Global Warming as Mass Neurosis

_{July 1, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A great article in the WSJ about Global Warming. I really like this quote:

If even slight global cooling remains evidence of global warming, what isn’t evidence of global warming? What we have here is a nonfalsifiable hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence of God. This doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist, or that global warming isn’t happening. It does mean it isn’t science.”

When I saw this a corollary came to mind immediately:

Even if things practically impossible for chance & necessity to conjure up remain evidence of neo-Darwinian evolution, what isn’t evidence of neo-Darwinian evolution? What we have here a nonfalsifiable hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence of God. This doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist, or that neo-Darwinian evolution isn’t happening. It does mean it isn’t science.

Comments

tribune7 @47: Yes, that's true; but if you read the biographical account of his friends deciding what to do with his body, it's clear that they all knew that he wasn't a believer; he was buried as a Catholic on the strength of a remark he once made (about the appropriateness of burying another born-Catholic unbeliever with Catholic rites). Nonetheless, though an unbeliever, Wittgenstein seemed to understand religion at a much deeper level than most practising religionists. T.Timaeus_{July 9, 2008
July
07
Jul
9
09
2008
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

For instance, as I just advised our local Gov't here in M'rat, we should take no action on initiatives solely on the basis of AGW The more efficient the energy source, the less work will be required to get the energy and this will -- barring corruption, either gubmint OR corporate -- translate to a wealthier community. And there will be less CO2. And this also applies to conservation -- less energy for the same work is better for all. Of course here, out of compassion for Ma Earth our greens (and their allies) want to rip down long-standing hydro-electric dams, increase the number of toll roads, inhibit telecommuting (just try suggesting it may be unwise to apply OSHA standards to home offices) and have prevented any new nuclear plants from being built her for nearly three decades. Go figure.tribune7_{July 9, 2008
July
07
Jul
9
09
2008
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

FWIW, Wittgenstein was buried as a Catholic.tribune7_{July 9, 2008
July
07
Jul
9
09
2008
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

H'mm: Pardon a couple of footnotes, with a conclusion/suggestion: 1] Probabilities: In communication theory, we make an interesting observation on a priori and a posteriori probabilities of messages, once a message is in prospect and/or received. The probability of an event being actual, once perceived is an instance of the later. So, we can have cases where the probability of an observed event having actually happened is less than 1. 2] Implications The deeper significance in part comes out in a point deriving from Josiah Royce: Error exists. This is undeniably true, so the truth exists. But also, that truth no 1 implies that we may be mistaken over the truth. In praxis, we have very high confidence in certain experiences and inferences, much less so in others and as a practical matter we test and if required correct the latter by reference to the former. That is, we warrant the latter by reference to the former. Thus, the valid form of objectivity as a criterion of truth. And that brings us to . . . 3] Reasonable faith We now see again that we cannot reason without trust and we should not trust without [good] reason. That is, faith is not the enemy of reason, but its root. And, we have good reason to trust certain sources of information beyond what we can prove otherwise. Thus, we see a base for a modest, humbly realistic epistemology, and for linked ethics and a lot of other good things. Hope that helps . . . Back on topic, much of the Global Warming alarmism is linked to a degree of trust in long-term complex computer simulations of the global weather/climate system -- some of which are reality-challenged -- that is perhaps less than well-warranted. But that does not mean that there are not real issues on what we are doing to our climate, and to our economies. So, prudent action in light of what is wise on a least regrets basis, is advisable. [For instance, as I just advised our local Gov't here in M'rat, we should take no action on initiatives solely on the basis of AGW projections, but where concerns over AGW have led to research, technological developments and opportunities that make sense on other bases -- e.g. energy security in a world where oil is economically volatile and politically high risk -- then we should take up the opportunities.] Prudence and humble epistemological realism move us on beyond hype, mass hysteria and Plato's Cave games. (It would also do us a lot of good in dealing with the rising tide of national and internationalist political messianism. I am of that generation in Jamaica who were cured of any vulnerability to the blandishments of charismatic would-be political messiahs by my experience of the 1970's.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 9, 2008
July
07
Jul
9
09
2008
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT}

-----Timaeus: "All the greatest and most wonderful Christian thinkers over two millennia — Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, William of Conches, Aquinas, More, Erasmus, Cudworth, C. S. Lewis, Charles Williams, Etienne Gilson, Jacques Maritain, Simone Weil, etc. — are steeped in, or at least influenced by, Platonism or Aristotelianism. You have to ask why." Yes indeed. Philosophy and reason were much more wholesome before the investigator started intruding on the investigation. Decartes subjectivism was a bad enough distraction but it didn't become a disaster until Kant and co. gave it respectability.StephenB_{July 8, 2008
July
07
Jul
8
08
2008
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

Allanius: I wouldn't group the philosophers the way you do. Plato and Descartes were both "rationalists", but in quite different senses, and Hume wasn't a rationalist at all, but an empiricist. The grouping of Kant with Aristotle and Thomas is even more bizarre. Kant presupposed the fundamental superiority of modern philosophy over ancient philosophy (note his tributes to Bacon, Rousseau and Hume), and is pretty far removed in every area of philosophy from Aristotle, and from Aquinas who was heavily Aristotelian. We Greeks see the march of modern philosophy as mostly disastrous, with Kant as one of the darkest moments, though certainly Descartes got the whole thing off on the wrong foot. In some respects, oddly enough, Wittgenstein is more Greek, in particular more Socratic and more Aristotelian, than most other modern thinkers. He is partly spoiled by the anti-metaphysical bent he got from Kant, but he does show some genuine philosophical possibilities. And interestingly enough, though not Christian, he shows a sympathetic understanding of religious thought in general and Christian thought in particular. All the greatest and most wonderful Christian thinkers over two millennia -- Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, William of Conches, Aquinas, More, Erasmus, Cudworth, C. S. Lewis, Charles Williams, Etienne Gilson, Jacques Maritain, Simone Weil, etc. -- are steeped in, or at least influenced by, Platonism or Aristotelianism. You have to ask why. T.Timaeus_{July 8, 2008
July
07
Jul
8
08
2008
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

allanius: "Does someone know a better way." Yes, the best way is realistic epistemology. The nihilism you speak of is, in large measure, a result of a lost of faith in a rational universe. In the old days, we believed that we our rational minds apprehended a rational universe --- that the two were in correspondence. Kant unncessarily destroyed that correspondence by misreading Hume and therefore created intellectual chaos.StephenB_{July 8, 2008
July
07
Jul
8
08
2008
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

So we want to recreate the old thought-world? Let’s count the costs. Philosophy glorified intellect as “the good”; but if the goodness of intellect is found in its capacity to determine what is good, as the philosophers claimed—in judgment, or its qualitative force of resistance to divided values—then intellect is divided from sense, since no quality of resistance is found in sensuous existence per se. Intellect is different from sensuous existence; on this everyone agrees—or at least everyone who wants to glorify intellect as “the good.” But how is it possible to overcome this difference and arrive at a substantive description of value? The philosophers tried two tacks. Hume was the last in a long line of idealists who claimed they could obtain knowledge of what is good by drawing a bright line between intellect and sense; by glorifying intellect for its own sake and discounting the value of sensuous existence. Hume, Descartes, Plato—they all believed that philosophers could obtain the good of happiness by clinging to pure intellect and its resistance to the dividedness of existence. Unfortunately pure resistance is pure negation. It leads to disembodied notions of value and is therefore of limited use to physical, living beings. The others, including Kant and Thomas, followed Aristotle and his attempt to describe “the good” as a ratio of material and intellectual causes. The problem with this ratio is that it occurs purely in the mind and cannot be directly linked to sensuous values. Kant tried to overcome the nothingness caused by Hume’s love of pure intellect by conceding that there is a difference between mind and the goodness of nature but claiming that it is possible to overcome this difference by learning more about the limits imposed by “transcendentals” on how we think about that goodness. Essentially this is the same strategy Aristotle used. It is the only way that philosophy has identified to date of glorifying intellect and discounting materialism without losing the mooring of the goodness of nature and floating off into realms of pure thought. Sense and intellect are divided in philosophy, which profoundly limits the ability of the philosophers to describe the good of happiness. This is why Western culture is now in thrall to the psychological state described by Nietzsche as nihilism, or the annihilation of philosophy and its concepts of the good. Does someone know a better way? http://jaytrott.com/allanius_{July 8, 2008
July
07
Jul
8
08
2008
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

Frost: Kant reduced objective truth to little more than subjective impressions. What could be more disastrous than such a notion? These days, if we suggest, for example, that the Christian religion might be true, the thought police meet us at the door to instruct us that truth is a personal thing and each of us has our own version of it. Even when we present a rational defense for it, our critics will respond with that mindless platitude that “your truth is fine for you, but my truth is something different. We all have our own personal truths." Kant is largely responsible for this way of thinking. He helped bury the medieval synthesis of faith and reason. As Peter Kreeft writes, “He described his philosophy as “clearing away the pretensions of reason to make room for faith” — as if faith and reason were enemies and not allies.” “Kant thought religion could never be a matter of reason, evidence or argument, or even a matter of knowledge, but a matter of feeling, motive and attitude. He did the same thing with the natural moral law, declaring it to have no content, except for his famous “categorical imperative.” Thus, what Aquinas so nobly constructed, Kant deconstructed without even understanding the points at issue. Indeed, while Kant denied that we can know that God, free will, and morality exist, he insisted that we would be better off if we “believe” that they exist. Imagine trying to build our constitution on a proposition like that. “We hold these truths to be arbitrary contrived……… that we are endowed by our imaginary creator with perceived rights…………. All the great philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas knew that truth was objective and that we attained it if our mind was in correspondence to reality. Since philosophy has gone off its rocker, thanks to Kant, we have descended into intellectual quicksand and it will take a long time to pull ourselves out of it. No wonder so many of our adversaries think that a design inference is only in our mind. I agree that Kant was something less that a great moral philsopher and I probably should not have suggested otherwise. To imply that morality or religious truth cannot be known can hardly qualify as a useful contribution to ethics. Still, his "categorical imperative" is reminiscent of the golden rule so I will give him credit for that even if it is grounded in subjectivism and ultimately something that must be taken on faith.StephenB_{July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

Stephen, I don’t think Kant was necessarily wrong in thinking that we as human beings are limited by the imperfections and peculiarities of our sensous faculties especially when trying to understand outside objects as they actually are independent of us. I also don’t think Kant was particularly great moral philosopher. I don’t think we are paying for Kant's critical philosophy either- I think we have gained the most from it- and it is the synthesis of the reality of the mind and the reality of the world that exists outside above and beyond the mind that gives us the best assessment of what we mean by philosophy.Frost122585_{July 7, 2008
July
07
Jul
7
07
2008
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT}

-----Frost: “Kant was right that the mind does and can perceive false things and that it is one of our duties in philosophy to distinguish between the two. This is where epistemology and ontology meet- in that what we can know is limited by what actually exists that we cannot know. “ Frost, with all due respect, the problem is not whether we can know everything, the problem is whether or not we can know anything. Instead of probing deeply enough into Hume’s and Lock’s epistemologies to correct them, Kant bought into their unwarranted criticisms of realism and built up a whole edifice to correct a non-problem. Thomas Reid, for example, saw Hume’s problem early on. He was a staunch defender of the common sense method in philosophy; his epistemology can be described as direct realism, i.e., the mind can acquire direct knowledge of the external world via the interaction of the sense organs and external objects, which are the causes of mental acts or events. Mortimer Adler, twentieth century philosopher has made the same observation in different ways. Again, I commend to your reading Adler’s article, “Little Errors In The Beginning.” It can be found on the internet. Kant argued that it is impossible to have direct knowledge of the external world. Can you imagine how much confusion and chaos followed from that error? He was a great moral philosopher and had many useful insights, but he blew it on this one. We are all still paying for it. Even to this day, liberal college professors and their cynical students sneer at the very idea of objective truth or anything resembling a reasoned defense of religion.StephenB_{July 6, 2008
July
07
Jul
6
06
2008
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT}

Ultimately I think you are right Tribune! That is the first time I honestly fee; defeated on UD. You can thank Heisenberg for that because outside of his determinacy smasher -I would not have agreed. "The odds of nothing are 1/1 and that which has already happened is not predictable." Yet, that which is yet to come does in fact have a certain probability- though I must say that I am not sure that probability exists out side of our own minds but it certainly exists within them and so it does really exist and functions regardless of whether it is or is not an ontological illusion. My original point in my first post stands though. ID does not look at the probability of what has already happened. It appeals to synthetically look at the odds of X happening from the ideal perspective of before X happened. And so the fact that X happened is arbitrary from the odds that it would have happened. The only way you can test for randomness after the fact is to go back and see if it agrees with the data before the fact. Which is a main reason why I agree Dembski and disagree Miller on this issue.Frost122585_{July 6, 2008
July
07
Jul
6
06
2008
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT}

if something happens you cant say it might not have- because there is no way to change the past or go back and see if it could have been different. There is only one past so the idea of another is not coherent. I agree with that completely.tribune7_{July 6, 2008
July
07
Jul
6
06
2008
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT}

Your right - the odds of it having happened- but the problem isn’t with the original probability but which the concept of “what must be.” Going forward “nothing” absolutely must be- but looking backwards I don’t think you can argue that the past might not have been that way- because if so then you argue for a different past which does not exist- unless once again we live in a universe that is ruled by infinite probabilities and chance (of which we have no evidence of) Like I said this is not a clear cut case- if something happens you cant say it might not have- because there is no way to change the past or go back and see if it could have been different. There is only one past so the idea of another is not coherent. The future is dialectical while the past is static- they are very different in this sense. So to me it’s a hard call- it seems 1/1 but then there is “time's arrow” and that gives life to free will and mechanical uncertainty- of which I am of course too very found of.Frost122585_{July 6, 2008
July
07
Jul
6
06
2008
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT}

Frost -- but once an event has happened I think it is accurate to say that “the odds of it happening” not from the original ignorant frame of reference but I totality - is in fact 1/1. No, the odds of it having happened -- not happening -- is 1/1 :-) What you are saying is everything that has happened had to have happened. I can't buy that. While I do believe in an omnipotent and omniscient God, I do believe we have the freedom to choose.tribune7_{July 6, 2008
July
07
Jul
6
06
2008
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

Stephen said "This idea, popularized by Kant and institutionalized by skeptics, turns out to be misguided. In fact, the images in our mind really do provide a reasonable account of the corresponding realities outside the mind." This is misguided- yes you cannot question ALL that the mind infers- and I was doing no such thing- but illusion certainly does still exist- and it does not take a mental patient to show that the mind can construct things that do not exist in objective reality- to question this would actually be a better example of questioning you own mind's perception. Kant was right that the mind does and can perceive false things and that it is one of our duties in philosophy to distinguish between the two. This is where epistemology and ontology meet- in that what we can know is limited by what actually exists that we cannot know. Yet, if we can limit what we can know we can begin to reach higher planes of thought that point in directions towards what we MAY know. ID is largely about this as it aims for the highest common multiplier as opposed to the lowed common denominator route of DE. There exists a world outside our own minds - but whether it is greater than our own minds is yet to be seen. Yet our minds can err when we are not guided by a religious adherence to pure reason. As Gödel once said "The World is rational" and "Reason does not err." TO think otherwise would be too undermine a possible understanding of the world and at the same time worsen the situation by holding that our reason "could" always be wrong. That is inherently a philosophy that does not work and is thus unproductive. and yes of course we could always be wrong about what we think but what good does that caveat really do us if we are seeking definite answers- that is answers we are to believe are true?Frost122585_{July 6, 2008
July
07
Jul
6
06
2008
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

tribune at 31, no, because looking forward probabilities are only to me ratios that represent what we do know and what we do not- that is if we new all of the circumstances that went into a coin flip then we could know ahead of time exactly what was going to happen. This is called "times arrow" in that the future has the unique quality of mystery but the past ideally does not- all was fine and well and my side had won the debate until Heisenberg discovered the uncertainty principle which showed that particles physics which makes up all things is in fact deeply unpredictable by nature. The question though is of retrospective probabilities and Dave is right that the probability as it is defined never changes from the frame of reference it is deduced from in the past- but once an event has happened I think it is accurate to say that "the odds of it happening" not from the original ignorant frame of reference but I totality - is in fact 1/1. Otherwise you appeal to an idealistic universe that is inherently ruled by probabilities and that would make you a "chance worshiper." and tribune on the "edge of the coin notion"- you point out an excellent example of why the coin analogy is "ideal" or proverbial in that is does not and cannot accurately represent reality objectively as it actually is-Frost122585_{July 6, 2008
July
07
Jul
6
06
2008
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT}

And what if a coin lands on its edge? Do we get to read minds hee hee ? I confess, I checked out some of the Twilight Zone marathon on Sci Fi.tribune7_{July 6, 2008
July
07
Jul
6
06
2008
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

Frost --I think that if something happened it was actually a 1/1 chance that it was going to- but I confess that even this position, in a certain sense, is an ideal one. Then everything that happens in the future has a 1/1 chance of happening, which would mean that everything has been predetermined. Predestination is interesting but impractical.tribune7_{July 6, 2008
July
07
Jul
6
06
2008
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

Both Dave and Frost are right in their respective frames of reference. Dave is right that a fair coin is a theoretical construct. By definition, the probability of a fair coin landing heads is 1/2. Frost is also correct that with respect to the flipping of any actual coin, the result is utterly determined by pure mechanical laws working on the coin. There is no contingency.BarryA_{July 6, 2008
July
07
Jul
6
06
2008
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

-----Frost: “There is a big difference between those ideals of the minds construction and that which is constructed outside the mind.” This idea, popularized by Kant and institutionalized by skeptics, turns out to be misguided. In fact, the images in our mind really do provide a reasonable account of the corresponding realities outside the mind. To believe otherwise is to forfeit the entire rational enterprise, which is precisely what modern philosophy has done. Read Mortimer Adler’s refutation of Hume and Kant in his work, “Little Errors In The Beginning. ------“I think that if something happened it was actually a 1/1 chance that it was going to- but I confess that even this position, in a certain sense, is an ideal one.” I think that this formulation is less about philosophy and more about human nature. It is easy to anticipate than a certain event is improbable before the fact and then turn around and say that it was inevitable after the fact. Indeed, this is the game that Darwinists play when confronted with the low probability that chemicals and chance can produce life. To that they always say, “Hey, it happened, didn’t it? It was inevitable!” Well, no it wasn’t.StephenB_{July 6, 2008
July
07
Jul
6
06
2008
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

But you are comparing that ideal coin to reality. There is a big difference between those ideals of the minds construction and that which is constructed outside the mind. I will admit though the issue of retrospective probability is not one that philosophy has worked out yet. Whether those probabilities still exist is uncertain. Yet, I think that once an event "happens" then the idea of probability becomes arbitrary because we are now in a privileged frame of reference looking back at what actually "did" happen. So I hold the opposite view. I think that if something happened it was actually a 1/1 chance that it was going to- but I confess that even this position, in a certain sense, is an ideal one. But in the end when we are talking about things of this level of abstractness all we have is ideals and generalizations. Ps, it is not making a mountain out of a mole hill to spend a little time on perhaps the most interesting philosophical question that exists. If the world really is part probability machine then the likihood of a second life (or infinite lives) becomes a real and almost certain possibility.- this changes our finite understandings or time and space- And addressing the philosophy at the core and behind the entire NFL and Design Inference seems pertinent enough to warrant discussion on this site. The question is not one about determinism- it is about whether probability seeks to ideally place ratios that represent "reality" in various places in space/time - or whether probability "only" seeks to predict an event that will happen. That is "are probabilties objective objects in and of themselves that exist out side the mind." My view is that God does not throw dice and thereofre "no" - probabilites are tools- objects of the mind that eixst because of space/times constraint on the understanding- thy have no indipendent reality outside of this definition and once an event happens then the probability of it "happening" dissapears- not in the ideal past but for all intensive purposes of the present. and in the proesnt looking into the future the next probability objectivly "exists" (in sort of limbo) until it too lives itself out.Frost122585_{July 6, 2008
July
07
Jul
6
06
2008
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

Frost Good grief. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill! A "fair coin" is a theoretical object where the outcome is by definition a 50/50 distribution of heads and tails. Whether you flip it now, later, or it was flipped in the past it's still a fair coin. This has nothing to do with whether the universe is deterministic or not.DaveScot_{July 6, 2008
July
07
Jul
6
06
2008
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

I hope however that I made it clear that I do agree with Dembski's use of probability to critique Darwinism. The reason is because the theory of DE claims that mutation happening at "random" actually are the force by which NS grooms life. (of course DE cannot explain where NS came from!) but while the laws of physics and NS are left up to the theologians and the atheists to fight over there is an imbedded "scientific" claim in the DE theory- that is about randomness. So using probabilities retrospectively (or in the future in the lab) to see if randomness is indeed a proper explanation of mutation or biological change- is THE ONLY way to critique that claim. In logic any statement you make has a negation. If you say that mutations are random then there is the possibility of negation that is "mutations are not random." So when a claim is made that mutations ARE random you need to check it by seeing if "mutations are not random" because if they are not then ther eis an obvious contradictory in the theory. Beings that randomness is a statistical or probabilistic claim - that is stochastic - we must use probability and statistics to check it! This is what the Darwinists resist because if the data comes out that mutation ARE NOT random then you have an Evolution that is indeed guided by some "ineffable organization." And that destroys the philosophy that the Darwinists are really trying to push with the theory. That is science begins to sound a lot like religion when you start talking about mysterious organizational forces. But of course one of the most ridiculous and contradictory claims of DE is the random mutation deal because after it happens they say the chance of it happening is 1/1!!! How can a mutation be random if the chance of it happening is 1/1!?! It's laughable. As far as Einstein and Heisenberg’s disagreement goes- no one has ever been able to unify quantum physics and classical mechanics. Both have their benefits and short comings. Perhaps, in a certain sense, they are both paradoxically correct.Frost122585_{July 5, 2008
July
07
Jul
5
05
2008
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT}

Well Dave this is a deep philosophical question that goes all the way back to Einstein's debate with Heisenberg. Heisenberg took the position that all events can only be understood from the perspective of quantum probability. That is the uncertainty principle revealed that the momentum and position of any object cannot be 100% accurately defined... ever. That is a coin’s probability of landing either heads or tails is actually NEVER ½! The 50/50 is in all actuality “a generalization” based on all practical interpretation of the given scenario. It was this view of probability that lead Einstein to say “to deny the integrity of generalizations it to deny all knowledge!” So since the world is not in any one particular state that we can ever know about- Heisenberg just took the philosophical position that the world does not exist at all in any one place but in fact only exists in a quantum understanding- i.e. a probabilistic universe where anything CAN happen and every physical event (that can be understood) can be assigned a probability. but Einstein concluded that God does not play dice. Or that probability is merely the a flaw or limit of a particular perspective but that in reality things were objective and probabilities did not actually exist. (except in our heads.) This of course is the objective* view of reality- the Platonic view that there exists a world outside of our understandings that is not limited to it but yet "could be understood." The point is that if you take the position that all there are is probabilities then yes Dave you are right. However most people including Einstein and myself- view quantum physics as a "limitation" on matter but not a proper interpretation of the physical world "as it actually is." In other words to me all that probabilities are is "ratios." That is they are mental constructs of known data events weighed mathematically against other known and specified events. Take a quarter toss- if you know nothing then the ratio is indeed 1/2 that it will land either heads or tails. But say you knew ahead of time exactly how much force the coin flipper was going to flip the quarter with- and more what the air resistance was going to be-- and even more how the quarter was going to hit the table- then in this case I could tell you far more acutely what the chance of tails or heads landing would be. The point of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (to me the greatest revelation in physics) was that we can never know for sure "exactly" what is going to happen. That is I might not be able to tell “exactly” how the coin will land but I might still be able to pretty much guarantee what side of the coin it will ultimately land on. SO if you look at the universe as something which is a giant probability machine like Heisenberg then yes in fact the odds of an event happening are NEVER 1/1 even after the fact. But if you are like me and view probability as something which is a tool and is dependent upon what we know at a particular time about a forthcoming event- then probability in fact does not even exist out side of our one minds. So I would look at the coin hitting heads and say as far as I can tell it HAD to have happened that way therefore the chance of the coin flipping heads THAT ONE TIME is in deed 100% and must be as it is proven retrospectively. Now lets take my realist point of view and extend it to ID and biological life. Say a human is sitting there and I want to know the chance that evolution actually constructed that human- first of all you need to define terms- I.e. what do we mean by evolution- then you would need an experiment that could actually show the theory doing all that is said it could do. That is based on the information that we know about human evolution we could create a probability that is "could" happen. But like the coin flip even outside the probability of 1/2 it is only going to land either heads or tails one time- so in the end we are not talking about probabilities at all but in fact events occurring. So in order to show that evolution limited to only say the DE interpretation of RM and NS did in fact evolve human beings we would need to see it happen (to make sure no other things were involved) and then it would in fact be 1/1. DE is an incomplete* theory even if it is entirely right about what it extends itself to- and yet it is not because it claims that “randomness” plays a role in evolution and yet randomness is an incoherent terminology because as I said I do not think chance ultimately exists. It is the use of the word “random” that calls for a probabilistic investigation into mutation in biology. That is if something is random we will be able to detect it and limit what it can and cannot do. That is what NFL is all about. But that is not the logical end of it all- even if DE could give us human beings we would still need to know where DE came from- and what made it the way it is. The chance worshiping view of the universe is bankrupt. Chance is merely a tool and a limitation on knowledge at a given point in time. To me chance is merely an ideal- but it can be used to see if a given scenario is "reasonable" in its claims. After all, if your view is that the universe is entirely comprised of chance events then I have to ask you "what is the chance that all things are comprise of chance events." Talk about a position to be unsure of.Frost122585_{July 5, 2008
July
07
Jul
5
05
2008
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT}

Frost So every event that has happened is indeed 1/1 retrospectively No. Probabilities don't change just because an outcome fell one way or another in the past. If a given flip of a fair coin turned up heads it doesn't change the fact that the odds were 50/50 and will forever remain 50/50 for that fair coin.DaveScot_{July 5, 2008
July
07
Jul
5
05
2008
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT}

^ right that is true but it is a semantically argument-for IDists are not actually assessing the odds of that event happening- they are assessing the odds of that event occurring "from the perspective of before" that event occurred. The reason why the do this is because then we can determine if events in biology are happening in some arithmetical consistency or if they are in fact completely random. Randomness* let us not forget also does not exist in retrospect because after event x happens we know* exactly what would have happened. But you will always here biologists talking about how biology's goal is to become a science "that makes predictions"- hence we are forced to look at all events, even past ones, with the goal is assessing their probability so that we can gain a better grasp of how evolution operates. So every event that has happened is indeed 1/1 retrospectively but "before the event happened" is where biology is really trying to operate. DE pretends that they cant understand what we are saying but what they are really doing is covering their ears and talking over us- in an adolescent attempt to avoid the thrust of the point. Evolution of course is not random* nether are the mutations- (especially the beneficial ones which are far out numbered by the negative ones) and the real reason why DE tries to avoid looking at the probability of past events (before they happened) is because usually the odds of SC being constructed is HIGHLY improbable. Remember DE wants us to believe that death, procreation and random mutation is the whole story- but it will never tell us where the positive information comes from in the first place- or for that fact why it should exist at all. And when I say “why” I am not referring to “a decision” as if a mind must have been involved- I am referring to “where is “the mechanism” or reasoning representative of the original scheme that the SC came from? What was it that set matter into motion in “such a way” for that SC formation to even occur? It is easy to picture a world in which there exists NO life forms because the chance of it happening and the laws of physics just aren’t nearly accommodating enough for it to happen. So what was it that “selected” natural selection? DE has nothing to turn to which shows you how insulated it is from reality. Of course ID an appeal to a prime reality of intelligence because intelligence does not need a precursor given that is CAN select what it wants to do- it is, in a certain sense, a mechanism and an objective descriptive embodiment of reality in it and of itself- That is "the circular thought of what evolved evolution is an open question because evolution cannot provide "the force" by which the process progresses. NS and RM are merely points of transition - or mechanisms that operate after the fact- i.e. the first life problem- yet intelligence is not something that has to be understood are existing within matter- hence its existence is not dependent on the current known laws of physics- yet t can explain the reason for the improbable SC which does exist- and most importantly intelligence therefore does not need a precursor intelligence- that is the "who designed the designer" question is actually not a necessary one - and it is certainly a non sequitur. So much for MM.Frost122585_{July 5, 2008
July
07
Jul
5
05
2008
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT}

Good observation! I guess by their own usage of the term they are just begging to have someone from AiG to rehash the whole second law of thermodynamics argument. "...are in fact the result of NS and mutations so in some sense all things have assented to existence because as the evolutionists would say "if they couldn't they wouldn't have."" They do tend to assume a priori that evolution is a cold hard fact, which means they are starting with a conclusion, which means they force facts into their theory, which in the end means they are no more scientific then YEC's. When presented with any works on how system X is so improbable to evolve they immediately insist it probably isn't since it's there to study in the first place. Which brings us to the most piss-poor argument used by design critics on probability: The probability that an event has already occurred is one.............F2XL_{July 5, 2008
July
07
Jul
5
05
2008
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

^ F2xl it is interesting that this site uses the word "descent" in it's name as opposed to the word "dissent" as was used on the actual cover of the book. Dissent obviously mean disagreement while descent means decline. Also I think this brings up another excellent point about the DE, ID debate which is you always hear the term "common descent" as the main icon of evolutionary theory- yet evolution via mutation and natural selection is a process that actually "ASSENTS" life lineages not descents them! The point is that if the big bang began with complexity and was ticking down to chaos and degeneracy then you would have a process that works through common descent- but evolution (assuming universal ancestry is correct) actually works in the same way that design works- that is through a process of construction not destruction that assents into the final existing "order." Evolution is a process like design that weeds out disorder. So remember evolutionary theory is really about "common assent" not descent. And that is well worth mentioning. I use the word assent because I think the word descent misses the big point of evolution and points to the lowest common denominator instead of looking at the whole big picture which is one of NFL and SC. One of the stupid arguments used to legitimize the use of the word descent is that not all species are connected to current species yet all current species are connected to lower ones- yet all species regardless of the interconnection to all other species - are in fact the result of NS and mutations so in some sense all things have assented to existence because as the evolutionists would say "if they couldn't they wouldn't have." and also the fact that while not all species are connected - not all living things within a giving species are either. Apes die and don’t reproduce yet others in their species do and hence the picture is that not all living things have common descent with others even within their own species. We all have different parents for the most part. So evolution works by common "assent" (assuming all life is at some level historically interconnected) and gives the appearance of design while IDists hold that it is most likely more then appearance.Frost122585_{July 5, 2008
July
07
Jul
5
05
2008
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

GilDogen, is that book similar in nature to "Uncommon Dissent?" If so, I better add it to my book list. "Dissent from orthodoxy is generally ridiculed, and the teachers and professors are almost universally leftist materialist secularists." Would it surprise you if I told you I knew of a high school that actually had a Socialist history teacher?F2XL_{July 4, 2008
July
07
Jul
4
04
2008
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply