think so.
-----
PaulK writes:
No, although it seems to me that often special pleading is used to avoid the implication of an infinite regress of designers. Which is hardly parsimonious.
On that, we can fully agree.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by PaulK, posted 04-27-2011 11:56 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by PaulK, posted 04-27-2011 5:28 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 297 of 377 (613833)
04-27-2011 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Blue Jay
04-27-2011 5:02 PM


Re: Going in Circles
quote:
I think I've done a good job of showing that parsimony does, in fact, support this. I would like you to explain where my argument is wrong.
To justify insisting on a single designer you would have to show that parsimony favours assuming one designer over making no assumption about the number of designers. So where is the argument that established that.
I would add that the qualities expected for a designer of the universe and a designer for life on Earth seem sufficiently distinct that I really have to question why parsimony would prefer one entity over two. It seems to me that an entity that WOULD do both is rather less likely than two separate entities even before we consider the reasons for thinking that there are multiple designers for life on Earth.
quote:
I'm not clear on what you mean here. Can an argument that appeals to parsimony ever conclude anything more than "a weak preference"? I wouldn't think so.
I certainly can think of cases where parsimony is stronger than it is in this case. For instance if you have two theories which adequately describe some aspect of reality, but one requires large numbers of ad hoc assumptions, parsimony could even be a compelling argument. But in this case, where it is simply choosing which unevidenced assumption to use as a default - when there is no good reason for choosing any of them, it is hard to imagine a weaker argument.
In fact parsimony makes a stronger case for NOT assuming any particular number of designers. And this is why parsimony is AGAINST the ID assumption of a single designer. If ID were a genuine scientific enterprise this assumption would not be made at this point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Blue Jay, posted 04-27-2011 5:02 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 298 of 377 (613844)
04-27-2011 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by ringo
04-27-2011 10:23 AM


Re: Going in Circles
Hi, Ringo.
ringo writes:
Bluejay writes:
In this case, you can't answer the question---"How many designers designed the universe?"---unless you incorporate an additional assumption.
Sure we can.
Given the premise that the IDists themselves use to infer design - i.e. known examples of design - we already have an implied number of more than one designer...
... No additional assumptions are required to stop there.
But, the premise that IDists use to infer design is an additional assumption. In fact, I would argue that it's at least two additional assumptions:
  1. Human-designed things are conceptually similar to Designer-designed things.
  2. The similarity is due to homology in the design process (including whether they work singly or in groups).
Also, I was under the impression that you and Straggler had agreed that design was being assumed. But, if you've already assumed design, it doesn't seem right to me to also incorporate an assumption based on how design is inferred.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by ringo, posted 04-27-2011 10:23 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by ringo, posted 04-27-2011 10:53 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 300 by Jon, posted 04-27-2011 10:57 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 299 of 377 (613845)
04-27-2011 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Blue Jay
04-27-2011 10:35 PM


Re: Going in Circles
Bluejay writes:
But, the premise that IDists use to infer design is an additional assumption.
Additional to what? Design is the starting point for this discussion.
Bluejay writes:
But, if you've already assumed design, it doesn't seem right to me to also incorporate an assumption based on how design is inferred.
In order to accept the conclusion that the universe was designed, we're accepting whatever premises were used as valid and we're accepting the reasoning as valid. Why shouldn't we extend that same reasoning to its logical conclusion?

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Blue Jay, posted 04-27-2011 10:35 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 300 of 377 (613847)
04-27-2011 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Blue Jay
04-27-2011 10:35 PM


Re: Going in Circles
Also, I was under the impression that you and Straggler had agreed that design was being assumed. But, if you've already assumed design, it doesn't seem right to me to also incorporate an assumption based on how design is inferred.
All the arguments on the number of designers start with the assumption of design, so they're a wash in that regard. This is why we haven't actually had to prove design to discuss whether 'one', or 'more than one', or 'unknown number of' designers is a more likely conclusion.
Yes, we can certainly look within the particular premises that IDists present in support of the notion of design, but that is not really necessary when discussing which of a set of conclusions regarding the number of designers is more parsimonious; so long as we include 'it was designed' in all of our arguments, then this won't do anything to affect the parsimony of the various 'number of designers' arguments relative to one another.
This, of course, being the case only if we are to rely solely on parsimony to determine argument strength.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Blue Jay, posted 04-27-2011 10:35 PM Blue Jay 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