Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Cost of Mistakes

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In the comments of Gil’s article about why a greater percentage of engineers vs. scientists are open to the idea of life being a result of intelligent design I remarked that medical doctors are another occupational outlier in there being a larger than expected percentage open to ID. I asked the MDs here if they could comment on that because while I can understand the POV of engineers and mathematicians I couldn’t figure out why MDs would also be an exception.

After thinking about it a while it occurred to me that medical doctors, like engineers, understand the cost of mistakes in complex systems better than academic scientists. Orthodox evolution theory is based on the notion that sometimes a mistake in a complex system will result in better fitness for purpose. Doctors and engineers however know that mistakes in complex systems seldom if ever result in improved fitness but rather more often result in loss of fitness (often catastrophic loss of fitness resulting in death).

When a doctor or an engineer makes a mistake it can cost lives. When an evolutionary biologist makes a mistake like saying whales are more closely related to horses than hippos there are no lives lost because of it. The consequences of their mistakes are entirely academic. So they have a whole different mindset about the cost of mistakes than do medical doctors and engineers.

Comments
grendelkhan, You also might consider the emerging field of Systems Biology cannot accomplish its research without understanding engineering principles. Your pronouncements, though possibly defensible 4 decades ago, is now obsolete. Modern science is becoming better and better understood from a systems and communication theory perspective, exactly the domain of engineering. That make sense if the universe and life are designed...scordova
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
And since when are “engineer” and “Darwinist” mutually exclusive categories?
grendelkhan, Apparently you don't wish to exercise a sense of humor.
Scientists shouldn’t be engineers, for good reason.
Well, well, well, I seem to recall a certain National Academy of Sciences president lobbying for biologists to be trained in engineering.scordova
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
That’s why scientists need to be engineers and not Darwinists.
What? How did you get that from what I said? Again: the penalties for being wrong in basic research are far slimmer than the penalties for being wrong when building a bridge. Because of this, engineers need a different set of skills than scientists have. It is good, for instance, for engineers to be extremely conservative about novelty and risk. On the other hand, researchers are wrong all the time (not every hypothesis comes out true), and that's part of the process. Scientists shouldn't be engineers, for good reason. And since when are "engineer" and "Darwinist" mutually exclusive categories?grendelkhan
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
correction: previous post should read 'theologian- creationist' not theologist.devilsadvocate
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT
Tom said: "Anyone with the least experience in real world engineering knows in their bones that mistakes are the crucial opportunities that enable us to advance. Trial and error are the names of the game and any product, hardware or software, goes through numerous revisions as part of the development process." Yep, you got it finally right! Brava, Tom! You named "revisions" & "development process"... I must tell you something: when you first try to solve a problem, the first thing you usually do is - you think! You think and try to find a solution to the problem. Then, you act. You apply your solution and see (observe) if your solution worked. If your solution solved the problem, you usually stop. If the problem is not solved, you THINK AGAIN... And try to find another solution... If you are a trained engineer you will think twice: first, to find a solution, and second, to PREDICT if the solution will work. You may have some (intelligently designed) tools for that: computer simulations or DFSS stuff... And then you can act and apply the solution... So, as you can see, YOU HAVE TO THINK A LOT to find the best solution to your problem... Aka - USE YOUR INTELLIGENCE... ;-) You know, first of all, the Nature cannot "think". That means: - cannot be aware a problem has arose; - cannot seek for a solution... Second, it cannot "observe". That means cannot choose between a good and a bad solution. Third, the Nature cannot "think" (again). That means it cannot IMPROVE a solution... Question: what do you do at NASA ?...Sladjo
January 10, 2007
January
01
Jan
10
10
2007
03:02 AM
3
03
02
AM
PDT
That’s why they’re engineers, not scientists.
Not quite. That's why scientists need to be engineers and not Darwinists.scordova
January 9, 2007
January
01
Jan
9
09
2007
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
5b01zerobone, Serious about Behe's book. It was the first book on questioning evolution that I could really relate to. It supported doubts that I had but at the time did not have the knowledge to support. I tried to discuss it with some of my professors but they offered only the standard answers used to shut down discussion such as attacking his credentials (as they also did with Dembski- he's just a theologist). My bio instructor addresses the mousetrap analogy by asking students to think of ways you could catch mice (although less efficiently) with only one or some of the parts such as smashing a mouse with the wood block. No one in class seemed to question the fact you are not just using the wood block but a very sofisticated system to spot, track, and manipulate the wood block that you just added all at once. In my circle of friends the engineers require the most data to support claims before they will be convinced.devilsadvocate
January 9, 2007
January
01
Jan
9
09
2007
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
DaveScot wrote I think if you ask any actual designer of spacecraft he’ll slap you for asking such a stupid question because if you start randomly modifying flight systems on the space shuttle you’ll quickly end up with smoldering pieces of space shuttles and no whole space shuttles at all. I disagree with your assessment that "you’ll quickly end up with smoldering pieces of space shuttles" In the scenario above, shuttles which posess harmful modifications will fail to leave any offspring. Therefore additional harmful modifications cannot occur to this particular design. In addition to this duplication errors do not always occur. These non-modified shuttles will have offspring, given selection criteria have not changed. So at the very least, you will have a population of unmodified shuttles, or shuttles with neutral modifications. I believe the selection process will prevent harmful modifications from accumulating in the manor you propose.malnutritious_bak
January 9, 2007
January
01
Jan
9
09
2007
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
Isn't all that true of any kind of basic as opposed to applied research? I mean, nobody died when astronomers thought there were canals on Mars, right? Or when geologists thought plate tectonics was nonsense, or when physicists thought that the speed of light was relative to the observer? I just don't see what's so earth-shattering about this. Of course engineers' mistakes carry a tremendously high cost. That's why they're engineers, not scientists.grendelkhan
January 9, 2007
January
01
Jan
9
09
2007
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
malnutritious Okay, let's go with that example. It's theoretically possible that a random modification to a space shuttle flight system will result in a craft with better performance. Now tell me what are the odds of 1) a random mutation causing a crash that results in no offspring at all for that lineage 2) a random mutation that causes a decrease in performance 3) a random mutation that causes no change in performance 4) a random mutation that causes an improvement in performance I think if you ask any actual designer of spacecraft he'll slap you for asking such a stupid question because if you start randomly modifying flight systems on the space shuttle you'll quickly end up with smoldering pieces of space shuttles and no whole space shuttles at all.DaveScot
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT
In all fairness to Tom I think he was describing the shotgun method of problem solving in engineering. You don't know exactly what might work but you have a bunch of ideas so you try them all and see if any work. Granted that's quite common and I've employed it many times but it really isn't comparable to random mutation and natural selection. The shotgun approach (contrasted with the rifle approach) is still an intelligently designed search. A shotgun pattern covers a wider area but it doesn't cover the entire sphere of targets in every possible direction. It's still a focused approach. I was thinking of writing a separate article about it as recent experiments have indicated that bacteria acquiring antibiotic resistance are using a shotgun approach - they crank up the mutation rate by orders of magnitude on a limited set of genes when under great stress. This isn't really random mutation - it's calculated mutation.DaveScot
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT
Let us imagine that the space shuttle could now reproduce on it's own. And let us say that a successful flight determines the reproductive success of this space shuttle. Givens: The shuttles can already fly. Nobody is building them, they reproduce on their own. More successful flights result in more offspring. Duplication erros can occur. For this example we will define successful flights as longer trips. Let's suppose, If due to duplication errors the resulting shuttle's flight is more successful than it's predacessors. Would I be correct in the assessment that it will produce more offspring. In this case there is no judgement other than the length of flight. It would seem trial and error only requires that judgement be passed, whether or not the judgement is a result of natural performance, or whether it is a subjective measure by human beings. The space shuttle will produce more offspring simply because offspring number is tied to the shuttles performance.malnutritious
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT
2. You don’t understand science (B.S. Summa Cum Laude, M.D. first in class, Junior AOA, more than a handful of published articles. OK maybe I’m not a real scientist but come on; I think I have a basic understanding of the principles of science at least.)
I can't really imagine too many people becoming engineers or doctors without at the least an IQ of perhaps 120, and often much more. So what they're saying is that evolution theory is good for the masses, but that they must accept it without undersanding it. It is a tad worrisome that this very important theory is so abstruse that even higly intelligent and educated people in various disciplines are hopelessly out of their depth with it. Perhaps a good response should be, if I can't be expected to understand it, why should I believe it? How can I believe that which I lack the ability to evaluate?avocationist
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
10:02 PM
10
10
02
PM
PDT
devilsadvocate wrote: Maybe the ‘true Scottsman’ fallacy chould be renamed the ‘true scientist fallacy’. Having engineering and medical background I definately feel the weight of mistakes in my work. I also read Darwin’s Black Box while I was in school and any questioning was promptly shut down by my bio professors. Are you being facetious? I can't tell whether you are being condescending towards Behe's book or if you are supportive.a5b01zerobone
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT
Tom Moore: "Anyone with the least experience in real world engineering knows in their bones that mistakes are the crucial opportunities that enable us to advance. Trial and error are the names of the game and any product, hardware or software, goes through numerous revisions as part of the development process. " At the risk of piling on, the crucial difference is that each error occurring upon a trial modification must be examined intelligently, and the solution and response must be intelligently selected, if any overall improvement is to occur. Both steps are crucial. If the possibility of an error producing an improvement is small, then the possibility of a random solution to an error compounds the unlikelihood. Consider a random change introduced into code. What is the chance that a second random error will not only correct or offset the first error, but actually make the overall situation improve? The difference is intelligence. Try to remove your own intelligence from the next trial and error opportunity/challenge you encounter at work, and note the remarkable difference in the outcome.SCheesman
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT
“Many things are remotely possible. A snowflake with face of a Timex watch with the correct time and date set on it could land in your palm during the next snowstorm. It’s possible for the water molecules to be serendipitously arranged that way. The question isn’t what’s possible but rather how probable are the possibilities.” Man can logic and reason cut like a knife or what?shaner74
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT
malnutritious Can it be said that mistakes in complex processes can never result in improvements? Sure you can say it. You can say anything. The question is whether you can demonstrate that what you say is true. Can mistakes never lead to alternate functionality? Many things are remotely possible. A snowflake with face of a Timex watch with the correct time and date set on it could land in your palm during the next snowstorm. It's possible for the water molecules to be serendipitously arranged that way. The question isn't what's possible but rather how probable are the possibilities. DaveScot
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
“Anyone with the least experience in real world engineering knows in their bones that mistakes are the crucial opportunities that enable us to advance.” I will respectfully disagree as it pertains to systems engineering and design. Our personal lives are different – yes we learn the most from our mistakes (adversity). In my coding days, we would sit down and spend weeks to months just planning our design before a single line of code was cut. From my experience, no mistake – not one – that I made in the coding phase ever added any functionality to the system, but rather cost us precious time and money when already faced with unrealistic deadlines. I’ve just never seen any type of error produce anything good. Instead, I spent many a sleepless night trying to rid software of bugs that weren’t in the design and shouldn’t have been there, but somehow always seemed to sneak their way in and wreak havoc. Just in writing this, I can’t help but smile at the thought of “copying errors” producing anything but disaster; just the notion of it goes against everything we know. Maybe all biologists should be required to know engineering.shaner74
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
Actually Tom, the difference between a bad engineer and a good engineer isn't in the number of things they do right, it's in the number of things they do wrong. A good engineer has a long track record of getting the job done without making ghastly mistakes that cost money and lives. Write that down. Come to think of it, that's how you tell good doctors from bad doctors. You may write that down as well. DaveScot
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
Tom Moore, I disagree with you. I have a list of bugs for a system I'm working on right now and contrary to your optimism, none of those unintended consequences led to an improvement in the system function. (Believe me, I wish the real world worked like you believe...it would save me a lot of debugging work.)Atom
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
Tom Moore Trial and error are the names of the game and any product, hardware or software, goes through numerous revisions as part of the development process. So tell me, Tom. Do the boys working on the space shuttle improve it by, while blindfolded, throw colored darts at the most recent blueprints and for red darts insert the component an extra time, blue darts leave the component out, yellow darts install a mirror image of the part, green dart make the part smaller, purple darts make it bigger, etcetera? Or do you use intelligence to plan your changes based on predictions that the change will result in an improvement of some sort? I suppose if there's any engineers at NASA using the dart method that would explain some things.DaveScot
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
Anyone with the least experience in real world engineering knows in their bones that mistakes are the crucial opportunities that enable us to advance. Trial and error are the names of the game and any product, hardware or software, goes through numerous revisions as part of the development process. Any engineer who won't admit that is suffering from an egotistical exaggeration of their own prowess. But don't take my word for it. There must a hundred tired platitudes proclaiming the power of learning from mistakes, instead of being discouraged by them. Do you suppose those all came from people less intelligent and capable than engineers? And why do you suppose that physicians practice on cadavers? Clearly, because mistakes are less costly in malpractice insurance there than when they are made on live patients. Doctors who go in for highly experimental non-routine procedures count on a lack of any alternative but death for patient motivation. Then they can take huge risks under conditions where mistakes are somewhat more tolerable and have even bigger payoffs when mastery is eventually achieved. I very much doubt that engineers and doctors are really any more likely than the rest of us to consider their creative work to be "God-like." But if so, well, that just confirms what we have always thought about doctors, doesn't it!? Who knew that engineers were the same way?Tom Moore
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
Dave Scott wrote Doctors and engineers however know that mistakes in complex systems seldom if ever result in improved fitness but rather more often result in loss of fitness (often catastrophic loss of fitness resulting in death). Given this. Can it be said that mistakes in complex processes can never result in improvements? Can mistakes never lead to alternate functionality?malnutritious
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
Maybe the 'true Scottsman' fallacy chould be renamed the 'true scientist fallacy'. Having engineering and medical background I definately feel the weight of mistakes in my work. I also read Darwin's Black Box while I was in school and any questioning was promptly shut down by my bio professors.devilsadvocate
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT
I've gotten used to these standard responses, in order, to any criticism of Darwinism I offer believers: 1. You're an ignorant creationist (this is almost always the first response to criticism of NDE even before I've said anything about what my beliefs actually are) 2. You don't understand science (B.S. Summa Cum Laude, M.D. first in class, Junior AOA, more than a handful of published articles. OK maybe I'm not a real scientist but come on; I think I have a basic understanding of the principles of science at least.) 3. All real scientists believe Darwinism. (The final redoubt) It's very predictable. They always come back to #3 at least even after I've gone the rounds to demonstrate that I do have a fair understanding of the subject.dacook
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT
I am not sure that I know if and why MDs are more open to ID than other categories, but I think that what has been said here is certainly interesting. I agree that the practice of medicine means often that you have to be practical, to try to understand even when you cannot really understand, to take risks, because you often have to act even if you have not all the necessary information. The result is that, if you want to stay honest, you have to develop a flexible attitude towards reality, and in the end you simply appreciate what really works. So, common sense and intuition are not offensive words in medicine, just the contrary. And we all know who can get some help from common sense and intuition in the debate between ID and Darwinism, don't we? But there is another aspect which I would like to stress. Whoever has been practicing or studying medicine in the last few decades has witnessed a continuous escalation in the complexity of our understanding which is simply astonishing. It has been argued, correctly, that Darwin, who was certainly not a fool, could elaborate his theory in a time when everybody thought that a cell was only a small package of protoplasm, an extremely simple structure. But everybody should understand that the gap between the conception of cellular activities we had in the sixties, let's say, that is in the period when neo-darwinism was young, strong and winning, and the conception and knowledge that we have now, is even bigger. In the last forty years we have seen layer after layer of complexity coming to light, and each new achievement and understanding has always been the starting point for new questions. Very often (but, luckily, not always) the evidence of our incomplete understanding is that our increase in knowledge can scarcely be translated in an increase in power. We understand more, but we cannot do much more, because what we start to understand is too complex for us to manage. So, may be that when, year after year, you hear about new molecules, new important interactions, new molecular mechanisms, which should explain everything, and nothing is really explained, or when you look on the internet just to find some updated view about cytokines, and you find that there are thousands of them, while they were just a few some years ago, or when you try to understand what is known about the regulation of transcription factors (which, believe me, is where the real magic is), and year after year you have to admit that nothing is really known, then you start thinking that not only all that stuff has to be designed, but that the designer has to be much more intelligent and smarter than we are. I am deeply sure that the esponential increase in our understanding of biological and human complexity has been giving a final death blow to any plausibility of the neo-darwinian theory, and that will become ever more evident in the next few years. In that sense, I have never understood the objection that there is no ID scientific research: all scientific research, if well done, is pro ID, because all true scientific research is about getting the facts. And, as somebody has said (more or less), "I have seen many theories defeated by a single fact, but I have never seen a fact defeated by a theory".gpuccio
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
I am an M.D. Orthopaedic surgeon with a B.S. in Biology. I first began to seriously question the standard Darwinian line in the gross anatomy lab during my first year of medical school. How could all that incredible inter-related complexity have come about by chance, no matter how dressed up?
Exactly. As a biomedical engineer, and working with surgeons and pathologists, this is what I perceive as their 'take' on the matter. It's mine, also. But apparently, Larry Moran sees it differently,
The Cost of Mistakes address the observation that a higher percentage of doctors fall for ID compared to scientists. DaveScot explains that it's because doctors recognize the cost of mistakes … That's only part of the answer-and not a very important part. The real reason is that Doctors aren't scientists so they don't understand science even though they think they do … " (go to) http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-are-so-many-engineers-and.html
People like Larry Moran and Richard Dawkins provide answers to evolutionary riddles that answer nothing. In the case of Dawkins, though, it makes interesting reading. But like jpark320 stated,
" The explanations given are so vacuous and full of so much wild conjecture it's hard for me to take them to the point of scientific dogma, let alone the truth."
Dittoleebowman
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
jpark320:
I first began to seriously question the standard Darwinian line in the gross anatomy lab during my first year of medical school. How could all that incredible inter-related complexity have come about by chance, no matter how dressed up? I tried questioning the professor about it but only got flippant responses ridiculing creationists.
lol Did he tell you, in the same breath, that the theory of evolution is a fact(TM), and that there is no conflict between "science" (evolution) and religion? Did you notice the pattern? You made a legitimate scientific question, but your darwinian professor imediatly turned to religion! idnet.com.au
A good friend of mine, an eye surgeon says the rubbish spoken about the poor design of the eye is not even worth writing against. He spends each day marvelling at the design of the human visual and perception system.
This goes in line with what I had said previously, paraphresing Steven Meyer. While people who actually work with such Irreducible Complex systems are more sensible to their design choices, evolutionary biologists can just wave their hands and claim "Mutations did it", or "Natural selection is behind it!" Secondly, as Bill posted previously, there is no career risk in telling the wrong evolutionary history of a given bio-structure. The sun will go on shinning, the birds will go on singing, and tomorrow will certainly come, regardless of "Lucy" being (or not) a "missing link". Biology, unlike what Dawkins said in the debate with mr Quinn, won't be a mess if we put Darwinian nonsense in the recycle bin.Mats
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
Seems like physicians doubt Darwin based on incredulity. But there's nothing wrong with incredulity. Incredulity is the thing inside your head that says, "I don't buy the story you're trying to palm off. You better prove it, buster." It seems that when people who have absolutely no vested interest in the Darwin story learn more about life and it's systems, they believe the Darwin story less and demand real proof and not just stories. MDs are such a group. It is no surprise to me that great bunches of them are incredulous about the Darwin story.mike1962
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
Bill Brutal. Dick Butkus would approve. :-)DaveScot
January 8, 2007
January
01
Jan
8
08
2007
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply