|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 06. August 2007 10:19
The Darwinists, the supporters of academic AI, and the supporters of the various forms of academic and religious ID all seem to be indignant or amused by the idea that anyone would subject any form of academic science to actual independent testing. Everyone somehow is supposed to accept that any thing said by anyone with a degree should be immune from review and testing.
It is amusing that the ‘immune from review and testing’ appears to be central to almost all academic science while ‘open and objective testing of explicitly defined non-trivial testable theories” is central to all real science. No one in academic science seems to be the least bit concerned with the obvious contradictions between academic science and real science.
But the point of the above posting is not assert the existence of a difference between academic science and real science. That issue can be readily resolved using ‘select the best theory’ analysis. Although as has been demonstrated here many times, none of the supporters of any of the academic sciences is likely to be willing to subject their beliefs to actual open scientific testing. The point of the post is not the difference academic scientists and real scientists. That issue is also readily resolved using select the best theory analysis. The point of the posting is the origins of the differences between academic and real science. My original hypothesis was that the differences between academic science and real science arose from the corruption of real science. I am proposing now that academic science arose not as a corruption of real science, but rather as a means of isolating those not able to perform real scientific from real science and limiting their ability to interfere with the performance of real scientific analysis.
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 06. August 2007 13:04
quote:
I recommend that Life Engineers' chronic, repetitious, judgmentally arrogant analyses be relegated to the scrap heap. They contribute absolutely nothing of value to our understanding of the real world.
I agree with Novisad. I have just read a few of Life Engineer's more recent posts here, and they appear to make little sense.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 06. August 2007 14:06
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/pope_declares_there_is_much_sc.php#comments
P.Z. Myers' Pope-bashing thread has reached 394 comments. He must be very proud to have such a following of fellow atheists and hate mongers. Our society has become infested with hate speech affecting virtually everything from music to politics to religion to science. I still vividly recall the way I was greeted by Myers in response to my first post at Pharyngula.
"Your stench has preceded you."
There is no question that Western Civilization is in a state of profound decay.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 06. August 2007 21:21
miosim:
quote:
You started comparing complexity of a Living Cell with complexity of Human Society, but in this example you are comparing complexity of Living Cell with complexity of one of the product (Boeing 747) of Human Society. To compare apple to apple, choose the most sophisticated product of a Living Cell and then compare it with Boeing 747.
If we're talking about societies: The most sophisticated cellular society is the human body. We are talking about literally trillions of cells, with thousands of unique functions, working in unison (as if directed by a master plan) in order to keep us alive. No human society has ever worked in unison to this degree - none.
If we're talking about products: Every living cell is more sophisticated than a 747 and the most sophisticated product of any living cell is... itself.
Remember, we are not only talking about complexity here, we're also talking about efficiency and sophistication. One living cell is more complex than a 747 - and it can duplicate itself with supreme accuracy and efficiency!!
This is something no human invention can do.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 07. August 2007 06:25
Quote: If we're talking about societies: The most sophisticated cellular society is the human body. We are talking about literally trillions of cells, with thousands of unique functions, working in unison (as if directed by a master plan) in order to keep us alive. No human society has ever worked in unison to this degree - none.
The point is not whether one is more complex or more intelligent than another. The point is that multicellular organisms and human societies involve complex interactions among large groups of specialized sub-units. Human societies as manifestations of complex goal directed intelligence are capable of certain types of behaviors that are beyond multi-cellular organism and vice versa.
We can learn about intelligent causation by observing and studying both the similarities and the differences. Both human social organizations and multi-cellular organisms go through cycles of growth and decay and rebirth. For reasons that are not entirely understood, complex intelligent systems are not stable.
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 08. August 2007 07:08
quote:
Daniel:
If we're talking about societies: The most sophisticated cellular society is the human body. We are talking about literally trillions of cells, with thousands of unique functions, working in unison (as if directed by a master plan) in order to keep us alive. No human society has ever worked in unison to this degree - none.
I am sharing with you a fascination of mystery of a living cell. No human society may "has ever worked in unison to this degree", but if you noticed, the human society is changing rather rapidly.
quote:
Daniel:
If we're talking about products: Every living cell is more sophisticated than a 747 and the most sophisticated product of any living cell is... itself.
I am still having a problem the way you compare products. Living cell isn’t a product, but a member of the human body society and should be compared with a human who is a member of human society.
quote:
Daniel:
Remember, we are not only talking about complexity here, we're also talking about efficiency and sophistication. One living cell is more complex than a 747 - and it can duplicate itself with supreme accuracy and efficiency!!
According to my definition of complexity, it is a subjective category that reflects a lock of knowledge about a system or phenomenon. Therefore, at present time, the complexity of Living cell is indeed higher than the complexity of Human Society.
Regarding cell’s “supreme accuracy and efficiency”, let wait until we learn more about cell. We may find that cell's life has also “ugly sides”.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 09. August 2007 13:58
I suspect that most people are able to recognize that successful scientific analysis requires individual scientists with highly specialized abilities and extensive relevant training. In simplified terms, successful science requires highly competent scientists. It should also be apparent that the ‘highly competent scientist’, like the highly competent professional athlete, represents a very tiny percentage of an initial pool of potential scientists. As should be logically obvious, finding rare highly competent scientists or athletes from very large pools of potential scientists or athletes requires an effective and efficient process for eliminating or selecting out less competent individuals.
In order to understand the importance or significance of the selection or selecting out process, we start by looking at what happens to a human social activity when the selecting out process is inefficient or ineffective. In other words, “What happens when individuals without the required level of competence are placed in positions requiring high levels of competence?”
The obvious answer is that performance or effectiveness of the activity involved will be reduced. Also reasonably obvious is the fact that the effect on performance may be probabilistic rather than direct and immediate. There are likely to be factors other than ‘competence of individuals in particular positions’ that impact the performance of a human social activity.
The impact of an ineffective or inefficient selecting out process appears to be progressive or cumulative under certain circumstances. Specifically, if being characterized as ‘highly competent’ or attained a position requiring ‘highly competent individuals’ is perceived as highly desirable and beneficial and if the risk or perceived risk of being shown to be ‘not highly competent’ is small, then it is likely that the individuals achieving the positions requiring highly competence will be progressively less competent and the selecting out process will become less and less effective and efficient. What appears to happen in the absence of external, independent, and objective standards of competence, individuals with political influence begin to change the selecting out criteria so that they are insured of being selected as highly competent. Under the proper conditions, the differences between ‘true highly competent’ and ‘highly competent determined by a corrupted selecting out process’ can be huge.
The suggestion or hypothesis or prediction here is that in fields like AI and evolutionary biology, there are huge differences between ‘true highly scientifically competent’ and ‘highly scientifically competent as determined by politicized and subjective academic processes’. These differences, it is proposed can be tested and demonstrated by evaluating the ‘select the best theory’ decision processes. Competent and highly competent individuals as determined by academic methods and standards will be shown to consistently make highly incompetent theory selection decisions.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 09. August 2007 18:22
LifeEngineer:
quote:
The point is not whether one is more complex or more intelligent than another. The point is that multicellular organisms and human societies involve complex interactions among large groups of specialized sub-units. Human societies as manifestations of complex goal directed intelligence are capable of certain types of behaviors that are beyond multi-cellular organism and vice versa.
We can learn about intelligent causation by observing and studying both the similarities and the differences.
I agree with this. In fact I think we humans could learn a lot about ways to better run our various enterprises by studying cellular systems.
For instance, cellular systems are constantly regenerating - and they assign higher priority to the regeneration of the more critical members. We could apply this to the training of employees and managers in a corporate setting. One can see the advantage of constantly having someone "in the wings" to step in and fill the shoes of a person with critical skills who is leaving for one reason or another. Too often however, the person leaving takes a wealth of expertise and knowledge with them which is not replaced.
We see this same type of loss also between generations. Modern societies - with their de-emphasis of family units and convenient means of large geographical separations - are especially prone to significant loss of the type of wisdom that was traditionally handed down from father to son, mother to daughter, grandparent to grandchild... etc.
Once again we could learn a lot from the way cellular systems handle information - and the care with which it is handed down from generation to generation via reproduction.
Come to think of it, we can learn a lot from cellular systems, but I'm not sure what cellular systems could learn from us.
quote:
Both human social organizations and multi-cellular organisms go through cycles of growth and decay and rebirth. For reasons that are not entirely understood, complex intelligent systems are not stable.
That's true. I have my beliefs as to the reasons, but (as Dr. Davison rightly pointed out) science will never discover the "why" - only the "how".
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 10. August 2007 10:55
The goal, purpose, or function of real science or hard science is to find solutions to real world problems like ‘how to build a safe reliable bridge’, or ‘how to find a cure for a disease’, or ‘how to reduce poverty’, or ‘how to prevent global warming’. The lack of an effective and efficient method of selecting out individuals who are not highly competent scientists materially reduces the ability of scientific analysis to solve problems.
When non-competent individuals are given authority or even the appearance of authority in any type of science they can dramatically reduce the problem solving capacity of the science. At least one part of the problem is that non-competent individuals do not appear capable of understanding the criteria and standards that must be satisfied by scientific solutions. As a result, these individuals consider theories like MET as valid when such theories don’t even begin to meet scientific requirements. They reject, using non-scientific subjective standards, as invalid theories like teleological theories that fully satisfy scientific requirements.
Not only do these non-competent individuals fail to properly evaluate scientific theories and scientific solutions, but they are able to direct large portions of the available resources away from valid analysis and towards silly and unproductive analysis. Scientific groups controlled by non-competent individuals can and do effectively suppress all productive analysis within the range of their influence.
The point here is that the presence of scientifically non-competent individuals in positions of authority or perceived authority in academia is not so much a criticism of academia as it is a concern for the effectiveness of scientific problem solving. There are lots of real world problems that need to be and could be solved via effective and efficient scientific analysis. Producing an effective and efficient methods of selecting out non-competent scientists appears to be an essential component of effective and efficient scientific analysis.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 11. August 2007 10:03
LE,
quote:
The goal, purpose, or function of real science or hard science is to find solutions to real world problems like ‘how to build a safe reliable bridge’, or ‘how to find a cure for a disease’, or ‘how to reduce poverty’, or ‘how to prevent global warming’. The lack of an effective and efficient method of selecting out individuals who are not highly competent scientists materially reduces the ability of scientific analysis to solve problems.
From dictionary.com "science"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science
The following brief cut/pastes are from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge') is a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[1][2] Science as defined here is sometimes termed pure science to differentiate it from applied science, which is the application of scientific research to specific human needs.
Pure science is defined as a basic knowledge of developing scientific theories without considering their application,and also aiming at solving phenomena and mechanisms proposed in applied science.Pure science, also called basic science, is the exact science of the development of scientific theories. This research is done at times without consideration of their application, and at other times aims to answer phenomena and possible mechanisms proposed in applied science. It is the counterpart of applied science. Pure science is sometimes used to refer specifically to physics and pure mathematics, but chemistry and biology may also be considered as examples. Science can come from many different forms and measures but still, everything we see around outside depends on science to live on. For example, a car uses technology from science which helps create, produce, plan and take care of the car itself. Pure science has many meanings of ingeniousness and wonder which can leave your mind astounded at the things that science can do to our future and present world.
Basic science is the heart of all discoveries, and progress is based on well controlled experiments.
Hard science is a term used to describe certain fields of the natural sciences, usually physics, geology, chemistry, and many fields of biology. The hard sciences rely on experimental, quantifiable data or the scientific method and focus on accuracy and objectivity. The hard sciences are often contrasted with soft sciences, which by contrast allow for multiple realities.
The hard versus soft distinction is not used to indicate that soft sciences are not valid fields of study, but that they do not produce, and usually do not seek to produce, results that are objectively calculable. That is, whereas hard sciences focus on producing results that can be rigorously proven, soft sciences ultimately rely to some degree on a subjective viewpoint. Thus the conclusions of hard science represent objective features of reality determined through concrete experiment (and sometimes thought experiments) by experimentalists with a rigorous training in specialized research methods.
The term exact science refers to fields of study that admit especially precise predictions and rigorous methods of testing hypotheses, especially reproducible experiments involving quantifiable predictions and measurements. The term implies a dichotomy between these fields and those such as sociology and economics, where prediction and experiment are more difficult. It also suggests that the former are more rigorous than the latter, and their results more reliable. Today the distinction is widely considered old-fashioned, and scientists very rarely use this term. The terms hard science, pure science, and fundamental science are very similar.
The demarcation problem in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science. The boundaries are commonly drawn between science and non-science, between science and pseudoscience, and between science and religion. A form of this problem, known as the generalized problem of demarcation subsumes all three cases. The generalized problem looks for criteria for deciding which of two theories is the more scientific.
After over a century of dialogue among philosophers of science and scientists in varied fields, and despite broad agreement on the basics of scientific method,[1] the boundaries between science and non-science continue to be debated.[2]
Engineering is the design, analysis, and/or construction of works for practical purposes. The Engineers' Council for Professional Development, also known as ECPD,[1] (later ABET [2]) defines Engineering as: "The creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behavior under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended function, economics of operation and safety to life and property."[3][4][5] One who practices engineering is called an engineer, and those licensed to do so have formal designations such as Professional Engineer , Chartered Engineer or Incorporated Engineer. The broad discipline of engineering encompasses a range of specialized subdisciplines that focus on the issues associated with developing a specific kind of product, or using a specific type of technology.
quote:
The point here is that the presence of scientifically non-competent individuals in positions of authority or perceived authority in academia is not so much a criticism of academia as it is a concern for the effectiveness of scientific problem solving. There are lots of real world problems that need to be and could be solved via effective and efficient scientific analysis. Producing an effective and efficient methods of selecting out non-competent scientists appears to be an essential component of effective and efficient scientific analysis.
Who are the most competent people that should be in authority?
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 11. August 2007 20:54
Who shoud be in auhority? I feel and he feels it should be Life Engineer. It is a dirty job and somebody has to do it. I nominate Life Engineer.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 12. August 2007 09:30
The following was copied from another site because it is relevant to the discussion here.
Quote LE: When non-competent individuals are given authority or even the appearance of authority in any type of science they can dramatically reduce the problem solving capacity of the science. At least one part of the problem is that non-competent individuals do not appear capable of understanding the criteria and standards that must be satisfied by scientific solutions.
LA> Your comments, with which I agree, might be seen in the light of the following insident that is called Harter's Precept. My apologies if is happens to be already well known to you;
--------------
The German biologist Bruno Muller-Hill tells a memorable
story to illustrate his thesis that "self-deception
plays an astonishing role in science in spite of all the
scientists' worship of truth":
When I was a student in a German gymnasium and thirteen
years old, I learned a lesson that I have not forgotten.... One early
morning our physics teacher placed a telescope in the school yard to
show us a certain planet and its moons. So we stood in a
long line, about forty of us. I was standing at the end
of the line, since I was one of the smallest students.
The teacher asked the first student whether he could see
the planet. No, he had difficulties, because he was
nearsighted. The teacher showed him how to adjust the
focus, and that student could finally see the planet, and
the moons.
Others had no difficulty; they saw them right away. The
students saw, after a while, what they were supposed to
see. Then the student standing just before me -- his name
was Harter -- announced that he could not see anything.
"You idiot," shouted the teacher, "you have to adjust the
lenses." The student did that and said after a while, "I
do not see anything, it is all black."
The teacher then looked through the telescope himself.
After some seconds he looked up with a strange
expression on his face. And then my comrades and I also
saw that the telescope was nonfunctioning; it was closed
by a cover over the lens. Indeed, no one could see
anything through it. ("Science, Truth and Other Values,"
Quarterly Review of Biology 68, no.3 [September 1993]:
399-407)
Muller-Hill reports that one of the docile students
became a professor of philosophy and director of a
German TV station. "This might be expected," he wickedly
comments. But another became a professor of physics, and
a third a professor of botany. The honest Harter had to
leave school and go to work in a factory. If in later
life he was ever tempted to question any of the
pronouncements of his more illustrious classmates, I am
sure he was firmly told not to meddle in matters beyond
his understanding.
One might derive from this story a satirical "Harter's
Precept" to put alongside Parkinson's Law (bureaucracy
expands to the limit of the available resources) and the
Peter Principle (one rises in a hierarchy up to one's
level of incompetence). Harter's Precept says that the
way to advance in academic life is to learn to see what
you are supposed to see, whether it is there or not. As
Sam Rayburn used to explain to new members of Congress,
you've got to go along to get along.
(Objections Sustained, Phillip E. Johnson, 1998, p.157)
ISBN 0-8308-1941-X)
Laurie.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 12. August 2007 09:32
Laurie,
Quote: Harter's Precept says that the
way to advance in academic life is to learn to see what
you are supposed to see, whether it is there or not.
Great post Laurie. I hadn’t heard of Harter’s Precept before, but the idea that human decision making (human intelligent behavior) is highly influenced by the opinions of peers and authority figures is well documented.
As demonstrated by the story about the kids looking through the telescope (and this phenomenon has also been reproduced under experimental conditions), we as humans not infrequently give credence to inaccurate opinions of others even when it directly contradicts the evidence we can see with our own senses and even when it conflicts with our own goals and interests.
If ‘reliance on opinions of others’ distorts decisions of simple decisions like ‘reporting what you saw when looking through a telescope’, it is not surprising that this type of distortion occurs when dealing with very complex decisions like select the best theory.
My analysis suggests that all human decision making is based on (or can be scientifically analyzed in terms of) goal of ‘selecting the best available option’. But completely analyzing even simple choices can require a lot of time, resources, and knowledge. To dramatically reduce the effort involved in making such decisions, we routinely rely on information provided by individuals or groups that specialize in providing relevant information. This process works fine as long as those providing information are providing accurate and reliable information.
Human society rewards individuals who produce or provide valuable decision making information. Problems with biased decision making information arise when there is a conflict between the interests (goals) of information providers and information users and there is insufficient accountability of information providers. Problems also arise when individuals move into information providing positions without the actual competence to provide reliable information. This is particularly a problem when the skills required to provide reliable information are relatively rare, when the benefits or status of providing the information is significant, and there is no effective accountability on information providers.
Note that if you want to set yourself up as an expert on evaluating scientific theories, but you lack the actual technical skills to perform the task, your best strategy is ‘learn to see what you are supposed to see’. Thus Harter’s Precept.
It should also be noted that the problem with incompetent providers of scientific information is not limited to making bad choices. When incompetents take control of an information providing function, they not only provide bad information, but they also generally change the standards or criteria used in generating information. Not only do incompetent academics provide bad information on the best available scientific theories, but they change, corrupt and distort the decision making criteria so that it is difficult or impossible for competent scientists to provide valid or useful information. After the incompetents have distorted the criteria for selecting theories, valid scientific theories no longer satisfy the official selection criteria.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 12. August 2007 10:06
IF,
Quote: Pure science is defined as a basic knowledge of developing scientific theories without considering their application,and also aiming at solving phenomena and mechanisms proposed in applied science.Pure science, also called basic science, is the exact science of the development of scientific theories.
It is rather silly to attempt to defend academic science using the self serving definition promoted by academic science. However, if we accept that ‘pure science’ is the exact science of developing scientific theories, can we can test determine if academic science qualifies as pure science by formally evaluating the scientific theories produced by academic science and the theories rejected by academic science.
If based on formal testing, it can be demonstrated that academic science effectively and efficiently recognizes as valid theories that meet all the formal requirements for scientific theories and pass all applicable testing while rejecting as invalid or falsified theories that don’t meet these requirements, then academic science qualifies as pure science or hard science. As must be apparent to everyone by this time, academic science and scientists are neither willing nor able to demonstrate their competence to ‘select the best scientific theories’.
Quote: Who are the most competent people that should be in authority?
I believe this has been discussed before. In order to determine who is qualified to evaluate scientific theories, you must first define the criteria that are to be satisfied by scientific theories and by logically consistent sets of theories. Despite a lot silliness of the scientifically incompetent, the criteria to be satisfied by valid scientific theories are well established.
Once you have the criteria to be satisfied, you then look for people who can produce theories that satisfy these requirements and/or individuals capable of modifying or refining existing valid theories. In any particular subject area, once you have an initial set of predictive theories you are likely to find individuals with specialized skills associated with evaluating specific components of specific theories.
Finding competent individuals should not be terribly difficult (even if such individuals are relatively rare) once you recognize the requirements involved and once you are committed to using those requirements to eliminate incompetents.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 13. August 2007 09:28
Formal ‘select the best theories’ analysis starts with nothing more elaborate than a) listing potential or competing theories addressing a specific subject, b) listing the formal requirements to be satisfied by predictive scientific theories, c) determining which of the potential theories satisfy or don’t satisfy each of the requirements, and d) identifying or selecting the theories that best satisfy the identified scientific requirements. The results or conclusions or theories selected by this formal analysis are then compared to the results, conclusions and theories selected by academic science.
This formal select the best theories analysis results that, at least at first, appear unexpected. The unexpected results include:
1. For the vast majority of subjects in any of the life sciences, this formal select the best theories analysis will select sets of theories that conflict with the theories selected by academic science and academic scientists.
2. Well in excess of 90% of academic scientists are or appear to be incapable of either performing or understanding ‘select the best theories’ analysis.
3. Predictive hard science theories can be developed that fit the behavior and data associated with ‘select the best theories’ analysis.
The results of this type of analysis at first appear to be very surprising or highly unexpected. However, when you see the vehement opposition of most academics to even discussing this type of analysis, you suspect that a significant portion of academic scientists understand that their pseudo-scientific belief systems will not stand up to actual testing.
To keep this analysis in perspective, it is important to recognize that ‘selecting the best theories’ decision making is an important element or component of human intelligent design or human intelligent causation. Experimental evidence showing that relatively few humans are capable of this type of intelligent behavior is significant. It is also significant that this type of intelligent behavior or intelligent design is materially different than from common expectations of the nature of intelligent design.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
