|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,579 Year: 2,836/9,624 Month: 681/1,588 Week: 87/229 Day: 59/28 Hour: 1/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there a legitimate argument for design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3452 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
taiji2 writes:
nothing has been eliminated except within the self-imposed restrictions of science. I propose there is reality that cannot be measured tested and replicated in the laboratory. Percy writes: Of course there is reality that cannot be studied in the laboratory. Many scientific fields study reality outside the laboratory. Geology and cosmology are examples. Wouldn't it be impossible to verify the contention that there are parts of reality that are undetectable? I don't want to get hung up on semantics. If my statement causes confusion, please give me the constraints that science uses beyond which it presumes anything is not real. I will use those constraints with the same questions. Thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
RAZD, Sorry your prior post got jammed up. That is what happened when I put quotes around it. You copied from "Normal" mode -- at the top right corner of the "Message you're replying to:" window there are two buttons, one for "Normal" and one for "Peek Mode:" -- the "Peek Mode" reveals the dbcodes that were used in the post, and when you copy that it (normally) looks the same as the original post (there are some cases where it doesn't, which I have yet to figure out a work-around, but they are rare). You can also use the "Peek" button at the bottom right of any post to see how it is formated. This is a good way to learn additional formating codes. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3452 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
taiji2 writes: Something exhibiting total chaos with nothing that could be mistaken for design ... Dr. Adequate writes: So now we're down to "nothing that could be mistaken for design"? That's a tall order, people can be pretty darn mistaken when it comes to design. Please read Message 404. I think it is somewhat related to your objection. My posit is that there was original design from the gate. Everything from that, through evolution or devolution will not have lost evidence of design. In my view it is a tall order indeed to find anything that does not contain the footprint of design. You are welcome to your view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3452 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
quote: thanks RAZD. this helps a lot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I am arguing front-end design. I don't want to argue where that design came from other than to make the assumption that design is an idea derived from intelligence. In other words, the universe was designed so that abiogenesis and evolution would occur, and that they are the means by which the diversity of life as we know it has occurred Or to be more explicit: what is designed is the set of "natural laws" that govern how thinks work, how gravity works, how fusion and fission work, how chemistry works, etc etc etc and once set in motion, no further activity by god/s is necessary. Thus science can investigate how things work but not why they work the way they do instead of some other way.
Since the idea (design) involved in my notion is primal, it cannot by definition have anything to borrow from. All arguments requiring borrowing are therefore moot. Nor can there be any way to determine design from non-design, ie - that an organism was designed to be as we see it today (a concept that I have some issues with, such as why were there so many wasted paths - extinctions - before getting to the design today) or that the universe was designed to produce an organism as we see today (which I don't have issues with), no matter how sophisticated you consider the organism to be. You can't have it both ways. Note that computer programs have been written and run using evolution algorithms to develop objects to perform certain functions, and it appears to be a very robust method of achieving the end goal - in spite of the dead-ends abandoned along the way.
If design is not, therefore, a good word to use, please give me a better one. Design applies to art as well as to engineering, architecture, and vengeful people (), so I don't have much quibble with just the aspects of design per se, but I do with the concept that any specific organism was intended. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
taiji2 writes: If my statement causes confusion, please give me the constraints that science uses beyond which it presumes anything is not real. I will use those constraints with the same questions. Thanks Your statement didn't cause confusion. I was simply pointing out that science doesn't restrict itself to the laboratory. The scientific method of studying our world and universe can be applied anywhere. The laboratory has the advantage of a controlled environment, but not all phenomena can be studied in the laboratory. Science can't answer questions about whether undetectable phenomena are real. If you claim there is more to reality than what we can detect, science can't verify that claim. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3452 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
I am arguing front-end design. I don't want to argue where that design came from other than to make the assumption that design is an idea derived from intelligence. RAZD writes: In other words, the universe was designed so that abiogenesis and evolution would occur, and that they are the means by which the diversity of life as we know it has occurred This conforms to the evidence so I would conclude this was the design yes.
RAZD writes:
yes yes and yes. However, I do not argue against intervention. It would certainly be possible within my posit, however I have seen no credible evidence to conclude that it has occurred. Further activity by god/s if you want to call it that is not necessary, but then again it is not impossible either.
Or to be more explicit: what is designed is the set of "natural laws" that govern how thinks work, how gravity works, how fusion and fission work, how chemistry works, etc etc etc and once set in motion, no further activity by god/s is necessary. RAZD writes:
I do not know enough about science to offer an opinion of whether science should investigate how but not why. If the field of science decides it needs to know the why I would have no problem with that.
Thus science can investigate how things work but not why they work the way they do instead of some other way. Since the idea (design) involved in my notion is primal, it cannot by definition have anything to borrow from. All arguments requiring borrowing are therefore moot. RAZD writes: Nor can there be any way to determine design from non-design, ie - that an organism was designed to be as we see it today (a concept that I have some issues with, such as why were there so many wasted paths - extinctions - before getting to the design today) or that the universe was designed to produce an organism as we see today (which I don't have issues with), no matter how sophisticated you consider the organism to be. You can't have it both ways. I am not sure exactly where you are going here. Are we talking about the intent of the original design? Design toward a specific predetermined outcome v something else? In my belief system, The Tao continuously creates itself. Intent is not spoken of much. I suppose it could be creating through nothing but front-end design, or using infrequent manipulation as well or using frequent manipulation as well. Taoists don't speculate on that very much in my reading. In fact, there is a warning in Taoism to not think too much on the Tao itself or on creation as this can drive you crazy.
RAZD writes:
interesting. I think it's a good analogy that fits in my cosmic model.
Note that computer programs have been written and run using evolution algorithms to develop objects to perform certain functions, and it appears to be a very robust method of achieving the end goal - in spite of the dead-ends abandoned along the way. If design is not, therefore, a good word to use, please give me a better one. RAZD writes: Design applies to art as well as to engineering, architecture, and vengeful people (), so I don't have much quibble with just the aspects of design per se, but I do with the concept that any specific organism was intended. nothing in my system requires specific organisms as intended Enjoy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
taiji2 writes: I agree ID is a philosophical issue. There are many flavors of ID. I will also look at the Is ID Properly Pursued thread. thanksI also think ID is a science issue if it can be resolved with science. I think it could be, but I'm doubtful there will ever be direct ID science. I think if it is resolve with science it will be because of DNA research and the questions that will demand answer. RAZD writes: Again, I believe that ID uses science to understand how it all works, I am not clear what you mean here. Are you saying ID uses science to understand how ID works? You can take apart a car and study how the parts are shaped, how they interact, and how the whole produces an artifact that can move down the highway. You cannot study why the body design was shaped the way it was, nor why the internal parts have the specific arrangements they have, when there are numerous other patterns that produce a similar result.
perhaps, perhaps not. I will get over to that thread eventually. Gets into whether the why is relegated to intellectual musings or whether the why has something to do with the how. One of the issues (in Is ID properly pursued?) is whether you are seeing design or the appearance of design, as in the patterns seen through a kaleidoscope. It is only by understanding how the kaleidoscope functions that we see that the appearance of design is an artifact of the construction of the kaleidoscope.
RAZD writes: And I would say that any concept that is contradicted by objective empirical evidence is at odds with reality. This is where I have trouble with the smugness of the science community. Science limits science to that which they can observe, measure, test, etc. ( I will say DoScience hereinafter). They then make the A Priori statement that anything that can be contradicted within that framework is at odds with reality. This last sentence seems a little jumbled ... care to clarify?
I don't know how to post a visual, but don't think I need it. Again, you can use peek mode (top right in reply) or the peek button (bottom right of any post) to see how formatting is done. You need a picture posted on the web to link to. They should be open source or your own or explicitly cited with author and location where possible (see forum rules, rule 7). From Perceptions of Reality, take 3 (a closed thread from 2006, suffering from old coding that is now broken, which I will correct in the following quote):
quote: Curiously I don't think that is much different from your ring scenario ...
Draw a large circle. The large circle is the population for:.....don't know the best way to describe it .........lets just call it the the no-bullshit, not illusion or imagination, REAL family of all that actually IS. Within the circle of that large family, I will call it TotalReality for convenience in this conversation, draw a smaller circle. Within this smaller circle, place all the things that man CAN observe, measure, test and validate, DoScience on, . Within that smaller circle, draw another smaller circle. In this circle place all the things science HAS observed, measured, tested and validated, DoneScience on. The only problem I have with this, is that you don't have any way to know with any kind of certainty what the large circle is, the "the no-bullshit, not illusion or imagination, REAL family of all that actually IS" ... and the only known test for determining that something may be in that class is science, where conclusions are tentatively accepted as tested approximations of reality. That's why my circles start from the center with what we can know with some degree of confidence and then work out to areas where we have less and less confidence in those concepts reflecting reality.
I don't believe that scientist would find objectionable the idea that one can move from the smallest circle to the next larger circle. That is everyday science... going from what has been done to what can be done within sciences' self-imposed constraints. Scientists do this every day, building on the known approximation of reality and testing new concepts and ideas to build on and expand that knowledge base.
I do see scientists objecting to the idea of DoScience on things that are admittedly real and possibly CanDoScience. I saw that right here on this thread when I mentioned ideas.... something admittedly real. The problem is not with the concept, but with the known (to scientists) limitations of the scientific method and what science can test, you can't test every idea with science.
Not being a scientist, I cannot make the judgement whether science CAN be done on ideas. I have no answers on how you might observe, measure, test, replicate, etc. ideas. So you would agree that there are some concepts that cannot be studied by the scientific method and tested to see if they are valid approximations of reality ... they can still be rational, logical constructs based on the knowledge that we have, but this moves into the realm of philosophy and out of the realm of science and the ability of science to test. It is in the borderland between known and unknown.
Ideas may be CanDoScience or they may be CannotDoScience. I hope, if attempted, it turns out they are CannotDoScience. That would prove there is TotalReality beyond the box of CanDoScience. ... Curiously all I see it proving is that science cannot test the concept and that means that the validity of the concept is unknown.
... Given that final and absolute admission, scientists should be required to cease claiming that what they can't prove using their rules contradicts reality. First, science doesn't prove things, it shows that models\theories appear to match reality, and that additional refinements as they occur improve the approximation of reality that is the body of scientific knowledge. Second, you have it backwards: if the objective empirical evidence by which we measure reality contradicts a concept (whether scientific, philosophical or belief\opinion\faith) that concept is invalidated by the evidence of reality. Would you not agree that the objective empirical evidence that the earth is an oblate spheroid orbiting the sun in a remote arm of the milky way galaxy is much closer to reality than the concept that the earth is flat, at the center of the earth, and orbited by the sun, planets and stars? Would you not agree that the only way for the earth to be flat, at the center of the earth, and orbited by the sun, planets and stars could be a valid concept is if the objective empirical evidence is illusory\fake\imaginary?
RAZD writes: Science makes the a priori assumption that objective evidence reflects reality, My point exactly. See above. Look up the definition of A Priori and tell me that is scientific. We all start with this assumption, that what we sense is because the objective empirical evidence that we sense is a reflection of reality rather than illusion. And this is why science is and always will be tentative, why the knowledge gleaned has to be considered an approximation of reality.
RAZD writes: and eliminating invalid concepts to improve the accuracy of the approximations (tentative theories). nothing has been eliminated except within the self-imposed restrictions of science. ... So you are saying that the earth is flat, at the center of the earth, and orbited by the sun, planets and stars is a valid concept? You are saying that a 6,000 year old earth is as valid a concept as a 4.5 billion year old earth?
I propose there is reality that cannot be measured tested and replicated in the laboratory. And again, I do not have any problem with this, nor do I think there are many scientists that would have any significant trouble with this statement. That does not mean that what can be tested and measured and modeled is not a good (if not the best we have) approximation of reality.
The scientific claim is valid only if you accept reductionist materialism as the only candidate for REAL And how do you test, detect and separate fact from fiction? What is your method?
RAZD writes: The converse assumption is that all is illusion and you don't know what is 'real' or that anything can be regarded as real. I don't support illusions unless I want to read fiction. And again, how do you test, detect and separate fact from fiction? Got long, sorry, I tend to do that ... got longer by putting in background quotes. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : added quotes within quotes for clarity per Message 430by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3452 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
taiji2 writes:
If my statement causes confusion, please give me the constraints that science uses beyond which it presumes anything is not real. I will use those constraints with the same questions. ThanksPercy writes: Your statement didn't cause confusion. I was simply pointing out that science doesn't restrict itself to the laboratory. The scientific method of studying our world and universe can be applied anywhere. The laboratory has the advantage of a controlled environment, but not all phenomena can be studied in the laboratory. Science can't answer questions about whether undetectable phenomena are real. If you claim there is more to reality than what we can detect, science can't verify that claim. Percy, thank you. I am not trying to be arbitrary, but could you point me to where I suggested answering questions on undetectable phenomena? I did suggest answering questions on phenomena that, by concensus at least, are real. Specifically I questioned whether science could answer questions on the reality of ideas. If so, what would that science look like?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3452 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
RAZD,
I know you excluded the previous message quotes to avoid producing one what would be much longer yet. However, I am having a very hard time jumping into these things mid-quote and figuring them out. I will go back to the original post and do the best I can but it will take me a while.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I don't want to get hung up on semantics. If my statement causes confusion, please give me the constraints that science uses beyond which it presumes anything is not real. I will use those constraints with the same questions. Thanks Let me break it down into four categories:
So the only concepts that are considered "not real" (ie false or invalid) are ones that have been invalidated\falsified, like the flat earth shape and it's relation to the universe or the age of the earth, etc. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3452 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
thanks RAZD. Since these are all concepts referring to the use of the scientific method, could you give me the scientific method?
thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Please see my comments in Message 416 as to the relevance of ideas. If that does not answer your questions let me know and I will come back to this post. I don't think that will be necessary. From your post in 416, I see that I am in the wrong thread. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
taiji2 writes: I am not trying to be arbitrary, but could you point me to where I suggested answering questions on undetectable phenomena? Sure. In Message 416 you said, "Nothing has been eliminated except within the self-imposed restrictions of science. I propose there is reality that cannot be measured tested and replicated in the laboratory." I responded by pointing out that science isn't restricted to the laboratory, and from your earlier discussion with your concentric circles of reality it was clear that what you mean by "cannot be measured, tested and replicated" is that which is undetectable. You had an outer circle that was everything real, and within that another circle of everything that "man CAN observe, measure, test and validate." That you're objecting to my interpretation of what you said tells me that you think there are things we can detect but can't study scientifically. I don't think anything like that exists. If we can detect it, if is apparent to our senses in one way or another, then we can study it scientifically. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3452 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
I have looked back over my posts with you. I do not see the word undetectable except in your mentioning it and in reference to you mentioning it.
I also don't see where I had objected to your interpretation. Since I apparantly communicated badly in the past, I will try it again. I simply want to know if there is anything which science agrees is real but that it also agrees cannot be studied using the scientific method. If the answer is no, then I am ok with that. If the answer is yes, then please give me an example.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024