Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance.
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 226 of 301 (371566)
12-22-2006 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by GDR
12-21-2006 8:57 PM


Science not yet done by IDists
When Richard Dawkins starts talking about memes, or explanations for consciousness it is just as much a matter of faith as is God did it.
And yet we see evidence of "memes" in other animals:
Blue Planet Biomes - Japanese Macaque
quote:
Scientists have begun to rethink their ideas on culture within monkey society in a large part because of the Japanese macaques. It has been observed that the macaques invent new behaviors and pass them on by immitation. In 1963 a young female named Mukubili waded into a hot spring in the Nagano Mountains to retrieve some soybeans that had been thrown in by the keepers. She liked the warmth and soon other young monkeys joined her. At first the behavior caught on only with the young macaques and their mothers. Over the years the rest of the troop took up the behavior, which now finds shelter in the 109 F (43 C) hot springs to escape the winter cold. Young monkeys have also learned how to roll snowballs, which doesn't have any survival purpose, but with which they have a lot of fun, much like human children.
Behavior passed on from generation to generation, behavior that has a survival benefit (except maybe the snowballs), but is not part of the genetic inheritance: meme.
If there is no empirical evidence a theistic explanation is just as valid as a materialistic explanation.
Then we are de facto ignorant of the evidence, and thus any concept based on ignorance is as good as another eh?
The difference is that one makes predictions for what fills the gap and then looks for them, the other finds comfort in preserving ignorance. Take your pick.
I have no problem with people finding comfort in faith based concepts as long as they (1) don't stop science from finding answers, and (2) don't ignore evidence that contradicts the concepts.
When you ignore contradictory evidence you have crossed the line from faith to delusion.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by GDR, posted 12-21-2006 8:57 PM GDR has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 227 of 301 (371608)
12-22-2006 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by iceage
12-22-2006 3:00 AM


Re: Science done by IDists
iceage writes:
Memetics: the theoretical and empirical science that studies the replication, spread and evolution of memes
Dawkins in "A Devil's Chaplain" writes:
Another objection is that we don't know what memes are made of, or where they reside. Memes have not yet found their Watson and Crick; they even lack their Mendel. Whereas genes are to be found in precise locations on chromosones, memes presumably exist in brains, and we have even less chance of seeing one than of seeing a gene (though the neurobiologist Juan Delius has pictured his conjecture of what a meme might look like).
Dawkins talks about memes like believers talk about God. Dawkins may be a fine scientist but that doesn't mean that everything he says is scientific.
Your quote from wiki only tells a part of what is said. Further on in that wiki link it states "Memetics can be simply understood as a method for scientific analysis of cultural evolution". Memetics is a method of analyising cultural changes which is not the same thing at all as believing that memes actually exist. The study of cultural change can be tested; the study of memes can't.
Cultural changes happen. Dawkins can say that they occur because of memes whereas a Theist can say that they change because of the way that we are designed. Neither is scientific nor can they be tested by empirical means.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by iceage, posted 12-22-2006 3:00 AM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by iceage, posted 12-22-2006 3:04 PM GDR has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 228 of 301 (371612)
12-22-2006 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by RickJB
12-22-2006 5:43 AM


Re: Science done by IDists
RickJB writes:
Wrong. One is bourne out of faith, the other is tentatively indicated by circumstantial empirical evidence.
That same circumstatial empirical evidence can be used to come to the conclusion that we are designed. Either position requires faith.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by RickJB, posted 12-22-2006 5:43 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by RickJB, posted 12-22-2006 11:52 AM GDR has replied
 Message 230 by jar, posted 12-22-2006 11:52 AM GDR has replied
 Message 231 by NosyNed, posted 12-22-2006 12:22 PM GDR has replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 229 of 301 (371622)
12-22-2006 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by GDR
12-22-2006 11:30 AM


Re: Science done by IDists
GDR writes:
That same circumstatial empirical evidence can be used to come to the conclusion that we are designed.
Two questions:-
1. Which circumstantial evidence points to ID?
2. In what way has this circumstantial evidence been used to make successful predictions and to unearth direct evidence?
GDR writes:
Either position requires faith.
Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. Scientists go out and try to find evidence, they don't rely on faith. If they did rely only on faith then you certainly wouldn't be typing messages into a computer right now.
For a scientist a gap in any evidence is a challenge to be solved. For many people of faith the same gap represents an escape route into an oasis of ignorance where their beliefs cannot be challenged.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by GDR, posted 12-22-2006 11:30 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by GDR, posted 12-22-2006 2:25 PM RickJB has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 230 of 301 (371623)
12-22-2006 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by GDR
12-22-2006 11:30 AM


Re: Science done by IDists
That same circumstatial empirical evidence can be used to come to the conclusion that we are designed.
But NOT to the conclusion that we are "Intelligently Designed."
Either position requires faith.
No. Faith is a belief in that which cannot be seen or examined. The former position can be based solely on the evidence while the later requires an initial "Faith" in the existence of some Designer.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by GDR, posted 12-22-2006 11:30 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by GDR, posted 12-22-2006 2:29 PM jar has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 231 of 301 (371636)
12-22-2006 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by GDR
12-22-2006 11:30 AM


Which type of design
That same circumstatial empirical evidence can be used to come to the conclusion that we are designed. Either position requires faith.
There is considerable evidence that the type of "design" that we are an example of is exactly NOT the kind of designs that humans (the only intelligent designers we know of) produce.
In fact, the evidence (not "circumstantial" -- but I'm not sure what you mean with that word) shows that we are a product of evolutionary processes because we are formed in exactly the way that experimental "designs" produced by those processes are formed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by GDR, posted 12-22-2006 11:30 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by GDR, posted 12-22-2006 2:37 PM NosyNed has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 232 of 301 (371653)
12-22-2006 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by RickJB
12-22-2006 11:52 AM


Re: Science done by IDists
RickJD writes:
Two questions:-
1. Which circumstantial evidence points to ID?
2. In what way has this circumstantial evidence been used to make successful predictions and to unearth direct evidence?
1. The moral code. The intracacy, balance and symmetry in nature. Our ability to love or hate, know sorrow or joy, appreciate beauty, etc. That we can express ideas.
2. In no way. Neither can the study of memes.
Memetics as I posted earlier is the study of cultural evolution. I am not saying that cultural evolution doesn't occur. What I am saying is that there is no empirical evidence to explain why cultural evidence occurs. Dawkins and others propose memes whereas others like myself believe that there is the hand of a designer behind the process.
Neither position is scientific so we are forced to come to our own conclusions based on non-scientific evidence.
GDR writes:
Either position requires faith.
RickJD writes:
Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. Scientists go out and try to find evidence, they don't rely on faith. If they did rely only on faith then you certainly wouldn't be typing messages into a computer right now.
Saying that memes exist doesn't make it true either. I agree that scientists try and find evidence. But when they, (as Dawkins does with memes), can't find empirical evidence and go ahead and publish the theory anyway, then it becomes an issue of faith. Either the metaphysical exists or it doesn't. We are not going to be able to prove either position through empirical means.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by RickJB, posted 12-22-2006 11:52 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by RickJB, posted 12-22-2006 3:39 PM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 233 of 301 (371654)
12-22-2006 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by jar
12-22-2006 11:52 AM


Re: Science done by IDists
jar writes:
But NOT to the conclusion that we are "Intelligently Designed."
I understand that you would have done better but I guess God just had to go with the intelligence that he had.
jar writes:
No. Faith is a belief in that which cannot be seen or examined. The former position can be based solely on the evidence while the later requires an initial "Faith" in the existence of some Designer.
Memes cannot be seen or examined thus requiring faith, whether or not an intelligent designer exists or not.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by jar, posted 12-22-2006 11:52 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2006 2:36 PM GDR has replied
 Message 238 by jar, posted 12-22-2006 3:00 PM GDR has not replied

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


Message 234 of 301 (371655)
12-22-2006 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by GDR
12-22-2006 2:29 PM


Re: Science done by IDists
quote:
Memes cannot be seen or examined thus requiring faith,
Unless you're going intpo the philosophy of "zombies" you really don't have a point. If you're prepared to make the minimum philosophical commitment that other people have minds then memes are clearly indirectly observable. You can just ask people about their beleifs and where they got them from !
Why are you so dead set against the idea of memes anyway ? You keep going on about it, to no good point. Why ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by GDR, posted 12-22-2006 2:29 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by GDR, posted 12-22-2006 2:46 PM PaulK has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 235 of 301 (371656)
12-22-2006 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by NosyNed
12-22-2006 12:22 PM


Re: Which type of design
NosyNed writes:
There is considerable evidence that the type of "design" that we are an example of is exactly NOT the kind of designs that humans (the only intelligent designers we know of) produce.
In fact, the evidence (not "circumstantial" -- but I'm not sure what you mean with that word) shows that we are a product of evolutionary processes because we are formed in exactly the way that experimental "designs" produced by those processes are formed.
(I was quoting Rick, when I used the term "circumstantial".)
This is just the same old argument. I'm not arguing that the evolutionary processes exist.
Why do they exist? How did they come into existence in the first place?
These questions can't be answered by the scientific method. All we can do, as I said, is look at the non-scientific aspects of our existence and come to our own conclusions. In my view none of this or us would exist without an intelligent designer. Science is about discovering what we can about the nature of the design.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by NosyNed, posted 12-22-2006 12:22 PM NosyNed has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 236 of 301 (371658)
12-22-2006 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by PaulK
12-22-2006 2:36 PM


Re: Science done by IDists
PaulK writes:
Why are you so dead set against the idea of memes anyway ? You keep going on about it, to no good point. Why ?
Atheists are forever accusing theists of using the argument of "God of the Gaps". I as a theist contend that atheists do exactly the same thing.
There is evidence that cultural evolution exists. Why does it exist. A theist would suggest the possibility that maybe this is part of a metaphysical design. Dawkins, the atheist, suggests the possibility of memes. Theists fill the gap with an intelligent designer and Atheists fill the gap with memes. "God of the Gaps" or "Science of the Gaps". Your choice.
There is no empirical evidence for either thus both positions are positions of faith.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2006 2:36 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2006 2:56 PM GDR has not replied

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


Message 237 of 301 (371661)
12-22-2006 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by GDR
12-22-2006 2:46 PM


Re: Science done by IDists
quote:
Atheists are forever accusing theists of using the argument of "God of the Gaps". I as a theist contend that atheists do exactly the same thing.
So since you got offended that atheists tell the truth, you want to try to turn the argument back on them. Not a very good idea.
quote:
There is evidence that cultural evolution exists. Why does it exist. A theist would suggest the possibility that maybe this is part of a metaphysical design. Dawkins, the atheist, suggests the possibility of memes. Theists fill the gap with an intelligent designer and Atheists fill the gap with memes. "God of the Gaps" or "Science of the Gaps". Your choice.
As far as I am aware the gap was filled long before the memes were formally proposed. There is no science of the gaps here - just observations.
And equally there is no "God of the Gaps" argument - just an assumption without evidence. Really you are taking a creationist-like position of denying the existence of relevant evidence because you don't like the answers it points to.
quote:
There is no empirical evidence for either thus both positions are positions of faith.
If you really want to assert that the writings of, say Locke, Mill or Adam Smith - or the U.S. Consitution and the Federalist Papers - don't exist or had no influence then you would be going against the empirical evidence. There is certainly empirical evidence that the writings exist and that people appeal to these writings to justify policies with cultural effects. To deny that cultures can change naturally is simply absurd.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by GDR, posted 12-22-2006 2:46 PM GDR has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 238 of 301 (371663)
12-22-2006 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by GDR
12-22-2006 2:29 PM


Re: Science done by IDists
I understand that you would have done better but I guess God just had to go with the intelligence that he had.
If you look at the product, critters, then hell yes I could do better. See Message:8 of the Intelligent Design, an Engineering Perspective.
Memes cannot be seen or examined thus requiring faith, whether or not an intelligent designer exists or not.
But they can. We do just that here at EvC and in fact, that is exactly what you are doing in questioning my Memes.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by GDR, posted 12-22-2006 2:29 PM GDR has not replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 239 of 301 (371664)
12-22-2006 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by GDR
12-22-2006 11:24 AM


Re: Science done by IDists
Earlier you said there is no empirical evidence for memes. I pointed out there is empirical evidence.
For example, the speed at which a meme spreads has been analyzed so that one can predict how fast a meme will spread through a population (within the minds of humans at least). There are papers that empirically derive "transmission coefficients" based on empirical data.
GDR writes:
Further on in that wiki link it states "Memetics can be simply understood as a method for scientific analysis of cultural evolution". Memetics is a method of analyising cultural changes which is not the same thing at all as believing that memes actually exist.
OK From a practical point of view, if a method of analyzing cultural changes works and finds value in predicting outcomes and explaining phenomenon that is better than a alternating method that does not.
GDR writes:
Cultural changes happen. Dawkins can say that they occur because of memes whereas a Theist can say that they change because of the way that we are designed. Neither is scientific nor can they be tested by empirical means.
Can you elaborate. I am fuzzy on how Theism predicts or explains cultural change. I am not even sure how the concept of a meme is apposed to intelligent design?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by GDR, posted 12-22-2006 11:24 AM GDR has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 240 of 301 (371665)
12-22-2006 3:07 PM


Abstractions
Aren't memes just an abstraction of data. Aren't they just a framework for interpreting data in the same way that Freud's ego, superego and id were frameworks for interpreting psychological data?
In other words, you can't "observe" a meme. Memes are just a way of interpreting and grouping cultural data. They have no actual reality, which is what I think GDR means. (Or if he doesn't mean that, then he should. )
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by PaulK, posted 12-22-2006 3:16 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 247 by GDR, posted 12-22-2006 6:34 PM Percy 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