|
Author
|
Topic: Frank J. Tipler: Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 08. July 2003 23:36
Nelson: In this sense, in my opinion, the teleological perspective wins in terms of actually putting forth a hypothesis that can make an a ~a prediction and actually was able to find and explain the patterns that Poole did not find.
FIne and the relevance of this is what? That teleological thinking can be helpful as much as it may be detrimental? But other scientists, without the need for teleology seem to have reached similar conclusions to Mike's. The real issue here is that Mike's approach adds nothing new to our knowledge that relies on the validity of the premise of teleology. In fact, as Mike stated, one cannot likely even determine front loading versus initial condition.
Thus when Nelson states "However, a teleological perspective would predict that we are missing something." applies equally well for instance to the flagellum. A teleological perspective would just accept the 'design' and spend little effort researching potential natural pathways. In fact when Nelson states about the 3 proteins that it shows the minimal 'design' of a flagellum he still has done nothing to address if this design is intelligent or natural and if it is intelligent, how to eliminate a natural designer. As Andy points out so clearly, the fact about the proteins does not depend in any manner on the teleological perspective. At most teleology can be seen as a tool for hypothesis formation, under certain circumstances it may be helpful, under other detrimental.
But it has really little to do with Intelligent Design. Nor does it even show that teleological thinking has any advantage over non-teleological approaches. Thus when Nelson suggests that 'But there is no particular reason why a non-teleological perspective would have happened on it' I'd argue that he'd likely be wrong.
I believe the real problem with Nelson's argument lies in "A non-teleological perspective doesn't really care whether a pattern exists". But that is incorrect, a non teleological perspective does not rely on an ultimate cause to help find patterns. Of course neither the assumption of 'frozen accident' nor 'designed' has much impact on scientific inquiry. In fact, it seems to me that Mike is making a good argument for methodological naturalism.
Murray's argument seems to be quite appropriate in this context
quote:
While it might be the case that approaching natural science in this way will sometimes yield
fruit, the likelihood of red herrings runs equally strong. The reason is that IDT will provide a fertile theoretical backdrop in a certain domain only if (a) we can be fairly confident of what the designer’s intentions are in that domain, and (b) we are sure that the specific matter under investigation is relevant to those intentions.
So when Murray states talking about front loading versus intervention "What I have claimed here is that we must admit that the design either arose via intervention or deck-staking. That is, either intelligent beings intervened in the course of nature to secure the designed outcome, or someone set up the universe from the beginning so that this otherwise unexpected arrangement of matter would arise through nomically regular processes."
and concludes that
quote:
So, a good reason (but not the commonly professed reason) why such explanations should not be favored in science is because there are no empirical grounds for favoring them over their
methodologically natural competitors.
From "NATURAL PROVIDENCE (OR DESIGN TROUBLE)
Michael J. Murray"
[ 09. July 2003, 00:10: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 10. July 2003 09:59
Andy,
I’ve been away for a couple of days and accumulated quite a back log of things to do. Let me make a few points.
First, you are demonstrating the point I have been making. Matt asks for something “interesting.” I provide an example. Now, as we all can see, the issue gets steered into whether what I provide can also be explained in non-teleological terms. Implicit in the discussion is the assumption that what is “interesting” is something a non-teleologist cannot possibly explain (rationalized by an appeal to the rule of thumb known as ‘parsimony’.) Like I said, ID critics need something extraordinary from ID and you provide a nice illustration of this.
Secondly, your mini-dialog is incomplete (we’ll assume I indentified 100 patterns previously unnoticed by non-teleologists):
Mike: I've identified 100 systems that look like they were front loaded to promote evolution. Are you seriously telling me this is a coincidence?
Devil's Advocate: No, it's not a coincidence at all. Selection will favour those systems that are best able to evolve. Thus it makes perfect sense that the most evolvable systems are the ones we see today. There is no need to invoke front-loaded desgn.
Mike: Yes, it is well known that “selection” is an explanation with a less that impressive predictive track record, but a tremendous AD HOC ability. I understand that the frozen accident/selection perspective can always be invoked after-the-fact (unless a front-loader decided to front-load with useless systems and sustained them in miraculous ways for unknown reasons), but the fact remains that the perspective isn’t very useful beyond the metaphysical realm. In the end, you might be right that there is no “need” to invoke front-loading. But that’s a rather quaint observation. After all, back-seat drivers don’t need to drive and Monday morning quarterbacks don’t need to know how to throw a ball.
Y’see, at this point, it becomes an issue of parsimony vs. utility. And this brings in the sociological issue I’ve been discussing. It’s not at all clear how the scientific community would respond to such a choice. Some might favor parsimony, but others might be intrigued by the utility of the approach and begin to adopt it. We ought not represent the scientific community as a monolithic community such that a few people can make the decision for the whole. But in a sense, this is exactly what the gate-keepers do. If the gate-keepers prevent a teleological explanation from gaining entrance into the scientific community (because of backroom decisions about “parsimony”), then of course, the teleological approach will be highly unlikely to develop a track record of success. We then end up with the illusion that only the non-teleological approach can deliver the goods. Tie that to parsimony, and you have the appearance of a strong argument and a further rationalization for demanding “extraordinary evidence.”
People seriously underestimate the sociological/psychological dynamics that shape this debate.
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 10. July 2003 10:27
Pim,
I raised no strawman argument. You profess doubt that “anyone objects to you using teleology to propose hypotheses.” Yet, as my argument becomes stronger, it becomes more clear that any teleological hypothesis must come with “extraordinary evidence,” which usually translates as something a non-teleological hypothesis could not possibly explain. Yet given the ambiguity of the subject, the fact that no one has demonstrated extraordinary evidence necessarily follows from the truth of ID, and the powerful ad hoc nature of the non-teleological approach, let’s just say that this demand for extraordinary evidence could very well misguide us.
What’s truly new and interesting in your response to me is this:
quote:
Let me explain. "A frozen accident" is in fact a neutral statement, it does not propose any mechanisms beyond chance,
Only a non-teleologist would consider a non-teleological viewpoint to be a “neutral statement.”
In your mind, it’s all set up where raw non-teleology is neutral and teleologists must deliver some sensational, crass demonstration. The Murray argument you cite (and cited as “Frances”) illustrates the point. Murray is trying to come up with a priori reasons for excluding teleological explanations. For example:
quote:
While it might be the case that approaching natural science in this way will sometimes yield fruit, the likelihood of red herrings runs equally strong.
Note that Murray makes a likelihood claim without any data. Rather than allow the teleological perspective to actively compete, Murray uses philosophy to imagine what it would look like if the explanations competed and, not surprisingly, reaches a conclusion that prevents us from ever knowing if his arguments have any validity.
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 10. July 2003 10:41
Andy: But you are ignoring the fact that discovering that cytosine deamination might allow proteins to evolve in a particular way does not depend on using Mike's teleological perspective.
Oh, but it did. If I did not have a teleological perspective, like you, I would not have noticed the pattern. Amino acid properties, cytosine deamination, and the genetic code are not esoteric topics for most biologists. So why didn’t Poole et al. notice the pattern when trying to argue that no engineer would include cytosine and that its incorporation into DNA was simple a frozen accident? Why didn’t you notice the pattern?
Discovery is not just a function of data. It’s well known that discovery often entails the state-of-mind we bring to the data. That suggests we can test the state of mind by its track record of discovery. But we don’t have to worry about such testing as long as one state of mind is put in a cage where only the key of “extraordinary evidence” can unleash it. That, of course, skews the whole realm of inquiry, such that the non-teleological approach can claim credit for all discovery, even though so often is the case that such credit comes after-the-fact.
[ 10. July 2003, 10:43: Message edited by: Mike Gene ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 10. July 2003 12:16
Mike confuses two very distinct concepts one is how his teleological thinking helped him find how cytosine deamination might allow proteins to evolve and the simple fact that discovering does not depend on such a perspective.
Mike then continues down a road of strawmen, asking why Andy did not notice the pattern but as I have shown elsewhere such a pattern was noticed by others without the need for teleological thought.
And Mike is still confused about extraordinary evidence. No such evidence is needed for the observation of cytosine deamination and its effects but if Mike wants to argue, and it seems that he does, that since teleological thinking led him to find these patters in cytosine deamination that therefor cytosine deamination is evidence of teleology. That however would require some extraordinary evidence since Mike also argues that he doubts that there will be ways to distinguish his claims from for instance a frozen accident.
With respect to Mike and Murray's claim lacking likelihood calculations, I find that to be fascinating. I guess that Mike rejects Dembski's and Behe's likelihood claims as well? And yet Murray's claims seem to be quite acceptable in the light of known history.
Mike in his response to me repeats his confusion and strawman argument namely that extraordinary evidence is required. In fact no such evidence is required for his findings about cytosine deamination but if Mike wants to use this as evidence in favor of teleology then such evidence IS required. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Responding to my 'frozen accident' claim Mike suggests that a frozen accident is non-neutral to a teleologist? But why? Frozen accidents happen all the time, while ID would require intervention activities, mechanisms etc. Mike may take the 'innocent until guilty' approach in detecting intelligent design in criminology as a useful guiding principle here.
Murray's argument is extremely powerful in that it shows how front loading and in fact ID as a whole (intervention and front loading) cannot replace methodological naturalism. Front loading arguments remain unresolved when ID and in this case Mike admit that they cannot really resolve them and the likelihood of resolution remains small.
And the following comment by Mike certainly generated a smile on my face
quote:
Mike: Yes, it is well known that “selection” is an explanation with a less that impressive predictive track record, but a tremendous AD HOC ability.
And yet ID seems far more ad hoc and far less impressive as far as predictive capabilities than selection. Especially given that selection can be observed in nature right now.
Thanks Mike for making me smile....
And let's also correct the following claim by Mike
quote:
Murray is trying to come up with a priori reasons for excluding teleological explanations. For example:
Murray is not excluding teleological explanations, he is merely pointing out that teleology in the form of front loading fails to provide a testable hypothesis relevant to the concept of front loading. In fact the from the moment of the initial condition until present, Mike's concept of teleology is indistinguishable from methodological naturalism and the initial condition as Mike suggests may also remain as such. Thus front loading is unable to present an alternative to methodological naturalism.
Such observations are made not a priori but a posteriori and remain quite strong unless Mike can show how teleology can be shown to be than just a useful tool to generate hypotheses in biology. Surely the ad hocness of teleology does not bode well for its chances to become a meaningful concept in biology beyond being a (historical) tool to help us formulate hypotheses. And I do not want to trivialize its contributions in that area but in all that time, teleology has really failed to make a case for itself as a requirement. And certainly it has failed to show itself a scientifically relevant alternative to methodological naturalism as Murray points out.
[ 10. July 2003, 12:28: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Gene
Member
Member # 149
|
posted 10. July 2003 14:18
PVM: Mike confuses two very distinct concepts one is how his teleological thinking helped him find how cytosine deamination might allow proteins to evolve and the simple fact that discovering does not depend on such a perspective.
I make no such confusion. My argument acknowledges the distinction and then extends from the distinction. For example, if we were to ask Pim to supply evidence for a non-teleological view that depends on the non-teleological perspective (i.e., something a teleological perspective could not possibly explain), he’d have very little to offer. I don’t think you recognize that you are sawing off the branch you sit on. If you concede that my views are indistinguishable from the non-teleological views of science, this means there are no data that compel us to choose a non-teleological interpretation. The justification for the choice then falls into the realm of philosophy and game rules, which is why you rely heavily on Murray rather than data/experiments. Thus, in a sense, you are morphing science into philosophy. And from there, we’re hip deep in metaphysics.
Mike then continues down a road of strawmen, asking why Andy did not notice the pattern but as I have shown elsewhere such a pattern was noticed by others without the need for teleological thought.
No, you did not show the pattern was noticed. What you showed was that many have come close to noticing the pieces of the pattern, yet this strengthens my argument.
And Mike is still confused about extraordinary evidence.
No, I am not.
No such evidence is needed for the observation of cytosine deamination and its effects
That’s a Red Herring. I’ve always raised the issue of extraordinary evidence in relation to the ID inference.
but if Mike wants to argue, and it seems that he does, that since teleological thinking led him to find these patters in cytosine deamination that therefor cytosine deamination is evidence of teleology. That however would require some extraordinary evidence since Mike also argues that he doubts that there will be ways to distinguish his claims from for instance a frozen accident.
Clearly, I am not confused, as PvM agrees that extraordinary evidence is required to accept a teleological interpretation.
Furthermore, PvM twists my point. Let’s clearly document another example. I said:
quote:
I doubt very much there will be one test or argument that will clearly distinguish between the frozen accident vs. front-loading..
Note how PvM twists this:
quote:
Mike also argues that he doubts that there will be ways to distinguish his claims from for instance a frozen accident.
Note that Pim has dropped two important elements of my original claim (highlighted in bold) in order to put the revised claim in my mouth. Twisting words in order to score points is an effective way to thwart brainstorming. I don’t think this word-twisting is intentional, as I have documented that you don’t pay attention to my arguments (beyond the need to look for “debunking cues”).
With respect to Mike and Murray's claim lacking likelihood calculations, I find that to be fascinating. I guess that Mike rejects Dembski's and Behe's likelihood claims as well? And yet Murray's claims seem to be quite acceptable in the light of known history.
Murray’s claims are quite acceptable to your biased position because they have the effect of preventing us from determining whether such criticisms of ID are valid. The only way to know whether the claims are valid is to put them to the test. Yet we don’t have to worry about this because many use of philosophy and ancient history to abort any attempt to test to the claim. It’s an ingenious way to setting the status quo in stone.
Mike in his response to me repeats his confusion and strawman argument namely that extraordinary evidence is required. In fact no such evidence is required for his findings about cytosine deamination but if Mike wants to use this as evidence in favor of teleology then such evidence IS required. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
What kind of logic is this? PvM asserts I am repeating a confusion and straw man argument because extraordinary evidence is required. Yet he ends the paragraph asserting extraordinary evidence is required. I have always been clear that it is the ID inference that is supposed to come with extraordinary evidence. The fact that cytosine deamination effects don’t require extraordinary evidence is completely and totally irrelevant. The fact that Pim agrees with me that ID interpretations require extraordinary evidence demonstrates I am not confused, nor making a straw man argument.
[Aside - I have already shown elsewhere (and on numerous occasions) that the claim “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is basically a sloppy slogan with no demonstrated relevance to the veracity of an ID claim.]
Responding to my 'frozen accident' claim Mike suggests that a frozen accident is non-neutral to a teleologist? But why? Frozen accidents happen all the time, while ID would require intervention activities, mechanisms etc.
No, once a particular event comes into question, and the question concerns its non-teleological vs. teleological origin, a non-teleological explanation is not the neutral one. I would think this is obvious.
Murray's argument is extremely powerful in that it shows how front loading and in fact ID as a whole (intervention and front loading) cannot replace methodological naturalism.
Sure. If you set up the system such that extraordinary evidence (which more and more, looks like a demand for a miracle) is required of ID, it is likely to play out that way. What you see is a function of the way the game rules are set up.
Front loading arguments remain unresolved when ID and in this case Mike admit that they cannot really resolve them and the likelihood of resolution remains small.
They remain unresolved because you demand extraordinary evidence and anything less that this is swept under the carpet.
And yet ID seems far more ad hoc and far less impressive as far as predictive capabilities than selection.
….ignoring the fact that I used a teleological perspective to uncover a pattern and Pim is the one using selection in an ad hoc fashion.
Especially given that selection can be observed in nature right now.
And this is supposed to be relevant? Since you can always use the explanation of selection to explain biological functions, are you demanding, as evidence for design, the design of functionless things?
Sorry Pim, but I spent a lot of time arguing such things with you as “Frances” and don’t feel any need to go over old ground. As usual, I’m comfortable with letting you have the last word.
[ 10. July 2003, 14:20: Message edited by: Mike Gene ]
IP: Logged
|
|
andyg
Member
Member # 415
|
posted 10. July 2003 16:50
Private messages were disabled, so post was lost. Post deleted for a variety of reasons. I count four.
[ 10. July 2003, 17:18: Message edited by: Moderator ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
