Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9094 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,858 Year: 12,970/6,534 Month: 253/2,210 Week: 194/390 Day: 0/50 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment?
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 01-18-2019


(1)
Message 16 of 51 (899255)
10-11-2022 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by evolujtion_noob
10-09-2022 6:43 PM


evolujtion_noob writes:
In this video at 38:24...
Thanks. At that point, Behe was really responding to a question regarding what predictions ID makes. But the gist of your statement is still true.
What are these limits and have they been stated?
I'm not saying that a designer, especially considering if it is a supernatural designer, would necessarily have limits as to what they might do, but for ID to be able to infer anything, there would have to be a quality of the operation that is recognizable by design principles. In the recording you linked, Behe gave a good example of what this might look like (at around timestamp 13:25). He mentioned a murderer that is so careful that when he kills his victim, no investigator could distinguish it from an accident. In that case, even though it definitely was a designed event, ID would not be able to infer it. But if there were about 10 murders committed in the same manner, and it turned out that all the victims were scheduled to testify as witnesses at a criminal's drug trial, ID could make a determination it was design because a purpose behind the activity was detectable.
So the limits of a designer in order for ID to be able to make a inference would be the evidence of purpose.
I haven't seen anyone giving any parameters/mechanism for how the designer operates
ID doesn't have to define the parameters/mechanism for how a (not "the") designer operates. If there is no likely, undirected cause that can be demonstrated to produce the particular effect AND (not OR) it exhibits a purposeful arrangement of parts/settings (which in our uniform experience always leads back to a mind), then design can be inferred.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by evolujtion_noob, posted 10-09-2022 6:43 PM evolujtion_noob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by evolujtion_noob, posted 10-11-2022 4:37 AM WookieeB has replied

  
MrIntelligentDesign
Member
Posts: 165
Joined: 09-21-2015


Message 17 of 51 (899256)
10-11-2022 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Theodoric
10-09-2022 10:20 PM


What are you talking about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Theodoric, posted 10-09-2022 10:20 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Theodoric, posted 10-11-2022 7:47 AM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

  
evolujtion_noob
Junior Member
Posts: 5
From: Austin
Joined: 09-26-2022


Message 18 of 51 (899257)
10-11-2022 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by WookieeB
10-11-2022 3:48 AM


WookieeB writes:
ID doesn't have to define the parameters/mechanism for how a (not "the") designer operates. If there is no likely, undirected cause that can be demonstrated to produce the particular effect AND (not OR) it exhibits a purposeful arrangement of parts/settings (which in our uniform experience always leads back to a mind), then design can be inferred.
So if something is repeatable by experiment... and not directed by the experimenter... would you rule out a mind directing the experiment?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by WookieeB, posted 10-11-2022 3:48 AM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by WookieeB, posted 10-11-2022 9:59 PM evolujtion_noob has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7848
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 19 of 51 (899261)
10-11-2022 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by MrIntelligentDesign
10-11-2022 4:10 AM


Posting a link to Amazon in order to promote your writings is spamming the forum.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 10-11-2022 4:10 AM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 20492
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 20 of 51 (899275)
10-11-2022 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by WookieeB
10-11-2022 3:46 AM


Re: ID About to Fail?
WookieeB writes:
AZPaul3 writes:
What criteria would qualify as something falling under design?
​A purposeful arrangement of parts.
Circular.
Now you need to define what "purposeful" means - and how you would distinguish purposeful from purposeless.
What is the purpose of a mountain? Was it designed to direct the weather?

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."
-- Leningrad Cowboys

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by WookieeB, posted 10-11-2022 3:46 AM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-11-2022 1:03 PM ringo has replied
 Message 25 by WookieeB, posted 10-11-2022 9:55 PM ringo has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3698
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(3)
Message 21 of 51 (899281)
10-11-2022 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by ringo
10-11-2022 12:28 PM


Re: ID About to Fail?
What is the purpose of a mountain? Was it designed to direct the weather?
Mountains are obviously designed for skiing.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ringo, posted 10-11-2022 12:28 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Tangle, posted 10-11-2022 1:11 PM Tanypteryx has not replied
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 10-11-2022 1:11 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8789
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


(3)
Message 22 of 51 (899284)
10-11-2022 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Tanypteryx
10-11-2022 1:03 PM


Re: ID About to Fail?
But not intelligently, we had to build the lifts.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-11-2022 1:03 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 20492
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


(3)
Message 23 of 51 (899285)
10-11-2022 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Tanypteryx
10-11-2022 1:03 PM


Re: ID About to Fail?
Tanypteryx writes:
Mountains are obviously designed for skiing.
And water was designed for swimming. Notice how it fits around you so snugly. The Designer must have known what shape you would be.

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."
-- Leningrad Cowboys

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-11-2022 1:03 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-11-2022 1:42 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3698
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 24 of 51 (899289)
10-11-2022 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by ringo
10-11-2022 1:11 PM


Re: ID About to Fail?
And water was designed for swimming. Notice how it fits around you so snugly. The Designer must have known what shape you would be.
It's a miracle!

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 10-11-2022 1:11 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 25 of 51 (899315)
10-11-2022 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by ringo
10-11-2022 12:28 PM


Re: ID About to Fail?
Circular.
LOL, how?
Now you need to define what "purposeful" means
1) having intention or objective
2) conforms to an independently describable pattern and whose arrangement is of a sufficiently low probability.
and how you would distinguish purposeful from purposeless.
For the latter, i suppose not conforming to the description above.
What is the purpose of a mountain?
Well, it would depend on the context, but generally I would say: none.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ringo, posted 10-11-2022 12:28 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by ringo, posted 10-11-2022 10:19 PM WookieeB has replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 01-18-2019


(1)
Message 26 of 51 (899316)
10-11-2022 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by evolujtion_noob
10-11-2022 4:37 AM


So if something is repeatable by experiment... and not directed by the experimenter... would you rule out a mind directing the experiment?
Assuming there is not some detectable mind other than the experimenter's , umm... Yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by evolujtion_noob, posted 10-11-2022 4:37 AM evolujtion_noob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by evolujtion_noob, posted 10-11-2022 10:35 PM WookieeB has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 20492
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 27 of 51 (899319)
10-11-2022 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by WookieeB
10-11-2022 9:55 PM


Re: ID About to Fail?
WookieeB writes:
ringo writes:
Circular.
​LOL, how?
You define a vague concept, "design", with another vague concept, "purpose".
WookieeB writes:
1) having intention or objective
2) conforms to an independently describable pattern and whose arrangement is of a sufficiently low probability.
How do you distinguish something that is purposeful from someting that is not purposeful?
WookieeB writes:
For the latter, i suppose not conforming to the description above.
So you're defining purposeless as not purposeful. That's a little thin, isn't it?
Tell us what the steps are. How, specifically, do you decide that A is purposeful and B is purposeless?

"Oh no, They've gone and named my home St. Petersburg.
What's going on? Where are all the friends I had?
It's all wrong, I'm feeling lost like I just don't belong.
Give me back, give me back my Leningrad."
-- Leningrad Cowboys

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by WookieeB, posted 10-11-2022 9:55 PM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by WookieeB, posted 10-11-2022 11:13 PM ringo has replied

  
evolujtion_noob
Junior Member
Posts: 5
From: Austin
Joined: 09-26-2022


Message 28 of 51 (899322)
10-11-2022 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by WookieeB
10-11-2022 9:59 PM


WookieeB writes:
Assuming there is not some detectable mind other than the experimenter's , umm... Yes.
Ok. That's interesting to me. So you don't take the results of the experiment itself as evidence of a mind.
So I think you posted this before, but for you there are 2 reasons for leaning towards ID. If either one were false, then you wouldn't be in favor of ID?
1. Known mechanisms don't explain the complexity of life.
2. There are no repeatable undirected experiments showing this complexity arise.
So if we could have repeatable experiments showing this complexity arise... even if we don't know the mechanism, you'd still rule out a designer... ie: you wouldn't resort to the reasoning... "the only known mechanism for this happening is intelligence" ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by WookieeB, posted 10-11-2022 9:59 PM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by WookieeB, posted 10-12-2022 12:26 AM evolujtion_noob has not replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 29 of 51 (899325)
10-11-2022 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by ringo
10-11-2022 10:19 PM


Re: ID About to Fail?
You define a vague concept, "design", with another vague concept, "purpose".
Vague doesn't mean circular, nor is it a synonym. So even if my answer was vague, it wasnt 'circular' Besides, 'circular', in the context of what I think you mean, would only apply to an argument. I wasnt making an argument, merely presenting a description/definition, which was what was asked.
And whether or not my answer was vague is irrelevant. There was no demand for additional rigor in an answer based on the question.
So you're defining purposeless as not purposeful. That's a little thin, isn't it?
Really? You asked for definitions. I gave you definitions. You dont like mine? Fine.
quote:
purpose noun
1 a: something set up as an object or end to be attained : INTENTION
b: RESOLUTION, DETERMINATION
2: a subject under discussion or an action in course of execution
purposeful adjective
1: having a purpose: such as
a: MEANINGFUL
b: INTENTIONAL
purposeless adjective
: having no purpose : AIMLESS, MEANINGLESS
Those are from Webster. If you dont like those definitions, go complain to him.
How, specifically, do you decide that A is purposeful and B is purposeless?
Observe; gather data; analyze the item/event. Estimate the relative likelyhood (probability) of the particular arrangement AND identify if it corresponds to some independent pattern. If both the probability is low and there is a pattern detected, then we can infer purpose. If neither of those criteria is fulfilled, then we would not infer purpose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ringo, posted 10-11-2022 10:19 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by ringo, posted 10-12-2022 3:39 PM WookieeB has replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 30 of 51 (899328)
10-12-2022 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by evolujtion_noob
10-11-2022 10:35 PM


Ok. That's interesting to me. So you don't take the results of the experiment itself as evidence of a mind.
It really depends on what the experiment is. But if going off of your criteria, you would be correct. I will unpack this a little more...
You asked: "So if something is repeatable by experiment... and not directed by the experimenter... would you rule out a mind directing the experiment?" First off, it is an oddly formed question. An "experiment" is a purposeful thing, being put together by an "experimenter" which would minimally be directed via a mind. So right off the bat we are dealing with a designed system.
But then you say it is "not directed by the experimenter". That seems contradictory to your premise. At the very least, whatever results come about, they are constrained by the experiment, which itself is designed. So in a macro sense, by design, yes the results are being directed.
But then I considered you might be referring to a more restricted context, of looking only at the processes occurring within the experiment. That is really the only way it could be "not directed by the experimenter". So the setup could be a designed scenario, but it may contain a processes that are undirected within the setup. If that is the case, and there is no further purposeful interference by the experimenter or any other mind, then yes, I would 'rule out a mind directing the experiment'. But please realize this would only be in a restricted viewpoint.
As an example, suppose an experimenter setup a test of fairly rolling a 6-sided die ten times and recording the results. The fact that a die is present and will be rolled a number of times is a designed scenario, so the experiment itself is a designed/directed thing, and that there will be 10 recorded rolls is by design. But the actual rolling of the die, if done fairly, would have results that were not directed. In other words, what numbers came up on each die roll would be random/undirected. So the results (what was rolled), within the context of a directed scenario, would not be due to someone directing them.
So I think you posted this before, but for you there are 2 reasons for leaning towards ID. If either one were false, then you wouldn't be in favor of ID?

1. Known mechanisms don't explain the complexity of life.
2. There are no repeatable undirected experiments showing this complexity arise.
No, sorry, that wasn't me that said those things. And neither are they ID concepts.
As to (1), actions of an intelligent agent would fall under "known mechanisms". And of course ID infers that life is a result of the activity of a mind.
For (2), the phrasing is unclear. What do you mean by "repeatable undirected experiments". If it is the same thing as referred to in your question in Message 26, then see above - which would mean the experiment itself is designed, but it uses processes that are undirected within that experiment. Lenski's LTEE might qualify depending on what aspects are considered.
So if we could have repeatable experiments showing this complexity arise... even if we don't know the mechanism, you'd still rule out a designer...
The "this complexity arise" of your statement is the results of the experiment, and I can only assume it refers back to what you called "the complexity of life". But then you are throwing out another concept here, that of "we don't know the mechanism". Us not 'knowing the mechanism' I don't think would ever be the case. We should be able to figure out the mechanism, after all the experiment was setup around whatever mechanism's are taking place.
But, if an experiment was designed with nothing at the beginning that was in a state of something akin to "the complexity of life", but then through undirected processes within that experiment results occur that are something akin to "the complexity of life", then yes, I would rule out a designer for those results.
....you wouldn't resort to the reasoning... "the only known mechanism for this happening is intelligence" ?
No, I wouldn't. But it also would not be something where anyone would say "we don't know the mechanism". The mechanism should be apprehensible and explainable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by evolujtion_noob, posted 10-11-2022 10:35 PM evolujtion_noob has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022