|
Author
|
Topic: Aesthetics, a design predictor
|
Steve Petermann
Member
Member # 884
|
posted 16. May 2004 11:16
Jerry: quote:
I can agree that abstractions and posits are a very real part of science. The scientific method calls them observations and the next logical step is hypothesis.
Actually observations are sense data, not the posits.
quote:
And let me state up front that I see your reasoning here. Design, by definition, dictates that there must have been a designer. And the scientist should not reject that a designer cannot be known or surmised a priori; but this does not logically extrapolate into a premise there exists positive evidence about the identity of a designer or its methodology of design, does it?
Agreed. However, there is no logical premise for any causal explanation. That must be tested by the scientific method.
Jerry: quote:
I would agree that, as scientists, the Idist would be remiss to simply ignore evidence that might point to the identity or design methodologies of a particular designer.
I was talking about scientists in general , not just an IDist.
Jerry: quote:
But we must insure that this evidence is real evidence and not some construct of human imagination because at this point we leave methodological naturalism.
Of course, but I don't see how we are leaving methodological naturalism. Philosophical naturalism, probably but not necessarily methodological naturalism.
Jerry: quote:
I certainly won’t ‘dis’ your assertion that abstraction is a viable scientific observation, because to do so would be challenging the methods of much of Einstein’s and Hawking’s work which was based on just that: abstraction.
But both of these guys left abstraction early on to go directly to mathematical theory and I foresee that you may have a problem once you want to carry the abstraction forward in the method.
I subscribe to the view of most philosophers of science. Perhaps the most seminal work was Quine's, _Two Dogma's_ essay. Most philosopher's of science today understand that all human expressions in science are abstractions, including mathematics. No synthetic/analytic distinction.
Jerry: quote:
But, by all means, if you feel you can do this, or can even suggest a manner in which this may done, then I am glad to offer constructive criticism and any ideas I can come up with to propel your ideas forward.
The risk to ID comes about by considering this may not be possible. Because if it is not possible, then efforts to describe the designer might be misconstrued by detractors of ID as further attempt to infuse religiosity into science and this does us no good.
If all you're looking for is some math, some can easily be fabricated. Statistics is a path that Darwinism has used and it could also be used by ID. Question is would it really mean anything.
IP: Logged
|
|
Janitor@MIT
Member
Member # 125
|
posted 17. May 2004 14:05
No one asked why it is that designers will “indulge their aesthetic impulses” in the DOF left open to them. Why do they do that? (I said it was “impulsive,” but maybe I should have said that its “instinctual.”)
Could it be that they are exploring and discovering patterns that have some intrinsic appeal? Why the appeal? Or what is the appeal? Or what are the patterns?
The requirements of any design permit us degrees of freedom that are not completely dedicated to the function of the design itself. But when I put “scrolls” on the legs of that chair what am I doing?
Giving it a “personality”? Indeed, the uniqueness of many such designs determines its value for us. The fewer copies the more valuable. A singular instance can have inestimable value.
Why?
Why is this an impulse or instinct for designers? Why do they do it?
Because they just “can’t help” but impulsively or instinctually explore and manipulate their world?
What I call the “biological imperative”?
Darwinism trivializes it as survival/reproduction, w/o realizing that those are exploratory strategies. Strategies for discovery at the very least.
And if those very strategies "discover" intelligent designers, such as we are...?
But we are not "unique" on Darwinian grounds. So if we discovered it, or it was "discovered" or "invented" in us, then it must be true of all life forms?!
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 17. May 2004 15:33
*****I subscribe to the view of most philosophers of science. Perhaps the most seminal work was Quine's, _Two Dogma's_ essay. Most philosopher's of science today understand that all human expressions in science are abstractions, including mathematics. No synthetic/analytic distinction.******
Ok. But my point here is that you have developed an abstract observation. Where does it go from here? What are we going to do to get this to hypothesis?
Einstein started with abstraction and ended up with E = MC^2. How do you propose that we get from abstraction to something usable in the lab?
IP: Logged
|
|
Janitor@MIT
Member
Member # 125
|
posted 17. May 2004 16:44
How do you propose that we get from an abstraction to a design?
IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Petermann
Member
Member # 884
|
posted 17. May 2004 17:05
Jerry: quote:
Ok. But my point here is that you have developed an abstract observation. Where does it go from here? What are we going to do to get this to hypothesis?
Einstein started with abstraction and ended up with E = MC^2. How do you propose that we get from abstraction to something usable in the lab?
You seem to be implying that the only valid theories are those that can be represented in simple equations. But doesn't that leave out a lot of scientific theories including Darwinian theory. What would be some simple equations for Darwinian theory that would be useful in the lab? As I said before, one can do statistical analyses if one wants. Something like doing a statistical analysis of the number of design features in a list like this for many organisms, but I don't have a lot of faith in statistical analyses for something this complex.
As far as applicability in the real world I think a lot could be learned. If intelligence is embedded into "natural processes" and we could discover how it worked, this could tell us a lot about how to design systems better in flexible environments. I wonder if the current work that is being done on emergence systems is also a pathway to discover the teleology within.
IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Petermann
Member
Member # 884
|
posted 17. May 2004 17:06
Janitor: quote:
How do you propose that we get from an abstraction to a design?
Apply the theory.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 17. May 2004 18:19
You’re going to have to stop asking me these questions, because I don’t have any logical answers to them ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But seriously, you’re preaching to the choir, because I have long posited that Darwinism could do better by incorporating some solid math and logic into the field. How would I ever expect to describe thermodynamics succinctly without formulas to plug figures into?
I certainly would not be one to rule out the possibility emergence systems may uncover some secrets of teleology. That is a young science about to rocket, IMHO.
But, you make many good points and I’ll add that if empirical evidence is ever discovered that points to the identity of a designer, it will be by those scientists who are well grounded in teleology rather than the contra (MN)****If that is a contra***.
[ 17. May 2004, 18:19: Message edited by: Jerry D. Bauer ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic