Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Humpty

Darwinian Debating Device #9: “The Humpty Dumpty Gambit”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The essence of the Humpty Dumpty gambit, of which Elizabeth Liddle is a master, is treating words as if they are infinitely malleable.

 

In my Demands of Charity post Elizabeth Liddle writes: “My beef is not against inferring design; it’s against inferring intentional design from the pattern exhibited by an object alone and refusing to investigate what other processes, including non-intentional “design” process are also candidates.”

In one sentence Ms. Liddle has used a patently absurd oxymoron and grossly misrepresented the ID project. Let’s see how:


Ms. Liddle refers to “non-intentional ‘design'” without seeming to realize that the phrase is a self referentially incoherent oxymoron. The World English Dictionary defines “design” as follows:

Verb
1. to work out the structure or form of (something), as by making a sketch, outline, pattern, or plans
2. to plan and make (something) artistically or skillfully
3. ( tr ) to form or conceive in the mind; invent
4. ( tr ) to intend, as for a specific purpose; plan
5. obsolete ( tr ) to mark out or designate Noun
6. a plan, sketch, or preliminary drawing
7. the arrangement or pattern of elements or features of an artistic or decorative work: the design of the desk is Chippendale
8. a finished artistic or decorative creation
9. the art of designing 10. a plan, scheme, or project 11. an end aimed at or planned for; intention; purpose
12. ( often plural; often foll by on or against ) a plot or hostile scheme, often to gain possession of (something) by illegitimate means
13. a coherent or purposeful pattern, as opposed to chaos: God’s design appears in nature 14. philosophy argument from design another name for teleological argument

What is common to all of these senses of the word “design”? You guessed it: intentionality. Thus, the phrase “unintentional design” is akin to “red blueness” or, perhaps better, “correct error.”

Elizabeth, no amount of scare quotes around the word design will save the phrase. It is a linguistic nullity.

Elizabeth might respond, that with her scare quotes she can make the word mean anything she wants it to mean, even its opposite. This, of course, is the Humpty Dumpty approach to language.

[Humpty Dumpty says to Alice]: ‘And only one for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!’
‘I don’t know what you mean by “glory”,’ Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘
‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”,’ Alice objected.
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’

Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll

Here is how Ms. Liddle channels Humpty:

Elizabeth said, ‘Mindless forces with no end in mind are responsible for the design of all living things.’
‘I don’t know what you mean by ‘design’ in that sentence,’ Barry said.
Elizabeth smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant “non-intentional design!”‘
‘But’ “non-intentional design” is an oxymoron, because intentionality is inherent in the word design,’ Barry objected.
‘When I use a word, ‘Elizabeth said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less, and if I want to use “design” to describe a process that has no intentionality, who is to stop me?’
‘The question is,’ said Barry, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Elizabeth, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’

Yesterday, Ms. Liddle told me that if I received a radio signal from outer space that specified the prime numbers between 1 and 100, I would have no warrant to be certain the signal was designed by an intelligent agent. Today, she tells me that “non-intentional design” is a meaningful concept. Ms. Liddle, thank you for your contributions to this blog on behalf of our opponents.

Finally, a word about the how Ms. Liddle has grossly misrepresented the ID project. She says the ID community refuses “to investigate what other processes,” that might account for the data. Rubbish. I would direct Ms. Liddle to The Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe, in which Dr. Behe explores the limits of Darwinian evolution. To sum up the book in a sentence: “Researches observed in the lab literally trillions of reproductive events by bacteria under intense selection pressure. The bacteria did not develop any significant new biological information.”

Ms. Liddle: News flash. ID proponents have not refused to investigation Darwinian processes. In fact, ID proponents have investigated these processes thoroughly and found that they are indeed responsible for minor variations in phenotype and genotype. These same investigations have revealed, however, that Darwinian processes, even over trillions of reproductive events, do not result in major changes in phenotype and genotype as Darwinists claim.

Comments
Mung: It seems that we share some insane curiosity about the meaning of REC's post! :)gpuccio
October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT
REC: A few questions about your #109: a) What is "my scale"? I have given numbers and their base 2 log. I was not aware that it was "my scale". b) What are the "total saved data of all humanity". It is not exactly clear what you mean. If you mean anything. c) Why 73 bits? d) Why "probabilistic resources"? Although I don't understand what you mean by "total saved data of all humanity", data are data, and not "probabilistic resources". For your understanding, the probabilistic resources in a random system are the number of random events that take place in that system in a given time span. So, if I toss a fair coin for one hour 100 times, my probabilistic resources are 2^100, which can be express as a base 2 log as 100 bits. If I record the 100 results, then I have 100 bits of data. But probabilistic resources are not "saved data". Please, clarify. e) Certainly, I don't think that "organisms evolve by a complete and comprehensive search of sequence space". I think that they evolve by design. What neo darwinists like to think is not completely clear, and it depends on the emphasis each one gives to the relative components of their "algorithm". The fans of NS seem to believe that organisms evolve by some very limited search of the sequence space which gives very simple modifications on which the magic wand of NS builds castles of information. The fans of RV seem to believe that the sequence space is so repleted of functions that there is no problem at all in finding the right functional sequences there, so that NS can just "refine" them a little. Most interlocutors simply shift from one position to the other when they are faced with the facts that: 1) There is no logical or empirical support to the magic wand effect of NS 2) The sequence space is not repleted of functional sequences at all. What about you?gpuccio
October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT
REC:
..and if anyone thinks organisms evolve by a complete and comprehensive search of sequence space…..
What? There haven't been enough organisms to search sequence space? There's not been enough time to search sequence space? There's no such thing as sequence space? Organisms evolve, but not by searching sequence space. Organisms evolve by searching sequence space, but not by a complete and comprehensive search of sequence space. What?Mung
October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
"That is about 137 bits of probabilistic resources." “If you want to impress with numbers, please give the real numbers.” Indeed. On your scale, the total saved data of all humanity is what....73 bits of "probabilistic resources?" So yes, let us think on the real numbers, and if anyone thinks organisms evolve by a complete and comprehensive search of sequence space.....REC
October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT
It's important to be able to distinguish evolutionary evidences from evolutionary arguments.Mung
October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
You have to remind yourself that you're challenging their god: Natural Selection. If it's alive than their god created it. All he needs is time. This is why their arguments for why one should not/cannot infer design are always so absurd and contradictory to everyday common sense. They are simply exercising extreme irrational faith in their god of natural selection, and dressing it up in the garb of a rational argument. Their arguments for this stance will never make sense, and you can not hope that they ever will, or by some feat of teeth-pulling you will ever extract some true rationale out of them on this point. They just consider the idea of life being designed to be a blasphemy, simple as that. And they can't find it in themselves to be able to admit it, hence the irrational babbling of why design shouldn't be inferred for some absurd reason they made up.lifepsy
October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
The bottom line of the above exchange between Mung and gpuccio is in gpuccio's statement: "If you want to impress with numbers, please give the real numbers."Dionisio
October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT
Here's an example of persuasive rebuttal using a substantial amount of convincing scientific evidential information:
Mung clearly stated: “There were A LOT more bacteria in the past. How many, you ask? How many are needed to make Darwinism plausible? That’s how many.”
Here's an example of an intelligent person who analyzes the information provided by his interlocutor, then humbly admits his calculation mistakes, and even reinforces the original arguments presented by his interlocutor!
gpuccio responded: Thanks for reminding me, sometimes I forget! :) And they certainly replicated much more quickly. And there were many more mutations per genome per replication. And there were certainly many more minutes in a hour. And the mutations were guided… Ah, no! That would be design! There is certainly no need for that. :)
:) Guys, your posts have made me laugh out loud! Thanks.Dionisio
October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT
gpuccio @ 100
10^30 bacteria 4 billion years Mean reproduction time 30 minutes Mean mutation rate 0.003 mutations per genome per generation. Reasonable assumptions. That means about 2e41 mutations (new testable states) in all bacteria in the whole life of our planet. That is about 137 bits of probabilistic resources. Nor exactly an amazing number. Not enough even for a fixed sequence of 35 AAs (150 bits). If you want to impress with numbers, please give the real numbers.
:)Dionisio
October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT
Posts #100 through 102 show how Mung easily convinced gpuccio -in a very friendly but persuasive way- to correct his calculation errors and finally understand that the powerful formula RM+NS+T does work! :) PS. I think RM is also known as RV, isn't it? Their three posts 100, 101, 102 -in that same sequence- should become an example of how discussions should be conducted in a friendly manner. :) The rest of us should learn from them. :)Dionisio
October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT
Mung: "There were A LOT more bacteria in the past. How many, you ask? How many are needed to make Darwinism plausible? That’s how many." Thanks for reminding me, sometimes I forget! :) And they certainly replicated much more quickly. And there were many more mutations per genome per replication. And there were certainly many more minutes in a hour. And the mutations were guided... Ah, no! That would be design! There is certainly no need for that. :)gpuccio
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT
gpuccio, there were A LOT more bacteria in the past. How many, you ask? How many are needed to make Darwinism plausible? That's how many.Mung
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
REC: 10^30 bacteria 4 billion years Mean reproduction time 30 minutes Mean mutation rate 0.003 mutations per genome per generation. Reasonable assumptions. That means about 2e41 mutations (new testable states) in all bacteria in the whole life of our planet. That is about 137 bits of probabilistic resources. Nor exactly an amazing number. Not enough even for a fixed sequence of 35 AAs (150 bits). If you want to impress with numbers, please give the real numbers.gpuccio
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
Let me try again. My apologies for the bad formatted of #98
Barry: Well, Ms. Liddle, in any of those clarifications do you concede that if you were to receive a radio signal from outer space that specified the prime numbers between 1 and 100 you could be certain the signal was designed by an intelligent agent? Elizebeth Liddle: No, I do not concede that. I might consider it highly likely though. But certainty is something that science doesn’t have the privilege of having. All conclusions in science are provisional, and most come with “confidence intervals”.
Sure, sure. Now, let’s say we humans did receive a radio signal from deep space that contained the primes between 1 and 100, and let’s say there was someone who had an absolute knowledge whether the signal was generated by a non-rational process or was generated by an intelligent process, and let’s say this person put a gun to your head and demanded you make a choice as to the correct answer, and if you answered wrong he would blow your noggin off. Which would you choose?Vishnu
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
Barry: Well, Ms. Liddle, in any of those clarifications do you concede that if you were to receive a radio signal from outer space that specified the prime numbers between 1 and 100 you could be certain the signal was designed by an intelligent agent? Elizebeth Lidde: No, I do not concede that. I might consider it highly likely though. But certainty is something that science doesn’t have the privilege of having. All conclusions in science are provisional, and most come with “confidence intervals”. Sure, sure. Now, let's say we humans did receive a radio signal from deep space that contained the primes between 1 and 100, and let's say there was someone who had an absolute knowledge whether the signal was generated by a non-rational process or was generated by an intelligent process, and let's say this person put a gun to your head and demanded you make a choice as to the correct answer, and if you answered wrong he would blow your noggin off. Which would you choose?
Vishnu
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
REC:
I think EL’s “intentional” design by an agent vs. the appearance of design, or design by evolution is one we’re all familiar with.
Unguided evolution cannot design anything. So either EL is equivocating or is just confused. Also there still isn't any evidence that bacteria can evolve into something other than bacteria. So no, bacteria haven't done anything interesting at all.Joe
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
It is interesting to browse these old discussions, and realize how few of the participants are active on UD today. Are these meant to be discussion starters? I think EL's "intentional" design by an agent vs. the appearance of design, or design by evolution is one we're all familiar with. “Researches observed in the lab literally trillions of reproductive events by bacteria under intense selection pressure. The bacteria did not develop any significant new biological information.” And that is the heart of Behe's problem. 10^9 bacteria have done some interesting things in the lab in short timeframes. Now take the 10^30 (bacteria alone) actually in the world and their reproductive events times billions of years?REC
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
Yes, Ilion, of course I think about it. I have thought about it for several years. If you say something a little more specific, I could respond to it.avocationist
August 16, 2011
August
08
Aug
16
16
2011
01:58 AM
1
01
58
AM
PDT
OOL researchers is a misnomer. They are reverse engineering design processes. xp The research is real, the purported goal unobtainable. The origin of life is a singular event locked behind the veil history. Their research is practical, not historical. They are biological design engineers.material.infantacy
August 15, 2011
August
08
Aug
15
15
2011
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
No, I meant what they actually do. In their labs.Elizabeth Liddle
August 15, 2011
August
08
Aug
15
15
2011
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT
They apparently spend their lives looking for something without knowing whether it exists, despite having good reason to conclude that it doesn't. That's all fine until someone calls it "progress." Toward what? You can't make progress without a goal, and we haven't a shred of evidence that the goal exists. It's an open-ended quest to substantiate a belief that rests wholly on faith.ScottAndrews
August 15, 2011
August
08
Aug
15
15
2011
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
I'm a bit curious as to what you think OOL researchers do all day :) You make them sound like alchemists.Elizabeth Liddle
August 15, 2011
August
08
Aug
15
15
2011
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
The "treasure" is the discovery of undirected abiogenesis. Every time someone says they're "making progress" they are actually expressing their faith that there is something to make progress toward.ScottAndrews
August 15, 2011
August
08
Aug
15
15
2011
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
So as to keep my head on straight (through the metaphor madness): The "treasure" is the first cell? Is it an RNA sequence? DNA? Or is "treasure" a variable such as the slope "m" you might find in y = mx + b?ciphertext
August 15, 2011
August
08
Aug
15
15
2011
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
There's progress towards an inference, and there's progress against an inference, and finally progress on general biology knowledge minus an inference. These are the three types of progress. The word "progress" is presented in the wrong context probably more than any other word in science.lamarck
August 15, 2011
August
08
Aug
15
15
2011
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
I wonder, do you ever stop to think about the totality of what you say or believe on these matters? I'm thinking specifically of (to paraphrase) "everything is God" and "Jehovah is a mean old son-of-a-bitch, who cannot be the real God".Ilion
August 15, 2011
August
08
Aug
15
15
2011
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
Shapiro also said:
The analogy that comes to mind is that of a golfer, who having played a golf ball through an 18-hole course, then assumed that the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence. He had demonstrated the possibility of the event; it was only necessary to presume that some combination of natural forces (earthquakes, winds, tornadoes and floods, for example) could produce the same result, given enough time. No physical law need be broken for spontaneous RNA formation to happen, but the chances against it are so immense, that the suggestion implies that the non-living world had an innate desire to generate RNA. The majority of origin-of-life scientists who still support the RNA-first theory either accept this concept (implicitly, if not explicitly) or feel that the immensely unfavorable odds were simply overcome by good luck.
We have via Venter, proof of concept of intelligent design of life forms, and a method that credibly would work.kairosfocus
August 15, 2011
August
08
Aug
15
15
2011
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle: I have highlighted the Orgel-Shapiro exhcange on OOL and its significance above on no 62, here. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 15, 2011
August
08
Aug
15
15
2011
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
Let me clip the exchange between Shapiro (metab first) and Orgel (genes first/RNA world) in the past several years on the REAL state of OOL studies, from the IOSE discussion here: __________________ >> [[Shapiro:] RNA's building blocks, nucleotides contain a sugar, a phosphate and one of four nitrogen-containing bases as sub-subunits. Thus, each RNA nucleotide contains 9 or 10 carbon atoms, numerous nitrogen and oxygen atoms and the phosphate group, all connected in a precise three-dimensional pattern . . . . [[S]ome writers have presumed that all of life's building could be formed with ease in Miller-type experiments and were present in meteorites and other extraterrestrial bodies. This is not the case. A careful examination of the results of the analysis of several meteorites led the scientists who conducted the work to a different conclusion: inanimate nature has a bias toward the formation of molecules made of fewer rather than greater numbers of carbon atoms, and thus shows no partiality in favor of creating the building blocks of our kind of life . . . . To rescue the RNA-first concept from this otherwise lethal defect, its advocates have created a discipline called prebiotic synthesis. They have attempted to show that RNA and its components can be prepared in their laboratories in a sequence of carefully controlled reactions, normally carried out in water at temperatures observed on Earth . . . . Unfortunately, neither chemists nor laboratories were present on the early Earth to produce RNA . . . [[Orgel:] If complex cycles analogous to metabolic cycles could have operated on the primitive Earth, before the appearance of enzymes or other informational polymers, many of the obstacles to the construction of a plausible scenario for the origin of life would disappear . . . . It must be recognized that assessment of the feasibility of any particular proposed prebiotic cycle must depend on arguments about chemical plausibility, rather than on a decision about logical possibility . . . few would believe that any assembly of minerals on the primitive Earth is likely to have promoted these syntheses in significant yield . . . . Why should one believe that an ensemble of minerals that are capable of catalyzing each of the many steps of [[for instance] the reverse citric acid cycle was present anywhere on the primitive Earth [[8], or that the cycle mysteriously organized itself topographically on a metal sulfide surface [[6]? . . . Theories of the origin of life based on metabolic cycles cannot be justified by the inadequacy of competing theories: they must stand on their own . . . . The prebiotic syntheses that have been investigated experimentally almost always lead to the formation of complex mixtures. Proposed polymer replication schemes are unlikely to succeed except with reasonably pure input monomers. No solution of the origin-of-life problem will be possible until the gap between the two kinds of chemistry is closed. Simplification of product mixtures through the self-organization of organic reaction sequences, whether cyclic or not, would help enormously, as would the discovery of very simple replicating polymers. However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help. [[Emphases added.] >> __________________ To show that OOL is actually making real progress instead of spinning the wheels in the muddy ditch more and more and digging in deeper by the minute, it would be necessary to answer the set of issues just clipped and those in the onward linked. It is fair comment to note that this is exactly what has not happened. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 15, 2011
August
08
Aug
15
15
2011
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
Just, please, ensure that the unpacking is not an obfuscated (and perhaps unacknowledged or even unrecognised) elimination. I draw attention to Eng Derek Smith's architecture here, as cybernetics and controls applied to robotics have a lot to teach us on this matter.kairosfocus
August 15, 2011
August
08
Aug
15
15
2011
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply