What’s Wrong With Gap Arguments, Anyway?
| October 23, 2006 | Posted by GilDodgen under Intelligent Design |
ID proponents are often accused of using “God-of-the-gaps†arguments. Of course, there are positive arguments for inferences to design in the natural world, but Del Ratzsch makes an interesting point about gap arguments in this interview.
He comments:
…the SETI program is a gap-searching project — trying to find signals which nature alone couldn’t or wouldn’t produce, then constructing alien-civilizations-of-the-gap arguments. Further, it is nowhere written in stone that nature has no causal or explanatory gaps of the relevant sort… gaps and gap arguments as such are unproblematic in principle.
[...]
…gaps have to do with e.g. mechanical causal histories, whereas design has to do with intentional histories. Those are in many cases intimately related issues. Gaps can be important clues to design, since depending on the context an actual mechanical, causal gap could suggest agency as a causal factor, and it is a relative short step from there to design. But the issues are distinct, and the ritual allegation that design views are all God-of-the-gap theories is inaccurate philosophically, as well as historically and contemporarily.
…It is also worth noting that if nature is designed and if it does contain causal or explanatory gaps, then any prohibition on gap theories will nearly guarantee that science — discarding one failed non-gap theory only by replacing it with another (not yet failed) [non]-gap theory — will not self-correct in the usual advertised way, and that science will never correctly understand the relevant phenomena.
Ratzsch points out that the search for extraterrestrial intelligence is based on a gaps-argument premise: If it could be shown that a signal from outer space could not possibly — or at least could not rationally or reasonably — be the product of natural law or chance, it would be legitimate to conclude that it was designed by an alien intelligence.
One might then ask, If it could be shown that life could not possibly — or at least could not rationally or reasonably — have spontaneously generated from non-living matter through natural law or chance, wouldn’t it, by the same logic, be legitimate to conclude that it was designed by an intelligence?
Note Ratzsch’s point in the last quoted paragraph. If, in the SETI case, it turned out that a long series of prime numbers were detected in a signal from outer space, and the gap-argument logic were disallowed, one might enter into a long series of just-so naturalistic stories to explain away the prime numbers and never arrive at the truth, which is that ETs actually do exist.
Ratzsch also points out in the interview that, although materialistic science has filled many gaps in our understanding, there is no guarantee that it can do so in every case. He notes that the gap presented by cosmological fine-tuning gets increasingly bigger the more we learn.
As a final comment, note that in mathematics there is an analog of gap-argument logic, and it’s called proof by contradiction. Since we’re on the subject of prime numbers, here’s an example of how it works:
I might not be able to directly prove that there are infinitely many prime numbers, but what if I could prove that there could not possibly be a largest prime number? Let’s assume that there is a finite number of primes and that P is the biggest one. Multiply all the prime numbers less than or equal to P together, and then add 1. We’ll call this number N. N is not divisible by any prime less than or equal to P, because when you divide N by any of those primes you’ll always get a remainder of 1. N is therefore either prime, or it is divisible by a prime bigger than P. In either case, P is not the biggest prime, and there cannot possibly be such a thing.
We’ve just found a gap that can only be filled by an infinitude of prime numbers.
38 Responses to What’s Wrong With Gap Arguments, Anyway?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
crandaddy,
I’m suggesting that a limited materialistic understanding of intelligent agency is possible because intelligent agents acting in the material world sometimes yield measurable scientific results. This makes us dependant on material reality to interpret some actions of intelligent agents, not that intelligence must come from material alone. A strictly material root for mind is another ball of wax altogether.
All instances of ID are not understood independently of materialistic causes, since the heart of the ID research program is to study the entire context of chance, necessity, and design. As Dembski has observed, the heart of ID is teasing apart the effects of chance, necessity, and design. This includes how they interact, how they are dependent on each other. Eg. intelligent agents use natural regularity to fulfill purposes by arranging boundary conditions, like damming a river to make a lake. The free-flowing river is obeying natural regularity, a diverted river is also obeying natural regularity, but the diverted river has been altered to fulfill a purpose.
Many actions of intelligent agents do not have physical effects. Many actions of intelligent agents have significance that is independent of material reality. Some physical effects of intelligence do not even have a material significance. There is no good evidence or reason to think that everything in the world will yield to strictly materialistic premises, since physicalists typically (and deliberately) ignore the full ramifications of fundamental aspects of reality, especially reality as experienced and enacted by intelligent agents.
I think StephenA is on the right track. Whether intelligence is strictly derivative or strictly non-derivative is a question that science cannot now answer, and probably never will. As is so often stated by the anti-ID community to defend the anemic neo-Darwinian synthesis, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.†IOW, whether we might have a mechanistic explanation of ID or not, evidence for derivation is another matter entirely. Intelligence is still a unique phenomena that acts in ways that chance and unguided processes do not, and to inquire about the physical effects of intelligent causes is a sound scientific investigation.
To my knowledge, science has not rendered a “full account†of any phenomena whatsoever, since that requires an ultimate explanation to questions like “who designed the designer?†or “what happened to make nature the way it is, and how is it that we did not end up in another state of affairs?â€Â
So much more to say on this, but so little time.
GilDodgen,
I agree with you and Reed. I agree with you that Gap arguments can help. I think I’m about to get myself into some hot water here, but I never have been the squeamish type.
Take for example the modern scientific enterprise. When looked at with the eyes of strict and systematic logic, science is one huge historical edifice of gaps:
Gap – There is a physical universe; that indeed something “outside of my mind†exists.
Gap – The universe and phenomena within it are ordered in some way.
Gap – The universe and phenomena within it are observable by the human senses in some way. Apprehension of reliable knowledge of the outside world is possible.
Gap – The human mind, aided by the senses, is capable of understanding the universe, at least in pieces.
Gap – Phenomena in the universe are quantifiable and can be measured in some way.
Gap – Measuring brings quantified knowledge sufficiently usable to derive new knowledge, e.g. when considering relationships between measurements.
Gap – The ontological order of nature manifests itself in such a way that they are understandable, at least partially; there is a type of mind-correlation. Ontological order can be grasped by the epistemic order of our minds.
Gap – Knowledge derived by science is, in some sense, both stable and at the same time subject to change.
Gap – The human mind can further extrapolate new reliable knowledge from the other sources of knowledge, that is; sense data, reason, logic, and especially mathematical principles.
Gap – Presuming that Hume’s problem of induction is tentatively excusable.
Gap – Principle of Uniformity
Gap – The universe is governed by laws.
I obtained the basis of the above list from an interesting paper here. Surely there are more gaps, since each scientific discipline has its own assumptions and axioms. To my knowledge, none of these assumptions are systematically outlined and explained utilizing logical rigor, someone please alert me if they are. Some of these assumptions actually fly in the face of tight-laced logical thoroughness. Young budding philosophers reading this may want to look into making a sizable contribution to human knowledge by outlining these gaps with logical schemas. Here’s an attempt at the problem of induction by Alan Rhoda, a very admirable one for sure!
The logical gaps leading to the conclusion that science is worthwhile may be disposed of in the future, but they were gaps in the past. Del Ratzsch and other philosophers of science have made this observation, while also noting that modern science arose only once in history within Western theistic culture. Apparently, history shows that modern science exists because of the God-of-the-gaps argument, since all of the gaps in the above list were thought excusable given the reasoning that God created the universe and the human mind, and having the same source the world and the human mind are correlated. Many scientists of the past, and I think many today, hold this view. In a manner of speaking, some think the reason science can yield knowledge of the universe is because God-did-it.
Reed,
At the same time as I agree with Gil on the usefulness of gap arguments, I agree with you that a gap argument is not enough to situate ID on solid epistemic or scientific ground. We can do better, and we have. Behe observes that ID is based on what we know intelligent agents can do. Well, that’s true, and we need to continue learning about both intelligent and unguided processes. And as I stated previously on this thread, inquiring into the possibility of intelligent causes acting in history and yielding identifiable and measurable results is a perfectly legitimate scientific question.
So, I argue that a design inference does foundationally meet the criteria outlined by Reed for a valid gap argument, although admittedly without mathematical rigor.
Up in comment #12 I suggested something to this effect but claimed that it was an impracticality. I was wondering what you thought of the enormous mathematical undertaking required to demonstrate this in practice vis-a-vis the predictions of evolution. That is, my concern is that modern evolutionary theory has the benefit of being a possitive assertion. Evolution just needs to keep filling in the gaps with non-contradictions; design detection has the dubious distinction of having to know the entire probablistic landscape before you can contradict those probabilities. It’s so much easier to do it with a delimited data set, like prime numbers.
mjb2001,
Responding here to your “Comment by mjb2001  October 25, 2006 @ 9:05 am“
So far so good.
We’ve witnessed changes to already existing biological structures, and this is accepted by almost everyone at all times; even special creationists. What no person has ever documented is the de novo development of biological structures. This is the pivotal point where many think Darwinism and neo-Darwinism fail to provide evidence that mutation and selection can fit the bill. Many anti-Darwinians claim that mutation and selection cannot even pick up the bill (speak to it), much less pay it.
That’s an interesting thought puzzle, but I have not claimed that the Grand Canyon came about by the direct action of intelligent agency. Therefore, I do not have to defend or deny such a ridiculous premise. As far as I can tell, the Grand Canyon does not show a single sign of intelligence. Mere existence or complexity does not qualify something as a product of intelligence as opposed to a different cause. More is required to infer design.
Your point, I think, is that it is difficult to detect intentionality. I do not deny this. It can be extremely difficult, depending on the physical evidence. But if the physical evidence is absolutely soaking wet with signs of intelligence, counterflow, artifactuality, and teleology, intelligence is a better explanation. This is what we see in living organisms. Again, I would say it is a legitimate question whether something is designed, not that anyone has established design as a matter of logical necessity.
For discussions like these, someone antithetical to ID will forever miss the point until one reads “Nature, Design and Science†by Del Ratzsch. I have read most of the ID and anti-ID literature, and he is the only one that addresses these deeper and subtler points of evidence.
By all means, take your time, it is a precious commodity that must be spent judiciously.
My apologies. I erred on the source of my “biblical quote.†I’d heard this phrase before in the context of a religious conversation, and made the error of assuming it was from the Bible. After a quick search, I was unable to locate this exact phrase in either the New or Old Testament (teach me to hit the “submit†button before thoroughly confirming my text). Again, I apologize.
On the other hand, the gist of the quote is still applicable to what I said. Our knowledge today would certainly seem divine to someone a hundred years ago. A hundred years from now, whose to say? We may find discover that what we call the “supernatural†today will be just another branch of science. Quantum physics certainly seemed that way to me when I first began studying it in undergrad school.
OK wait– Perhaps what we can take from this thread is that we have TWO ID’s and from that we can attempt to define the “gap”-
micro ID- best described as every time we observe IC/ CSI/ Counterflow and we KNOW the cause it is ALWAYS via an intelligent agency.
Examples are-
From Biology: artificial selection; genetictically modified foods; gene therapy; controlled epigenetics- etc.
From other venues:
Archeaology
Forensics
macro ID would then follow Wm Dembski’s inquiry:
Examples are-
In Biology- the origin and subsequent diversity of living organisms
Cosmology- the origin of the universe
SETI
Archaeology
Once the “gap” is properly defined we can do as Inquistive Brain suggests- fill it in.
This might be a bit unrelated, but what I found interesting upon reading Dembski’s 1999 book is that he and Michael Behe have differing views on the details of how/when intelligent design has occurred on this planet. In other words, is there a God of the gaps, or not? And what are the gaps? Has the ID community come closer to discriminating between the Behe and Dembski hypotheses of when/how ID has occurred? Is it even possible to make scientific inquiry into these operational details?