Comment #33406

Posted by PvM on June 3, 2005 12:42 PM (e) (s)

Denyse on the latest Controversy caused by her endzone fumble…

Comment #33410

Posted by neurode on June 3, 2005 12:58 PM (e) (s)

A sadly amusing editorial. Those who don’t understand why should ask themselves a pair of metaquestions (i.e., questions about questions):

(1) Is it possible to answer the question “does God exist” (yes, no or maybe) without involving religion?

(2) Is it possible to answer the question “are some parts of nature designed” without involving science?

The correct answer to metaquestion 1 is technically “yes”; the putative existence of God is a philosophical question independent of the specific doctrine of any particular religion. Moreover, since the G-word is not mentioned in the film, it would make no difference even if the answer were “no”.

The answer to metaquestion 2 is “no”, since science is the study of nature, and the question of whether or not nature exhibits design is potentially relevant to the study of nature. It follows that the editorial amounts to a call for the Smithsonian and other influential science-oriented institutions to summarily exclude certain potentially relevant questions from science.

Of course, any decent scientist knows that you can’t really do that. Nobody gets to hang his or her pet restrictions on science. There is nothing in the scientific method that forbids high-level hypotheses involving the nature of nature, particularly in the absence of hard proof that the answers are scientifically irrelevant.

Unfortunately for the Washington Post, no such proof exists. The implication is clear: no matter which side of the controversy you’re on, the Smithsonian was dead wrong to have changed its customary arrangement just because the film to be screened happens to smell like religion to somebody who doesn’t know any better.

If a film does not make assertions regarding clearly-enunciated articles of faith or other items of religious observance, but instead reviews scientific data and asks logically-formulated questions about the causal factors possibly involved in their production, then in the absence of hard proof that the source cannot possibly leave an empirical signature, it is scientific enough.

No question about it, the Smithsonian should be ashamed of itself for abjectly caving in to bad argumentation. (At least they had the wit not to cancel the screening.)

Comment #33415

Posted by Glen Davidson on June 3, 2005 01:21 PM (e) (s)

The answer to metaquestion 2 is “no”, since science is the study of nature, and the question of whether or not nature exhibits design is potentially relevant to the study of nature. It follows that the editorial amounts to a call for the Smithsonian and other influential science-oriented institutions to summarily exclude certain potentially relevant questions from science.

Don’t be so disingenous.  Of course the Smithsonian doesn’t exclude questions of whether or not “nature” shows design, since of course we design things as “natural organisms”, and depending on the definition of “design”, so do spiders (not to mention chimps).  Take a look at Smithsonian’s exhibits if you want to go on telling such enormities.

You ask “meta-questions” like any trained IDist does, since of course you’re not actually interested in the nuts and bolts of science.  The SI has an obligation to diss the DI not because a “design hypothesis” was made, but because they hold to such claims regardless of evidence.  Just as science was willing to entertain claims of perpetual motion for a long time, it was also willing to hold to the “design hypothesis” for organisms and the cosmos for a while after Newton.  Since both claims failed completely to yield sound results, it is no longer very much interested in the idea.

And worst of all is that without any evidence of an “efficient cause” for either cosmological or biological ID, the DI and trained primates go around claiming an ultimate cause in some undiscoverable “designer”.  Epistemologically you guys are nothing but quacks.  We aren’t concerned about your beliefs or hypotheses, but rather your methods, or more crucially, your virtual lack of any methods to test for truth.

This has been pointed out many times, yet you who have read a bit of noxious propaganda always think that you have something that hasn’t been heard by the “godless scientists”.  Oh it’s been heard, and answered, you just weren’t interested in answers or science that disagrees with your presuppositions regarding “meta-questions”. 

Btw, why can’t any of you say anything new and non-derivative?

Comment #33416

Posted by Flint on June 3, 2005 01:25 PM (e) (s)

neorode:

Unfortunately, both of the answers you supply to your own question are dubious, in that they rest on arguable definitions and assumptions. If the possibility of the existence of gods is a religious question by definition (and I submit that it is), then you can’t address it without involving religion, anymore than you can address questions like how many angels can dance on a pin and whether the bear is Catholic.

As for whether some parts of nature are designed, we see people “answering” this question who couldn’t begin to give a definition of science, nor do they need to. This has, all along, been the main problem with intelligent design: that it explains everything without the need to resort to any evidence whatsoever. Clearly, involving science is not required. In fact, all indications are that intelligent design is phrased in scientistical terms mostly to distract scientists into thinking science must somehow be involved when it is not.

The SI simply did not wish to associate themselves with an anti-science PR organization, especially through co-sponsorship of a film presenting positions antithetical to science. The SI, like the NY Times and Washington Post, have cottoned to the scheme. The goal was to engineer a situation whereby a respected scientific body could be misrepresented as agreeing with an anti-science production. Your babbling about “absence of hard proof that the answers are scientifically irrelevant” is exactly the sort of distraction the DI specializes in. They tried to pull a PR coup, and it backfired publicly.

Now, I suppose I should emulate Lenny Flank and ask YOU for an actual, testable hypothesis the DI could use to do actual science rather than pull stunts like this. But we both recognize he asks that question repeatedly as a means of illustrating that there is no science to be found at the DI. If you are lamenting the fact that responsible organizations got wise a bit too late, allowing them to be played for fools, then I agree. If you are lamenting that they got wise AT ALL, and should have continued playing the fool to support a dishonest agenda, shame on you.

Comment #33419

Posted by a maine yankee on June 3, 2005 01:34 PM (e) (s)

Since any advanced science might look like magic (miracles,) I am constantly disappointed that the ID crowd doesn’t look for BEMs in ‘white’ coats making plasmids and superstrings in their “magic” labs. I think that one of the Wright Brothers said that ‘Man would never fly.’  Just give her some time and money, and we’ll unravel complexity, and wouldn’t it be wonderful if it turned out to be, well, complex but all so ‘natural’.

Comment #33420

Posted by neurode on June 3, 2005 01:36 PM (e) (s)

Maybe you didn’t understand my point. I wrote:

“If a film does not make assertions regarding clearly-enunciated articles of faith or other items of religious observance, but instead reviews scientific data and asks logically-formulated questions about the causal factors possibly involved in their production, then in the absence of hard proof that the source cannot possibly leave an empirical signature, it is scientific enough.”

Now, that’s a fact. You seem to be claiming that there is no evidence for the sort of efficient causation that would permit the infusion of design into nature. Please forgive me for expressing my sincere doubt that you know what you’re talking about on that. In fact, I suspect from the tone and content of your response that questions formulated on that level of discourse may be considerably over your head.

In any case, it’s hardly necessary to stoop to name calling. If you don’t want to be called a quack - and I’m perfectly capable of calling you that or worse in return - then please refrain from further epithets.

Comment #33423

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on June 3, 2005 01:50 PM (e) (s)

You seem to be claiming that there is no evidence for the sort of efficient causation that would permit the infusion of design into nature.

However, what you have failed to demonstrate is how the ability to infer such a designer can be gleaned. For example, spider webs, ant-hills, termite mounds and even things like cars can all have a ‘designer’ inferred because we can detect something about the designer. In order to put ‘design’ into nature as a serious scientific idea, you need to first demonstrate how detection of said design points TO the designer.

Please forgive me for expressing my sincere doubt that you know what you’re talking about on that.

That’s alright, we probably think the same of you ;)

Again, have you a FALSIFIABLE theory of ID or are you talking out of your arse like all the other ID mewlers who come through here every now and again?

Comment #33425

Posted by Grey Wolf on June 3, 2005 01:51 PM (e) (s)

Neurode, I challenge you to provide an example of:
a) a review of scientific data which supports design and does not support evolution
b) an experiment which can determine if something that seems designed *is* designed
c) a scientific theory of ID
that have not been showed to be false, useless, based on lies or otherwise discredited either here or in talkorigins.org (or in some other venue).

Until you do, you have no business defending ID.

Sincerely, there have been many creationists that have come here with grand declarations of how ID was science. None have been able to back-up the claim. Lets see if you do better.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf, who certifies this post is ad hominem free

Comment #33427

Posted by Glen Davidson on June 3, 2005 01:52 PM (e) (s)

“If a film does not make assertions regarding clearly-enunciated articles of faith or other items of religious observance, but instead reviews scientific data and asks logically-formulated questions about the causal factors possibly involved in their production, then in the absence of hard proof that the source cannot possibly leave an empirical signature, it is scientific enough.”

Now, that’s a fact.

Now that’s a lie, and exactly why it is that we don’t like how you charlatans come in and try to change science to fit your prejudices.  Science isn’t just speculation about what might exist, particularly when we’re well-aware of the source of your “speculations”, no matter how much you try to dissemble your aims and goals. 

You seem to be claiming that there is no evidence for the sort of efficient causation that would permit the infusion of design into nature.

You’re too stupid even to read the post I wrote, I see.  We do find evidence of “design” and I said so.  You simply lie and accuse when you write the drivel above.

Please forgive me for expressing my sincere doubt that you know what you’re talking about on that. In fact, I suspect from the tone and content of your response that questions formulated on that level of discourse may be considerably over your head.

I suspect not, rather I suspect that you’re someone who’s had a few courses in the dishonest realm of metaphysics, and who has learned specifically how to avoid dealing with evidence altogether.  My philosophy courses were in the dishonesty that exudes from such an approach, and the attempts that people as ill-educated as you to claim that those not adopting your approach to de-legitimize science and honest philosophy.

You haven’t even begun to write anything sensible, so you’re hardly a judge of anyone or anything.

In any case, it’s hardly necessary to stoop to name calling. If you don’t want to be called a quack

You can call me that, but you can’t make it stick. 

- and I’m perfectly capable of calling you that or worse in return - then please refrain from further epithets.

Please quit lying and claiming a superiority that only comes from your narrow education and lack of scientific knowledge.

Comment #33428

Posted by jmplavcan on June 3, 2005 01:53 PM (e) (s)

Neurode is sadly typical of the confusion between science and propaganda deliberately generated by the DI, offering up a couple of red herrings in the guise of sound philosphy. True, science does not address metaphysical questions one way or the other. However, though it is also true that “any decent scientist” is free to muse and speculate to his/her heart’s content about the metaphysical implications of various scientific results, most are intellectually honest enough to clearly distinguish between hypothesis testing, model building, interpretation of evidence, and metaphysical speculation. Where they are not, their piers (not “any decent scientist”, but MANY decent scientists) are all too happy to make that distinction for them, either in private review or in published rebuttal. This is why ID and creationist papers so consistently fail to have any impact whatsoever on the scientific community.

Sadly, the DI knows all too well that the public has little knowledge of the practical and philosophical underpinnings of science. Hence their target audience is not us scientists, but rather the public. “Any decent scientist” recognizes their claptrap for what it is at a glance, and most understand all too clearly the distinction between propaganda and academic discourse. While it is fair to ask the question of whether apparent “design” is the product of a designer, there is no compelling evidence whatsoever that explanations based on a designer are better than (or even equal to) naturalistic explanations.

Granted I have not seen the film in question, However, I have read a tremendous amount of verbage produced by the DI and it is absolutely consistent. There is nothing the descriptions of the film offered by the DI to suggest that it represents anything different from what they have published elsewhere. Pending that this is the case, the film is what we in academia call propaganda. It’s purpose is not to further scientific inquiry, or to advance understanding. Its purpose is to lay the foundation for the belief in a creator — read God. The immediate stamentments made by DI and their supportors are absolutely consistent with the “wedge” strategy of gaining credibility for dogma that undermines the publics’ support for science (oops, “humanistic, materialistic science”) by associating such dogma with reputable sources, and by shear repetition, thereby gaining credibility for the suggestion that there is a “controversy” in science. The folks at the Smithsonian are busy (I was just working there last week), and it is easy for this type of stuff to get through the system. The Smithsonian has nothing to be ashamed of, and has handled a politically very difficult situation as best as can be expected.

Comment #33430

Posted by Will on June 3, 2005 01:59 PM (e) (s)

I wrote UNC-TV here in North Carolina and they wrote back saying they have “no plans to show the program in the immediate future.”  This could mean anything but I’m optimistic.

Comment #33434

Posted by RBH on June 3, 2005 02:03 PM (e) (s)

neurode wrote

The answer to metaquestion 2 is “no”, since science is the study of nature, and the question of whether or not nature exhibits design is potentially relevant to the study of nature. It follows that the editorial amounts to a call for the Smithsonian and other influential science-oriented institutions to summarily exclude certain potentially relevant questions from science.

In fact, of course, nature is full of “design” — of structures and processes that are ‘fitted’, more or less well, to their functions in larger systems.  We have lots of evidence from a slew of disciplines that that sort of “design” can arise from what can only be called natural causes.  The question at issue is whether that design is also due to some unspecified undetectable invisible intelligent intentional agent messing about with those systems.  For that proposition there is zero evidence whatsoever. 

Neurode further wrote

You seem to be claiming that there is no evidence for the sort of efficient causation that would permit the infusion of design into nature. Please forgive me for expressing my sincere doubt that you know what you’re talking about on that.

In fact there is no such evidence offered by IDists.  To the best of my knowledge (and I’ve been reading their stuff for 20 years), no IDist has ever offered an actual causal account of the “design” (as defined above) in nature.  The two leading lights, Dembski and Behe, have provided us with these insightful speculations:

Dembski:

How much energy is required to impart information? We have sensors that can detect quantum events and amplify them to the macroscopic level. What’s more, the energy in quantum events is proportional to frequency or inversely proportional to wavelength. And since there is no upper limit to the wavelength of, for instance, electromagnetic radiation, there is no lower limit to the energy required to impart information. In the limit, a designer could therefore impart information into the universe without inputting any energy at all.

Yup, folks, an infinite wavelength (and therefore unfocusable) zero energy (and therefore zero channel capacity) information transmission channel.  Sure thing.

Behe:

At Hillsdale, after his public lecture, I challenged Behe in a small-group discussion to give us a positive statement of exactly how the “Intelligent Designer” creates bacterial flagella. As usual, he was evasive. But I didn’t let him get away. And finally, he answered: “In a puff of smoke!” A physicist in our group asked, “Do you mean that the Intelligent Designer suspends the laws of physics through working a miracle?” And Behe answered: “Yes.”

Uh huh.  A puff of smoke as an efficient cause.  Sure thing.

RBH

Comment #33437

Posted by Grey Wolf on June 3, 2005 02:05 PM (e) (s)

In an effort not to feed the creationist, let me try to steer the topic back to a semblance of the original in a lame attempt at humour.

Since $16000 is exactly the minimum contribution to get co-sponsored by the museum, had I been in charge I would’ve given the DI $1 back. That means they still pay almost as much as they wanted, freely and (according to them) unknowingly of the consequences but untangles the museum from any standing practices.

After all, the DI doesn’t want co-sponsorship, don’t They? they just want to give a museum a big bag of money so they can continue to do science in exchange for a private screening of a film that for all we know could have been the pictures of D*mbski’s last holiday (damn you, PTers! I no longer remember which vowel goes there! ‘u’ seems so *natural* and *designed* to go there!).

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Comment #33441

Posted by steve on June 3, 2005 02:27 PM (e) (s)

You know, Grey, I agree. The name “Dumbski” is full of so much Complex Awesome Information, that it couldn’t be the result of a single, random, point-mutation. His name was clearly designed to enable that.

Comment #33448

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on June 3, 2005 03:03 PM (e) (s)

This is precisely how the intelligent design movement has gotten as far as it has: by advocating outwardly inoffensive ideas in ever-more prestigious places, thereby giving the movement scientific validity.

I would change that to “the appearance of scientific validity.

Comment #33450

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on June 3, 2005 03:10 PM (e) (s)

It must be asked: Is the bear Catholic?

Comment #33453

Posted by neurode on June 3, 2005 03:22 PM (e) (s)

RBH: “In fact, of course, nature is full of ‘design’ — of structures and processes that are ‘fitted’, more or less well, to their functions in larger systems.”

Well, there you go then. You’ve located a pattern which repeats on progressively larger scales. Such a progression to ever-larger systems ultimately leads to the entire cosmos, and your statement regarding systemic functionality can be refitted to scale. That is, one can say that the entire universe is ultimately well-fitted, more or less, to its function.

But of course, the universe, by definition including all that is observable or uniquely implied by observation, exists in no larger system. Therefore, its function is either undefined, or reflexively defined only with respect to the universe itself.

Now, if it is undefined, then the universe has no function; it is a fluke, a poof of smoke appearing, or perhaps not appearing, out of the void. But then (by causal and compositional transitivity) so is everything within the universe, regardless of the limited sense apparently being made of it. Causality terminates, and science along with it, at that level.

But then science per se has no say whatsoever regarding the correctness or empirical relevance of the question to which this answer has been given, and must defer to the philosophy of science. 

On the other hand, say that the function of the cosmos is defined with respect to the universe itself. Then we have functional reflexivity, and that, I’m afraid, can be used as the basis for an appropriate kind of theology. So really, RBH, what we have here is a choice between primal acausality or (some naturalistic form of) theology.

So my question is this: what evidence have you either way? [I’ll jump the gun a bit and assert that you have no evidence. Therefore, both hypotheses are in play, causally speaking. And since causality is the subject matter of science, both are in play, scientifically speaking. And that’s what the Privileged Planet happens to be about.]

Now, one can of course deplore the “lack of evidence” regarding such matters, and tirelessly assert that science must confine itself only to matters on which evidence is clearly available. But the history of science tells us an interesting tale about that: a great deal of evidence for a great many hypotheses has been persistently neglected because researchers had no idea what they should be looking for, and/or because their models, methods and equipment were temporarily ill-suited to find it even if they had known. Yet some of these hypotheses survived, and because they continued to inspire research even while in-the-box minds continued to claim that the temporary methodological restrictions of science must forever restrict the content of science, they were vindicated in the end. 

This should be telling us that science deserves a break from in-the-box circular reasoning. The sheer level of the questions addressed by The Privileged Planet places them in a different, but no less meaningful, category of science than more localized and easily investigated hypotheses, and science must grow to accommodate the questions it asks.

Science needs to recognize this and adjust its approach to such questions accordingly. The Smithsonian has failed to recognize the very real possibility that science can extend its arsenal of rational methods in that direction, that it is responsible to do so, and that it is in fact in the very process of meeting this responsibility.

This is a serious mistake on the part of the Smithsonian. But again, at least they have the wit to permit the screening after all.

[Incidentally, I have no affiliation whatsoever with the Discovery Institute, and I would naturally object to being categorized in that way. The DI and its frankly political agenda are totally irrelevant to my arguments.]

Comment #33455

Posted by Glen Davidson on June 3, 2005 03:41 PM (e) (s)

But then (by causal and compositional transitivity) so is everything within the universe, regardless of the limited sense apparently being made of it. Causality terminates, and science along with it, at that level.

Said like one who is truly ignorant of science.  You didn’t even feign a coherent line of thought there, let alone anything evidence-based, but once again tried to dictate your beliefs into science.  Not unusual for IDists, and/or Michael Finley.

But then science per se has no say whatsoever regarding the correctness or empirical relevance of the question to which this answer has been given, and must defer to the philosophy of science.

Only possible to say based on your made-up claims about science.

Anyway, I’ve probably said enough.  You needn’t bother (unless you want to) to write and say that you won’t discuss things with me, Michael, since I’m only interested in what you say as a grand exposition of the bankruptcy of metaphysics and philosophy based upon metaphysics.  Nothing you say is based upon anything that is accepted by science and the better forms of philosophy.  So I’m only too glad if you “won’t discuss” these things with me, since the only proper response is to show up the vacuity of your statements, then ideally to ignore you and your preconceptions of how science is impossible and/or includes entities that exist outside of investigable causal chains (where causality is appropriate).

Comment #33459

Posted by darwinfinch on June 3, 2005 03:55 PM (e) (s)

“Maybe you didn’t understand my point…”

  It’s much more likely that, in your three VERY long posts, the point was to obscure the very plain fact that you have an opinion which is unassailable by ANY combination of facts by any (other) theory, in either the common or scientific definition of the word.

  If you’re under thirty (or NOT a “Christian” of the sort that creates trouble because they lack any sense of wonder or curiosity. but especially modesty, in looking at the Universe) I can put up with this sort of self-aggrandizing argument, in person.  After years of seeing it served up with shovels on the Net, however, my patience for your kind of should-know-better adults has soured.
 
  I wish you the blessings of modesty. May you realize how wonderfully unique, and unimportant, and wrong every thought you will ever have is.

Comment #33468

Posted by Steve Reuland on June 3, 2005 04:54 PM (e) (s)

neurode wrote:

Now, one can of course deplore the “lack of evidence” regarding such matters, and tirelessly assert that science must confine itself only to matters on which evidence is clearly available.

Yeah, using empirical evidence instead of rambling metaphysical speculation is indeed a hallmark of science, I would say.  The WaPo editorial said pretty much the same thing, and gave this as the reason why the Smithsonian should not be screening Discovery Institute propaganda films.

But the history of science tells us an interesting tale about that: a great deal of evidence for a great many hypotheses has been persistently neglected because researchers had no idea what they should be looking for, and/or because their models, methods and equipment were temporarily ill-suited to find it even if they had known. Yet some of these hypotheses survived, and because they continued to inspire research even while in-the-box minds continued to claim that the temporary methodological restrictions of science must forever restrict the content of science, they were vindicated in the end.

Except the Priviledged Planet stuff, along with the rest of the Discovery Institute’s polemics, does not represent the outcome of research, nor has it inspired any research.  Quite simply, it doesn’t appear capable of being researched.  After going at it for over a decade, the DI has yet to even describe what an ID research program might look like, let alone get actual results.  They have managed to lobby school boards, write editorials attacking the integrity of scientists, stage conferences for politicians, and recently get a promotional film screened at a major institution in exchange for a suitable bribe.  One might reasonably wonder if all that stuff is a wise use of their time and resources, if they’re goals are truly scientific in nature.

Now I take your point that maybe we’re all short-sighted and just aren’t looking at things the right way.  Maybe the DI will be vindicated when it turns out that they were really on to something afterall.  I suppose it’s possible.  More likely it’ll be tossed on the trash heap like most other things that get “persistently neglected”, but maybe they’ll come up with some real science.  If and when that happens, I agree the SI should screen their films.  Until then, they should be judged according to what they’re actually doing, which fomenting a heavy-handed religious and ideological crusade.

Comment #33484

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 3, 2005 06:01 PM (e) (s)

(1) Is it possible to answer the question “does God exist” (yes, no or maybe) without involving religion?

(2) Is it possible to answer the question “are some parts of nature designed” without involving science?

The correct answer to metaquestion 1 is technically “yes”; the putative existence of God is a philosophical question independent of the specific doctrine of any particular religion. Moreover, since the G-word is not mentioned in the film, it would make no difference even if the answer were “no”.

Creationists and IDers have testified, in court, under oath, that
creation “science” and intelligent design “theory” are SCIENCE, and
have NO religious aims, effect or purpose, and do NOT have the goal
of either advancing or supporting religion or religious beliefs. If
that is true (and of course I think creationists/IDers are flat-out
lying to us when they claim that), then they simply have no reason —
none at all whatsoever — to talk about God or the Bible or faith or
Christianity or atheism or supernaturalism or any other religious
opinion.

So why do they keep bringing it up anyway?

Comment #33486

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 3, 2005 06:05 PM (e) (s)

The implication is clear: no matter which side of the controversy you’re on

Specifics, please.  What, precisely, is “the controversy” that you speak of.  Who is on one side, and who is on the other.  The people on one side are claiming … what, and the people on the other side are claiming … what.

IDers like to play “bait and switch” whenever they talk about “the controversy”.  I’ll assume for now that you are not doing so as well.  So please be specific and tell me exactly what “controversy” you are reffering to.

And please don’t make me ask you a dozen times before you answer (another ID habit).

Comment #33487

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 3, 2005 06:07 PM (e) (s)

This should be telling us that science deserves a break from in-the-box circular reasoning.

Please be so kind as to show us what OUTSIDE the box reasoning you offer instead.  Please show us a scientific theory of ID and tell us how to test it using the scientific method.

Or are IDers just sitting on the scientific discovery of the millenium and refusing to tell anyone about it.

Show us your alternative.  By all means.  Please please please, pretty please with sugar on it.

Please.

Comment #33488

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 3, 2005 06:10 PM (e) (s)

That is, one can say that the entire universe is ultimately well-fitted, more or less, to its function.

Ummm, what would a universe look like that was NOT “well-fitted, more or less, to its function” … . .  .?

Comment #33495

Posted by Piltdown Syndrome on June 3, 2005 06:36 PM (e) (s)

Glen Davidson wrote:

…grand exposition of the bankruptcy of metaphysics and philosophy based upon metaphysics.

Who are you supposed to be? Carnap? Ayer? You’re about 75 years too late. That ship has sailed and sunk. ‘Metaphysics’, whether pragmatic (Quine), descriptive (Strawson) or traditional (Loux) is no longer passe. If you keep going past ‘plant’ and ‘animal’ on the generic tree you’ll run into it sooner or later. Category theory is a necessary branch of inquiry that underwrites all of empirical science, and it happens to be the province of philosophy. Bankrupt? I suggest you take another look at the account balance.

Comment #33498

Posted by Glen Davidson on June 3, 2005 06:53 PM (e) (s)

Metaphysics’, whether pragmatic (Quine), descriptive (Strawson) or traditional (Loux) is no longer passe. If you keep going past ‘plant’ and ‘animal’ on the generic tree you’ll run into it sooner or later. Category theory is a necessary branch of inquiry that underwrites all of empirical science, and it happens to be the province of philosophy. Bankrupt? I suggest you take another look at the account balance.

It isn’t for nothing that I avoid analytic philosophy for the most part.  I expect it’s one reason why the US is bothered by creationists, since metaphysics still is a part of the landscape here.

And I don’t need a lecture from someone who thinks that various philosophical authorities lend credence to metaphysics.  I know that’s really all you’ve got, and that most great breakthroughs in science didn’t come from intellectual midgets thinking along the lines of category theory.  It isn’t necessary for science, phenomenology can handle scientific thought quite well without sinking into metaphysics.

You’ve only got herd mentality on your side.  I avoided metaphysical philosophy particularly because I detest belief based in herd thought.

Comment #33502

Posted by neurode on June 3, 2005 07:07 PM (e) (s)

Come on, now, Glen. Surely you can do better than that.

Let me spell it out for you. To make any pronouncement at all about “science”, you need a metalanguage of the language of science. (No such metalanguage, no such pronouncement.) In purporting to be such a metalanguage, scientific phenomenology qualifies as metaphysics. This is true on logical grounds, and applies regardless of any disclaimer by anyone in particular, whether of a phenomenological persuasion or otherwise.

So if you don’t like metaphysics, you don’t like phenomenology either. And in that case, you and the scientific method are in a hole out of which you can never climb. Moreover, your statements regarding science are rendered null and void, your mouth having been zipped shut by logic.

Do you understand?

Comment #33504

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 3, 2005 07:16 PM (e) (s)

You’ve only got herd mentality on your side.  I avoided metaphysical philosophy particularly because I detest belief based in herd thought.

As someone once said;

“Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relationship to one another as masturbation and sexual intercourse”.

Comment #33505

Posted by Piltdown Syndrome on June 3, 2005 07:19 PM (e) (s)

It isn’t for nothing that I avoid analytic philosophy for the most part.  I expect it’s one reason why the US is bothered by creationists, since metaphysics still is a part of the landscape here.

It isn’t necessary for science, phenomenology can handle scientific thought quite well without sinking into metaphysics.

Glen, you need to get a grip. Do you honestly suppose that the Continentals are more friendly to science than the analytics? Please. From Heidegger through Sarte to Derrida and Foucault, there’s not a friend of science among them. They’re too busy splashing around in the life-world or tearing the subject down into various structures to pay Darwin much mind.

And if you think phenomenology has anything to do with science, you need to go back to school. The father of phenomenology penned a magnificent critic of your naive realism with The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. I suggest you read it.

Comment #33506

Posted by Don on June 3, 2005 07:21 PM (e) (s)

Rev Dr wrote:

Ummm, what would a universe look like that was NOT “well-fitted, more or less, to its function” … . .  .?

Spot on, Rev.

Neurode, I think part of the problem here is your metaphysical presumption that the universe HAS a function.

And by the way:

Neurode wrote:

But of course, the universe, by definition including all that is observable or uniquely implied by observation, exists in no larger system. Therefore, its function is either undefined, or reflexively defined only with respect to the universe itself.

Now, if it is undefined, then the universe has no function; it is a fluke, a poof of smoke appearing, or perhaps not appearing, out of the void. But then (by causal and compositional transitivity) so is everything within the universe, regardless of the limited sense apparently being made of it. Causality terminates, and science along with it, at that level.

But then science per se has no say whatsoever regarding the correctness or empirical relevance of the question to which this answer has been given, and must defer to the philosophy of science. 

On the other hand, say that the function of the cosmos is defined with respect to the universe itself. Then we have functional reflexivity, and that, I’m afraid, can be used as the basis for an appropriate kind of theology. So really, RBH, what we have here is a choice between primal acausality or (some naturalistic form of) theology.

So my question is this: what evidence have you either way? [I’ll jump the gun a bit and assert that you have no evidence. Therefore, both hypotheses are in play, causally speaking. And since causality is the subject matter of science, both are in play, scientifically speaking. And that’s what the Privileged Planet happens to be about.]

Isn’t that an amazing amount of verbage just to posit a false dichotomy?

All you’re really saying, in all of your posts combined, is that science needs to “open it’s eyes” to the metaphysical?  So, science needs to be more open-minded and entertain the unanswerable questions because there’s no evidence that those etherial questions are NOT trivial?  (Meaning, as far as I can tell, not falsifiable.)  Meaning, you don’t like the idea that science can only test something that could be falsifiable.  Science is too restrictive in that regard.

Fascinating.

Comment #33507

Posted by neurode on June 3, 2005 07:31 PM (e) (s)

Amazing indeed, Don.

First you say:

“Neurode, I think part of the problem here is your metaphysical presumption that the universe HAS a function.”

You then quote my explicit denial of such an assumption:

“Therefore, its function is either undefined, or reflexively defined only with respect to the universe itself.”

Note that if the function of the universe is undefined, this means that the universe has no function. Therefore, the negative was duly considered.

I suggest that you try to remember to put on your thinking cap, no matter how old and dusty it might be, before hitting the “Post” button.

Comment #33508

Posted by Piltdown Syndrome on June 3, 2005 07:35 PM (e) (s)

What amazes me is that scientists have persuaded themselves that empirical verification/falsification is the only measure of truth. What, then, do you do with statements like ‘2 + 2 = 4’, ‘if p then q, and p, then q’, ‘a point in the visual field cannot be both red and green at the same time’, etc., etc. Apparently, these are not trivial truths. Yet they are not empirical truths. What’s a positivist to do?

Comment #33510

Posted by RBH on June 3, 2005 07:53 PM (e) (s)

neurode wrote

Well, there you go then. You’ve located a pattern which repeats on progressively larger scales. Such a progression to ever-larger systems ultimately leads to the entire cosmos, and your statement regarding systemic functionality can be refitted to scale. That is, one can say that the entire universe is ultimately well-fitted, more or less, to its function.

But of course, the universe, by definition including all that is observable or uniquely implied by observation, exists in no larger system. Therefore, its function is either undefined, or reflexively defined only with respect to the universe itself.

Now, if it is undefined, then the universe has no function; it is a fluke, a poof of smoke appearing, or perhaps not appearing, out of the void. But then (by causal and compositional transitivity) so is everything within the universe, regardless of the limited sense apparently being made of it. Causality terminates, and science along with it, at that level.

But then science per se has no say whatsoever regarding the correctness or empirical relevance of the question to which this answer has been given, and must defer to the philosophy of science.

That sequence gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “a flight of fancy”.

RBH

Comment #33511

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 3, 2005 07:53 PM (e) (s)

Note that if the function of the universe is undefined, this means that the universe has no function.

Huh?

If the function of Stonehenge is undefined, this means that Stonehenge has no function?

They built it just for the hell of it?

Comment #33515

Posted by Zarquon on June 3, 2005 08:09 PM (e) (s)

What’s a positivist to do?

They point out that you’re equivocating the meaning of the English word “truth”.
Then they go up the pub and empirically determine that after a few pints metaphysics might have its attractions.

Comment #33517

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 3, 2005 08:14 PM (e) (s)

Then they go up the pub and empirically determine that after a few pints metaphysics might have its attractions.

But then, after a few pints, the toothless old barmaid might have its attractions, too.

Comment #33520

Posted by neurode on June 3, 2005 08:27 PM (e) (s)

RBH: “That sequence gives a whole new meaning to the phrase ‘a flight of fancy’.”

Then let me simplify it for you. If you deny that the universe has a function (in any larger system in which it may have been caused), then in effect you assert either

(1) an absence of first causation, and in fact of causation in general, on the cosmological level, or

(2) the self-causation of the universe.

If 1, then science has nothing to say, because in the absence of causation, it lacks the wherewithal formulate and apply “laws of science”.

If 2, then everything hinges on a mathematical analysis of purely self-caused systems. This again leaves empirical science, i.e. the scientific method (as typically read), with nothing to say until the mathematical stage of scientific analysis is complete and ready for empirical application and refinement.

But a purely self-caused system is its own first cause, and this is clearly a theological attribute. So on this level of scientific discourse, the mathematical stage of scientific analysis has an unavoidable theological dimension.

To which part of this do you refer as a “flight of fancy”?

Comment #33522

Posted by Piltdown Syndrome on June 3, 2005 08:38 PM (e) (s)

They point out that you’re equivocating the meaning of the English word “truth”.

Of course I’m equivocating. That’s entirely the point. The positivist, with or without ale, cannot countenance ‘non-scientific’ truth. Whence the problem.

Comment #33524

Posted by RBH on June 3, 2005 08:50 PM (e) (s)

Neurode asked where the flight of fancy is.  Regard the first paragraph in his progression:

Well, there you go then. You’ve located a pattern which repeats on progressively larger scales. Such a progression to ever-larger systems ultimately leads to the entire cosmos, and your statement regarding systemic functionality can be refitted to scale. That is, one can say that the entire universe is ultimately well-fitted, more or less, to its function.

Now read my paragraph that neurode’s verbiage supposedly summarizes:

In fact, of course, nature is full of “design” — of structures and processes that are ‘fitted’, more or less well, to their functions in larger systems.  We have lots of evidence from a slew of disciplines that that sort of “design” can arise from what can only be called natural causes.  The question at issue is whether that design is also due to some unspecified undetectable invisible intelligent intentional agent messing about with those systems.  For that proposition there is zero evidence whatsoever.

For the purposes of understanding the evolution of biological stuff, I take the universe as a given, its structures and processes being more or less distant consequences of the series of symmetry breakings the cosmologists identify as having occurred post-Big-Bang.  I don’t even have to worry about that to attempt to understand the evolution of biological stuff — it’s literally irrelevant.  Moreover, to suggest that it’s the province of the philosophy of science is, I think, to badly strain that already strained discipline.  I’ll let the theologians wander there, knowing full well that they will never ever agree on what it all means because they have no shared principled way to settle their disagreements.

RBH

Comment #33526

Posted by Piltdown Syndrome on June 3, 2005 08:56 PM (e) (s)

Let me make neurode’s point in the idiom of Aquinas:

The causal series cannot go back ad infinitum (Zeno paradoxes are sufficient to establish this point). There must be a first cause of some sort, and that cause will either be (1) uncaused or (2) causa sui.

(1) has serious difficulties: even if sense can be made of an uncaused event, because the event in question is the first cause in the series of causes, that it is itself uncaused makes the whole series uncaused.

We are left then with a couple different versions of (2): the first cause is either a self-causing universe or an self-causing intelligence. Take your pick.

From the Thomistic perspective, however, this is not quite adequate. Self-cause is not sufficient because it is remains a contingent cause. What is required is a necessary first cause, an entity whose essence is existence, viz., ‘God’.

Comment #33528

Posted by neurode on June 3, 2005 09:11 PM (e) (s)

RBH, the film under discussion in this thread is not primarily about evolution, or “understanding the evolution of biological stuff”; it’s about cosmology.

Specifically, it’s about cosmic fine-tuning, a recurrent topic in quantum cosmology. In quantum cosmology (aka the Standard Model), the metaphysical stage of scientific analysis is unavoidable.

It follows that if the deluge of complaints to the Smithsonian came from people concerned with the putative anti-Darwinian stance of the DI, the Smithsonian should not have acceded to their misplaced and irrelevant demands.

Which, of course, was my point to begin with.

Comment #33530

Posted by Jim Harrison on June 3, 2005 10:07 PM (e) (s)

One hardly has to be a positivist to find the classic proofs of the existence of God unimpressive. If you are already a believer in some sort of theism, you can use the proofs to explain your beliefs. If you aren’t a believer, the proofs give you no reason to become one.

We don’t really know if the alternatives suggested in the various proofs exhaust the possibilities. For example, it seems to us that the universe is either eternal or had a beginning, but on what basis can one claim that those are the only options? Intuition? And what exactly is the difference between an uncaused cause and a self-caused cause beside the fact that you heard about the second kind in Sunday school?

Comment #33536

Posted by Zarquon on June 3, 2005 11:04 PM (e) (s)

In quantum cosmology (aka the Standard Model), the metaphysical stage of scientific analysis is unavoidable.

Bollocks. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Comment #33541

Posted by Hyperion on June 3, 2005 11:29 PM (e) (s)

I believe that Schroedinger’s Cat effectively demonstrated why philosophizing about science and physical laws is nothing more than pointless mental masturbation.

On the other hand, I’m sure Piltdown and Neurode would be glad to explain that it’s perfectly normal for cats to be simultaneously dead and alive.

Comment #33546

Posted by Hyperion on June 4, 2005 12:08 AM (e) (s)

I believe that Schroedinger’s Cat effectively demonstrated why philosophizing about science and physical laws is nothing more than pointless mental masturbation.

On the other hand, I’m sure Piltdown and Neurode would be glad to explain that it’s perfectly normal for cats to be simultaneously dead and alive.

Comment #33547

Posted by neurode on June 4, 2005 12:18 AM (e) (s)

Good grief.

Let’s go through it again. In order to formulate constraints on the origin and overall structure of the physical universe, one requires a metalanguage of the object language employed in the sciences to explain and predict physical phenomena, i.e., a metalanguage of physics. The metalanguage contains the definitive constraints of the interpretative mapping that carries the theoretical language called “physics” into the realm of observational data. No such metalanguage, no such constraints; no such constraints, no theoretical content.

Now, take a close look at the phrase “metalanguage of physics”, and see what you get when you eliminate the words “language of”.

That’s right, you get “metaphysics”.

In other words, no metaphysics, no cosmology.

Why the confusion? In some parts of academia, it has been forgotten that cosmology is technically one of the three branches of metaphysics (the other two are ontology and epistemology). Cosmology is now frequently passed off to those who study it, as well as to the public at large, as a “hard science”.

This, of course, is idiotic. While cosmology involves numerous exact mathematical equations, these equations are associated with various models in which data are interpreted. As a rule, there is no unique choice for the association. The matching of particular data with particular models is therefore called “phenomenological”. But as already noted, this comes down to metaphysics after all, and the more coherently the operation is executed, the more metaphysical it is in the technical sense.

In addition, there is more than a little confusion about where physics and cosmology meet. Some of what passes for cosmology these days is really just a more or less empirical kind of physics, e.g. particle physics or astrophysics, that has been dressed to impress. On the other hand, true cosmology, like the General Relativity and quantum mechanics at its core, is as metaphysical as it gets.

Of course, as relativity and quantum mechanics achieved empirical confirmation, they were increasingly classified as “science” rather than “metaphysics”. This is a recurrent theme in the sciences; essentially metaphysical theories which initially appear quite bizarre to boxed-in minds turn out to work, at which point suspicion fades and they become universally recognized as “science”. But if one looks at their fundamental principles, e.g. the GR principle of equivalence and the QM uncertainty principle, they are no less metaphysical than they were at their inceptions.

In other words, Zarquon, you’re the one who clearly has no idea what he’s talking about. So kindly keep your “bollocks”, and your slurs, in your shorts where they belong.

Comment #33548

Posted by Flint on June 4, 2005 12:36 AM (e) (s)

Then let me simplify it for you. If you deny that the universe has a function (in any larger system in which it may have been caused), then in effect you assert either

(1) an absence of first causation, and in fact of causation in general, on the cosmological level, or

(2) the self-causation of the universe.

If 1, then science has nothing to say, because in the absence of causation, it lacks the wherewithal formulate and apply “laws of science”.

If 2, then everything hinges on a mathematical analysis of purely self-caused systems.

OK, let’s go throught the motions of deconstructing this. Let’s say that the universe happened through some process not currently accessible. We can more-or-less approximate the sequence, and produce theories subject to rejection based on whatever we can determine as our technology advances, but basically we’re limited to analyzing what IS, and admitting that how it came about is largely speculation.

What does it mean to say “the universe has a function”? The universe may well just BE, and the attempt to project some function exists in our minds but not in the universe. We might hypothesize that the universe was brought into being by *some process*, currently beyond our ability to collect sufficient relevant data. But we need not throw our hands in the air and accede to pernament total ignorance. Instead we learn what we can, little by little. We find “laws” (i.e. principles without known exceptions) and use these to explain a little more all the time.

Does this mean the universe was “self-caused”? What does that mean, really? Who cares? Why not just presume that *something* happened, which left hints about its nature, which we can discover if we look in the right place? The universe is what it is; let’s try to figure out WHAT it is. While we’re at it, we might seek some evidence to suggest how the universe came to be. Evidence is what matters. ONLY evidence matters.

Now to switch tacks, I wonder what Neurode is up to. My guess is that he is seeking to justify a basically religious doctrine. He “knows” how reality came to be, he “knows” that the process was supernatural and arbitrary, he “knows” that it was done for a purpose he finds convenient, and he’s looking to justify his conviction that any orientation that disagrees is logically insupportable. Such efforts fail totally, as always, but apparently this doesn’t really matter. To the Believer, god IS, god DOES, and explanatory systems that omit his god are WRONG, regardless of how fully they explain what can be observed.

Neurode seems to be Yet Another Believer who thinks that if he can dismiss the work of enough people to his own satisfaction, his faith will survive, uh, that is, truimph. In his own mind, which is all that really matters. Isn’t it?

Comment #33552

Posted by Zarquon on June 4, 2005 01:59 AM (e) (s)

Let’s go through it again. In order to formulate constraints on the origin and overall structure of the physical universe, one requires a metalanguage of the object language employed in the sciences to explain and predict physical phenomena, i.e., a metalanguage of physics. The metalanguage contains the definitive constraints of the interpretative mapping that carries the theoretical language called “physics” into the realm of observational data. No such metalanguage, no such constraints; no such constraints, no theoretical content.

Yeah and then you want to conflate the experimentally-derived theories-as-metaphysics with the a-priori derived metaphysics of the classical philosophers. It’s bollocks.

Comment #33555

Posted by neurode on June 4, 2005 03:01 AM (e) (s)

Flint, in light of the fact that your analysis of my comments is incoherent, I won’t bother to address it. However, you follow that analysis by questioning “what I’m up to”. So let me tell you what that is.

As angry as some scientists get at religious people who abuse science, I get at least as angry at scientists who abuse logic. They mess up my once-idealized image of the scientific establishment by proving that they don’t have a clue what science really is. Even when such scientists are successful in their research, their comments too often reveal that it was less a matter of deep understanding than of merely aping their mentors, including their college professors and the more capable scientists in whose thoughts and methods they were trained by more or less Pavlovian educational techniques. 

I’ve always been proud of America’s contributions to science, and I’ve always admired the Smithsonian Institute as a living symbol of those contributions. Thus, I was extremely disappointed when I learned that the Smithsonian had made a ridiculous error of judgment in changing its co-sponsorship policy regarding the screening of a certain film in its auditorium. This error, and the lame self-justification which followed, reeked of cynicism, cowardice, political opportunism, and confusion regarding the nature of science. It was the same kind of feeling I got when I first encountered an obviously biased anti-ID rant masquerading as an informative editorial in Scientific American…I was at once embarrassed for them, saddened by their loss of credibility, and angry at whomever had encouraged their self-mortification.

I strongly suspect that certain regulars here at the Panda’s Thumb have intentionally contributed to such miscarriages of scientific justice. This suspicion has in no way been abated by the peculiar combination of ignorance and hostility with which my remedial contributions have thus far been repaid.

I hope that this lays to rest your rambling speculations regarding my motives.

Comment #33559

Posted by SEF on June 4, 2005 03:58 AM (e) (s)

Your motives are irrelevant to the observation that your statements are vacuous and false (eg completely missing the option of a non-functional cause such as a molecules of a gas deflecting another). However, because your lack of intelligent thought and novel contribution is so easy to detect and has already been described and dissected (many times before in the case of previous exhibits), the only thing of even remote interest left to discuss is your motives, neurode. You are an example of a recurrent disease rather than a remedy.

Comment #33560

Posted by H. Humbert on June 4, 2005 04:18 AM (e) (s)

On the other hand, true cosmology, like the General Relativity and quantum mechanics at its core, is as metaphysical as it gets.

Of course, as relativity and quantum mechanics achieved empirical confirmation, they were increasingly classified as “science” rather than “metaphysics”. This is a recurrent theme in the sciences; essentially metaphysical theories which initially appear quite bizarre to boxed-in minds turn out to work, at which point suspicion fades and they become universally recognized as “science”. But if one looks at their fundamental principles, e.g. the GR principle of equivalence and the QM uncertainty principle, they are no less metaphysical than they were at their inceptions.

Ah yes, Einstein, the great metaphysicist. He dabbled in math, of course, but it really was all irrelevant to his great metaphysical theory. It was falsifiable, unlike ID, and actually based on observable data, unlike ID, but make no mistake, Relativity and ID are exactly the same.

See, it isn’t IDists who are trying to pass metaphysics off as science, all along it’s been the scientists who have mislabeled metaphysics as science to begin with! It’s all so clear now. I say we move to change the definition of science to include unevidenced supernatural claims! Who’s with me?

Comment #33561

Posted by H. Humbert on June 4, 2005 04:22 AM (e) (s)

On the other hand, true cosmology, like the General Relativity and quantum mechanics at its core, is as metaphysical as it gets.

Of course, as relativity and quantum mechanics achieved empirical confirmation, they were increasingly classified as “science” rather than “metaphysics”. This is a recurrent theme in the sciences; essentially metaphysical theories which initially appear quite bizarre to boxed-in minds turn out to work, at which point suspicion fades and they become universally recognized as “science”. But if one looks at their fundamental principles, e.g. the GR principle of equivalence and the QM uncertainty principle, they are no less metaphysical than they were at their inceptions.

Ah yes, Einstein, the great metaphysicist. He dabbled in math, of course, but it really was all irrelevant to his great metaphysical theory. It was falsifiable, unlike ID, and actually based on observable data, unlike ID, but make no mistake, Relativity and ID are exactly the same.

See, it isn’t IDists who are trying to pass metaphysics off as science, all along it’s been the scientists who have mislabeled metaphysics as science to begin with! It’s all so clear now. I say we move to change the definition of science to include unevidenced supernatural claims! Who’s with me?

Comment #33562

Posted by neurode on June 4, 2005 04:37 AM (e) (s)

You seem to have a disease too, SEF. Specifically, you appear to suffer from a debilitating combination of pathological ignorance and degenerative stupidity complicated by uncontrollable, Tourette-like seizures of meaningless but nonetheless insolent babbling. Unfortunately, so many others share your disorder that it really isn’t very interesting at all.

Here’s something a bit more interesting: function and causation are semantically related. Concisely, the function of a cause is to produce an effect. This means that once something is implicated in causing an effect, one is always permitted to say that its “function”, according to the laws of causality, is to cause that effect, and thereby to cause whatever systemic evolution might be entailed by that effect.

This has been an element of the discussion from the start, as was explicitly acknowledged by RBH:

“In fact, of course, nature is full of ‘design’ — of structures and processes that are ‘fitted’, more or less well, to their functions in larger systems.  We have lots of evidence from a slew of disciplines that that sort of ‘design’ can arise from what can only be called natural causes.”

If you dispute the accuracy of this quote, why don’t you see if you can uncross your rheumy eyes long enough to scan up the thread and verify it?

(What a crying waste of time.)

Comment #33564

Posted by SEF on June 4, 2005 05:04 AM (e) (s)

neurode wrote:

the function of a cause is to produce an effect

You can run around in circles with the semantics of language all you like. You still won’t have said anything new or useful. Perhaps that’s rather the point though. To follow your worthless reasoning, your function is to cause other people to notice how vacuous and wrong things like semantics and philosophy can be (eg when misapplied by you). It is one of the things you happen to do, even though you don’t intend to do it in any meaningful sense, and therefore by (your) definition it becomes your function. :-D

Whereas I say that even though you don’t intend this outcome (it not being a function you wanted or even one which was needed), you do nonetheless cause that observation in the more perceptive people here. Thus disproving the false dichotomy you raise in your post #33520. Sometimes things just happen. They were caused but not in any way intentionally. They don’t have to have a function as such.

Comment #33566

Posted by Bruce Beckman on June 4, 2005 05:21 AM (e) (s)

Neurode wrote:

“…is always permitted to say that its “function”, according to the laws of causality, is to cause that effect…”

Would you please elaborate and explain these “laws of causality”? I am specifically interested in how we can determine that these “laws of causality” hold and/or are true in the universe we see around us.

Thanks so much.

Comment #33567

Posted by PaulP on June 4, 2005 06:28 AM (e) (s)

neurode wrote

is always permitted to say that its “function”, according to the laws of causality, is to cause that effect

.

1) The problem with this argument is that it uses a meaning of “function” that renders the whole creationism/evolution debate meaningless. Replace “function” by “intent” or “intended purpose” at the appropriate places everywhere in the creation/evolution debate and then you will see what everyone is talking about.

2) I think neurode is assuming a deterministic universe, which is a vey debatable question. In a non-deterministic universe a cause could have more than one effect and there is no way of predicting which will occur.

3) On the other hand I do have a problem with one aspect of cosmology, which comes from the problem of comparing predictions with reality. We only have one universe. To make it simple take a biological equivalent. Suppose  there has only ever been one dog. It’s a mongrel, so high, so heavy with some mixture of colours and so on for all its characteristics. How could biology analyse it? Because we have other life forms and have deduced some scientific laws we could know a lot - by looking at its DNA for instance. But we could not know for sure which of its characteristics are specific to this individual amd which it would share with others of its kind were we to find them. In short, what we can say is limited and depends on our having access to other kinds of similar things (life forms on this planet ) from which we can deduce regularities and therefore laws.
Unfortunately we have no such resources when looking at the universe itself. It’s the ultimate one-off.

Comment #33569

Posted by SEF on June 4, 2005 06:55 AM (e) (s)

The universe we can detect and analyse may be a one-off (certainly to the limits of our detection and analysis!) but it is still possible, from working out its rules of interaction (ie doing science and in particular physics), to predict what closely related universes might be/do. For example, some would be so short-lived that we would have no expectation of finding ourselves (or our equivalent) in them.

Which brings us back to the anthropic principle (and that puddle!) of course. We can tell that we would only be discussing these things if it were possible to be here discussing them and it doesn’t mean that the universe (or some external cause of universes) in any way intended us to be discussing it. There’s no evidence of an intelligently designed purpose to be deduced/inferred simply from observing cause and effect or, in the case of a necessarily self-contained universe, from just an effect without being able to see whatever cause might have existed).

Sometimes bubbles have a bubble-blower and sometimes they just form unwittingly through turbulence at a gas-liquid surface. Ocean spray. Cause and effect not intention and function.

Comment #33575

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 4, 2005 09:26 AM (e) (s)

There must be a first cause of some sort

Why.

, and that cause will either be (1) uncaused or (2) causa sui.

(1) has serious difficulties: even if sense can be made of an uncaused event, because the event in question is the first cause in the series of causes, that it is itself uncaused makes the whole series uncaused.

What caused the designer, again … ?

Comment #33576

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 4, 2005 09:31 AM (e) (s)

It must be asked: Is the bear Catholic?

Abd does the Pope shit in the woods?

Comment #33577

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 4, 2005 09:36 AM (e) (s)

RBH, the film under discussion in this thread is not primarily about evolution, or “understanding the evolution of biological stuff”; it’s about cosmology.

Specifically, it’s about cosmic fine-tuning, a recurrent topic in quantum cosmology. In quantum cosmology (aka the Standard Model), the metaphysical stage of scientific analysis is unavoidable.

More specifically, it is about expanding the political campaign of a small group of religious nuts (who are all funded by a single whacko billionnaire with extremist theocratic political views) into other areas of science.  And therefore has no place in either a science classroom or the Smithsonian Institution.

But please, by all means, I’d be very happy for someone, anyone, to give me some testible scientific statements amde by the “cosmic fine-tuning theory” or “cosmological ID” or whatever the heck IDers want to call it nowadays.

Please, please, pretty please with sugar on it, show me some science somewhere in the IDers’ philosophical weiner-wanking.  Show me what the deisgner did to produce the universe, what mechanisms it used to do whatever the heck they think it did, and where we can see these mechanisms in action.

Or is “cosmological fine-tuning theory” just as utterly empty and useless as the biological “theory” of intelligent design has demonstrated itself to be?

Comment #33578

Posted by Piltdown Syndrome on June 4, 2005 09:37 AM (e) (s)

Basic metaphysical exercise: Start with whatever species you like, and move up to the genus. Continue on through the family, order, class and phylum (all higher-level genera in the logical sense) until you get to the highest categories of biology. Now keep going past biology. Will you reach an end, a highest category [i]simpliciter[/]? What will it be?

Comment #33579

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on June 4, 2005 09:40 AM (e) (s)

Self-cause is not sufficient because it is remains a contingent cause. What is required is a necessary first cause, an entity whose essence is existence, viz., ‘God’.

I see.  So the purpose of ID theory and “comsological fine-tuning”  (and “The Privileged Planet”) is to advance religion.

And IDers are simply lying to us when they claim otherwise.

Right?

Comment #33580

Posted by Zarquon on June 4, 2005 09:42 AM (e) (s)

Basic metaphysical exercise: Start with whatever species you like, and move up to the genus. Continue on through the family, order, class and phylum (all higher-level genera in the logical sense) until you get to the highest categories of biology

Since the classes higher than species are arbitrary, you get to species, then stop.

Comment #33590

Posted by Flint on June 4, 2005 10:44 AM (e) (s)

Flint: Evidence is what matters.

neurode: Your analysis is incoherent.

I think we have found the heart of the problem here.

Comment #33611

Posted by Glen Davidson on June 4, 2005 12:05 PM (e) (s)

To make any pronouncement at all about “science”, you need a metalanguage of the language of science. (No such metalanguage, no such pronouncement.) In purporting to be such a metalanguage, scientific phenomenology qualifies as metaphysics.

As usual, you make an unsupportable claim, and insist that it is truth.  It’s the problem with metaphysicians, they’re so sure of their philosophy Bibles that they can’t even seen any other possibility.

Anyway, I don’t care that much for phenomenology, just mention it because it’s a formal enough method to use, while not being metaphysical in any traditional sense.  Nietzsche’s more like my guy, and he doesn’t even care that much for metalanguage.  However, there is a role for metalanguage, just none for the belief that a metalanguage is anything other than construction.

This is true on logical grounds, and applies regardless of any disclaimer by anyone in particular, whether of a phenomenological persuasion or otherwise.

Like nearly all metaphysicians you insist that your premises are true.  Well, they’re not.  That’s why I stay away from your version of nonsense and Great Truth.  Bet you like Kripke, too.

So if you don’t like metaphysics, you don’t like phenomenology either. And in that case, you and the scientific method are in a hole out of which you can never climb. Moreover, your statements regarding science are rendered null and void, your mouth having been zipped shut by logic.

Do you understand?

Quite, I do understand that you’re a vacuous windbag who makes statements based upon nothing but received tradition and the training of inbred philosophy departments who dare not question their own premises.  What’s appalling is that you and Piltdown will no doubt be teaching the claptrap you learned to other saps, thus perpetuating the whole cycle of Truth without meaning.

Comment #33613

Posted by Glen Davidson on June 4, 2005 12:17 PM (e) (s)

Glen, you need to get a grip. Do you honestly suppose that the Continentals are more friendly to science than the analytics? Please. From Heidegger through Sarte to Derrida and Foucault, there’s not a friend of science among them. They’re too busy splashing around in the life-world or tearing the subject down into various structures to pay Darwin much mind.

Again the strawman, the twisting of truth that appears to be your mode of operation.  I didn’t say any of them were friendly to science, though some definitely were and some still are.  That’s beside the point.  The question is what you can do with Continental Philosophy. 

Kant was very friendly to science, and Nietzsche was for the most part as well.  I don’t care about Heidegger, Sartre, Derrida, or Foucault for very much, though what’s new about false accusations from you?

Deleuze is actually friendly with science as well, though more in relation to “nomadic science”, while not being opposed exactly to “royal science”.

Well, you just attack, without considering that I might not be friendly with the anti-scientific Continentals.  Par for the ID course.

And if you think phenomenology has anything to do with science, you need to go back to school. The father of phenomenology penned a magnificent critic of your naive realism with The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. I suggest you read it.

I suggest you read it, moron.  I have read it, and it is indeed friendly to science.  Husserl was a mathematician who respected science and explained in “The Crisis” how science progresses and exists in the present time.  While I actually don’t agree with Husserl more than partially, he indeed is the one who I would pattern any scientific phenomenology upon.

You either haven’t read what you pretend to have read, or you’re far too prejudiced and incompetent even to understand Husserl.  Again, the loathing of the “philosophers” and their gross ignorance has to appear in my response to your pathetic “understanding”.  This is what always happens with you ill-educated theists, I can’t even begin to have an intelligent discussion with you.

And it’s a complete and utter lie that I have any sort of “naive realism” in me, though apparently you primarily trade in lies.

Comment #33614

Posted by neurode on June 4, 2005 12:17 PM (e) (s)

PaulP, who is pretty much alone among today’s respondents in being serious and polite enough to merit a response, wrote

“The problem with this argument is that it uses a meaning of ‘function’ that renders the whole creationism/evolution debate meaningless. Replace ‘function’ by ‘intent’ or ‘intended purpose’ at the appropriate places everywhere in the creation/evolution debate and then you will see what everyone is talking about.”

However, that’s not the argument. The argument as intially presented does not contain the term “function”. That term was introduced by RBH, and I’m simply doing RBH the favor of clarifying the sense in which he evidently used it.

If you still can’t divorce function from intent, then simply replace it with “cause”. In other words, the universe is either uncaused or caused, and if it is caused, then it is necessarily self-caused. A self-caused universe is its own first cause, and again, this is a theological attribute. So the argument stands; there is no need to introduce the concept of intentionality, which was never explicitly mentioned by me or RBH.

“I think neurode is assuming a deterministic universe, which is a vey debatable question. In a non-deterministic universe a cause could have more than one effect and there is no way of predicting which will occur.”

No, I am not assuming a deterministic universe. I don’t have to, because if the universe were globally nondeterministic, then it would be uncaused (causality always involves some measure of determinacy). This possiblity was duly considered in the argument. Sometimes, following a philosophical argument requires that one locate and keep close track of the concepts on which it actually hinges.

“On the other hand I do have a problem with one aspect of cosmology, which comes from the problem of comparing predictions with reality.”

This is a valid point, and it is why cosmology proper cannot be studied by empirical induction alone. Again, it’s a branch of metaphysics, and can be studied only with heavy reliance on the analytical methods of logic and mathematics.

The “arguments”, if we may call them that, presented by everyone else except Piltdown Syndrome - thanks for the rays of light, Piltdown - are simply egregious. The people who came up with them wouldn’t last sixty seconds in any graduate-level course in philosophy or cosmology taught by anyone more evolved than a rhesus monkey.

Oh, yes…let’s not forget Bruce Beckman, who facetiously requests that I catalog the laws of physics for him. Sorry, Bruce - I have other fish to fry. But obviously, we’re talking about so-called laws of nature thus far identified up to varying levels of accuracy through a combination of empirical induction and mathematical modeling. You can start with classical mechanics, i.e. Newton’s laws of motion in nonrelativistic contexts, and go from there.

Comment #33615

Posted by Glen Davidson on June 4, 2005 12:23 PM