|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 28. August 2007 10:26
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
Winston Churchill
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 28. August 2007 12:38
LE, quote:
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.
Do you have a specific or, better, detailed example?
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 28. August 2007 21:59
Prediction:
quote:
Daniel Smith posted 19. May 2007 14:58
If we can first define "Intelligent Design" as "The application of knowledge towards a particular goal", we can then make some predictions in regard to Life.
As an example, one such prediction would be in regards to "Junk" DNA. The ID hypothesis would predict that all of DNA would have a purpose and that there is no such thing as "Junk" DNA. This prediction can be tested and either verified or falsified.
Verification:
quote:
Large swaths of the genome, previously dismissed as "junk DNA" because it was thought to serve no practical purpose, have been found to be highly active inside the cells in our bodies. Other sequences of genetic code are thought to be "on standby", awaiting a time further down the evolutionary path when they will be beneficial to human beings.
Read article.
see also: This from the ENCODE website.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 29. August 2007 09:24
Quote: Do you have a specific or, better, detailed example?
You seem to be looking for an example you can understand (or claim not to understand) without understanding what constitutes a scientific theory. It should by this time be clear that if you are unable or unwilling to actively participate in (and possibly learn something about) the select the best theory analysis then you won’t understand the analysis.
Starting point theories relating to CO2 regulation provide about as simple and clear cut example as you will find. Can you recognize a family of teleological theories relating to CO2 regulation? Can you identify non-teleological theories that fit CO2 regulation? Do you know what criteria would be used in evaluating these two types of theories?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 29. August 2007 09:59
THE MECHANICS OF SELECT THE BEST THEORIES
It should be obvious, but select the best theories analysis can generally be reduced to a process of comparing two competing scientific theories. The issue or concern here is primarily with comparing competing theories dealing intelligent causation. More specifically, we are concerned with comparing intelligence based teleological theories with non-teleological theories where the theories being compared both address the same form of intelligent causation.
The process of comparing two such theories consists of 1) for the subject matter being addressed, identify at least one teleological theory and one non-teleological theory, 2) express both theories in a standard hard science format, 3) determine if each theory satisfies the basic requirements for a non-trivial, testable, predictive theory and 4) if both pass basic requirements then use formal testing to select the best theory. In most instances, this comparison won’t need to go beyond the first step because while it will be easy to identify an appropriate teleological theory, there will be no non-teleological theory.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 29. August 2007 10:15
LE,
quote:
You seem to be looking for an example you can understand (or claim not to understand) without understanding what constitutes a scientific theory.
I provided links to "academic" definitions and can provide the same for "academic" explanations but that is all I know! I need your help in order to find out what you know that enables you to say that the academic industry in the USA and the entire civilized world are wrong.
quote:
It should by this time be clear that if you are unable or unwilling to actively participate in (and possibly learn something about) the select the best theory analysis then you won’t understand the analysis.
I do want to participate and learn what I need to learn in order to properly categorize in my own mind the mistakes, errors, lies, facts, etc., of controversial issues.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 29. August 2007 10:33
LE,
quote:
The issue or concern here is primarily with comparing competing theories dealing intelligent causation.
Where was "intelligent causation" properly/scientifically defined/categorized?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 30. August 2007 08:11
IF,
Quote: I provided links to "academic" definitions and can provide the same for "academic" explanations but that is all I know! I need your help in order to find out what you know that enables you to say that the academic industry in the USA and the entire civilized world are wrong.
As discussed earlier, the ability to perform a Google search is not considered evidence of scientific competence. In order to demonstrate scientific competence you need to be able to participate in the objective evaluation and selection of testable predictive theories. You clearly are not willing (and probably not competent) to participate in such analysis. Why else would all your efforts be focused on attempts to change the subject of the discussion?
I will once again remind readers that my claim that most of the academic science institutions around the world are incapable of selecting the best theories can be readily verified using established analytical techniques. The strange or bizarre aspect of this is not my claim, but rather the unwillingness of individuals and institutions who claim to be ‘scientific’, to participate in objective verification of their competence.
Quote: Where was "intelligent causation" properly/scientifically defined/categorized?
A definition of intelligent causation is properly/scientifically defined when a definition is useful in formulating valid scientific theories. As has been discussed, the many scientists who routinely engage in the successful scientific analysis of intelligent causation use a properly scientific definition of the intelligent causation. If you wish to demonstrate that the definition used is improper, then you need to be able to demonstrate that the theories produced are invalid.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 30. August 2007 09:08
Terry,
Quote: The question is:
What causes Lightning?
Theory one says Lightning is an extension of wildfires, where the flame is caught up in a radical updraft and sucked high into the sky.
Theory two says Lightning is the result of solar flares, where the material is caught in a radical downdraft and brought down to earth in a stream.
By analyizing the theories, we find this:
There are no wildfires in the area of the lightning strikes investigated.
There are no radical updrafts in the area of the lightning strikes investigated.
There are no radical downdrafts in the area of the lightning strikes investigated.
Information regarding solar flares was not available at the time of the lightning strikes.
So, since we have TWO pieces of evidence against theory one, ONE piece against theory two, and no other theories presented, we conclude that lightning is the result of solar flares, where the material is caught in a radical downdraft and brought down to earth in a stream.
And we maintain that conclusion in spite of all opposition simply because there are no other theories which satisfy our requirements presented.
Terry: End quote
A ‘currently valid scientific theory’ must satisfy four general types of requirements. First, it must be possible to express the theory in a standard format and the theory so expressed must satisfy all the format requirements for a hard science theory. Wildfires cause lightning and solar flares cause lightning could probably pass the format requirements.
Second, the theory must be compatible with existing knowledge. For the sake of discussion, you have limited the body of existing so that there is no evidence contradicting either theory. As I assume you realize, given actual current human knowledge, neither theory is compatible with the evidence.
Third, a theory must be logically compatible with other existing related theories. In this example, you are assuming there are no other theories.
Note that if you perform select the best theory analysis on the two theories you presented and using the artificial constraints you imposed, there would be no way of determining that one theory was better than another. The number of pieces of evidence that appear to support one theory over another is not a criteria used in selecting one theory over another.
The fourth general requirement for a hard science theory is that it be subject to future independent testing. As a general rule, most self respecting scientists will only propose or present theories 1) that are part of a family of theories that can be progressively refined by testing and/or 2) that are likely to stand up to at least a few rounds of independent testing. While both of the two theories you present are probably testable, not too many scientists in the world today would have much faith that either theory would stand up to testing.
In somewhat simplified terms, both hard science and select the best theories analysis are based on selecting theories that 1) satisfy all the hard science format requirements and 2) that can avoid being falsified by testing. Falsified by testing involves 1) testing against existing knowledge, 2) testing for logical consistency with other existing theories and 3) future objective independent testing. Neither the number of pieces of supporting evidence nor the number of experts supporting the theory are factors in select the best theory analysis.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 30. August 2007 11:20
quote:
In order to demonstrate scientific competence you need to be able to participate in the objective evaluation and selection of testable predictive theories.
Don't scientists do that already? Since I am not a scientist, don't I need to rely on their verified reports?
quote:
You clearly are not willing (and probably not competent) to participate in such analysis.
I am willing but I don't have the time! I am not a good judge of my own competence in this matter.
quote:
Why else would all your efforts be focused on attempts to change the subject of the discussion?
I thought the subject was in the title of this blog? What subject do you have in mind?
quote:
I will once again remind readers that my claim that most of the academic science institutions around the world are incapable of selecting the best theories can be readily verified using established analytical techniques.
Without specific names or dates or events your descriptions/claims sound more like very strong "feelings".
quote:
The strange or bizarre aspect of this is not my claim, but rather the unwillingness of individuals and institutions who claim to be ‘scientific’, to participate in objective verification of their competence.
See previous comment.
quote:
Quote: Where was "intelligent causation" properly/scientifically defined/categorized?
A definition of intelligent causation is properly/scientifically defined when a definition is useful in formulating valid scientific theories. As has been discussed, the many scientists who routinely engage in the successful scientific analysis of intelligent causation use a properly scientific definition of the intelligent causation. If you wish to demonstrate that the definition used is improper, then you need to be able to demonstrate that the theories produced are invalid.
Which particular theories?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 30. August 2007 11:50
Daniel,
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_dna
quote:
In molecular biology, "junk" DNA is a collective label for the portions of the DNA sequence of a chromosome or a genome for which no function has yet been identified. About 80-90% of the human genome has been designated as "junk", including most sequences within introns and most intergenic DNA. While much of this sequence may be an evolutionary artifact that serves no present-day purpose, some is believed to function in ways that are not currently understood. Moreover, the conservation of some junk DNA over many millions of years of evolution may imply an essential function. Some consider the "junk" label as something of a misnomer, but others consider it apposite as junk is stored away for possible new uses, rather than thrown out; others prefer the term "noncoding DNA" (although junk DNA often includes transposons that encode proteins with no clear value to their host genome). However it now appears that, although protein-coding DNA makes up barely 2% of the human genome, about 80% of the bases in the genome may be being expressed, which supports the view that the term "junk DNA" may be a misnomer.[1]
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 31. August 2007 04:07
IF,
I think that this quotation from Wikipedia about “Junk DNA” is a very appropriate comment to Daniel's “Verification”. I do not think that finding a role of the so called “Junk DNA” is a strong argument for ID, even it could be count in favor to ID.
In generally I am very skeptical that study of genetics will enlighten us about mystery of life. This impressive empirical science is very useful for practical applications in medicine and biotechnology, but it has a limited scope of gene expression only. Of cause, if we belief that cell is a “machine” that is controlled by gene the same way as a computer is controlled by a program code stored in its memory, genetic approach to mystery of life is justifiable. I just do not belief that cell is a “machine”.
I see the roll of DNA as “recipes for proteins” only, but we are missing an “intelligent cook” that is “cooking” these proteins. Also there should be other “intelligent factors” that are using these proteins as building blocks to construct living systems.
Therefore the question “Why man has nipples” cannot be explained in terms of genes. These genes are causing specific molecules of proteins only, but some thing more important is missing from a whole picture.
P.S
I almost missed the last posting of Daniel, because this thread is “bombarded” with LE’s “SELECT THE BEST THEORIES”.
LE, looks like your theory needs more space. Is it a time to open a thread dedicated to your topics?
I am taking a job related classes this fall and my participation in discussions will be limited, but I plan to come back in the beginning of the next year.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 31. August 2007 08:10
Miosim,
quote:
In generally I am very skeptical that study of genetics will enlighten us about mystery of life.
That is not now nor has it ever been an uncommon attitude in all communities! However, human curiosity variations among us humans is the bugbear!
quote:
This impressive empirical science is very useful for practical applications in medicine and biotechnology, but it has a limited scope of gene expression only.
How do you know?
quote:
Of cause, if we belief that cell is a “machine” that is controlled by gene the same way as a computer is controlled by a program code stored in its memory, genetic approach to mystery of life is justifiable. I just do not belief that cell is a “machine”.
Bugbears have been very tough, (thankfully?) on beliefs all over the world!
quote:
Therefore the question “Why man has nipples” cannot be explained in terms of genes. These genes are causing specific molecules of proteins only, but some thing more important is missing from a whole picture.
Exactly! That's why the studies must continue, don't you think?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 31. August 2007 08:21
EXPLAINING SELECTING FLAWED THEORIES
As discussed, select the best theories analysis is a systematic and verifiable method of comparing computing scientific theories to find the ‘best currently available theories’. A variation of this analysis can used to understand and explain the logic associated with making bad decisions, rejecting sound theories, and recognizing flawed theories. Somewhat surprisingly, the techniques associated with making manipulated or bad decisions are just as well established and predictable as the techniques for making good decisions.
To understand bad decision making, we start with the flawed end result and work backwards through the decision making logic. Explanations of bad decision making are of two basic types-1) flawed or biased data and 2)flawed or biased decision algorithms.
Flawed or biased data can be and often is very simple. For many, probably most individuals, deciding between theory A and B, is based on the use of data of the form “A is good” and “B is bad”. If theory A is better than B and the best available, then the simple data “A is good” produces a good decision. To manipulate or bias this decision so that the flawed theory B is selected, all that is needed is to distort or manipulate the data to “A is bad” and “B is good”.
The overwhelming majority of ‘intelligent decision-making’ performed by humans appears to be based on data of the type “A is good” and “B is bad”. If this data is sound and reliable, the people using the data will make sound, intelligent decisions. If the data is manipulated or distorted, the people using the data will make bad decisions. Most decisions by most people, including most scientists, regarding scientific theories are based on this somewhat trivial logic. When academics succeed in producing flawed or biased decision making data, they can create a consensus for flawed theories.
The second and somewhat more sophisticated method of producing flawed decision making might be labeled the double standard technique or the flawed decision algorithm. The basic technique involved is to use one set of criteria to reduce or limit the range of options considered, then to use a second set of decision making criteria to select an option from the reduced set of options.
In academic science, the double standard methodology generally starts by eliminating from consideration all teleological and intelligence based theories. Once this set of potentially valid theories has been eliminated, all that is left are theories that can’t satisfy basic scientific standards. Since the decision maker in this second phase is left with a choice between flawed theories, he modifies the decision criteria to permit the acceptance of flawed theories.
Just as the logic involved in selecting the best theories is quite straight forward and well established (if not widely practiced), the logic and data involved in selecting flawed theories is fairly straight forward.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 31. August 2007 08:34
LE,
quote:
In academic science, the double standard methodology generally starts by eliminating from consideration all teleological and intelligence based theories. Once this set of potentially valid theories has been eliminated, all that is left are theories that can’t satisfy basic scientific standards.
How did this condition come into existence?
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
