|
Author
|
Topic: Introduction to Multiple Designers Theory
|
Xenon
Member
Member # 435
|
posted 30. September 2002 01:27
"Mike Gene: But this is what tips the whole argument in my favor.
Can you run a MDT approach without a) independent knowledge about the designers and b) independent knowledge about the designers' acts of designing?
"
Mike, to be sure, I do not know just what you are arguing. But you write as if it is in my interest to disagree with you. Far from it. If I make an argument 'in your favor' then good for me. ;-)
Off hand, my answers to both of them are no. Knowledge about the medium in which the designer operates is necessary, but not specific knowledge about the designers. That was my point. One cannot make reasoned conclusions about software without understanding what software is or the logic behind software development. I am unsure how my statement you quoted led you to the two questions above. For example, are you arguing that a biologist studying life has a) independent knowledge of the designers of IC components of living systems and b) has independent knowledge of the designers designing the IC systems? Or are you arguing that nonbiologists (not trained in biology) are better qualifed to judge whether systems are IC, because somehow they are less biased?
I guess I will answer the questions more specifically whenever you have more time.
Xe
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 01. October 2002 23:28
I'm really hurting for time this week, but I'll say a couple of things in response to Mike Gene. First, he wrote quote:
My juvenile examples were crafted simply to flush out the fact that you have no useful criteria for detecting multiple designers, let alone arriving at your even more ambitious goal of learning something substantial about the character of the designers.
You're right, of course: I don't have a fully worked out methodology. What I have offered are some analogies with human design detection, some potential methodological pathways, and a hearty urging to Dembski-style IDists to "Go do it!" Every single example of design we are given by Dembski and his followers to illustrate the application of his design detection scheme is focused on human designs. I've extended that a bit to look at multiple designers, a hypothesis that has at least as much support as does the single-designer hypothesis, since MDT inherits whatever support SDT has plus MDT has additional support in the various biological phenomena mentioned in previous posts. And given a multiple designer hypothesis, there's actually some research to do.
Mike G wrote quote:
And I just don't see how someone is going to achieve your objectives working only with the designed-thing in question. This whole topic of design vs. no design is ambiguous enough and I think your approach merely amplifies the ambiguity.
Ambiguous? Not if you read Dembski. There it's a done deal, and all I've done is accept his professed ability to detect design and extended it the next wholly reasonable step.
ID rejects the evolutionary position that natural processes can produce the appearance of design in biological systems, and it rejects natural explanations for such phenomena. If natural processes can't produce biological structures and processes with the appearance of design, then what produces that appearance? To deny one mechanism for producing the appearance of design and then assert that the denial doesn't immediately and urgently raise the question of an alternative method of producing it is to live in dreamland.
All we have to work with are the "designed-things,' the biological structures and processes alleged to be designed, and not very many of those, in fact. As I noted, no IDist has bothered to do the hard, painstaking, tedious work of actually producing a large enough list of allegedly 'designed' objects and processes to even allow developing some sort of taxonomic system. At this point all we have is people pointing at a few examples - bacterial flagella, a couple of biochemical cascades - and saying "Lookie there!" There is no visible systematic research in ID (outside of the Bryan College baraminology stuff), and no published attempts to extract any order at all from the scattered phenomena at which people point in such amazement. That's not even an argument from ignorance, it's an argument from 'Wowie zowie!' Look at the two published issues of PCID. See any systematic work on data in them aside from the one paper describing pretty standard genetic analyses with a tacked-on concluding paragraph about 'room for design'? I don't see anything.
RBH
IP: Logged
|
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 02. October 2002 08:52
Not that this is on topic...but in defense of PCID...
1. ISCID has been around for about 10 months now. Not what one would call an established organization.
2. PCID, ISCID's journal, is not yet what one would call a researcher's journal of choice.
3. PCID, as far as I'm concerned, will not ever simply be a journal purely for "systematic work on data". PCID is glad to publish ID work. PCID is glad to publish Darwinian work. PCID is glad to publish self-organizational work. PCID is glad to publish "systematic work on data." But PCID is also very glad to publish speculative/theoretical work as well.
4. RBH, do you really think that, after doing 2 years of hard core empirical research (which by the way is almost 2.5 times the length of time that PCID has even existed), some ID researcher is going to publish his/her work in PCID, only to hear later from his/her critics that PCID doesn't qualify as a peer-reviewed journal? I think not and in fact know of people currently shopping around their "systematic work on data" in the well-respected peer review journal market.
[ 02. October 2002, 09:21: Message edited by: Micah Sparacio ]
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 02. October 2002 10:23
Hi, Micah. You wrote quote:
4. RBH, do you really think that, after doing 2 years of hard core empirical research (which by the way is almost 2.5 times the length of time that PCID has even existed), some ID researcher is going to publish his/her work in PCID, only to hear later from his/her critics that PCID doesn't qualify as a peer-reviewed journal? I think not and in fact know of people currently shopping around their "systematic work on data" in the well-respected peer review journal market.
I guess I can buy that, at least for a while. I can recommend a strategy, though, based on my own experience trying to get what was (and still is) considered a radical view published. I did a bunch of technical research to get the data necessary to establish the utility of the new approach, wrote a paper embodying the core of it, and then hunted for a journal that had a reputation for publishing new stuff and was willing to take a risk. I worked with an editor for months, getting the paper into a form that was publishable without giving up the core approach. Once that first technical paper came out, I was able to get four more papers published in quick succession developing and describing the theoretical basis and answering critics of the approach.
Oh, one more thing: it took eight years from the initiation of the research it reported to get the first one published.
One more remark on Mike Gene's designer-centric versus design-centric distinction. That has to be a continuum: designer-centric research necessarily presupposes design-centric data. Regardless of one's position on that continuum, a taxonomy of putatively designed biological structures and processes is a prerequisite for doing anything useful or fruitful, so that has to be a high priority in any ID research program.
RBH
IP: Logged
|
|
Anthony
Member
Member # 377
|
posted 03. October 2002 04:15
RBH makes a good case for the need for multiple designers, however his evidence also supports an alternative conclusion.
Look at it this way. Theologians who have considered the question of God's motive for creation generally concur that God would only act to produce another entity that is similar to God. The problem is that God can no more create another God than he can make a square circle. A created "God" would not be similar to God. God is self-existent. His mode of existence is in no way dependent whilst any creature is totally dependent on God, hence dissimilar.
All God can do is to initiate a process involving self-organisation and self-creation, to open the possibility of the ultimate "self-creation" of an entity that is similar to God. I argue that the Cosmos is involved in such a process.
I have just posted a paper on my Homepage at http://www.philosophy.27south.com "A Process Explanation of the World". My Thesis on "The Process of the Cosmos" is on the same Homepage.
You can go straight to the "Process Explanation" paper at:
http://members.dodo.net.au/~anthonykelly/A%20Process%20Explanation%20of%20the%20World.htm
The idea of multiple designers raises more theological difficulties than it solves.
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 03. October 2002 07:55
Anthony wrote quote:
The idea of multiple designers raises more theological difficulties than it solves.
That may be the case, particularly if one is wedded to the Judeo/Christian/Islamic monotheistic tradition. But to be blunt, I am not interested in the theological implications of MDT nor in solving "theological difficulties." If I were interested in the theological implications of MDT I'd probably look to older traditions than Christianity. I'd look to the multi-deity traditions that pre-date monotheism, and ultimately to the animistic religious traditions. They are theologically consistent with MDT though again, that's not a consideration for MDT as a scientific hypothesis. MDT is an attempt to find some empirical, scientific content in the ID notions. Theology is way down the list of concerns that inform that attempt.
ID claims to be a scientific program. Scientific programs generate sets of testable hypotheses, provide a research program to test and elaborate and correct those hypotheses, and offer coherent explanations of the phenomena we see in the world. Since the ID movement has apparently (from its visible publication record) been unable to generate its own research program, it seemed inappropriate to merely criticize it for that lack. Hence MDT.
What I've found most interesting about the MDT discussions here and on ARN is that no IDists aside from Mike Gene have offered to actually consider a research program that supports and tests its assertions. I see no evidence that ID is really interested in a scientific research program. While the ID literature is replete with criticisms of science for ignoring design considerations, it does not provide us with an example of doing design science itself, and when an example is offered it is silent. That silence is eloquent.
RBH
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 03. October 2002 10:00
I would like to concur with RBH here about the role of theology in these discussions.
ID as an empirically-based scientific program must start from the scientific establishment of design. At this point, that is based on the claim that some things in nature are so highly improbable that they must have been designed. Establishing this has not actually been done yet for anything, and presents some significant technical difficulties, but it is in theory a possibility - the detection of design problem is the heart of the start of the design research program.
Further claims about the designers must be based on the empirical evidence as it comes in. Theological claims are irrelevant to this discussion. If the evidence shows that there have been multiple designers, or that the designers are limited in one or many ways, or whatever, then that is what science will accept. If that creates theological difficulties for some metaphysical beliefs, then that is a problem for those who hold those beliefs, but not a problem for science.
It is true that traditional theological systems can be a guide to thinking about some possibilities about the designers, as religions have been concerned about creation from the beginning. Religious beliefs about the designer range from an omni-everything monotheistic deity to a highly de-centralized animism to the impersonal forces posited by Taoism or neo-Platonism. Considering this spectrum of belief might help design theorists offer hypotheses, but ultimately the scientific data is what will count.
At least in theory, a fully-developed design research program offers the possibility of strengthening or weakening the claims of various theological or metaphysical belief systems, but it is not the case that design theory should be motivated by any attempt to reconcile itself with any one of them. If design theory poses theological difficulties for a monotheistic deity, then that may in fact turn out to mean that such a conception of the designer is not as well supported by the data as some other set of beliefs.
But one of the dictums of ID theory is that we must follow the evidence wherever it leads, unconstrained by a priori limitations. If we allow that naturalism (even methodological naturalism) is one of those a priori constraints that should be removed, then so should the limitation that possible unembodied designers be singular, or omniscient, or otherwise consistent with traditional Western theological beliefs.
[ 03. October 2002, 10:09: Message edited by: Evan ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack
Member
Member # 265
|
posted 03. October 2002 14:21
Evan>>ID as an empirically-based scientific program must start from the scientific establishment of design. At this point, that is based on the claim that some things in nature are so highly improbable that they must have been designed. Establishing this has not actually been done yet for anything, and presents some significant technical difficulties, but it is in theory a possibility -the detection of design problem is the heart of the start of the design research program.<<
Evan, perhaps you could share with us what evidence would cause you to merely suspect that something in nature was intelligently designed?
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 03. October 2002 15:58
Jack wrote quote:
Evan, perhaps you could share with us what evidence would cause you to merely suspect that something in nature was intelligently designed?
I'm not Evan (and I don't play him on TV), but I'll suggest some candidate lines of evidence that might raise my suspicions in that respect.
First, high degrees of discordance between the various lines of evidence now taken to be evidence for evolutionary theory would be suspicious. By that I mean, for example, if the phylogenetic relationships inferred from the fossil record, which are primarily based on comparative anatomy and temporal relationships inferred from the various geological dating techniques, were to radically differ from phylogenetic relationships inferred from genetic analyses and molecular biology, then I'd have some suspicion that something had interfered with those observations of an otherwise 'natural' processes.
Second, if contemporary phyla thought on the basis of modern evolutionary theory and its current evidence to be closely related displayed underlying distinctively different 'design themes' with differences on the order of the difference between, say, pre-Raphaelites and cubists, then I'd begin to wonder about the kind of natural processes alleged to account for the phenomena. Multiple Designers Theory predicts that if appropriate bases for the comparisons can be teased out of biological material, one may see systematic differences of that order. I italicize the phrase in the last sentence because otherwise someone might suggest (to choose an example purely at random) that a few hours of playing a computer game would suffice to do a multiple designers analysis of the program underlying the game. Note also that 'design themes' are not solely defined by the superficial biological structures and processes, but also by thematic similarities and differences; they may be parallel to (occasionally) the data of evolutionary theory, but of a different, more abstract character.
Third, since evolution is a historical process, if one saw multiple temporal reversals in phenomena held by evolutionary theory to occur in a different temporal order, then one would be suspicious that something 'non-natural' had interfered with the process that generated the observations. For example, if systematic observations showed significant morphological changes occurring in several lineages of organisms before changes in the genetic control of the relevant developmental processes occurred, and where (unlike the arms of blacksmiths who succeed their fathers) the changes in the lineages are not acquired from the environment independently in each generation of each lineage, then one would be suspicious that something strange is going on.
I emphasize that those are suggestions off the top of my head (brainstorms, remember?), subject to change pending more thought, but they're of the nature of the evidence I'd take as beginning to make one suspicious that something had intervened to produce the anomalous patterns of observations. Note that each of the three lines of evidence provides for at least some coordinated and replicable evidence, not just isolated oddities. The great strength of current evolutionary theory is that it unites multiple lines of evidence from several disciplines into a coherent account. An alternative theory will have to do the same. Thus evidence for alternative theories will have to display breadth and coordination and replicability across relevant classes: narrow one-off 'wowie zowie' single instances won't cut it.
RBH
added in edit: Note carefully that all three lines of (putative) evidence for suspicion are just that: suspicious. They all would beg for more research; they would generate hypotheses about the research one might do to pin down the source(s) of the anomalous observations. And yes, "anomalous": I'm taking the naturalist position to be the reference, and putative evidence for the non-natural position to be the anomaly.
[ 03. October 2002, 16:28: Message edited by: RBH ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Janitor@MIT
Member
Member # 125
|
posted 03. October 2002 16:03
I'm sorry, but I was out when we decided that there was any "designer." If we've decided that there is, please point me to the relevant results. Otherwise, what is the point of a theory of "multiple designers?"
I'm not opposed to such a "theory." Since the computer I'm using right now is the result of multiple designs and multiple designers. But I think its incumbant upon RBH to show evidence that might be reasonably construed as indicating the existence of any desinger. Even one.
RBH?
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 03. October 2002 16:18
Janitor wrote quote:
I'm sorry, but I was out when we decided that there was any "designer." If we've decided that there is, please point me to the relevant results. Otherwise, what is the point of a theory of "multiple designers?"
I'm not opposed to such a "theory." Since the computer I'm using right now is the result of multiple designs and multiple designers. But I think its incumbant upon RBH to show evidence that might be reasonably construed as indicating the existence of any desinger. Even one.
RBH?
The first sentence of my Brief Overview of Multiple Designers Theory reads "As its name implies, the central tenet of Multiple Designers Theory is that if intelligent design is implicated in the properties and structure of life of on earth, then multiple designers are implicated, not merely a single designer." (emphasis added)
In developing MDT I took the existence of intelligent design in biology, and hence an intelligent designer, as an assumption and explored some implications of ID given that assumption, purely as an exploratory and public service exercise. The Dembski/Behe-style IDists take the mere detection of design as the be-all and end-all of design theory, and tell us that the identify of the designer is irrelevant and the mechanisms of the execution of design to be similarly irrelevant. But that's a very unsatisfactory position. It offers no research possibilities, no explanatory apparatus, and no way to be nominated for Nobel prizes. Hence MDT.
RBH
IP: Logged
|
|
Janitor@MIT
Member
Member # 125
|
posted 03. October 2002 16:23
I appreciate the “public service announcement.” But, I’m still going to insist on evidence, not assumptions. Whoever makes the assumptions--you or the IDers.
(My apologies to Mr. Moderator.)
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 03. October 2002 18:14
To Janitor: I think RBH was quite clear, and I think I was even clearer ![[Smile]](smile.gif) , that we were speculating on what types of inferences one might make about the designers if and when solid evidence of design is established.
But since ID theory states that design is detectable, and that design does in fact exist in the world, it seems reasonable to move on to hypotheses about the designers. This is standard practice in science - to ask what else Y might be true if we assume that X is true.
For instance, I pointed out that if it were to be established that different classes of organisms (in the general and not taxonomic sense) were designed separately, then that might argue for multiple designers.
I understand that for those who don't accept the arguments for the detection or the existence of design, this is all a moot point.
to Jack: Jack writes, “Evan, perhaps you could share with us what evidence would cause you to merely suspect that something in nature was intelligently designed?”
This is off the topic of this thread, and maybe belongs on a separate thread. but here is my answer:
I am not interested in “merely suspecting” design, because history is replete with stories of people “suspecting” design and later finding out that natural causes were responsible.
I am interested in the argument that in fact design can be established empirically. Following Dembski, my position is that design is established by showing that it is highly improbable (nominally 1/10^-150) that something could have happened. In my opinion, in order to do this, ID scientists will need to develop ways to calculate the probabilities of events which do happen in known natural ways (such as “micro-evolutionary” changes), show that those probablities are larger than the nominal design boundary, and then apply those methods to show that some events fall below the design bound. This will not be an easy program, but it does seem to me to be the research program implied by Dembski’s theory.
The second thing I am interested in, and it is this that RBH is trying to do, is generating more specific hypotheses about how and when design happens. Science must have hypotheses to test at some point. Both halves of this research program must be established: working on methods to actually calculate probabilities so that design can be detected, and working on testable hypotheses about that design once it gets detected.
If in fact, design can not be detected, and/or is determined to not exist, the second part of the program will have been a fruitless exercise. But until that time, such hypothesizing is a legitimate part of the program.
That’s what I think.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack
Member
Member # 265
|
posted 03. October 2002 20:41
Evan>> Jack writes, “Evan, perhaps you could share with us what evidence would cause you to merely suspect that something in nature was intelligently designed?”
This is off the topic of this thread, and maybe belongs on a separate thread.<<
I agree that my question is off topic and belongs on a separate thread. I will start a new thread when I get the time. If someone wants to start one now that's fine with me.
I keep hearing the ID critics complaining about the lack of an ID research program. It would be nice if things were moving faster, however, I would like to know what if anything an ID research program could discover that would be considered evidence of ID in the eyes of the ID critic.
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 10. October 2002 08:07
In looking at RBH's evidence for multiple designers, I don't see how B, C, and D serve as evidence for MDT. As for A, so how does a "male/female arms race" (for example) directly implicate multiple designers? Same question for the symbiosis examples.
BTW, I suppose I am a proponent of a constrained version of MDT in that I consider two different designers when trying to account for biological reality - the intelligent watchmaker and the blind watchmaker. Ironically, RBH, as a proponent of BWO (the Blind Watchmaker Only) likewise is a SDT proponent.
Also, I am still trying to understand whether humans constitute a single designer or multiple designers.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic