Scientism & Philosophical Arguments

[Esquilax]

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?

How can you possibly assert that a thing exists in nature if you're unable to provide an example of it? Shouldn't you already have an example in mind, if you think it exists?

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.

How would you determine the difference between the eroded rock and the structure on Mars if you think the structure was designed, and the rock was designed, and everything else in the universe was designed?

[Anomalocaris]

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

Rather, no other way to the "truth" can recognize truth when it sees it, other than by randomly shouting "truth" in a masturbatory way.

[SteveII]

[The Grand Nudger]

Excellent, what a thorough definition.  Example, please.

[Angrboda]

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?

There is a difference in that we can investigate whether some practice epitomizes science or not, we're not trying to devise a test for what is or isn't science. But just such a test of design is exactly what is required by the ID programme. Besides being a tu quoquish swipe at science, it's an implicit acknowledgement that ID has failed to deliver such a test.

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.

We do this by observing similarities between the designed object and other examples of design by known designers. How would we tell that a structure on Mars was designed if it in fact looked like just a pile of rocks? We would be looking for walls and roofs in a structure that doesn't obviously have them. However specified complexity is different in that it aims to identify a unique signature of design, of how designed objects are different from natural objects. That's a different type of task than identifying similarities. That's trying to find out in what way designed objects are uniquely a certain way. And so far, ID has come up empty in describing what that certain way designed things differ from natural objects is.

[Angrboda]

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? 

According to Dembski, complex sequences are those that exhibit an irregular and improbable arrangement that defies expression by a simple rule or algorithm. A specification, on the other hand, is a match or correspondence between a physical system or sequence and a set of independent functional requirements or constraints. Link

Dembski's ideas have been examined thoroughly and found to be lacking. A bold attempt, but a failure. I too would like to see an example of a 'specification' that is something more than a folksy analogy.

[RoadRunner79]

How can you possibly assert that a thing exists in nature if you're unable to provide an example of it? Shouldn't you already have an example in mind, if you think it exists?

I'm not sure what you are asking for here.   What do you mean by in nature?  

How would you determine the difference between the eroded rock and the structure on Mars if you think the structure was designed, and the rock was designed, and everything else in the universe was designed?

So... you don't think you could tell the difference between a spaceship on mars and a bunch of rock? I would think that a statue of something we had never seen before would suffice, but why not go big?

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, you could tell the difference between a spaceship and a rock, that's not beyond reason.  Hell, that;s just giving different names to things that seem different somehow, distinct. How could you tell which was designed though...aren't they both designed? Isn;t that the question. Are all designed things the same..surely two different things can both be designed, or everything, as in a world designed by a god. Wouldn't you agree?

[JuliaL]

Can any ID advocate here please supply an example of something which is not designed in their view?
On what basis is selection of that example made?

[RoadRunner79]