Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Testing Theories of Origins
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(2)
Message 57 of 143 (694452)
03-24-2013 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by designtheorist
03-24-2013 8:08 PM


Re: The Major Tests
Hi, Designtheorist (May I call you DT?).
I think you should try the word "heuristic" on for size. Heuristics are sort of like mental shortcuts or "rules of thumb": techniques you use to make quick evaluations or decisions when you don't have the ability to perform an actual test.
I think all of Ross's "minor tests" are better described as heuristics. As such, they only serve as rough indicators of the success of a model, but not as actual tests, and shouldn't be regarded as such.
designtheorist1 writes:
1. "Censorship is not a good test because we have the right to censor out bad science or anything that sniffs of religion or god."
I disagree. Forget about teaching creationism in the public schools. That is not what this test is about. The test is about publishing the evidence so it can be examined and debated. There is lots of science published that turns out to be bad science and is ultimately rejected. Science is supposed to be self-correcting but it cannot be if one viewpoint is precluded from participating. The attempt to censor all science papers that lead to a discussion of the supernatural is wrong. If the evidence points to the supernatural, then follow the evidence.
I think this test has confirmatory power.
This is based on the mistaken belief that empirical evidence is the only currency by which ideas are valued, and that a lack of evidence is the only possible weakness a theory might have. But, in fact, there are other weaknesses to consider.
For example, Christianity is designed specifically so that anybody can understand it and ostensibly be saved by its principles, while science is significantly more difficult to understand, and it takes time, effort and training to get good at it. A push for censorship of ideas derived from Christianity might therefore reflect fear of that sort of weakness, rather than a fear of any empirical weaknesses in scientific models.
Thus, this "test" might be used as a heuristic, but it isn't much of an actual test.
designtheorist1 writes:
2. "Stultification is not a good test because it only applies to religious dogma placing certain conclusions beyond question. It cannot possibly apply to our model."
No, Darwinian orthodoxy is stultifying. People refuse to look at the evidence because they know that any change of mind would be bad for their career.
This test has confirmatory power.
I think you've provided an inaccurate caricature of your opponents with that summary. In truth, I can't deny that career considerations are strong motivators in science, and that, when free-market competition gives way to a monopoly, the effect can be stultifying. But, I think you and I might disagree that the sciences are currently in a state of stultification.
Also, take care that you're not confusing the specific rejection of your preferred model with a general, stultifying orthodoxy. For example, Darwinian orthodoxy has relatively recently surrendered ground to non-Darwinian hypotheses, like endosymbiosis and lateral gene transfer, and coexists quite well with them. So, the refusal of the scientific community to consider a given idea is not evidence that the community is generally unwilling to alter its canon.
Also, stultification may occur because of a law of diminishing returns. The whole point of science is to get better and better at explaining reality. If our theories don't become more and more rigid over time, isn't that an indication that we're not getting any better at explaining reality?
designtheorist1 writes:
3. "Integration is a good test for young-earth creationism but there is no evidence it is a good general test."
Actually, integration is my favorite among these minor tests. The early conditions of the universe were very special and could not have come about by random chance. The one-time only, low entropy Big Bang has implications for any model of origins. So also, do the hundreds of examples of the fine-tuned universe.
This test has confirmatory power.
Integration is very dicey. In some cases, a "grand universal theory" is desirable. But, in other cases, it becomes problematic, because it incentivizes simplification at the expense of explanatory power.
For example, take the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. It attempts to integrate all the different features of human anatomy into a single explanatory framework. When you look across all the evidence in a superficial manner, the idea that humans had a semi-aquatic ancestor kind of looks compelling. But, when you examine specific pieces of evidence in finer detail, you realize that there are better explanations for each of them, and that the overall model is only compelling because of its scope and simplicity.
So, while successful theories should have a good history of integration, there's no reason why a bad theory would necessarily have a bad history of integration. That makes it an unreliable test.
designtheorist1 writes:
4. "Research passion is not a good test because it results only from removing religious stultification."
Again, this is an attempt to judge the test based on the evidence. The test needs to be judged on its own prior to examining the evidence. An increase in research passion is a plus in my view.
I view this test as having confirmatory power.
Too many things meet the criteria of "engendering zeal" and "igniting enthusiasm" for this to really be compelling to me. For example, the fear of cancer "engenders zeal" and "ignites enthusiasm" for biomedical research. But, I would hardly argue that cancer-phobia is a good scientific model of biomedical science.
Because of things like this, it's too difficult to tell what's actually engendering the zeal or igniting the enthusiasm. People may like creationism because of the perceived positive "destiny implications," rather than because of its empirical validity.
So, zeal and enthusiasm are bad criteria for assessing empirical validity.
designtheorist1 writes:
5. "How is Destiny Implications a valid test?"
Actually, I'm not certain it is.
I'm certain that it isn't, for the same reason that bribery is not a valid means of finding a reliable eyewitness testimony.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by designtheorist, posted 03-24-2013 8:08 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 8:50 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


(1)
Message 112 of 143 (694581)
03-25-2013 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by designtheorist
03-25-2013 8:50 AM


Re: The Major Tests
Hi, DT.
designtheorist writes:
When I see evidence of censorship or stultification, it is an indication of weakness. It is like a pointer: "Dig here. Find out why they are afraid to debate the issues in the literature."
In the post I was responding to, you stated clearly that you thought the censorship and stultification tests had "confirmatory power." But, this new statement sounds like you've toned it down to "indicatory power": that is, it indicates that there might be an issue, but the test itself can't determine that.
Is this correct?
designtheorist writes:
I don't think endosymbiosis or lateral gene transfer are contrary to Darwinism in any way. So Darwinism has not "yielded" at all.
How do you determine when a field has stultified? Do you consider a field stultified anytime it has achieved a measure of consensus on a certain idea?
designtheorist writes:
I think you have misunderstood the integration test. The idea is not simplification at all. And it will not damage explanatory power but rather enhance it.
Simplification and diminished explanatory power may not be the idea of integration, but they can sometimes result from integration. So, it isn't obvious that integration is a positive indicator, and that lack of integration is a negative indicator.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 8:50 AM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 11:50 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


(2)
Message 122 of 143 (694641)
03-26-2013 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by designtheorist
03-26-2013 9:01 AM


Re: Attempt at a Summation
Hi, DT.
designtheorist writes:
i know there are several people who want this thread to end so we can get to the evidence.
Nobody seems more interested in ending this thread than you.
designtheorist writes:
Explanatory Power - the best model is the one with the greatest explanatory power, the ability to explain all the data relevant to origins in all the different scientific disciplines.
As Dr Adequate said upthread, is it too easy to simply manufacture additional explanatory power by adding assumptions or removing details. Explanatory power is a minimal standard for any model: the model must meet this standard in order to be considered plausible, but meeting this standard is not enough to demonstrate how good the model is.
-----
For the minor tests, you basically assume that the empirical strength is the only criterion that each test speaks to. But, in fact, every result of the test could point to at least two possible explanations.
designtheorist writes:
Censorship - If one model is attempting to censor another model, this is an indication of weakness in the censoring model. It indicates its proponents are unwilling to compete in the open market place of ideas which is the scientific journals. (This test has nothing to do with public schools) If there is no censorship, this is a sign of strength.
There are too many reasons for censoring and too many reasons for not censoring. You might censor an opposing model because your own model is empirically weak. But, you also might do it because of non-empirical weaknesses. Or, you might censor one idea for economy (a journal that gets too many submissions might be looking for easy excuses to reject more papers, for example).
On the other hand, you might refrain from censoring an opponent because your own model is strong enough to not need it. But, that's not the only reason you might refrain. You also might refrain from censoring them because your political status is not strong enough to pull it off; or because all your past attempts at censorship have failed.
So, engaging in censorship doesn't reliably point to empirical weakness in your model, and refraining from censorship doesn't reliably point to empirical strengths in your model. Thus, this test does not yield any reliable results.
designtheorist writes:
Stultification - If scientists are punished or feel threatened for taking a stance on origins or even questioning some of the evidence, then stultification is present and this is a sign of weakness. In the past, this has been used in the case of Galileo among others. Recent examples include Carolyn Crocker and Thomas Nagel, who are considered heretics against Darwinism. If there is no stultification, that is a strength that has confirmatory power. If it is present, that is a weakness that needs investigation.
You're veering away from "stultification" and toward "censorship" here. Stultification is the slowing of advancement and progress, not the fear of punishment. Ross's vision here seems to be that science should be in a constant state dynamic flux, and the lack of such a state is an indication that science is reaching the end of a dead-end path.
But, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not clear on how you determine whether stultification is actually happening. For example, how do you distinguish the undesirable process of stagnation due to the dominance of poor avenues of research, from the desirable process of solidifying science into a rigid body of theory as it gets closer to accurately representing reality?
Good theories become less malleable over time precisely because they get closer to accurately representing reality. This could easily cause a slowing of advancement, because each step closer to the end goal leaves that much less advancement for future scientists to make.
So, how do you determine if a field is stultified?

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by designtheorist, posted 03-26-2013 9:01 AM designtheorist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Taq, posted 03-27-2013 1:26 PM Blue Jay 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 126 of 143 (694690)
03-27-2013 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by NoNukes
03-27-2013 7:59 AM


Re: Same stuff different day
Designtheorist is a very good writer, though; so it all sounds pretty good. I either hadn't seen his stuff here before or didn't remember it, and I'll admit that I was rather enthusiastic about this thread when I saw how well he could write.
He certainly keeps a positive attitude, as well: he didn't get angry or rebuke me when I wrote a few pointed things. So, kudos to him for that.
But, this is creationism, I think: lots of nice presentation, but very poor substance. Kind of like all the ads on TV.
And I still don't know what the "RTB Model" is.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by NoNukes, posted 03-27-2013 7:59 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by NoNukes, posted 03-27-2013 10:23 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied
 Message 128 by subbie, posted 03-27-2013 10:41 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied
 Message 129 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-27-2013 10:53 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied
 Message 130 by Percy, posted 03-27-2013 10:57 AM Blue Jay 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


(3)
Message 134 of 143 (694734)
03-27-2013 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Tangle
03-27-2013 11:28 AM


Re: Same stuff different day
Hi, Tangle.
Tangle writes:
But it's all directed at avoiding reality. Belief pollutes reason, even in otherwise reasonable people and I really don't get it.
I get it, because I witness it in myself all the time.
Back in 2010, there were a certain series of vicious debates here, primarily between RAZD and Straggler, but I think it started with Bluegenes arguing that he could scientifically conclude that all supernatural entities exist only in human imagination. I was a major participant in those discussions, and I supported RAZD's position, which was that, if you can't test the supernatural directly, then you can't test alternative explanations for alleged supernatural events.
I was eventually convinced that I was wrong, but it took multiple threads of heated discussion. Straggler was arguing that, if I can conclude from past experience that gravity will make my pen drop to the desktop, then I can conclude from past experience that all claims of supernatural entities are made up. I got so sick of hearing about gravity and pens dropping, because I was so sure that the rules were different for the supernatural.
Just now I went back and reread some of those old posts, to which I will not be providing links here (it's kind of embarrassing, so you can find them on your own ). I vaguely remember being frustrated with Straggler for treating me like a simpleton when I was clearly a genius, and so frustrated with myself for not being able to explain things well enough that Straggler could understand something that was blindingly obvious.
I think I've started putting up mental blocks around it now, because I don't remember much of the specifics anymore. It's sort of like one of those surreal, out-of-body experiences. I can't put myself back in that mindset and figure out what it was that made me so sure I was right, that made all that faulty logic seem accurate. It's almost like reading things that somebody else posted.
But, I do remember what it felt like, and I'm sure Designtheorist is feeling the same thing right now: he's trying to figure out why, despite his best efforts, we can't understand something that is so damn obvious that it shouldn't even be controversial. Faith expresses similar frustrations all the time.
I know exactly what it feels like: it's the same thing I felt when Bolder-dash couldn't see the beards on the chimpanzee photos I showed him. The only difference is that, before, it was me who wasn't seeing chimpanzee beards. I mean, it was so obvious that that chimpanzee did not have a beard. I couldn't understand how Straggler could possibly think there was a beard there.
In retrospect, it was just cognitive dissonance. And some people, like myself, are just not very good at recognizing it: so, we plow on, completely oblivious to the fact that we're wrong.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Tangle, posted 03-27-2013 11:28 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Tangle, posted 03-27-2013 3:13 PM Blue Jay has 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