|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why only one Designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Bluejay writes:
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. 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, 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Bluejay writes:
Sure we can. In this case, you can't answer the question---"How many designers designed the universe?"---unless you incorporate an additional assumption. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes:
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. The conclusion of 'unknown number' is as much of a conclusion as any other number that might be offered up as a conclusion. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
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:
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Bluejay writes:
Additional to what? Design is the starting point for this discussion.
But, the premise that IDists use to infer design is an additional assumption. Bluejay writes:
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? 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. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024