Home
» Intelligent Design » Ph.D.s in Obfuscation — Or, Simple Truths Denied
Ph.D.s in Obfuscation — Or, Simple Truths Denied
| January 21, 2007 | Posted by GilDodgen under Intelligent Design |
In another forum, Denyse wrote:
Bear with a simple lay hack here a moment: Why must we know a designer’s intentions in order to detect design?
If the fire marshall’s office suspects arson, do the investigators worry much about WHY?
Surely they investigate, confirm their finding, and turn the information over to other authorities and interested parties, without having the least idea why someone torched the joint.
ALL they need to be sure of is that the joint did not torch itself, via natural causes.
The observation Denyse makes is so obvious that one would need a Ph.D. in obfuscation not to see it. Common sense is not so common, at least among those with a foundational commitment to materialism.
35 Responses to Ph.D.s in Obfuscation — Or, Simple Truths Denied
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Mark says,
“So in the case of the deliberately negligent owner you say it is accidental with designed mechanisms. ”
Actually I stated “accidental” for “3″ was not good wording and offered rewording and sublistings for reasons of simple degenerative mechanisms of designed items like metals rusting. Or the breakdown of sheathing for example.
“I can understand that if you mean’t something like – there was some designed activity which lead to an outcome the designer was not intending (the dosser). But clearly this is not what you mean. The outcome conforms to the owner’s intention and does so in the manner he planned.”
No, I also included the unintentional event with designed elements.
“He made intelligent choices which lead to the results he expected. This sounds pretty much like Dembski’s definition of design.”
Well, depends upon what you’re referring to. But the point is there is still contingency. Choices are being made whether by good or bad intentions. You get expected results of non-maintenance activity. Decay. But you know this.
“What is the vital ingredient that makes it different from category (1)?”
That we recognize design in our own elements we make today by informational content, probability, measurements, etc., as patterns that do not occur naturally together in our environment. A cigarette, a garbage can, fuel, or an electric wire fall into these categories. This is seperate from any “chance” of the intentional choices of the analogy. Am I stating things to simply?
“It can hardly be simply that he needed a bit of luck – most designed solutions require an element of chance as well. In fact you could arrange designed solutions on a sort of scale according to how much luck was needed for success.”
But your talking about intentions after the fact of determining design. Plus I think you’re going off in a direction that is not relevent, or again, I misundertand you.
“I design a football move and get a goal – but I need a fair bit of luck (a lot in my case). I design a spreadsheet and it gives me the figures – it needs a lot less luck (but the computer might have failed).
The football, the goal, the harddrive and all components are designed. Maybe you’re leading me to a trapdoor. I have the uncanny feeling you’re trying to. The elements you mention are all designed. Luck is an estimation of probability statistics all grounded in well known fundamental fields of study. How far down the rabbit hole do we go?
“My point is that unless you can explain what differentiates the deliberately negligent owner from the arsonist other than the amount of luck needed”
Stop here. This is where we’re talking past each other or you refuse to accept the common sense approach of Denyse’s post. We do not need to know “why” the owner was negligent(as I stated, maybe it was to costly to repair), or “why” the arsonist “torched the place” as stated by Denyse. The detection of fault by negligence(old wiring) or by arsonist setting a blaze by cigarette/fuel is still cognizant acceptance of intelligently designed instruments or mechanisms in play.
The arsonist may have set the place on fire for a certain amount of payment, or due to being fired. Again, this does not matter.
You’re missing the key point of turnover from the Fire Marshall’s office(the Biologist) to the Investigators Office of Forensic Specialist and associated detectives(Mathematicians, Engineers, Chemist, Physicist, etc.)
That is what is happening today in Biology(and has been happening). In order to understand how Design is utilized, you have to bring in reinforcements. But without talking to the Designer, you may never know all the purposes of each design. Still, the Fire Marshall has recognized it is and so do the Specialized Investigators.
” – then you have a pretty clear case where you have to establish intention to prove design.”
Nope, not at all. As I stated. Eyes are designed to see. That is the Fire Marshall. He then says, I need specialist here to determine how it works.
To understand fully how they function is taking PhD level scientist and engineers which understand the highest levels of many different fields with our best instrumention currently possible.
If anyone on the ID side recognizes my arguments are incorrect, please let me know.
Re: Littlejon
Let me articulate myself a little better. One of the reasons why I try to separate cosmic arguments of design from the biological ones, is that if each one is designed, how are we to tell whether they are different designers or the same? Going further, if only one of the two has been designed, the assumption that both must be designed would prevent us from accepting that fact. I also don’t think that intelligence itself must be supernatural, either, so one of the options I’m open to is that life could have been designed by non-supernatural entities.
A better question migh also be, does our conception of intelligence require that we treat intelligence as having a supernatural component, or can intelligences be entirely natural?
Re: Joseph
Every scenario? If, for example, the appearance of design in this universe is due to the existence of a multiverse, then design in the cosmological sense is not necessary. I would also say something about where the designer got its input… but I think I might accidentally lose my commenting priviledges, heh. Anyway, that’s one.
Sometimes being able to separate design from very design-like circumstances, like the sprinkler system example someone else gave above, requires being able to determine the intent of the agent involved.
Let me answer your question by quoting Bill Dembski’s paper, The Explanatory Filter: (http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_explfilter.htm)
“By selecting the Democrats to head the ballot 40 out of 41 times, Caputo appears to have participated in an event of probability less than 1 in 50 billion. Yet, exceedingly improbable things happen all the time. The crucial question therefore is whether this event is also specified-does this event follow a non-ad hoc pattern so that we can legitimately eliminate chance? But of course, the event is specified: that Caputo is a Democrat, that it is in Caputo’s interest to see the Democrats appear first on the ballot, that Caputo controls the ballot lines, and that Caputo would by chance be expected to assign Republicans top ballot line as often as Democrats all conspire to specify Caputo’s ballot line selections, and render his selections incompatible with chance. No one to whom I have shown this example draws any other conclusion than design, to wit, Caputo cheated.â€Â
Clearly, Bill agrees that intent is one component of a diagnostic test of design. Would it still be just as likely to be design if the republicans were put on top?
I think that when we can begin to analyze the intent of the designer(s), we can explain sub-optimal designs such as backwards retina.
Likely because of the religious predispositions of many of the commenters here, I haven’t heard one person suggest that there can possibly be a flaw in the designs. Aren’t we supposed to follow the evidence where it leads?
I’m working on an essay about the subject, but I don’t know how long it will take me to finish it. I might submit it to one of the contributors here or start myown blog or something. I’m very interested in this issue, and I hope to contribute to ID in my own way.
Dang, this comment is practically an essay already. I think I’ll cross-post it at overwhelmingevidence.com.
I seem to be on a roll in getting published – many thanks to whoever is letting me through!
Micheals7
You attempt to draw a clear difference between deliberate negligence and design (at least I think so – your posts are rather long for middle-aged eyes).
But what if the owner is negligent to the extent of leaving inflammable fluids around? This might well produce one of the hallmarks of arson – multiple sources. I am not being pedantic. I am just arguing that it is only a matter of degree, not of some fundamental difference. In fact I think I can put it in ID jargon. Some designs have a high degree of specified complexity and others have less. If there is less specified complexity then you really struggle to demonstrate design without knowing about intention, because in this case without intention design is indistinguishable from chance.
I hastily want to add that I also believe the “specified” bit of CSI is also rooted in what we know about human behaviour and intentions – but that is far too long and difficult an argument to have here.
And no I am not laying traps. I am using this to clarify my own ideas.
Thanks
Mark,
Thanks, I’ll answer in the morning and try to narrow down my thoughts.
OK Mark,
I’ll ask some simple questions based on my original scenario first.
Is a cigarette designed?
If a cigarette causes the fire. Is the fire started naturally or artificially?
If there is no cigarette and lightning caused the fire, is it then a natural act(act of God in still in some insurance documents) or artificial?
Can you and I agree on at least these terms and answers?
Doing so, in my opinion breaks it down between 1 Not=(2-3).
My tact here is common sense, not referring to CSI for cellular organisms, or minimum criteria.
Once the Fire Marshall determines artificial means whether by foul play or even by accident, as long as it is not an “act of God,” it is turned over for investigation.
The disagreement is here between ID and Strict NDE’s. NDE’s just kick it back and say all things are accidents and over time anything can happen.
IDist say, no, we believe it was not an accident and we need to investigate the different mechanisms which point to different levels of design.
The investigation at that point is not questioning whether or not a cigarette is designed. But forensics would want to know how fast would a particular brand and paper burn, for example. But the determination of design is already made. Remember, this is a simpla analogy.
This is our breaking point I believe. You want to tie together the intention with the cigarette. When the truth is, the intention of the design of the cigarette was designed for inhaling tobacco, not starting fires.
This is kind of like saying the intention of designing a hand was to save lives as a doctor, not use it to murder.