At 01:45 PM 08/15/2000, you wrote:
>
>Chris
> >As I suggested in a earlier posts, the term "random" in this context is
> >misleading. At least, you did not use the term "random mutation," so you
> >have improved your terminology at least a little. But, even if we use the
> >word "random" literally, I may as well point out that randomness is as
> >complex as you can theoretically get. What we would need in a world driven
> >by randomness would be an explanation of *simplicity* (i.e., humanly
> >intelligible order). This fact has in fact been used as an argument for the
> >existence of God, with the premise being that, without God, there would be
> >nothing *but* randomness (i.e., absolute maximum complexity).
>
>Bertvan:
>Hi Chris,
>Since you appear to be sincerely asking the reasons for my position, I'll do
>my best to explain. Each proponent of Darwinism probably has a slightly
>different view of the term, as does each ID, and your view of evolution might
>more similar to mine, in some respects, than some IDs. (I suspect sure you
>would be offended if I suggested your idea of a "natural order" resembled
>"design".) However you and I do have real differences. You believe all of
>nature can be explained naturalistically. I believe
>free-will/creativity/spontaneity/intelligence is as much a part of nature as
>gravity. We know gravity exists only because of certain consistent
>measurements. Free-will/creativity/spontaneity/intelligence will always
>remain "supernatural" and unmeasurable. Science, as we now define science,
>cannot deal with it.
Chris
I believe I have pointed out once before that this is not necessarily so,
and that, in fact, considerable progress *has* been made in dealing with
these issues. For example, it can be shown empirically, and with brain-wave
monitoring, that at least some decisions we make are in fact made by our
brains *before* we are aware of them. This does not mean that we do not
have free will (I claim that we do), but that the idea that it is
indeterministic free will is not merely philosophically incoherent and
illogical, but that it is incompatible with empirical evidence.
I don't know if I've pointed out the following before, so I'll do it now:
These things are not primaries, they are not axioms that do not need
explaining, as you appear to think they are. They are definable features of
some things that exist, and not of others. Free will is acting according to
one's best judgment (rather than against or independently of it);
creativity is the ability to transform existing materials into new
(relatively) things; spontaneity is acting without conscious thought or
plan; intelligence is the ability to process information intelligently
toward some end (and processing information intelligently can be defined in
terms of more-specific operations, such as perceiving patterns, observing
logical relationships, etc.).
>If you disagree, I feel no scorn for your view, and
>approve the existence of differences of opinion. I respect your belief that
>nothing exists that isn't capable of human understanding. I differ. (As
>with any word, "science" is defined by public usage.)
>
>Although you insist "random" doesn't have the meaning most people use, I
>assume your more unusual meaning of the term does include "without plan,
>purpose, meaning of design"- "non-existence of teleology". The existence or
>non-existence of teleology can not be determined by science--or anything
>else, and I reject any scientific theory that specifically denies its
>existence. In my opinion, your definition of random does that.
Chris
Despite my complaints about ID theory, I *do* think that the existence of
teleology (purpose) *can* be determined in some cases by science. And in
some cases, for all practical purposes, it can be determined that there is
no purpose (i.e., that the notion of purpose serves *no* function in a
given context and need not be introduced, as in the sequences of digits of
pi, or the counts of cosmic rays through a cosmic ray detector (this does
not mean that it could not *become* functional in such a context if, for
example, the counts of cosmic rays measured against time showed certain
patterns (such as the digits of pi, etc.)). It means simply that we already
have, as far as we know (for such things as the statistics of cosmic rays)
an obviously adequate explanation of their features in totally
non-purposive terms.
My complaint about ID theory is not that design is not possible or
detectable in all cases (since I believe it *is* detectable in some cases).
My complaint is that, as far as the genes of living organisms are
concerned, or any other major and well-known feature of the known universe,
no such evidence has been found. There is not anything like finding the
first ten million digits of pi encoded baldly in the human genome, for
example. Nor are there, as far as we currently know, any statistically
significant and consistent deviations in genetic statistics from what we
would expect given genetics theory, chemistry, and physics; there does not
appear to be, for example, any barrier that would *prevent*
microevolutionary steps from accumulating to yield macroevolution, as the
ID/creationist denial of naturalistic macroevolution requires.
And, of course, besides the burden of proof that a claim of design carries
with it, the claim of *non-naturalistic* design carries a burden of proof
that appears to be *logically* insurmountable. People who believe such
things despite the lack of proof/validation can certainly do so, but they
have no claim on being rational in doing so without being able to provide a
rational basis for their claims.
>I am not
>specifically skeptical of "evolution"- nor are most proponents of ID. Most
>are skeptical of evolutionary theories which specifically exclude teleology.
>ID could have been just another version of "evolution", debated along all
>the other ideas such as Punk Eek, but the establishment seems determined to
>see that doesn't happen. Why? Is it because the establishment is
>determined to specifically exclude any view of nature which allows the
>possibility of teleology?
Or is it because, unlike Punk Ek, ID theory, given current evidence, does
not have anything going for it to make it a scientifically study-able
theory? Punk Ek can be defined sharply enough to provide clear empirical
predictions as to facts that should be the case if *it* is the case. Design
theory makes no such predictions, even though it has been around a *lot*
longer than Punk Ek.
>Chris:
> >What we see from you is not recognition that these arguments *are*
> >atrocious, but rather constant ignoring of your own claim that, "In the
> >end it will be the arguments of each side that impress the public - not the
> >credentials." The public, in general, does not care about the quality of
> >arguments. That is why Johnson has so many followers. That is why Hitler
> >had so many followers. Insofar as the public supports evolution at all,
> >it's not because it understands and accepts the arguments. It's because
> >scientists and intellectuals have accepted it and continue to support it.
>
> >Depending on the public to recognize sound arguments in issues like this is
> >silly when the public has been "educated" *not* to think, not to understand
> >rational epistemology, not to seek fundamentals, etc.
>
>Bertvan:
>One side's logical argument is seen by the other side as propaganda. Each
>side sees the tactics of their "opponents" as atrocious. I regard the
>tactics of the Darwinists as resembling McCarthyism, and apparently you view
>anything said by skeptics of Darwinism the same way. IDs have made
>statements with which I disagree. I disagree with lots of things, YEC's,
>UFO's, Marxism, Freudianism, genetic determinism, Christianity, multiple
>universes, TOE's, Bigfoot, astronomy, sociobiolog, etc., but at the moment
>no one is mounting a crusade to try to intimidate me into believing anything
>except Darwinism. Much of the public doesn't understand quantum mechanics.
> Even if some people claimed they didn't "believe in quantum mechanics", I
>doubt the physicists would mount a crusade, such as the on going
>anti-creationist crusade, to remedy the matter.
Chris
If people started claiming that each individual subatomic particle is
constantly manipulated by God, and if people took such blather *seriously*
(as some seem to take Johnson's claims, for example), I bet there *would*
be a "crusade" to remedy the matter.
>And if they did, I doubt
>carrying on about the lack of intelligence and sincerity of such skeptics
>would accomplish much. I can't believe YEC was ever a threat to science,
>but biologists appear to regard any questioning of orthodoxy as a threat.
Chris
It's not a threat to science in the abstract, of course. But it *is* a
threat to science as a human endeavor, because it substitutes blind faith
and cliches for empirical research and rational argument. Besides, I don't
question the intelligence and sincerity of all non-naturalists (even all
YEC's). I question the intelligence and/or sincerity of those who claim,
whether explicitly or by implication, to be experts and yet who seriously
propose arguments like the "floor plan" argument that Richard remarked on,
or Johnson's "no-new-information" argument (or claim, since he doesn't
really give an *argument* for this anti-empirical claim).
> At times you wax quite lyrical about the intellectual shortcomings of "the
>public". (Do you favor oligarchy over democracy.)
Chris
No. I favor education and freedom over democracy *and* oligarchy (not to
mention over monarchy, communism, dictatorship, etc.). The public is a mass
of largely intellectually stupid people, but they are stupid because they
have *learned* to be stupid. They are stupid by lack of education and by
lack of motivation, a lack of motivation that has been nearly
systematically, and at *great* public expense, inculcated into them in the
school system and to a significant extent by their "leaders."
>You seem to feel people
>should believe what the majority of scientist tell them to believe - in spite
>of the many past scientific invalid positions.
Chris
No. I'm in favor of rational skepticism regarding what scientists say or
believe; my own views oppose those of the Copenhagen interpretation of
quantum mechanics, for example (because I think the observational data can
be saved much less radically than by indeterminism). I was merely pointing
out that, in fact, the public does tend to believe what scientists and
intellectuals tell them, at lest until the intellectuals tell them to
reject science and scientists.
And, as far as the many past scientific failures are concerned, these same
failures were only generally discovered by *more* science. Science is a
method of progressively zeroing in on the nature of the things studied, so
theories have to be replaced by better theories as old theories begin to
fail seriously. This is why the theory of evolution that I hold is
*importantly* different from that of Darwin, for example; though the key
idea (that, over a long period of time, small changes can accrue into large
changes, and that the changes that don't in fact work are weeded out) is
still strong, genetics and many other discoveries since Darwin's day have
led to both a deeper understanding and to additions and modifications.
Margulis (I think) has suggested a way for genes of one organism to vary in
major ways by adopting genetic material from the genomes of other
organisms. And some argue that retrovirus genetic material may become
incorporated into our own genes and passed on to children.
Further, I view evolution as an information filtering process, in which
locally available "information" is, in a sense, incorporated into genomes
and then tested against reality by whether the resulting genome survives
and reproduces. Since information theory was not around in Darwin's day,
and since genetics was not around either, Darwin would have had a hard time
even coming to think of the issue in such terms.
>In the end, I have faith in
>humanity's "collective intelligence", with it's assortment of differences of
>opinion. Let's get the public really interested in evolution, for I'm
>convinced the disagreement is not over scientific facts, but over philosophy.
Chris
Well, we at least agree on *this* point! The fundamental agreement in the
ID issue is philosophical underpinnings. The ID theory issue is
*essentially* about such things as the nature of concepts, basic facts of
the nature of existence, and so on. Some people implicitly adopt
epistemological rules that allow them to believe utter nonsense as long as
it suits their *purposes* (i.e., as long as it appears, at least
superficially, to serve ends that they favor, such as furthering the belief
in a Christian God).
> That is where I in most agreement with Johnson. Let each side lay out
> their
>best arguments. Everyone is equally entitled to settle philosophical
>disputes - not just scientists. I'll continue to argue passionately for ID
>as long as I judge their tactics to be more tolerant and less intimidating
>than the other side.
Chris
So far, unfortunately, that is all I've seen you do: Argue passionately.
The problem is that you often don't argue *rationally*, your arguments tend
to be almost devoid of content, consisting of little more than repeating
what it is you have *concluded*, not the evidence and reasoning that would
lead a rational person to conclude similarly.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 16 2000 - 02:08:05 EDT