Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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:   Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance.
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 256 of 301 (371778)
12-23-2006 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by GDR
12-23-2006 3:17 AM


Re: Abstractions
quote:
Some posters have said that a meme is merely an idea. If that is the case then I would agree that I don't have a point. However, the quotes of Dawkins that I've already given indicate that he believes a meme is more than just an idea. He theorizes that a meme functions in many ways like a gene, as he compares meme pools to gene pools.
So you DON'T believe that people communicate ideas to each other. You don't beleive that parents and teachers and peer groups can instil cultural values in children with even partial success. You probably don't even believe that languages can be taught. If you really mean what you say, that is.
Have you even noticed how your argument keeps changing ?
Firstly you objected to the entire idea of memes.
Then you admitted that memes existed but took an off-hand reference to Dawkins' materialist view of mind as mening that memes required a materialstic view of mind.
Now you're going back to the assertion that ideas cannot be passed on to others.
You're making it very obvious that you DON'T have a point.
And unfortunately that's it for this discussion. I'll be offline for a week or so from now.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by GDR, posted 12-23-2006 3:17 AM GDR has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 257 of 301 (371782)
12-23-2006 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by GDR
12-23-2006 3:17 AM


Re: Abstractions
Your argument as I understand it seems to be -
1)ID is not science because it invokes the potentially non physical
2)Memetics is a study of the non physical so therefore also cannot be science on the same grounds
Is this correct?
This argument presupposes a view of science that may not be shared. Hence the confusion as to exactly what you are arguing.
The reasons for ID not being science are varied and many.
I would argue that the main reason ID is not science is because it puts the cart before the horse by making cast iron conclusions with no reference to physical evidence and then seeks to justify these conclusions by seeking evidence.
This results in the conclusions being totally immune to prediction and refutation in the eyes of the IDists and completely bypasses at best, and reverses at worst, the whole scientific method.
Scientific conclusions are those derived from physical evidence via the scientific method. Memes have physical effects which can be studied scientifically
ID is not non science-simply because it is claimed that the designer in question is potentially "non-physical" (whatever that actually means).
If the physical evidence genuinely pointed towards a designer of some sort that would be a perfectly valid scientific conclusion and the nature of the designer a perfectly valid field of scientific research.
However there is no evidence to suggest a designer and a great deal of evidence to suggest the opposite.
Memes may not be physical but they can be studied scientifically in the ways others have adequately described elsewhere in this thread. Non physicality per se does not disclude a phenomenon from scientific investigation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by GDR, posted 12-23-2006 3:17 AM GDR has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 258 of 301 (371816)
12-23-2006 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by GDR
12-23-2006 3:17 AM


Re: Abstractions
Science is the study of the natural universe. The objects of scientific study must be observable. It doesn't matter if they're directly or indirectly observable (through their effect on things that are observable), as long as they're observable then they're amenable to scientific study.
Ultimately, ID is not science because the designer cannot be natural because of an infinite regression. This has been explained in other threads, but not in this one I don't think, so very briefly, the regression goes like this: Life is too wondrous and complex to have come about naturally, so there must have been a designer. But since life is too wondrous and complex to have come about naturally, the designer must have had a designer. And his designer must have had a designer, as must the designer before him, and so on and so on ad infinitum. Something must have created the first designer, and this is where you leave the realm of the natural and of science. Since the regression is unavoidable, ID is not science.
This regression is so fatal to the concept of ID that not only does it say that ID is not science, it says that ID cannot be science. In other words, even if evidence were found that seemed to indicate a designer, we would have to discard this as a scientific possibility because the infinite regression leads to the supernatural.
IDists could avoid the infinite regression by not using their primary argument, that life is too wondrous and complex to have come about naturally. It then wouldn't matter whether the designer of life on earth had a designer or not, since the designer could have come about naturally. In other words, they could concede that complex life can come about naturally, but argue that there is evidence to indicate that that isn't the case for life here on earth. But I have a feeling IDists won't be taking this approach any time soon.
The other reasons why ID is not science have to do with the lack of any evidence that goes beyond how wondrous and complex life is, and this paragraph is short because after you've noted the lack of evidence there's really nothing to discuss.
Memes are different than ID. I have no idea whether Dawkins would agree, but I would argue that memes belong to the field of psychology, and there are very good reasons why psychology is classified as a soft science. Whereas the evidence for psychology is observable, making it science, and whereas it is often very mathematical, making it rigorous in some aspects, there is still a huge interpretational component.
The field of evolutionary biology is not split up into Linaeists and Darwinists and IDists and Haekelists. While of course there are a huge number of specific details of evolution that are widely debated, that life on earth evolved through the mechanisms Darwin identified is universally agreed upon. And while there are naturally a number of problematic species and fossils that defy deterministic classification, the vast majority of species and fossils fit neatly into a classification system about which there is broad agreement.
But the field of psychology reflects its large interpretational component by being split into a variety of areas, each with its own following and with many psychologists adhering to their own particular mix of these schools of thought. There are Freudians (small in number today), behavioralists, cognitivists, existentialists, gestaltists, socialists, structuralists and transactionalists, to name a few.
This doesn't mean that memes, as part of psychology, do not qualify as science, but it does mean that it will be very difficult to reach any agreement on a classification system, or on much of anything, actually, which is why it remains so controversial.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by GDR, posted 12-23-2006 3:17 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by GDR, posted 12-23-2006 12:05 PM Percy has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 259 of 301 (371839)
12-23-2006 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Percy
12-23-2006 10:34 AM


Re: Abstractions
I would agree that ID is not science and that, from my point of view it is nothing more than the idea that the universe with all of its elements, the mystery of consciousness and its range of emotions etc, requires a designer.
Percy writes:
Ultimately, ID is not science because the designer cannot be natural because of an infinite regression. This has been explained in other threads, but not in this one I don't think, so very briefly, the regression goes like this: Life is too wondrous and complex to have come about naturally, so there must have been a designer. But since life is too wondrous and complex to have come about naturally, the designer must have had a designer. And his designer must have had a designer, as must the designer before him, and so on and so on ad infinitum. Something must have created the first designer, and this is where you leave the realm of the natural and of science. Since the regression is unavoidable, ID is not science.
I'm not sure that I accept this particular reason. Time is a characteristic of our universe. It is just one of the four known dimensions. An existence outside of this universe, (the metaphysical perhaps) need not have time as one of its features, therefore there need be no designer prior to our designer, as there would be no prior. He would just be.
Percy writes:
The other reasons why ID is not science have to do with the lack of any evidence that goes beyond how wondrous and complex life is, and this paragraph is short because after you've noted the lack of evidence there's really nothing to discuss.
I agree.
As for the discussions of memes I understand what Paul and others are saying. We can observe how cultural changes move through society. Dawkins talks about memes being transmitted from brain to brain in the same way that genes are transmitted from body to body by sperm and eggs. A gene is a physical thing. A meme then is a bit of information or an idea.
What is an idea? Sure we can observe and create statistics on the results of ideas being passed along but we can't observe or measure the idea itself. It has physical results but it doesn't have a physical component.
m-w dictionary writes:
1 a : of or relating to natural science b (1) : of or relating to physics (2) : characterized or produced by the forces and operations of physics
2 a : having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature b : of or relating to material things
If an idea is not physical then neither is a meme.
It seems to me then that it puts the concept of memes in the same position as ID. We can observe and create statistics on the effect that ideas (memes), can have on a culture, but we can't actually observe or measure an idea or a meme. We can observe and create statistics of how we are impacted by loving and being loved but we can't observe or measure a particle of love. Ideas and emotions aren't physical even though they have physical ramifications.
If it isn't physical the what is it? If something isn't physical does it have to be metaphysical?
Percy writes:
This doesn't mean that memes, as part of psychology, do not qualify as science, but it does mean that it will be very difficult to reach any agreement on a classification system, or on much of anything, actually, which is why it remains so controversial.
Is philosophy science? It seems to me that philosophy and theology are more closely related than are philosophy and science.
Maybe the whole reason that there is disagreement is that we don’t have the same understanding of the terms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Percy, posted 12-23-2006 10:34 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by iceage, posted 12-23-2006 1:17 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 261 by Percy, posted 12-23-2006 1:45 PM GDR has replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 260 of 301 (371851)
12-23-2006 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by GDR
12-23-2006 12:05 PM


Re: Abstractions
gdr writes:
What is an idea? Sure we can observe and create statistics on the results of ideas being passed along but we can't observe or measure the idea itself. It has physical results but it doesn't have a physical component.... If an idea is not physical then neither is a meme.... we can't actually observe or measure an idea or a meme
A Meme is an idea -> An idea can be described by a single word or phrase -> A word can be considered a physical thing.
For example, a new scientific term can be a meme. There are papers that track the emergence of a new scientific term within published papers. The frequency of appearance and usage of the term can be modeled and predicted.
When was the last time ID made a prediction that was useful?
In addition, an idea is an artifact of the mind. So is most of psychology. For example, can you point to a physical component of obsessive compulsive behavior or cleptomania? Will you argue that ID and Psychology are on the same footing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by GDR, posted 12-23-2006 12:05 PM GDR has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 261 of 301 (371854)
12-23-2006 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by GDR
12-23-2006 12:05 PM


Re: Abstractions
GDR writes:
Percy writes:
Ultimately, ID is not science because the designer cannot be natural because of an infinite regression...
I'm not sure that I accept this particular reason.
You individually might not, but IDists in general certainly do. This is the primary reason why they say things like, "We cannot know the nature of the designer or how he designed." I hope this raises red flags for you all over the place, just as it would if evolutionists were to say, "We cannot know the processes that produced evolution nor their modes of operation, but we know evolution occurred."
There is no simple way out of this box that IDists have designed for themselves, as your own attempt makes clear:
GDR writes:
An existence outside of this universe...
Science is the study of the observable universe. We can't study parts of our universe that aren't observable (directly or indirectly), and we certainly can't study anything outside our universe. If the designer is outside this universe, as you suggest, then it cannot be an object of scientific study, and so ID isn't science.
If an idea is not physical then neither is a meme.
Oh, an idea is physical alright, and so is a meme. The problem is that science is not presently capable of examining ideas in terms of their material representation within the brain. Similar to the way we abstract about quarks and other quantum phenomena that are only indirectly observable, with memes we can only accept an idea as abstraction piled upon abstraction to a height far above an idea's physical realization within an individual's brain.
If it isn't physical the what is it? If something isn't physical does it have to be metaphysical?
It's certainly not an either/or situation. Ideas have a physical representation in the brain that is inaccessible to our current science, so we can only understand ideas on a metaphysical level. It would be incorrect to conclude that because our current level of expertise doesn't allow an understanding at the underlying physical level that therefore that physical level does not exist. All evidence we have indicates that ideas are expressions of physical activity in the brain, we just can't figure out the physical level at this point in time. We might never figure it out.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by GDR, posted 12-23-2006 12:05 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by GDR, posted 12-23-2006 4:07 PM Percy has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 262 of 301 (371863)
12-23-2006 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Percy
12-23-2006 1:45 PM


Re: Abstractions
Percy writes:
You individually might not, but IDists in general certainly do. This is the primary reason why they say things like, "We cannot know the nature of the designer or how he designed." I hope this raises red flags for you all over the place, just as it would if evolutionists were to say, "We cannot know the processes that produced evolution nor their modes of operation, but we know evolution occurred."
I have re-read both of your posts and after having digested them I understand better your point and I agree.
Percy writes:
Science is the study of the observable universe. We can't study parts of our universe that aren't observable (directly or indirectly), and we certainly can't study anything outside our universe. If the designer is outside this universe, as you suggest, then it cannot be an object of scientific study, and so ID isn't science.
I agree
Percy writes:
It's certainly not an either/or situation. Ideas have a physical representation in the brain that is inaccessible to our current science, so we can only understand ideas on a metaphysical level. It would be incorrect to conclude that because our current level of expertise doesn't allow an understanding at the underlying physical level that therefore that physical level does not exist. All evidence we have indicates that ideas are expressions of physical activity in the brain, we just can't figure out the physical level at this point in time. We might never figure it out.
Just because there is physical activity in the brain when idea is formed, (which comes first; the idea or the physical activity), doesn't make the idea itself physical. As you say, science might never figure it out.
As I've said earlier, when Theists are accused of filling the gaps left by science with God. Aren't Atheists doing the same thing when they pass off the gaps in science as something scientists just haven't figured out yet?
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Percy, posted 12-23-2006 1:45 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by jar, posted 12-23-2006 4:18 PM GDR has replied
 Message 266 by nator, posted 12-23-2006 6:25 PM GDR has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 263 of 301 (371864)
12-23-2006 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by GDR
12-23-2006 4:07 PM


Re: Abstractions
As I've said earlier, when Theists are accused of filling the gaps left by science with God. Aren't Atheists doing the same thing when they pass off the gaps in science as something scientists just haven't figured out yet?
No, not at all. Saying that we do not yet know and answer is entirely different than saying the answer is God. For one thing, answers are limiting unless they lead to new questions. They are a dead end.
ID is a dead end, a termination, a death of ever understanding; ID is the Truimph of Ignorance over Knowledge.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by GDR, posted 12-23-2006 4:07 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by GDR, posted 12-23-2006 6:11 PM jar has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 264 of 301 (371869)
12-23-2006 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by jar
12-23-2006 4:18 PM


Re: Abstractions
jar writes:
No, not at all. Saying that we do not yet know and answer is entirely different than saying the answer is God. For one thing, answers are limiting unless they lead to new questions. They are a dead end.
I have never suggested that anybody should throw their hands up in the air and stop seeking truth. When we say we don't know the answer then the answer could be God or it could be we just haven't found it yet. However, regardless of one's opinion the search should continue.
jar writes:
ID is a dead end, a termination, a death of ever understanding; ID is the Truimph of Ignorance over Knowledge.
In the first place ID means different things to different people but in any case labelling their position as ignorant isn't really useful.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by jar, posted 12-23-2006 4:18 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by iceage, posted 12-23-2006 6:21 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 267 by nator, posted 12-23-2006 6:29 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 268 by jar, posted 12-23-2006 6:40 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 269 by Percy, posted 12-23-2006 7:51 PM GDR has replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 265 of 301 (371871)
12-23-2006 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by GDR
12-23-2006 6:11 PM


Re: Abstractions
gdr writes:
When we say we don't know the answer then the answer could be God or it could be we just haven't found it yet.
When you look at the long journey of human discovery, ascribing to God(s) the explanation of phenomenon has a terrible track record - so why is it a reasonable candidate now.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by GDR, posted 12-23-2006 6:11 PM GDR has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 266 of 301 (371872)
12-23-2006 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by GDR
12-23-2006 4:07 PM


Re: Abstractions
quote:
when Theists are accused of filling the gaps left by science with God. Aren't Atheists doing the same thing when they pass off the gaps in science as something scientists just haven't figured out yet?
You forgot part of the sentence:
The gaps in scientific knowledge are things that scientists just haven't figured out yet and may never figure out.
It is quite probable that there will always be gaps in our knowledge of the natural world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by GDR, posted 12-23-2006 4:07 PM GDR has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 267 of 301 (371873)
12-23-2006 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by GDR
12-23-2006 6:11 PM


Re: Abstractions
quote:
When we say we don't know the answer then the answer could be God or it could be we just haven't found it yet.
So, how do you tell the difference between a natural system that we don't understand yet, or one that we will never understand, and a system that God designed?
quote:
However, regardless of one's opinion the search should continue.
But if someone concludes, "godidit", why should the search continue?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by GDR, posted 12-23-2006 6:11 PM GDR has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 268 of 301 (371874)
12-23-2006 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by GDR
12-23-2006 6:11 PM


Re: Abstractions
In the first place ID means different things to different people but in any case labelling their position as ignorant isn't really useful.
Why? How can knowing about ignorance NOT be helpful?
I have never suggested that anybody should throw their hands up in the air and stop seeking truth. When we say we don't know the answer then the answer could be God or it could be we just haven't found it yet. However, regardless of one's opinion the search should continue.
Well that of course is NOT what ID says. ID says that there is a designer. That is an answer, a dead end, a termination, a death of ever understanding.
First, we can show, I have shown, that what we see shows that there is not an "Intelligent" Designer. For reasoning see Message 8.
That leaves us with the possibility of a Designer like Loki, arbitrary, capricious and unpredictable.
If the designer is Loki then all we know about physics, chemistry, genetics, biology, all science is both unreliable and untestable. Every result we have seen could equally be the result of the Designer stepping in just to fool us. With some supernatural forces stepping in to determine specific results we are back, not in the Dark Ages but far earlier. We are back to the very dawn of time where lightning may well be the Gods Thunderbolts.
I'm sorry if you get upset when I call ID ignorance, but there is no other possible description. Anyone who believes in ID as touted by the ID Movement has either not thought the issue through or would actually prefer a world of magic and unpredictability.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by GDR, posted 12-23-2006 6:11 PM GDR has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 269 of 301 (371885)
12-23-2006 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by GDR
12-23-2006 6:11 PM


Re: Abstractions
GDR writes:
When we say we don't know the answer then the answer could be God or it could be we just haven't found it yet.
Iceage already responded to this, saying, "When you look at the long journey of human discovery, ascribing to God(s) the explanation of phenomenon has a terrible track record - so why is it a reasonable candidate now."
I just want to emphasize how incredibly significant a point this is. Others have alluded to the same thing with examples such as ancient associations of thunder and lightning with gods and so forth. The history of "We don't know, therefore God" is one of constant retreat. Those who like to make arguments that begin with, "Science can't even explain (fill in the blank)...," have to find new arguments every year as science learns more and more. It will always be that way because that is just the nature of science. Every question that science answers just raises new questions.
Confusing science and religion derives from faulty thinking. Science is a way of getting one kind of answer about the world, and religion is a way of getting another. Science doesn't deliver spiritual answers, and religion doesn't deliver scientific answers. The problem primarily stems from the mistaken belief that religion can produce scientifically valid answers through means having nothing to do with the methods of science. It's like believing you can apply the rules of sentence structure to calculus and get the same type of answers, which of course you can't, let alone correct answers.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by GDR, posted 12-23-2006 6:11 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by GDR, posted 12-23-2006 8:59 PM Percy has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 270 of 301 (371895)
12-23-2006 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Percy
12-23-2006 7:51 PM


Re: Abstractions
Percy writes:
Iceage already responded to this, saying, "When you look at the long journey of human discovery, ascribing to God(s) the explanation of phenomenon has a terrible track record - so why is it a reasonable candidate now."
I don't disagree with this or anything else in your post. I think though, that if we consider things like why we exist, why do we have a moral code, or even why does the universe exist, it is reasonable to conclude that science is not likely to find the answer. In my view, although many here aren't going to agree, an intelligent designer is the more logical non-scientific conclusion to come to.
Percy writes:
Iceage already responded to this, saying, "When you look at the long journey of human discovery, ascribing to God(s) the explanation of phenomenon has a terrible track record - so why is it a reasonable candidate now."
I don't disagree with this or anything else in your post. I think though, that if we consider things like why we exist, why do we have a moral code, or even why does the universe exist, it is reasonable to conclude that science is not likely to find the answer. In my view, although many here aren't going to agree, an intelligent designer is the more logical non-scientific conclusion to come to.
I have read the other responses but I'm out the door for the evening and don't have time to repond to them all individually.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Percy, posted 12-23-2006 7:51 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by nator, posted 12-23-2006 9:32 PM GDR has replied
 Message 272 by Percy, posted 12-23-2006 9:50 PM GDR has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024