|
Author
|
Topic: Frank J. Tipler: Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 03. July 2003 18:29
Wo! Wo! Wo!
The ISCID bibliography is closed to non-members, for very practical reasons. First of all, I spent about a month of my time developing the software to run the bibliography. Second of all, the vision for ISCID from the beginning has been for it to either sink or swim on its own two legs, without outside funding. For this reason, we need to provide services that are only available to members... Our organization survives off membership fees and donations, and nothing else, at this point. If our members didn't have any reason to become members, then ISCID would not exist.
So, having said that, the bibliography is not closed off for the purpose of protecting identities. We have several rabid ID critics as ISCID members and have no qualms about them having access to the bibliography. The reason it is protected is that we feel that members of ISCID deserve some services that non-members don't get.
Does that makes sense?
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 03. July 2003 19:24
Andyg: ID doesn't require any more evidence to be accepted than Mitchell's chemiosmotic theory, or the link between H. pylorii and stomach ulcers.
Which would be a relevant analogy if the designer was currently designing things everywhere around us. Nevertheless, given that your assertion is not an argument against any of the points I raise in my essay, I acknowledge your opinion. I just find it to be completely unsupported.
In both cases, the evidence became undeniable. If and when ID reaches the same point, it will be accepted. Scientists will simply have no choice.
You miss the point. Yeah, the evidence became undeniable as the investigation matured. Over the years. But you are not addressing the point I raised, using your own link. Mitchell’s first publication “did not go into too much detail” and his hypothesis was rooted in “sparse clues.” Yet what do you demand from ID? – Undeniable Evidence!
I suggest you take your complaint about scientists unfairly equating ID with religion to the more widely published members of the ID movement - in particular the Discovery Institute - who have promoted such ideas. By their words shall ye know them.
Yes, I have learned not to expect PhD’s in science to give up their stereotypes. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
IP: Logged
|
|
andyg
Member
Member # 415
|
posted 03. July 2003 21:51
Mike wrote:
quote:
Yeah, the evidence became undeniable as the investigation matured. Over the years. But you are not addressing the point I raised, using your own link. Mitchell’s first publication “did not go into too much detail” and his hypothesis was rooted in “sparse clues.” Yet what do you demand from ID? – Undeniable Evidence!
You misunderstand me. If I was a scientist in the early 1960s, I would be applying the same scepticism to chemiosmosis as I do now to ID. Only time will tell if the theory of ID reaches the point that chemiosmosis had by 1978 - with the awarding of a Nobel Prize.
You seem to think I'm applying double standards. I'm arguing the exact opposite.
AndyG
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 04. July 2003 00:10
Matt: Mike, just give me SOMETHING I can look at and say: "wow, that's neat stuff"
http://www.idthink.net/biot/deam/index.html
Matt: about. ID is being ignored by the scientific mainstream because IT IS BORING and INTELLECTUALLY STERILE. (Yes, that's a subjective evaluation, but I have a subjective point of view.)
Yet this subjectivity is what is dictating the debate. And that’s the problem.
The ‘herd’ metaphor used by Gold (link above) is actually quite illuminating. Human beings, by nature, are social animals. And one question that science doesn’t seem to address is how much human biology influences the scientific ideas accepted by humans. At first glance, this would seem to be a non-issue, as it is Nature that ultimately judges what becomes part of science. That is, regardless of psychology and sociology, DNA is the genetic material. And it will eventually be discovered as the genetic material. But what if we are dealing with a deeply ambiguous topic?
As I explain:
quote:
That is, as Nature's ability to contribute to the debate is diminished, scientific belief becomes more of an interplay between Mind (psychology/metaphysics) and Society. In such situations, it is easier to make Nature subservient to the demands of Mind and Society. And if the evidence for ID is too subtle, it cannot turn back the dominant influences of Mind and Society. Instead, those very influences will be effectively able to dictate to Nature and come up with an alternative non-teleological story.
http://www.idthink.net/back/sci/index.html
Now, if we inject the need to be “interesting,” something interesting happens. What will the herd find interesting? Something that does not further the paradigm that defines the herd? Of course not. The herd is defined by the paradigm and the paradigm dictates what is interesting. As Gold explains:
quote:
There is one more point I should make. When in a subject a general attitude or a viewpoint has become established, then it is very easy to obtain funds to do work in that subject on the bases of what I call "shoehorn science." I think you will understand what I mean by that. If you make your proposal which says: "I will demonstrate how this fact and that fact, that apparently are difficult to see in the accepted framework, can be figured into that framework," they are all delighted to give you money. And by the time that has gone on for a long time, so much work of the shoehorn kind has been diligently done to force the facts into the pattern that is preordained, that it then looks to many people as if it all was firmly established.
The herd will only find an opposing view interesting to the degree that it threatens to break up the herd. Thus, the need for ID to present “extraordinary evidence” (Gold calls it a " crass confrontation with opposing evidence".). Anything less that this, and the herd is safe. And uninterested. I’ve demonstrated this many times by asking people what type of data they would consider evidence for ID. Once you get beyond the variants of “show me the designers” or “prove to me evolution is impossible,” there’s not much there. Thus, what the herd would find interesting is not necessarily something that would follow from the truth of ID. In other words, the very things an ID theorist might need to launch a positive ID investigation are likely to be judged non-interesting in the eyes of the herd. The result? The investigation is prevented from ever getting off the ground. And you guys get to score cheap rhetorical points about the lack of ID research.
Anyway, what’s interesting is in the eye of the beholder. Surely, you are not trying to tell us that everything that is published in the scientific literature is “neat stuff?” And take your own research interests. If you are like most scientists, they are interesting to only a small fraction of the scientific community. If a community is interested in explaining how the Earth spawned Life, of course they will not be interested in determining whether the Earth spawned Life. The list goes on. But it seems to me that Dembski asks a very interesting question – can we reliably detect intelligent design in nature? If the answer is yes, it is interesting within science, as we can then truly score things as designed or not designed and flesh out a natural history that is more interesting than current convention. If the answer is no, it says something interesting about science – it can never deliver the truth of natural history, as its explanations are a function of its epistemic limitations.
[ 04. July 2003, 00:12: Message edited by: Mike Gene ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 04. July 2003 00:16
Andyg: quote:
You misunderstand me. If I was a scientist in the early 1960s, I would be applying the same scepticism to chemiosmosis as I do now to ID.
So you think Mitchell’s original paper, that sparked his investigation, should have been excluded from the scientific literature?
quote:
Only time will tell if the theory of ID reaches the point that chemiosmosis had by 1978 - with the awarding of a Nobel Prize.
Yes, time will tell. But the problem is getting the ID ball rolling. When you demand undeniable evidence, you are demanding something that usually comes at the terminal end of a long investigation. You can’t make that type of thing the prerequisite to begin an investigation. Doing so is an obvious sign of a closed-minded attempt to thwart a controversial investigation.
So here’s the question. Are IDers allowed to follow in Mitchell’s foot steps? Can they too publish a hypothesis, that doesn’t go into too much detail and is rooted in sparse clues? Or do they need the Undeniable Evidence to get a foot in the door?
IP: Logged
|
|
Rajendra
Member
Member # 812
|
posted 04. July 2003 02:02
1. Prof. Tipler wants the referee system for crackpots and not for geniuses. Let someone else other than myself decide if I am a crackpot or a genius. The problem remains and his scheme will not work.
2. The persons did get Nobel prizes in spite of the hurdles in publishing their work. The hurdles are merely minor irritants. The problem existed even before WW II e.g. the discoverer of Beloussov-Zabodansky reaction has to leave science because the paper could not be published.
3. Physics ( or any well established discipline) has grown to a great height. It can be crossed only by a long jump. Merely hoping will not do.
4. Prof. Tipler himself has admitted that competition for getting the attention of a peer has increased thousand fold. A peer is not a zero mistake machine, her failure are bound to increase thousand folds in absolute numbers.
5. I agree that the grant sanctioning power should be more diffused. We should demand honesty and objectivity from the peers who become technocrats.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 04. July 2003 06:36
brauer. It has been very useful as I point out in the paper to which I have referred. I postulated that the information for evolution, like the information for ontogeny, was present from very early on. This postulate puts a whole new light on what has erroneously been called convergent evolution. Apparently, once a blueprint has been read and expressed in a particular lineage, it cannot be repeated which offers an explanation for the irreversibility of evolution. These ideas are not entirely new with me, as they were anticipated by Grasse and Schindewolf and especially by Leo Berg. Obviously, such an assumption demands intelligence as well as design. I remain comfortable with both. In any event, I am convinced, like Leo Berg, that there was no role for chance in evolution. Please note my use of the past tense. Evolution has been largely, if not entirely, an emergent phenomenon, driven by forces about which little is known. It remains a great mystery. nosivad
IP: Logged
|
|
GP
Member
Member # 570
|
posted 04. July 2003 07:46
Hello again Mike,
I too found Tipler's article an interesting read, but perhaps for other reasons. I admired his willingness to give constructive criticism by offering alternatives to the current paradigm. But before I get into all of that, I noticed that you wrote this:
quote:
If the answer is yes, it is interesting within science, as we can then truly score things as designed or not designed and flesh out a natural history that is more interesting than current convention. If the answer is no, it says something interesting about science – it can never deliver the truth of natural history, as its explanations are a function of its epistemic limitations.
Now this is an interesting if-then construct. If Dembski is wrong, then science can never deliver the truth of natural history -- and this truth would be what? That life is in fact designed? That designed elements exist? That there is a designer? Your assertion doesn't quite work logically with many of the possible interpretations.
Regardless of what you think "the truth" may be, Mike, (but do let us know what it is) you do have an interesting presupposition. No, I'm not talking about your assume-this-n-that-about-the-designer storytelling paradigm that you have employed in our previous discussions.[+] I am fairly comfortable in leaving readers to criticize your approach as epistemologically (or even ontologically) unsound methodology. Rather, I am talking about the presupposition that science is somehow inherently crippled (i.e. the less "interesting" "conventional" thinking or inability "to deliver the truth about natural history" that you mention). And, somehow, only if Dembski is right about detecting design, can science improve by becoming more interesting. I find that logic difficult to follow. Y'see, part of the problem is that in your scenario, you implicitly argue we all should wish Dembski to be right. After all, wouldn't we want science to be more interesting? Yet, wishful thinking has traditionally made for poor science -- much less improvements to it. There is a rather robust literature of science fiction. Science fiction is interesting, and some more so than others, but I have not yet heard a good argument that science fiction does science. Yet, Dembskian thinking (or any other Intelligent Design paradigm based on assumed super-advanced-science-designers) really doesn't rise above the level of fiction. In point of fact, I've yet to hear a good evidentiary argument why there ought to be a designed/not-designed dichotomy. If scoring designed elements makes science interesting, then why not simply (as I have done on many occasions here) score everything as designed? Besides rendering Dembskian thinking completely useless, wouldn't this approach make the science, er fiction, just that much more interesting?
Let me tie this back to Tipler's article on peer-review. In fact I'll make the link through another thing you wrote, Mike: quote:
Thus, what the herd would find interesting is not necessarily something that would follow from the truth of ID. In other words, the very things an ID theorist might need to launch a positive ID investigation are likely to be judged non-interesting in the eyes of the herd. The result? The investigation is prevented from ever getting off the ground. And you guys get to score cheap rhetorical points about the lack of ID research.
The irony here is everyone scores cheap rhetorical points in this discussion. You get to score cheap rhetorical points by presuming that you (or the other ID proponents) in fact have an investigation worth getting off the ground. And to do this, you paint a simple picture of an inherently crippled science that would wish Dembski to be right. Yet, if science has an inherent sociological dimension (and no doubt, history backs this up with evidence), one would find that social dynamics rarely work by asking people to take mereley on faith one's own merits. If so, all of those recently unemployed individuals could lament about the crippled economy -- and from that argument justify their employability by pointing out (wishfully) that the economy would be more interesting with their employment. Or all of those imprisoned criminals and terrorists in the world could lament about past injustices committed by inherently flawed governments -- and from that argument justify their release back into society by pointing out (wishfully) that criminals can become more interesting citizens.
Don't get me wrong, though. I am not at all suggesting Dembski to be an unemployeed criminal. My point is that the merits of one's case (whether in science, or in law, or in war) has historically never been hindered by "cheap rhetorical points" or oppression by the ruling elites or whatever slogan ID proponents use to excuse their lack of research. It is patently untrue that any investigation can be successfully prevented from ever getting off the ground. So we dig a little deeper to what the real gripe is -- and from my point of view it is that the very things an ID theorist might need to launch a positive ID investigation are likely to be judged non-interesting. In other words, the realities of material gains. That is the real crux of the argument it seems -- that an ID investigator can only consider an investigation worthy to pursue if it receives the full blessings (and the accompanying accolades and grants) of his oppressor. How sad. To this I can only repeat brauer's request -- show me the good stuff. I've already read the deamination story, Mike.
[+]http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000378.html
[ 04. July 2003, 08:25: Message edited by: GP ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 04. July 2003 08:13
GP. I think that Mike is merely pointing out something that philosophers of mind have recognized for a while: epistemic limitation.
For example, Colin McGinn of Rutgers U., argues that our inability to get a grasp on the nature of consciousness has much to do with what he calls a cognitive gap -> an epistemic limitation. Our minds didn't evolve the ability to consider consciousness empirically -> our minds were more busy adapting to our physical environments which explains why we are so good at the empirical sciences.
Anyway, Mike Gene points out that there are two options regarding design. Either we have the cognitive ability to consider design empirically or we don't. If we do, then at least it should be an option (maybe not a right option, but an option nonetheless). If we don't have the capacity to distinguish between mental causes and non-mental causes, then we are facing a cognitive limitation, and thus can be sure that we can't be sure. Because, if one of the causal forces in biological history has been a mental cause, then by a function of our epistemic limitation, we can never discover that cause.
IP: Logged
|
|
GP
Member
Member # 570
|
posted 04. July 2003 08:48
Micah,
Thanks for making me aware of what epistemic limitation refers to in philosophy. But, when you write: quote:
For example, Colin McGinn of Rutgers U., argues that our inability to get a grasp on the nature of consciousness has much to do with what he calls a cognitive gap -> an epistemic limitation. Our minds didn't evolve the ability to consider consciousness empirically -> our minds were more busy adapting to our physical environments which explains why we are so good at the empirical sciences.
That seems to me to turn Mike's argument on its head. If we have an inherent limit in comprehending consciousness (whatever that may entail) then we can't ever be sure Dembski is right about design detection. I am perfectly comfortable with the notion that certain concepts are beyond what our minds have "evolved" to comprehend. Yet, it doesn't follow, as Mike seems to argue, that Dembski's efforts represent the end-all of design detection schemes and is thus an acid-test on epistemic limitations. Are the merits of Intelligent Design claims conditioned on the validity of epistemic limitations?
Either we have the cognitive ability to consider design empirically or we don't. If we do, then at least it should be an option (maybe not a right option, but an option nonetheless). If we don't have the capacity to distinguish between mental causes and non-mental causes, then we are facing a cognitive limitation, and thus can be sure that we can't be sure. Because, if one of the causal forces in biological history has been a mental cause, then by a function of our epistemic limitation, we can never discover that cause.
I don't follow, Micah, and perhaps it is a result of my limited understanding of what epistemic limitation constrains. It seems from what you have written, thus far, that epistemic limitations prevent us from understanding the nature of the cause (mental vs. non-mental). I don't see, however, how that implies we may never discover a mental cause. Are you saying that mental causes may not be discovered by any means?
[ 04. July 2003, 08:50: Message edited by: GP ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 04. July 2003 09:06
Hey GP.
No, actually I'm not making any ontological claim (how things are). I'm just saying IF all the way through...
I can tell you that in the philosophy of mind, the common sense (folk psychology) notion that we typically demarcate mental causes from non-mental causes has caused quite a stir in recent years, thanks in part to Jaegwon Kim (who ends up, hesitatingly, rejecting mental causation). Kim does an excellent job of showing why this is such a huge problem for the physicalist, who wants to reject the unique causal powers of the mental in order to accomodate a larger metaphysic. Of course he retains the metaphysic, at the cost of sacrificing the mental, and thus seems to leave himself unsatisfied (from my reading anyway).
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 04. July 2003 12:22
Hello GP,
The aspect of the argument you have focused on stems from the assertion that a claim needs to be “interesting” in order to be considered. While obviously true, it is also just as true that what is “interesting” is heavily weighed down by subjectivity. It is a function of one’s background beliefs, priorities, hopes, etc.
I raised Dembski’s question as one example. Dembski asks a question. His approach is built around answering it. Whether he successfully answers it is not the issue. The issue is the question. Is it interesting? Some would say so for the reasons I listed. Some might not.
Does the scientific community find the question interesting? Obviously not, as shown by the lack of attempts to answer the question. It’s not as if there is an extensive history of science coming up with different ways to detect design in Nature and yielding negative results. The issue is just……not interesting. Thus, how does an ID theorist deliver something “interesting” when the question ID interests are built around are not considering “interesting” by science? As I said, the delivery of “extraordinary evidence” that forces the community to be interested.
Keep in mind the scientific community is a heterogeneous bunch (in a limited sense). It includes people ranging from Tipler to Weinberg. Shapiro to Dawkins. The question is whether the gate keepers reflect this heterogeneity, such that a speculative hypothesis can reach it. See Gold’s article.
So you and Matt want something interesting. I have no idea what interests you. I have no idea what you consider “good.” Without this idea, there is nothing to prevent you from saying “not good enough” or “boring.” It’s one thing to move the goal posts. But it’s worse to hide them.
Finally, you use two descriptors that are “interesting.” Twice now, you have been quick to label ID as “fiction” (even if only implicitly). Perhaps you should define “fiction.”
Secondly, it is interesting that you view the limitations of science as being “crippled.” Other than those who subscribe to scientism, most recognize the limitations of science. For example, it is agreed by many that science cannot process questions about the existence of God. Science cannot tell you what I dreamed last night. Science cannot answer the questions that plague those who study Roman history. Why think such limitations mean science is crippled? If it turns out that science cannot process questions about design (in the sense, this is Ken Miller's position), this becomes just one more limitation of science. That’s not something that is bad.
[ 04. July 2003, 12:25: Message edited by: Mike Gene ]
IP: Logged
|
|
yersinia
Member
Member # 324
|
posted 04. July 2003 13:32
It's pretty clear (IMO) that the "not interesting" charge was raised in the context of the fact that "explaining" a puzzle with "IDdidit" is really no explanation at all, it's just a label for our ignorance.
Any fool can come along, snap his fingers, and conjure up an entitity with unconstrained abilities to "explain" something. Some examples:
- God
- aliens with arbitrarily advanced technology and obscure motives
- mysterious incorporeal entities of various sorts
- unidentified internal forces
These could be made into respectable explanatory hypotheses by the addition of substantial detail to the hypothesis, but this is rarely done. Even Mike Gene adds only a tiny bit.
What ID mostly does is assert that "rarefied design" is identifiable, in the absence of any model of the designer. Since there is absolutely no content or substance to a rarefied design hypothesis, design detection boils down to trying to prove current explanations (e.g. RM&NS) impossible/wildly unlikely, a la Dembski.
PS: Mike Gene likes to say that the existence of ID in the history of life "does not entail" this, that, or the other thing. But, Mike, it had better entail some substantial things or else you've got an untestable just-so story! The existence of pixies doesn't entail evidence of pixies, so are we therefore being irresponsible in not giving pixies serious consideration in every scientific puzzle?
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 04. July 2003 13:48
Davison; Pim, do you actually believe that scholars with the dimensions of those I listed are going to attend a conference by a bunch of ideologues when they have already exposed the darwinian fantasy with their own books and publications? How naive can you be? The "modern synthesis" was a closed union shop then and remains so to this day. nosivad
Please make up your mind... First you claim that they were not invited to these conferences, now you suggest that they were not going to attend these conferences. Surely your goalposts are moving quite quickly here. I do realize however that it may be hard to find supporting evidence for your assertions, one way or the other. :-)
Davison: Does anyone really expect to find direct evidence for ID? I see ID everywhere in the universe
Interesting... Are you suggesting that we will fail to find direct evidence for ID and that the ID we see in the universe may in fact be merely pretending to be ID? Of course if you consider the issue not to be debatable then you have reduced the issue to a matter of personal faith that is not open to discussion.
And Mike wonders why people consider ID to be religiously motivated :-)
Mike Gene: If it was only an issue of ridicule, there would be no problem. After all, the Polanyi Institute was shut down not because Dembski backed away from it because he was ridiculed. Remember?
Close, Dembski was relieved of his duties after he 'ridiculed' his opposition in a press release.
DEMBSKI RELIEVED OF DUTIES AS POLANYI CENTER DIRECTOR
quote:
"The theme of the report emphasized the need for the individuals associated with the center to work in a collegial manner with other members of the Baylor faculty," said Dr. Michael Beaty, director of the Institute for Faith and Learning, which houses the center. "Dr. Dembski's actions after the release of the report compromised his ability to serve as director."
Seems to me that Dembski had it all but threw it away in one careless press release.
quote:
My work on intelligent design will continue unabated. Dogmatic opponents of design who demanded the Center be shut down have met their Waterloo. Baylor University is to be commended for remaining strong in the face of intolerant assaults on freedom of thought and expression.
[ 04. July 2003, 14:56: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
GP
Member
Member # 570
|
posted 04. July 2003 14:04
Hi Mike,
You wrote,
quote:
Does the scientific community find the question interesting? Obviously not, as shown by the lack of attempts to answer the question. It’s not as if there is an extensive history of science coming up with different ways to detect design in Nature and yielding negative results.
This assertion depends on how far in history you go. Arguably mankind has made many efforts in detecting design in Nature. Certain elements of ancient myths for instance can be interpreted as attempts to interpret natural phenomena as divine interventions. What was Paley writing about, if not about design detection? But I am not really here for this post to argue history or literature. You observe that "interesting" is subjective. I can grant you that there are many interesting questions to many different people. You also observe that an interesting question depends on one's priorities. This too, I find agreement. In fact, I think there might be more to this than you realize. For instance, one could argue that God-of-the-Gaps type questions are interesting. You know, the type of question that asks "If we don't know how this entity arose, does it point to some divine God?" But, yet, questions like these depend intimately on asking (and answering) other questions first. That current scientific endeavours are presently focused on these preliminary questions first is only logically sensible. For instance, we can argue all day whether there will be a magic bullet for curing cancer. To doctors worldwide, that is an interesting question which wastes substantial resources daily in researching an answer. But it is a completely premature question given that we still don't have a complete picture of cancer mechanisms, nor a means of targetting molecular mechanisms. I see nothing wrong with the perception that logically premature questions are uninteresting and put on the back-burners. For example, is science's apathy towards finding God a result of a lack of intellectual curiosity or logical discpline at work? Can anyone truly claim that scientists have no interest in that particularly interesting question? I don't think so.
So when you write:
quote:
I raised Dembski’s question as one example. Dembski asks a question. His approach is built around answering it. Whether he successfully answers it is not the issue. The issue is the question.
I have to disagree. Whether or not Dembski has a valid approach is key to the reception of his design inference thesis. An interesting question with an invalid answer or an invalid approach is still inconsequential. You once wrote me that you'd be skeptical if any theology figured out God.[+] Yet, whether or not one can in fact figure out God is a very interesting question to many. So I have hard time seeing why you can't understsand the scientific community's skepticism towards Dembski, when you can justify your own skepticism to any answers to an equally interesting question. The appropriate response here in my opinion is to shrug at Dembski's untested assertions and refocus on one's scientific priorities, of which there are many. It certainly makes my skepticism easier when he insists on teaching school children about design detection with equal time along with other certain scientific subjects, as part of some "controversy."
So let me address the other component of your complaint: quote:
So you and Matt want something interesting. I have no idea what interests you. I have no idea what you consider “good.” Without this idea, there is nothing to prevent you from saying “not good enough” or “boring.” It’s one thing to move the goal posts. But it’s worse to hide them.
I have told you on many occasion that my interest is in your having a valid approach. In the occasions that I have written to you, I have almost always focused on the topic of how you justify your model of the designer. In fact, I was quite willing to entertain such discussions given that you have admitted no evidence of the designer's existence. Logically speaking, this is the only way for me to begin to judge the rest of your conclusions. For instance, would a human engineer have designed with cytosine? I argued not. But then apparently I was not using the same designer paradigm that you were. Fine. But then, it seems like there are an infinite number of designer paradigms to choose from -- each with its own mutually exclusive set of conclusions about biotic reality. How does one choose? An interesting question, you told me.[+] So to suggest that I am hiding goal posts is a bit disingenuous in my opinion. You are free to disagree or to ignore my goals I , of course (and in the subsequent discussions, I believe you have done exactly that, for whatever reason). But then why ask for my opinion? On the other hand, you may simply ask that I suspend disbelief about your super-advanced-science-designer as I would in reading a science fiction novel. In that mode, I will admit that you tell a good story.
Why think such limitations mean science is crippled? If it turns out that science cannot process questions about design (in the sense, this is Ken Miller's position), this becomes just one more limitation of science. That’s not something that is bad.
Indeed. My interpretation of science as "crippled" stemmed from your discussion about Dembski, posing it as if science suffered from ignoring Dembski's question. If you think science can be as fruitful and interesting without Dembski then I really have no other issue with the logical self-limitations science places on itself.
Signing off for holiday events,
GP
[+]http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000378.html
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
