|
Author
|
Topic: Practical experiments for testing the concept of intelligent design
|
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
|
posted 11. March 2004 08:27
quote:
My argument was not to "damage Darwinism to boost the validity of ID" as Mesk was claiming. No, my argument is very different from that, because I'm already assuming ID is true and trying to make predictions based on that. I'm not trying to "prove" ID (who can do such a thing?) but instead to use it as a predictive source of hypotheses. One way that ID makes predictions is about the limits of natural mechanisms. After all, ID explicitly predicts that some types of artifacts can only be explained by reference to intelligent causation. Implied in this inference, then, is the possibility that certain artifacts may in fact not be explainable by law, chance, or any combination of the two.
Notice I haven't claimed that all artifacts are intelligently designed or that all law/chance caused artifacts are not designed. Rather, intelligent design DETECTS design precisely in those artifacts that are inaccessible to law and/or chance. (Notice the issue is detection (epistemology) not actual causation (ontology)).
John, I think you have misunderstood the point of this thread. Micah's first and crucial request was:
quote:
let's move from philosophical thought experiments to the practical labratory
You are apparently still stuck at the epistemology.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that ID is true. That we have epistemologically detected design in a convincing fashion and that most "Steves" now agree with this. That Dembski is the Dean of Science at Princeton, and Mike Behe is the new head of NIH (who knows, if Bush gets another term, it may even come true ![[Wink]](wink.gif) ). What next? What kind of experiment can be informed by this notion?
(Or am I wrong, Micah?)
IP: Logged
|
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 11. March 2004 08:50
You are exactly right in summarizing my thread when you ask "What next? What kind of experiment can be informed by this notion?"
Other things: I definitely wanted to move beyond the metaphysics (and mostly beyond epistemological analysis).
When it comes to epistemology though, I guess the key is recognizing that in order to offer up practical experiments, you've got to be working within some conceptual framework that is conducive to constructing such experiments. So, I think it is fine to temporarilly *assume* ID (work within a particular conceptual/epistemological framework)for the sake of seeing what if any scientific fruit that assumption might bring forth.
[ 11. March 2004, 08:58: Message edited by: Micah Sparacio ]
IP: Logged
|
|
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
|
posted 11. March 2004 11:10
Micah:
Glad you agree. So, the task of the 2004 class of would-be ID bench scientists is akin to that of mainstream scientists from the late '50s early '60s, when modern evolutionary theory consolidated in a reasonably defined biological genetic and molecular frame acceptable to most.
I would also like to suggest that, in addition to directly test ID assumptions empirically (eg, the equivalent of what evolutionary biologists did with molecular phylogenetics), it may be useful to explore what kind of extended impact ID could have for biosciences in general, raising new theoretical models which then could become empirically useful. For instance, evolutionary ideas were essential to inspire the clonal selection theory, which still is in essence the functional paradigm by which we study adaptive immune system function. Evolutionary theory also had a profound influence on epidemiology, especially as far as infectious diseases are concerned, or behavioral research (through Tinbergen and Lorenz). Finally, much of our molecular biology is based on evolutionary assumptions, for instance that conserved aminoacid sequences within proteins tend to directly reflect selective pressures for function.
I think this would also an interesting area to explore for ID-inspired experimentalists, even if it does not directly test the ID hypothesis, because it bears to the scientific usefulness of ID as an organizing paradigm (what Dobzhansky meant when he said the biology "made sense" in the light of evolution).
(Also, hopefully it may revive this thread, which seems a little slow).
IP: Logged
|
|
John Bracht
Member
Member # 5
|
posted 11. March 2004 12:25
Charlie,
And you seem stuck halfway through my post. The rest of it (and my earlier post) deal heavily with going beyond epistemology to the lab bench and testing some predictions of ID theory, esp. in relation to how to properly delimit the spheres of each.
When critiquing other people's posts, it's helpful to read the whole thing first (and not selectively quote them).
John
IP: Logged
|
|
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
|
posted 11. March 2004 13:43
Uhm... it seems to me the rest of your post deals with the limits of natural mechanisms, "assigning spheres" etc etc. quote:
Thus, intelligent design theorists are willing to ask the question of where the limits to natural change might be. This question is of obvious scientific importance, yet cannot be asked within the current scientific paradigm.
....
Furthermore, the question is not just theoretical--there are laboratory methods of addressing these questions. So it's perfectly legitimate to state that delineating the limits of natural (ie, unintelligent) causes is a research program for intelligent design theory, because it's a question one can only investigate scientifically within that theory.
This just goes back to the issue of detection: recognizing designed vs non-designed objects. Now, suppose we're way past that. Suppose we know there are designed objects in biology: the flagellum, the immune system, you name it. Everyone agrees (except of course the fringe few who steadfastedly insist to keep old-fashioned evolutionary biology in the school curricula). What do you do with it? I am sure you are not proposing that the only ID research program will consist of painstakingly cataloguing every single object as designed or non designed.
You are a graduate student, right? I often ask mine: what is the next experiment you'd do, assuming technology availability and money are not limiting?
[ 11. March 2004, 13:44: Message edited by: charlie d. ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John Bracht
Member
Member # 5
|
posted 11. March 2004 13:58
Charlie,
I think you're focusing a bit further down the road than I have been. Right now, I'm thinking about the next step for ID, and I do think that it will be very valuable to catalog various objects regarding their designed/nondesigned status, as well as lab experiments to test the capacities of unintelligent change as a way to strengthen the cataloging of objects. Science traditionally progresses when people painstakingly catalog things (the Linnaean system, the Messier objects, etc).
The next step is to characterize the design--how was it carried out, what patterns can we discern in it, etc. If we can discern patterns we can begin to make predictions. Research might benefit from knowing how designed objects tend to be designed, thereby influencing the types of models that biologists put on the table and test.
I'm at work right now and need to get back to it, but more later hopefully.
John
IP: Logged
|
|
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
|
posted 11. March 2004 14:50
OK, fair enough, John is on the board as the resident ID Systematics project leader.
Anyone interested in experimental ID-based research? Ideas for a seed grant application?
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 11. March 2004 16:52
charlie d wrote quote:
OK, fair enough, John is on the board as the resident ID Systematics project leader.
Hot dog! That's what I've been agitating for for months - some real down-to-earth systematics. Do the dirty work of classification and systematization of all those designed objects and processes to get some sort of basis for actual research rather than collecting miscellany with which to stock a cosmic oddity shop of phenomena!
RBH
IP: Logged
|
|
charlie d.
Member
Member # 159
|
posted 11. March 2004 17:32
RBH:
Sure, I agree with you and John systematics is essential. However, I thought the point of the thread was more related to actual bench research. It's hard to get funding with systematics, you know? It's the experimentalists who get all the money, the glory, and the girls!
IP: Logged
|
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 11. March 2004 18:41
Systematics vs. Bench Research
The prompting for this thread was the simple notion that worthwhile concepts need to do real work in the real world - they need to have consequences. I'm curious whether ID can do real work in the real world (outside of spawning grassroots political campaigns). Can the ideas generate real, substantial, enduring research?
In that light, I suppose that both systematics and bench research would be progress on what has thus far been a lackluster showing for ID concepts.
[ 11. March 2004, 18:44: Message edited by: Micah Sparacio ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack
Member
Member # 265
|
posted 13. March 2004 15:21
Micah<< I'm curious whether ID can do real work in the real world {outside of spawning grassroots political campaigns}. Can the ideas generate real, substantial, enduring research?>>
Hi Micah,
I'm curious too. I would like to pick your brain about something related to all this. What exactly qualifies as ID research? What qualifies as a testable ID hypothesis? Mike Gene has a web site where he demonstrates how he has used teleological reasoning to produce testable hypotheses, make predictions, and come up with suggestions for future research. ID critics often make the claim that ID is a useless concept incapable of producing testable hypotheses. Now when confronted with Mike Gene's hypotheses some critics argue that Mike's hypotheses aren't really ID hypotheses because while teleological reasoning was used to generate them they don't endeavor to prove that something is designed. For instance, Mike used teleological reasoning to predict that proof-reading occurs during transcription. He doesn't claim to have discovered a criterion for establishing that proof-reading during transcription was designed by an intelligent agent. All Mike claims is that he was able to discover something true about what's going on inside the cell using teleological reasoning. In your opinion do hypotheses qualify as ID hypotheses if they are based on teleological assumptions even if they fail to directly make a case for something being intelligently designed? In other words, are there situations where viewing biological objects as random purposeless objects hinders scientific progress, while viewing them as designed is a superior paradigm operationally regardless of whether there is a Designer? Here is a quote from Dembski's latest book that makes the point better than I can:
"Within the theory of intelligent design, any appeal to a designer may be viewed as a fruitful device for understanding the world. Construed in this way, intelligent design attaches no significance to questions such as whether a theory of design is in some ultimate sense true, or whether the designer actually exists or what the attributes of that designer are.
Intelligent design is compatible with what philosophers of science call a constructive empiricist approach to scientific explanation. Constructive empiricism regards the theoretical entities of science pragmatically rather than realistically. Accordingly, the legitimacy of a scientific entity is tied not to its ultimate reality but to its utility in promoting scientific research and insight. On this view, theoretical entities are constructs with empirical consequences that are scientifically useful to the degree that they adequately account for a range of phenomena.
Scientists in the business of manufacturing theoretical entities like quarks, strings and cold dark matter could therefore view a designer as yet one more theoretical entity in their scientific tool chest. Ludwig Wittgenstein took such an approach. In Culture and Value he wrote, "What a Copernicus or a Darwin really achieved was not the discovery of a true theory but of a fertile new point of view." If intelligent design cannot be made into a fertile new point of view that inspires exciting new areas of scientific investigation, then (even if true) it will go nowhere. Yet before being dismissed, intelligent design deserves a fair chance to succeed."
John Bracht would seem to agree with this when he says:
"I'm already assuming ID is true and trying to make predictions based on that. I'm not trying to "prove" ID {who can do such a thing?} but instead to use it as a predictive source of hypotheses."
It seems to me that all ID has to do to be successful is prove to be a fertile new point of view that inspires the generation of testable hypotheses that help us understand biotic reality. And these testable hypotheses don't have to be about proving ID.
What do you think?
[ 13. March 2004, 15:59: Message edited by: Jack ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 13. March 2004 15:36
Jack, I agree. Especially with this: "all ID has to do to be successful is prove to be a fertile new point of view that inspires the generation of testable hypotheses that help us understand biotic reality"
However, I would add the caveat that in addition to "inspiring the generation of testable hypotheses"... it has to be widely adopted (more than a few) and have reproducible utility (it can't require huge imagination muscles for every instance of its application).
IP: Logged
|
|
Jack
Member
Member # 265
|
posted 13. March 2004 16:20
Micah<< However, I would add the caveat that in addition to "inspiring the generation of testable hypotheses"... it has to be widely adopted {more than a few} and have reproducible utility {it can't require huge imagination muscles for every instance of its application}. >>
Micah, I agree with what you say but I'm still not clear if you agree that an ID hypothesis doesn't have to be a hypothesis that makes the argument that something in nature was designed by an intelligent agent.
[ 13. March 2004, 16:21: Message edited by: Jack ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 13. March 2004 17:57
Oh definitely. I've thought for a long time that a healthy ID research program would diversify its inquiries and that design detection would be one (peripheral) aspect among many.
I'm much more interested in "Let's assume an ID ontology/methodology/axiology, now what?"
I love what Mike Gene is doing and think that it is exemplary of the beginning of a new research model (novel ways of viewing things, fruitful imagination, etc.) But he's too rare.
I'm willing to give ID the benefit of the doubt, and have been doing so for a good four years now. But in order to sustain this provisional position of "offering maximal opportunity for germination" it would be nice to see more work/ideas along the lines of Mike Gene (or even Conway Morris for that matter).
IP: Logged
|
|
kyle7
Member
Member # 191
|
posted 13. March 2004 20:35
I think the ID movement could be useful in robotics. You could take any sensor, coupled with a computer and program Dembski's design filter. A critical component would be the side information that would need to be part of the program.
Our senses are similar to sensors. How do we know when something is natural or something is designed? All the time we ask ourselves these types of questions. Our brain takes our past knowledge and experiences and reaches a decision. How our brain works could be applied to any sensor coupled with a computerized version of Dembski's filter. Robotics could benefit from ID. This is just one of many ways ID could benefit science in general.
Just today I saw the million dollar race that the military is sponsoring. The contestants were to design a "robotic" vehicle to run about 100 miles (if not more miles) using it's own artificial intelligence. The ID movement is going to have to be a little more bombastic and enter these type of challenges to demonstrate to the world that Dembski's filter coupled with AI is useful. Quite frankly, I'm tired of the critics and their irrational arguments!
[ 13. March 2004, 20:50: Message edited by: kyle7 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic