Re: [asa] Proof That Common Descent is NOT Begging the Question

It seems that Nucacids has chosen the same disastrous path by claiming
that science or the scientific method cannot address purpose and
design, even when they also argue that science has successfully
addressed such issues in archaeology, criminology and other areas
where design and purpose play an important role.
Such foolishness, such extreme skepticism seems rather ironic given
the facts. That you continue to further misrepresent my position by
empty rhetoric is regrettable but understandable, it is hard to defend
the indefensible which is the concept that science cannot address
purpose and design and when pointed out that it can, calling in
non-science. Funny how the demarcation problem which used to be on the
side of ID creationists has now become a two edged sword. that you
accuse me of misdirection and then claim that it follows from my own
logic is rather rich my dear friend.

So far it seems quite straightforward, you and your portrayal of
Monod's position are clearly wrong since it makes the claim that
science cannot (in principle) address issues of design and purpose,
and yet I have shown several instances in which science can in fact
address such issues. That you find it necessary to thus define the
approach to be non-scientific is even more damning to your logic and
reasoning.

Your quote of Monod as described on Telic Thoughts explains the errors
in your logic quite well

<quote> Hence it is through reference to our own activity,
conscious and projective, intentional and purposive-it is as makers of
artifacts-that we judge of a given object's "naturalness" or
"artificialness."</quote>

Mike: Maybe it is simply not possible to make such judgments without
accessing this subjective element. After all, recognizing design may
indeed be akin to recognizing another mind. For how do we recognize
other minds if not by recognizing what they design?

"Reference to our own activity". Which seems to appear on the surface
to be similar to subjective, and when it comes to day to day intuition
then the application of these rules by humans to deduct design and
purpose may very well lack the necessary objectivity of science.
However, the suggestion that thus science cannot address purpose and
design because it requires a subjective interpretation is a logical
fallacy 101. Based on known limitations and capabilities, based on
known motives and means, science can determine, with quite some
success issues of design and purpose. Of course, in some cases science
may have to conclude, we don't know rather than the ID 'default' of
thus designed but the issue here is not whether or not science can
reliably detect design in all circumstances but rather, can science
detect purpose and design. At the simplest level, we can refer to the
ID claims related to copying. A much touted example of the success of
the ID inference is the one in which science established a positive
case of fraudulent behavior on the part of a researcher when
remarkable coincidences were found in some of his papers. Combined
with other scientific evidences, a case was made that ruled out
accidental explanations and a positive case was made based on the
evidence science did uncover.

In other words, contrary to Mike's claim science can and does in fact
address the concepts of design and purpose quite accurately and the
fact that we likely have evolved design detectors which have been
formalized by science into a non or less subjective approach may be a
lesson to all of us. Intuition can be a powerful tool for survival to
detect design although we also know from science how easily our design
inferences can be triggered to result in false positives, again well
understandable when appreciating that false positives are far less
costly than false negatives.

The closest Mike comes to a more reasonable position is

"And if science requires a certain amount of knowledge about the
designer, and we don't have this knowledge, science cannot determine
whether or not life was designed."

Which seems to mirror what Wilkins and Elsberry have been saying for
years now, that there are two kinds of design, one is regular design
and one is rarefied design. However if his argument is that science
cannot address 'purpose and design' then he has a problem. A way to
'resolve this' is to reject that knowledge which can detect design and
knowledge can be science but that is merely making design
tautologically non-scientific and the only reasonable conclusion is
that design is thus supernatural.

To recap, Mike's error in interpreting Monod's argument as 'science
cannot address purpose and design' is that he takes the claim that
humans use a subjective method to detect design and purpose is somehow
equivalent to the claim that 'thus science, which has to be objective
cannot detect design'. That's like saying that because we humans can
detect fire by smell and smell is surely subjective, that fire
detectors cannot work.

Siemens; Note that Thomas was not asked to believe "without
evidence." He had the testimony of those who had observed when he was
absent, but refused to believe them. He demanded direct, personal
evidence. How would you react if I insisted that Pim did not exist
because I had never personally met him? If on meeting I declared, "I
don't think you are Pim"? How far can one carry silly denials?

Quite far it seems, all the way into a reply to my posting. But you
seem to be missing my point namely that faith without evidence seems
to be far more powerful than faith supported by scientific evidence
and fact.

On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:
> Hi PvM,
>
>
>
> I asked, "Has [Dawkins] explained how science would detect design?" You
> replied, "What if aliens visited us and told us? Seems straightforward and
> simple enough." I then noted that this is not science. Your reply?
>
>
>
> "Your position seems a bit foolish to me but I understand. Just because
> Dawkins has not told us, we cannot apply logic and common sense
> ourselves."
>
>
>
> There is nothing foolish about pointing out that testimony from aliens is
> not science. And while science may incorporate logic and common sense, logic
> + common sense does not equal science. Or are you saying that anyone who
> uses logic and common sense is doing science?
>
>
>
> "Sure, aliens telling us that they created life is not enough to establish
> it scientifically but anyone can lay out a path which would lead to science
> being able to address their claims."
>
>
>
> Aliens telling us they created life is not science. That you personally
> believe "anyone can lay out a path which would lead to science being able to
> address their claims" is not relevant, but it is absurd to think that you
> have refuted Monod's point by fuzzy appeals to an imaginary "path" that
> cannot be described.
>
>
>
> "That Monod made his claims that science cannot address purpose and
> design either makes the concept by definition forever outside the
> realm of science or he is simply wrong as sciences have been quite
> able to determine issues of design and purpose. Surely that is self
> evident."
>
>
>
> The only thing that is evident is this: when asked how science would go
> about determining whether or not life was designed, the very best you could
> come up with is this: "What if aliens visited us and told us?"
>
>
>
> Since this is not science, the position that 'science cannot determine
> whether or not life was designed' remains completely intact (and also
> explains why the scientific community is not publishing anything that
> addresses this issue). In fact, even if someone believes that testimony
> from aliens = science, it would simply mean that science is dependent on
> testimony from aliens in order to detect whether or not life was designed.
> And since science cannot get aliens to visit and truthfully provide
> testimony, science cannot determine whether or not life was designed.
>
>
>
> "When science cannot address something, we should at best be able to
> claim a position of 'we don't know' that is hardly a position of
> scientism but rather one of realism and logic."
>
>
>
> Wrong. When science cannot address something, we should claim 'science
> doesn't know.' Unless one thinks that all knowledge comes from science
> (scientism), that is.
>
>
>
> "I am not sure why you have chosen to mangle and misdirect my
> statements to suggest that since science cannot address the existence
> of a God that therefor we should remain agnostic."
>
>
>
> I am neither mangling nor misdirecting. I'm simply following the lead of
> your logic. Consider you belief:
>
>
>
> "When science cannot address something, we should at best be able to
> claim a position of 'we don't know'"
>
>
>
> Since "we don't know" = agnosticism, we should rephrase you belief as
> follows:
>
>
>
> When science cannot address something, we should adopt agnosticism in
> relation to the subject that cannot be addressed.
>
>
>
> Since the existence of God is something science cannot address, your logic
> dictates that we should all be agnostics.
>
>
>
> You may not be pleased with where you logic leads, or don't want people to
> notice where you logic leads, but none of that matters.
>
>
>
> "science is not the work and interpretation by a single person, but rather
> relies on being able to formulate hypotheses, and in case of design, the
> knowledge of means, motives and opportunities, combined with physical
> evidences and eye witnesses can establish a 'beyond reasonable doubt' case
> for design and purpose."
>
>
>
> You are confusing the use of science in a forensic investigation with the
> practice of science itself. Or are you saying that police detectives are
> scientists?
>
>
>
> "Of course not. In both cases evidence, testimony and other 'smoking
> guns' can make the case in a very convincing manner."
>
>
>
> Indeed. But this is not science. In fact, this shows us that we can acquire
> knowledge, and move beyond the "we don't know," without doing science.
>
>
>
> "You may wish to move the goalposts and argue that such approaches are not
> 'scientific'... But logic and reason seem to dictate otherwise."
>
>
>
> Now you are confusing your own opinions with "logic and reason." Since
> National Enquirer reporters followed up a tip and ambushed Edwards at a
> hotel (one part of our natural world), are you saying that logic and reason
> dictate that we all admit the National Enquirer reporters were scientists
> doing science? Would this mean the National Enquirer is a scientific
> journal?
>
>
>
> -Mike Gene
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "PvM" <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
> To: "Nucacids" <nucacids@wowway.com>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 12:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Proof That Common Descent is NOT Begging the Question
>
>
>> Your position seems a bit foolish to me but I understand. Just because
>> Dawkins has not told us, we cannot apply logic and common sense
>> ourselves. Sure, aliens telling us that they created life is not
>> enough to establish it scientifically but anyone can lay out a path
>> which would lead to science being able to address their claims.
>> That Monod made his claims that science cannot address purpose and
>> design either makes the concept by definition forever outside the
>> realm of science or he is simply wrong as sciences have been quite
>> able to determine issues of design and purpose. Surely that is self
>> evident.
>>
>> When science cannot address something, we should at best be able to
>> claim a position of 'we don't know' that is hardly a position of
>> scientism but rather one of realism and logic. Now our faith can lead
>> us to assert that science's (temporary?) ignorance is evidence of
>> something more, but ID is not in the business of providing any
>> evidence of what this 'more' really is.
>>
>> I am not sure why you have chosen to mangle and misdirect my
>> statements to suggest that since science cannot address the existence
>> of a God that therefor we should remain agnostic. What I am stating,
>> and I am sure you may appreciate this, is that we cannot call
>> something designed when science cannot (yet) explain it, and at best
>> we should accept a position of 'we don't know', Now we can use faith
>> to suggest that God exists, but we should be careful not to base this
>> on our ignorance and gaps in our knowledge. God and the absence of a
>> God are equally well supported by facts science cannot address.
>> However, ID seems to forget this and by calling these areas of
>> ignorance, 'designed' creates an unnecessary confusion.
>>
>> Monod's claim seems to be trivially wrong or tautologically true,
>> either way it seems to be a problematic position. We can discuss why
>> human design detectors may be overly sensitive (perhaps a likely
>> adaptation?) but science is not the work and interpretation by a
>> single person, but rather relies on being able to formulate
>> hypotheses, and in case of design, the knowledge of means, motives and
>> opportunities, combined with physical evidences and eye witnesses can
>> establish a 'beyond reasonable doubt' case for design and purpose.
>>
>> Mike ends with a puzzling
>>
>> "And should I be an agnostic about whether or not Edwards had an affair?"
>>
>> Or "Bush led us into an unnecessary war"?
>>
>> Of course not. In both cases evidence, testimony and other 'smoking
>> guns' can make the case in a very convincing manner. You may wish to
>> move the goalposts and argue that such approaches are not
>> 'scientific'... But logic and reason seem to dictate otherwise.
>>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Aug 14 00:38:05 2008