Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hooray for ID
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5471 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 1 of 9 (407835)
06-28-2007 6:45 PM


I would like to add a new slant to the debate. My assertion is that the Intelligent design argument serves a useful and pragmatic purpose for the advancement of Science. It should be welcomed.
Theories and convictions should always be questioned - even those most dear to us. Without opposition it is easy to become lulled into complacency. After all, scientists are human and being such can fall prey to the herd mentaliy - take the acceptance of Piltdown Man for all those years.
On the practical side it is quite conceivable that in an effort to refute a claim one can arrive at ideas or results that shed new light on the theory that is being refuted. In this regard competing theories and beliefs like ID, Panspermia ect also serve up a benefit. Who knows - perhaps in an attempt to refute a claim such as irreducible complexity a researcher might arrive at a critical mechanism that would have never been postulated had the question not been asked.
Scientific knowledge always benefits from having a Devil's advocate. If everyone agrees and never questions it is bad science. Few questioned Ptolemy's system of Epicycles and Deferents because they had no reason to. It was convoluted but it worked like a charm in predicting the behavior of the planets and fit in perfectly with the observations available at the time. Contrary to popular belief the main impediment at first to acceptance of the Heliocentric view was not religious in nature. The model of Ptolemy worked - if it aint broke why fix it? It was the appeal to greater simplicity that convinced many of the truth of the Copernican world view.(A good read is Thomas Kuhn's Copernican Revolution and Herbert Butterfield's Origins of Modern Science)
We are quick to blame religion for stifling scientific though but there have also been opportunites lost because nobody ever thought to question the curren paradigm. It is true that in many cases one would not have any reason to question a theory but that's not the point. I am simply stating we should ALWAYS be questioning and it helps to have an opposition to keep us engaged.(also..think of how boring it would be here if everyone aggreeed )
On the other side - ID supporters who deny Darwinian evolution should not wish for the theory to go away. On the cover you have to admit Natural Selection is a pretty worthless theory as far as it's predictive power. It is incapable of making predictions other than what the theory states - species will change and be selected for survivial. It's practicality lies not in what it can or cannot predict but the research that results from the effort to understand biochemical changes that can take place within an organism. This research will invariably lead to new understandings and insights that have very practical benefits to mankind.
The problem with ID in this regards is it offers no practical recourse. If organic molecules were designed via an outside influence there is no need to conduct research to try to determine the chemical pathways or mechanisms involved. No need for Miller-Urey experiments ect.
These ojections asside notions like ID and Panspermia have their place. Keep it coming.
Edited by Grizz, : Spelling

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPaul, posted 06-29-2007 2:29 AM Grizz has replied

AdminPaul
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 9 (407892)
06-29-2007 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Grizz
06-28-2007 6:45 PM


Not sure about this one.
I'm uneasy about promoting this. Discussion will inevitably turn on the nature of the ID enterprise itself, yet the OP doesn't provide a good basis for that discussion, instead taking a very rosy view of ID for granted.
My personal opinion is that it would be much better if the OP were to directly focus on the points that will be at issue rather than tacitly assuming a particular view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Grizz, posted 06-28-2007 6:45 PM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Grizz, posted 06-29-2007 7:55 AM AdminPaul has replied

Grizz
Member (Idle past 5471 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 3 of 9 (407905)
06-29-2007 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPaul
06-29-2007 2:29 AM


Re: Not sure about this one.
I'm uneasy about promoting this. Discussion will inevitably turn on the nature of the ID enterprise itself, yet the OP doesn't provide a good basis for that discussion, instead taking a very rosy view of ID for granted.
Hi,
What view am I assuming other than a Devil's advocate is always welcome and is needed? I am not sure what Rosy view of ID I am putting forward either. I am not profiling the merits of ID from a standpoint of truth or falsehood. Nor am I presenting the content of ID or it's status as a Scientific Theory.
Currently ID is the only counter proposal to Darwinism that generates any real discussion or introspection. How many can state due to the arguments put forward by the opposition they have not arrived at a better understanding of their own position?
I cannot help it if people go off on a tangent and start debating ID itself. Tangents and hyperbole are always going to happen - look at any post. If you want to prevent this from happening don't let anyone post new topics.
Regarding the post itself if you think it is unworthy of becoming part of the public discussion that is your choice. It's your board and you have every right to moderate it as you see fit. I refuse to censor my post to give a less "Rosy view of ID".
Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPaul, posted 06-29-2007 2:29 AM AdminPaul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 06-29-2007 8:38 AM Grizz has not replied
 Message 5 by AdminPaul, posted 06-29-2007 8:39 AM Grizz has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 4 of 9 (407909)
06-29-2007 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Grizz
06-29-2007 7:55 AM


Re: Not sure about this one.
I think you're taking the wrong message from AdminPaul's reply when you interpreted him as asking you to censor your post. He wasn't objecting to your characterization of ID, though clearly he doesn't agree with it, but to the fact that your topic requires assuming that ID has scientific legitimacy. If what you really want to discuss is why ID isn't a theory then just leave your proposal exactly as it is. We understand that ID's legitimacy as a scientific theory isn't what you're proposing as a topic, but that's what's going to get discussed. AdminPaul was only suggesting that you face this fact and in that light modify your proposal.
I try to avoid discussing topics while they're still in the thread proposal stage, so only in the spirit of clarification and not as a topic of discussion while we're still in the thread approval stage, allow me to point out that from the point of view of science, saying that evolution needs ID as a foil is not all that dissimilar from saying that astronomy needs astrology as a foil. This is so because neither ID nor astrology has achieved any acceptance within scientific circles, and that's why discussion will turn to ID's status as science, and your own topic that evolution's Ying needs ID's Yang will receive little attention.
Your thread proposal is very good, and as long as you understand what's actually going to get discussed and agree to not complain to moderators that no one is discussing your topic, then speaking for myself I would have no objection if AdminPaul decided to release your proposal as is.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Grizz, posted 06-29-2007 7:55 AM Grizz has not replied

AdminPaul
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 9 (407910)
06-29-2007 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Grizz
06-29-2007 7:55 AM


Re: Not sure about this one.
There are two issues with regard to promoting a topic.
The first is wheter it covers a point worth discussing. I did not say that your OP failed that test.
Where I think it fails as a springboard to discussion is that it takes the main points to be discussed for granted. I do not insist that you assume a less rosy view of ID I just want it to be explicitly in the post. I want you to explain why you consider ID to be a worthy challenge to evolution that will produce benefits in proportion to the costs and dangers. If you don't want to discuss that then you don't want to discuss the topic. And if you don't want discussion then I cannot promote the OP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Grizz, posted 06-29-2007 7:55 AM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Grizz, posted 06-29-2007 6:59 PM AdminPaul has replied

Grizz
Member (Idle past 5471 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 6 of 9 (408002)
06-29-2007 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by AdminPaul
06-29-2007 8:39 AM


Re: Not sure about this one.
There are two issues with regard to promoting a topic.
The first is wheter it covers a point worth discussing. I did not say that your OP failed that test.
Where I think it fails as a springboard to discussion is that it takes the main points to be discussed for granted. I do not insist that you assume a less rosy view of ID I just want it to be explicitly in the post. I want you to explain why you consider ID to be a worthy challenge to evolution that will produce benefits in proportion to the costs and dangers. If you don't want to discuss that then you don't want to discuss the topic. And if you don't want discussion then I cannot promote the OP.
Based on the wording I assumed one of the perceived errors in my message was that I painted too much of a complimentary opinion of ID and that was the real objection. Based on your objection to my objection I will retract. Reviewing my OP I could see how one could easily misunderstand what I was saying.
I intentionally stay out of the factual debates as those are well covered ad infinitum. One can only argue for or against the potential irreducible complexity of the eye in so many ways. In the end many will simply see what they want and disregard the rest.
Personally I don't consider ID a danger nor do I consider it without value. I do not believe in it's current form it has any business in a science classroom as it does not offer any specific testable hypothesis that can be discussed. In it's current form it consists of nothing more than an effort to refute evolution.
On the other hand I do beleive some of the objections to the current theory of evolution posed by those who support ID warrant discussion and one should welcome the challenge. "What does not destroy us makes us stronger".
There seems to be an assumption that questioning current orthodoxy is reserved for the feeble minded, the religious, or those who hold reason in contempt. What I see is a tendency on the part of many within the scientific community to unravel when any objection to currently accepted theory is presented. Any objection or question, regardless of the source, is always dismissed as the ramblings of irrational or superstitious madmen.
It is a mentality I believe that is ultimately counterproductive to the aim of science. If we flat out dismiss all objections as nonsense we lose the opportunity to not only gain a better understanding of our views but we also demonstrate that we have become too complacent and smugg in our convictions of truth.
I typically do not frequent internet forums as I have found most people come to the colloseum to wittness the carnage rather than engage in a serious exchange. Anonymity allows one the license to behave and act in a manner that one would not in person. The result is usually shouting rather than listening. I have found the average topic on most internet forums lasts an average of 3 or 4 posts before it becomes a study in how many ways the F word can be employed in a single sentence.
With that said and based on your and Admin's input it is probably true that my question as posed would not lead to a discussion of the topic that I had in mind. Restating it would probably not fair well either as it probably would be misinterpreted. It is a bit too deep. As time goes by I will just work some of the ideas in to posts that display similar themes.
Sorry for the rambling reply. For prosperity that's my 2 cents on the topic I originally had in mind.

"Doubts, additional questions, argument and criticism contribute to the strength, not the weakness, of scientific thought". ” Robert Macchiarelli
http://www.phototracks.net

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by AdminPaul, posted 06-29-2007 8:39 AM AdminPaul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Admin, posted 06-29-2007 8:20 PM Grizz has not replied
 Message 8 by AdminPaul, posted 06-30-2007 3:29 AM Grizz has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 7 of 9 (408006)
06-29-2007 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Grizz
06-29-2007 6:59 PM


Re: Not sure about this one.
Grizz writes:
It is a mentality I believe that is ultimately counterproductive to the aim of science. If we flat out dismiss all objections as nonsense we lose the opportunity to not only gain a better understanding of our views but we also demonstrate that we have become too complacent and smugg in our convictions of truth.
This is the core of your topic. Your real concern is how science determines which objections are to be taken seriously and which dismissed. A discussion could examine and debate the proposed criteria. Take a stab at that as an opening post.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Grizz, posted 06-29-2007 6:59 PM Grizz has not replied

AdminPaul
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 9 (408041)
06-30-2007 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Grizz
06-29-2007 6:59 PM


Re: Not sure about this one.
quote:
Based on the wording I assumed one of the perceived errors in my message was that I painted too much of a complimentary opinion of ID and that was the real objection.
Then I really suggest that you read my posts more carefully. If you look back you'll see that my only advice was to make your assumptions about ID explicit to enable discussion. If you assume that the mere fact that I disagree with a claim is a reason why I, acting as an Admin wish them to be removed you'd be wrong. It's far more likely that I want to discuss them in my role as a participant on the board.
Since you don't wish to proceed with the topic I'll add one point. Science is open to controversy - creationists (including the ID movement) like to pretend otherwise at the same time as they take rhetorical advantage of genuine controversies within science (e.g. the big arguments over punctuated equilibria are frequently cited. The argument over the ancestry of birds crops up sometimes, too).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Grizz, posted 06-29-2007 6:59 PM Grizz has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 9 of 9 (409914)
07-12-2007 8:11 AM


No reply in over a week, closing this proposal down.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024