From: brian harper (harper.10@osu.edu)
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 19:03:53 EDT
At 01:09 PM 7/28/2003 -0700, Richard wrote:
>Brian wrote:
>
> >I hate to get too caught up in words. But let me try to further clarify my
> >original question based on what you say above. Isn't it possible to have
> >natural phenomena which cannot be directly observed or inferred from
> >direct observation? I have to say again that you seem to have a disguised
> >form of scientism in that you seem to want to define a natural phenomena
> >in terms of what science is able to observe.
> >
>
>Good question. This is why I asked if my definition were adequate for
>Science. You ask if its "possible to have natural phenomena which cannot
>be directly observed or inferred from direct observation?"
>
>Perhaps, but such "phenomena" could not very well be addressed by Science,
>now could it? Exactly what could science say assert about non-obervable
>"phenomenon"? I find it intriguing that typically skeptical scientists
>seem willing to embrace definitions they would see as near mysticism in
>other contexts. Its not unlike the idea of directed panspermia (aka space
>aliens).
>
>I'm still open to alternative definitions. But unless I missed it, you
>didn't offer any.
I didn't offer any because your definition is fine. That the "phenomena"
could not be
very well addressed by science was my point. It was also my original point.
There
are some things that cannot be addressed by science. Well, we can't be
absolutely
sure about that, of course. But we can be sure that science cannot
eliminate the
possibility that such phenomena exist.
It is curious to me that you find something mystical about this. Unless one
takes
science to be somehow all-powerful (as I defined it previously) , then the
existence
of purely natural phenomena that lie outside the realm of science is not
something
mystical, it is expected.
><snip>
>
> >Anyway, the important point here is the separation of fact and theory.
> >This is what George was doing (in your quote below). Abiogenesis
> >is a fact. You add to that *naturalistic* abiogenesis. i.e. you have
> >added some type of theoretical qualifier about the way abiogenesis occurred.
> >Of course, *naturalistic* abiogenesis is not a fact.
> >
>
>I encountered the term Abiogenesis in the discussion on the Talk.Origins
>site. It seems to me that they use it to mean "the origin of life from
>non-living matter through natural processes." I think that's a good
>definition. The phrase "naturalistic abiogenesis" actually seems to be
>redundant. Please correct me if my understanding is wrong. It seems
>obvious that given the near universal belief in methodological
>materialism, the definition I gave would be that which is implicit in the
>minds of all who speak of abiogenesis.
OK, I guess I will have to concede this point, especially since I don't
want to
get caught up debating the words themselves. What's important is the ideas.
I checked talk origins and found the definition of abiogenesis as
"The development of life from non-living systems via natural mechanisms."
So it looks like your memory is pretty good :).
This is an unfortunate definition for the reasons I previously mentioned.
In science we want to have a clear distinction between observations
and theories. This definition has the effect of clouding that point. How
would I refer to the origin of life event itself irrespective of any ideas or
theories? I guess the answer is obvious once I write this sentence.
I'll refer to it as the origin of life on Earth :).
Origin of Life on Earth: There was a time when there was no life on Earth.
Presently, there is life. Therefore life
originated
on Earth at some time in the past.
>You wrote:
>
> >The origin of life certainly is a phenomena that would fall under the
> >inferred from other phenomena category.
>
>Not necessarily. There's no reason, in principle, that it couldn't be as
>common as grass. (Or is there ...)
True, but we are talking about facts, or observations.
The observation is that it is not.
> >The fact that the earth is
> >not eternal is fairly strong evidence for the origin of life at some
> >point in earth's history. But how? That's an interesting question.
> >
> >I think it is unreasonable to expect the origin of life to occur again
> >as a purely natural phenomena, outside the lab. Wouldn't you
> >agree?
>
>Aboslutely NOT. If abiogenesis occurred, it resulted by natural processes
>(by my definition, which seems to be the common understanding). The key
>feature of *natural* processes is that they repeat and can be measured and
>replicated.
Once again I detect a subtle scientism in your argument. There is no reason
to suppose that any natural phenomena can be repeated, measured, and
replicated.
Of course, this is a requirement for science, but the scientific method
does not
dictate reality. Let me say further, since this came up in another thread, that
there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that nature is mathematical. That
physics is, by and large, mathematical has to be considered a big surprise.
[historically, it was a big surprise, but now we seem to be used to
the idea]
>Of course, most natural phenomena only happen under certain conditions.
>That is what the lab is for - to produce conditions where the phenomenon
>can be observed.
>
>Is there any reason whatsoever to believe that abiogenesis requires
>conditions that can not be met in the lab? I don't know of any. If you do,
>please share.
>
>One could argue that abiogenesis is very unlikely so we would not expect
>to happen in the lab, even under optimal conditions (if we knew what those
>are). But that's another argument ....
>
There are several reasons.
1) It could be very unlikely even under optimal conditions. Yes, I know you
already said that.
I have to mention it in my list since it would probably be the number one
reason that
a practicing scientist would give. I have to say that I am surprised you
are arguing this
point. You seem to have an appreciation for the complexity of life. Given
that, do you
really expect the origin of life to be likely?
2) The optimal conditions might be so finely tuned that they can never be
deduced.
3) The optimal conditions might be so finely tuned that they cannot be
reproduced
in the lab.
4) The origin of life might not be possible under controlled conditions.
5) The origin of life might require an Earth sized test tube.
6) The origin of life might involve an intricate series of steps with
nonlinear feedback between the various steps.
> >now. Trying to work out some reasonable path connecting the
> >conditions on pre-biotic earth to the production of organic molecules
> >to the production of self-replicators etc. This is an enormously complex
> >problem.
> >
> >So with this in mind, let me go back to my question. Is it possible that
> >such a path exists but that it is so complex that it might never be found?
> >
>
>Yes. That is possible. But it would be scientifically irresponsible to
>assert abiogenesis as fact, and this goes back to the beginning of this
>thread where I protested the assertion that the evolution of life should
>be seen as fundamentally equivalent to the evolution of elements, and that
>people who disagreed were being "highly inconsistent." But of course, this
>swrord cuts both ways, and I also assert it would be irresponsible to
>claim that supernatural forces were *required* since we don't know how it
>happened.
I have been away from this list a long time. After re subscribing I
wanted to jump back in right away. Since this subject interests
me I chose this thread. But apparently I jumped without adequate preparation.
I didn't see the posts you refer to above. Had I seen them I would
probably have jumped in on your side :).
So, let me say that I can certainly sympathize with you. The
assertion you mention above seems to me to be quite ridiculous.
[[sorry, I mean no offense to anyone by that]]
But I believe that you overplayed your hand. I happened to come
in at that point.
> >Let me try to clarify my own position. The event of abiogenesis is a fact.
> >Some really clever scientists are trying to explain that fact by developing
> >physical theories. Their failure means only that they failed, it does
> not mean
> >that the physical pathways do not exist.
>
>Yes, but using your defininion of abiogenesis as meaning merely the "life
>started" in conjuction with the work of methodological materialistic
>science then slips naturalism back into the discussion unawares. That's
>why it is absolutely essential to clarify the word abiogenesis as I
>defined it above.
I can certainly understand this. What you describe above is a word
game common (from both sides) in the origins debate. One reason
I am keen on keeping the distinction between fact and theory is to
avoid those word games.
But I don't think that characterization would be accurate wrt those
taking the talk.origins definition since "...via natural mechanisms" is clearly
part of the definition.
>Again, make no positive claims from the "failure" of clever scientists in
>their efforts to find the pathways of abiogenesis. All this started merely
>in my effort to show people that the assumption of the abiogenesis as
>*fact* is false.
But this was a central theme in the post I responded to. Here
is the paragraph that I responded to:
===============
>I think this is wrong. The fact that it has never been observed in nature or
>the lab, despite great effort, seems like a very good reason to believe it
>is not a natural phenomenon. The more science looks, the more it sees that
>its not there.
===============
Again, perhaps there is a problem of context
for me since I missed the first part of the thread.
If you want to say only that the origin of life
by natural mechanisms is not a fact, then
I wholeheartedly agree. It is not a fact.
>This is why your reassertion of it is really rather frustrating. I
>admitted in my first note to George that Biogenesis in the sense of "life
>started" is totally obvious to everybody and therefore it should be
>equally obvious that that is not what I am talking about. When you say
>"abiogenesis is a fact" you appear to be saying that clever scientists
>should *expect* to find naturalistic pathways, and this proves that you
>implicity included *naturalistic* in your definition of abiogenesis,
>contrary to your definition above.
No, when I said abiogenesis is a fact I was talking only
of the origin of life on Earth irrespective of how it got
started. That I consider this a fact has no bearing on
what I expect scientists to find. Here is my position
since I haven't stated it. I do believe the pathways are
there, I don't expect scientists to find them, at least
not in my lifetime. Maybe someday.
>It seems indicative of the extremely effective indoctrination into
>methodological materialism that I have to continually belabour the point
>that naturalistic abiogenesis is not an established scientific fact.
It is best to leave out the ad-hominem, IMHO
>Good talking Brian.
>
>In service of Christ Jesus our Biogenesis,
>
>Richard Amiel McGough
>Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
>http://www.BibleWheel.com
>
>PS. Could we keep the posts a little shorter? Perhaps break them into
>smaller arguments. They are much easier to answer that way, and also we
>can avoid them being flagged and delayed because of size. Thanks.
Ahh, I should have looked at the last first :). Too late
.......................................
Brian Harper
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 16:00:04 EDT