Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 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: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 109 of 230 (654253)
02-28-2012 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by jchardy
02-26-2012 3:36 AM


Purpose Driven Life
Sounds like you're a secularist.
Strictly speaking, I am a Christian;
You can be a secularist and a Christian.
Secularism is a broad term which I assign mainly to governing institutions, agnostics and atheists.
Anyone who believes that faith should stay out of law or politics, is broadly speaking, a secularist. For obvious reasons, atheists and agnostics are often also secularist.
These are not my words, but I’ll comment as best I can.
No, they were my words - and you responded to them. Only, the point I was making was that your response did not address what I said.
The Designer has no intention of giving us clear-cut evidence of His existence.
Yes, and this is one of those stumbling blocks: If you aren't even able to demonstrate this Designer exists, how have you ascertained:
1. What its intentions are (or rather what he does not intend to do)?
2. That it is a male?
I believe He finds it unwise to confirm His role in anything overtly.
So we've established yet another belief you have that not only doesn't have any evidence, but which also appeals to entities for which you have no evidence of.
It’s up to us to develop the information we need and experiences to affirm in our hearts (i.e., our intuitive selves) His existence and role.
Gathering information and experiences is what science does. Empirical pretty much means 'experience' or 'of the senses'.
So what information and experiences have you gathered to 'intuit' the existence of this designer?
As to what purpose they are even giving. I would say what is their goal.
I would conclude that is Their business and beyond our ability to understand.
In which case, the conclusion that there is a purpose to life, the universe and everything may be a little premature.
Again, of course not! But it’s not necessary because it is intuitive and personal truth --- we call it (for want of a better word) Faith.
This is a key divergence between you and ID - that's my point. IDists have faith in who the designer is, but they believe the idea that there is a designer is scientifically verified. You do not.
But it becomes more than faith when a preponderance of evidence supports the PROBABILITY that this or that is so improbable without some kind of guidance.
I would accept that you have a preponderance of evidence. It is this preponderance that Paley once pointed out. And many people were happy to accept this, based on the preponderance of the evidence (and a spot of confirmation bias). However, science has given us a conclusion that is supported to a higher degree. To stick with the legal analogy, science has demonstrated that the 'this or that' can arise under the guidance of natural forces only...beyond all reasonable doubt.
The right doors open at the right time and we make the right decision to enter (or not enter). It’s all very personal and personal cannot really be objective.
I'm sure you know what you mean here, but it wasn't successfully communicated. Are you suggesting that fortuitous opportunities are some kind of support for an intelligent guidance? I have no idea why that necessarily follows.
In a world of limited resources, there is always going to be fortuitous opportunities that allow us to acquire said resources that happen to some people. Maybe even to everybody, if they live long enough. What need is there for a god to set things up?
The evidence we discern is difficult to analyze and we are rarely privileged to present it as proof of anything tangible. But as time and occurrences accumulate, we are observant and see that --- to us --- personally --- nothing else makes sense.
The problems with this kind of thinking have been made evident. It leads to superstitious belief. You might stumble by accident upon the truth here and there, but chances are you'll pick up lots of nonsense along the way.
For example, it is perfectly possible for a racist to justify their hatred of say, black people, in the same manner. "The evidence I discern is difficult to analyze and I am not privileged to present it as proof of anything tangible. But as time and occurrences accumulate, I have been observant and have seen that --- to me --- personally --- nothing else makes more sense than black people are inferior."
Personal interpretations of personal experiences are fine (as in they work well enough) for everyday experiences, but the universe is a complex place and if we are to seek deep answers we need a better system. A system that seeks to remove confirmation bias from normal human reasoning, indeed a system which allows to bypass all known human biases as best as we can possibly do so.
When trying to come to answers about life, the universe and everything using the 'intuitive'/'personal experience' model we can (and indeed have) come to some pretty strange results. Look at all the various religious answers that have been given as evidence of the possibilities of this method. Our intrinsic cultural biases and cognitive biases can work in daily social life quite successfully, but because the universe doesn't work like primate social structures it isn't really adequate to the task of understanding the real nature of the universe.


In conclusion,
You rely, to some extent, on faith. Faith is essentially believing something is true, with no supporting evidence beyond 'personal experience'. This is one of the problems of reasoning that science is built to evade.
If you are going to build a discourse with those of the scientific mindset, you'll need a strategy to deal with this that does not lead to ill feelings. Simply saying 'Oh, it's faith - my own personal experiences give me the sense, in my heart, that it's true' is not really going to sit well with some scientists; To them, it could be seen as a lazy or evasive answer.
But, I suppose as long as you are not pushing for it to be taught in science class, as long as you are not comparing scientists to genocidal fascists, and as long as you are not telling lies about scientific research - I'm sure you'll find no vitriol from most scientists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by jchardy, posted 02-26-2012 3:36 AM jchardy has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(5)
Message 130 of 230 (654730)
03-03-2012 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by jchardy
03-02-2012 8:23 PM


What to say
My (JCH) belief is that there have been numerous unjust actions by both sides in this controversy. What I would hope is that there can be a new beginning without being burdened by previous injustices. What both sides in this controversy should do is remove their boots from the other’s neck and allow an interchange untrammeled by bias and, particularly poisonous words. I don’t think it is necessary to even mention those words since any well meaning and open minded adherent on either side know those words and when they come to the point of being put into writing, they must learn to restrain themselves. They know it poisons the well and will end discourse (which it seems may be their real goal).
I'm keen to see this discussion happen. How do you imagine it would go?
IDist: I believe there is purpose and design behind the universe.
Scientist: There is no evidence to support that belief.
IDist: I know.
Scientist: Anything else?
IDist: I think that just about covers it.
Scientist: I have work to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by jchardy, posted 03-02-2012 8:23 PM jchardy has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 150 of 230 (655096)
03-07-2012 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by jchardy
03-07-2012 12:48 AM


the marriage of ID and science
I find the lack of gradualism (graded evolutionary change sequentially in continuum) a problem with classical Darwinian evolution.
Darwin was not a classical gradualist (aka phyletic gradualist). As he said in the Origin of Species:
quote:
But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification
I want to convince as many as possible that MUTUAL RESPECT BETWEEN INTELLIGENT PEOPLE SHOULD be the operator in discussion.
Naturally, you won't convince everybody to have a discussion with mutual respect. There will always be some that do not believe that respect has been earned. That said, there are still some that would happily engage with you in a manner that can be said to be polite and respectful.
All you need do is move on from this meta-discussion, to an actual discussion ID. Then you can ignore those you find disrespectful (or ideally, report them).
You may not realize this, but there are some ID supporters who do real scientific research. NOT on PROOVING intelligent design (even teleologic ID) — since ID can never be proven --- obviously! But those who have a faith-based belief ensconced in their final results keep that belief well hidden, because should they discuss their interpretations openly, they would be maligned and ostracized and their work ignored or denied publication no matter how valid because there is such an incredibly strong bias against such scientists.
This has been claimed, and was even the subject of a documentary. Unfortunately, the evidence that supports this is very weak.
IDists have unfortunately shot themselves in the foot on this subject. By using dishonest tactics to shoehorn papers into peer-reviewed literature they have lost their credibility and respect.
They have started their own journals, but the ideas they put forward in them have yet to pass the arguably more grueling round of peer review: Post publishing review.
It would be almost like being of the wrong caste or wrong race or wrong sexual orientation which seems to be much more reasonably tolerated today than having a faith based interpretation of anything. How can such a disparity exist in the 21st century?
I can assure you that in America at least, this is completely wrong. Can you imagine a gay president? A black president is still a novel idea. Can you imagine a president with faith?
Of course you can imagine a president with faith. Having faith is still socially acceptable in American society. It's still socially acceptable in Europe, too. This is the sign of privilege - being completely blind to just how good the faithful have it. In fact, there is strong social pressures towards having faith, with a large number of people who say they wouldn't vote for someone who has rejected faith. Anyone that criticizes the privilege that faith has acquired is subject to harassment, death threats and the like.
However, a 'faith based interpretation' will get you kicked out of a serious scientific discussion. Serious scientific discussions surround evidence not taking anything on faith, nullius in verba!
WRONG — WRONG — WRONG! ID is an INTERPRETATION, NOT an attack on science.
It is, in some sense, an attack on science. As the testimony at the Dover Trial shows: IDists want to redefine science in such a way that ID is science. Their redefinition would mean that astrology is also science.
You might not. But then again, as I have previously commented, you are not part of the ID movement.
Those who claim no need for a spiritual connection with the universe are simply deluding themselves.
Probably not on topic, but the feeling that you are connected in some spiritual way to the universe is a classic delusion, I'm afraid. You've got it the wrong way around.
Unless you are defining spiritual to mean 'have an emotional response to' or something banal - in which case I urge you to use less loaded language to make your points.
We LOVE science; we love especially mathematics which provides insights into theories (some of which are ours about the fundamentals of matter --- ordinary and dark, and the interchangeability of energy with matter).
You might love science. But so many IDists that have come before you have maligned scientists, used pseudoscience that looks plausible to their target audience: layfolk, and other assorted tactics.
If you are coming here to have a discussion about ID which doesn't do anything like that, then you are welcome. Start a new thread to debate the evidence.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by jchardy, posted 03-07-2012 12:48 AM jchardy has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 227 of 230 (655986)
03-15-2012 8:19 AM


ID and JC
Concern Troll: A concern troll visits sites of an opposing ideology and offers advice on how they could "improve" things, either in their tactical use of rhetoric, site rules, or with more philosophical consistency. A typical formulation might involve the troll's invocation of a site's espoused ideals alongside a perceived example of hypocrisy (such as contrasting "we value free speech" with the banning of a "dissenter"), and with a call for some relevant reform by the troll. This reform will frequently be burdensome or silly - the concern troll's message is: "I have some concerns about your methods. If you did these things to make your message less effective, it would be more effective.". Surprisingly, there are people who spend so much time on the Internet that this is actually a thing they worry about....
One common tactic of concern trolls is the "a plague on both your houses" approach, where the concern troll tries to convince people that both sides of the ideological divide are just as bad as each other, and so no one can think themselves "correct" but must engage in endless hedging and caveats. This preys on a willingness to debate critics and allow dissent; everyone wastes time discussing the matter and bending over backwards, so as not to appear intolerant of disagreement, all to the great amusement of the troll.
From Rational wiki
Tone Troll: A tone troll is a serious-minded person who wants only to raise the level of discussion in the dire cesspits of the New Atheist web. Or, possibly, they're a pompous blowhard who, lacking such frivolous accoutrements as an actual argument, attempts to distract attention from said deficit by complaining that their opposition uses dirty words and ought, really, to have some strict nanny figurepossibly Mary Poppinsto wash out their mouths with soap. From Pharyngula

JC told us that some people in the debate can be a bit nasty, unpleasant or disrespectful. He tried to start a meta-debate on the issue. I was never completely persuaded he was a likely candidate to actually debate ID.
We are rightfully pissed off at the ID movement, a specific theistic movement that has co-opted teleology and asserts there is sufficient evidence (often at the microbiological level) that demonstrates the truth of the designer.. A specific movement that sows seeds of doubt into the minds of the lay public as a means to gain finances to continuing sowing seeds of doubt.
There are many legitimate reasons for scientist's enmity of ID, from accusations of scientist's conspiracies, fraud, lies, dirty tricks....ID often slanders or libels the reputation of science, while being a dirty organisation themselves.
Illumination is not the goal of ID, but confusion and the undermining of evolution (and if possible, any remotely related sciences can be undermined by guilt by association). In this, maybe JC is an ID supporter - but in seriousness I think it is a supporter of the philosophical idea of teleology and knows its limits (and knows that faith is required to jump certain hurdles in reasoning).
Maybe JC will be back one day, and maybe he'll even try and defend an ID perspective. I suspect not. Maybe he'll disown the ID Movement and be content with a philosophical argument about teleology, but I carry little hope that is the case.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024