|
Author
|
Topic: Brainstorming Lessons
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 18. January 2003 12:21
The objective behind this forum as listed as follows:
quote:
This forum is to discuss work in progress about complex systems. It is the place to get preliminary thoughts about complex systems into circulation so that they can receive critical scrutiny and be more fully developed. Of special interest are novel intuitions, speculations, hypotheses, conjectures, arguments, and data.
A good place to look for examples of such brainstorming is Origin Of Life research. If one surveys this literature, you will find all sorts of speculations proposing how things might have happened, and the evidence that fits with these scenarios. In fact, there are so many different views that Michael Ruse would note, " Indeed, to the outsider, one of the most striking things about origin of organisms inquiry today is the lack of unanimity" You will even find disputes about the nature of scientific inquiry itself:
quote:
In the field of the origin of life, scientists are divided into segregated schools that do not even agree on the standards of scientific inquiry. Ordinarily, science is perceived as the difficult search for an ever-more-comprehensive, true explanation of the world. But in the words of J. L. Bada and A. Lazcano ("Some like it hot, but not the first biomolecules," Perspectives, 14 June, p. 1982), the research into the prebiotic soup theory of the origin of life aims "to construct a coherent narrative." This is a remarkable statement. The objective scientific principle of a search for the truth is replaced by the subjective aesthetic principle of a well-constructed story. - Günter Wächtershäuser, Oct 25, 2002, Science
But you will not find powerful arguments establishing that abiogenesis did happen, even in a scientific sense. Clas Blomberg, a researcher of abiogenesis, writes that origin of life research "is aimed to show how it could have happened"(emphasis added/ J Ther Biol 187:541-554). And when it is time to evaluate various speculations about the origin of life, Blomberg points out that the "primary question is not: "is this the way it happened?", but rather, "what arguments support the possibility that it could have occurred this way and what speaks against it?""
A nice example of the ambuguity that is inherent in brain-storming is found here. OOL researchers propose a speculative hypothesis is that supported by evidence that is little more than appearances. I think there are three points that stand out:
1. Note this : We'll never have much definite information on the origin of life, he says. "But then, just because we'll never know why the Roman Empire fell doesn't mean it isn't worth talking about." But if life were designed, we'd likewise probably be without much definite information. Yet just as standard OOL are still worth talking about ,so too are notions of life's design. In fact, simply talking about life's design can leads to speculations of what this entailed and this in turn can feed back into a better understanding of life. The bottom line here is any attempt to squelch discussions of design until we first extract a data base of definite information (i.e., actual mechanisms, identity of design, etc.) are seriously misguided and do not understand the proper way to brainstorm about an ambiguous topic.
2. Note also that the researchers have a solution to one of several fundamental problems in origins - why do archaea and bacteria have very different membranes? However, notice what Thomas Cavalier-Smith, a leading expert, says about this part of their hypothesis - " It's quite impossible that it could be right." Yet the hypothesis is published in the peer-reviewed literature. Just because a leading authority may declare a speculation impossible, and even seems to have a point, doesn't mean we should not think about the speculation. All speculations, in their initial stages, are vulnerable to hyper-skepticism. To expect any speculation to somehow cause all the facts to suddenly fall into place is unrealistic.
3. Note this also, as it speaks for itself: "It may be that no theory is going to fit all the evidence. The trick is to pick which bits to ignore, says John Raven of the University of Dundee, UK. "To create a coherent hypothesis we have to say 'this bit of data doesn't fit, but we're going ahead anyway'." This illustrates what is commonly seen with OOL research - a good degree of slack is cut to these speculations, as everyone realizes the ambiguity of the topic and the great problem of extracting definite information about these events. Thus, when brain-storming, sometimes you have to ignore some lines of evidence, with the plan of returning to them once the original hypothesis is better worked out.
To summarize, we can see that OOL research is a field of inquiry that lacks consensus, focuses on how things could have happened because such speculation itself is simply worth talking about, tolerates hypotheses that some experts label as 'impossible,' and entails a certain degree of cherry-picking of the data. This is important to keep in mind because many expect ID to adhere to a much higher standard, whereby an initial ID hypothesis is supposed to have the properties of a scientific theory that has matured at the hands of thousands of scientists working over decades. ID theorists need only follow the example scientists have laid down as they explore the OOL.
[ 18. January 2003, 12:25: Message edited by: Mike Gene ]
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 18. January 2003 23:53
Two issues struck me in reading Mike Gene's OP. The first is in the Forum objective that Mike Gene quoted: quote:
This forum is to discuss work in progress about complex systems. It is the place to get preliminary thoughts about complex systems into circulation so that they can receive critical scrutiny and be more fully developed. (emphasis added)
I agree that critical scrutiny is essential. Absent that, it's way too easy to fall into a self-reinforcing mental groove and lead oneself down sterile garden paths chasing a non-existent White Rabbit. In order for critical scrutiny to happen, of course, one needs critics. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Then after some considerable discussion of OOL work, Mike Gene concluded that quote:
The bottom line here is any attempt to squelch discussions of design until we first extract a data base of definite information (i.e., actual mechanisms, identity of design, etc.) are seriously misguided and do not understand the proper way to brainstorm about an ambiguous topic.
I'm not sure what "squelch" is intended to mean in this context. In the field he describes, OOL research, there's no end of mutual criticism among the various approaches and researchers, some of it pretty severe. Mike G. cites some of that in the OP. But in spite of it, OOL work is alive and well. In fact, I should probably not say it's "in spite of it"; rather, it's likely because of the infighting that the field is so lively. The mutual criticisms across approaches is a stimulus to sharpen hypotheses, marshal what evidence is available, develop predictions of new observations and data, and generally fight through to a consensus. No one knows when (or even if) that consensus will emerge, but the process is that of science, not philosophy.
That process appeals to what data is available, worries about consistency with neighboring disciplines (e.g., geochemistry as it makes inferences about the pre-biotic atmosphere from what indications are available in the geological record), and strives to develop a coherent, plausible, consistent-with-the-evidence narrative of how life may have originated. That's all we can ever have in any historical science: a coherent, plausible, data-consistent narrative. A reconstruction of what might have happened, what could have happened, even what most likely happened, but not the known-with-absolute-certainty TRUE story of what actually happened. Looking back through the mists of several billion years is a real real hard problem. But as the liveliness of OOL work shows, it is not on that account immune to research and potential understanding.
A significant part of the problem in accounting for the origin of life is the paucity of data, and even disagreement on what constitutes relevant data, not lack of hypotheses. And that is a significant problem for ID. In his recent RAPID conference keynote address, published in the most recent PCID, William Dembski called for the development of a Catalog of Fundamental Facts (CFF), a list of "irreducibly complex biological objects or processes" (p. 4). He goes on to say that "The criteria governing entries should be very strict and should be stated explicitly: such and such is IC if and only if fill-in-the-blank" (p. 5). That blank has to be filled in with researcher-independent criteria. That is, anyone with the appropriate knowledge, skills, and equipment should be able to analyze a given candidate object or process and arrive at the same classification (reducible or irreducible) as anyone else similarly skilled and equipped. Right now, ICness has roughly the same epistemological status as Blondlot's N-rays. It appears to be in the eye of the beholder. ID has got to get over attributing criticism to some naturalistic conspiracy of materialistic scientists intent on maintaining their intellectual hegemony over science, and get on with developing itself.
On another board, in response to a reiteration of my suggestion four months ago in the OP of the ISCID Multiple Designers thread about the necessity of developing a taxonomy of purportedly designed biological structures and processes, an IDist claimed that "a taxonomic exercise would take 100+ years of government funding and peer review, as evolutionary theory has had (and has botched)." Consider, though, that working without benefit of computers and without massive electronic databases of research data (and with not a single graduate student slave), Carl Linneaus managed to produce the first edition of his taxonomy of living things, Systema Naturae, before he was 30 years old. 100+ years? That's real hard to take seriously.
If Mike Gene's reference to an "attempt to squelch discussions of design until we first extract a data base of definite information (i.e., actual mechanisms, identity of design, etc.)" means that speculation or questions about the mechanisms of design and the nature, identity, and/or properties of the designing agents ought to be out of bounds, then I think it is he who draws the wrong conclusion from the account of OOL he gives in the OP. I'll give him another example to think about.
Wegener's 1915 hypothesis of continental drift was not accepted for nearly five decades because there was no known mechanism by means of which continents could be propelled across the earth. There were suggestive data that it had occurred - e.g., geographical form matches across seas, distributions of fossils, and so on - but no mechanism, and hence no broad acceptance. It wasn't until the 1960s, when actual drift rates could be measured and a plausible mechanism for drift was offered that it became broadly accepted. (I have stood in the valley at Thingvellir, in Iceland, where the mid-Atlantic Ridge crosses the island, and have seen the lasers that measure the drift rate as the North American Plate drifts west and the Eurasian Plate drifts east. It is an eerie feeling to be there, knowing that.)
That example suggests ID itself ought not squelch questions and speculations about mechanisms and designing agents. No matter how many entries there are in the CCF, absent testable hypotheses about how they came to be IC, it will be merely a marginally interesting list of biological oddities and a set of targets for enterprising graduate students in molecular biology.
RBH
[ 19. January 2003, 00:05: Message edited by: RBH ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 19. January 2003 02:01
I agree that brainstorming sessions are typically more productive if they don't get bogged down in criticisms too quickly.
But is ID really at the stage of brainstorming? A brainstorming session cannot seriously compete with experimentally-supported theories. OOL research is highly speculative, true, but my impression was that ID was being offered as an alternative for much more than just OOL. So when Mike Gene says
quote:
This is important to keep in mind because many expect ID to adhere to a much higher standard, whereby an initial ID hypothesis is supposed to have the properties of a scientific theory that has matured at the hands of thousands of scientists working over decades.
it is missing the context. Yes, if you want to compete with a theory that has matured at the hands of thousands of scientists, your theory had better have at least as good of properties! It's reasonable to give promising alternatives some time to develop said properties before rejecting them, but they should still be held to the same standards.
If ID were talking only about OOL, and could say something testable about OOL, the demands placed upon it would probably be diminished.
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 19. January 2003 09:25
I found myself in agreement with much of what RBH says. He notes that all we can ever expect from any historical science is a coherent, plausible, data-consistent narrative.
quote:
A reconstruction of what might have happened, what could have happened, even what most likely happened, but not the known-with-absolute-certainty TRUE story of what actually happened. Looking back through the mists of several billion years is a real real hard problem.
Thus it is important to realize that we expect nothing more from ID. That is, ID need only generate a coherent, plausible, data-consistent narrative that speculates about how things could have happened. Thus, when RBH notes that "ID has got to get over attributing criticism to some naturalistic conspiracy of materialistic scientists intent on maintaining their intellectual hegemony over science, and get on with developing itself," I would point out that this is exactly what I am doing (although it is also important to highlight the fact of bias (and its causes), given that science is a sociological phenomenon that itself should be subject to study).
RBH discusses the necessity of developing a taxonomy of designed structures and processes. In a sense, this is where I am going. This will, of course, take time. RBH points to Linneaus, however, Linneaus was able to invent a taxonomy by using observed states (i.e., feathers, backbones, gills, etc.) An ID taxonomy would have to be created around inferred states and that's going to be more tricky for those of us who think there is a design mimic out there.
RBH writes:
If Mike Gene's reference to an "attempt to squelch discussions of design until we first extract a data base of definite information (i.e., actual mechanisms, identity of design, etc.)" means that speculation or questions about the mechanisms of design and the nature, identity, and/or properties of the designing agents ought to be out of bounds, then I think it is he who draws the wrong conclusion from the account of OOL he gives in the OP.
No, I did not mean this. Such questions and speculations are not out of bounds. What is out of bounds is the demand that we first answer such questions in a way that generates consensus among all, and only then can we explore ID. That is, an ID approach should not be held hostage to first providing definite answers about the designers and their mechanisms. Speculations about such matters, and vague answers, are sufficient. All that is needed is a coherent, plausible, data-consistent narrative that speculates about how things could have happened (i.e., a reflection of OOL research).
As for continental drift example, let me mention two things.
According to my hypothesis, the mechanism question can be broken down into two separate events. The original bioengineering/seeding and the front-loaded state inherent in such stem cells and how it panned out over evolution. The latter mechanism question is much more tractable, as we can study the matrix of life and how it changes. And thus far, I have hit on two aspects of this mechanism - the initial states and biased mutational events. However, the first event is far less tractable given the designers are not independently detectable. And unless the designers are currently designing, as they did with the OOL, and on a massive scale (given that science only directly studies a small fraction of all the living events on this planet), you are not going to be able to detect this mechanism. In other words, if my thesis is correct, there is no good reason to expect an ability to detect the identity of the designers or the mechanisms they used to construct the first cells. Thus, expecting that which is not expected by the hypothesis demonstrates only a serious misunderstanding of the hypothesis.
Secondly, we can return to the example of the origin of life. As we can see, there is no agreed upon mechanism for the OOL. In fact, there is very little consensus about such events. Yet there is a huge consensus about one thing - the Earth spawned Life. Thus, the OOL research demonstrates that we don't first need to establish mechanism to obtain consensus about a very significant historical claim. The pattern is quite different. With continental drift, no one accepted it until a mechanism was found. With the OOL, most accept it and are looking for mechanisms.
And this gets me back to the OP, as I can already sense the risk this thread will drift. The main point behind the OP is that OOL research is cut a significant amount of slack. Lack of agreement, lack of rigor, a fuzzy approach, etc., are all tolerated (more so than they would be in other fields). For example, note carefully Raven's statement: To create a coherent hypothesis we have to say 'this bit of data doesn't fit, but we're going ahead anyway'.
Can I, as an ID theorist, apply the same rule? Or would the critics of ID pounce on this?
The bottom line is that we should cut the ID theorists the same degree of slack that is given to the OOL researchers. Both are working on problems that border on the intractable and not all questions about reality are equally tractable. This doesn't mean that one should refrain from offering severe criticism. After all, my approach flourishes as a response to such criticism. All it means is that people are under no rational obligation to abandon ID because they can't essentially prove ID or satisfy the (sometimes contradictory) criticisms of the skeptics. In fact, unless one can disprove ID, ID remains, like the OOL, something that is worth talking about among intelligent and educated people. And that's something we probably all can agree upon given the existence of our discussions.
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 19. January 2003 09:48
Rex: If ID were talking only about OOL, and could say something testable about OOL, the demands placed upon it would probably be diminished.
My current ID hypothesis largely focuses on the OOL and includes many testable claims. Nevertheless, I still being constantly told that I need to either prove evolution is impossible or come up with the designers. But one should not look at this as a question of diminishment. It's a question of double standards and whether OOL research should be held to lower standards than ID.
As for expressing ID beyond the OOL, there are different ways of doing this. One way, that I am currently exploring, is the hypothesis that evolution was front-loaded. This approach does not displace the matured theory. On the contrary, it incorporates the matured theory but also adds another perspective that allows for novel insights (such as the connection I made between the genetic code and cytosine deamination). Another aspect is that the originally designed cells, used to seed this planet, were not the products of evolution. Thus, it is interesting to note that the mature theory fails to adequately account for the existence of so much cellular machinery. For example, there is no evidence that Darwinian evolution spawned the bacterial flagellum. In such cases, the mature theory doesn't offer much to compete against.
Nevertheless, the main point in this thread is whether OOL research should be held to lower standards than ID.
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 19. January 2003 10:28
Let me highlight something I just posted above, as some are under the impression that I am arguing that we should not be so hard on ID. That's not my argument. My argument is this:
The bottom line is that we should cut the ID theorists the same degree of slack that is given to the OOL researchers. Both are working on problems that border on the intractable and not all questions about reality are equally tractable. This doesn't mean that one should refrain from offering severe criticism. After all, my approach flourishes as a response to such criticism. All it means is that people are under no rational obligation to abandon ID because they can't essentially prove ID or satisfy the (sometimes contradictory) criticisms of the skeptics. In fact, unless one can disprove ID, ID remains, like the OOL, something that is worth talking about among intelligent and educated people. And that's something we probably all can agree upon given the existence of our discussions.
So again, it's not about shying away from harsh skepticism. I myself have shown with hundreds of examples that I do no shy away from harsh criticism (which is why I can speak to this issue with credibility). It's a question of the meaning that we assign to such criticism.
A crucial aspect of brainstorming is the refusal to throw in the towel too early. Any initial hypothesis will most likely be subject to extreme skepticism, especially if it doesn't fit into current paradigms. But it takes TIME and EFFORT to meet the skepticism. Criticisms should not be viewed as reasons to abandon the ID approach, but as opportunities for investigation.
Of course, the best critic can often be oneself. For example, I once stumbled upon a biotic feature that seriously tempted me to throw in the ID towel. That is, as I am slowly generating a coherent, plausible, data-consistent narrative that speculates about how things could have happened, I encountered something that really knocked it all off course. But I did what I do often - put it on the back burner. A few months later, it came to me. I was able to see this phenomenon in a new light and this actually led to some interesting testable predictions (no, I have no shared this example yet). What keeps any investigation going is a track record of increasing clarity and understanding. And that is exactly why I continue to stick with these ID thoughts.
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 19. January 2003 22:08
From RBH:
quote:
I agree that critical scrutiny is essential. Absent that, it's way too easy to fall into a self-reinforcing mental groove and lead oneself down sterile garden paths chasing a non-existent White Rabbit. In order for critical scrutiny to happen, of course, one needs critics.
The need is for criticism, not necessarily for critics. It may be a subtle distinction, but brainstorming sessions are established to solve a problem, not to deny there is a problem. Yes, people can disagree that there is a problem, but the disagreement that there is even a problem is outside the bounds of the brainstorming session.
In any event criticism has its place, but not initially. See Brainstorming for the steps of brainstorming. Criticism within brainstorming should be focused upon the ranking of ideas for the focusing of resources--not on the sqwashing of ideas. White Rabbit chases would then be ranked near the bottom of the list.
In brainstorming, ALL ideas are written down. Perhaps a seperate thread can be established to list each of the ideas with a link to the thread in which the idea is discussed. The initial discussions should attempt to improve an idea in an attempt to get it the best ranking possible. Once a well-understood list of ideas is established, then the criticism takes place to rank the list in order of the most likely to achieve success. Brainstomring sessions are success oriented.
After everyone helps to establish the most promising candidate, then it can be worked on with the full support of the brainstorming team. At this point, the idea can then be turned over to "critics" (we call 'em management where I work), and there is a trial by fire of the idea. This is where those who don't think there is a problem come in (curiously they look just like management).
Now I'm not sure of how the authors of this website wish it to be run, and ditto for these forums, but it does lack, from time to time, the true sense of brainstorming activity.
[ 19. January 2003, 22:12: Message edited by: Irving ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 20. January 2003 00:23
quote:
The bottom line is that we should cut the ID theorists the same degree of slack that is given to the OOL researchers. Both are working on problems that border on the intractable and not all questions about reality are equally tractable.
Well, perhaps. I don't personally put much faith in the results of OOL research. It is an interesting and possibly important research topic, but we simply are not advanced enough yet (and may never be) to make solid, testable hypotheses and test them. Which, right now, leaves much OOL research as fascinating (but woefully undersupported) speculation.
I am happy to cut ID theorists and researchers the same degree of slack I cut OOL theorists and researchers, at the cost of me having the same degree of faith in their conclusions. Namely, when it comes to the big picture, very little. (I also put very little faith in the results of most cosmological theories, for the same reason.)
I get the impression that this is not what you are hoping for, though.
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 20. January 2003 00:31
Rex: I get the impression that this is not what you are hoping for, though.
Then you impression is mistaken. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
IP: Logged
|
|
andyg
Member
Member # 415
|
posted 20. January 2003 14:02
Mike Gene wrote:
quote:
For example, note carefully Raven's statement: To create a coherent hypothesis we have to say 'this bit of data doesn't fit, but we're going ahead anyway'.
Can I, as an ID theorist, apply the same rule? Or would the critics of ID pounce on this?
Not at all. This happens in all experimental science, not just origins of life research. It may not please strict Popperians who would have scientists discard a hypothesis the moment a piece of data "falsifies", but in the real, practical world of science, it's entirely acceptable. One of the features of the methodology of science is its provisional nature. All hypotheses, models and theories are works in progress. The best theories are the ones with fewest bits of data that don't fit.
Of course some scientists will pounce on a theory that has a discrepancy in it. That happens all the time too - especially if the pouncing scientist has a competing theory that *they* feel better explains the data. ID proponents should expect the same harsh criticism of their ideas that the rest of us have to deal with - and I say this as someone who is currently revising two papers and one grant proposal, all of which were rejected by peer review.......
AndyG
IP: Logged
|
|
nobody
Member
Member # 145
|
posted 23. January 2003 21:32
quote:
However, notice what Thomas Cavalier-Smith, a leading expert, says about this part of their hypothesis - " It's quite impossible that it could be right." Yet the hypothesis is published in the peer-reviewed literature.
Fascinating!
That's a remarkable statement. Thanks very much for pointing it out Mike.
[ 23. January 2003, 21:32: Message edited by: nobody ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 26. January 2003 13:24
Okay, I guess we can close out this thread with the following conclusions.
Thus it is important to realize that, compared to OOL research, we expect nothing more from ID. That is, like origins research elsewhere, ID need only generate a coherent, plausible, data-consistent narrative that speculates about how things could have happened. During the investigation, the ID theorist is under no obligation to discard a hypothesis the moment a piece of data "falsifies" (as Andy notes). And while we may never be able to extract definite information about life's design, it is still worth discussing and thinking about.
Of course, this awareness is balanced by the consideration that the skeptic is under no obligation to accept or embrace ID until something very solid is produced (just as no one is rationally obligated to accept or embrace traditional OOL views until something solid is produced).
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic