|
Author
|
Topic: Experimental Design for Natualistic Intelligent Design
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 02. June 2003 09:24
If you accept that ‘intelligent design’ is a natural or materialistic capability associated with all biological systems, then you accept that it should be possible to demonstrate, analyze, and test this natural capability using the scientific paradigm. The purpose of this thread is to introduce and discuss an experimental design for demonstrating, analyzing, and testing naturalistic intelligent design capability.
ASSUMPTIONS AND LOGIC
The proposed experimental paradigm is based on the following assumptions;
1. Naturalistic Intelligent Design(NID) a)has multiple forms (but with the same general logical structure), b) is observable and reducible, and c)is self generating and progressive- These assumptions suggest that if a form of NID is identified then the scientific paradigm can be used to a)reverse engineer the process, b)redesign, re-engineer or improve the process, and c)apply the improved process.
2. Human scientific analysis is a form of NID- This combined with the first set of assumptions suggest that it should be possible to a)reverse engineer, b)improve or reengineer scientific analysis, and c)apply the improved processes (to obtain improved results).
If intelligent design is a naturalistic process, then it must be a self-improving or self-programming process(because current forms of NID developed or evolved from simpler forms of NID). If NID processes are self-improving, then at any point in time they will be non-optimal. If a process is non-optimal, then it can potentially be improved by a process such as scientific analysis. If scientific analysis is a form of NID, then it should be possible to improve scientific analysis by the use of scientific analysis.
In short, if intelligent design is a natural or materialistic feature of biological systems, and if scientific analysis if a naturalistic intelligent design process, then it would be predicted that ‘scientific analysis processes can be used to improve scientific analysis’. The experimental paradigm being proposed is designed to test this prediction.
THE ANALYSIS OF COMPLEX ARGUMENTS
In order to test the prediction that science can improve science, we need a simple and common application of scientific analysis that can be used in experiments. The analysis of complex arguments provides such an application. As defined here, the analysis of a complex argument has the general form:
ANALYSIS OF COMPLEX ARGUMENTS FORMAT: Given an existing body of knowledge X, and using procedures and standards Y, then agreement or consensus can be reached on conclusion Z.
As defined here, the analysis or scientific analysis of complex arguments involves a group of individuals, looking at an existing, shared body of knowledge X, using agreed upon set of standards and procedures Y, in order to reach consensus on some conclusion Z. It appears reasonable to suggest that reaching consensus on complex arguments is a basic or elementary function of scientific analysis. It also appears reasonable to recognize that science achieves consensus based on common or shared information. The experimental design is thus intended to evaluate the impact of different sets of scientific procedures and standards on consensus conclusions.
It will be noted this is a two step experimental design. The first step is to determine or demonstrate that two competing sets of standards and procedures Y1 and Y2 generate different and incompatible conclusions Z1 and Z2. If two sets of procedures are found to consistently produce different conclusions, then the second step is to determine/demonstrate if one set of conclusions is materially better than the other. Effective application of the proposed experimental paradigm requires the ability to complete both parts of the analysis.
It will be noted that this experimental design applied on an iterative basis is a search routine to find the dynamic best practices form of scientific analysis.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 03. June 2003 09:26
The proposed experimental paradigm for the study of naturalistic intelligent design has at least three unconventional features which are worth considering in more detail.
1. ANALYZE HUMAN BEHAVIOR
The proposed experimental paradigm is based on the analysis of the human behavioral form of the biological intelligent design capability, and specifically the human scientific engineering form of intelligent design. The analysis of intelligent design has traditionally centered on evolutionary and genetic processes.
There are two good reasons for starting the analysis of intelligent design with human behavior rather than genetic change. First, there is general agreement that humans do exhibit an intelligent design capability. The existence of intelligent design at the genetic level is more controversial. Second, somewhat surprisingly, intelligent design processes turn out to be far easier to observe, measure, and analyze with respect to human behavior than with respect to genetic and evolutionary changes. This ‘finding’ is best seem by actually considering applications of the experimental paradigm.
It appears, based on initial analysis, that human social behavior is separate from, or can be analyzed as separate from, the underlying functioning of the nervous system. This is logically similar to the situation where ‘nervous system function is, or can be analyzed as separate from the gene expression’. [Brain function and specifically nervous system learning is a manifestation of gene expression.]
2. ENGINEERING RATHER THAN THEORY CONSTRUCTION
The proposed experimental paradigm begins as an effort to improve or reengineer human behavior rather than as an attempt to develop and test scientific hypotheses which explain human behavior. The ‘starting with engineering’ approach is viewed here as a ‘return to scientific origins and scientific fundamentals’. The current convention of ‘theory first then engineering’ appears to be a misinterpretation of the scientific process. This misinterpretation appears to date back to an old social/political interpretation of the social status of pure science versus applied science. At some point in time, pure science got associated with the nobility and applied science got associated with the lower status commoners. This social interpretation of the roles of pure and applied science led to the erroneous belief that pure science or theory construction should lead and direct applied science.
Whatever the origins of the ‘pure science first’ convention, there is ample precedent that the ‘start with a practical problem’ approach to scientific analysis can be, and has been productive.
3. THE ANALYSIS OF INEFFICIENCY
The proposed experimental design focus on identifying and correcting the inefficiency of naturalistic intelligent design. Most conventional approaches to both evolution and intelligent design view evolution and/or intelligent design as permanent and universal forces of nature. The experimental paradigm proposed here is based on the concept that intelligent design is a dynamic and progressive force. The proposed paradigm is based on the concept that the power or force of intelligent design in the universe can and does increase. If intelligent design is a progressive force, then no matter what the current power or capability, it should always be possible to increase it.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic