|
Author
|
Topic: Design-centric vs. Designer-centric ID Theory
|
brauer
Member
Member # 398
|
posted 04. October 2002 12:59
Hi Paul,
I take Lamarckian evolution and self-organizational theories about as seriously as I take ID. So it's more like a scheduled match between de la Hoya and Strom Thurmond, in which Strom Thurmond backs out. We could replace him with Pee-wee Herman or Julia Childs, and it wouldn't affect the outcome.
Not that I base my belief in evolutionary theory purely on the negation of all other competing theories. The positive evidence is strong enough for me to find the explanation compelling. (More or less. I have to admit I don't place much faith in any particular abiogenesis scenario.)
(I liked your boxing match analogy, but I think that the analogy of a U.S. Senate race in which one competitor bows out would've been apropos.)
[edited to reflect my realization that Ali's not in the best of shape these days]
[ 04. October 2002, 18:21: Message edited by: brauer ]
IP: Logged
|
|
pz
Member
Member # 400
|
posted 04. October 2002 15:39
There is something deeply dissatisfying about establishing the bona fides of one theory by debunking another. Design simply must put novel predictions of its own on the blackboard.
I agree. However, ID hasn't even done a respectable job of debunking anything, so this must be even more dissatisfying for you.
As for alternatives to natural selection, you've missed an obvious one: drift. Another promising up-and-comer as far as I'm concerned is developmental systems theory--it's neither detailed enough or adequately supported by unambigous evidence yet to compare with drift and natural selection, but it hasn't been debunked and discarded like Lamarckism or orthogenesis or any of the teleological guesses of the past. I also disagree with Brauer a bit on self-organization. It's no Strom Thurmond. It's more like a kid with some potential that doesn't stand a chance now, but it could still be a contender, someday.
IP: Logged
|
|
brauer
Member
Member # 398
|
posted 04. October 2002 16:33
PZ:
Self-organization is Pee-wee Herman. Lamarckianism is Julia Childs.
Anything else I can set you straight on?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[Moderator should feel free to delete this post for frivolity, if desired.]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack Foster
Member
Member # 79
|
posted 04. October 2002 19:47
The problem with designer-centered theories, is that it's hard to imagine how they might be testable. RBH's "Multiple Designer Theory" as the example, here: will it compete against "Single Designer Theory"? If we can tell the difference between one designer and more, then why not two designers and more? We can have the "Two Designer Theory" and the "Three Designer Theory" and the "Four Designer Theory".
But why stop there? We can have the Christian God theory compete against the Hindu God theory.
My point should be clear. Designer-centric theories, since they are not testable, threaten to turn ID into Creationism.
Stick to the current track guys.
(For a related thread see my Rationality vs. Testability thread over at ARN.)
[ 04. October 2002, 19:55: Message edited by: Jack Foster ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Xenon
Member
Member # 435
|
posted 04. October 2002 20:59
Jack, you write:
"The problem with designer-centered theories, is that it's hard to imagine how they might be testable. RBH's "Multiple Designer Theory" as the example, here: will it compete against "Single Designer Theory"? If we can tell the difference between one designer and more, then why not two designers and more? We can have the "Two Designer Theory" and the "Three Designer Theory" and the "Four Designer Theory"."
In principle, yes, the MDT would compete against the SDT. But there is indeed no reason to expect why we should determine exactly the number of designers beyond a mere pluarlity, especially given the quality and quantity of evidence before us. And why set the bar so high? There seems to be a double standard at work here. The "hard to imagine how they might be testable" standard has been especially tried and found lacking.
"But why stop there? We can have the Christian God theory compete against the Hindu God theory."
Why would that be? RBH did not bring up theological issues in his initial presentation of MDT. What exactly is the connection that you see, Jack? Certainly, MDT presents another challenge to monotheistic ideas, but when has scientific data ever defied religious rationalization? Take the Genesis chapter, for instance. Not all Christians are at present strict literalists.
Indeed, there is no reason to require MDT to be compatible with all metaphysical and religious outlooks. Even Dembski in his book No Free Lunch cites explicitly the metaphysics that are compatible with ID. Is atheism compatible with ID, Jack? [EDIT: Has ID theory found a sufficient response to the infinite regress as applied to embodied, ETs?] Or perhaps reincarnations? Nihilism?
"My point should be clear. Designer-centric theories, since they are not testable, threaten to turn ID into Creationism.
Stick to the current track guys."
I am afraid, Jack, that such rhetoric betrays a bias in giving MDT a fair shot. Your mere assertion that _any_ characteristics of a designer is untestable does not make it true. Read the essays and just see how many ways people invoke the rationality of the designers in discussing the designs. I see very human designers, and the analogies invoked to defend ID give me no reason to suspect otherwise. Just why should anyone want to go where the "current track" is taking us, Jack?
Xe
[ 04. October 2002, 21:52: Message edited by: Xenon ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 04. October 2002 22:11
Jack Foster writes, “But why stop there? We can have the Christian God theory compete against the Hindu God theory."
First of all, I agree with Xenon that neither RBH nor I have brought any theological considerations into this discussion (other than in response to another poster’s reference to theological difficulties.)
There is a difference between making inferences about the nature of the designers, including their number, and making inferences about their (or its) identity. In fact, there is nothing in the science of design and designer detection that even implies that the designers are, or might be, equivalent to the entities of any particular religion.
Evidence about design is necessarily evidence about the designers.
But this doesn’t mean that the inferences we might draw based on the evidence will coincide, or even should try to coincide, with any particular religious beliefs. We should follow the evidence where ever it leads.
Now of course what we find may have implications for religious belief: just as evidence for an old earth conflicts with Biblical literalism, evidence for multiple designers or designers with limited powers may conflict with monotheistic religions. But whether this is true or not is not related to the scientific endeavor. The goal of science is to investigate reality, and if the evidence points to design and designers of a particular sort, then is the way it will be. The goal is not to support or undermine any particular religious belief - the goal is to follow the evidence to well-supported, empirically based conclusions.
Jack also writes, “Stick to the current track guys."
I’m not sure what you mean by the current track. Right now what exists is a theoretical framework for detecting design, and some suggestions for what might be designed objects. As I discuss in the “ID Research Program” thread, I think the next step needs to be to develop ways to measure and calculate the probabilities that will in fact establish design. Others may have other ideas for what should come next, but whatever those things may be, ID research certainly needs to go farther than its current state to become empirically established. Once data does come in, inferences about the designers will follow. This is on “the current track” - it’s just a few steps down the road.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack Foster
Member
Member # 79
|
posted 05. October 2002 00:10
quote:
Your mere assertion that _any_ characteristics of a designer is untestable does not make it true.
Where did I assert that? For instance, I believe one can attribute some foresight to the putative designer(s). If the designer had plopped a cow down on the primitive earth, odds of survival for our bovine friend would have been pretty slim. But first life forms also terraformed the earth, making the planet hospitable for later life forms.
So given this deduced characteristic of foresight of the designer(s), what do I now know about the identity of the designer(s)? Nothing. I suspect that if life was indeed designed that there was some intelligent foresight. That's all.
If RBH and Evan and Brauer and you want to begin speculating about the identity of the designer that's fine with me, but if you're going to defend one specific hypothesis . . . then defend it. How might one go about falsifying MDT, for instance?
-- Jack F.
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 05. October 2002 09:03
Jack Foster writes, “If RBH and Evan and Brauer and you want to begin speculating about the identity of the designer that's fine with me, but if you're going to defend one specific hypothesis . . . then defend it. How might one go about falsifying MDT, for instance?”
I would like to try again to make the following clear: a scientific investigation of design should be able to lead to inferences about the nature of the designers, but not the identity of the designers.
The phrase “identify the designer(s)” implies that science might try to ascertain which of the world’s religions most correctly describes the designers. But that implication is wrong on two counts.
First, it is not the business of science to do this. Science will make the inferences that seem best justified by the evidence. If people want to then discuss how that evidence reconciles with religious belief, that is a separate issue, and outside both the scope of what science can do and the scope of what science cares to do. Design inferences will have an impact on people’s thinking about religion, of course, just as, for instance, geological inferences about the age of the earth have, but that is a problem for religion, not science. Science should follow the evidence - how people reconcile scientific knowledge with their religious beliefs is a different matter.
Secondly, as far as science goes, there is no reason to believe that the designers are in fact any of the entities, forces, or principles proposed by the world’s religions. People have been making religious speculations about the source of the world’s order and design for thousands of years, and the world’s religions range across a full spectrum of thought on what those sources might be.
Science has continually motivated a rethinking of religious understandings about the physical world - obviously, Thor does not throw lightning bolts and we know that now. Design science, to the extent that it can produce empirical evidence of design, promises likewise to move some ideas about the designers out of the realm of religious speculation and into the realm of empirically verifiable theory. Perhaps this theory will turn out to match somewhat closely the position of some world religion, and perhaps not. But again, it is not the business of science to be concerned about whether there is a match or not, but rather to be concerned about what inferences can be drawn from empirically detectable evidence.
As part of the above quote, Jack Foster writes, “if you're going to defend one specific hypothesis . . . then defend it. How might one go about falsifying MDT, for instance?”
I personally am not trying to “defend” MDT or any other hypothesis about the nature of the designers at this point, and I don’t believe RBH is either, because that data to do so is not in yet. (See the thread “ID Research Program” for more on this.) What RBH is doing, which I support, is setting forth an hypothesis that should be considered as we start to think about the design data that might be gathered. The supposition that the designer is singular, and that the same designer has been involved throughout earth’s history, is a supposition that is in embedded in both our language and our Western religious tradition. Those are, however, not valid scientific reasons for taking that supposition as an established fact, or even as the starting point for our investigations. RBH is pointing out, among other things, that if we take analogy with human design as a starting point for our thinking, then it is reasonable to at least hypothesize groups of entities, perhaps changing and being replaced over time, as the designers.
The big question here is “How might one go about falsifying MDT.”
The better question would be “how might science go about establishing whether MDT is the best inference from the data,” because that is how science works. And that is hard to say, because the data is not in yet. The purpose of hypothesizing MDT is not to put a proposal to defend on the floor, but rather to motivate research - again, this is how science works.
Design theory says that design is detectable when thing happen which are too improbable to have happened by natural causes. As I discuss in the thread on ID research, establishing the details of design will therefore involve investigating closely how genetic change happens over multiple generations. If we find, for instance, empirical evidence that transitions from one family to another are highly improbable, and we find that the patterns of change within families are sufficiently different, than that might be evidence for multiple designers. Why have alligators, for instance, gone virtually unchanged for eons while primates have changed considerably? The evidence might point to different designers. Until the evidence comes in, we won’t know. But we need to have a broad and open mind about the possibilities so that the research program will be as unhindered as possible by preconceptions.
IP: Logged
|
|
Xenon
Member
Member # 435
|
posted 05. October 2002 11:13
"Where did I assert that? For instance, I believe one can attribute some foresight to the putative designer(s). If the designer had plopped a cow down on the primitive earth, odds of survival for our bovine friend would have been pretty slim. But first life forms also terraformed the earth, making the planet hospitable for later life forms."
Jack, perhaps you owe me and Evan an explanation of just what you mean when you say, "This is the problem with designer-centered hypotheses . . . you don't got the designer. So designer-centered hypotheses aren't testable." Why is foresight not a designer-centered hypothesis but plurality is? Why not rationality? Why not intelligence? See the problem is that even in four sentences above you can not avoid making hypotheses about the rationale of the designer. What evidence do you have that the first life forms were responsible for terraforming the earth? What evidence do you have that the overt purpose of terraforming is to make way for "later life forms?" Why would life forms be the choice method for achieving global environmental changes? See, the problem that I see here and which I reported in my first post to you is that you seem to be employing a double standard. You are forced to guess the intentions of the designers in making design-centered hypotheses whenever they conveniently suit your goals, but yet you are not so willing to address some of the other logical implications. Here is a simple test. What other words have you used with the term 'designer': a) engineered b) front-loaded c) created d) forsaw e) knew f) wanted g) desired? (nb: I am specifically using tailoring the question to your bias towards a singular designer) Can you justify your use of any of them? But, then why haven't the ID proponents used some of these other words commonly attributed to designers? a) screwed up b) erred c) did not see the consequences d) upgraded e) revised f) tinkered? In the zeal to offer 'pure' design-centered hypotheses at the expense of any designer-centered ones, the proponents have unintentionally promoted the notion of apparent designs. The logical disconnect between qualities of design such as IC and SC to the inference of an intelligent designer is highlighted, because there is no compelling reason to posit any designers. In particular, the critics could continue to pursue a naturalistic hypothesis to explain design qualities and design principles. Take for instance, why modularity of molecular machines is considered in favor of ID. The argument I commonly read is one of analogical reasoning. We design modular machines, hence the designers would also -- modularity is a good design principle. But, why can't an apparent design also exhibit functional modularity? Does modularity necessarily imply an external agency? The answers are not clear.
"So given this deduced characteristic of foresight of the designer(s), what do I now know about the identity of the designer(s)? Nothing. I suspect that if life was indeed designed that there was some intelligent foresight. That's all."
That's all, indeed. Can there be any greater attribution than intelligence and foresight? But of course, there is no to reason why an intelligent design ('intelligent' as a subjective, relativistic assessment) implies necessarily an intelligent designer ('intelligent' as an objective, ontological assesment). [EDIT: as an example of what I mean here, consider idiot-savants and their accomplishments]. Yet, there it is above -- assertion without test. Once again, I smell a whiff of irony.
"If RBH and Evan and Brauer and you want to begin speculating about the identity of the designer that's fine with me, but if you're going to defend one specific hypothesis . . . then defend it. How might one go about falsifying MDT, for instance?"
I don't know, Jack. How might one go about falsifying ID? Since when have we decided that Popperian falsifiability is the standard for testing the validity of a hypothesis?
Xe
[ 05. October 2002, 11:28: Message edited by: Xenon ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack Foster
Member
Member # 79
|
posted 05. October 2002 12:36
Hi Ev and Ze:
I think our debate is one of degree, not of fundamentals. I have no problem with making inferences. And in principle, I have no problem with designer-centered speculations. If they spur research, all the better.
The problem for me is that some speculations can get too far beyond the evidence, and therefore too far beyond our ability to evaluate them. Let's presume that a detective enters an investigation where there is a body in the middle of the room with no other apparent evidence available to determine the cause of death. In the early stage of the investigation, therefore, the focus needs to be placed upon the death. Until the investigator understands the cause, it will be tough to put together any coherent hypothesis.
But let's say a critic of the investigation walks into the room and proposes that the murderer has blue eyes, and operated with accomplices . . . when the cause of death was still unclear. Once the detective had made it known to herself that the critic was not in possession of some special knowledge, she would then investigate the motives of the critic, because the critic's hypothesis/speculation is much more detailed and specific than the evidence gives it a right to be. She might evaluate the suspicion that the critic was attempting to hinder the investigation.
Now I certainly don't know that to be true in this case. But there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence pointing in that direction. RBH (the proponent of Multiple Designer Theory) is an outspoken critic of ID over at ARN. He's recently identified himself as an "agnostic materialist" in an ARN poll. Why is a materialist aiding and abetting an investigation to which, as inferred by his writings and self-identification, he is fundamentally opposed?
A good detective would ask the question.
IP: Logged
|
|
Xenon
Member
Member # 435
|
posted 05. October 2002 13:18
"Let's presume that a detective enters an investigation where there is a body in the middle of the room with no other apparent evidence available to determine the cause of death. In the early stage of the investigation, therefore, the focus needs to be placed upon the death. Until the investigator understands the cause, it will be tough to put together any coherent hypothesis."
Jack, I do not believe this analogy is even close. What you have left out, conveniently, is that ID also places an agency on the cause of death. Now I agree whether such a conclusion is justifiable or not is the subject of another debate. But for the sake of argument, it is fairly easy to construct the evidence in this analogy to suggest an agency. Let's add a knife in the back, a disheveled room indicating a struggle, a video recording of *two* shadows in the room, and, for good measure, *two* voices overlapping each other in the recording. Now, the analogy is closer. Here, there is no doubt that an external agency must be considered and ID applies. *Given* a situation where ID applies, then we can proceed with your argument:
"But let's say a critic of the investigation walks into the room and proposes that the murderer has blue eyes, and operated with accomplices . . . when the cause of death was still unclear. Once the detective had made it known to herself that the critic was not in possession of some special knowledge, she would then investigate the motives of the critic, because the critic's hypothesis/speculation is much more detailed and specific than the evidence gives it a right to be. She might evaluate the suspicion that the critic was attempting to hinder the investigation."
Not at all. Given the application of ID, it is entirely appropriate for the 'critic' to guide the investigation by *searching* for clues that could narrow down the nature (dare I say the identity?) of the perpetrator. What would she look for? You mentioned a few, to which I add : Footprints. Fingerprints. Skin under the victim's nails. Personals. Voiceprints. Dimensions of the shadows. Now, what you are arguing is akin to the investigators giving up after they've concluded that it was indeed a murder (i.e. after they have invoked ID). That would be a strange move indeed.
See, what RBH and Evan are arguing is that certain logical questions and conclusions immediately follow the detection (EDIT: or even the proposition) of design. You may be right that detection may be the focus of contention at the moment (which is oddly contradictory to some of the assertions I have heard from the ID community who seem to think the matter is all but settled... which stage of the Wedge are we in anyways? LOL). However, given the detection, how can investigators simply 'content themselves with the progress they have made?' Either there is a biased, a priori committment to the view that the evidence cannot reveal more than just the design (i.e. the evidence can only suggest a murder), or there is sufficient cause to investigate further, to satisfy one's own intellectual curiosity. I am encouraged that you have reversed your position from saying that 'designer-centered hypotheses are untestable" and thus somehow not worth considering, to your current position that 'designer-centered speculations' pose no problems for you 'in principle.' But, then you write:
"Now I certainly don't know that to be true in this case. But there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence pointing in that direction. RBH (the proponent of Multiple Designer Theory) is an outspoken critic of ID over at ARN. He's recently identified himself as an "agnostic materialist" in an ARN poll. Why is a materialist aiding and abetting an investigation to which, as inferred by his writings and self-identification, he is fundamentally opposed?
A good detective would ask the question. "
This is the good ol' bait-n-switch on the topic, and frankly disappoints. With all due respect to RBH, who cares what RBH's personal views are? Are you suggesting that the ID theory can never promote itself so that critics or materialistis (even the agnostic kind) can find something worth salvaging? It has been said that one's enemies often reveal the truth... But if your only interest is in indicting RBH with ad hominems then, I beg leave to discontinue this dialogue.
Xe
[ 05. October 2002, 13:30: Message edited by: Xenon ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack Foster
Member
Member # 79
|
posted 05. October 2002 13:40
Hi Xe:
quote:
It has been said that one's enemies often reveal the truth... But if your only interest is in indicting RBH with ad hominems then, I beg leave to discontinue this dialogue.
RBH isn't an enemy. I've enjoyed all of the conversations that I've had with him, and I think he's extremely sharp and interesting. If anything I've said has offended him, I certainly apologize; it was not my intent to offend.
And I have no problem with discontinuing the dialogue as well. You've made some strong points!
Regards,
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 05. October 2002 23:08
Jack Foster wrote quote:
But let's say a critic of the investigation walks into the room and proposes that the murderer has blue eyes, and operated with accomplices . . . when the cause of death was still unclear. Once the detective had made it known to herself that the critic was not in possession of some special knowledge, she would then investigate the motives of the critic, because the critic's hypothesis/speculation is much more detailed and specific than the evidence gives it a right to be. She might evaluate the suspicion that the critic was attempting to hinder the investigation.
Now I certainly don't know that to be true in this case. But there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence pointing in that direction. RBH (the proponent of Multiple Designer Theory) is an outspoken critic of ID over at ARN. He's recently identified himself as an "agnostic materialist" in an ARN poll. Why is a materialist aiding and abetting an investigation to which, as inferred by his writings and self-identification, he is fundamentally opposed?
A good detective would ask the question.
I had an interesting graduate education. Over the course of several years I was in graduate programs in two different disciplines (this is pushing 40 years ago now) both of which were undergoing significant "paradigm shifts" at the time. (I really dislike that phrase, but it'll do here.) As a consequence, one learned to operate in different (and mutually incompatible) theoretical contexts simultaneously, especially when one's doctoral committee had representatives from both camps! So it's not foreign to me to operate a theoretical context I don't wholly agree with. The notion that one has to be a true believer to look into a domain of inquiry, find what seem to be interesting questions in it, and propose potentially useful ideas about it, is false. Period. In fact, it's one of the best ways to learn about a position one doesn't agree with: try to figure out what one would do if one were an adherent of the position.
I am, and have been for over three decades, a scientist. Lately I've been working almost exclusively in an applied context, but I'm still a scientist. I'm willing to "aid and abet" any effort that makes a sincere (added in edit: and informed) effort to increase our understanding of the way the world works. In addition to being a personally interesting exercise, MDT was and is a challenge to Dembski-style IDists: 'Assume that design can be detected as you say. Here is a natural and reasonable extension of the kind of ID position you folks assert is necessary to account for phenomena, and here are some routes to a coherent research program that may shed some light on the nature of the intelligent designer(s).'
Xenon is absolutely correct: Given the design inference, or even given just a design conjecture, certain questions crowd onto the stage clamoring for attention, and the nature of the designer(s) is front and center in the primary spotlight. It baffles me how ID can claim to be a serious inquiry into the nature of the genesis and diversity of biological phenomena and pretend that a design hypothesis doesn't immediately raise the question of the intelligent agency.
I would personally be very surprised if that research program came to anything, since I am, as you noted, an agnostic materialist, but that doesn't mean I can't think. I'm not a puppet of my beliefs. (Or at least I try not to be! ) And in any case, finding out that blind alleys are in fact blind alleys is progress of sorts. Do real research for a decade or two and you'll wander down lots of blind alleys.
As far as "hindering the investigation" is concerned, I see no investigation to hinder. ID has generated no visible research program (though Micah has remarked there is some completed research now looking for a publication venue). I'll be interested to see what it is. The reports I've read of the recent IDEA conference in San Francisco suggest that the presentations were once again of the nature "Here's a phenomenon evolutionary theory can't explain." Period. That's not an affirmative scientific research program, it's not intellectually satisfying, it's not even a coherent critique.
RBH
P.S. I enjoy the exchanges with jazz, misguided though he can be! ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
[ 06. October 2002, 12:57: Message edited by: RBH ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack Foster
Member
Member # 79
|
posted 06. October 2002 15:23
Hi RBH:
quote:
I enjoy the exchanges with jazz, misguided though he can be!
Well, thank you RBH! (My goal is to be misguided less often than others! )
I guess I would be satisfied with an acknowledgement that hypotheses can range too far in front of available evidence to be testable. I don't think such speculation is inappropriate; it's just beyond the ability of Science to evaluate.
(This whole conversation is somewhat ironic! You've got several ID critics arguing in favor of an ID position that is substantially more speculative than current ID positions! And you've got IDists arguing non-testability! Talk about a turn of the tables!)
IP: Logged
|
|
yersinia
Member
Member # 324
|
posted 06. October 2002 17:06
I think that the point needs to be re-emphasized in this thread: MDT predicts designs at cross-purposes to each other, SDT does not. And in biology we see plenty of designs, especially IC systems, at cross-purposes to each other, e.g. the immune system vs. type III secretion systems.
Thus MDT is superior to SDT in terms of (1) making a prediction and (2) having it fufilled.
Of course, someone should be pointing out that Darwinian evolution makes the following prediction that appears to hold for all cases that both MDT or SDT might cite:
All complex structures in biology with a clear function will have the purpose of maximizing relative reproduction of the genes encoding those structures.
...looks like I just did.
yersinia
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic