|
Author
|
Topic: A positive design science theory
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 21. December 2002 16:59
Always being glad to respect the requests of the moderator, even if they do appear to be political, I will switch my focus from demonstrating that Darwin doesn’t work to proposing positive testable theories or hypothesis. As a starting point I offer the following general theory.
TELEOLOGICAL EFFECTIVENESS THEORY- The teleological effectiveness of a biological design is correlated to the type of design process which produced it.
Biological designs are teleological or purposeful. The design increases the likelihood of some goal or purpose, typically a goal or purpose associated directly or indirectly with survival. The proposed theory predicts that 1)the different teleological relationships can have different degrees of effectiveness, 2)that teleological relationships can be generated by different design processes, and 3)different design processes can be correlated with different degrees of effectiveness.
In support of the proposed theory I offer two reasonably well known manifestations of the teleological effectiveness hypothesis. The first involves the form of biological designs called scientific theories. Teleological effective of a scientific theory would be the predictive reliability and usefulness of the theory.
For the analysis here, a scientific theory is a form of human social belief. As defined here, a unit of truth or validity for a scientific theory at a point is one individuals belief in the theory. By this definition, a scientific theory is valid or true at a point in time if it is generally accepted as true or valid by most of the people involved(by most scientists).
We can identify at least three broad types of ‘design processes’ by which scientific theories can and have achieved general acceptance. These are 1)rigorous one failure falsifies testing, 2)authoritative/subjective opinion and 3)intentional distortion or fraud.
Based only on a general knowledge type review of the evidence, it seems apparent that rigorous testing produces theories which are more reliable and useful than theories based on authoritative/subjective opinion and authoritative/subjective opinion produces more reliable results than intentional distortion.
The second type of manifestation of the teleological effectiveness theory involves the broader category of all human social beliefs. There are a variety of identifiably different ‘design processes’ by which these social beliefs are established. There are also clear differences in the reliability and usefulness of the beliefs generated by different processes. [The human social beliefs which create stock market bubbles provide an clear illustration of how beliefs generated by certain processes produce harmful rather than beneficial results.]
PREDICTION- The analysis of human design processes would suggest the possibility that there are many different genetic design processes and that the ‘designs’ created by different design processes could vary in effectiveness.
[Note: Some individuals appear to believe that scientific evidence only exists if it is published in scientific journals and interpreted by individuals who claim to be authorities as a result of some credential which may or may not be relevant. This is not in my opinion a valid interpretation of scientific evidence. The evidence offered here in support of the proposed theory is based on generally available information. This is a perfectly legitimate source of data. ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 22. December 2002 15:41
While I am not sure where Warren is going with his argument here, I am certainly looking forward to his arguments and evidence. But lets look at this moment at some of his speculations about 'three broad types of design processes'.
Lets initially point out that Warren is talking not necessarily about intelligent design as it may apply to nature but (intelligent) design as it applies to theory/hypothesis formation. The use of the term " form of biological designs called scientific theories" seems to be an interesting use of the terms biological design and scientific theories. How does Warren propose though that scientific theories are in some form related to biological design?
May I also point out that the use of the term theory is inappropriate in this context. Perhaps a better introduction would be "teleological effectiveness hypothesis or conjecture". A theory would suggest something which it cannot (yet) claim, namely rigorous investigation and discussion. Terms like theory and hypothesis are often used in confusing manner and it may be helpful to define their usage.
He identifies three broad categories through which scientific theories can and have accepted general acceptance but seems to have ignored the most common and reliable manner through which hypotheses are formed leading to scientific theories. I would argue that very few hypotheses are formed through authoritative arguments or (intentional) distortion so we can for all practical purpsoses ignore these categories. As far as 'rigorous one failure falsifies testing' I would like to point out that this suggests a form of falsification that is also known as naive falsification. A more popular and productive version would be Popperian falsification.
I would also like to point out that a claim "biological designs are teleological or purposeful" may be begging the question. The purpose is not survival, but survival is that which allows certain 'designs' to continue.
Now back to biology and design, how does Warren propose to test his hypothesis about 'teleological effectiveness'? Certainly asserting that biological designs are teloelogical or purposeful would seem to be begging the question. If Warren could help me understand what he considers to be the evidence ("The evidence offered here in support of the proposed theory is based on generally available information") and what he considers to be the conjecture/hypothesis then we may work on expanding his ideas?
I certainly am interested in positive approaches to looking at biological design and am looking forward to Warren's follow up postings to make his case.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 24. December 2002 13:04
As I stated earlier, the scientific validity or truth of the teleological effectiveness theory is trivial or obvious, at least with respect to human design processes and scientific theories and scientific knowledge. This ‘obviousness’ may not, however, be apparent or recognizable by anyone unfamiliar with the terminology and concepts being used. As a Christmas Eve activity, I will attempt to explain one type of obvious.
To begin, it will be recognized that there are only two types of classes of theories describing the relationship between ‘biological design processes’ and ‘teleological effectiveness’. One type or class of theory, the type I have proposed, suggests that there is a correlation between some types of biological designs and teleological effectiveness. The second type of type suggests the absence of a correlation. The second type of theory might be true or valid if there was only one type of biological design process. The validity of the first type of theory is demonstrated, and the second type falsified, by a single example of a correlation between two types or classes of design processes and the teleological effectiveness of the scientific designs produced the two types of processes.
The logical validity of a scientific theory depends on the logical consistency of the theory with observed facts. It is a relatively simple matter to construct theories that have obvious or trivial logical validity. The teleological effectiveness theory is an example of a theory that is trivially or obviously true(yet not a tautology since it ‘could’ be false). Despite the fact that it is trivially true, the teleological effectiveness theory has some useful practical applications. In order to understand both how the theory is useful, it is useful to understand how the terms ‘design’, ‘design process’, and ‘teleological effectiveness’ are being used.
SOME DESIGN SCIENCE TERMINOLOGY
In design science, the term ‘human biological design’ or ‘elementary human design’ is used to refer to ‘a piece of information accepted, believed in and used by an individual at a point in time’. These pieces of information which become ‘human design elements’ are transmitted or communicated between individuals by mechanisms such as language. The term ‘design process’ is used to refer to the logical information processing performed by an individual which generates a piece of information which is then communicated to other individuals.
The terminology and concepts used above may be new, but the concepts are not. As an individual, I take actions or make decisions based on my knowledge and beliefs. The pieces of knowledge and belief constitute the my ‘biological design’ which in turn determines how I act or react to the environment. My biological design is in turn created, maintained, and modified by the information I receive. My primary source of information is other people. The design processes primarily responsible for my ‘design’ are thus the information processing performed by others.
It sounds rather complicated, but if you start by considering the choice between two competing beliefs or pieces of knowledge in a single individual, it is possible/practical to backtrack the sources of the information used by an individual in making a choice between the competing beliefs or pieces of information. The backtracking is particularly clear, when you consider the information trails associated with ‘bad decisions’ such as the information which gets someone to buy a dramatically over-priced stock.
To simplify, it is or at least appears to possible to backtrack individual beliefs to the logical arguments or logical information processing on which the beliefs or pieces of information are based. It is also possible to classify the different types of information processing which produce the information used to generate and maintain beliefs. Finally, it turns out to be both possible and practical to identify some types or classes of information processing(some types of design processes) which are more likely to useful, beneficial beliefs (teleologically effective beliefs) than others.
COMMON SENSE VERSION
The above discussion provides an outline of the technical interpretation of the ‘obvious validity’ of the teleological effectiveness theory. To obviousness can also be established on a simpler, common sense, personal experience basis. As a simple example, consider that most of beliefs/pieces of knowledge are based on information provided by people that we trust. We know from personal experience, that most people we know and trust are capable of both ‘doing careful analysis’ and ‘lying’. We also know that a belief or piece of knowledge generated by lying is less apt to reliable, useful or teleologically effective than a piece of information produced by careful analysis. This ‘trivial’ piece of information falsifies the only alternative to the teleological effectiveness theory and thus confirms the validity of the theory.
SUMMARY
It should by now be apparent that the teleological effectiveness theory as it relates to human design processes(as defined)is trivially or obviously true. The next step is to consider the practical uses, misuses and abuses of this theory( and to address the issues Frances raised). Meanwhile, it is time to go wait for Santa Claus.
Merry Christmas
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 27. December 2002 08:12
If not even Frances has any further questions about the scientific validity of the teleological effectiveness theory, we can move on to considering the application of the theory in evaluating scientific theories (as a type of biological designs) and the procedures used to establish and maintain scientific theories (biological design processes). For discussion here, the practical applications of the teleological effectiveness theory will be divided into two parts. The first part of the discussion will deal with applications using readily available and generally accepted information. The second part will deal with applications requiring more formal analysis.
APPLICATIONS BASED ON GENERALLY RECOGNIZED INFORMATON
Applying the teleological effectiveness theory involves looking at two types of information. First, it involves looking at different theories and different types of theories and determining which theories or types of theories have a higher degree or level of teleological effectiveness. Second, it involves looking at the procedures used to generate and maintain acceptance of scientific theories, and to determine which of these methodologies generate and maintain scientific theories with the highest levels of teleological effectiveness.
TYPES OF THEORIES WITH THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF TELEOLOGICAL EFFECTIVENESS
The teleological effectiveness of a design can be characterized as the effectiveness or efficiency with which a design performs the function or purpose it was designed to perform. Scientific theories, in the classic form are designed to generate highly reliable, precise and useful predictions. The scientific theories with the highest degrees of teleological effectiveness are those that produce reliable and useful mathematical predictions.
If we look at the various evolutionary theories, we do not find formulations which produce precise and useful mathematical predictions. Evolutionary theories are expressed in terms of variables and processes like natural selection and random mutation which have the appearance of mathematical variables and operations. Attempts to turn evolutionary theories into predictive, mathematical theories have either failed or been rejected as inappropriate or overly simplistic interpretations.
At least based on the readily available, generally accepted information, existing forms of evolutionary theories do not have high degrees of teleological effectiveness. As has been discussed elsewhere, it appears possible to express evolutionary theories as type 3 mathematical models (which would have a high degree of teleological effectiveness) but this approach has not been used.
TYPES OF DESIGN PROCESSES USED TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN SCIENTIFIC THEORIES
The type of ‘design process’ traditionally associated with theories with very high levels or degrees of teleological effectiveness has been the ‘falsify and replace’ process. As is widely recognized, the falsify and replace process is associated with and works well for scientific theories with a high degree of teleological effectiveness(theories that produce precise, reliable, useful predictions). The falsify and replace process does not work well with scientific theories with low levels of teleological effectiveness (current evolutionary theories for example). As Frances points out, the falsify and replace design process is called naïve falsification when attempts are made to apply it to theories of low teleological effectiveness.
As has been discussed briefly on other threads, it appears that type 3 mathematical theories of evolutionary change can be developed and that the falsify and replace process can be used to establish and maintain type 3 theories. This approach has not, however, been adapted by in evolutionary science.
The process actually used in evolutionary biology (and essentially all of the life sciences) as an alternative to falsify and replace is peer review. In simple terms, a theory is accepted and maintained by the peer review process if the theory is compatible with the published literature. In order to change an accepted theory, new evidence must pass the peer review filter or test. Since peer review acceptance/rejection standards are largely subjective/authoritative, the peer review process is a subjective/authoritative process. As is generally recognized, subjective/authoritative processes are generally associated with moderately high levels of teleological effectiveness (but not the same level of teleological effectiveness associated with falsify and replace processes) .
It will be noted that my ongoing disagreement with Frances has focused entirely on his insistence that evidence falsifying Darwin had to pass peer review processes, and my insistence that the peer review process is not a sufficiently rigorous criteria for evaluating evidence.
SUMMARY
Based on generally accepted and readily available information, it is recognized that the highest level of teleological effectiveness is associated with scientific theories(designs) that generate precise, reliable, and useful mathematical predictions. The design process used to establish and maintain such theories is the falsify and replace process. Current evolutionary theories do not achieve the highest standards of teleological effectiveness. The processes used to establish and maintain evolutionary theories are peer review processes which generally are not capable of achieving the level of teleological effectiveness associated with falsify and replace processes.
These are the results obtained from analysis using generally recognized information and the teleological effectiveness theory. More formal, rigorous analysis is needed to answer the question- "Is it possible to improve the teleological effectiveness of evolutionary theories by developing type 3 mathematical theories and using the falsify and replace process for establishing and maintaining evolutionary theories?"
Formal analysis could also be used to determine if existing evolutionary theories and the associated peer review processes involve theories with higher levels of teleological effectiveness than implied by initial analysis.
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 27. December 2002 09:18
Warren writes,
quote:
If not even Frances has any further questions about the scientific validity of the teleological effectiveness theory, we can move on to considering the application of the theory in evaluating scientific theories (as a type of biological designs) and the procedures used to establish and maintain scientific theories (biological design processes).
I’m afraid, Warren, that the reason there have been no comments is that it is not clear at all what point you are trying to make. It seems to me that calling a scientific theory a “biological design” and then calling the “procedures used to establish and maintain scientific theories” “biological design processes” is confusing two very different things, or at least relating those two things in a highly unconventional way.
The phrase “biological design processes”, as it applies to ID, means those processes by which various life forms, or aspects of those forms, come into being. In addition to whatever intelligent design might be involved, this topic must include a discussion of actual organisms, reproduction, populations, etc.
Theories about how all this happens is a subject for science, and questions about the nature of those theories is a subject about knowledge. These also are important topics that we often discuss as relevant to ID, and we know that you feel that the mainstream ways of developing scientific knowledge is flawed.
But these are two different topics. Saying that the ““procedures used to establish and maintain scientific theories” is in fact a “biological design process” is mixing apples and oranges.
The rest of your post is about the deficiency of science, and your posts continue to make fairly unsubstantiated assertions about both the inadequacies of evolutionary theory and the strengths of some extremely undefined design theory that you have in mind. These ideas have been posted many times here, and those few of us who have considered them probably have nothing further to say about them.
But a theory is not a “biological design” in the sense that most of us understand that term. Many of us here are interested in how living things came to be the way they are (which includes the idea of “biological design” and “biological design processes”), and many of us are also interested in how we build knowledge systems about this. But it is confused, and in my opinion unproductive, to consider theories about biological design to actually be an example of biological design.
So that’s why I think you’re getting no response to your posts.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 27. December 2002 12:43
Evan,
You are correct, Warren's claims seems to remain unfocused, haphazard and not well supported by facts. Instead he jumps to conclusions and tries to build a framework around this. I have tried to get Warren to become more specific in his claims and provide the supporting evidence but have failed. Thus there appears no real need to respond to Warren's postings as they seem to fail to impress evolutionists and IDists alike.
What seems especially worrisome is how claims like
quote:
It will be noted that my ongoing disagreement with Frances has focused entirely on his insistence that evidence falsifying Darwin had to pass peer review processes, and my insistence that the peer review process is not a sufficiently rigorous criteria for evaluating evidence
seems to fail to fit with the reality. Strawmen arguments just really do not impress me.
[ 27. December 2002, 12:46: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 28. December 2002 09:13
Before we wonder off into subjects objectionable to the moderator, it is important to note that 1)the subject discussion here is a positive design theory called the teleological effectiveness theory and its practical, engineering applications in analyzing biological designs(scientific theories) and biological design processes and 2)Evan and Frances do not appear to be participating in a discussion of teleological effectiveness theory, but rather attempting to change the subject of the discussion.
The teleological effectiveness theory asserts that 1)there are multiple types of biological design processes which can produce the same type of biological design, and 2)different types of design processes will produce different ‘quality’ designs.
If the theory is valid, it suggests the existence of multiple types of biological design processes including the existence of design processes which are capable of producing imperfect or non-optimal designs. It also suggests the possibility of design processes which produce non-adaptive biological designs. None of the major current approaches to biological design address the issue of multiple design processes or the issue of imperfect or flawed design processes.
I have chosen to discuss biological design in terms of human biological designs (scientific theories and scientific knowledge) generated by human and in terms of human biological design processes. It is important to note that while most traditional discussion of biological design has focused on long term changes in life forms and genetic changes, 1)humans are clearly biological organisms, 2)designs generated by humans are clearly biological designs, and 3)human processes for generating designs are clearly biological design processes. It is important to recall that ID developed from the observed similarities between the designs created by man, and the designs exhibited by life forms that clearly could not be attributed to the actions of man.
The traditional focus on genetic design processes rather than human design processes is based on the ASSUMPTION that human biological design processes are extremely complex and difficult to study and genetic design processes are very simple and easy to study. This assumption appears to be wrong on both accounts. The original naïve assumption that simple design processes produce simple genetic changes which translate into simple phenotype changes has been largely discredited (except, apparently, in the minds of the supporters of certain simplistic theories).
Contrary to popular belief, it appears to be possible to isolate relatively simple elements or units of human design(both information and decision processes). It also appears to possible to isolate relatively simple human design processes which produce readily observable ‘information’. The information, which is transmitted between people by vehicles including language, produces observable changes in a type of human design called a decision process. Changes in decision processes produce changes in human behavior. The human biological designs and human biological design processes as they relate to scientific theories, are the subjects of the discussion here. An entirely appropriate topic.
I am presenting this relatively complex subject in relatively small pieces or steps and inviting anyone interested to comment or discuss the materials being presented. Individuals like Evan and Frances are of course free to ignore the arguments being presented and to express their subjective opinions on subjects that are marginally related to the subject being offered for discussion.
In simplistic terms, the human biological design process being discussed here involves the following steps:
STEP 1: Complex processing of information P1(P1 denotes the logic used to process information decide on conclusion C1 and reject alternative conclusion C2) by person A which produces conclusion C1.
STEP 2: Conclusion C1 is communicated, transmitted or made available to the human community.
STEP 3: Person B inputs and accepts C1 and uses C1 to form an information processing logic or decision logic D1.
STEP 4: Person B inputs appropriate information and using process D1 generates output.
A human society involves millions of people performing millions of processing operations P, generating millions of pieces of information C and forming and transforming millions of decision processes D. It is not practical to model or simulate all the interactions but it is, I claim possible to analyze and model the type of design processes occurring at each step.
In terms of the above process, the teleological effectiveness theory states that it is possible to classify the processing algorithms P by type or class. Based on the classifications of P, it is possible to predict the extent to which resulting decision logic D is likely to help person B achieve his goals.
While comments from Evan and Frances do not appear to be directly relevant to the subject being discussed, they do provide ‘interesting’ examples of a type of information processing P used to support a type of scientific theory C.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 30. December 2002 10:07
RANKING AND IMPROVING SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS BIOLOGICAL DESIGNS AND BIOLOGICAL DESIGN PROCESSES,
The teleological effectiveness theory suggests the existence of multiple biological design processes. More important, from a practical perspective, the proposed theory suggests that it is possible to rate or rank different biological designs and different biological design processes based on an objective quantifiable criteria called teleological effectiveness. The combination of multiple processes and the ability to rank processes and designs, suggests it is possible to improve or engineer biological designs by substituting biological design processes with high(er) teleological effectiveness with biological design processes for biological design processes with low(er) teleological effectiveness.
If scientific theories are recognized as biological designs and scientific analysis as a biological design processes, then the proposed theory suggests that it should be possible to improve the scientific analysis of a subject by substituting scientific analysis with a high(er) teleological effectiveness for scientific analysis with a low(er) level of teleological effectiveness.
Carried a step further, it will be recognized that all human knowledge and beliefs are biological designs and the products of biological design processes. It therefore follows that if the teleological effectiveness theory applies to human designs and human design processes, then it should be possible to improve or redesign any and all human knowledge and beliefs by substituting processes associated with high(er) levels of teleological effectiveness for existing processes with low(er) levels of teleological effectiveness.
In simple terms, the teleological effectiveness theory suggests it should be possible to use engineering techniques to improve human design processes and thus improve human social behavior. It should, the theory suggests, be possible to use design science and the engineering of human design processes to create a better world. All that is required to achieve this admirable goal, the theory suggests, is:
1) Find a way to identify different types of human design processes
2) Find a way to measure the teleological effectiveness associated with different types of human design processes, and
3) Find a way to substitute design processes with high(er) teleological effectiveness for existing processes with low(er) teleological effectiveness.
As discussed previously, the teleological effectiveness theory is almost certainly (if trivially) true. As also discussed, the theory almost certainly applies to human biological or intelligent design processes. The only issues left to be addressed are the practical/technical/engineering issues associated with applying the theory to ‘engineering human social behavior’ or if you prefer the technical issues associated with ‘engineering or redesigning human nature’. I will in future posts address these technical engineering issues.
SUMMARY
ID developed from the observation that the ‘intelligent biological designs developed by humans’ are in many respects similar to the ‘intelligent biological designs generated by non-human biological systems’. This important ‘ID observation’ gets translated into the logical argument "Since human generated designs are created by human intelligence it is therefore reasonable to assume that non-human biological designs are produced by some non-human intelligence." This has always seemed to me to be a very reasonable interpretation of the ID observation.
The analysis of the ID observation becomes illogical, IMO, when it is assumed that:
1. Human intelligent or biological design processes are unknown and unknowable.
2. The only materialistic scientific explanations for non-human biological design are Darwinian and neo-Darwinian processes. And
3. If non-human biological design is not explained by Darwinian or non-Darwinian processes then it can be inferred the design results from the actions of an external designer.
The ID/evolution disagreement arises, IMO, not because of a disagreement over the third assumption, but because evolutionary scientists and many ID proponents agree on the first two assumptions. The teleological effectiveness theory is a positive theory which directly contradicts the first of the above assumptions.
If the study of human design processes supports the conclusion that there are many different human biological design processes involving complex(but materialistic) information processing, then it is not unreasonable to suggest that non-human biological design processes may also involve many different types of complex but materialistic design processes. The existence of multiple types of complex materialistic non-human biological design processes would contradict and invalidate both the second and third assumptions listed above.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 30. December 2002 12:29
I am still confused why we should equate scientific theories as 'biological designs'. So far there appear to be many assumptions such as effectiveness etc which remain unsupported by any real data or analysis.
Begging the question:
quote:
ID developed from the observation that the ‘intelligent biological designs developed by humans’ are in many respects similar to the ‘intelligent biological designs generated by non-human biological systems’
Of course the whole conclusion seems to rely on the elimination of materialistic processes and the fallacy of only two options "ID or natural processes (Darwinism)"
Perhaps Warren can explain to us where his ideas differ so far from the common ID arguments and help us understand why he considers his assumptions to be reasonable? Is there any supporting evidence?
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 02. January 2003 08:54
As stated above, the teleological effectiveness theory can be used to evaluate and rank biological designs (including scientific theories) and biological design processes(including the scientific analysis used to develop and evaluate scientific theories). Carried a step further, the theory is the basis for developing, inventing or evolving a new ‘human biological design process’ which is used to model, evaluate, and redesign or re-engineer existing human biological design processes. For lack of originality we will call this new type of human design process "Human design process engineering’ or HDP engineering.
Before beginning a discussion of how HDP engineering is performed, it will be useful to consider the logical justification for its existence.
THE LOGIC SUPPORTING THE POSSIBLE EXISTENCE OF HDP ENGINEERING
Design science, to answer one of Frances questions, assumes that biological design processes involve complex information processing . It is further assumed that complex biological information processing can and does take many different forms.
If as assumed, many different types of biological design processes exist, then either 1)all such design processes are equally effective or efficient at solving all types of adaptive or survival problems or 2)the teleological effectiveness theory is valid. As stated earlier, the evidence for the validity of the teleological effectiveness theory seems both obvious and overwhelming.
If we accept that there are different types of biological design processes with different levels of effectiveness or efficiency for solving different types of survival problems, then we are ready to consider the "Evolution of biological design process theory’.
EVOLUTION OF BIOLOGICAL DESIGN PROCESS THEORY: Systems exhibiting complex biological information processing can and have developed or evolved new biological design processes.
As with the teleological effectiveness theory, this theory would appear to be obviously and trivially true. The potential ‘controversy’ with respect to this theory is the relationship between biological design process and genetics. The theory as stated here does not limit biological design processes or the evolution of biological design processes to genetic processes.
Frances may wish to question the obvious, but humans are biological systems and humans are capable generating design (which are by definition biological designs). Since humans obviously have design generating abilities which are in a measurable way different from the design generating capacities of other animals, we are justified in labeling these processes ‘human biological design processes’. [It also seems reasonable to speculate that the ‘evolution’ of humans with unique design generating capabilities might be associated with the evolution of new or expanded human biological design processes.]
If we accept the existence of multiple design processes, then we accept the possible existence of multiple human biological design processes. If there are multiple human design processes, then the teleological effectiveness theory suggests that some of these design processes will be more effective or efficient than others. The evolution of biological design theory suggests not only the existence of multiple design processes, but it also suggests the possibility that existing human design processes could produce or evolve new human design processes.
If new human biological design processes are possible, then it is logically possible to develop, invent, discover, or evolve a new human biological design process whose purpose or function is to model, analyze, compare and rank existing human design processes, and use the result of such analysis to redesign or reengineer existing human design processes(such as scientific analysis) in order to improve the teleological effectiveness of the human design processes.
SUMMARY
The argument above suggests that if you 1)assume the existence of multiple design processes, 2)accept the teleological effectiveness theory, and 3)accept the evolution of biological design processes theory, then 4)you accept the logical possibility of developing or evolving a new human biological design process whose purpose or function is to redesign or reengineer existing human biological design processes (such as the processes associated with scientific analysis).
Essentially everyone accepts that biological systems are extremely complex. In order to begin to understand these extremely complex systems we need to find an appropriate starting point. Since biological systems clearly change or evolve, it makes sense to begin by analyzing ‘simple’ change processes. Traditionally, it has been assumed that genetic changes would be the simplest and easiest to study biological change processes. This approach has not proved effective or productive for a number of reasons.
I am proposing here that in order to understand biological systems, we start not with genetics but with the study of high level human design processes such as those responsible for generating scientific theories and scientific analysis.
It is assumed here that unlike the laws governing physical systems which are characterized as permanent and universal, the natural laws governing biological systems are dynamic and progressive[ It can be demonstrated that dynamic and progressive causal relationships or laws of nature are also deterministic.] Like scientific theories of permanent and universal laws, scientific theories of dynamic and progressive laws define how the laws operate in an ideal or optimal environment. A scientific theory, in effect, describes a process that can outperform the real world phenomena being modeled.
In line with the concept of a scientific theory describing outperforming the real world manifestation, HDP engineering is based on the concept of developing models that match or outperform the real world manifestations of human design processes. But having identified a process which outperforms the existing human design processes, it is possible to modify or redesign the real world process to more closely approximate the theory.
Human design process engineering is being proposed here as a practical application of the teleological effectiveness theory. Because the laws governing biological systems are assumed here to be dynamic and progressive, human design process engineering and ‘improving’ human design processes is also a technique for demonstrating the validity of design process theories.
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 02. January 2003 11:59
When Warren states that
quote:
Frances may wish to question the obvious, but humans are biological systems and humans are capable generating design (which are by definition biological designs).
He seems to be equivocating on the term biological designs. Perhaps Warren meant to use the term intelligent design?
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 03. January 2003 10:16
As explained above, the assumption that biological design processes involve complex information processing suggests:
1. There are many different types of biological design processes
2. Not all biological design processes are optimal (some are better, more effective, or more efficient than others for performing certain types of tasks).
3. New types of biological design processes can and have been created.
As a preliminary to developing Human Design Process Engineering we introduce one additional theory:
BIOLOGICAL DESIGN PROCESS COMPONENT THEORY: Biological design processes can be reduced to or defined in terms of components, components of design processes can take different forms, and new types of design processes can be created by substituting different types of components.
This should be recognized as a simple extension of the teleological effectiveness theory. If biological designs are produced by complex process or complex machinery, then it makes logical sense that these complex processes will be reducible to components and the components can take different forms. This theory further separates the design science approach from ‘simple process approaches’ which suggest that biological designs are produced by ‘self-organizing forces’ or simple ‘natural selection and mutation’ processes.
A REMINDER
Before considering specific details of Human Design Process Engineering, it may be useful to review one more time ‘why’ this topic is being introduced. In essentially all instances, the ID/evolution debate comes down to a choice between 1)biological design explained by permanent and universal causal relationships or laws or 2)biological design explained by some actions of an external designer.
Design science offers a third alternative. Design science proposes that biological design is explained or caused by ‘dynamic and teleological’ causal relationships or laws. In simple terms, a dynamic law of nature is one that can and does take different forms at different times and places. A dynamic and teleological law of nature is a law or causal relationship where changes in form are associated with increased likelihood of achieving a goal or purpose.
The purpose of the discussion here is to demonstrate that biological design processes are controlled or explained by dynamic and teleological laws. This is to be accomplished by creating a new biological design process (HDP engineering) which is dynamic (since it is new) and teleological because it increases the teleological effectiveness of existing design processes.
Noel Rude on the definitions thread pointed out the important distinction between ‘evolution the observed phenomena’ and ‘evolution- the theory explaining the observed phenomena’. In observing biological systems and biological design processes, it is obvious that design processes are dynamic (they have changed over time) and teleological (they produce changes that increase the likelihood of survival). But all the existing scientific theories addressing biological design processes describe permanent and universal laws or causal relationships. In fact, existing science does not even include techniques for defining predictive, testable scientific theories of dynamic and teleological laws of nature.
Common sense might suggest that directly introducing the subject of dynamic and teleological causal relationships or laws of nature would be easier than developing HDP engineering. For somewhat complicated reasons, the simple approach doesn’t seem to work.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic