|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 10. June 2007 13:26
IF:
quote:
the peer review process seems to have been used to great advantage in deciding the contentious issues in a civilized manner. Where equally valid choices are found then both are pursued. No?
Theoretically, yes. In practice, no.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 10. June 2007 14:19
Quote: the peer review process seems to have been used to great advantage in deciding the contentious issues in a civilized manner. Where equally valid choices are found then both are pursued.
Real science or hard science resolves issues using testing of competing theories. While there may be obvious differences of opinion before testing is performed and validated, hard science practioners usually don't have much difficulty in reaching consensus.
Soft science and the subjective political evaluation of beliefs involved in peer review are incredibly inefficient and unreliable. In fields like biology, you will not be able to identify a single 'theory' that is not readily falsified when you permit the use of real scientific analysis.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 10. June 2007 19:08
IF,
I am a dictionary fanatic. With excitement I looked up the word “best” in my Webster’s unabridged and found it identical to that posted at dictionary.com.
best – 1) of the highest quality, excellence, or standing. 2) most advantageous, suitable, or desirable. ...
Considering we are talking about teleological theories, (2) is best for our purposes; and if (2) is not subjective, then I don’t know what is.
My point is that if Daniel’s proposed theory does not fit your model of “cold, analytical, and rational sense”, then you will reject it. Most likely, this rejection will not be due to his logic, as he has shown himself adept in that area, rather it will be due his premise.
Most of the issues we debate here and elsewhere are differences in philosophical, axiomatic positions. Most of the debate has nothing to do with consensus concerning cold hard scientific fact. Most of the debate has to do with the interpretation of those facts relative to our a priori positions.
Determining the “best” is a very intellectual endeavor. It is also, as you have pointed out, almost always an emotional endeavor as well. Hence, we have contention.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 10. June 2007 20:48
Mel,
quote:
Considering we are talking about teleological theories, (2) is best for our purposes; and if (2) is not subjective, then I don’t know what is.
Exactly correct and that's the problem! Subjectivity, romaticism, or feelings can't compete in the long run with objectivity, analysis, and the concomitant logical deductions that result if making the "best" decision is the goal. However, if that is not the goal then, as you say, we are all on our own.
quote:
My point is that if Daniel’s proposed theory does not fit your model of “cold, analytical, and rational sense”, then you will reject it. Most likely, this rejection will not be due to his logic, as he has shown himself adept in that area, rather it will be due his premise.
Unfortunately, I am not the "best" judge of his premise so I am obligated to defer to those with more training and expertise in the subject. Since he refuses to provide the references that support his premise I am again obligated to deduce that he is probably wrong.
quote:
Most of the issues we debate here and elsewhere are differences in philosophical, axiomatic positions. Most of the debate has nothing to do with consensus concerning cold hard scientific fact. Most of the debate has to do with the interpretation of those facts relative to our a priori positions.
I agree and it appears to me that most of those same issues that you mention have already been debated by better informed, trained, and experienced folks elsewhere. I just need to keep researching those debates and conclusions.
quote:
Determining the “best” is a very intellectual endeavor. It is also, as you have pointed out, almost always an emotional endeavor as well. Hence, we have contention.
That, fortunately, is very true and only recently, in historical terms, has it been allowed. It wasn't always advantageous, suitable or desirable to question the pronouncements of those in authority.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 10. June 2007 20:51
LE,
quote:
Soft science and the subjective political evaluation of beliefs involved in peer review are incredibly inefficient and unreliable. In fields like biology, you will not be able to identify a single 'theory' that is not readily falsified when you permit the use of real scientific analysis.
How could peer review be improved? Or would you rather substitute a different process?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 11. June 2007 07:37
IF,
Quote: How could peer review be improved? Or would you rather substitute a different process?
Keep in mind that peer review is a relatively new phenomenon (emerging primarily since WW2). The existence of flaws and bias in the process has been documented. What is not widely recognized is that 1) the distortions created by peer review processes are cumulative and 2) over a relatively short period of time, the cumulative distortions created by peer review are gigantic.
The fundamental problem with peer review is that the power to decide on acceptable theories, the power to decide academic success and the power to control research funding ends up in the hands of people with the inclination and talent to exert political control and no talent to understand science. Peer reviewers can get away, for quite a period of time, enforcing the most inane anti-scientific beliefs because they operate in secret and are never held accountable for even their most absurd decisions.
There is no need to attempt to fix or improve peer review because there exists a sound rigorous established open and independent hypothesis or theory testing procedure for evaluating scientific theories.
The two basic problems with replacing peer review with traditional scientific analysis are 1) breaking the political stranglehold of the existing peer review power structure, and 2) finding even a few people with training in hard science analysis. Apparently hard science methodologies aren’t even being taught today in most fields. I suspect most academic institutions would have difficulty in finding even a single individual competent to evaluate hard science theories. And even when individuals with appropriate training and talent exist, academic peer review institutions are not likely to recognize the talent and training.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 11. June 2007 07:57
LE,
quote:
The two basic problems with replacing peer review with traditional scientific analysis are 1) breaking the political stranglehold of the existing peer review power structure, and 2) finding even a few people with training in hard science analysis. Apparently hard science methodologies aren’t even being taught today in most fields. I suspect most academic institutions would have difficulty in finding even a single individual competent to evaluate hard science theories. And even when individuals with appropriate training and talent exist, academic peer review institutions are not likely to recognize the talent and training.
Wow! Science, scientists, and the academics who teach them are doing things all wrong! Wow! Is there a group anywhere in the world who are doing things correctly in your view?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 11. June 2007 08:13
DEFINING INTELLIGENT CAUSATION IN TERMS OF STRUCTURE
We have discussed defining intelligent causation in terms of results- problem solving or goal directed responses. There is alternative approach to defining intelligent causation that is useful in formulating predictive theories. This alternative approach involves defining intelligent causation in terms of form or structure used to model intelligent causation.
As previously discussed, intelligent causation is always dynamic. Intelligent causation always involves changes from ‘can not produce goal-directed responses or solutions’ to ‘can produce goal-directed responses or solutions’ (and changes in the other direction).
Based on this we can propose that a system generates exhibits intelligent causation or exhibits intelligent behavior 1)if the system has acquired the capacity to be programmed and 2) if the system has the capacity to acquire programs capable of producing goal directed behavior. I know of no example of intelligent behavior that does not satisfy this definition.
This may be a bit technical, but hard science theories produce predictions under ideal conditions (or within defined constraints). For predictive teleological theories dealing with intelligent causation, programmability, and the capacity to acquire appropriate programs define ‘ideal conditions’. It is even more technical, using this definition it fairly obvious that no non-trivial, non-teleological theory dealing with intelligent causation is ever likely to stand up to open testing.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 11. June 2007 08:19
Quote: Wow! Science, scientists, and the academics who teach them are doing things all wrong! Wow! Is there a group anywhere in the world who are doing things correctly in your view?
You are mistaken to include all scientists under the heading of academics or peer review scientists. In most fields, there are at least a few individual scientists who overcome the handicaps imposed by the peer review process and actually succeed in performing real productive scientific analysis.
The more peer reviewers corrupt the scientific process, the more difficult it becomes for real scientists doing real productive research to obtain funding and get recognition for the results produced.
It should be noted that the ability to perform productive scientific analysis is not the same as the ability to formally review hard science analysis.
And to repeat the challenge, anyone with the competence to evaluate predictive theories is welcome to help compare the validity of theories accepted by peer review to the validity of the same theories determined by formal testing. The results are rather interesting.
[ 11. June 2007, 08:28: Message edited by: LifeEngineer ]
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 11. June 2007 10:15
LE,
quote:
You are mistaken to include all scientists under the heading of academics or peer review scientists. In most fields, there are at least a few individual scientists who overcome the handicaps imposed by the peer review process and actually succeed in performing real productive scientific analysis.
The more peer reviewers corrupt the scientific process, the more difficult it becomes for real scientists doing real productive research to obtain funding and get recognition for the results produced.
It should be noted that the ability to perform productive scientific analysis is not the same as the ability to formally review hard science analysis.
And to repeat the challenge, anyone with the competence to evaluate predictive theories is welcome to help compare the validity of theories accepted by peer review to the validity of the same theories determined by formal testing. The results are rather interesting.
Those statements bring to my mind the kinds of difficulties the pre 17th century "scientists" had here in the West. They, with considerable courage, managed to start a group called the Cimento in Italy so that they could pursue "science" as they thought it should be pursued. They subsequently inspired the English who then organized and started the now famous Royal Society. Maybe, courage of that kind is required! Like the Cimento received backing from a wealthy patron maybe all that needs to be done is to get the backing from wealthy patrons of which there are bound to be many. Then things, hopefully, would really be good and interesting for those of us who want honest efforts from our scientists to improve our knowledge of nature with the hope that productive and practical applications to everyday health, security, and well-being is the result.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 11. June 2007 13:23
IF:
quote:
Since he refuses to provide the references that support his premise I am again obligated to deduce that he is probably wrong.
How's this for starters?
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 11. June 2007 13:30
If:
quote:
Since he refuses to provide the references...
By the way, when did I ever "refuse" to provide references?
When was I ever asked to provide references?
I've mentioned my sources many times (Berg, Denton, Davison and others), have you been "refusing" to listen?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 11. June 2007 13:44
IF,
Quote: Maybe, courage of that kind is required! Like the Cimento received backing from a wealthy patron maybe all that needs to be done is to get the backing from wealthy patrons of which there are bound to be many. Then things, hopefully, would really be good and interesting for those of us who want honest efforts from our scientists to improve our knowledge of nature with the hope that productive and practical applications to everyday health, security, and well-being is the result.
Every field, whether business, science, government or religion, has stories about social organizations that have become corrupted and about people who came along and created an alternative that at least partially or temporarily addressed the problems in the existing structure. Every field also has far more stories about people who have attempted to make changes or address problems, and who have failed.
The general pattern of change is something like ‘that can’t happen, that can’t happen, that can happen, and it’s obvious that has to happen. I think I have a pretty good understanding of the processes and mechanisms associated with resistance to change, but even after years of study, I haven’t had much luck identifying what it is that eventually triggers change.
Common sense might suggest that Darwinian and RM&NS myths that directly contradict a massive body of relevant evidence would be highly susceptible to change. Common sense might suggest that a very serious potential problem like global warming would pressure people into adapting hard science methods and standards that are known to be vastly more effective than soft science methods. But then common sense would also suggest that almost everyone would quit smoking. Common sense would also have suggested that almost everyone would have quit promoting and buying dot.com stocks once there was clear evidence they were unsound [Just as an aside, it is interesting that organizations such as the Fed and the SEC refused to act on the dot.com frauds even when it was blatantly obvious what was going on.]
For a more immediate example of the change issue, consider ID supporters posting on this site. It would, at least at first blush, seem obvious to everyone that no ID position will ever gain acceptance from academic peer reviewers. Yet not 1 in 10 ID supporter is comfortable challenging the academic peer reviewers or peer review process on the grounds of competence or integrity.
The personal model or theory for change is based on the civil engineering example of Washington Robles. Before Robles succeeded in getting hard science engineering standards used in evaluating bridge design and construction, something on the order of 25% of bridges build collapsed because of flaws design or flawed construction. Today the percentages are extremely small. Using modern peer review methods, the vast majority of theories in the life sciences are fatally flawed. Enforce the use of hard science standards, I suggest, and the vast majority of life science theories will be sound.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 11. June 2007 14:00
LE,
quote:
For a more immediate example of the change issue, consider ID supporters posting on this site. It would, at least at first blush, seem obvious to everyone that no ID position will ever gain acceptance from academic peer reviewers. Yet not 1 in 10 ID supporter is comfortable challenging the academic peer reviewers or peer review process on the grounds of competence or integrity.
The first thought that comes to my mind is that there might be ulterior motives of some kind particularly because the facilities to implement the changes are already in place!
quote:
The personal model or theory for change is based on the civil engineering example of Washington Robles. Before Robles succeeded in getting hard science engineering standards used in evaluating bridge design and construction, something on the order of 25% of bridges build collapsed because of flaws design or flawed construction. Today the percentages are extremely small. Using modern peer review methods, the vast majority of theories in the life sciences are fatally flawed. Enforce the use of hard science standards, I suggest, and the vast majority of life science theories will be sound.
How do you suggest hard science be used to figure out the events in the deep past? In what way are todays methods to figure out events in the deep past wrong?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 11. June 2007 14:10
Daniel,
quote:
If:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since he refuses to provide the references...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, when did I ever "refuse" to provide references?
I apologize, when I posted that to Mel, I though I was talking about LE!
A couple of years ago, for some reason Mr. Debski suggested that I read http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Design-Between-Science-Theology/dp/083082314X/ref=cm_lmf_tit_9_rdssss1/104-7603800-4566327 which I did and I critiqued it and Mr. Dembski never responded! Of the list that you provided which do you think I should start with?
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
