|
Author
|
Topic: Frank J. Tipler: Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?
|
GP
Member
Member # 570
|
posted 04. July 2003 14:57
Actually,
I want to apologize for side-tracking this thread to yet another Mike Gene-centered discussion. I was going to respond to Tipler's paper, and particularly its potential applications to the scant experiemental proposals I have ID proponents tell me about. But in the meantime, I think Rajendra made a few great points:
quote:
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even before WW II e.g. the discoverer of Beloussov-Zabodansky reaction has to leave science because the paper could not be published.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.
A peer is not a zero mistake machine...
I think this is a good point to remember, because in Tipler's paper he seems to suggest that having intellectual giants (or geniuses as opposed to pygmies) control the peer review process would cure many ills. I hope to be able to return to these points sometime this weekend, time permitting.
Signing off again,
GP
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 04. July 2003 17:46
Hi GP,
As I noted, the evidence clearly indicates that science does not consider questions about design interesting. That you can do no better than cite ancient mythology and Paley supports my point. Imagine this discussion at a party:
------------
Layman: So how did you guys rule out the hypothesis that the original life forms were designed by an intelligent agent?
Scientist: Back in the 19th century, Rev. Paley attempted to use Nature to prove the existence of the Christian God. He failed.
Layman: That’s it?
Scientist: Yep. Case closed.
Layman: But how did that rule out the hypothesis?
Scientist: Like I said, case closed.
------------
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.
Dembski’s question is not about finding God. We know that the intervention of mind has shaped our reality such that many things that do exist would not exist if human minds did not exist. So Dembski asks if there is some marker/hallmark that is associated with the form imposed by mind.
Of course, if one does not believe there are any minds apart from human minds, the question is not interesting. Yet here is where theism may enter the picture. Many make a big fuss out the fact that so many IDers are theists. The assumption is that theism is forcing the ID on nature. But the existence of the debate between Miller and Behe refutes that claim. A better explanation is that theism allows the question to become interesting. If one already believes a Mind exists apart from physical, then one might naturally wonder whether/where this Mind has interacted with physical reality. An atheist, on the other hand, lacking belief in such a Mind, finds the question most uninteresting (explaining why no atheists are leading IDers). For them, the question is “logically premature.” First, we need evidence of the Mind. And this expresses itself in the popular notion that ID must present independent evidence of the designers. Hey, that’s a can of worms, now ain’t it? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
As for Dembski, you write, “I have hard time seeing why you can't understsand the scientific community's skepticism towards Dembski.” I don’t have a hard time understanding this at all. What I am pointing out is that the question behind Dembski’s method is considered uninteresting. The response to Dembski’s method is skepticism. Period. It’s not “skepticism, but here’s a better method.” And look, when we apply this superior method to the bacterial flagellum, it spits out “Not Designed.”
You say that your interest is in me having a “valid method.” That is, a method that truly uncovers design. Something that convinces you that something is designed. But all of this is much too vague. I have no idea what it takes to get you to consider ID as “valid” and thus no idea what type of method you require. I don’t even have any idea about what it would take to get you to seriously suspect there is something to ID. Perhaps you can help with an illustration about your own beliefs.
Most scientists believe that eubacteria arose through Darwinian evolution. I’ll assume you are in the mainstream. Thus:
1. What is the “interesting” data that indicate eubacteria arose through Darwinian evolution?
2. What was the methodology used to reach this conclusion and how did you determine it reached a valid conclusion?
You write:
quote:
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?
Any time one faces an ambiguous topic, the choice of explanation is ultimately a judgment call based on the assessment of the sum set of clues. What matters is whether the choice yields a payoff and whether one can see their particular choice through to the end. On my part, you will notice that my design speculations revolve around the idea that the original cells were designed and the focus is bringing in a payoff.
Finally, you read too much into my comments about science in relation to Dembski’s question. As I explained, I am not suggesting that science “suffers.”
Anyway, I’m glad you like my story. That’s essentially the point. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 04. July 2003 18:18
Pim or others with a similar viewpoint. The major mistake that the exponents of ID have made is to fail to proclaim, without reservation, that which is obvious. To deny Intelligent Design is, in my humble view, insane. I do not subscribe to any particular religious interpretation as I regard that as supremely arrogant and without foundation. I am amazed that the perspectives of Grasse, Berg, Schindewolf, Punnett and even Bateson are ignored even though they all had serious reservations concerning any device driven by chance. Schindewolf even described the curious projection of the lower jaw of both marsupial and placental saber-toothed cats as DESIGNED TO PROTECT AND GUIDE THE CANINES. To let a silly debate hinge on theism versus atheism seems still to be the order of the day. It is a great tragedy. Evolution remains the greatest mystery in the history of science. There is very little that can be said with certainty, only that it did occur and chance had absolutely nothing to do with it. Of that I am certain. nosivad
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 04. July 2003 18:31
Davison, rejecting any attempt at civility and scientific objectivity, spouts
quote:
Pim or others with a similar viewpoint. The major mistake that the exponents of ID have made is to fail to proclaim, without reservation, that which is obvious. To deny Intelligent Design is, in my humble view, insane.
Call me insane then. If Intelligent Design requires one to make objectionable statements like the one above or if ID requires one to make unsupported accusations and assertions as Davison has done before, then I am glad to be counted as 'insane'.
But I am glad that you have rejected any attempt to formulate a scientific argument. I do not thing that discussions of faith are appropriate on this forum.
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 04. July 2003 18:38
novisad, you need to either show some respect to alternative viewpoints on our forum or leave. I'm not going to tolerate any more of this "insane" business. First of all, it violates our principle of maintaining professional courtesy. Second of all, it ad homs a huge people group. Finally, you do all this without providing us any reasons for thinking that the Intelligent Design is obvious. It's not obvious to me, so not only are you insulting a huge people group, but you are also insulting me. Please cease.
Pim, see your warning in the Literature Review section.
IP: Logged
|
|
andyg
Member
Member # 415
|
posted 04. July 2003 19:00
Mike wrote:
quote:
So you think Mitchell’s original paper, that sparked his investigation, should have been excluded from the scientific literature?
That's a hard question to answer, because the standards for publication have changed over the last forty years. If the paper had been submitted now, then I wouldn't have accepted it as a referee.
You should also remember that the actual data papers by Mitchell were published privately, without peer review, after his 1961 paper. If those papers had been sent to me to review, I would have accepted them. Actually, I would have sent them back for a thorough rewrite first, as they were really hard to read!
quote:
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?
I'm not sure what you mean by undeniable evidence. IDers have reams of undeniable data . It's the interpretation of the data that many scientists have a problem with:
1. The E.coli flagellum has a lot of components.
2. There is currently no detailed scenario for how the flagellum evolved.
3. Ergo, the flagellum was designed.
1 and 2 would not cause many problems for a referee; 3 would. It's a rather large conceptual leap from 2 to 3, wouldn't you say?
I actually think the question of how one can determine whether an object is the product of design or not is an interesting one. I would be very interested to see a clever set of techniques which attempt that. Explanatory filters are not such a technique.
AndyG
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 04. July 2003 19:27
Andyg wrote:
quote:
1. The E.coli flagellum has a lot of components.
2. There is currently no detailed scenario for how the flagellum evolved.
3. Ergo, the flagellum was designed.
1 and 2 would not cause many problems for a referee; 3 would. It's a rather large conceptual leap from 2 to 3, wouldn't you say?
Yes but I for one don't make that jump (and have never seen any other IDer do so). You skipped 2a, which is based on the observation that the flagellum exhibits machine-like complexity that we usually attribute to intelligence.
[ 04. July 2003, 19:27: Message edited by: Nelson-Alonso ]
IP: Logged
|
|
andyg
Member
Member # 415
|
posted 04. July 2003 20:46
Nelson wrote:
quote:
Yes but I for one don't make that jump (and have never seen any other IDer do so). You skipped 2a, which is based on the observation that the flagellum exhibits machine-like complexity that we usually attribute to intelligence.
That's just an interpretation. That isn't data. If you sent that to a referee, they would laugh in your face, and rightly so. In fact, the flagellum looks nothing like the product of human intelligence, which the only intelligence we have to consider at present.
But of course, that's just my opinion.
AndyG
IP: Logged
|
|
Nel
Member
Member # 614
|
posted 04. July 2003 20:56
Andyg wrote:
quote:
In fact, the flagellum looks nothing like the product of human intelligence
One of the prominent researchers on the flagellum disagrees:
quote:
"More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human"
David J. DeRosier, Cell 93, 17 (1998).
Of course, I agree that human intelligence is not sufficient to make one of these yet, but "yet" is the keyword. An advanced intelligence can. Behe's and Dembski's thesis is to make the design inference based on the machine-like complexity of the flagellum reliable. All such inferences are intepretation. Whether you are pointing to sloppiness as a fingerprint of natural selection or to the precise function of indivisible components as the result of intelligence.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 05. July 2003 08:55
Dear moderator. I did offer the judgement of the greatest paleontologist of his day - Otto Schindewolf. If his views are unacceptable here I am sure the same might be true for Pierre Grasse, William Bateson, Leo Berg and last, and certainly least, myself. I certainly meant to insult no one, only to enlighten them.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 05. July 2003 09:21
Dear Moderator. I did present a direct quotation from Otto Schindewolf, the greatest paleontologist of his day and certainly no mystic. I could have referred to Pierre Grasse, William Bateson, Reginald Punnett, Leo Berg, Robert Broom and, last and certainly least, myself, all of whom have exposed the total failure of the Darwinian model. In any event I certainly did not intend to insult, only to enlighten. If you find it necessary to ban me because of my stated convictions, there is absolutely nothing I can do to prevent that. That you might do so speaks volumes. nosivad
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 05. July 2003 09:30
I wouldn't ban you because of your convictions. I'd only ban you for hurling insults at other participants at Brainstorms. To call someone insane for not seeing the world as you see it, is simply not permissable on our boards. We try to maintain a level of professional courtesy at these boards. That is all. You could have said something to the effect "I think Intelligent Design is obvious for these reasons."
But no, you said, "To deny Intelligent Design is, in my humble view, insane."
Not good.
IP: Logged
|
|
GP
Member
Member # 570
|
posted 05. July 2003 16:04
Hello Mike,
You wrote sometime yesterday,
quote:
As I noted, the evidence clearly indicates that science does not consider questions about design interesting. That you can do no better than cite ancient mythology and Paley supports my point.
The support my short list provided for your position is about as strong as your own little caricature of it with the layman-scientist dialogue. By the by, just how does positive evidence for a particular position provide "clear indication" of an opposite position? Something is amiss in your logic here. Say one child in second grade screams out in class all of a sudden "Teacher, teacher!!! I want to have recess and eat ice cream for the rest of the day." While the teacher scolds the wayward child, no other child speaks up. I guess by your logic, then, the ensuing lack of support from the remaining children is "clear indication" that no other children in the second grade class wants to have recess and eat ice cream instead of sitting in the classroom.
Of course, your assertion that science does not consider questions about design interesting is patently untrue. There is in fact one particular type of design that is extremely interesting. And the entire field of research -- engineering, it is called, not Intelligent Design, unfortunately -- devoted to it seems to make an implicit assumption about the designers. Engineers are extermely productive members of the academic/scientific community. And yet, it seems from my point of view anyway, the only difference between them and "design theorists" of the ID stripe is the model of the designer. Go figure. Anyway, I don't want to be accused of reading too much into what you have written. I guess I'll just scratch my head and move on.
Dembski’s question is not about finding God. We know that the intervention of mind has shaped our reality such that many things that do exist would not exist if human minds did not exist. So Dembski asks if there is some marker/hallmark that is associated with the form imposed by mind.
But this isn't what Dembski is asking either. There are many hallmarks/markers associated with a form imposed by mind. After all, the mind can generate uninteresting, mental and material noise. What he claims is that he has figured one particular hallmark/marker that can only be created by an unnatural, immaterial process (someone remind me again if ID implicitly assumes dualism). So, in the end, what you are saying about Dembski's not asking about finding God, is merely a semantic quibble. God, in whatever nebulous and undefined form he exists in our mind, is apparently a prerequisite for Dembski's thesis. Fine. Let me rephrase what I meant. Dembski has already found God, whoever are whatever God may be. Now he wants to show God's fingerprints. But, y'see, this method of thinking isn't much better than assuming a super-advanced-science-designer and telling a good story about the possible fingerprints the designer would leave behind. In any case, I feel like I am already rehashing a lot of the standard criticisms against Dembskian thinking, which no doubt I will have to revisit in Dembski's upcoming tome.
Of course, if one does not believe there are any minds apart from human minds, the question is not interesting. Yet here is where theism may enter the picture. Many make a big fuss out the fact that so many IDers are theists. The assumption is that theism is forcing the ID on nature. But the existence of the debate between Miller and Behe refutes that claim. A better explanation is that theism allows the question to become interesting.
This is no more suprising to me than saying that atheism allows the question of a causally-closed physical universe without the necessity of positing supernatural entities to become interesting. But, where you're going with this escapes me. Perhaps navisod is right when he observed: To let a silly debate hinge on theism versus atheism seems still to be the order of the day. It is a great tragedy. Evolution remains the greatest mystery in the history of science. This discussion can easily slip into one talking about which theistic model asks more interesting questions (Theism vs. Atheism, Protestantism vs. Catholicism, Polytheism vs. Monotheism, Spiritualism & Deism). You will kindly excuse me for not venturing into these murky waters on ISCID. In any case, one aspect of science which I have always considered a key strength is that almost anyone can participate in it. Dembskian thinking, according to you, requires a non-human mind working (how?) to guide the creation of life. So how do people who disagree with an interventionalist model of God or people who disagree with the existence of God conduct Intelligent Design or scientists who believe in time-travelling humans engage in Intelligent Design research?
As for Dembski, you write, “I have hard time seeing why you can't understsand the scientific community's skepticism towards Dembski.” I don’t have a hard time understanding this at all. What I am pointing out is that the question behind Dembski’s method is considered uninteresting. The response to Dembski’s method is skepticism. Period. It’s not “skepticism, but here’s a better method.” And look, when we apply this superior method to the bacterial flagellum, it spits out “Not Designed.”
I have not heard that skepticism requires providing alternative "superior" explanations. For instance, many people have tried to defeat the claims of the laws of thermodynamics. Each year more and more elaborate contraptions are built which demonstrate how energy is seemingly produced from nothing. One can be skeptical of these claims without saying "Look, when we fix this particular flaw in the contraption, it spits out even more energy." Dembski claims to have the fingerprint of God (whichever God that may be). One views his claims skeptically. Similarly, you view claims of any theology that claims to have figured out God skeptically. What is your superior alternative to these theologies?
You say that your interest is in me having a “valid method.” That is, a method that truly uncovers design. Something that convinces you that something is designed. But all of this is much too vague.
I do not need to be convinced that something is designed. I have said on many occasions that a reasonable conclusion for me is that everything is designed. So, no, that's not what I mean by having a "valid method." But, I have already explained to you what I meant by having a valid method. Here, let me repost it for you:
quote:
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, 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.
In my opinion, what will add to (but not establish !) the validity is the degree with which others can participate in your methodology. So, let's say that we have a Young Earth Creationist join the discussion. He thinks that the Designer is the Biblical God who followed the Genesis account to the letter. Now, let's say that we have an atheist science-fiction fan join the discussion. He believes that the Designer is Captain P. time-traveling from the distant future with his gallant crew of the Spaceship E. How would you reconcile the discoveries from these different models of the designer?
Anyway, I’m glad you like my story. That’s essentially the point.
I'm a forgiving literary critic. Glad to make you happy, Mike.
PS: Oh well, I was going to follow-up on Tipler's thesis, but my free-time has run out. See you all next time.
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 05. July 2003 20:23
GP,
Even though it is past my self-imposed post/thread limit, and I certainly don’t want to be guilty of creating “yet another Mike Gene-centered discussion,” you do seem to assign significance to the times when I don’t reply to you. So I guess I better reply.
The thread is fraying into all kinds of tangential issues. I’d rather stay focused on the central issue. The whole issue surrounding what is considered “interesting” began when Matt stated:
quote:
Mike, just give me SOMETHING I can look at and say: "wow, that's neat stuff" about. ID is being ignored by the scientific mainstream because IT IS BORING and INTELLECTUALLY STERILE.
You emphasize this point:
quote:
To this I can only repeat brauer's request -- show me the good stuff. I've already read the deamination story, Mike.
That’s the demand. That’s the core issue. Neat stuff. Good stuff. All subjective. I still haven’t the foggiest notion what you want. This? Not good enough. This? Not good enough. This? Not good enough. This? Not good enough. It would help tremendously if you told me what type of findings for ID you would count as “good stuff.”
Better yet, it you could illustrate your standards-in-use by replying to my previous request -
quote:
Most scientists believe that eubacteria arose through Darwinian evolution. I’ll assume you are in the mainstream. Thus:
1. What is the “interesting/neat” data that indicate eubacteria arose through Darwinian evolution?
2. What was the methodology used to reach this conclusion and how did you determine it reached a valid conclusion?
Answering these questions can help me understand what you need.
Yet somehow, the subject has changed from what is considered neat/interesting/good stuff to a need for a methodology that anyone can participate in. Matt’s simple request for something to look at and say “neat” has become an exercise in philosophy.
Now, you seem beholden to the idea that ID is “science fiction.” Please then, by all means, explain in what way the notion that the Earth spawned Life is not likewise “science fiction.”
In fact, the March 3, 1998 issue of Trends in Ecology and Evolution contained a report on a NASA-sponsored workshop called "Evolution: A Molecular Point of View." Many of the big names in origins research were present and a lot of interesting points of view were discussed. What should interest us is that the author of the article noted:
quote:
"Sherwood Chang opened the program with the cautious reminder that any canonical scenario for the stepwise progression toward the origin of life is still a 'convenient fiction.' That is, we have almost no data to support the historical transitions from chemical evolution to prebiotic monomers, polymers, replicating enzymes, and finally cells."
Recently, the same point was made:
quote:
"Nobody understands the origin of life," said Ken Nealson, a geobiologist at the University of Southern California. "If they say they do, they are probably trying to fool you."
Thus, it’s a question of whose fiction is most “interesting.” Your argument seems to be that we should choose the Earth Begat Life story (whose roots lie in the notion of spontaneous generation) because it is something an atheist can comfortably consider. In other words, our methodology must conform to atheistic metaphysics and luckily, theists can tolerate this more so that the other way around.
Frankly, I’m not sure what this has to do with the validity of a methodology. As I see it, the validity of my approach should be judged not by whether it comfortably fits everyone’s personal metaphysics, but by whether it produces a successful track record of insight/discovery about biotic reality. Success, not consensus, is the key. Thus far, I stick with my methodology because it generates testable hypotheses, novel hypotheses, and has even come with a modest success rate. I’ll be the first to admit my methods are squishy and risky. And I surely don’t expect an ID critic to join the party. But unless you have something better (other than throwing in the towel to run with the herd), why should I abandon an unfinished work?
Anyway, as I mentioned above, I hope you will provide the illustrations I need in order to satisfy these demands.
[ 05. July 2003, 20:34: Message edited by: Mike Gene ]
IP: Logged
|
|
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
|
posted 05. July 2003 22:35
Well, Mike, the difference is that scientific OoL "fictions" are in fact hypotheses that can be investigated.
RNA world? Let's see what kind of catalytic activities ribozymes can have.
Proteinoids? Let's analyze the complexity of biochemical reactions they can carry out.
Clays as prebiotic catalysts? Some people make a living out of them.
Basic protobiochemistry in extreme thermophilic conditions? Same thing.
Labs working, producing results that teach us something. Indeed, whether the hypotheses pan out or not, they could spawn whole industries, indeed some have.
What does ID offer instead? What practical line of research can you suggest about OoL? So far, it's only navel-gazing. That's why it is so uninteresting to scientists.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
