|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
Meleagar2
Member
Member # 5890
|
posted 15. July 2007 16:09
LifeEngineer:
I have take the time to read this entire thread, and I'd like to thank you for your relentless adherence to topic, logic and hard science, and your relentless avoidance of distraction.
Through the reading of this thread I have learned much and hope to learn more. You've taught me how to arrange better arguments and how to recognized and admit my own limitations when it comes to such discussions.
Your capacity to articulate coherently the problems inherent in the peer review process and the avoidance of hard science by academia, and to point out the "interesting" implications of posts that ask for reference or links have been greatly appreciated.
Something I'm unclear on and maybe you can address is the concept of producing trivial vs non-trivial results. To my understanding, evolutionary theory does produce some results in certain fields of medicine and drug research, and if I'm not mistaken in certain areas of genomics; are these not true predictive theories, not really related to neo-darwinism, trivial in that they don't make successful predictions outside of very narrow parameters towards very specific answers, or something else?
Could you expand or further explain the distinction between trivial and non-trivial theories? I'm sorry if you've already covered it and I missed it.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 15. July 2007 21:31
miosim,
Forgive me for my long absence, we had a death in the family and today is my first time back at the computer for awhile.
quote:
Per my definition, intelligence is a collection of demonstrated goal-achieving, problem solving abilities. Man demonstrated some of his abilities by building a house. House itself didn’t demonstrate any ability. House, as a place to provide shelter and comfort is a CONCEPT invented and implemented by a man, but not abilities of a house itself. I cannot characterize house as intelligent even its parts are reducible to intelligent elements. Same way, I cannot characterize as intelligent, arranged human pyramid, even it consists of intelligent individuals.
I think you've made a very important distinction here between that which is intelligent and that which is intelligently designed.
You've added another dimension to the definition of intelligence with your use of the word "ability". You say the house has no abilities, but how do you measure ability? The house has the "ability" to keep me warm and dry when it's cold and wet outside. It also has the "ability" to provide light at the flick of a switch, or water with the turn of a handle. Are these not abilities? If not, then what are?
I agree with you though (and common sense tells us) that a house has no abilities. What it has are functions that have been designed and built into it.
Many things that appear intelligent may very well be intelligent designs that are merely doing what they are programmed to do. Man has produced many such things, i.e. computers, cars, spaceships, etc.
Finding the differences between the two could be a daunting task however.
And (just to head off LE), I will agree (and I think you will too) that we are not discussing hard science here. We are getting into the realm of philosophy and logic, but I'm hard pressed to see how anyone can do hard science analysis of "intelligence" when they are so many types of it - some of which (artistic ability for example) are not susceptible to any kind of rigorous testing. How do you test artistic ability in an objective way? It can't be done.
[ 15. July 2007, 21:32: Message edited by: Daniel Smith ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 16. July 2007 07:51
Meleagar,
Quote: Could you expand or further explain the distinction between trivial and non-trivial theories? I'm sorry if you've already covered it and I missed it.
Thanks for your very kind remarks.
First, I don’t believe that I originated the trivial and non-trivial theory distinction, but I don’t remember where or when I heard or read about the distinction.
As way of background there are two important general conditions or assumptions that must be satisfied in order to have true or non-trivial testable predictive scientific theories. The first is the scientific determinism assumption which asserts that future predicted outcomes must be based on past observed outcomes. The second key assumption or requirement is the somewhat misnamed ‘permanent and universal’ or natural law requirement. This requirement, in more pragmatic terms, means that there must exist previously unobserved types of situations where a theory can be objectively and independently tested.
At least at first blush, both criteria or assumptions are difficult to satisfy for intelligent causation where by definition, relationships are dynamic and progressive and adaptive.
If you are familiar with computer simulations, you probably know that there are lots of available methods of modeling and simulating behaviors that are dynamic and adaptive and progressive with programs or algorithms that are deterministic. [The fact that computer are deterministic rather than ‘truly’ dynamic is one of the dubious arguments used to suggest that computer behavior is not intelligent.]
The problem of computer modeling and computer simulating of behaviors that are complex, dynamic, adaptive and apparently intelligent is quite well understood. In somewhat over simplified terms, if we can clearly define a complex and apparently intelligent behavior, we can probably write a computer program to simulate the behavior. This brings us to the issue of trivial theories.
If I take any computer program (a complex function or algorithm) that simulates complex ‘intelligent behavior, I can use the program to define a predictive theory that attempts to describe and explain the behavior simulated. Again if you are familiar with such programs and associated theories, you are probably also aware that it is always fairly easy to falsify such theories. The computer simulations and associated theories always model or simulate behavior under a defined or limited set of conditions, and it is always possible (and usually quite easy) to find situations where the computer system fails (produces false predictions) and the real world intelligent system being simulated will successfully adapt.
A predictive theory that only produces successful predictions under a limited or defined set of conditions is considered trivial. As more extreme examples, consider predictive theories that only addressed the score of last nights baseball games or the scores of professional baseball games in the last 10 years. Such theories are characterized as trivial because they do not produce predictions that can be independently tested. The term trivial theory is applied not only to theories that address a specific limited set of events, but also to theories that apply only to a limited or constricted set of types of events.
When addressing complex intelligent behaviors, functional or deterministic computer functions produce ‘trivial’ theories can produce sophisticated and detail simulations and predictions for a limited or defined set of conditions. Teleological theories, by contrast, simple assert or predict that under ideal conditions the intelligent system will produce the correct or adaptive or goal compatible response. The teleological theory may not produce the type of detailed prediction some people would look for, but it is testable and non-trivial.
Note that in practice, hard science analysis, would generally use some combination of teleological theories and trivial functional theories. The exact combination used would depend on the practical problem being addressed.
It may not at first be entirely clear why hard science places a higher degree of importance on non-trivial testable theories than on sophisticated predictive trivial theories. The answer appears to lie in the fact that hard science methodologies are designed not so much as efficient methods of discovering new facts and relationships, as they are designed to deal with the weaknesses and foibles of human nature. If, it appears, a theory is not subject to open and independent testing by individuals interested in ‘overturning the current apple cart’, then there is a high risk that this lack of accountability will lead to unsound theories. This ‘interpretation’ of the rationale behind the hard science paradigm appears to be confirmed by the dubious results and theories produced peer review.
I hope this answers at least part of your questions regarding trivial and non-trivial theories.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 16. July 2007 08:12
Daniel,
Quote: I'm hard pressed to see how anyone can do hard science analysis of "intelligence" when they are so many types of it - some of which (artistic ability for example) are not susceptible to any kind of rigorous testing
Quote: Many things that appear intelligent may very well be intelligent designs that are merely doing what they are programmed to do. Man has produced many such things, i.e. computers, cars, spaceships, etc. Finding the differences between the two could be a daunting task however.
You bring up a couple of points that are worth commenting upon. First, it is important and useful to recognize that there are many types of intelligence and the intelligence to write a book or solve a complex mathematical problem may not be directly translate into the intelligence required to redesign a protein or accurately hit a golf ball.
Most practical or applied science analysis of intelligent causation will focus on understanding specific types or sets of intelligent causation. However, although there appear to be many different types of intelligent causation, it appears that a single general type of hard science analysis involving testing and refining teleological theories are used in addressing all problems involving intelligent causation. Even artistic intelligence such as that involved in writing music appear to have been successfully subjected to this type of analysis.
Second, there may be a ‘scientific’ answer to the differences between ‘intelligent’ and ‘intelligent designs’. The answer is that all behaviors subject to scientific analysis are to be viewed as intelligent designs. Science has no capacity or ability to study any phenomena that does not involve external intelligent causes or inputs. There is a strong desire to define some type of intelligence as some type of ‘internal phenomenon’ or mental phenomenon not controlled by external intelligent causes or external agency. It seems likely that at least from a scientific perspective, no such internal intelligent causation can be or needs to be addressed.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 16. July 2007 09:09
IF,
LE: One of the reasons that the Emperor’s clothes effect occurs in all sorts of areas is that people are firmly convinced that ‘it couldn’t happen here’.
IF: Could other reasons be embarrassment, fear, and/or intimidation?
To understand the Emperor’s clothes effect (ECE?) it is important to recognize that humans are complex social animals with an amazing capacity to break very complex jobs into many small components. This capacity for cooperative effort breaks down quite rapidly if individuals don’t blindly accept the assertions of authority figures. The existence of ECE’s is surprisingly easy to demonstrate and the processes that ‘protect’ them are readily identified. At least in my view, the only unsolved mystery with respect to ECE’s is how to trigger a rejection of a flawed or corrupted ECE belief or theory and replace it with a valid (or at least greatly improved) belief or theory.
We know that flawed or corrupted ECE’s tend to collapse and be replaced very rapidly (the change phenomenon is referred to as ‘bursting a bubble’ or ‘a paradigm shift’). My father used to say you could go to bed at night with everybody firmly convinced of one belief and wake up in the morning to find that everyone now believed something very different. We know that ECE’s exist, we can readily identify them (and the harm produced), and we know that flawed ECE’s tend to collapse rapidly. If we (or I) could figure out how to trigger a rejection and replacement of seriously flawed ECE we (I) could do a lot to improve the world and we (I) could make an awful lot of money. I believe I have been getting closer and closer to the answer to this question, but I still don’t have a solution.
This sort of leads directly into your questions about whether scientists understand the differences among 1) materialistic causes, 2)teleological causes, 3) abstract causal factors and 4) supernatural causal factors. At least on the surface, and depending how the question is asked, it would appear that most scientists understand these distinctions. But if you look at the literature produced and at the predictive theories produced or not produced, or accepted/rejected in almost any of the academic life sciences, you find that the actual literature and actual theories produced and evaluated are not logically consistent with supposed knowledge of types of causal factors.
Quote: Is that same political process active at this site?
This is an interesting question, particularly if you look at the history of sites dealing with the ID issue. In the past, sites like this attempted to use balanced moderating to prevent discussions from deteriorating into useless name calling. The net effect of these efforts was to effectively suppress any ideas that were in conflict with accepted academic views. The moderating process ended up being controlled by academics and academic peer review standards. So back in the old days, I would say that despite good intentions, the political process on the site tended to suppress views contradicting ECEs.
Apparently a few in the ID movement finally realized what was happening and began eliminating the political influence of moderators. The result here seems to be fairly positive. On other sites, the reduced moderation results in trolls controlling the site.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 16. July 2007 10:36
LifeEngineer wrote:
quote:
There is a strong desire to define some type of intelligence as some type of ‘internal phenomenon’ or mental phenomenon not controlled by external intelligent causes or external agency. It seems likely that at least from a scientific perspective, no such internal intelligent causation can be or needs to be addressed.
If the internal intelligent causation can’t be addressed, then one will never understand fully the behavior of the intelligent agent being studied. I will give you an example.
My father was an avid golfer. He knew of another man at the club who would lie about the scores he attained on his non-competitive rounds. These scores were used to calculate the golfer’s individual handicap. In competitions the golfers with the higher handicaps received a scoring advantage in the competition. This was done to make the playing field more even and therefore make the competitions more interesting.
One would assume that the dishonest golfer was reporting scores that were higher than he actually got in order to receive an unfair advantage in competitive rounds. This was not the case. The dishonest golfer was reporting scores for non-competitive rounds that were lower than the scores he actually got. The man was a medical doctor and so obviously he was intelligent enough to know this would be making it more difficult for him to win the competitions. My father was perplexed. Why would an intelligent man intentionally make it more difficult on himself?
My father did not understand the internal intelligent causation of the dishonest golfer. Simply put, it was more important to the good doctor that he have the prestige of a lower handicap rather than the prestige of doing well in the competitions. Even after I explained this obvious fact to my father he was still unable to accept the dishonest golfer’s behavior as rational.
All, can we characterize the internal intelligent causation of any designer using objective (hard science) techniques in the study of the design?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 16. July 2007 12:08
Melvin,
Quote: If the internal intelligent causation can’t be addressed, then one will never understand fully the behavior of the intelligent agent being studied. I will give you an example.
Quote: If the internal intelligent causation can’t be addressed, then one will never understand fully the behavior of the intelligent agent being studied. I will give you an example.
First, hard science does not address complete or absolute truth or full understanding. Real science addresses 1) knowledge with sufficient reliablility to be useful in solving practical problems and 2) knowledge that recognizes the limitations of human knowledge. Not fully understanding internal mental processes or not fully understanding the internal mental processes of supernatural beings may limit human understanding. But a key part of real science is recognizing limitatins and potential limitations to human knowledge.
Your example points out two key elements involved in scientific analysis of purposeful intelligent human behavior. First, different people have different goals. Three people may go to the store to buy peanut butter, but they may not have the same goals. One may want to save as much money as possible, one may want to buy what is viewed as the highest status product, and one may simply have the goal of buying what his kids asked for. Different people have different goals and the same person can have different goals at different times. This is one of the reasons for diversity in behavior and it is one of the reasons stores offer multiple brands of the same product.
Your example also points out that in many, probably most situations, we can find out the goal of an individual simply by asking the person. A stated goal is an externally observable causal factor, not an unobservable internal causal factor. Determining goal values or goal variables is not always as simple as asking someone, but in most situations it is not terribly difficult to 'observe goal variables'.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 16. July 2007 13:56
LifeEngineer:
quote:
Most practical or applied science analysis of intelligent causation will focus on understanding specific types or sets of intelligent causation. However, although there appear to be many different types of intelligent causation, it appears that a single general type of hard science analysis involving testing and refining teleological theories are used in addressing all problems involving intelligent causation. Even artistic intelligence such as that involved in writing music appear to have been successfully subjected to this type of analysis.
How can there be any type of objective tests for the writing of music? What is the basis of such tests? Notes per minute? Number of different notes? Chords? Instruments involved? Who decides if it's "good" music? If the person doing the testing only likes classical music - is that person capable of objectively analyzing the talent of a blues artist? The whole process is fraught with problems.
quote:
Second, there may be a ‘scientific’ answer to the differences between ‘intelligent’ and ‘intelligent designs’. The answer is that all behaviors subject to scientific analysis are to be viewed as intelligent designs. Science has no capacity or ability to study any phenomena that does not involve external intelligent causes or inputs. There is a strong desire to define some type of intelligence as some type of ‘internal phenomenon’ or mental phenomenon not controlled by external intelligent causes or external agency. It seems likely that at least from a scientific perspective, no such internal intelligent causation can be or needs to be addressed.
Your statement here gives the impression that science cannot study random (non-intelligent) causes. Is that what you meant to imply?
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 16. July 2007 16:34
LifeEngineer,
That was a good answer to my question, thank you.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 16. July 2007 18:19
LE,
quote:
To understand the Emperor’s clothes effect (ECE?) it is important to recognize that humans are complex social animals with an amazing capacity to break very complex jobs into many small components. This capacity for cooperative effort breaks down quite rapidly if individuals don’t blindly accept the assertions of authority figures.
That was the primary reason for starting the Cimento in Italy and followed afterward by the more permanent establishment of the Royal Society in England. The previous authorities strongly discouraged verification of their assertions in matters of natural processes and effects.
quote:
..., the only unsolved mystery with respect to ECE’s is how to trigger a rejection of a flawed or corrupted ECE belief or theory and replace it with a valid (or at least greatly improved) belief or theory.
In the past it's been done by providing new evidence either for a new/better description of the "clothes" or compelling evidence against the current description.
quote:
We know that flawed or corrupted ECE’s tend to collapse and be replaced very rapidly (the change phenomenon is referred to as ‘bursting a bubble’ or ‘a paradigm shift’). My father used to say you could go to bed at night with everybody firmly convinced of one belief and wake up in the morning to find that everyone now believed something very different.
Beliefs are held by individuals and theories are the current reigning understandings/explanations in certain fields of study. Individual beliefs in civil societies are overturned/defeated by convincing/emotional appeals but theories/explanations replaced by unemotional analysis of evidence using valid logical/mathematical/experimental techniques that are presented to and reviewed/judged by designated officials. At least that's the way I understand it.
quote:
We know that ECE’s exist, we can readily identify them (and the harm produced), and we know that flawed ECE’s tend to collapse rapidly. If we (or I) could figure out how to trigger a rejection and replacement of seriously flawed ECE we (I) could do a lot to improve the world
That is a wonderful objective! The methods are in place and have been used successfully in the past.
quote:
This sort of leads directly into your questions about whether scientists understand the differences among 1) materialistic causes, 2)teleological causes, 3) abstract causal factors and 4) supernatural causal factors. At least on the surface, and depending how the question is asked, it would appear that most scientists understand these distinctions. But if you look at the literature produced and at the predictive theories produced or not produced, or accepted/rejected in almost any of the academic life sciences, you find that the actual literature and actual theories produced and evaluated are not logically consistent with supposed knowledge of types of causal factors.
Do you have a good example of this?
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 16. July 2007 22:30
Daniel,
First, please accept my condolences for loss in your family.
quote:
Daniel:
You've added another dimension to the definition of intelligence with your use of the word "ability". You say the house has no abilities, but how do you measure ability? The house has the "ability" to keep me warm and dry when it's cold and wet outside. It also has the "ability" to provide light at the flick of a switch, or water with the turn of a handle. Are these not abilities? If not, then what are?
I agree with you though (and common sense tells us) that a house has no abilities. What it has are functions that have been designed and built into it.
In this case, we came to the same conclusion using a different approach: you’re –from a common sense, and me – from my definition of intelligence, as a collection of demonstrated goal-achieving (problem solving) abilities. According to this definition, house didn’t demonstrate any goal-achieving ability, but man did by conceiving and implementing his goal to protect him self from elements.
quote:
Daniel:
Many things that appear intelligent may very well be intelligent designs that are merely doing what they are programmed to do. Man has produced many such things, i.e. computers, cars, spaceships, etc.
Finding the differences between the two could be a daunting task however.
This is my solution to this daunting task:
Instead of analyzing intelligence by itself, I am analyzing a material system that has a particular set of properties. To understand where these properties coming from, I attempt reducing every system's property to properties of its elements. If this attempt is not successful, I assume that an external factor may determine the properties of a system. For example, some properties (functionalities) of computers, cars, and spaceships cannot be reduced to the properties of its components, because these properties are caused by external ID (human). However, in case of living systems, I belief, I can reduce all their properties to the goal-achieving properties of their elements, and therefore no external ID is needed in this case.
[ 17. July 2007, 05:00: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 17. July 2007 06:13
Daniel,
Quote: How can there be any type of objective tests for the writing of music? What is the basis of such tests? Notes per minute? Number of different notes? Chords? Instruments involved? Who decides if it's "good" music?
These are all interesting technical questions. Apparently, according to those who actually understand it, music is highly structured. By adhering to the structural rules and by avoiding or eliminating music that does not satisfy the rules you can at least produce music that is 'not too bad'. Apparently, by building on and improving such programs, people have developed programs that can write that is rated moderately good.
The question of 'who decides what is good' is probably easier to address than the how do you write good music. For the most part, people 'like' music because of a combination of 'it fits accepted patterns or structures' and 'opinions of accepted experts'.
It is useful to keep in mind that the analysis of different types of intelligent causation will involve different levels of difficulty. Often the perceived level of difficulty will turn out to be very different than the actual complexity and difficulty, and the percieved level of difficulty will change as the technical problems are solved.
Way back when, it was beleived or percieved that solving mathematical problems would be one of the most difficult types of intelligent behavior to simulate (because humans have such difficulty mastering the behavior) and visual recognition of objects would be a trivial example of intelligent behavior. It turned out that visual recognition was far more difficult to simulate on computers.
Today, human decison making regarding scientific theories or morality are viewed as types of intelligent behavior that are extremely difficult or impossible to simulate successfully on computers. However, once we apply the appropriate hard science methodologies, these forms of intelligent processing appear to be subject to analysis and simulation in much the same way the arithmatic has been subjected to successful analysis and simulation.
Quote: Your statement here gives the impression that science cannot study random (non-intelligent) causes. Is that what you meant to imply?
Science, or hard science, is a somewhat formal or rigid process of solving problems by formulating, testing, refining, and applying predictive scientific theories. The scientific process or scientific paradigm only works for causal relationships that are ‘scientifically deterministic’ and ‘permanent and universal’ (although both these terms have technical meanings that may be different from the man on the street interpretation).
If by random causes you mean ‘stochastic processes with defined probability distributions’ then such relationships can be both deterministic and permanent and universal and can be subject to scientific analysis. If by random, you mean indeterminate or non-deterministic, then no the relationship would not be subject to scientific analysis.
I assume your question relates to neo-Darwinian theories of evolution. The original theories attempted to conform fairly rigorously and rigidly to the requirements of the scientific paradigm. When the formal predictive or scientific form of neo-Darwinism was falsified, a lot of individuals began using the non-scientific and non-deterministic interpretation of neo-Darwin theory.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 17. July 2007 06:16
Mel,
Quote: That was a good answer to my question, thank you.
Your welcome. Does that mean you agree?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 17. July 2007 07:54
FRAMING
Arguably the most difficult part of solving any problem is what is called framing. As most people are aware, many problems that at first appear impossible to solve turn out to be relatively simple when viewed from the appropriate perspective or frame.
Problems involving complex causation, and this includes intelligent causation, appear to be particularly difficult to solve (at least for some people) because solving such problems involves or requires multiple perspectives. Multiple perspectives means that part of the problem is solved using one perspective, another part by using a different perspective and so on and so forth.
Poker, apparently, provides an interesting illustration of on type of multiple perspective problem solving. It appears that good poker players have not only the ability to view a hand from the perspective of their opponents, but they have the ability to ‘work a poker problem backwards’ starting with the behavior of their opponents and solving for the cards their opponent is likely to have. Note that relatively few people have a highly developed ability to use this type of multiple-perspective problem-solving in playing poker. That is why the talented or professional poker player almost always wins against the untalented.
One part of the multiple-perspective problem-solving for intelligent causation involves breaking complex processes into a large number of simple operations, finding solutions for each of the component and putting the pieces back together into a logically consistent consolidated solution or simulation. Anyone who actually analyzes complex behaviors and writes such programs will be familiar with this type of multiple-perspective method of framing such problems.
In understanding scientific analysis of intelligent causation, there is another multiple-perspective framework that is important to understand. Specifically, scientific analysis of intelligent causation involves 1) knowing and applying the rules of the scientific paradigm, 2) being able to back up and review and evaluate (and if necessary modify) the rules and standards of the scientific paradigm and 3) being able to back up even further and review and analyze the human behavior of scientific analysis.
We have two very different sets of behaviors that are currently labeled science or scientific analysis. One is what I label the hard science methodologies involving formulating and testing predictive theories. These methodologies are used in the physical sciences, in engineering, in systems design, and in various applied science. The second set of procedures that I label soft science or academic science involves peer review and published literature and evaluations by academic authority figures.
The common or generally accepted perspective or framework is to view these two sets of procedures as complementary components of a single scientific process or paradigm. I am suggesting that in order to understand the scientific analysis of intelligent causation, we need to be able to view hard science and peer review academic science, not as complimentary components of the same process, but rather as two competing sets of procedures that can and do produce very different and logically inconsistent results.
I suspect that if you can view, perceive or frame hard science and academic peer review science as competing behaviors, then you will find it easier to begin to understand the hard science analysis of intelligent causation.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 17. July 2007 08:17
IF,
Quote: That is a wonderful objective! The methods are in place and have been used successfully in the past.
That is clearly not true. Certainly, there are in many fields existing procedures for identifying the existence of ECE’s. In the investment community, for example, there are established and highly validated methods of identifying investment bubbles. But the existence of such methods does not prevent bubbles from being created and doing a great deal of harm before they burst.
In ‘science’, there are clearly defined methods for testing and rejecting faulty theories and for replacing such theories with valid theories. But when you get to fields like AI the existence of established methodologies has not prevented academic sciences from rejecting valid theories and definitions of phenomenon like intelligent causation. In a field like evolutionary biology, the existence of established methodologies for evaluating and falsifying theories has not prevented the continued support of theories that have clearly and unambiguously been falsified.
There are established procedures for demonstrating that the emperor is walking down the street naked. There are, however, no known or reliable procedures for overcoming ECE’s and getting people to recognize or admit the emperor is naked.
Quote: Beliefs are held by individuals and theories are the current reigning understandings/explanations in certain fields of study. Individual beliefs in civil societies are overturned/defeated by convincing/emotional appeals but theories/explanations replaced by unemotional analysis of evidence using valid logical/mathematical/experimental techniques that are presented to and reviewed/judged by designated officials. At least that's the way I understand it.
That’s the accepted belief or theory, but that is not what the evidence shows. The evidence shows that ‘under ideal conditions’ both beliefs and theories reflect the best available information. But under realistic non-ideal conditions, both beliefs and theories can and do become seriously corrupted and distorted.
It is kind of amusing that you believe in the existence of procedures for “theories/explanations replaced by unemotional analysis of evidence using valid logical/mathematical/experimental techniques that are presented to and reviewed/judged by designated officials”, but you are either unable or unwilling to actually submit these beliefs to objective testing.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
