|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 17. June 2007 11:52
LE,
quote:
But the acceptance of perspectives of reality, is a relevant issue. There are actually quite a number of choices in how we view the ‘reality’ of behavior. We can view the world as involving no goal directed intelligence. We can view the world as containing a causal relationships influenced by goal directed intelligence. In we are attempting to engage in the formal human behavior of scientific analysis, then the best or appropriate perspective is the one that produces the best predictive theories.
I've read that goal directed perspectives (which by default automatically assumes reason, intelligence, i.e. humans involved) are considered engineer-like views in that seeking answers applicable to human related issues is the real goal and not the discovery of universal laws. It's reasonable to me but do you think it is too restrictive or what?
quote:
At least at this time, the experts from academic sciences do not appear either willing or able to address the hard science challenge posed by the goal directed intelligence perspective and teleological theories.
Why do you think that is? Politics? Conspiracy? Ignorance? Inability to find the proper approach?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 17. June 2007 12:06
LE,
quote:
Do you know what assembly instructions are? Do you know what engineering specifications are? Don't you recognize that phenotypes can be more precisely defined using either approach.
Doesn't all of those questions automatically assume intelligence somewhere and only apply to certain specific environments, times, objects, etc,? Those individual specs don't apply always and forever in all cases do they?
quote:
A big part of the problem here is that people simply do not understand the basics of scientific definitions.
That's why we need a good definition or at least someone somewhere who can finance the effort to find one, don't you agree? Hence the previous question? What is your more precise definition, exactly?"
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 17. June 2007 12:21
IF,
Quote: I've read that goal directed perspectives (which by default automatically assumes reason, intelligence, i.e. humans involved) are considered engineer-like views in that seeking answers applicable to human related issues is the real goal and not the discovery of universal laws. It's reasonable to me but do you think it is too restrictive or what?
It is correct to characterize goal directed intelligence perspectives as engineering like perspectives. Engineers and systems designers and all successful applied scientists use the goal directed or engineering type perspectives. This type of perspective is associated with teleological theories.
Two aspects of this perspective and type of theories are not generally understood or recognized. First, it is not generally understood or recognized that this perspective and type of theory is applicable to all biological design/problem solving behaviors, not just human behaviors. The second, and more technical aspect, that is not understood or recognized, is that the engineering perspective does identify universal or permanent and universal laws.
As you point out, the engineering or goal directed intelligence perspective (and the associated teleological theories) have been around essentially as long as science. What has not been generally recognized or accepted is that this perspective and associated theory does describe or model or address the type of universal or permanent an universal laws associated with the scientific paradigm.
Quote: Why do you think that is? Politics? Conspiracy? Ignorance? Inability to find the proper approach?
The first question to be asked is ‘are these institutions actual unable and unwilling to accept a hard science challenge?’ Once we can confirm or disprove the failure to accept the hard science challenge, then we can begin to address the question of why.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 17. June 2007 12:36
Quote: Doesn't all of those questions automatically assume intelligence somewhere and only apply to certain specific environments, times, objects, etc,? Those individual specs don't apply always and forever in all cases do they?
In order to falsify genetic determinism, all you need are definitions that work for the particular situation being tested. Engineering specifications and assembly instructions work fine for such testing. The concepts of engineering specifications and assembly instructions might have been developed for intelligent human design behaviors, but there is no reason such definitions can not be used to test genetic determinism theories.
Note that if you understand these types of definitions of phenotype, you also understand that genetic determinism is an incredibly silly theory.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 17. June 2007 12:54
LE,
quote:
The second, and more technical aspect, that is not understood or recognized, is that the engineering perspective does identify universal or permanent and universal laws.
Reference or link?
quote:
In order to falsify genetic determinism, all you need are definitions that work for the particular situation being tested.
Do you have one or know where one is that could qualify?
quote:
Engineering specifications and assembly instructions work fine for such testing. The concepts of engineering specifications and assembly instructions might have been developed for intelligent human design behaviors, but there is no reason such definitions can not be used to test genetic determinism theories.
Is there one somewhere? If not would that be considered a "reason" why it isn't used?
quote:
Note that if you understand these types of definitions of phenotype, you also understand that genetic determinism is an incredibly silly theory.
If genetic determinism = definition 2 (ref: a previous post) of phylogeny then why do you think it's silly?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 17. June 2007 13:06
LE,
quote:
As you point out, the engineering or goal directed intelligence perspective (and the associated teleological theories) have been around essentially as long as science.
Actually, quite longer. Science, as practiced today, got its official but very rocky start with the establishment of the Cimento in Italy.
quote:
What has not been generally recognized or accepted is that this perspective and associated theory does describe or model or address the type of universal or permanent an universal laws associated with the scientific paradigm.
If you are talking about the lack of a scientific paradigm as concerns Intelligent Causation then you are, of course, correct as explained by aiguy in the opening post.
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 17. June 2007 13:16
Daniel,
In my post from 06 June:44 I promised to respond to the following challenges you posted 05 June:07.
1. Arguments of Michael Denton that this universe is tuned for life and that no other medium can possibly produce and support life but the current carbon, water, oxygen, and hydrogen medium.
2. Demonstrate superior forms of life.
1. Michael Denton’s arguments.
While waiting for Michael Denton’s books (requested from a Library exchange) I did some search and found “Anthropic principle” that sounded exactly like Michael Denton’s arguments. This principal assesses the stability of the universe depending on delicate balances between different fundamental forces - so that our universe seems to be fine-tuned for life.
According to Wikipedia, “Anthropic principle” is a rule of reasoning that takes account of the constraints that our existence as observers imposes on the sort of universe that we could observe. Originated in physics and cosmology, the term has since been extended to cover supposed "superlaws" that in various ways require the universe to support intelligent life.
According to Wikipedia, “Anthropic principle” has led to confusion and controversy, partly because several distinct ideas carry this label. All versions of the principle have been accused of providing simplistic explanations which undermine the search for a deeper physical understanding of the universe.
Mathematician Michael Ikeda and astronomer William H. Jefferys have demonstrated the logical flaws in the fine-tuning argument. They have noted an amusing inconsistency that shows how promoters of design often use mutually contradictory logic:
“On the one hand the creationists and God-of-the-gaps evolutionists argue that nature is too UNCONGENIAL for life to have developed totally naturally and therefore supernatural input must have occurred.
On the other hand, the fine-tuners (often the same people) argue that the constants and laws of nature are exquisitely CONGENIAL to life, and so therefore they must have been supernaturally created. They can't have it both ways.”
I can add one more reason against notion that “balances between different fundamental forces are too delicate, so even a minor deviation jeopardizes the stability of the whole universe.”
The “fine-tuning universe” is based on the model that views our universe as a machine all parts of each were carefully chosen to fit each other, and distortion of any one will cause collapse of entire machine. In contrary, in my model our universe is hierarchically self-organized intelligent social systems (from atom to galactics). This organization is based on the intelligence of its elementary particles that collectively established and follow laws of Nature. From this point of view our universe indeed could be viewed as fine-tuned, however not by an external Agent, but from the inside, by its adaptive self-organized nature.
When observing spontaneously occurring processes that could be viewed as an intelligent system solving complex dynamical problems, we don’t recognize this intelligence because (and this is a great irony of our perception) we do not prescribe Intelligence to the system that performs their respective tasks faultlessly but instead we describe their dynamics in terms of relatively simple set of physical laws. In the same time, observing phenomena occurring in human society, we do not realized, that accumulative behavior within intelligent systems could be described in terms of physics also. We just do not mix physics and intelligence.
For example, if observed from a distance, a highway during heavy traffic could be seen as a “river” of cars that follows laws of the traffic rules. Dynamics of this traffic could be easily described in terms of geometry of the road, its road markers, traffic lights and signs. The deterministic non living–like behavior of car traffic is actually due to law-abiding intelligent drivers inside the cars that just don’t reveal their intelligence, creativity, and a free will. Now, if we introduce an obstacle in the flow of traffic (stalled car, for example) we would able to observe the turbulence of the traffic around this obstacle, similar to water turbulence in a river occurring around an obstacle. In this case, behavior of the traffic became much more complicated, but we still could describe it in terms similar to laws of hydro-dynamics. Suddenly, we may notice one car that is violating all traffic rules (probably because of a drunk driver) causing turmoil and all sorts of chaotic behaviors of traffic that violate deterministic laws. The greatest irony is that this car that violates “traffic laws” would be associated with emergence of life-like and goal-directed behavior (escaping from police chasing this car, for example).
This example illustrates how intelligence of matter could explain the emergence of non-equilibrium bifurcation phenomena, studied by non-linear thermodynamics. The emergence of non-equilibrium, self-organized systems, is also associated with initial chaos. When a system, due to large fluctuation, approaches a thermodynamically critical point, called the Edge of Chaos, a small change can push the system into non-deterministic behavior. A classical example is the Belousov-Zhabotinsky (BZ) reaction resulted in remarkable chemical reaction that creates macroscopic temporal oscillations between a color and colorless spatial life-like pattern formation. This chemical system is called a chemical clock, and is often studied as a prototype of a simple biological system. The typical combination of chemicals in this system consists of a mix of potassium bromate, cerium(IV) sulfate, and citric acid in dilute sulfuric acid. A number of other different preparations can be used in BZ reaction.
Because this life-like process occurs in the absence of an “organically correct” environment, it indicates that the life phenomenon doesn’t have to be based on organic material only, and could be created in any non-equilibrium chemical or physical medium. However, it may need abundant amount of this medium, for a life to develop even to its simplest forms.
In my posting from 20 May 2007 07:09, I illustrated the emergence of a non-equilibrium system using a fisherman who lived on a small island in the middle of ocean, but got lost in the ocean, and his continuous attempts to find his island brought him farther and farther from the destination. Because of the vast dimension of the ocean this man’s search would continue for long time during which he will develop a lot of skills and tools that help him survive on this journey. If given enough time, he or his descendant should eventually find this island: the smaller the searching area, (ocean, sea, lake) the faster he will find his island.
According to my hypothesis, Life underwent lengthy evolution in the direction out-of-equilibrium because of the vast amount of initial available medium (ocean, atmosphere, terrain) that the non-equilibrium system emerged in. Without a sufficient amount of this medium, life wouldn’t be able to develop complexity, reaching state of equilibrium (death) prematurely.
Therefore, the life forms we observing today are based on this medium - carbon, water, oxygen and hydrogen. However, I expect that some forms of life that emerged in the other medium should be significantly different from organic forms. The difficulty to demonstrate these forms of life are that they could be heavily “contaminated” with organic forms (convergence evolution) or exist in remote locations (very deep in the terrain, for example) or even if observed in the past, wasn’t recognized as a form of life, because of its non-organic makeup.
In an attempt to illustrate this possibility, I conducted a quick search and present below some facts that I found rather interesting.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/02/red.rain/index.html
Godfrey Louis, a solid-state physicist at Mahatma Gandhi University, published a paper in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal Astrophysics and Space Science in which he hypothesizes that the samples, water taken from the mysterious blood-colored showers that fell sporadically across Louis's home state of Kerala in the summer of 2001 contain microbes from outer space. Dozens of experiments suggest that the particles may lack DNA yet still reproduce plentifully, even in water superheated to nearly 600 degrees Fahrenheit.
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=B7AABF35-E7F2-99DF-309B8CEF02B5C4D7A
Sophisticated double-layered cell membranes, made of chemicals classified as lipids, separate living cells from their environment. David W. Deamer of the University of California, Santa Cruz, has observed membrane-like structures in meteorites. Other proposals have suggested natural boundaries not used by life today, such as iron sulfide membranes, mineral surfaces (in which electrostatic interactions segregate selected molecules from their environment) and aerosols. Microorganisms use minerals in place of the food or the oxygen. Other forms of energy are used by cells in specialized circumstances, for example, differences in acidity on opposite sides of a membrane. Yet others, such as radioactivity and abrupt temperature differences, might be used by life elsewhere in the universe.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astrobiology_nrc_040507.html
A study arm of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council (NRC), has pulled together a task group of specialists to tackle the issue of alternative life forms -- a.k.a. "weird life".… Possible alternative chemistries for life are to be evaluated, with an eye toward the prospect that non-standard chemistry may support life. A lot of advancement in learning about life on this planet is due to remarkable techniques that are extremely sensitive, but also highly specific, and that makes it almost useless in the quest to look for life elsewhere. You might stumble on previously unknown life right here on Earth.
http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1204&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
A group of researchers were intrigued about what might be living underground, in the pyrite deposits filled with acidic water at a pH of 2 or 1, and they think the process that makes the acidity is a microbial process. Microbes are eating sulfide minerals and excreting sulfuric acid and protons as a byproduct.
2. Daniel
quote:
As it stands right now (using your analogy) all we have is the 1950 Chevrolet, no 2007 Toyota has ever been found. If you are going to use this analogy, show us the Toyota!
In other words, you want me to demonstrate other living systems that are superior to the already known. I have to admit that I wasn’t able to find “Toyota”. However, it doesn’t stop me from seeing all deficiencies of the existing form of life. And I do not mean that a creature is deficient because it doesn’t fly like a bird, doesn’t swim like a fish, isn’t strong like a lion, and isn’t smart like a human. I mean fundamental deficiencies that are incompatible with idea of Intelligent Design - wasteful and destructive nature of this Life that not deserve to be glorified.
The destructive character of natural selection is entirely adequate from the natural development of point of view. However, it is absolutely unacceptable from the Design perspective. Could you imagine a machine in which its parts compete and even destroy each other. Destructive processes in the “life of these machines” aren’t limited to competition among them, but occur inside each machine also, affecting newly built parts that just came out from the assembly line. For example, cell death is a common event of early stages of embryogenic development in all organisms, including us. In drosophila, embryonic cell death begins approximately 7 hours of embryogenesis and thereafter becomes widespread, affecting many different tissues and regions of the embryo. If life was designed, how wasteful is this design? By this design, perfectly built prey-machines are destroyed by predator-machines, just to reuse prey-machines’ basic raw materials through the food chain. In this competition the winner is not the most advance machine, but the most powerful one. Lion and shark dominate any other animals, regardless how sophisticated or advance they are. Humans eventually dominate over the entire animal kingdom by designing all sorts of “killing gadgets”. So evolution favors not the best design, but the more powerful and ruthless one. Greece was conquered by the Romans regardless that Greek culture was superior to the Roman one, Rome was deposed by a riot of barbarian troops, Genghis Khan conquered the countries having much more advanced culture than Mongol’s.
Human-beings, eventually become the most powerful, and proclaimed themselves the only intelligent and conscience beings on this planet that justify a genocide over other species. In fact, humans are such tragic creatures, that by “design” at the beginning they were so helpless against elements and competition with other species, that to survive they had to build all sorts of “gadgets” to compensate for inherited deficiencies. On the way to overcoming the deficiencies of creation, humans got lost in the increasingly complicated environment they created and eventually started developing in the direction opposite to their initial goals (example of social bifurcation system). For example, to protect themselves from predators, humans created increasingly powerful weapons that they eventually used to start killing themselves. To escape starvation, humans overproduce and over consume food that causes epidemic of obesity. To protect themselves from elements, humans built enormous energy-hungry infrastructures that now jeopardize the climate of this planet. And finally to achieve an ultimate goal of happiness, humans get lost by chasing the surrogate of happiness – money, moving farther and farther from an ultimate goal.
If this Life indeed resulted from Intelligent Design, the Designer wasn’t intelligent enough, or maybe John Davison is right that this Life was created as a Game and bad Joke only.
[ 18. June 2007, 06:01: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 17. June 2007 15:04
IF,
I might be able to clear up my position with an example. I am in the middle of a paper titled “A Statistical Chemistry Approach to the Origin of Life” by Segre and Lancet. In paragraph four they have this to say:
quote:
While the fine details and the actual molecular mechanisms remain somewhat elusive, the generation of a large diversity of organic molecules under simulated prebiotic conditions constitutes a widely accepted notion. In what follows, we cover scenarios that assume that such molecules were present in a large number of types and high enough concentration, at least in certain locales.
In paragraph five they have this to say:
quote:
The statistical chemistry view of the origin of life, as presented below, allows one to safely use the least stringent continuity principle, namely that any organic molecules could initiate life. The severe loss of specific information thus sustained, is overcome through the use of statistical tools that quantitate molecular interactions despite the lack of a detailed structural definition.
Do you see how models are built in the absence of sufficient knowledge of the actual mechanisms in the process?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 17. June 2007 21:02
Mel,
quote:
Do you see how models are built in the absence of sufficient knowledge of the actual mechanisms in the process?
Yes. When it comes to studying something new and before there were the technologically advanced models we used to create things that were called classifications or categories and the same kinds of arguments on both sides were made! When you don't know where to start you have to start somewhere! You have to use the "best" tools available. For example the initial work of Linnaeus, Mendeleev, Mendel, etc. paid off! Many efforts along those same lines failed e.g. Kramer and Sprager's malleus maleficarum, Ptolemy's astronomy, Freuds psychological efforts, Eugenics, etc. The courage and conviction to expose ideas to criticism is mandatory. The wisdom of humanity to identify the failures and put them aside is equally mandatory. Education is the catalyst.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 18. June 2007 06:12
IF,
Quote: If genetic determinism = definition 2 (ref: a previous post) of phylogeny then why do you think it's silly?
Definition 2 is simply hand waving blither and in no way qualifies as a scientific definition. Definition 2 is nothing more than a simplistic expression of a rather silly pseudo-scientific belief.
The basic data addressed by the genetic determinism assumption or theory is heritability. Offspring tend to have appearances(phenotypes) similar to their parents. There are at least two basic types of theories that can explain this heritability. The first is the genetic determinism type theory that asserts: “The similarity in appearance between offspring and parents is controlled or determined by the information (genetic information) transmitted from parent to offspring”.
The alternative to the genetic determinism or transmitted information type theory is the intelligent causation type theory that asserts: “The similarity in appearance between offspring and parents is controlled or determined by the information (genetic information) transmitted from parent to offspring plus information generated by purposeful intelligent processing or by goal directed intelligent causation”.
The available evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the information required to assemble and operate a complex (or simple) organism vastly exceeds that can or could be transmitted by genes or any other known or suspected information storage and transmission mechanisms.
Quote: The wisdom of humanity to identify the failures and put them aside is equally mandatory.
But despite overwhelming evidence contradicting and falsifying genetic determinism and other information transmission theories, humanity in the form of academic science is unable or unwilling to reject genetic determinism. Why? Is it incompetence? Is it an inability to abandon pseudo-scientific superstitious beliefs?
Human beings and human social organizations have a rather amazing ability to filter (and as a result of filtering to distort or corrupt) factual information. There is a huge body of experimental and observational evidence showing that the volume and complexity of information needed to assemble and operate an organism is at least millions of times greater than the information transmitted in genes. But despite an overwhelming body of evidence that directly contradicts the genetic determinism mythology or mysticism, practically no one in academia is willing or able to challenge the genetic determinism assumption or theory.
There may be some dispute about how to fit the intelligent causation approach into the predictive theories required by hard science. But there is no sound logical basis for science to ignore the evidence and continuing to support genetic determinism type theories.
When we look at the genetic determinism issue, we once again find ourselves looking at the issue of the ‘human behavior of scientific analysis’. No matter how authoritative and no matter how much of the jargon of science is used, when human beings and human social organizations depart from the hard science concepts of formulating theories, testing theories, and accepting the results of testing, the quality of analysis quickly degenerates and you end up with powerful social organizations (like academic science) supporting incredibly silly beliefs like genetic determinism that don’t even come close to conforming to known facts.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 18. June 2007 08:48
IF,
Quote LE: The second, and more technical aspect, that is not understood or recognized, is that the engineering perspective does identify universal or permanent and universal laws.
I might be able to claim at least partial credit for this discovery, although I am sure somewhere in the literature there is someone who made a similar observation or discovery (I can’t provide references to similar observations because I don’t know where they are or if they exist).
The assertion or discovery being discussed here is that ‘the engineering perspective identifies permanent and universal laws of nature’ or somewhat more specifically, “The engineering perspective and teleological theories identify and address permanent and universal laws of nature to the extent required by the scientific paradigm”.
In naïve or simplistic terms, a ‘law of nature’ is permanent and universal if the law applies at every space-time point in the universe from the beginning of time until the end of the universe. This is a nice simple description of permanent and universal laws, but it is not exactly the concept used in scientific analysis and scientific theories.
Permanent and universal in scientific theories comes with the ‘under ideal conditions’ or ‘within defined constraints’ limitation or qualifier. A hard science predictive theory is falsified by a single piece of evidence that contradicts the theory. A single observation from a single space-time location can falsify a theory. The ‘under ideal conditions’ qualifier, however, prevents falsification due to things like measurement error and undue interference from outside factors like friction or human interference. The ‘under ideal conditions’ qualifier can, in fact, eliminate large portions of the universe as ‘not ideal conditions’ for quite a range of reasons.
The purpose of the permanent and universal requirement in scientific analysis is to insure open and independent testability. The ‘ideal conditions’ requirement can not be used to restrict testability to a specific set of conditions. A theory that can only be tested under a limited defined set of conditions is called trivial. Similarly, the ideal conditions requirement can not be applied retroactively or subjectively to refuse to recognize tests that a theory fails [Although this retroactive approval of testing to eliminate falsifications of a theory appears to be standard practice in biology.]
If we look at a force like gravity, we find that it applies or works as predicted by appropriate theories in most parts of the space-time universe. If we look at or observe even moderately complex forms of intelligent causation, we find that it applies or works as predicted by a appropriate theories in only a very limited part of the space-time universe. For most universal laws of nature addressed by physics, very large parts of the universe meet the ideal conditions requirement. For universal laws involving intelligent causation, only a very tiny part of the space-time universe satisfies the ‘ideal conditions’ requirement. However, the relative sizes of the ideal/non-ideal spaces does not accept the validity of a theory, provided the basic testability requirements are satisfied.
Intelligent causation, as discussed earlier, is defined in terms of the ability to generate solutions to problems or the ability to produce goal compatible responses. If the goal directed response is 80 to the problem ‘what is the sum of 23 plus 57, it should be obvious that very few space-time locations in the universe have the capacity to generate the appropriate ‘intelligent response’.
This simplistic type or example of intelligent causation can, however, be fit to a non-trivial testable teleological theory, and the ‘ideal conditions space can be defined in a manner that makes the theory both testable and non-trivial. It is probably not immediately obvious, but any effort to fit this intelligent causation to a non-teleological theory will fail.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 18. June 2007 19:22
LE,
quote:
... {Wow} ... When we look at the genetic determinism issue, we once again find ourselves looking at the issue of the ‘human behavior of scientific analysis’. No matter how authoritative and no matter how much of the jargon of science is used, when human beings and human social organizations depart from the hard science concepts of formulating theories, testing theories, and accepting the results of testing, the quality of analysis quickly degenerates and you end up with powerful social organizations (like academic science) supporting incredibly silly beliefs like genetic determinism that don’t even come close to conforming to known facts.
Have you researched other Countries (e.g. India, China, Middle East, etc.) to see if someone somewhere has the same very confident "feelings" that you do towards the current methods implemented by the scientific industry? How about here in the non-secular higher education institutions? If not that should be your target audience! They have much money and I'm sure they would be willing to fund you enough so that you can "properly" develop your ideas, don't you think?
I say that because of your next very even stronger assertion:
quote:
I might be able to claim at least partial credit for this discovery, although I am sure somewhere in the literature there is someone who made a similar observation or discovery (I can’t provide references to similar observations because I don’t know where they are or if they exist).
The assertion or discovery being discussed here is that ‘the engineering perspective identifies permanent and universal laws of nature’ or somewhat more specifically, “The engineering perspective and teleological theories identify and address permanent and universal laws of nature to the extent required by the scientific paradigm”.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 18. June 2007 20:00
LE,
quote:
But despite overwhelming evidence contradicting and falsifying genetic determinism and other information transmission theories, humanity in the form of academic science is unable or unwilling to reject genetic determinism.
Reference or link?
quote:
Why?
They may be waiting for a good reference or link to the overwhelming evidence!
quote:
Is it incompetence?
They might have been mandated to reject any and all forces/effects/entities/objects that could not be considered available to human analysis duel to our lack of consistent or repeatable data.
quote:
Is it an inability to abandon pseudo-scientific superstitious beliefs?
Do you mean to say that the scientific industry is a fake/scam/fraudulent activity just because the scientific industry won't accept the hypothesis that you are trying to explain using only this venue?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 19. June 2007 05:01
HARD SCIENCE VERSUS SOFT SCIENCE
At least a few decades ago, most people firmly believed that science and the scientific paradigm were highly effective methods of solving very complex problems. Most people in the last century firmly believed that science was steadily making the world a better place to live in.
But along with a firm belief in the problem solving power of science was a widespread recognition that not all sciences were created equal. Lots of people, or at least those with a working knowledge of science, recognized that sciences like political science and sociology were not nearly as powerful and effective problem solvers as engineering and physics.
My memory is certainly far from perfect, but my recollection is that even way back in my undergraduate days, the fundamental difference, or at least one of the fundamental differences, between the highly successful hard sciences and the far less successful soft sciences was the existence, in the hard sciences, of testable predictive mathematical theories. In the area of psychology that I was primarily interested in, it was generally recognized, or at least believed, that only the discovery of a ‘predictive mathematical theory of learning’ would finally move the relevant fields of psychology and physiology from the soft science category to the hard science category. At the school I attended, there were a number of people in psychology and physiology working on the problem and there were a number of people in the area of philosophy of science attempting to understand why it appeared difficult if not impossible to formulate this type of mathematical hard science theory. [To my knowledge, I am the only one to ever actually propose a solution to the problem.]
Apparently not everyone views the problem from the same perspective, but I have always accepted that real hard science solutions to the scientific problems like human behavior, neuronal information processing, the human mind, human decision making, intelligent causation and/or evolution would always come down to the discovery of testable, predictive, mathematical theories. [More specifically, hard science solutions to these problems comes down to the discovery, or more accurately the recognition, that a particular type of mathematical predictive theory satisfies the requirements of the formal scientific paradigm and can be used in the hard science analysis of all forms of intelligent causation.] Quite a number of ‘scientists’ and philosophers have come up with arguments in the form “If we can’t produce hard science theories, then the next best solution is …….”, but I have never heard anyone claim that the alternatives were as effective as the mathematical predictive theory solution.
When someone proposes hard science solutions to the problems of intelligent causation and human behavior and evolution, the evaluation of the proposed solution involves addressing the following issues:
1. Does the type of predictive theory being used meet all the formal requirements of the scientific paradigm?
2. Is it practical to formulate, test, and refine predictive theories of this type to address various forms of intelligent causation?
3. Do these theories and scientific analysis performed with this type of theory lead to an increased understanding of the subject being analyzed?
4. Can the predictive hard science theories formulated in this manner be compared to soft science theories? What is the result of such comparisons?
5. Does hard science analysis of intelligent causation lead to a better understanding of the human behavior of scientific analysis?
6. Does hard science analysis of intelligent causation using the proposed types of theories lead efficiently to practical solutions to real world problems? And finally
7. Why are so many soft science advocates unwilling and unable to consider and evaluate hard science analysis? How can such resistance be overcome or circumvented?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 19. June 2007 06:19
IF,
Quote: Do you mean to say that the scientific industry is a fake/scam/fraudulent activity just because the scientific industry won't accept the hypothesis that you are trying to explain using only this venue?
I am saying that portions of the academic or soft science industry are seriously corrupted, because if you test the so called scientific theories supported by this industry with competing theories produced and tested by hard science methodologies, you find huge differences and huge logical inconsistencies and flaws in the theories supported by academic science.
One of the reasons that it is necessary to use unconventional venues to express disagreements with the conclusions of academic science, is that academic science has effective filters in place to suppress presentation and discussion of opposing positions. Keep in mind that I am willing and able to subject by competing theories to open and objective hypothesis testing. It is the institutions of academic science that are unwilling and unable to support their theories with open testing. Academic science is not even willing or able to present their theories in a testable predictive form.
It is amazing how often the ‘our institution could not possibly be corrupted’ is presented (and believed) yet everywhere we look we find institutions that were once productive being corrupted and collapsing. If you really want to challenge the ideas I am presenting, then you need to be willing and able to subject your views to open and independent scientific testing. It is safe to predict that you are unable to find individuals from the academic institutions you are associated with, who are capable of (or willing) subjecting your theories to real testing.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
