| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"words of truth" |
| Date: |
26 Sep 2005 07:29:29 AM |
| Object: |
Atheism Is Built On A Leap Of Blind Faith |
http://imagoveritatis.myatts.net/comments.php?id=24_0_1_0_C
Don't Believe It
I ran into a blog that claims to be based on "reason" alone and it
turned out to be, predictably, run by an Objectivist (with a capital
"O" that means a disciple of Ayn Rand). Objectivism is a form of
atheism, though they tend to focus much more on the positive aspects of
their system rather than getting hung up on the God thing, unlike the
folks over at infidels.org. Anyway, that prompted to me to pull off the
shelf one of the many books that I have bought and put away for future
reading, (whenever that is - heh, heh) and before I knew it I was well
into it. The book is John Robbins' Without A Prayer: Ayn Rand and the
Close of Her System, available here.
Well, the book is a masterpiece, and though I don't follow every detail
of Gordon Clark's philosophy which figures heavily in Robbins'
argument, by the end of the chapter on epistemology he has reduced
Rand's system to a pile of rubble that is hopelessly beyond salvaging.
In fact, one cannot but conclude, after reading this analysis, that
Rand's system, rather than being founded upon reason, is profoundly
irrational. It surely requires a blind leap of faith to grasp. I won't
repeat the arguments here; the reader is encouraged to get the book and
see.
So, in that vein, I have been scrounging around the web to see what
else there is in the blogosphere (hey I'm getting into this new lingo!)
when I came across this piece from Tertius, who complains about
atheists who pretend that they do not have a world view, but rather
that they simply lack a belief in God. He calls this atheism lite -
well put I think - because it IS a cop out, as he shows. I have run
across this kind of thing, of course and after analyzing atheism I came
up with at least four positive philosophical assertions that
necessariliy follow from the denial of the existence of God, which are
discussed on page 10 of my conversations with atheists and which I will
quote here:
So when the atheist denies or says he does not believe in a God, he is
necessarily making a number of positive world view presuppositions
about the nature of the universe. What are some of these? At least the
following:
1) The universe is self-sufficient in its existence and operations. It
is autonomous and not dependent upon another external entity, but
functions based on the laws of nature which determine its character.
2) The principles of knowledge or interpretation of the universe are
contained within and derived from the universe itself. There is no need
for a revelation or interpretation of the universe from a vantage point
outside of the universe. Since there is no outside the universe,
according to the atheist, no such revelation could exist in any case.
Therefore, the ultimate reference point for predication and
interpretation is a principle such as logic, sense perception,
intuition, all of which must exist in the universe, and which were
derived ultimately from human reason. The human mind is autonomous and
is adequate to discover truth on its own, using its own methods. All
truth claims must pass the test of human reason. There is no higher
authority.
3) Right and wrong are relative terms that describe social norms
developed by humankind to enhance its survival and pleasure. There is
no absolute right and wrong and in the end, it is the autonomous human
mind that legislates morality.
4) There is no discernible purpose to history or in the operations and
existence of the universe. The universe is the ultimate reality and it
is impersonal and unconcerned about us or our fate. It is simply there
and appears to be what it is largely as a result of chance. The human
future is undetermined, since there is no divine plan governing it. The
meaning of life is what we make of it based on the decisions of our
autonomous wills, and there is no final meaning in the end.
Each of these four notions corresponds to an interpretation of the four
areas that define a world view: ontology (the nature of reality or
being), epistemology (the theory of how we have and justify knowledge),
ethics (the theory of the ultimate good and of moral action), and
teleology (the theory of the purpose of it all). Thus, we see that the
denial of belief in God necessarily implies a basic set of world view
assumptions (axioms or presuppositions) that form a positive
interpretation of the state of affairs.
So the atheist really has no excuse and nowhere to hide. The assertion
that atheism is just a denial is merely a smokescreen to avoid having
to mount a defense of his position. But that emperor is stark naked.
The atheist who wants any intellectual respect is both philosophically
and morally obligated to defend his beliefs as a system, and that means
defending the above assertions. And that puts his whole system up for
discussion. Once we open that door then it is only a matter of time
before the inherent irrationality of atheism reveals itself and the
atheist has to look squarely in the face that fact that his whole
system is built on a leap of faith, and a blind one at that.
.
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
18 Oct 2005 05:53:03 AM |
|
|
1973 Dead wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 03:51:04 -0700, Goober <go.away@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 18:10:36 -0700, in alt.atheism , Goober
<go.away@nowhere.com> in <diutme$4ss$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca> wrote:
[snip]
I don't yet see that. It seems to me that the BB *is* the causal entity.
(Whether we talk in terms of enities or events, I'm not sure matters.)
It caused the expansion of the universe, for example, detectable in red
shift.
You misunderstand the explanation. The Big Bang is not a causal
entity, it is a name for the early expansion of the Universe. The
initial cause is beyond our observation, the subsequent causes are the
standard laws of physics.
[snip]
Hmmm. So it seems that you think that scientific hypotheses cannot be
legitmately criticised on religious grounds.
Not in a science class. And not with the standards of science. Science
tells us hurricanes are caused by heated air, a rotating Earth, etc. A
religion may tell us that hurricanes are caused by the breath of God.
We only teach the former in science class and, in the public schools,
at the least, and in any school that wants to provide a high quality
education, we do not teach the second.
Are you willing to maintain
the symmetry and suggest that science has no place in the religion class?
There is no particular need for symmetry here. Science gives us
explanations regarding observations in the world. Within its domain it
is pretty much the champion. If religious teachings contradict the
scientific view people are free, of course, to choose the answer they
like. But only one of those answers can be tested and checked in the
world. A religion may well teach that contagious diseases are caused
by burns, science tells us otherwise. We do and should only teach the
latter in health class.
Religiion and science both offer explanations for observations in the world.
By whose explanatory standards is it judged the victor? (yes, a loaded
question). Apparently, because only science is testable? Well, that
rather presupposes that testability is more important, and that is a
scientific criterion.
I don't necessarily disagree with your answers, but I think we need to
be aware that if science is judged a winner, it is because we endorse
its explanatory criteria (such as testability) over those of religion
(such as, in keeping with the Bible). There is nothing a priori, in my
view, that necessitates such a victory.
You forget the issue here is that the IDiots want it taught AS A
SCIENCE.
I'm not responsible for the views of anyone else (idiots or otherwise).
And if you can point out anywhere where you think I'm suggesting that ID
theory should be taught as a science then I desire you to do so.
As you may note from what I have written in this thread, I agree that
the scientific credentials of ID theory are weak - weaker than
evolutionary theory.
I'm discussing (among many other things) whether there is a place for
teaching ID explanation of biological phenomena in biology classes.
One additional point of note. Why do you think ID theorists should
*care* whether their theory gets to be called a "science". The answer, I
suspect, is that they recognise that "science" is not simply a
description of a practice but a priveliged badge of epistemic authority.
It is a word that carries immense social authority these days - it
confers legitimacy to a theory. Science has started to monopolise
epistemic deference. People hold claims to be true, because science says
so. Increasingly, it is the sole authority in matters of knowledge,
explanation, and fact.
You're free to teach it as a philosophy, a religion, or a practical
joke. But you cannot simultaneously claim science is no more valid
than ID, and then beg for ID to be taught as science as a way of
validating it.
Two distinct issues. ID has only a weak claim to be a science. It fails
at least most desiderata for scientific explanation and is clearly
inferior in scientific terms than evolutionary theory. That does not
entail that ID explanation is less *valid*, only that it is less
scientific. Put another way, ID theory would be less valid only by
supposing that science defines the domain of valid explanation for
natural phenomena. I'm not inclined to subscribe to such a supposition.
I am not suggesting that ID should be taught as a science. I am
suggesting that biology classes should be open, at least in principle,
to discussing non-scientific explanations for natural phenomena.
(Whether the 'in principle' is turned into 'in practice' I think hangs
at least largely on the wishes of parents.) In other words, I think
biology classes should be forums for the study of, and the discussion
of, biological phenomena and their competing explanations, not
necesarily simply forums for the transmission of scientific orthodoxy. I
think they are best viewed as *biology* classes, rather than biological
*science* classes.
And here again: perhaps you might ask yourself *why* should it matter to
*you* what ID theory is taught *as*? The arguments they propose are not
different, neither better nor worse, the education (in terms of content)
that a child receives is not different were they to have it taught to
them as religion. The answer, I suppose, is that you take "science" to
be a badge of supreme epistemic authority. And you think that ID theory
does not *deserve* such a badge of authority. Of course, I could be wrong.
But a problem arises when they offer competing explanations for the very
same phenomena, which often happens, not just in explaining the fit of
form to function. Then it seems that we usually have to choose between
different explanatory methodologies and criteria. In most cases, I
think, it makes little sense to say that both the religious and the
scientific epxlanations are correct. ID explanation is a perfectly good
explanation by religious criteria, not very good by scientific criteria
(and vice versa). Do we have any neutral basis to prefer one over the other?
One can be checked, the other can't. One can be shown to fit with
observations, the other can't.
But *that* is a scientific criterion. Why is checkability more important
than, say, consistency with religious authority?
[snip]
--
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned *****,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Erb" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
18 Oct 2005 07:43:03 AM |
|
|
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dj2k6k$f8s$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
Put another way, ID theory would be less valid only by
supposing that science defines the domain of valid explanation for
natural phenomena. I'm not inclined to subscribe to such a supposition.
I am not suggesting that ID should be taught as a science. I am
suggesting that biology classes should be open, at least in principle,
to discussing non-scientific explanations for natural phenomena.
I think that the limits on what can be accomplished by moving outside
science make it more valuable as a philosophy or a religious course subject.
I think biology classes are pressed for time as it is. I often try to use
science to speculate on things outside science, recognizing the limit. This
discussion, for instance, as got me thinking about what a god would "look"
like, given current science. Science in the service of philosophy, I'd call
it. I find quantum mechanics extremely interesting in that regard.
In quantum physics there are often particles which are created from
nothing -- they borrow energy from the universe for a short time (this is
predicted by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and does indeed occur),
creating particles that then disappear, but not before they have had an
impact on reality. When physicists came up with quantum electro dynamics,
they did to do so with a trick called “renormalization.” They measured the
the mass and charge of existing particles, and did the calculations
backwards, getting rather absurd starting energies/masses for those
particles. They had to incorporate a vast number of quantum fluctuations in
order to account for the predictions of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
(this is way out of my field, if I’m misunderstanding this, please let me
know!) But it works. It works in measurements as precise as we can
measure, and is universally accepted due to that fact.
But what does that all say about reality? Energy you can borrow from the un
iverse (albeit only for a short time), potentially making particles that
will disappear, starting points before all this that make no sense and, to
be sure, are treated by many as simply a mathematical oddity rather than
reality (and historically, mathematical oddities have tended to later be
shown to accurately reflect reality)? Bizarre. Beyond that, to explain the
weak force of nature in the same way the strong force was explained (the
strong force is through quantum chromo dynamics, analogous to quantum
electro dynamics, but involving quarks rather than electrons), a new
particle has been theorized (and no science has had more success in
correctly predicting new phenomena of nature than particle physics) called
the Higgs boson. This particle is essentially thought to be everywhere – it
’s really a field, particles are disturbances in fields.
In fact, the puzzles from quantum theory remain immense -- how can light be
a wave and a particle at the same time (with even one solitary photon acting
like both a wave and a particle)? In fact, everything is particle and wave
at the same time, though matter waves aren’t usually noticeable. If the
nature of space-time as an entity has to be considered, the nature of
subatomic particles (and whether or not 'particle' is an accurate label)
also could hold clues to the nature of reality and the God hypothesis. It
is only in the quantum world where all events possible actually happen, and
reality behaves in ways we can describe and label, but can't really
visualize or understand in terms of how we experience everyday life.
The difficulty in connecting quantum theory with relativity in a complete
manner suggests that quantum theory, in all its mathematical complexity, may
be hinting at a border between space-time and whatever is outside
space-time. We don't know much about what could be outside space-time; we
might imagine it as whatever is outside the universe that has formed from
the big bang. That would be a space-time dependent definition of non-space
time, which seems on its face to be misguided. More likely, space-time
could have boundaries to extra-space/time virtually everywhere. It is here
where we might glean hints from quantum theory as to what this boundary
might be like, even if we still are in the dark about what's on the other
side.
The hints seem to be that there is intense energy available to space-time at
the quantum level, with reality itself perhaps more ripples in the stream
(or disturbances in fields) than solid and absolute. It may well be that
the hard and fast nature of space-time that we experience is an illusion
based on how our senses operate. Indeed, think of insects who have no clue
about the worlds of politics, religion, marriage, social custom, etc, that
go on all over their world. That is something outside their capacity to
perceive. While their limits may be biological within space-time, ours
could be the result of the need to operate effectively in space-time.
At this point, I am sorry I didn’t study more math, and can’t try to
understand the various forms of symmetry that underlie these theories, and
learn to appreciate the kind of mathematical elegance that inspired thinkers
from Galileo and Newton to Einstein and Heisenberg. But for now I’ll
speculate, and think about how a God might look if we seriously entertain a
god-hypothesis and take into account modern physics.
-scott
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Erb" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
18 Oct 2005 08:38:33 AM |
|
|
One more thing -- the man who first theorized about quarks (winning the
Noble Prize in 1969) and has been a giant in the field of particle physics,
Murray Gell-Man, has been working on something called "plectics," which is
an attempt to unify the simple (quarks) with the complex (evolution,
cultural change, etc.) This is a very interesting issue, and I think in the
coming decades the importance of relating particle physics and their
discoveries to broader reality will be a huge issue. Here is Gell-Man's
home page:
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/mgm/
"Scott Erb" <scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:r565f.153740$qY1.45319@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dj2k6k$f8s$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
Put another way, ID theory would be less valid only by
supposing that science defines the domain of valid explanation for
natural phenomena. I'm not inclined to subscribe to such a supposition.
I am not suggesting that ID should be taught as a science. I am
suggesting that biology classes should be open, at least in principle,
to discussing non-scientific explanations for natural phenomena.
I think that the limits on what can be accomplished by moving outside
science make it more valuable as a philosophy or a religious course
subject.
I think biology classes are pressed for time as it is. I often try to
use
science to speculate on things outside science, recognizing the limit.
This
discussion, for instance, as got me thinking about what a god would "look"
like, given current science. Science in the service of philosophy, I'd
call
it. I find quantum mechanics extremely interesting in that regard.
In quantum physics there are often particles which are created from
nothing -- they borrow energy from the universe for a short time (this is
predicted by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and does indeed occur),
creating particles that then disappear, but not before they have had an
impact on reality. When physicists came up with quantum electro
dynamics,
they did to do so with a trick called “renormalization.” They measured
the
the mass and charge of existing particles, and did the calculations
backwards, getting rather absurd starting energies/masses for those
particles. They had to incorporate a vast number of quantum fluctuations
in
order to account for the predictions of the Heisenberg uncertainty
principle
(this is way out of my field, if I’m misunderstanding this, please let me
know!) But it works. It works in measurements as precise as we can
measure, and is universally accepted due to that fact.
But what does that all say about reality? Energy you can borrow from the
un
iverse (albeit only for a short time), potentially making particles that
will disappear, starting points before all this that make no sense and, to
be sure, are treated by many as simply a mathematical oddity rather than
reality (and historically, mathematical oddities have tended to later be
shown to accurately reflect reality)? Bizarre. Beyond that, to explain
the
weak force of nature in the same way the strong force was explained (the
strong force is through quantum chromo dynamics, analogous to quantum
electro dynamics, but involving quarks rather than electrons), a new
particle has been theorized (and no science has had more success in
correctly predicting new phenomena of nature than particle physics) called
the Higgs boson. This particle is essentially thought to be everywhere –
it
’s really a field, particles are disturbances in fields.
In fact, the puzzles from quantum theory remain immense -- how can light
be
a wave and a particle at the same time (with even one solitary photon
acting
like both a wave and a particle)? In fact, everything is particle and
wave
at the same time, though matter waves aren’t usually noticeable. If the
nature of space-time as an entity has to be considered, the nature of
subatomic particles (and whether or not 'particle' is an accurate label)
also could hold clues to the nature of reality and the God hypothesis. It
is only in the quantum world where all events possible actually happen,
and
reality behaves in ways we can describe and label, but can't really
visualize or understand in terms of how we experience everyday life.
The difficulty in connecting quantum theory with relativity in a complete
manner suggests that quantum theory, in all its mathematical complexity,
may
be hinting at a border between space-time and whatever is outside
space-time. We don't know much about what could be outside space-time; we
might imagine it as whatever is outside the universe that has formed from
the big bang. That would be a space-time dependent definition of
non-space
time, which seems on its face to be misguided. More likely, space-time
could have boundaries to extra-space/time virtually everywhere. It is
here
where we might glean hints from quantum theory as to what this boundary
might be like, even if we still are in the dark about what's on the other
side.
The hints seem to be that there is intense energy available to space-time
at
the quantum level, with reality itself perhaps more ripples in the stream
(or disturbances in fields) than solid and absolute. It may well be that
the hard and fast nature of space-time that we experience is an illusion
based on how our senses operate. Indeed, think of insects who have no
clue
about the worlds of politics, religion, marriage, social custom, etc, that
go on all over their world. That is something outside their capacity to
perceive. While their limits may be biological within space-time, ours
could be the result of the need to operate effectively in space-time.
At this point, I am sorry I didn’t study more math, and can’t try to
understand the various forms of symmetry that underlie these theories, and
learn to appreciate the kind of mathematical elegance that inspired
thinkers
from Galileo and Newton to Einstein and Heisenberg. But for now I’ll
speculate, and think about how a God might look if we seriously entertain
a
god-hypothesis and take into account modern physics.
-scott
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
19 Oct 2005 03:41:23 AM |
|
|
Scott Erb wrote:
"Goober" <go.away@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dj2k6k$f8s$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
Put another way, ID theory would be less valid only by
supposing that science defines the domain of valid explanation for
natural phenomena. I'm not inclined to subscribe to such a supposition.
I am not suggesting that ID should be taught as a science. I am
suggesting that biology classes should be open, at least in principle,
to discussing non-scientific explanations for natural phenomena.
I think that the limits on what can be accomplished by moving outside
science make it more valuable as a philosophy or a religious course subject.
I think biology classes are pressed for time as it is. I often try to use
science to speculate on things outside science, recognizing the limit. This
discussion, for instance, as got me thinking about what a god would "look"
like, given current science. Science in the service of philosophy, I'd call
it. I find quantum mechanics extremely interesting in that regard.
There are practical constraints of course. But I think that the content
should be determined in the first instance by the domain of enquiry.
Biology classes should exmamine biological phenomena and consider rival
explanations for that phenomena. But I also think that science has a
place in philosophy classes or religion classes as well. The difficulty
is that these three disciplines: philosophy, religion, and science, have
something to say about almost every other.
In quantum physics there are often particles which are created from
nothing -- they borrow energy from the universe for a short time (this is
predicted by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and does indeed occur),
creating particles that then disappear, but not before they have had an
impact on reality. When physicists came up with quantum electro dynamics,
they did to do so with a trick called “renormalization.” They measured the
the mass and charge of existing particles, and did the calculations
backwards, getting rather absurd starting energies/masses for those
particles. They had to incorporate a vast number of quantum fluctuations in
order to account for the predictions of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
(this is way out of my field, if I’m misunderstanding this, please let me
know!) But it works. It works in measurements as precise as we can
measure, and is universally accepted due to that fact.
But what does that all say about reality? Energy you can borrow from the un
iverse (albeit only for a short time), potentially making particles that
will disappear, starting points before all this that make no sense and, to
be sure, are treated by many as simply a mathematical oddity rather than
reality (and historically, mathematical oddities have tended to later be
shown to accurately reflect reality)? Bizarre. Beyond that, to explain the
weak force of nature in the same way the strong force was explained (the
strong force is through quantum chromo dynamics, analogous to quantum
electro dynamics, but involving quarks rather than electrons), a new
particle has been theorized (and no science has had more success in
correctly predicting new phenomena of nature than particle physics) called
the Higgs boson. This particle is essentially thought to be everywhere – it
’s really a field, particles are disturbances in fields.
In fact, the puzzles from quantum theory remain immense -- how can light be
a wave and a particle at the same time (with even one solitary photon acting
like both a wave and a particle)? In fact, everything is particle and wave
at the same time, though matter waves aren’t usually noticeable. If the
nature of space-time as an entity has to be considered, the nature of
subatomic particles (and whether or not 'particle' is an accurate label)
also could hold clues to the nature of reality and the God hypothesis. It
is only in the quantum world where all events possible actually happen, and
reality behaves in ways we can describe and label, but can't really
visualize or understand in terms of how we experience everyday life.
The difficulty in connecting quantum theory with relativity in a complete
manner suggests that quantum theory, in all its mathematical complexity, may
be hinting at a border between space-time and whatever is outside
space-time. We don't know much about what could be outside space-time; we
might imagine it as whatever is outside the universe that has formed from
the big bang. That would be a space-time dependent definition of non-space
time, which seems on its face to be misguided. More likely, space-time
could have boundaries to extra-space/time virtually everywhere. It is here
where we might glean hints from quantum theory as to what this boundary
might be like, even if we still are in the dark about what's on the other
side.
The hints seem to be that there is intense energy available to space-time at
the quantum level, with reality itself perhaps more ripples in the stream
(or disturbances in fields) than solid and absolute. It may well be that
the hard and fast nature of space-time that we experience is an illusion
based on how our senses operate. Indeed, think of insects who have no clue
about the worlds of politics, religion, marriage, social custom, etc, that
go on all over their world. That is something outside their capacity to
perceive. While their limits may be biological within space-time, ours
could be the result of the need to operate effectively in space-time.
At this point, I am sorry I didn’t study more math, and can’t try to
understand the various forms of symmetry that underlie these theories, and
learn to appreciate the kind of mathematical elegance that inspired thinkers
from Galileo and Newton to Einstein and Heisenberg. But for now I’ll
speculate, and think about how a God might look if we seriously entertain a
god-hypothesis and take into account modern physics.
-scott
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
18 Oct 2005 12:43:59 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 03:53:03 -0700, in alt.atheism , Goober
<go.away@nowhere.com> in <dj2k6k$f8s$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca> wrote:
[snip]
I'm not responsible for the views of anyone else (idiots or otherwise).
Yes and know. Of course you are only responsible for your own views,
but we have to be careful in these discussions to use words clearly.
Words such as "ID" and "Intelligent Design" have contextual meaning,
not just a particular narrow meaning you may want at the moment. If
you wish to say something about "design", but not reference the
current movement it is a good idea to use different terms.
And if you can point out anywhere where you think I'm suggesting that ID
theory should be taught as a science then I desire you to do so.
If you say you don't I accept it.
As you may note from what I have written in this thread, I agree that
the scientific credentials of ID theory are weak - weaker than
evolutionary theory.
I'm discussing (among many other things) whether there is a place for
teaching ID explanation of biological phenomena in biology classes.
As what? If the class is covering ideas that pre-date Darwin and were
rejected by science 150 and more years ago (Hume wrote in the 18th C),
then Design certainly has a place. If the course is covering current
ideas there is too much valid science to teach to waste time pointing
out the flaws in all of the nonsensical ideas floating around.
One additional point of note. Why do you think ID theorists should
*care* whether their theory gets to be called a "science". The answer, I
suspect, is that they recognise that "science" is not simply a
description of a practice but a priveliged badge of epistemic authority.
They are believers in scientism and they want the success of science
without first getting the achievements. Science gets its authority not
from God (AFAICT), not from a minister, not from a book, but from
daily accurate weather reports, from curing disease, from 80 story
buildings, from airplanes. Science has authority because it works.
It is a word that carries immense social authority these days - it
confers legitimacy to a theory. Science has started to monopolise
epistemic deference.
To the extent I understand your point (and I actually welcome
discussion on this issue), it has been given the monopoly because
scientific epistemology works.
People hold claims to be true, because science says
so. Increasingly, it is the sole authority in matters of knowledge,
explanation, and fact.
When someone gets a better one I and others will switch. And I define
"better" here as more useful in the long run.
You're free to teach it as a philosophy, a religion, or a practical
joke. But you cannot simultaneously claim science is no more valid
than ID, and then beg for ID to be taught as science as a way of
validating it.
Two distinct issues. ID has only a weak claim to be a science.
It has a totally unsupported claim. Claims are easy, it is the support
that matters.
It fails
at least most desiderata for scientific explanation and is clearly
inferior in scientific terms than evolutionary theory. That does not
entail that ID explanation is less *valid*, only that it is less
scientific.
Then it is inappropriate for it to be part of a science course. If you
or someone else wants to argue for ID is some other area then do so.
Put another way, ID theory would be less valid only by
supposing that science defines the domain of valid explanation for
natural phenomena.
Ah, now you are getting a bit more specific. I argue for science as
the most accurate, useful, and predictive (there is plenty of overlap
there, I happen to like sets of three adjectives) explanation for
natural phenomena. I don't know what "valid" means in this context.
Science defines its *own* domain, people are free to care or not care
about that domain. But science is, by both definition and action, the
best process in that domain. I say be definition because we define
science that way, if a better process is developed, we will abandon
the current scientific method and adopt that one.
I'm not inclined to subscribe to such a supposition.
I am not suggesting that ID should be taught as a science. I am
suggesting that biology classes should be open, at least in principle,
to discussing non-scientific explanations for natural phenomena.
Why? Biology is the *scientific* exploration of phenomena involving
life. Why open it up to non-scientific explanations? And if we do, why
limit ourselves to (Christian) Intelligent Design. There are thousands
of equally non-scientific explanations to present.
(Whether the 'in principle' is turned into 'in practice' I think hangs
at least largely on the wishes of parents.) In other words, I think
biology classes should be forums for the study of, and the discussion
of, biological phenomena and their competing explanations, not
necesarily simply forums for the transmission of scientific orthodoxy.
Then start off by saying "We have decided that we are not going to do
science in this class. We are going to discuss anything at all that
mentions life." Make it clear to all that you have stopped having a
science course. Otherwise you are trying to get the authority of
science for these other ideas.
I
think they are best viewed as *biology* classes, rather than biological
*science* classes.
And what is the standard of "best" here? Do you think that more than
5% of the population would currently consider them non-science
courses? The creationists and ID proponents say they are science
courses, they just think (or claim) they have better science.
And here again: perhaps you might ask yourself *why* should it matter to
*you* what ID theory is taught *as*?
I know why. I believe that truth is important, that accurate
understanding of the physical world is an important substrate for
making other kinds of decisions. I think it is dishonest to borrow the
deserved and earned authority of science for empty nonsense like ID.
The arguments they propose are not
different, neither better nor worse, the education (in terms of content)
that a child receives is not different were they to have it taught to
them as religion.
That is nonsense. Context matters. It is quite a bit different for the
teacher who has just explained classical mechanics or some scientific
aspect of biology to then switch to a topic unsupported by
observation. If it is not science then make it clear to all that it is
not science. But that then brings up the question of what it is. If ID
is not science and if it is not religion (and I don't want any
government promoting any religious position), then what is it? IMNSHO
if we strip out the pseudo or refuted science and we strip out the
religion we have nothing left of any value. I am open to hear someone
say something about design other than either "evolution can't do X" or
"the designer did it".
The answer, I suppose, is that you take "science" to
be a badge of supreme epistemic authority. And you think that ID theory
does not *deserve* such a badge of authority. Of course, I could be wrong.
ID does not deserve the badge because there is nothing there. It is an
error of equivocation to use the word theory here without making it
clear that the "theory" in "ID theory" has a different meaning than
that in science. I think that science has tentatively earned the badge
of "supreme" available practical predictive system. You are free to
choose another system or even try to convince me to change. But I am
rather convinced that if I step outside the window from the 40th floor
that science will give me the best prediction of the immediate
results.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
19 Oct 2005 05:24:37 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 03:53:03 -0700, in alt.atheism , Goober
<go.away@nowhere.com> in <dj2k6k$f8s$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca> wrote:
[snip]
I'm not responsible for the views of anyone else (idiots or otherwise).
Yes and know. Of course you are only responsible for your own views,
but we have to be careful in these discussions to use words clearly.
Words such as "ID" and "Intelligent Design" have contextual meaning,
not just a particular narrow meaning you may want at the moment. If
you wish to say something about "design", but not reference the
current movement it is a good idea to use different terms.
I understand. I operate within a context of philosophical discussion,
not Americal politics or American educational poicy. I've expressed a
few views on the latter, but only because a number of people want ot
talk about that and I had some opinoins. My arguments and views relate
to the former, philosophical issue. I had hoped that was clear enough.
With that said, the argument to intelligent design is a venerable
philosoophical issue, at some distance from current poltical movements
in this or that North American country, and I see no reason to change
terms.
And if you can point out anywhere where you think I'm suggesting that ID
theory should be taught as a science then I desire you to do so.
If you say you don't I accept it.
I guess you just jumped to a conclusion because you assumed a certain
context to my arguments that woasn;t the case. I understand completely.
I entered this thread in an attempt to clarify an argument - at least,
to clarify what would be a misrepresentation of the argument from design
as it is understood in philosophical circles. I'm probably as much
guilty of misreading the original posters supposed context as anyone
else might me of misreading my supposed context.
As you may note from what I have written in this thread, I agree that
the scientific credentials of ID theory are weak - weaker than
evolutionary theory.
I'm discussing (among many other things) whether there is a place for
teaching ID explanation of biological phenomena in biology classes.
As what?
As a proposed explanation for biological phenomena - especially the
manifest fit between form and function.
If the class is covering ideas that pre-date Darwin and were
rejected by science 150 and more years ago (Hume wrote in the 18th C),
then Design certainly has a place. If the course is covering current
ideas there is too much valid science to teach to waste time pointing
out the flaws in all of the nonsensical ideas floating around.
Ahh - but that's the nub. Flaws are flaws only by this or that standard.
Science is flawed by the religious standard of coherence with the
revealed word of God. ID theory is flawed by the scientific standard of
making testable predictions. Your preference appears to presuppose that
the scientific standard is *the* only standard appropriate for
explaining biological phenomena.
ID remains a very current explanation for biological phenomena.
One additional point of note. Why do you think ID theorists should
*care* whether their theory gets to be called a "science". The answer, I
suspect, is that they recognise that "science" is not simply a
description of a practice but a priveliged badge of epistemic authority.
They are believers in scientism and they want the success of science
without first getting the achievements. Science gets its authority not
from God (AFAICT), not from a minister, not from a book, but from
daily accurate weather reports, from curing disease, from 80 story
buildings, from airplanes. Science has authority because it works.
Regarding weather reports, clearly you don't live where I do. (Did you
know that 'same as yesterday' in many places provides the most reliable
method for weather forecasting?)
But to return to the issue. That is not quite the basis of the authority
of science - i.e., because it works. That is the basis for the
*usefulness* of science. What I refer to is the *epistemic authority* of
science. The view that if science says X, then X is *true* and to be
bleieved. The view that anything that conclicts with science is *not
true* and not to be believed. Most people make an immediate inference
tfrom science working to science being true, but that's a contestible
inference.
It is a word that carries immense social authority these days - it
confers legitimacy to a theory. Science has started to monopolise
epistemic deference.
To the extent I understand your point (and I actually welcome
discussion on this issue), it has been given the monopoly because
scientific epistemology works.
You're partly right, imo. See above.
People hold claims to be true, because science says
so. Increasingly, it is the sole authority in matters of knowledge,
explanation, and fact.
When someone gets a better one I and others will switch. And I define
"better" here as more useful in the long run.
And usefulness involves such things as making accurate predictions.
Understood. But do you not think there is a difference between a true
belief and a useful belief? Some beliefs are very useful to have but
demonstrably false.
You're free to teach it as a philosophy, a religion, or a practical
joke. But you cannot simultaneously claim science is no more valid
than ID, and then beg for ID to be taught as science as a way of
validating it.
Two distinct issues. ID has only a weak claim to be a science.
It has a totally unsupported claim. Claims are easy, it is the support
that matters.
I'm curious now - given that your criterion is "usefulness" - what is so
useful about evolutionary theory, in your view?
It fails
at least most desiderata for scientific explanation and is clearly
inferior in scientific terms than evolutionary theory. That does not
entail that ID explanation is less *valid*, only that it is less
scientific.
Then it is inappropriate for it to be part of a science course.
Indeed, but is it inapropriate for a biology class? I.e., for a class
who chief goal is the investigation of biological phenomena and the
study of competing explanations for that phenomena? This is not
synonymous with a class in biological science, for science is only one
method of explaining biological phenomena. (Yes, I appreciate that your
preference is exclusively for those methods that yield accurate
predictions. But, as I've tried to point out, predictive capacity is
just one criterion for explanatory adequacy.) I am more pluralistic in
my explnatory criterion. I believe that there are equally valid
explanatory strategies that adopt different criteria - such as moral
significance, or coherence with religious orthodoxy, or simply coherence
with accepted beliefs. I suspect that there are no non-question-begging
or objective standards to appeal to to adjudicate which standard is
"better".
If you
or someone else wants to argue for ID is some other area then do so.
Put another way, ID theory would be less valid only by
supposing that science defines the domain of valid explanation for
natural phenomena.
Ah, now you are getting a bit more specific. I argue for science as
the most accurate, useful, and predictive (there is plenty of overlap
there, I happen to like sets of three adjectives) explanation for
natural phenomena. I don't know what "valid" means in this context.
Science defines its *own* domain, people are free to care or not care
about that domain. But science is, by both definition and action, the
best process in that domain. I say be definition because we define
science that way, if a better process is developed, we will abandon
the current scientific method and adopt that one.
(Once more with feeling): better by *what* standard?
But your basically right - science has its standards and it is
demonstrably very good at prediction. That makes it *very* useful. And
by that standard it is better.
(And by "accurate" do you mean "true"? Or do you just mean it delivers
the most accurate predications? The first is contentious precisely
because of the issues I've mentioned, the latter is obvious.)
I'm not inclined to subscribe to such a supposition.
I am not suggesting that ID should be taught as a science. I am
suggesting that biology classes should be open, at least in principle,
to discussing non-scientific explanations for natural phenomena.
Why? Biology is the *scientific* exploration of phenomena involving
life. Why open it up to non-scientific explanations? And if we do, why
limit ourselves to (Christian) Intelligent Design. There are thousands
of equally non-scientific explanations to present.
No, biology is the study of biological phenomena. Pure and simple. The
*science* called "biology" - biological science - is a partcular set of
methodologies and theories used to study and explain that phenomena.
What you are confusing is the domain of enquiry with the most
predictively successful mode for studying that domain.
The reason to open it up to non-scientific explanations is, in part,
because they are long-standing and (to varying degrees) widely held
putative explanations for the phenomena in question. I see nothing
wrong, and some merit, in exposing students of biology to a wide range
of candidate explanations for biological phenomena. Presenting students
with alternative possibilities and encouraging them to think about
alternative explanations to those accepted by this or that authority
strikes me as an important goal of education.
(Whether the 'in principle' is turned into 'in practice' I think hangs
at least largely on the wishes of parents.) In other words, I think
biology classes should be forums for the study of, and the discussion
of, biological phenomena and their competing explanations, not
necesarily simply forums for the transmission of scientific orthodoxy.
Then start off by saying "We have decided that we are not going to do
science in this class. We are going to discuss anything at all that
mentions life." Make it clear to all that you have stopped having a
science course. Otherwise you are trying to get the authority of
science for these other ideas.
But that would be a lie to announce that. Science is going to be studied
in such a class. Indeed, the vast majority of time might be spent doing
studying science. But, under my suggestion, not *only* science would be
studied.
I
think they are best viewed as *biology* classes, rather than biological
*science* classes.
And what is the standard of "best" here?
It's a judgment made on the basis of what *I* take to be the central
goal of a biology class - to study biological phenomena, and to examine
various of competing explanations for such phenomena. The standard used
is that class content should be taliored to satisfy its central goal. I
take the central goal for a biology class to be as above. YMMV
Do you think that more than
5% of the population would currently consider them non-science
courses?
I think that that is because of two reasons.
Firstly, because of how such classes *are* taught. De facto, they are
science classes when they teach only science. My claim is normative, not
descriptive. If you don't think that the goal of a biology class is as
suggested above, you may take a different view. But if you do share my
view about the central goal of a biology class, then they *ought* not to
be viewed as science classes (or at least not unless you take a certain
view on science as the only valid (legitimate) means of explanation for
such a subject).
Secondly, most people simply collapse the disitnction between the
*subject* of enquiry and the *methods and theories* used to explain that
subject. For exmaple, ask most people "what is 'physics'?" Almost
everyone will answer: "well its a *science*, of ocurse" (and they're
right). But then ask them: "what do physicists *study*?": "Well,
physics, of course!". (And, of course, they'd be wrong! Physicists don;t
study physics. They study certain basic natural phenomena; they don't
study their own science - that's left largely to philosophers and
historians of science.) This collapsed distinction occurs with probably
more than 95% of people. Oh well.
The creationists and ID proponents say they are science
courses, they just think (or claim) they have better science.
And here again: perhaps you might ask yourself *why* should it matter to
*you* what ID theory is taught *as*?
I know why. I believe that truth is important, that accurate
understanding of the physical world is an important substrate for
making other kinds of decisions.
And so do ID theorists!
I think it is dishonest to borrow the
deserved and earned authority of science for empty nonsense like ID.
Authority for pronouncemnts on truth?! Wherefrom does that authority
come? So far, you've argued that it is very useful (true), and that it
makes very accurate predications (true). But you have yet to argue that
either of these equates to or justifies special authority as to *truth*.
The arguments they propose are not
different, neither better nor worse, the education (in terms of content)
that a child receives is not different were they to have it taught to
them as religion.
That is nonsense. Context matters. It is quite a bit different for the
teacher who has just explained classical mechanics or some scientific
aspect of biology to then switch to a topic unsupported by
observation.
Different in what way?? Different in truth?? Or different only in that
it does not generate accurate predictions? Different only in that one
cannot use such knowledge ot build bridges? Different only in that it is
unssupported by observation (just like moral claims, for example).
You see, you're all the time suppose that in a science class you teach
knowledge (or our best approximation to it), whilst in other areas we
teach only opinion or belief, but nothing that *deserves* to be called
"knowledge". You seem to suppose the exclusive epistemic authority of
science - something which I question.
If it is not science then make it clear to all that it is
not science.
No argument there.
But that then brings up the question of what it is.
Explanation. Transmission of knowledge. Attempts to impart understanding
and skills.... many things. The label will matter only to the extent
that some labels are given weight over others.
If ID
is not science and if it is not religion (and I don't want any
government promoting any religious position), then what is it?
It is a putative explanation for certain biological phenomena. But that
is what evolutionary theory is as well.
But why do you feel the need to categorise it? Why not simply call it a
putative explanation? I suspect, it is because you wish to preserve the
label "science" as the a badge for the sole authority on natural fact.
If ID theory is not labelled in a way that suits that goal, the fdanger
might be that ID theory gets to have equal authority as to truth.
IMNSHO
if we strip out the pseudo or refuted science and we strip out the
religion we have nothing left of any value. I am open to hear someone
say something about design other than either "evolution can't do X" or
"the designer did it".
The answer, I suppose, is that you take "science" to
be a badge of supreme epistemic authority. And you think that ID theory
does not *deserve* such a badge of authority. Of course, I could be wrong.
ID does not deserve the badge because there is nothing there. It is an
error of equivocation to use the word theory here without making it
clear that the "theory" in "ID theory" has a different meaning than
that in science.
Hypothesis? Would you prefer that? I don't mind.
I think that science has tentatively earned the badge
of "supreme" available practical predictive system.
Ah yes. I agree. But that *not* what the authority at issue is about. It
is an *epistemic* authority - an authority for *knowledge*, for
(natural) *fact*, not merely for usefullness or predictability.
You are free to
choose another system or even try to convince me to change. But I am
rather convinced that if I step outside the window from the 40th floor
that science will give me the best prediction of the immediate
results.
And I won't try to persuade you otherwise. But the relevant issue is
akin to *why* that will happen, not *that* it will happen.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
19 Oct 2005 07:00:17 AM |
|
|
Goober wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 03:53:03 -0700, in alt.atheism , Goober
<go.away@nowhere.com> in <dj2k6k$f8s$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca>
wrote:
[snip]
I'm not responsible for the views of anyone else (idiots or
otherwise).
Yes and know. Of course you are only responsible for your own
views, but we have to be careful in these discussions to use
words clearly. Words such as "ID" and "Intelligent Design"
have contextual meaning, not just a particular narrow meaning
you may want at the moment. If you wish to say something about
"design", but not reference the current movement it is a good
idea to use different terms.
I understand. I operate within a context of philosophical
discussion, not Americal politics or American educational
poicy. I've expressed a few views on the latter, but only
because a number of people want ot talk about that and I had
some opinoins. My arguments and views relate to the former,
philosophical issue. I had hoped that was clear enough. With
that said, the argument to intelligent design is a venerable
philosoophical issue, at some distance from current poltical
movements in this or that North American country, and I see no
reason to change terms.
ID is neither science nor philsophy.
It is a pseidoscience at best, a trick
political/religous arguent at worst.
Basically, the Wedge Document shows it is an insincere,
dishonmest trick argument, as have numerous statements
by its proponenets. on one hand they argue insincerely
that it has nothing to do with god and in statements
tell us it is indeed about god and the god of biblical
Genesis.
This is lying. If ID was science, and its not,
it would be scientific fraud.
ID centers on one claim. That evolution cannot account
for certain observed phenomenon in the natural world.
But that is false. If one sees some detail of an organism
that cannot be told how it evolved, that does not mean it
did not evolve and cannot have evolved. That then is not
good reason to jump to ID, when they officially say no
details about D are known.
To do that, they would have to prove with quite hard evidence,
that in principle, these items can be proven to be impossible to
evolve.
That is a different matter. Behe and crew have not done
that. And so have no right to say these organs or features
cannot have evolved so we must theorize another mechanism.
After all, we cannot say how a designer could evolve.
Basically all of ID turns on one little example of
argument from ignorance. Because of that, it is
a failure as sceince, this would never pass a journal's
editors becaus eit is such a glaring, obvious error.
If an editor of a journal knew that the writer of an article made
a claim in his article (we make no theory about the nature
of the designer) but knew tha the writer had indeed made
comments elsewhere that he meant the god of biblical Genesis,
his article would be adjudged a bad case of scientific fraud.
Nor can one finesse th efact that this is neither science nor
honest nor competent with flowery hand wave prose about
philsophy.
It isn't philosophy either. Except in the manner of being
a bad claim based on dishonesty and a thing to be debunked
by elementary philosophy as the error it is.
An example of nonsense that is not philosophy.
Its pseudoscience with an agenda, and nothing more.
**********
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
20 Oct 2005 12:45:14 AM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
Goober wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 03:53:03 -0700, in alt.atheism , Goober
<go.away@nowhere.com> in <dj2k6k$f8s$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca>
wrote:
[snip]
I'm not responsible for the views of anyone else (idiots or
otherwise).
Yes and know. Of course you are only responsible for your own
views, but we have to be careful in these discussions to use
words clearly. Words such as "ID" and "Intelligent Design"
have contextual meaning, not just a particular narrow meaning
you may want at the moment. If you wish to say something about
"design", but not reference the current movement it is a good
idea to use different terms.
I understand. I operate within a context of philosophical
discussion, not Americal politics or American educational
poicy. I've expressed a few views on the latter, but only
because a number of people want ot talk about that and I had
some opinoins. My arguments and views relate to the former,
philosophical issue. I had hoped that was clear enough. With
that said, the argument to intelligent design is a venerable
philosoophical issue, at some distance from current poltical
movements in this or that North American country, and I see no
reason to change terms.
ID is neither science nor philsophy.
That depends on how you define philosophy. It is studied in philosophy
courses, both in intro courses and in philosophy of religion.
It is a pseidoscience at best, a trick
political/religous arguent at worst.
You're entitled to your opinion.
Basically, the Wedge Document shows it is an insincere,
dishonmest trick argument, as have numerous statements
by its proponenets. on one hand they argue insincerely
that it has nothing to do with god and in statements
tell us it is indeed about god and the god of biblical
Genesis.
We are clearly not talking about the same thing. I have no idea who you
are talking about. I am talking about the ID argument as classically
presented in Paley's "Natural Theology", published in the 19th century.
This is lying. If ID was science, and its not,
it would be scientific fraud.
I think you'll find that it's "If ID *were* science ..."
ID centers on one claim. That evolution cannot account
for certain observed phenomenon in the natural world.
Not quite. Some advocates state it in such terms but strictly speaking
it only requires that alternatives to ID are *weaker* explanations than
ID. It is an argument to the *best* explanation, not an argument to the
*only* possible explaination.
But that is false.
It may well be.
If one sees some detail of an organism
that cannot be told how it evolved, that does not mean it
did not evolve and cannot have evolved.
Indeed it doesn't, but if that happens then it counts against the
explanation.
That then is not
good reason to jump to ID, when they officially say no
details about D are known.
I am not talking about "they" - whoever "they" are. I am talking about
ID theory as chracterised above and elsewhere in my posts. In any case,
such failure to explain as you mention would count against evolutionary
theory and in favour of ID theory so long as ID theory has an
explanation for such phenomena.
To do that, they would have to prove with quite hard evidence,
that in principle, these items can be proven to be impossible to
evolve.
No not at all. You misunderstand the issue if you think that. An
inference to the explanation (which both ID and evolution theory are)
does not have to eliminate all other possibilities to be the best
explanation.
That is a different matter. Behe and crew have not done
that. And so have no right to say these organs or features
cannot have evolved so we must theorize another mechanism.
I've still no idea who you are talking about. Moreover, I don't really
care. I'm only reponsible for defending my own claims, not anyone
else's. And in case you haven't noticed, I'm not arguing that ID is the
best explanation. I started in on this issue to clarify the arguments,
not to settle them.
After all, we cannot say how a designer could evolve.
Sure we can - we are designers and we evolved, and we have a good theory
for how these particular designers evolved. But if you are refering to
the putative intelligent designer of the ID argument, there is no
presumption or suggestion in the ID argument that it evolved (nor that
it was created).
Basically all of ID turns on one little example of
argument from ignorance.
I completely disagree. Have you read any of Paley's "Natural Theology"?
Because of that, it is
a failure as sceince, this would never pass a journal's
editors becaus eit is such a glaring, obvious error.
To fail as science is not to fail as explanation. That has been one of
my central points.
If an editor of a journal knew that the writer of an article made
a claim in his article (we make no theory about the nature
of the designer) but knew tha the writer had indeed made
comments elsewhere that he meant the god of biblical Genesis,
his article would be adjudged a bad case of scientific fraud.
Perhaps. But that is not the issue since it does not pertain to the ID
argument I've been discussing. Neither have I suggested that ID
qualifies as good science.
Nor can one finesse th efact that this is neither science nor
honest nor competent with flowery hand wave prose about
philsophy.
It isn't philosophy either.
Would it make any difference if it were pointed out to you that it is
regularly discussed in philosophy classes?
Except in the manner of being
a bad claim based on dishonesty and a thing to be debunked
by elementary philosophy as the error it is.
An example of nonsense that is not philosophy.
Please read Paley. Or else read me - I explain it elsewhere. There is no
dishonesty in Paley's argument. His reasoning may be faulty, but that's
another issue. I think you will find it is not what you think. You're
view of the ID argument appears to be filtered through and jaundiced by
American political issues and certain advicates ID who may not know what
the ID argument really is. They're entitled to make their own arguments,
but if you'd like to deal with the issue and arguments *I* raise that
would be more interesting for me and much more relevant to my posts.
Its pseudoscience with an agenda, and nothing more.
The status of ID theory as a "science" is really not the point. Clearly,
it fails many or most of the central desiderata of science.
(Evolutionary fails some as well, but that's not the point either.) The
central point is which is the better explanation for the phenomena. I've
argued that that is a judgement call based on what criteria one brings
to evaluating an expanation. Science has it's criteria, but much
explanation used in everyday explanation (not just by religionists) is
judged by non-scientific criteria.
**********
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
20 Oct 2005 03:34:03 AM |
|
|
Goober wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Goober wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 03:53:03 -0700, in alt.atheism , Goober
<go.away@nowhere.com> in
<dj2k6k$f8s$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca>
wrote:
[snip]
I'm not responsible for the views of anyone else (idiots or
otherwise).
Yes and know. Of course you are only responsible for your own
views, but we have to be careful in these discussions to use
words clearly. Words such as "ID" and "Intelligent Design"
have contextual meaning, not just a particular narrow meaning
you may want at the moment. If you wish to say something
about "design", but not reference the current movement it is
a good idea to use different terms.
I understand. I operate within a context of philosophical
discussion, not Americal politics or American educational
poicy. I've expressed a few views on the latter, but only
because a number of people want ot talk about that and I had
some opinoins. My arguments and views relate to the former,
philosophical issue. I had hoped that was clear enough. With
that said, the argument to intelligent design is a venerable
philosoophical issue, at some distance from current poltical
movements in this or that North American country, and I see no
reason to change terms.
ID is neither science nor philsophy.
That depends on how you define philosophy. It is studied in
philosophy courses, both in intro courses and in philosophy of
religion.
It is a pseidoscience at best, a trick
political/religous arguent at worst.
You're entitled to your opinion.
Facts. ID is no more science than Lysenkoism,
Creationism, or tarot card reading.
It is a classical example of pseuoscience.
Not an opinion, a fact.
Basically, the Wedge Document shows it is an insincere,
dishonmest trick argument, as have numerous statements
by its proponents. on one hand they argue insincerely
that it has nothing to do with god and in statements
tell us it is indeed about god and the god of biblical
Genesis.
We are clearly not talking about the same thing. I have no idea
who you are talking about. I am talking about the ID argument
as classically presented in Paley's "Natural Theology",
published in the 19th century.
I am taking about ID, creationisms
newest clothes.
This is lying. If ID was science, and its not,
it would be scientific fraud.
I think you'll find that it's "If ID *were* science ..."
ID centers on one claim. That evolution cannot account
for certain observed phenomenon in the natural world.
Not quite. Some advocates state it in such terms but strictly
speaking it only requires that alternatives to ID are *weaker*
explanations than ID. It is an argument to the *best*
explanation, not an argument to the *only* possible
explaination.
But that is false.
It may well be.
If one sees some detail of an organism
that cannot be told how it evolved, that does not mean it
did not evolve and cannot have evolved.
Indeed it doesn't, but if that happens then it counts against
the explanation.
That then is not
good reason to jump to ID, when they officially say no
details about D are known.
I am not talking about "they" - whoever "they" are. I am
talking about ID theory as chracterised above and elsewhere in
my posts. In any case, such failure to explain as you mention
would count against evolutionary theory and in favour of ID
theory so long as ID theory has an explanation for such
phenomena.
To do that, they would have to prove with quite hard evidence,
that in principle, these items can be proven to be impossible
to evolve.
No not at all. You misunderstand the issue if you think that.
An inference to the explanation (which both ID and evolution
theory are) does not have to eliminate all other possibilities
to be the best explanation.
That is a different matter. Behe and crew have not done
that. And so have no right to say these organs or features
cannot have evolved so we must theorize another mechanism.
I've still no idea who you are talking about. Moreover, I don't
really care. I'm only reponsible for defending my own claims,
not anyone else's. And in case you haven't noticed, I'm not
arguing that ID is the best explanation. I started in on this
issue to clarify the arguments, not to settle them.
After all, we cannot say how a designer could evolve.
Sure we can - we are designers and we evolved, and we have a
good theory for how these particular designers evolved. But if
you are refering to the putative intelligent designer of the ID
argument, there is no presumption or suggestion in the ID
argument that it evolved (nor that it was created).
Basically all of ID turns on one little example of
argument from ignorance.
I completely disagree. Have you read any of Paley's "Natural
Theology"?
Because of that, it is
a failure as sceince, this would never pass a journal's
editors becaus eit is such a glaring, obvious error.
To fail as science is not to fail as explanation. That has been
one of my central points.
If an editor of a journal knew that the writer of an article
made a claim in his article (we make no theory about the
nature of the designer) but knew tha the writer had indeed
made comments elsewhere that he meant the god of biblical
Genesis, his article would be adjudged a bad case of
scientific fraud.
Perhaps. But that is not the issue since it does not pertain to
the ID argument I've been discussing. Neither have I suggested
that ID qualifies as good science.
Nor can one finesse th efact that this is neither science nor
honest nor competent with flowery hand wave prose about
philsophy.
It isn't philosophy either.
Would it make any difference if it were pointed out to you that
it is regularly discussed in philosophy classes?
Except in the manner of being
a bad claim based on dishonesty and a thing to be debunked
by elementary philosophy as the error it is.
An example of nonsense that is not philosophy.
Please read Paley. Or else read me - I explain it elsewhere.
There is no dishonesty in Paley's argument. His reasoning may
be faulty, but that's another issue. I think you will find it
is not what you think. You're view of the ID argument appears
to be filtered through and jaundiced by American political
issues and certain advicates ID who may not know what the ID
argument really is. They're entitled to make their own
arguments, but if you'd like to deal with the issue and
arguments *I* raise that would be more interesting for me and
much more relevant to my posts.
Its pseudoscience with an agenda, and nothing more.
The status of ID theory as a "science" is really not the point.
Clearly, it fails many or most of the central desiderata of
science. (Evolutionary fails some as well, but that's not the
point either.) The central point is which is the better
explanation for the phenomena. I've argued that that is a
judgement call based on what criteria one brings to evaluating
an expanation. Science has it's criteria, but much explanation
used in everyday explanation (not just by religionists) is
judged by non-scientific criteria.
**********
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
21 Oct 2005 04:32:27 AM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
Goober wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Goober wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 03:53:03 -0700, in alt.atheism , Goober
<go.away@nowhere.com> in
<dj2k6k$f8s$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca>
wrote:
[snip]
I'm not responsible for the views of anyone else (idiots or
otherwise).
Yes and know. Of course you are only responsible for your own
views, but we have to be careful in these discussions to use
words clearly. Words such as "ID" and "Intelligent Design"
have contextual meaning, not just a particular narrow meaning
you may want at the moment. If you wish to say something
about "design", but not reference the current movement it is
a good idea to use different terms.
I understand. I operate within a context of philosophical
discussion, not Americal politics or American educational
poicy. I've expressed a few views on the latter, but only
because a number of people want ot talk about that and I had
some opinoins. My arguments and views relate to the former,
philosophical issue. I had hoped that was clear enough. With
that said, the argument to intelligent design is a venerable
philosoophical issue, at some distance from current poltical
movements in this or that North American country, and I see no
reason to change terms.
ID is neither science nor philsophy.
That depends on how you define philosophy. It is studied in
philosophy courses, both in intro courses and in philosophy of
religion.
It is a pseidoscience at best, a trick
political/religous arguent at worst.
You're entitled to your opinion.
Facts. ID is no more science than Lysenkoism,
Creationism, or tarot card reading.
It is a classical example of pseuoscience.
Not an opinion, a fact.
And you're entitled to your opinion about that as well.
Basically, the Wedge Document shows it is an insincere,
dishonmest trick argument, as have numerous statements
by its proponents. on one hand they argue insincerely
that it has nothing to do with god and in statements
tell us it is indeed about god and the god of biblical
Genesis.
We are clearly not talking about the same thing. I have no idea
who you are talking about. I am talking about the ID argument
as classically presented in Paley's "Natural Theology",
published in the 19th century.
I am taking about ID, creationisms
newest clothes.
And I am talking about the argument from design - i.e., the argument for
an intelligent designer as presented, classically, by Paley and Aquinas.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Altarriba" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
20 Oct 2005 01:20:50 AM |
|
|
Goober wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Goober wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 03:53:03 -0700, in alt.atheism , Goober
<go.away@nowhere.com> in <dj2k6k$f8s$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca>
wrote:
<snip>
Alan Sokal, is that you? Will this one be called "Transgressing the
Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Evolutionary
Theory" ?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: ID and Science |
20 Oct 2005 07:50:00 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:45:14 -0700, in alt.atheism , Goober
<go.away@nowhere.com> in <dj7ath$5o8$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca> wrote:
wbarwell wrote:
Goober wrote:
[snip]
ID is neither science nor philsophy.
That depends on how you define philosophy. It is studied in philosophy
courses, both in intro courses and in philosophy of religion.
I think you are playing games where with what ID refers to. This is
because the proponents are working for this Big Tent notion. Certainly
Behe's designer of irreducible complexity and Dembski's designer of
specified complex information are not studied in those courses.
It is a pseidoscience at best, a trick
political/religous arguent at worst.
You're entitled to your opinion.
Basically, the Wedge Document shows it is an insincere,
dishonmest trick argument, as have numerous statements
by its proponenets. on one hand they argue insincerely
that it has nothing to do with god and in statements
tell us it is indeed about god and the god of biblical
Genesis.
We are clearly not talking about the same thing. I have no idea who you
are talking about. I am talking about the ID argument as classically
presented in Paley's "Natural Theology", published in the 19th century.
Which was already refuted by Hume before Paley even wrote. ID is
unsatisfying as a philosophic concept, we don't even have to discuss
observations and science.
We are not talking about the same thing. The current ID proponents
claim they have new ideas, not ideas that were rejected hundreds of
years ago. Behe even thinks he had one of the greatest scientific
discoveries of all time.
This is lying. If ID was science, and its not,
it would be scientific fraud.
I think you'll find that it's "If ID *were* science ..."
ID centers on one claim. That evolution cannot account
for certain observed phenomenon in the natural world.
Not quite. Some advocates state it in such terms but strictly speaking
it only requires that alternatives to ID are *weaker* explanations than
ID. It is an argument to the *best* explanation, not an argument to the
*only* possible explaination.
Since ID is no explanation at all it would be hard to be weaker. It
can't be parsimonious, for one thing. For another it is an
omni-explanation, it explains everything, observed or not, equally
well.
[snip]
That then is not
good reason to jump to ID, when they officially say no
details about D are known.
I am not talking about "they" - whoever "they" are. I am talking about
ID theory as chracterised above and elsewhere in my posts. In any case,
such failure to explain as you mention would count against evolutionary
theory and in favour of ID theory so long as ID theory has an
explanation for such phenomena.
No, it does not count in favor of ID, you have to get that
independently. You can't present ID as the default and evidence
against something else becomes evidence for ID.
To do that, they would have to prove with quite hard evidence,
that in principle, these items can be proven to be impossible to
evolve.
No not at all. You misunderstand the issue if you think that. An
inference to the explanation (which both ID and evolution theory are)
does not have to eliminate all other possibilities to be the best
explanation.
One of the "best" arguments today for ID is that thing X could not
evolve so it was designed. That is the argument presented for ID
whether or not you might like it. The simple fact is that ID is an
entirely empty concept, it was empty when Paley wrote about it and it
is empty now.
That is a different matter. Behe and crew have not done
| | | | | | |
