Scientism & Philosophical Arguments

[Alex K]

As regards the value of philosophy - you need some tool to decide whether or not your propositions are sound, and this is required by the system we've organized to describe proper or informative argumentation.  We know that you don't get to vomit up any old statement, as you did above, and then claim to be approaching or seeking truth.  We knew that long before we ever got into science, and science can't draw conclusions without reference to philosophy - as a largely inductive system itself.  Science sans philosophy is a nonsensical statement, and philosophy without science is merely an exhibition of structural method.

Wow, well said!!

[RoadRunner79]

When I posted this in another thread, I got answers that ranged from a GIF laughing over and over, a suggestion that we need to look at the certain to be life on other planets and that this was simply a God of the Gaps argument. Can it really be dismissed so easily?

Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems.
Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent systems of all sorts.
Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information and irreducible complexity in the cell, and interdependence of proteins, ...

I would also add; because sometimes I think it is under emphasized by proponents and mischaracterized by opponents of I.D, is that I.D. does make positive claims as to why an intelligent agent is a better explanation over natural forces for things such as specified complexity and "fine tuning".  Those who are so quick to label it as "god of the gaps" in my opinion really only show that they don't understand the arguments (or do not care to).

[Alex K]

specified complexity
Isn't that this ill defined thing noone has ever found a real life example for?

[SteveII]

Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems.

So, leaving aside that this is, obviously, an enormous argument from ignorance, allow me to ask some questions that you probably should have answered in the initial premise: how on earth did you determine that the information was "specified"? Because without that, you're kinda begging the question. Moreover, why do you think information, a post-hot conceptual label placed upon perceived patters by subjective minds, is at all relevant before the patterns have been examined and called information? And given the fact that we already know that biological systems that seem irreducible can be reduced quite effectively via additional steps that arose and faded before investigation was possible, what is the basis for just assuming they're irreducible, and hence falling victim to a second argument from ignorance that comprises the entirety of the objection in irreducible complexity?

Using information theory developed by Claude Shannon, we observe that DNA has the capacity to carry huge amounts of information. As Crick explained in 1958, “By information I mean the specification of the amino acid sequence in protein...Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein." Further experimentation since has led to specific knowledge of the types of information encoded.

Can you give me a link that supports that we know about the process that could get around irreducible complexity (in spite of the fact that it "arose and faded before investigation was possible")?

Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent systems of all sorts.

Then a non-special pleading version of this argument would also run that we've never had demonstrated intelligent causes creating life out of nothing, never observed miracles, never observed a god, and you could not come to the conclusion you have. Your premise here relies on baseless special pleading, and can hence be dismissed.

Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information and irreducible complexity in the cell, and interdependence of proteins, ...

Given the logical and evidentiary flaws in the premises, the conclusion cannot be valid on the basis of the argument you've presented.

Historical scientist use abductive reasoning (inference to the best explanation) all the time. Isn't that pretty much the what macro evolution is? How is this different?

Done. No need to just dismiss. It's fairly trivial to refute.

I find it interesting that you will dismiss one observation after another, that might have God as an explanation, by saying we have never observed God. Then you use the fact that you never observed God to discount any miracles reported. Then because there have never been any miracles, there is no God. Then you say that God has not been observed and miracles are not possible so the Bible is nonsense. Isn't this circular?

[Cato]

I find it interesting that you will dismiss one observation after another, that might have God as an explanation, by saying we have never observed God. Then you use the fact that you never observed God to discount any miracles reported. Then because there have never been any miracles, there is no God. Then you say that God has not been observed and miracles are not possible so the Bible is nonsense. Isn't this circular?

No.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sounds to me, Steve, like you think science has something to say about gods........

[Neo-Scholastic]

Science is not the only way to truth, rather it is a necessary tool to validate truth

It cannot validate mathematical truths.

[Crossless2.0]

Science is not the only way to truth, rather it is a necessary tool to validate truth

It cannot validate mathematical truths.

If Aoi Magi had distinguished between analytic and synthetic truth and referred his/her remark to the latter, would you have an issue with that characterization?

[RoadRunner79]

specified complexity
Isn't that this ill defined thing noone has ever found a real life example for?

The exact definition or limit of what is specified is difficult to nail down. Precisely, because the specification changes and we may not always know why it's specified.  I would point out that the demarcation of science has historically also been a difficult to set exact restrictions on.  Would you say, because we cannot find an exact limit of science that science has no real life examples?

I do think that we can tell the difference between a birds nest, and a bunch of sticks that fell to the ground from natural forces.  Or if a structure was found on Mars, we could possibly tell it's difference from naturally eroding rock (even if the structure is unfamiliar).   Similarly we can tell the difference between radio signals, and naturally occurring electro-magnetic radiation.  The SETI research is relying on this.

[Esquilax]

Using information theory developed by Claude Shannon, we observe that DNA has the capacity to carry huge amounts of information. As Crick explained in 1958, “By information I mean the specification of the amino acid sequence in protein...Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein." Further experimentation since has led to specific knowledge of the types of information encoded.

Which doesn't answer my question, which is how you determined that information to be specified, as opposed to what it usually is, which is a post hoc understanding of patterns, occurring in minds? And for that matter, why do you think it's at all relevant to whether or not it was designed, given that information can also just be derived from ultimately unguided processes working under consistent patterns?

Can you give me a link that supports that we know about the process that could get around irreducible complexity (in spite of the fact that it "arose and faded before investigation was possible")?

Yes, and I can do it with the big, famous example of irreducible complexity: the bacterial flagellum. As the big loss of this argument in court showed us, the bacterial flagellum appears irreducibly complex in that removing any part loses the function of the structure, however, a full understanding of evolution, rather than a selective strawman of it, shows otherwise. In actual fact, the bacterial flagellum shares a number of parts with an earlier structure called the type-3 secretory system, and in fact you can take a large number of parts away from the flagellum and get that system.

The point there is that if your view of evolution includes the possibility that structures can evolve new functions via mutation and then can continue to intensify those traits while losing the less favorable original function- a possibility pretty much required by evolution as it's described- then the "irreducibly complex" bacterial flagellum is, in fact, reducibly complex; it's just that what it is reducible to is not a simpler form of flagellum, it's a structure with a different function.

I got another example of irreducible complexity tossed my way the other day, about a plant that requires something from a bacteria, and a bacteria that requires something from the plant, so how could they have evolved that way? It took me about thirty seconds of thought to come to the solution: evidently one or the other organism had the ability to generate or collect the thing it gets from its counterpart on its own in the past, but when it gained its new sybiosis, that ability was redundant and energetically unfavorable, so it could safely be evolved out. That i what happens in evolution: functions rise and fall according to circumstances, sometimes change entirely over time, such that what today seems like it would be untenable if it lost pieces, has an evolutionary path in the past that doesn't require a strict, ordered, upward climb. Evolution isn't a ladder, it's a tree with tangled branches, such that things cross over each other and fall away and change.

It's obvious to see why something like irreducible complexity would miss that, though, given that the entire argument is nothing more than a glorification of ignorance: the ID proponent can't see how this would have evolved (not that they really cared to try) and therefore it had to be designed! Your ignorance is sufficient justification of this random false dichotomy! It's an argument that depends on not understanding, of course it wouldn't present a clear idea of what evolution actually does in the first place.

Historical scientist use abductive reasoning (inference to the best explanation) all the time. Isn't that pretty much the what macro evolution is? How is this different?

The problem is that your inference is in no way tenable according to the premises you've presented. As such, the "best explanation" cannot be the one in your conclusion because the conclusion is in no way justified. My problem isn't with inferences or probabilistic reasoning, it's with your specific argument.

Because it sucks.

I find it interesting that you will dismiss one observation after another, that might have God as an explanation, by saying we have never observed God.

Look, you were the one who decided to feature observations so heavily in your premises, it's not my fault that a consistent application of that also precludes the very thing you're trying to demonstrate.

Then you use the fact that you never observed God to discount any miracles reported. Then because there have never been any miracles, there is no God. Then you say that God has not been observed and miracles are not possible so the Bible is nonsense. Isn't this circular?

It is circular, but it's also, you know, not a goddamn word of what I said? You'd think that'd be important, but hey.

So, the lack of observations of god handily takes care of your premises regarding observations, but the reason I discount miracles has nothing to do with that. The reason I discount miracles is that every miracle that has been tested turned out to have a natural explanation, and those cases where testing was not done, or was not conclusive, I'm still not justified in leaping to a supernatural conclusion, that'd be an argument from ignorance.

This should be obvious, but for a proposed explanation to be the solution to a phenomenon, it has to be possible. I mean, it has to actually have occurred, right? It can't be impossible and still be what actually happened. So when I'm presented with a miracle claim, in which every other solved miracle had a natural explanation, and all we have left are untested miracles, for which people are proposing a supernatural explanation without first demonstrating that the supernatural is possible, well then, you're asking me to ignore all of the demonstrable history of miracles, in favor of an explanation which runs counter to every other time, based on no evidence. You're essentially asking me to accept the supernatural for no reason at all.

That's why I discount miracle claims. Not because we've never observed god.

It's interesting, though, that instead of responding to what I actually said, you leaped instantly to an old theist canard. It's almost like you have no interest in having this conversation beyond reaching your predrawn conclusion by denigrating atheists...