|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 24. August 2007 02:40
quote:
LE.
Just for my own peace-of-mind, please answer the following:
1. What level of education did you reach?
2. In what country did the majority of your education take place?
Thank goodness. I was beginning to think I was alone in wondering what the point is in someone producing such verbose, vacuous verbiage. It could, I suppose, be satire so subtle that it is going straight over my head.
The waste of time in writing LE's posts is only matched by that incurred in reading them.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 24. August 2007 07:31
It should be noted that select the best theories analysis provides IF and Arjun and N.Wells and anyone else interested, the opportunity to demonstrate that they have a working knowledge of the basic concepts of mathematical modeling and theory construction and testing. Like the overwhelming majority of academics and academic hangers on, they are unwilling to even attempt to demonstrate competence. They attempt instead to divert the discussion in irrelevant directions.
The relative rarity of scientific competence is clearly demonstrated by select the best theories analysis. This conclusion can be readily confirmed by any number of direct tests and observations of academics.
The reluctance to even attempt demonstrating scientific competence strongly suggests that some portion of academics recognize or at least strongly suspect that formal scientific evaluations will threaten their anti-intelligence and anti-teleological beliefs. Some significant minority of academics appear to at least suspect that hard science analysis will confirm the importance of goal-directed intelligent causation in scientific explanations and analysis.
But by this time we should be in a position to move beyond the question of the rarity of scientific competence, and begin focusing on the rapid and extensive disruption and corruption of scientific analysis that occurs when scientific incompetents are not effectively identified and excluded from analytical processes. If we accept that the survival of the human species, or at least the well-being of the human species, could depend on successful and effective intelligent scientific analysis of global warming (or some other issue involving a high degree of potential risk), then factors that disrupt and corrupt successful scientific analysis should be of concern.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 24. August 2007 09:20
THE NATURE OF INTELLIGENT CAUSATION
Global warming and CO2 levels provide a useful illustration of the nature of intelligent causation. If we look at something like CO2 levels on a planet without intelligence or life forms, we would 1) levels that increase or decrease to some stable equilibrium point, or 2) CO2 levels that cycle up and down because of some naturally occurring regulatory processes.
If intelligent living systems are introduced on such a planet, then there exists a possibility of intelligent causation or intelligent control of CO2 levels. Intelligent causation or intelligent control has occurred if two criteria have been satisfied- 1) the intelligent systems have changed CO2 levels and 2) the changes produced are beneficial to the intelligent life forms. In general, greater levels and sophistication of control provide greater evidence of intelligent causation.
We probably don’t currently have enough information to know if life forms on earth have been exerting intelligent control of atmospheric CO2 levels for millions of years. We do, however, have ample evidence of many other forms of intelligent goal-directed control of environmental factors. This is especially true for intelligent control of factors in limited environments such as within a cell.
The points here are that 1) humans are currently attempting to develop intelligent, goal-directed control of climate and 2) this is currently believed to involve intelligent control of atmospheric CO2. 3) There are many known instances where living systems exert intelligent goal directed control of environmental factors and 4) it is possible that living systems already exert some type of intelligent control of atmospheric CO2. By investigating the potential existence of existing intelligent control of CO2 5) we might gain new insights into how such controls can be implemented and 6) we might gain new insights into what types of levels are actually beneficial to life forms.
Letting anti-teleological scientific incompetents control the research and reporting processes for the scientific analysis of climate change means that many potentially useful avenues of research are ignored.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 24. August 2007 09:32
LE, quote:
Just for my own peace-of-mind, please answer the following:
1. What level of education did you reach?
2. In what country did the majority of your education take place?
Are you self taught?
quote:
scientific competence
Who determines this?
quote:
It should be noted that select the best theories analysis ...
Who determines what is best'?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 26. August 2007 10:03
A QUICK REVIEW
The basic hypotheses involved in ‘select the best theories analysis’ are that 1)there are well established methodologies for scientifically defining and analyzing intelligent causation, 2)only a relatively small percentage of individuals with formal academic and scientific training have the capacity or competence to understand and perform scientific analysis, 3)in many areas, there are individuals with real scientific competence who lack formal academic or scientific training, 4)the failure to effectively remove scientific incompetents from the process of scientific analysis results in serious corruption and disruption of the scientific process, and finally, 5)select the best theory analysis can be used to demonstrate the corruption/disruption of the scientific process by scientific incompetents. Global warming/climate change analysis provides evidence in support of all 5 hypotheses.
The most immediate and obvious conclusion from ‘select the best theories’ analysis is that very, very, few people are able or willing to participate in the analysis. If you look beyond the posturing, it is reasonably obvious that essentially none of the vocal opponents or supporters of intelligent design have the ability or competence to address formulating or evaluating explicit predictive theories dealing with intelligent causation. The inability of so many to participate in formal evaluations of intelligence based teleological predictive theories clearly supports the ‘prevalence of scientific incompetence’ hypothesis.
When we review the research actually being performed on the global warming issue, we find further evidence of the prevalence of scientific incompetence. A huge portion of the resources available for ‘scientifically’ addressing the global warming issue are being wasted on unproductive research and unproductive promotion of political positions.
But if global warming analysis demonstrates the prevalence of scientific incompetence, it also demonstrates that scientifically competent individuals are involved in the analysis and are, at least at this stage, generating productive results. There is, for example, productive analysis being performed to understand the formal relationships between variables like CO2 and climate change. There is (some) productive analysis being performed on the human behaviors that do or can help produce intelligent control of variables such as CO2. There is (some) productive analysis being performed on understanding how to change human behavior in an intelligent and appropriate goal-directed manner.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 26. August 2007 10:23
IF,
Quote: LE:scientific competence . IF: Who determines this?
Quote:LE: It should be noted that select the best theories analysis ...IF: Who determines what is best'?
I have addressed this before. Competence is determined by demonstrating the ability to present, formulate, and effectively defend predictive theories using valid scientific standards and concepts. As has been demonstrated here and elsewhere, very, very, few academic experts are even willing to attempt to demonstrate competence. Most academics apparently recognize their lack of competence even if they are not willing to admit it.
The standards and principles involved in determining the ‘best hard science’ theories are reasonably well known and documented and involve such basic elements as well defined variables, well defined functional relationships between cause and effect variables, and successfully passing formal testing. There are or can be complex technical issues involved in selecting the best scientific theories, but in the situations being considered here, it is fairly obvious that academic theories won’t meet even minimal scientific standards and that teleological theories do satisfy known requirements. But then you would know this if you had the technical skills needed to perform select the best theories analysis.
The only potential problem in evaluating best theories arises when scientific incompetents attempt to impose or introduce irrelevant subjective political requirements
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 26. August 2007 10:26
Life Engineer, like nearly all pure white cats, is stone deaf to what Einstein called "the music of the spheres."
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and will not change the subject."
Winston Churchill
Ergo - Life Engineer.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 26. August 2007 10:53
John,
As we have discussed elsewhere, your 'theory' does not appear to be anything more than a set of subjective assertions. Your theories are another example of soft science or academic theories that fail to meet minimal hard science requirements. you are, however, welcome to attempt to demonstrate the validity of your theories using select the best theories analysis.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 26. August 2007 18:21
LE,
quote:
The only potential problem in evaluating best theories arises when scientific incompetents attempt to impose or introduce irrelevant subjective political requirements
Do you have names (or at least a name) of a competent scientist(s)? Why haven't they spoken for themselves? Have you ever met a competent scientist?
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 26. August 2007 18:24
Life Engineer
My PEH hypothesis is mostly not even mine. It is a synthesis of the conclusions of some of the finest scientists of the past. I regard you as a monumental joke who has contributed absolutely nothing of substance on any thread anywhere - ever. Why anyone tolerates your endless pontificactions escapes me. I also doubt very much if you have ever published anything in a refereed journal. If you have, please respond and enlighten us with references and their relevance to the purposes of this forum.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 27. August 2007 08:31
THE TECHNICAL CHALLENGE
One of the major technical challenges associated with the hard science analysis of intelligent causation is fitting a permanent and universal testable scientific theory to intelligent causal relationships that are clearly dynamic or change over time. The CO2 regulator illustrates the technical challenge.
At some time in earth’s early history before the evolution of life forms, there was no intelligent control or regulation of CO2. Possibly, pre-human life forms developed some type of intelligent CO2 regulatory process. Clearly pre-human life forms had an impact on CO2 levels. If that impact was beneficial to the survival of life forms then we can say that there existed an effective pre-human CO2 regulatory process. Human activity in the last 100 years appears to have disrupted or corrupted the existing CO2 regulatory processes (whether or not the existing processes were intelligent and goal directed). The hope or goal of current scientific analysis is to establish or re-establish an effective intelligent goal directed CO2 regulatory process. This effort may or may not succeed.
CO2 regulation, as a form of intelligent design or intelligent causation, displays features common to all or most forms of intelligent behavior. All forms of intelligent causation involve a pre-intelligent causation form. Most forms of intelligent design or intelligent causation associated with humans have a pre-human counterpart. Successful intelligent causation not only arises or evolves, but it can also deteriorate or devolve. A form of intelligent causation, such as human CO2 regulation, may exist today in a completely ineffective form, but it may develop or evolve in the future into an ineffective regulatory process. The future improvements may be gradual or progressive. Finally, there is no guarantee that future forms of intelligent causation will be effective. As should be apparent, the features or properties of intelligent causation associated with CO2 regulation are identifiable for all or most forms of intelligent causation.
Again, a major technical challenge in the scientific analysis of intelligent causation is identifying a type of permanent and universal testable predictive theory that can deal with all the features described above. To understand how this technical challenge is resolved, you need to start by understanding that the permanent and universal requirement for scientific theories is a requirement to insure that scientific theories are testable under novel or non-trivial conditions. To understand the formal testability requirement in the scientific paradigm, you need to understand human behavior and the unreliability of subjective human judgment.
Successful scientific analysis requires the ability to make highly reliable predictions of what will happen in the future. The reliable predictions are produced by tested or validated predictive theories. It is recognized, at least by those who understand science, that theories based on human judgment, theories based on majority opinion, or theories based on authoritative opinion do not produce particularly reliable predictions. The theories capable of producing the most reliable predictions are theories validated by a ‘king on the hill’ type process where testing is open to anyone and a theory remains the ‘king on the hill’ only so long as it stands up to all testing by all proponents and opponents (operating under appropriate testing procedures).
As should be obvious, a real scientific theory can only pass testing if it is testable and falsifiable. This does not mean that it produces testable predictions under every possible condition, but it does mean that the theory must produce testable and falsifiable predictions under novel and non-trivial conditions. (It also means that a group of proponents of a theory or a group of authority figures can not artificially restrict testing to conditions where the theory will always pass.)
To understand how intelligent causation is fit to testable predictive theories, you also need to understand the ‘under ideal conditions’ or ‘within defined constraints’ qualifier associated with predictive scientific theories. Scientific theories don’t produce valid predictions under all conditions, but only under ideal conditions or within defined constraints.
Recognizing both the ‘testability under non-trivial conditions’ requirement and the ‘within defined constraints’ qualifier, the technical challenge of fitting intelligent causal relationships to predictive scientific theories is resolved by the intelligence based teleological theory. Such theories, in their simplest forms predict that under ideal conditions or within defined constraints, an intelligent causal relationship will produce the behavior, from among the set of available behaviors, most compatible with the goal or purpose of the intelligent causal relationship.
Intelligence based teleological theories produce testable predictions under non-trivial conditions. Non-teleological theories based on fitting data to prior observations are always trivial and always easily falsified. They will always fail to predict novel adaptations under novel conditions. Under ideal conditions, intelligent systems always produce novel adaptations to novel conditions.
Intelligent, adaptive, goal-directed causation is a significant element of the world we live in and intelligence based teleological theories or ID theories can be fit to these causal relationships in a manner that satisfies the requirements of the scientific paradigm. Non-teleological theories can not both meet the requirements for scientific theories and accommodate the dynamic, adaptive, progressive behaviors associated with intelligent causation.
Successful applied scientist who use the hard science scientific paradigm to efficiently solve practical problems, appear to understand, accept and use intelligence based teleological theories (even if they don’t use the terms). Academic science and incompetent scientists appear incapable of understanding, accepting or using teleological or ID theories.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 27. August 2007 08:44
LE,
What is your objective in this forum?
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 27. August 2007 15:04
quote:
Why anyone tolerates your endless pontificactions escapes me.
Me, too!
I may not agree with Professor Davison about his PEH, but I wholeheartedly agree with his assessment of LE's ramblings.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 28. August 2007 08:04
There are, it appears, 10’s of thousands of real scientists around the world who perform real scientific analysis of various forms of intelligent causation using the concepts and techniques being discussed here. But when members of the larger scientific community (including very large numbers of individuals who lack the basic competence to perform real scientific analysis), you find essentially no one willing to demonstrate their competence or seriously discuss the topic. Instead, all you find is people trying all sorts of tricks to change the subject being discussed.
The global warming issue provides clear examples of how real scientists define intelligent causation and how they use intelligence based teleological theories of intelligent causation in performing productive hard science analysis. The global warming issue also illustrates how scientific incompetents in many different fields are wasting resources and corrupting the scientific analysis.
Select the best theories analysis is simply a systematic method of evaluating whether what is called scientific analysis is based on the best available set of predictive theories or whether analysis is based on flawed or inadequate theories. If people, including the readers here, actually believe academic scientists are performing real science, why are they unwilling to consider using objective methods to evaluate the theories being used?
The answers to this question are by now reasonably obvious. First, most readers lack the basic levels of competence needed to even attempt this type of analysis. Second, the minority of readers with some degree of competence recognize that the theories they support can not stand up to this type of testing. Third, those with sufficient competence to understand the analysis and with no vested interest in existing academic theories recognize that challenging mainstream positions will result in their being ridiculed and attacked.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 28. August 2007 10:03
From any earlier posting:
The following three topics illustrate disruption and corruption in the analysis of global warming issues by scientific incompetents:
1. Failure to recognize the capacity of living systems for intelligent adaptive change
2. Failure to recognize the possibility of existing intelligent climate control mechanisms.
3. Failure to properly recognize the role of intelligent adaptation of human decision making behavior.
FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE THE ROLE OF HUMAN DECISION MAKING
It is reasonably obvious in a common sense way that effective human control or regulation of climate in general and of atmospheric CO2 specifically depends on the ability to influence, control, and change human decision making. Human contributions or additions to atmospheric CO2 are the result of human decisions and human contributions to reducing atmospheric CO2 will be the result of human decisions.
Since global warming is currently a popular topic or a hot topic, we have lots of people from all sorts of fields attempting to create awareness of the problem, attempting to influence public opinion, and in a fairly non-specific manner attempting to influence behavior. While this type of information and communication is known to influence human decision making, it is not always effective or efficient.
Since human decision making is obviously such a critical element in human intelligent control or regulation of atmospheric CO2, it might be reasonably expected that a significant portion of available research resources would be directed at the issue. In direct contrast to logical expectation, essentially no meaningful research is being performed or reported on this aspect of the issue.
This failure to perform relevant and necessary research can be attributed to the anti-intelligent causation and anti-teleology positions supported by the scientific incompetents who control academia and who directly or indirectly control the allocation of a very large portion of research funding.
It should be noted that select the best theories analysis would demonstrate the best theories that could and should be used in this type of analysis.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
