Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Everything You Believe Is Based on Personal Experience and Testimony

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In other threads, certain people have claimed that personal experience and testimony are not as valid as other forms of evidence. In fact, some would dismiss thousands of years and the accumulation of perhaps billions of witness/experiencer testimonies because, in their view, personal experience and testimony is not really even evidence at all.

The problem with this position is that everything one knows and or believes is gained either through  (1) personal experience (and extrapolation thereof), or (2) testimony (and examination thereof), for the simple fact that if you did not experience X, the only information you can possibly have about X is from the testimony of others.

In a courtroom, for example, the entire case depends on testimony, even when there is physical evidence, because the jury relies upon the testimony of those that produce and explain what the physical evidence is, how it is relevant, and explains why it is important to the case. Unless the jurors are swabbing cheeks and conducting DNA tests themselves, the DNA evidence is in principle nothing more than the testimony of an expert witness. The jurors have no means of ascertaining the DNA “facts” for themselves; they entirely rely upon the testimony of what they assume to be a highly credible witness.

When a gun is entered into evidence, it is a meaningless fact – it’s a gun. The jurors rely entirely upon the testimony of law officers to inform them where the gun was found, if it was the right caliber, who owned it, etc. All of that information is presented through testimony.

Further, establishing motive and opportunity are forms of logical arguments, established via testimony, which counts as evidence.

Similarly, unless one is a research scientist in fields where one believes certain theories to be valid, he is (and we are as well) entirely dependent upon testimonial evidence – found in the form of research papers, books and articles written by such scientists. “Peer review” is nothing more to the reader than the testimomy of supposedly credible sources that the testimony of the authors is not blatantly false or contain factual errors.

Outside of what we personally experience, virtually all of our knowledge comes from testimony delivered via some form of media or another. We consider the source of the testimony, and the media it is delivered through, credible or non-credible to one degree or another – but that doesn’t change the fact that when we read or hear it, it is nothing more than testimony. If you are a scientist conducting research, you are personally experiencing the process and accumulation of data.  Beyond that, it is only testimony to others unless they perform the same experiments.  Often, the conclusions of scientific research hinge upon the testimony of other researchers, which may turn out to be fraudulent or mistaken.

So, when anyone says that testimony and personal experience are dismissible forms of evidence, they are obviously using (consciously or not) selective (and logically incoherent) hyperskepticism against an unwanted idea, because everything any of us believe or call ‘knowledge” is gained/extrapolated (hopefully using logic and logical arguments) via personal experience and/or information gained via testimony.

Comments
Jerad:
Are you saying all the extinct animals present in the fossil record were not intelligently designed?
No one says that all organisms were intelligently designed. Most would be descendants of the originally designed populations.
Well, you said the Weasel program was a good model for intelligent design evolution.
And I explained why, so my job is finished. Apparently you cannot understand my explanation. That is not my fault nor my problem.Joe
April 13, 2015
April
04
Apr
13
13
2015
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
Joe #145 LoL! That is the question your position needs to answer. Are you saying all the extinct animals present in the fossil record were not intelligently designed? Who said anything about the designer keeping anything? Well, you said the Weasel program was a good model for intelligent design evolution. So, since the Weasel program weeds out variation that is further away from the ultimate goal then who/what is doing the weeding out in intelligent design evolution? Some of the less desired variants may be completely viable after all. LoL! If an asteroid killed them off then we would see the fossils in and above the impact boundary. Yet we do not. I'll just let that comment go. Again no one said the designer is doing anything. And I would say that terraforming is important. You appear to be ignorant. Then who or what is doing the selecting of variations as happens in the weasel program which you said was a good model for intelligent design evolution. By why mechanism are variants closer to the goal singled out and allowed to reproduce more in the next generation as happens in the program? But anyway obviously you have no clue and choose to flail about like a little baby. I'm just asking for clarification since I don't see how the weasel program model is implemented in the real world.Jerad
April 13, 2015
April
04
Apr
13
13
2015
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
Jerad:
Okay, if Dr Dawkins weasel program is a good model for intelligent design evolution then how is it that we have fossil evidence of a lot of ‘failed’ designs?
LoL! That is the question your position needs to answer.
I mean if the designer was keeping stuff he liked and throwing away stuff he didn’t like then why hundreds of millions of years of life forms that don’t even exist anymore?
Who said anything about the designer keeping anything?
And the dinosaurs .. . . did the designer think they were the bees-knees for millions and millions of years and then change his mind? If they were a necessary intermediate step then why let them stick around for so long. And why kill them off with an asteroid? Why not just select mutations that made them weak and vulnerable?
LoL! If an asteroid killed them off then we would see the fossils in and above the impact boundary. Yet we do not.
Also, why not just create humans from the start? Why go through all the intermediate steps? I mean if the designer was monitoring every singly mutations and deciding what to keep. It sounds a bit . . . time consuming.
Again no one said the designer is doing anything. And I would say that terraforming is important. You appear to be ignorant. But anyway obviously you have no clue and choose to flail about like a little baby.Joe
April 13, 2015
April
04
Apr
13
13
2015
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
Joe #143 If that is what the program says. Okay, if Dr Dawkins weasel program is a good model for intelligent design evolution then how is it that we have fossil evidence of a lot of 'failed' designs? Designs that were allowed to go extinct? I mean if the designer was keeping stuff he liked and throwing away stuff he didn't like then why hundreds of millions of years of life forms that don't even exist anymore? And the dinosaurs .. . . did the designer think they were the bees-knees for millions and millions of years and then change his mind? If they were a necessary intermediate step then why let them stick around for so long. And why kill them off with an asteroid? Why not just select mutations that made them weak and vulnerable? Also, why not just create humans from the start? Why go through all the intermediate steps? I mean if the designer was monitoring every singly mutations and deciding what to keep. It sounds a bit . . . time consuming. Also, what role does the programming you say must exist play in the process if the designer is filtering out mutations that occur at a set rate? Also, why do some plants have genomes that are much, much bigger than human beings? I mean if the designer is picking and choosing. Surely it doesn't take such huge genomes to make ferns.Jerad
April 13, 2015
April
04
Apr
13
13
2015
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
Jerad:
According to the link you gave each position has a 5% chance of mutation at every step/iteration.
The STEP that checks the sequence is not a STEP that changes the sequence. Obviously you have no clue what a step is and what an iteration is.
I’m merely asking: since the weasel programs allows positions to mutate at a 5% rate per position per iteration are you saying that that is also true for intelligent design evolution?
If that is what the program says.
Also the weasel program seems to make 100 copies of the string before checking to see if any position mutates.
That is possible- as long as it is doing so in software. There is a part of the program that executes the change in the parent sequence. There is another part of the program that checks to see which change is more closely matched to the target sequence and then it is selected. Repeat until target sequence is matched 100%. That is how it is consistent with IDE.Joe
April 13, 2015
April
04
Apr
13
13
2015
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
Joe #141 Jerad, I know what an iteration is. You didn’t. I'll leave that for the other readers to decide. We know when, Jerad. The mutations occur only when the program tells them to. According to the link you gave each position has a 5% chance of mutation at every step/iteration. Which is not the same thing. But, since you refuse to back down even though you've clearly made a mistake I'll leave it there. And I have explained why. And all you can do is ignore that. I haven't ignored that. I'm merely asking: since the weasel programs allows positions to mutate at a 5% rate per position per iteration are you saying that that is also true for intelligent design evolution? Also the weasel program seems to make 100 copies of the string before checking to see if any position mutates. Is that also an accurate reflection of intelligent design evolution?Jerad
April 13, 2015
April
04
Apr
13
13
2015
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
Jerad, I know what an iteration is. You didn't.
It’s a designed algorithm but there is no way ahead of time to predict what positions will mutate and when.
We know when, Jerad. The mutations occur only when the program tells them to.
You say it’s consistent with intelligent design evolution.
And I have explained why. And all you can do is ignore that.Joe
April 13, 2015
April
04
Apr
13
13
2015
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT
Joe #137 An iteration is a run of the entire program- period, end of story. If the target is not reached it is run again. That is one iteration, one run through a loop. From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/iteration "Computers a. The process of repeating a set of instructions a specified number of times or until a specific result is achieved. b. One cycle of a set of instructions to be repeated: After ten iterations, the program exited the loop." Note the second definition. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iteration "Each repetition of the process is also called an "iteration", and the results of one iteration are used as the starting point for the next iteration." Yes it is. Also the changes are very constrained- they can only be letters of the English alphabet or spaces. Of course the changes are constrained! What does that have to do with anything? Everything that happens is by design. It's a designed algorithm but there is no way ahead of time to predict what positions will mutate and when. You say it's consistent with intelligent design evolution. Does that mean that in intelligent design evolution mutations occur at a certain rate but unpredictably at any given step?Jerad
April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT
Jerad says: "Do you destroy your creations because they’re not doing what you want them to do? Give them free will and then punish them for that?" Now I am confused. Is this a theological discussion? Or are we discussing "intelligent design" as apposed to unguided "evolution"?bpragmatic
April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT
So Jerad and Joe, I have somewhat loosely followed the dialogue and havent seen answers to a questions that come to mind. Maybe they have been addressed. If so, let me express them again please. These man made computer simulations representing a conjectural path of nde evolution, do any of these allow for the extinction of the replicator? How is that implemented in the software? How are the probabilities determined? What are the "starting points" of the simulations? How are the laws of physics and chemistry integrated into such a simulation? How can it be tested and demonstrated that such a simulation is a reliable representation of what occurs in real life? etc. etc.bpragmatic
April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT
An iteration is a run of the entire program- period, end of story. If the target is not reached it is run again.
The program allows mutations to occur at every position about once every 20 iterations. That is NOT being induced.
Yes it is. Also the changes are very constrained- they can only be letters of the English alphabet or spaces. Everything that happens is by design.Joe
April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Joe #135 Jerad an iteration is not a step. Each iteration contains many steps. An iteration is running the program- all steps- from start to the end. From Wikipedia: Iteration is the act of repeating a process with the aim of approaching a desired goal, target or result. It is also known as Amiration. Each repetition of the process is also called an "iteration", and the results of one iteration are used as the starting point for the next iteration. An iteration is a step in a loop in an algorithm. The mutations are induced by the program. Just because we don’t know what they will be doesn’t mean anything. The program allows mutations to occur at every position about once every 20 iterations. That is NOT being induced. It's a random variable. And the changes happen exactly when the program says. The program has no predetermined time when mutations are set to occur. No one can say ahead of time when they will occur. If you ran the program again you would get different steps towards the same goal. I admit the weasel program has a preset goal in mind. In the weasel program the mutations are not predetermined or induced. They occur unpredictably at a certain rate.Jerad
April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
Jerad an iteration is not a step. Each iteration contains many steps. An iteration is running the program- all steps- from start to the end. The mutations are induced by the program. Just because we don't know what they will be doesn't mean anything. And the changes happen exactly when the program says. Intelligently designed to reproduce Intelligently designed to change Intelligently designed to find solutionsJoe
April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
Joe #133 So while it is at the step that checks the sequences it is doing that? Or are you just babbling? That question makes no sense. Please try again. As the Wikipedia article clearly states: there is a set probability that each position will 'mutate' at each iteration. EVEN IF the position is in the desired state. Yes, they are, jerad. The program is what causes the changes to happen. Clearly the weasel program includes the code for producing the change,. The changes would not happen if it was not explicitly coded to happen. Clearly. The program clearly assigns a certain probability of a mutation for each position at each iteration. It doesn't dictate it or induce it. It just says it will happen, on average, so many times out of a hundred. This is very, very clear. It's a simulation so nothing would happen in the simulation if not for the program. But that's not the same thing as the program dictating what mutations will happen and when. That's the issue. The mutations are not known or proscribed a head of time. No one knows what positions will mutate or when. Every time you run the program you will get different steps in the process because the mutations are NOT induced or proscribed.Jerad
April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
Jerad: '
And, as I’ve already posted, the program assigns a certain probability for a mutation at each position at each step.
So while it is at the step that checks the sequences it is doing that? Or are you just babbling?
In other words . . . mutations are not dictated or induced.
Yes, they are, jerad. The program is what causes the changes to happen. Clearly the weasel program includes the code for producing the change, ie inducing the mutations. The changes would not happen if it was not explicitly coded to happen. Clearly.Joe
April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
Joe #131 There is a part of the program that executes the change in the parent sequence. There is another part of the program that checks to see which change is more closely matched to the target sequence and then it is selected. Repeat until target sequence is matched 100%. And, as I've already posted, the program assigns a certain probability for a mutation at each position at each step. In other words . . . mutations are not dictated or induced. They happen if and when a certain value turns up. Executing the change, as you've quoted, is AFTER it's determine if a random mutation has occurred. I agree with you that the Weasel Program has a target, not argument there. But it does NOT induce or influence mutations. Clearly.Jerad
April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
No Jerad- you said:
My impression is that the program assigns a certain chance of mutation to each position for each step.
And that is NOT what is happening. It is going exactly how I said it does: There is a part of the program that executes the change in the parent sequence. There is another part of the program that checks to see which change is more closely matched to the target sequence and then it is selected. Repeat until target sequence is matched 100%.Joe
April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
Joe #129 Your impression is wrong. My impression is correct. From the Wiki[edia article you linked to:
Start with a random string of 28 characters. Make 100 copies of the string (reproduce). For each character in each of the 100 copies, with a probability of 5%,replace (mutate) the character with a new random character. Compare each new string with the target string "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL", and give each a score (the number of letters in the string that are correct and in the correct position). If any of the new strings has a perfect score (28), halt. Otherwise, take the highest scoring string, and go to step
As is clear in the third statement the program is assumed to assign a certain chance of mutation at every step for each position. Further more, even the 'good' positions are allowed to mutate again. I agree there is a 'goal' in this model. But there is no inducing of mutations. They happen according to a certain chance value. As I surmised.Jerad
April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
Jerad:
My impression is that the program assigns a certain chance of mutation to each position for each step.
Your impression is wrong. WeaselJoe
April 12, 2015
April
04
Apr
12
12
2015
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
Jerad I think you and I are far apart in some basic assumptions. It would be interesting to work all that out but this is really not the place for such discussions. I say, I agree. You know how you can reach me if you want to discuss. in the meantime have fun with Joe ;-) peacefifthmonarchyman
April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
Joe #126 Jerad, Dawkins’ weasel suffices. The changes in the sequence occur exactly when the program tells them to and the selection coefficient directs those changes towards the goal. My impression is that the program assigns a certain chance of mutation to each position for each step. NOT when the programs tells them to but when the chance number comes up. That response proves that you do not belong in this discussion. What is wrong with you? Well, if you can point to a section of the code of the program or a discussion of it that proves your point then I'll back down. There is a part of the program that executes the change in the parent sequence. There is another part of the program that checks to see which change is more closely matched to the target sequence and then it is selected. Repeat until target sequence is matched 100%. I agree with the second part but, again, mu impression is that the program assigns a chance for each position to mutate at each step. It doesn't induce or dictate a change, it just generates a random number to see if something happened. If you can find the section of code which upholds your view or a description by Dr Dawkins which supports your interpretation then I'll concede.Jerad
April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
Jerad, Dawkins’ weasel suffices. The changes in the sequence occur exactly when the program tells them to and the selection coefficient directs those changes towards the goal.
My reading of his program (based on his discussion of it) is that changes occur randomly
That response proves that you do not belong in this discussion. What is wrong with you? There is a part of the program that executes the change in the parent sequence. There is another part of the program that checks to see which change is more closely matched to the target sequence and then it is selected. Repeat until target sequence is matched 100%. I made my claim and I have upheld it, Jerad.Joe
April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
Joe #124 Jerad, Dawkins’ weasel suffices. The changes in the sequence occur exactly when the program tells them to and the selection coefficient directs those changes towards the goal. My reading of his program (based on his discussion of it) is that changes occur randomly. If you can point to some evidence or a line of code that proves that wrong then I'd be grateful. That is how they all work, Jerad. Seeing that you cannot grasp that simple reality you aren’t in any position to discuss them. I don't want to put words into your mouth. I might run the same algorithm and interpret its output in a way you would disagree with. That's why I'd like to see your usage. Your example. “Evolving Inventions” SciAm, 2003- pick any one and walk yourself through it. If you have a specific question come back and ask it. Again, I'll probably interpret things in a way you would disagree with. But I will have a look. So perhaps you should learn about evolutionary and genetic algorithms and come back when you think you can show they support unguided evolution. I have made my case that they support intelligent design evolution. You can ignore it if you like, but we all know why you do. Actually, you made a claim, I'm just asking you to uphold it. I said nothing about those algorithms. I didn't even bring it up. I have my views but we're discussing yours at the moment. This is a place for discussions, not a place to be educated on the subject. I'm not asking to be educated. I'm just wanting to make sure that I have a case that you are happy with, that does what you say it does, to look at and analyse. I think that's fair. I can't make your case for you. AND I will probably be biased in your eyes. Best if you do it.Jerad
April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
Jerad, Dawkins' weasel suffices. The changes in the sequence occur exactly when the program tells them to and the selection coefficient directs those changes towards the goal. That is how they all work, Jerad. Seeing that you cannot grasp that simple reality you aren't in any position to discuss them. "Evolving Inventions" SciAm, 2003- pick any one and walk yourself through it. If you have a specific question come back and ask it. So perhaps you should learn about evolutionary and genetic algorithms and come back when you think you can show they support unguided evolution. I have made my case that they support intelligent design evolution. You can ignore it if you like, but we all know why you do. This is a place for discussions, not a place to be educated on the subject.Joe
April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
Joe #122 I have provided EXAMPLES, Jerad. So what is YOUR problem? You didn't give a specific example nor did you pick an algorithm and work it through with appropriate values. Pick an example of a prediction of intelligent design evolution and then pick an algorithm, plug in the appropriate values and then show us how the algorithm models the theory. Especially the part about mutations being induced and guided. That's the bit I'm most interested in. You don't have to keep responding. If you want to quit that's fine with me.Jerad
April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
I have provided EXAMPLES, Jerad. So what is YOUR problem?Joe
April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman #119 I completely understand. I just hope you can understand that your way of looking at things is not the only or best way. I know I can only speak for myself and that sometimes I will not understand another point of view. All I ask is that people be honest and clear about their views as I try to be with mine. I think you and I are far apart in some basic assumptions. It would be interesting to work all that out but this is really not the place for such discussions.Jerad
April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
Joe #118 Jerad, You aren’t interested in a discussion. So please spare us your spewage. ALL EVOLUTIONARY AND GENETIC ALGORITHMS GET RESULTS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH ID AND CONTRARY TO UNGUIDED EVOLUTION. You can pick one and walk yourself through it. Or you can continue to choke. The choice is yours. Then show us that. What is the problem? I wouldn't want to misrepresent your claims. You said something was true, why not just show that to be the case and nail the coffin lid shut? I really cannot understand why you don't just give us an example and be done with it. But, I can't make you do it. Perhaps we should really just leave it.Jerad
April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
Jerad says, I have no idea what you think the reasons for all the extinctions are. I say, In a finite world extinctions are inevitable. There is no way to avoid them You say, So . . .dropping an asteroid and killing off the dinosaurs is okay? I say, Inevitable does not equal OK. I wish it was possible that nothing would ever cease to exist from my perspective inside the universe but it is not logically possible You say, I think I’ll just leave it for now. Our ways of looking at things are too far apart to be worth trying to find a bridge. I think. I say, I completely understand. I just hope you can understand that your way of looking at things is not the only or best way. peacefifthmonarchyman
April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
Jerad, You aren't interested in a discussion. So please spare us your spewage. ALL EVOLUTIONARY AND GENETIC ALGORITHMS GET RESULTS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH ID AND CONTRARY TO UNGUIDED EVOLUTION. You can pick one and walk yourself through it. Or you can continue to choke. The choice is yours.Joe
April 11, 2015
April
04
Apr
11
11
2015
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply