Stephen Meyer on ID’s Scientific Bona Fides

_{William Dembski

July 13, 2010

Intelligent Design}

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

Comments

F/N: Minor correction. I am too used to the median [1/2 life] being used for radioactivity, and overlooked cases where Mean is being used instead. The t1/2 of free neutrons is more like roughly 700 or so than roughly 900 seconds, as the tail pulls the mean.kairosfocus_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT}

Petrushka: As CH has just pointed out and implied, you need to acquaint yourself with basic epistemology [what is knowledge, and how do we know, how reliably and accurately; science being of course focussed on what the term means: "KNOWLEDGE" in Latin] and basic logic, with some exposure to worldview analysis. (Cf the introductory notes here.) Logic, in particular is foundational to Mathematics, and both of these disciplines are inextricably intertwined with scientific and other serious forms of intellectual effort. Mathematical logic is also closely related to information theory, which is a key part of the issues over inference to design. (Let us not forget, as I have repeatedly pointed out, that in Info Th, the distinction between intelligent signal and naturally occurring noise -- often captured in the signal to noise ratio - is a key concept. Similarly, experimenters routinely have to distinguish between effects stemming from their intelligent manipulation of variables, and natural scatter and trends or biases. That means that the inference to design, specifically, is deeply embedded in economically vital sciences.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 28, 2010
July
07
Jul
28
28
2010
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

Petrushka,
I’m at something of a loss to think of any contribution to knowledge of the physical world that has been made using non-empirical methods.
Well, one thing is inference itself that all knowledge whatsoever depends on, especially knowledge of the physical world, and inference is itself non-empirical.Clive Hayden_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT}

Petrushka,
By direct observation I count zero contributions from non-empirical methods.
Making any kind of sense of direct observation is called an inference. The external world is an inferred world, and inference itself is not empirical. Your statement is self-defeating.Clive Hayden_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT}

I was googling and I came across this quote from Avicenna and found it hilarious. Enjoy "Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned" Vividvividbleau_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

Gaz: I trust your trip will go well, and may Grace be granted your sister in law. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

Stephen: Perhaps the saddest thing about what we are seeing is that P is a case where the willful indoctrination in ideological a priori, mind-closing evolutionary materialism and related hyper-modern radical relativist rhetorical mind-mush and amorality that we see in both the school system and in the popular science presentations has worked as intended. The real problem is not the P's of this world, but those who have so deviously, dishonestly neglected their duties of care and have systematically misled them and closed their hearts and minds to correction. I fear, only a great and shattering disaster with long term destructive and humbling consequences will serve to open eyes to the crime against the mind, heart and soul that has been wrought. (And, alas, on my observation of my homeland -- I cannot think of it without pain in my heart -- a generation after the folly of the 1970's should have been plain to all, many will STILL be in denial and resort to every distracting excuse to avoid facing the truth.) But, fears or not, it is our duty to stand against the tide of willful folly and refusal of correction. So, we need to teach the basic first steps in principles and first premises of right reason [these are just notes, not yet worked up specifically for teaching], teach also basic steps in critical thinking, and correct the mess that has been made of origins science education. maybe, too, we should heed the warning of Plato, on reflecting back on the ruin of Athens at the hands of the avant garde materialistic thinkers of the later C5 BC [the era of the Peloponnesian War], and their former pupils:
Ath. . . . [The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only. [In short, evolutionary materialism premised on chance plus necessity acting without intelligent guidance on primordial matter is hardly a new or a primarily "scientific" view!] . . . . [Thus, they hold that t]he Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [Relativism, too, is not new.] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might, and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions, these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others, and not in legal subjection to them. [The Laws, Bk X. NB Petrushka, I am not putting in the link for this either, nor have I generally done so; it is a simple web Search away.]
If we are wise, we will heed the ghost of Plato. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

"Thanks in anticipation, Gaz" Have a safe trip Gaz. Vividvividbleau_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

UprightBiped (648), Thanks, I appreciate the sentiment. This thread has gone on so long I'm not entirely sure who said what to whom, especially with all these nested comments. I may have mixed up a comment of yours with one of StephenB's - if so, I apologise unreservedly if I suggested you said something you didn't, and any consequential unpleasantness on my part. Also to StephenB, kairosfocus, vividbleau - I'm acutely conscious this thread is going on far longer than is healthy for informed debate and is generating more heat than light. I'll be away a few days on personal stuff (sister in law is unwell) so I'm taking the opportunity to step back a bit and conisder the issues away from "the arena". I'm going to ponder if there isn't so much a problem with the "law" of non-contradiction as there is with the formulation of the issue of what is and what is not contradicted. Therefore, in a spirit of attempted reconciliation, can one of you - or collectively if desired - give me, on my return, a formal statement of the "law" of non-contradiction, referenced from an independent (i.e. not one of us and not someone mired in ID/evolution issues) and reputable, authoritative source, for subsequent consideration? Thanks in anticipation, GazGaz_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

@683 posted prematurely containing syntactical errors, so I will say it again: "If you had any conception about how far you are from understanding the subject matter that you presume to challenge, you would stop posting and start weeping. My guess is, though, you will likely never understand the gap between where you are and where you need to be and are, therefore, unlikely to ever feel the appropriate level of embarrassment."StephenB_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

---Petrushka: “I believe the original question dealt with whether evidence trumped common sense with regard to physical phenomena.” Not even close. If you had any conception about how far you are from understanding the subject matter that you presume to challenge, you would stop posting and start weeping. My guess is, though, you will likely never understand the gap between where you are and where you need and therefore, and are, therefore, unlikely to ever feel the appropriate level of embarrassment.StephenB_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

"I count zero contributions from non-empirical methods." You count. Your counting is not empirical, but interpretation. Science isn't science without interpretation. Interpretation involves principles of right reason. Don't you get it yet? You're arguing in circles. Your statement is self-refuting.CannuckianYankee_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

"That is empirical data." This is not empirical data that shows that science s the best way to get in touch with physical reality. None of the data you refer to is empirical daa about your claim that science is the best way to get in touch with physical reality. You have referred to empirical data that deal with planetary motions, electricity , electronics , etc, etc, but what is absent is empirical data about the subject in question. As I said your philosophical slip is showing and you dont even know you have it on. Vividvividbleau_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

This is not EMPIRICAL evidence this is your opinion. Please provide all of us the EMPIRICAL evidence.
By direct observation I count numerous contributions to knowledge of the physical world from science and from empirical methods. Knowledge of planetary motions, knowledge of electricity and electronics, knowledge of medicine, and so forth. By direct observation I count zero contributions from non-empirical methods. That is empirical data. You feel free to contribute your data. One of the neat things about data is that everyone can contribute.Petrushka_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

You already admitted that you lost this argument.
I never argued against reason. I argued against common sense and intuition, in those cases where they are contradicted by evidence. And they most certainly are contradicted by quantum phenomena.Petrushka_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

?I’m at something of a loss to think of any contribution to knowledge of the physical world that has been made using non-empirical methods." This is not EMPIRICAL evidence this is your opinion. Please provode all of us the EMPIRICAL evidence. Vividvividbleau_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

Very well please give all of us the EMPIRICAL evidence that science is the best way to get in touch with physical reality.
I'm at something of a loss to think of any contribution to knowledge of the physical world that has been made using non-empirical methods.Petrushka_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

"I believe the original question dealt with whether evidence trumped common sense with regard to physical phenomena" Straw man alert!!! Strawman alert!!! Stephenb position is that RIGHT RULES OF REASON INFORM EVIDENCE. You already admitted that you lost this argument. How soon you forget. Vividvividbleau_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

Petrushka RE 667 KF…"the notion that it could be taken as self evident that science is the best way to get in touch with physical reality…" Petrushka "Certainly it is not self evident. It is supported by mountains of evidence" Petrushka your philosophical slip is showing. What is sad is that you do not even recognize you have one on. You are ignorant of your own pre suppositions and act as if you dont have any since you only base your worldview on "evidence" Vey well please give all of us the EMPIRICAL evidence that science is the best way to get in touch with physical reality. Vividvividbleau_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Who in the name of sense has ever suggested that quantum mechanics was derived from “pure reason?”
I believe the original question dealt with whether evidence trumped common sense with regard to physical phenomena. It seems to me that the only thing accomplished in the discussion is that people talked past each other.Petrushka_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

---Petrushka: "Nevertheless, [quantum mechanics] it is the result of experiment and observation, not derived from pure reason. Congratulations! You have set all-time record for the number of strawman arguments on a single thread. Who in the name of sense has ever suggested that quantum mechanics was derived from "pure reason?"StephenB_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

But going back to the explanatory filter, the only reasonable question to put to it is whether an observed phenomenon, such as a mutation, obeys the laws of physics and chemistry. If it does, it passes into natural regularity. It makes no sense to calculate the odds of a "specific" mutation happening, after it happens. That is like calculating the odds of a specific person winning powerball -- after they win -- and saying the game must have been rigged. Dollo's Law, in its current form, says the odds of any specific series of mutations occurring are vanishingly low. Pretty much as Behe would assert. But the history of life indicates the dice or lottery balls aren't rigged. The pattern is that populations do not usually adapt to sudden environmental or ecological changes. The pattern is that populations under stress go extinct. Bacteria are a minor exception because their numbers and rate of reproduction allow unlikely adaptions to be found. As noted by Behe. But slower reproducing populations generally die out.Petrushka_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

I suggest you pause and read here, here, here and here.
Do you have links to any actual biology?Petrushka_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

I'm familiar with the explanatory filter. The problem I see is that changes to populations are only specified in retrospect. That is to say, the value of a mutation is determined by its consequences.Petrushka_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

Petrushka; The more you speak, the more evident it becomes that you are naively enmeshed in the subtle tyranny of an unexamined a priori metaphysics tied to evolutionary materialism, whether or not you are formally committed to materialism or physicalism or naturalism, all of which boil down to different stanzas on the same theme. I suggest you pause and read here, here, here and here. Just the first will suffice to show that evolutionary materialism is inescapably self-referentially incoherent and so necessarily false. Gkairosfocus_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

Petrushka: Remember, you are speaking to a trained scientist, with some knowledge of relevant history and phil. Stop setting up and knocking over strawmen that have long since been addressed step by step in the UD Weak Argument Correctives. At no point do I play at "God of the gaps" reasoning, nor do I ever propose that scientific explorations ought to be based on or controlled by a priori metaphysical speculations. Just the opposite. Have a little look here at the diagrammed representation of the design filter, and the associated remarks on scientific inference and reasoning. Then, kindly remove the forest of strawmen from your mental attic. And yes, with suitable approaches, Q mech gives pretty good empirical results, starting with spectroscopy. But, empirical reliability is known not to be a good criterion of truth, as can be seen from how the now known not to be strictly true Newtonian Dynamics can also give very good results. Today's science trained students could do with a bit of history and phil of sci, and sci in society. That would help immunise from materialistic, secular humanistic and politically "progressive" messianistic ideological and metaphysical agendas imposed by today's various Magisteria, often by exploiting the name of science. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

...the notion that it could be taken as self evident that science is the best way to get in touch with physical reality...
Certainly it is not self evident. It is supported by mountains of evidence.Petrushka_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

Petrushka: Perhaps you don't know that every post I make here is linked to my briefing notes on this topic, though my handle. In section E of those notes you will find a certain interesting, wider cite, a point by point discussion, and an onward link to the full article. (My posting habits at UD are largely shaped by the days when there was a strict four link budget, s I assume that interested parties can look up the linked and skim the table of contents with internal hot links and I think it is 2- 300 external links onward.) So kindly stop hinting that I am quote mining, and stop cut-pasting standard Darwinist talking points on this devastating case of letting the cat out of the bag that was supposed to have a piglet in it. In fact, the earlier parts of L's remarks make the onward part I commonly cite even worse. Try out the notion that science is the only begetter of truth, which is a philosophical knowledge claim seeking to discredit same. Similarly, the notion that it could be taken as self evident that science is the best way to get in touch with physical reality [all of reality for a materialist] is self-refuting naivety. For starters. In short, yet another ad hominem laced strawman. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

But in none of these cases do we see chaos, but order and principles and patterns, even probabilistic ones.
I have no problem with that general statement. Quantum theory is not only the most nearly perfect theory we have in terms of precision, it is also one of the most useful. It would not be useful if it predicted chaos and macro-sized things popping in and out of existence. Nevertheless, it is the result of experiment and observation, not derived from pure reason. the people I know who have credentials in the subject insist that the most profound implications of quantum theory are found in the math, and cannot be understood intuitively.Petrushka_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

I messed up the formatting of that, but I guess it's clear enough. Here's the Lewontin article: http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm Rather than be an object of your scorn, Lewontin's section on Newton and Laplace should provide some small measure of warning to those who give up too easily on natural causes.Petrushka_{July 27, 2010
July
07
Jul
27
27
2010
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 24 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply