Sunday, April 26, 2009
Ben Stein's Expelled
A few years ago, when I was a college professor at Hillsdale (where a large fraction of the student body was very interested in Intelligent Design), I spent a lot of time reading in this area. My conclusion was that (a) the vast vast majority of people who subscribed to ID were Christians who had already rejected the orthodox Darwinian account on other grounds, and (b) the prominent evolutionary biologists who said things like "evolution is a fact as well established as gravity" were bluffing. But as with most heated disputes that get people yelling at each other, a lot of the problem was in their framing of the dispute; each side was misunderstanding the claims of the other.
Anyway I recently watched Ben Stein's documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which you can watch instantly at Netflix. My first thought is, "I can't believe he interviewed all those big guns in the various fields, and managed to produce an entire documentary in which the new viewer would walk away with not a single major argument over which the ID debate rages." The beginning of the movie focuses on people who were allegedly blacklisted by their professional peers because they had the audacity to discuss ID in a sympathetic light. (Tim Swanson points me to this site claiming that this sob stories are deceptive.) Judging just from the interviews in the movie, I got the sense that a few of the people seemed as if they had been railroaded, but a few other ones seemed to have a martyr complex, so I was suspicious.
The most hilarious thing in the movie--and which perfectly epitomizes the huge waste of time in this debate--is that in the final encounter, Richard Dawkins literally gives up the whole game to Stein, and then Stein manages to come back and (almost) surrender to the other side. Naturally, neither man seemed aware of how poorly he had played in their match. Argh.
In order to explain my observation, I'll give a very quick background: Contrary to what you may have heard, the proponents of ID do not necessarily even dispute the theory of common descent. For example, I am pretty sure that Michael Behe (who coined the term "irreducible complexity" and loves talking about the "outboard motor" of a bacterial flagellum) is perfectly happy to concede that all living cells today are descendants from a single cell that was the only living thing billions of years ago. But what Behe (and other IDers) dispute is the standard neo-Darwinian claim that it was random mutations and natural selection alone that could have transformed that first cell into all of the things we see today in biology.
In particular, the IDers reject the standard claim that "nobody directs evolution" or that "there is no designer when it comes to life." They think that this is a completely unwarranted leap beyond what the brute facts of biology tell us. The ID people think that the hard, scientific facts leave open the possibility--and in fact render it the most likely explanation--that something intelligent must have been involved to produce the current mix of life forms. Obviously, most IDers think that intelligence was in the mind of God, but strictly speaking ID theory itself does not get into the identity of the intelligence.
In opposition to ID, the standard Darwinian response has been to (a) dispute the particular "impossible" leaps that the IDers say foil the random mutation / natural selection story, (b) go even further and claim that the very notion of discussing an intelligent designer is unscientific and out of bounds, and (c) speculate that ID is really just a smokescreen for Bible-thumping Christians to smuggle Genesis back into the classroom and label it "science" instead of religion.
OK I'm not going to get into the pros and cons of this position. Like I said, a few years ago I got sucked into the debate and it was a huge time suck. (Not to mention, it convinced many people that I was crazy and/or an idiot.)
But I don't have to discuss the pros and cons of the case, because Dawkins and Stein each validated the strongest charges of each other (and without realizing it). In the final scene, in a moment of graciousness Dawkins concedes that OK there could be an intelligent designer of terrestrial life, but only if life evolved on other planets (through the undesigned Darwinian process) and then those life forms designed and seeded life here on earth.
At that point, Stein had won. Had he really understood the ID position and the philosophical issues flying around in the debate, he should have said, "I am sorry to inform you, Dr. Dawkins, but you just declared Michael Behe and William Dembski the undisputed winners, and Eugenie Scott the clear loser. For Scott and the other "consensus" scientists have been saying that the very notion of looking for "motives" and "design" in biology is not just wrong, but unscientific. You have just shown that this is silly. If indeed aliens designed the first terrestrial cell and planted it here billions of years ago, then it would naturally take human scientists to uncover this fact and study it. We wouldn't rely on philosophers and theologians to flesh out the theory of alien seeding."
But alas, that's not what Stein said. Rather, he muttered something like, "So you're not against design, just a particular kind of designer." Now actually, that was a decent point--i.e. Stein was highlighting that the Darwinians were bluffing when they categorically stated that design per se was unscientific--but he nonetheless confirmed all of the atheist biologists' suspicions that the IDers really were after confirmation in God designing everything.
Final point: I could not BELIEVE Stein spent a large chunk of the movie exploring Nazi death chambers. I don't know what the point of that was. Anybody who was convinced of the merits of ID didn't need to see "where evolutionary theory takes us," and opponents of course would just go ballistic at such a blatantly emotional ploy. It would be like a pro-Darwin documentary spending time on the Inquisition to show the "logical conclusion" of Intelligent Design theory.
Anyway I recently watched Ben Stein's documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which you can watch instantly at Netflix. My first thought is, "I can't believe he interviewed all those big guns in the various fields, and managed to produce an entire documentary in which the new viewer would walk away with not a single major argument over which the ID debate rages." The beginning of the movie focuses on people who were allegedly blacklisted by their professional peers because they had the audacity to discuss ID in a sympathetic light. (Tim Swanson points me to this site claiming that this sob stories are deceptive.) Judging just from the interviews in the movie, I got the sense that a few of the people seemed as if they had been railroaded, but a few other ones seemed to have a martyr complex, so I was suspicious.
The most hilarious thing in the movie--and which perfectly epitomizes the huge waste of time in this debate--is that in the final encounter, Richard Dawkins literally gives up the whole game to Stein, and then Stein manages to come back and (almost) surrender to the other side. Naturally, neither man seemed aware of how poorly he had played in their match. Argh.
In order to explain my observation, I'll give a very quick background: Contrary to what you may have heard, the proponents of ID do not necessarily even dispute the theory of common descent. For example, I am pretty sure that Michael Behe (who coined the term "irreducible complexity" and loves talking about the "outboard motor" of a bacterial flagellum) is perfectly happy to concede that all living cells today are descendants from a single cell that was the only living thing billions of years ago. But what Behe (and other IDers) dispute is the standard neo-Darwinian claim that it was random mutations and natural selection alone that could have transformed that first cell into all of the things we see today in biology.
In particular, the IDers reject the standard claim that "nobody directs evolution" or that "there is no designer when it comes to life." They think that this is a completely unwarranted leap beyond what the brute facts of biology tell us. The ID people think that the hard, scientific facts leave open the possibility--and in fact render it the most likely explanation--that something intelligent must have been involved to produce the current mix of life forms. Obviously, most IDers think that intelligence was in the mind of God, but strictly speaking ID theory itself does not get into the identity of the intelligence.
In opposition to ID, the standard Darwinian response has been to (a) dispute the particular "impossible" leaps that the IDers say foil the random mutation / natural selection story, (b) go even further and claim that the very notion of discussing an intelligent designer is unscientific and out of bounds, and (c) speculate that ID is really just a smokescreen for Bible-thumping Christians to smuggle Genesis back into the classroom and label it "science" instead of religion.
OK I'm not going to get into the pros and cons of this position. Like I said, a few years ago I got sucked into the debate and it was a huge time suck. (Not to mention, it convinced many people that I was crazy and/or an idiot.)
But I don't have to discuss the pros and cons of the case, because Dawkins and Stein each validated the strongest charges of each other (and without realizing it). In the final scene, in a moment of graciousness Dawkins concedes that OK there could be an intelligent designer of terrestrial life, but only if life evolved on other planets (through the undesigned Darwinian process) and then those life forms designed and seeded life here on earth.
At that point, Stein had won. Had he really understood the ID position and the philosophical issues flying around in the debate, he should have said, "I am sorry to inform you, Dr. Dawkins, but you just declared Michael Behe and William Dembski the undisputed winners, and Eugenie Scott the clear loser. For Scott and the other "consensus" scientists have been saying that the very notion of looking for "motives" and "design" in biology is not just wrong, but unscientific. You have just shown that this is silly. If indeed aliens designed the first terrestrial cell and planted it here billions of years ago, then it would naturally take human scientists to uncover this fact and study it. We wouldn't rely on philosophers and theologians to flesh out the theory of alien seeding."
But alas, that's not what Stein said. Rather, he muttered something like, "So you're not against design, just a particular kind of designer." Now actually, that was a decent point--i.e. Stein was highlighting that the Darwinians were bluffing when they categorically stated that design per se was unscientific--but he nonetheless confirmed all of the atheist biologists' suspicions that the IDers really were after confirmation in God designing everything.
Final point: I could not BELIEVE Stein spent a large chunk of the movie exploring Nazi death chambers. I don't know what the point of that was. Anybody who was convinced of the merits of ID didn't need to see "where evolutionary theory takes us," and opponents of course would just go ballistic at such a blatantly emotional ploy. It would be like a pro-Darwin documentary spending time on the Inquisition to show the "logical conclusion" of Intelligent Design theory.
Comments:
ID is the God of Gaps in new clothes. "We don't know how it happened, so God did it" or "if scientists can't explain it, God did it."
I say they are both wrong. It's the Pink Unicorns that did it, and nobody can prove it ain't so.
A Tiny Pink Unicorn made God, and I know it because my heart tells me so.
I say they are both wrong. It's the Pink Unicorns that did it, and nobody can prove it ain't so.
A Tiny Pink Unicorn made God, and I know it because my heart tells me so.
I agree that the 2 sides almost always talk past each other. This seems to be because each side feels very deeply about it, which is something that doesn't make sense to me.
If evolution were known to be true - in the way that gravity and "the earth is round" are theories that can be shown to be true to the most undeducated person - it still would not prove nor disprove the existence of a god. Likewise, if evolution were known to be false, it would not show that science is a failure and would not prevent scientists from operating under the "approximation" of evolution in everyday work (much like you can use Classical Physics instead of Quantum Physics in many instances as an approximation) or from coming up with a better theory to apply to research.
If evolution were known to be true - in the way that gravity and "the earth is round" are theories that can be shown to be true to the most undeducated person - it still would not prove nor disprove the existence of a god. Likewise, if evolution were known to be false, it would not show that science is a failure and would not prevent scientists from operating under the "approximation" of evolution in everyday work (much like you can use Classical Physics instead of Quantum Physics in many instances as an approximation) or from coming up with a better theory to apply to research.
# posted by 
: April 26, 2009 at 1:10 PM
: April 26, 2009 at 1:10 PM
"Final point: I could not BELIEVE Stein spent a large chunk of the movie exploring Nazi death chambers. I don't know what the point of that was."
I think the point of that was to highlight the fact that Hitler was inspired by Darwinian thinking. Along those same lines, Hitler was also inspired by Henry Ford and used Ford's thinking to construct the processes for the Final Solution.
Both Darwin and Ford might (and I emphasize might... do your own research on that one) have been horrified by what Hitler did with their theories and ideas, but facts are facts.
On a personal note, I have a nephew with CP. It's an awful condition. Darwinian thinking says that keeping my nephew alive is a waste of resources and counter productive for society. Screw society. I love my nephew, and the world is better for him having lived, and I want to keep him around as long as possible.
I think the point of that was to highlight the fact that Hitler was inspired by Darwinian thinking. Along those same lines, Hitler was also inspired by Henry Ford and used Ford's thinking to construct the processes for the Final Solution.
Both Darwin and Ford might (and I emphasize might... do your own research on that one) have been horrified by what Hitler did with their theories and ideas, but facts are facts.
On a personal note, I have a nephew with CP. It's an awful condition. Darwinian thinking says that keeping my nephew alive is a waste of resources and counter productive for society. Screw society. I love my nephew, and the world is better for him having lived, and I want to keep him around as long as possible.
# posted by : April 26, 2009 at 1:28 PM
: April 26, 2009 at 1:28 PM
The Blackadder Says:
Agreed that the Dawkins concession really should have been game over as far as the ID argument is concerned. If Dawkins is willing to accept that life on earth was designed by aliens, then he might have good philosophical or theological reasons for believing that God couldn't have designed life on earth, but he can't consistently claim that there is a scientific objection to doing so.
On an unrelated note, am I the only one who thought David Berlinski came across as the most interesting guy in the film by far? Everyone else seems to be using the ID thing as a proxy for larger battles, whereas he just seems to be a kind of happy contrarian.
Agreed that the Dawkins concession really should have been game over as far as the ID argument is concerned. If Dawkins is willing to accept that life on earth was designed by aliens, then he might have good philosophical or theological reasons for believing that God couldn't have designed life on earth, but he can't consistently claim that there is a scientific objection to doing so.
On an unrelated note, am I the only one who thought David Berlinski came across as the most interesting guy in the film by far? Everyone else seems to be using the ID thing as a proxy for larger battles, whereas he just seems to be a kind of happy contrarian.
# posted by : April 26, 2009 at 1:38 PM
: April 26, 2009 at 1:38 PM
James,
That is not at all what the ID movement says. If you came home and you saw, "Get out!" written in blood on your wall, you would think an intelligence had been involved. If a chemist said, "Nah, I bet the wind blew over that bottle of ketchup," you would be perfectly rational in responding, "I can't imagine how the wind could have done that."
That is where the ID people are coming from. Yes, the details are different, but "the argument from personal incredulity" is quite respectable everywhere except biology. It's only in biology where it's considered a strong argument to say, "Your lack of imagination is no strike against my theory."
As I've said elsewhere, if you tried that line in any other discipline, you would be laughed at as a charlatan. Imagine I send in a paper to the QJAE claiming that Mises is responsible for Nazi Germany. I claim that his strong writings provoked the Nazis into overreacting. The referee writes back, "That doesn't sound plausible to me. I can't imagine Mises is responsible."
And then I say, "It's not my job to find a specific mechanism to bolster my claim. Your lack of imagination is no strike..."
NOTE: People are going to read the above and think I'm siding with the IDers. I am, in the sense that cute little put downs like James are unfair. The IDers might be horribly wrong, but since even the professional scientists make elementary mistakes--like claiming that ID is prima facie unscientific, even though Dawkins shows that it isn't--makes evaluation difficult.
That is not at all what the ID movement says. If you came home and you saw, "Get out!" written in blood on your wall, you would think an intelligence had been involved. If a chemist said, "Nah, I bet the wind blew over that bottle of ketchup," you would be perfectly rational in responding, "I can't imagine how the wind could have done that."
That is where the ID people are coming from. Yes, the details are different, but "the argument from personal incredulity" is quite respectable everywhere except biology. It's only in biology where it's considered a strong argument to say, "Your lack of imagination is no strike against my theory."
As I've said elsewhere, if you tried that line in any other discipline, you would be laughed at as a charlatan. Imagine I send in a paper to the QJAE claiming that Mises is responsible for Nazi Germany. I claim that his strong writings provoked the Nazis into overreacting. The referee writes back, "That doesn't sound plausible to me. I can't imagine Mises is responsible."
And then I say, "It's not my job to find a specific mechanism to bolster my claim. Your lack of imagination is no strike..."
NOTE: People are going to read the above and think I'm siding with the IDers. I am, in the sense that cute little put downs like James are unfair. The IDers might be horribly wrong, but since even the professional scientists make elementary mistakes--like claiming that ID is prima facie unscientific, even though Dawkins shows that it isn't--makes evaluation difficult.
Bob, the reason I would suspect that an 'intelligent being' had written that is because of what I know about script: I have WITNESSED humans write in the past, so when I see WRITING, I am on fairly solid ground to believe that humans did it.
However, if I see something I cannot explain, and I have never seen this before all I can say is: I have no frigging clue a) what this is, and b) what made it happen.
We have never witnessed an intelligent being create life from dead matter. So, when we see life, we have no clue how it came about - until we eventually witness it being created/coming about.
What we CAN say is this: ok, this must have come about SOMEHOW. Let's look at the things we know, and draw conclusions based on that. And when we hit a roadblock where we cannot draw parallels, all we can say is this: I have no clue.
What the ID movement is doing is simple: it's looking for an excuse to reintroduce the God of Gaps.
Of course, to rule out from the start that a 'higher power' may have done 'it' is not logical. Of course it is possible a higher power set things up in this way, and made it so that evolution and abiogenesis is plausible.
We may also all be living in a computer and everything is just our imagination. You can't prove that this is not so. But just because you cannot prove it is not so does not make it so.
I doubt that any ID proponent would make their assumptions dependent on a specific statement, such as: if it could be shown logically that life can emerge spontaneously from abiotic matter, or if this could be demonstrated, we will henceforth renounce our belief in ID.
Of course not, they just move the goal post to the next conundrum.
The infuriating thing about ID is not that it is non-scientific. It is far worse: it is anti-scientific. The scientist looks at a conundrum or puzzle as a challenge that needs to be overcome, as a riddle that needs to be solved by applying the scientific method. The non-scientist makes stuff up to explain riddles without bothering with the scientific method. The anti-scientist uses riddles to declare the failure of the scientific method.
ID is the end of all curious investigation, because it declares some problems as unsolvable (irreducible complexity).
That is why I have no sympathy for ID - it is probably one of the most dangerous political ideas of recent times. And it IS a political idea, as the creators of the Discovery Institute and the authors of the Wedge Document themselves have admitted time and time again.
ID is the WEDGE to destroy what is left of free society in the modern world. It is probably more dangerous to human freedom than the teachings of Plato and Marx.
However, if I see something I cannot explain, and I have never seen this before all I can say is: I have no frigging clue a) what this is, and b) what made it happen.
We have never witnessed an intelligent being create life from dead matter. So, when we see life, we have no clue how it came about - until we eventually witness it being created/coming about.
What we CAN say is this: ok, this must have come about SOMEHOW. Let's look at the things we know, and draw conclusions based on that. And when we hit a roadblock where we cannot draw parallels, all we can say is this: I have no clue.
What the ID movement is doing is simple: it's looking for an excuse to reintroduce the God of Gaps.
Of course, to rule out from the start that a 'higher power' may have done 'it' is not logical. Of course it is possible a higher power set things up in this way, and made it so that evolution and abiogenesis is plausible.
We may also all be living in a computer and everything is just our imagination. You can't prove that this is not so. But just because you cannot prove it is not so does not make it so.
I doubt that any ID proponent would make their assumptions dependent on a specific statement, such as: if it could be shown logically that life can emerge spontaneously from abiotic matter, or if this could be demonstrated, we will henceforth renounce our belief in ID.
Of course not, they just move the goal post to the next conundrum.
The infuriating thing about ID is not that it is non-scientific. It is far worse: it is anti-scientific. The scientist looks at a conundrum or puzzle as a challenge that needs to be overcome, as a riddle that needs to be solved by applying the scientific method. The non-scientist makes stuff up to explain riddles without bothering with the scientific method. The anti-scientist uses riddles to declare the failure of the scientific method.
ID is the end of all curious investigation, because it declares some problems as unsolvable (irreducible complexity).
That is why I have no sympathy for ID - it is probably one of the most dangerous political ideas of recent times. And it IS a political idea, as the creators of the Discovery Institute and the authors of the Wedge Document themselves have admitted time and time again.
ID is the WEDGE to destroy what is left of free society in the modern world. It is probably more dangerous to human freedom than the teachings of Plato and Marx.
The Blackadder Says:
Actually biology isn't the only area in which 'failure of imagination' arguments aren't considered particularly compelling. The same is true in economics. Rothbard's Fable of the Shoes, for example, is basically just eloquent mockery of the 'failure of imagination' argument as applied to economics.
Actually biology isn't the only area in which 'failure of imagination' arguments aren't considered particularly compelling. The same is true in economics. Rothbard's Fable of the Shoes, for example, is basically just eloquent mockery of the 'failure of imagination' argument as applied to economics.
# posted by : April 26, 2009 at 2:46 PM
: April 26, 2009 at 2:46 PM
James,
Believe me, I understand what you are saying. And I know that some of the people associated with the Discovery Institute have done their best to discredit the movement. But I really don't want to start arguing this now, because I spent literally months arguing this stuff a few years ago. I don't have the time to cover all that ground again. So I'm not going to pursue it.
Blackadder, OK fair enough. You got me there. The biologists think they have very strong reasons for knowing that common descent happened, and it's just a puzzle to figure out the specific mechanisms. And by the same token, I think (along with Rothbard) that if the government, say, privatized roads in NYC, that entrepreneurs would come up with all kinds of "solutions" to mass transit--even though I can't imagine what they all would be. Touche.
Believe me, I understand what you are saying. And I know that some of the people associated with the Discovery Institute have done their best to discredit the movement. But I really don't want to start arguing this now, because I spent literally months arguing this stuff a few years ago. I don't have the time to cover all that ground again. So I'm not going to pursue it.
Blackadder, OK fair enough. You got me there. The biologists think they have very strong reasons for knowing that common descent happened, and it's just a puzzle to figure out the specific mechanisms. And by the same token, I think (along with Rothbard) that if the government, say, privatized roads in NYC, that entrepreneurs would come up with all kinds of "solutions" to mass transit--even though I can't imagine what they all would be. Touche.
Ok, let's try this one on for size: How did the Higher Intelligence create life? What were the steps, how did the first cell come about, which parts were made first and then put together? Where did this happen?
What means were used to accomplish this feat?
And what's to rule out that it was a Tiny Pink Unicorn that did it?
Does ID allow for Tiny Pink Unicorns as the creators of all life?
Tiny Pink Unicorns that can travel through wormholes and can adjust their metabolic rate at will?
Do ID proponents admit that TPUs could have done it?
What means were used to accomplish this feat?
And what's to rule out that it was a Tiny Pink Unicorn that did it?
Does ID allow for Tiny Pink Unicorns as the creators of all life?
Tiny Pink Unicorns that can travel through wormholes and can adjust their metabolic rate at will?
Do ID proponents admit that TPUs could have done it?
"D is the WEDGE to destroy what is left of free society in the modern world."
Riiight, James. That why human freedom did not exist until Darwin published The Origin of Species.
And James, you are aware that "the God of the gaps" is an error of naive theism, one that was first noted and criticized by theists, don't you?
Riiight, James. That why human freedom did not exist until Darwin published The Origin of Species.
And James, you are aware that "the God of the gaps" is an error of naive theism, one that was first noted and criticized by theists, don't you?
Fine James, since it's so fun I'll respond to your volley. But then I really do have to get back to work...
How did the Higher Intelligence create life? What were the steps, how did the first cell come about, which parts were made first and then put together? Where did this happen?When the humans find the piece of Ahnold in between Terminator and T2, they don't fully understand it, do they? If their boss at Skytech (or whatever the company is) said, "Explain to me how this thing was created down to the smallest detail," they would say, "I don't know."
But does that mean they should stop studying it? In particular, if they tell their boss, "We know for sure this wasn't us, or the Soviets. But we also don't think it was spit out of a volcano!" then are they being witch doctors? Or do you think they had a strong leg to stand on by claiming that thing had been designed by something intelligent?
That is the very very modest point that IDers are making, insofar as ID theory itself is concerned.
And what's to rule out that it was a Tiny Pink Unicorn that did it?Nothing per se, but if a creature had the same makeup as a horse, but were really tiny, it would probably give off too much heat and quickly die. So I find your theory implausible, but I can't rule it out, no.
Does ID allow for Tiny Pink Unicorns as the creators of all life?Yes.
Tiny Pink Unicorns that can travel through wormholes and can adjust their metabolic rate at will?Yes, that is theoretically possible.
Do ID proponents admit that TPUs could have done it?I have never heard them discuss TPUs, but they have admitted it could be aliens.
How did the Higher Intelligence create life? What were the steps, how did the first cell come about, which parts were made first and then put together? Where did this happen?When the humans find the piece of Ahnold in between Terminator and T2, they don't fully understand it, do they? If their boss at Skytech (or whatever the company is) said, "Explain to me how this thing was created down to the smallest detail," they would say, "I don't know."
But does that mean they should stop studying it? In particular, if they tell their boss, "We know for sure this wasn't us, or the Soviets. But we also don't think it was spit out of a volcano!" then are they being witch doctors? Or do you think they had a strong leg to stand on by claiming that thing had been designed by something intelligent?
That is the very very modest point that IDers are making, insofar as ID theory itself is concerned.
And what's to rule out that it was a Tiny Pink Unicorn that did it?Nothing per se, but if a creature had the same makeup as a horse, but were really tiny, it would probably give off too much heat and quickly die. So I find your theory implausible, but I can't rule it out, no.
Does ID allow for Tiny Pink Unicorns as the creators of all life?Yes.
Tiny Pink Unicorns that can travel through wormholes and can adjust their metabolic rate at will?Yes, that is theoretically possible.
Do ID proponents admit that TPUs could have done it?I have never heard them discuss TPUs, but they have admitted it could be aliens.
Bob, I can understand your frustration and your disinclination for debate on the issue. I have spend the first part of my adult life debating holocaust denial, the second debating ID, and the third debating economics. I kind of hope that my next phase is arts or something easy like that. BUT - You brought it up...
I also don't think Discovery discredited ID, Discovery revived it. But even without Discovery, ID is in principle anti-scientific. That's why it is dangerous.
I also don't think Discovery discredited ID, Discovery revived it. But even without Discovery, ID is in principle anti-scientific. That's why it is dangerous.
James said: But even without Discovery, ID is in principle anti-scientific. That's why it is dangerous.
Since that was the whole point of my post--to show that Dawkins conceded this crucial point--it would expedite matters if you could explain why you think I'm wrong.
Are you saying it is theoretically impossible that intelligent aliens designed the first cell that was planted on earth?
I assume you're not saying that.
OK, if someone says he thinks that's what happened, are you saying science has nothing to say on his view?
What if archaeologists discover the remains of a spaceship and there is a video recording showing the aliens depositing that first cell? At that point would ID suddenly become scientific?
If you want to say they're wrong, that's fine. I just can't believe you persist in saying it is unscientific.
You keep talking about a "higher power," but that is a straw man. That's not what ID per se claims. I grant you that 99.9999% of actual IDers believe it is God, but that's not what ID theory itself claims.
So even if you want to say it's all a Trojan horse, fine I am happy to live with that charge. But the claim itself falls within the boundaries of science.
Since that was the whole point of my post--to show that Dawkins conceded this crucial point--it would expedite matters if you could explain why you think I'm wrong.
Are you saying it is theoretically impossible that intelligent aliens designed the first cell that was planted on earth?
I assume you're not saying that.
OK, if someone says he thinks that's what happened, are you saying science has nothing to say on his view?
What if archaeologists discover the remains of a spaceship and there is a video recording showing the aliens depositing that first cell? At that point would ID suddenly become scientific?
If you want to say they're wrong, that's fine. I just can't believe you persist in saying it is unscientific.
You keep talking about a "higher power," but that is a straw man. That's not what ID per se claims. I grant you that 99.9999% of actual IDers believe it is God, but that's not what ID theory itself claims.
So even if you want to say it's all a Trojan horse, fine I am happy to live with that charge. But the claim itself falls within the boundaries of science.
You're fast today.
Good example with the Ahnold pieces. Except that it is the ID folks who would stop studying: "a higher intelligence we can't understand did it. Now let's go home and meditate on that" would be the ID response, while the scientist would sit down and try to figure it out.
The IDler would say "you can never figure it out, it's impossible to figure it out for humans - it's irreducibly complex".
Scientists simply reject the "stop looking for explanations" track of the IDler. If IDler's think that a higher power did it all, they better go and start looking for some evidence of its existence. IDlers like to say that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", but what they are really saying is that "absence of evidence is evidence of presence". But - Absence of Evidence is just that - absence of evidence.
Good example with the Ahnold pieces. Except that it is the ID folks who would stop studying: "a higher intelligence we can't understand did it. Now let's go home and meditate on that" would be the ID response, while the scientist would sit down and try to figure it out.
The IDler would say "you can never figure it out, it's impossible to figure it out for humans - it's irreducibly complex".
Scientists simply reject the "stop looking for explanations" track of the IDler. If IDler's think that a higher power did it all, they better go and start looking for some evidence of its existence. IDlers like to say that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", but what they are really saying is that "absence of evidence is evidence of presence". But - Absence of Evidence is just that - absence of evidence.
Gene - that's not what I am saying. What I mean is this: human freedom depends on open ended inquiry. Without open ended inquiry, there can be no human freedom. ID is the denial of open ended inquiry. It says that inquiry is over, that we have reached the end of the road, and that's that. Darwin's theories have no implication for human freedom - ID does. Human freedom can exist without the theory of evolution, but it cannot exist without open ended inquiry.
My opposition to ID is less a commitment to the correctness of Darwin's basic theory as it is opposition to the anti-scientific mindset.
Scientists are open to the possibility of life on earth being designed on purpose. They may see it as unlikely, but not ruled out in principle. IDlers, however, are a priori opposed to the idea of un-guided evolution.
My opposition to ID is less a commitment to the correctness of Darwin's basic theory as it is opposition to the anti-scientific mindset.
Scientists are open to the possibility of life on earth being designed on purpose. They may see it as unlikely, but not ruled out in principle. IDlers, however, are a priori opposed to the idea of un-guided evolution.
Quote from Bob Murphy: "If you want to say they're wrong, that's fine. I just can't believe you persist in saying it is unscientific."
There is a very simple test as whether a claim is scientific. Explain how it could be DISproven. How would ID be disproven?
If there's no way to disprove it, then it isn't science.
There is a very simple test as whether a claim is scientific. Explain how it could be DISproven. How would ID be disproven?
If there's no way to disprove it, then it isn't science.
# posted by : April 27, 2009 at 12:49 PM
: April 27, 2009 at 12:49 PM
"There is a very simple test as whether a claim is scientific. Explain how it could be DISproven. How would ID be disproven?"
Simple indeed. Put some organic, non-living chemicals into any random environnment with NO intelligent intervention and observe. If those chemicals self-organise into life, you are very close, if not there, to disproving ID. Might take awhile, but science is not always quick.
Simple indeed. Put some organic, non-living chemicals into any random environnment with NO intelligent intervention and observe. If those chemicals self-organise into life, you are very close, if not there, to disproving ID. Might take awhile, but science is not always quick.
"geoih,
"I wish I had put it this succinctly. Somebody read his Popper."
Yes. But, unfortunately, someone hasn't read the 40 years of philosophy of science since Popper, and has been a little slow to discover that Popper's ideas have been 'falsified'.
And anyway, Behe has shown just how to falsify ID.
"I wish I had put it this succinctly. Somebody read his Popper."
Yes. But, unfortunately, someone hasn't read the 40 years of philosophy of science since Popper, and has been a little slow to discover that Popper's ideas have been 'falsified'.
And anyway, Behe has shown just how to falsify ID.
Gene,
If Popper's theorem of falsification is wrong, why then do you point out that Behe showed how ID can be falsified?
Isn't that the same as saying that somebody deliberately acted in a way that contradicts praxeology?
So, if you don't accept Popper's theorem of falsification, why appeal to it? You can't have it both ways.
In short, falsifying the theorem of falsification is no different from acting irrationally.
Behe is to philosophy of science what Krugman is to economics.
I wish Austrians would use Popper's arguments more often, since his defense of science is based on the same argument as the Austrian defense of the market.
ID, Marxism, and other such teleological philosophies are about as contrary to Libertarianism and Science as anything else.
It is disingenuous to simply ignore the basic logical problem of ID and theism, pretending they don't exist, and then go ahead and criticize economists for ignoring the basic logical problems of non-market economic theories, pretending they don't exist.
Atheism and methodological naturalism do not suffer from logical inconsistencies. Once their basic axioms are accepted, they create no more problems.
And accepting basic axioms is NOT the same as 'leap of faith'.
As I have said many times before, the only reasonable defense of theism was provided by Tertullian. Everything else is just making stuff up as one goes along.
If Popper's theorem of falsification is wrong, why then do you point out that Behe showed how ID can be falsified?
Isn't that the same as saying that somebody deliberately acted in a way that contradicts praxeology?
So, if you don't accept Popper's theorem of falsification, why appeal to it? You can't have it both ways.
In short, falsifying the theorem of falsification is no different from acting irrationally.
Behe is to philosophy of science what Krugman is to economics.
I wish Austrians would use Popper's arguments more often, since his defense of science is based on the same argument as the Austrian defense of the market.
ID, Marxism, and other such teleological philosophies are about as contrary to Libertarianism and Science as anything else.
It is disingenuous to simply ignore the basic logical problem of ID and theism, pretending they don't exist, and then go ahead and criticize economists for ignoring the basic logical problems of non-market economic theories, pretending they don't exist.
Atheism and methodological naturalism do not suffer from logical inconsistencies. Once their basic axioms are accepted, they create no more problems.
And accepting basic axioms is NOT the same as 'leap of faith'.
As I have said many times before, the only reasonable defense of theism was provided by Tertullian. Everything else is just making stuff up as one goes along.
Dave,
why start with 'organic'? That had to come from somewhere, no?
Further, how do you make sure 'no intelligence' was involved? I would bet my life that if 'life' were created in this way, IDlers would come up with a new claim why it was actually not a good test.
Just like the 'eye' was once considered irreducibly complex, but when Dawkins showed how it could have come about, Behe dropped it, and went to the flagellum. When that fell apart, he moved on to blood clotting cascade. I'm sure he will move on to something else soon.
Or simply deny that the counter argument is sufficient.
ID is intellectually bankrupt. It was intellectually bankrupt when it was called creation science, and it will be intellectually bankrupt in its next incarnation.
why start with 'organic'? That had to come from somewhere, no?
Further, how do you make sure 'no intelligence' was involved? I would bet my life that if 'life' were created in this way, IDlers would come up with a new claim why it was actually not a good test.
Just like the 'eye' was once considered irreducibly complex, but when Dawkins showed how it could have come about, Behe dropped it, and went to the flagellum. When that fell apart, he moved on to blood clotting cascade. I'm sure he will move on to something else soon.
Or simply deny that the counter argument is sufficient.
ID is intellectually bankrupt. It was intellectually bankrupt when it was called creation science, and it will be intellectually bankrupt in its next incarnation.
"If Popper's theorem of falsification is wrong, why then do you point out that Behe showed how ID can be falsified?"
You're not really serious here, are you? Popper's main issue was the "demarcation problem" -- how do you tell a science from a non-science? (Marxism and Freudianism were particular problems for him.) Amongst the problems with his theory, people like M. Polanyi have noted that crystallography, for instance, is not falsifiable.
So, I'm pointing out TWO problems with geoih's statement:
1) Popper didn't solve the demarcation problem; and
2) Even if he HAD solved it, ID could pass his test.
You're not really serious here, are you? Popper's main issue was the "demarcation problem" -- how do you tell a science from a non-science? (Marxism and Freudianism were particular problems for him.) Amongst the problems with his theory, people like M. Polanyi have noted that crystallography, for instance, is not falsifiable.
So, I'm pointing out TWO problems with geoih's statement:
1) Popper didn't solve the demarcation problem; and
2) Even if he HAD solved it, ID could pass his test.
"I wish Austrians would use Popper's arguments more often, since his defense of science is based on the same argument as the Austrian defense of the market."
Despite the fact that there is plenty of literature out there showing the inadequacies of Popper's ideas, you still think that?
I did my master's in philosophy of science at LSE, in the department Popper founded. There was not a single Popperian left there. That because his ideas have been shown to be full of holes.
Despite the fact that there is plenty of literature out there showing the inadequacies of Popper's ideas, you still think that?
I did my master's in philosophy of science at LSE, in the department Popper founded. There was not a single Popperian left there. That because his ideas have been shown to be full of holes.
"Atheism and methodological naturalism do not suffer from logical inconsistencies. Once their basic axioms are accepted, they create no more problems."
Well, there is the little problem, as Platinga noted, that if naturalism and evolutionary theory are true, then there is no reason we should trust any of our scientific judgments. (They would have evolved to help us survive, not to track truth.)
Well, there is the little problem, as Platinga noted, that if naturalism and evolutionary theory are true, then there is no reason we should trust any of our scientific judgments. (They would have evolved to help us survive, not to track truth.)
Gene,
I also think there are not many Austrians left at the LSE. Apparently, some people think von Mises is full of holes. Popularity has little to do with the correctness of an idea (or we Austrian economist would have to call it quits).
Platinga is correct for as far as it goes, except that the existence of God provides no guarantee that what we know is true. We have no outside standard of 'truth' - we can at best say "this makes sense, is logical, works". Apart from that - nothing.
Your occasional pulling of rank is funny, by the way. Krugman got a Nobel Prize in Economics, and is still a lousy economist. I have a Master's degree in an undisclosed subject, and frankly, the whole process was a joke.
One of the lessons I learned from my years in academia is that few places are as stifling to thought as the institutions allegedly meant to foster it. I hope none of my children ever consider academic careers.
I also think there are not many Austrians left at the LSE. Apparently, some people think von Mises is full of holes. Popularity has little to do with the correctness of an idea (or we Austrian economist would have to call it quits).
Platinga is correct for as far as it goes, except that the existence of God provides no guarantee that what we know is true. We have no outside standard of 'truth' - we can at best say "this makes sense, is logical, works". Apart from that - nothing.
Your occasional pulling of rank is funny, by the way. Krugman got a Nobel Prize in Economics, and is still a lousy economist. I have a Master's degree in an undisclosed subject, and frankly, the whole process was a joke.
One of the lessons I learned from my years in academia is that few places are as stifling to thought as the institutions allegedly meant to foster it. I hope none of my children ever consider academic careers.
Yes, James, I know, if naturalism is correct, that the fact someone actually has some qualifications in a field, has kept up with the recent literature, and so on means nothing, because, after all, whatever he says is just what his atoms colliding make him say. But if you actually had read Polanyi, Feyerabend, Lakatos, Grunfeld, Salmon, etc. you would understand my complaint about people invoking Popper is not that he's not popular, it's that the work of these philosophers has left him thoroughly refuted.
It's interesting that some people try to make an analogy between Popper and say, Mises. It doesn't fly. The reason is that Mises's whole approach fell out of favour. People don't bother trying to refute him -- they just ignore him. This is much like the treatment of, say, idealism in philosophy.
Popper, on the other hand, has a thoroughly mainstream, materialist, analytical approach. Far from being ignored, we read more Popper than anyone else when I was at LSE -- to show how one of the boldest programmes in 20th analytical philosophy ultimately failed. Popper has not been neglected in the least, and he's still very "popular" -- just recognized as ultimately wrong.
And, by the way, my time at LSE was absolutely wonderful, as has been my time at NYU and Cardiff. Perhaps I got luckier in my choice of institutions than you, or maybe some people just don't much like larnin'.
It's interesting that some people try to make an analogy between Popper and say, Mises. It doesn't fly. The reason is that Mises's whole approach fell out of favour. People don't bother trying to refute him -- they just ignore him. This is much like the treatment of, say, idealism in philosophy.
Popper, on the other hand, has a thoroughly mainstream, materialist, analytical approach. Far from being ignored, we read more Popper than anyone else when I was at LSE -- to show how one of the boldest programmes in 20th analytical philosophy ultimately failed. Popper has not been neglected in the least, and he's still very "popular" -- just recognized as ultimately wrong.
And, by the way, my time at LSE was absolutely wonderful, as has been my time at NYU and Cardiff. Perhaps I got luckier in my choice of institutions than you, or maybe some people just don't much like larnin'.
Gene, now you're getting really snide... :)
But that's fine, we are all big boys here.
Qualifications are a strange thing: they are only as good as those who give them. A PhD is only as credible as the quality of the examination committee. I have had a few utterly brilliant professors, and some who were outright fools. What they had in common were the letters behind their names.
I have read some Polanyi, Kuhn, and some Feyerabend, just as I have read some Popper. I have not read everything they have written, nor will I. However, I have also not read all of Marx, just enough to notice a pattern.
Frankly, the 'refutations' of Popper boil down to little more than getting worked up on the 'social context' of knowledge, which is not at all contradictory to what Popper was arguing.
Popper already rejected the 'bucket theory of the mind', and was clearly aware how our preconceptions can influence our ideas and results.
I am frankly puzzled why anybody would think that Kuhn's admittedly brilliant history of science is a 'refutation' of Popper.
I am not familiar with Salmon and Grunfeld.
However, I am still not aware of any argument that shows clearly that proof outside of mathematics and logic is possible.
But, I don't think this forum is the appropriate venue for this debate.
But coming back to the original topic of the debate, I will say this: I consider theism to be at best a weird form of mental exercise, and at worst an intellectual deficiency.
I have a hard time taking proponents of ID serious - and this is probably my biggest challenge when coming here to Bob's board. His economics are excellent, but his theistic streak is downright disconcerting.
I haven't yet made up my mind about you, Gene, simply because you seem to be more interested in provoking debate than taking a clear position.
And a final note on institutions of learning: school has been a continuous bore for me, ever since first grade up to my last day of graduate school.
I should have studied natural sciences - I probably would have failed, but at least I wouldn't have felt to be part of an elaborate joke designed by eloquent bores.
But that's fine, we are all big boys here.
Qualifications are a strange thing: they are only as good as those who give them. A PhD is only as credible as the quality of the examination committee. I have had a few utterly brilliant professors, and some who were outright fools. What they had in common were the letters behind their names.
I have read some Polanyi, Kuhn, and some Feyerabend, just as I have read some Popper. I have not read everything they have written, nor will I. However, I have also not read all of Marx, just enough to notice a pattern.
Frankly, the 'refutations' of Popper boil down to little more than getting worked up on the 'social context' of knowledge, which is not at all contradictory to what Popper was arguing.
Popper already rejected the 'bucket theory of the mind', and was clearly aware how our preconceptions can influence our ideas and results.
I am frankly puzzled why anybody would think that Kuhn's admittedly brilliant history of science is a 'refutation' of Popper.
I am not familiar with Salmon and Grunfeld.
However, I am still not aware of any argument that shows clearly that proof outside of mathematics and logic is possible.
But, I don't think this forum is the appropriate venue for this debate.
But coming back to the original topic of the debate, I will say this: I consider theism to be at best a weird form of mental exercise, and at worst an intellectual deficiency.
I have a hard time taking proponents of ID serious - and this is probably my biggest challenge when coming here to Bob's board. His economics are excellent, but his theistic streak is downright disconcerting.
I haven't yet made up my mind about you, Gene, simply because you seem to be more interested in provoking debate than taking a clear position.
And a final note on institutions of learning: school has been a continuous bore for me, ever since first grade up to my last day of graduate school.
I should have studied natural sciences - I probably would have failed, but at least I wouldn't have felt to be part of an elaborate joke designed by eloquent bores.
"Frankly, the 'refutations' of Popper boil down to little more than getting worked up on the 'social context' of knowledge, which is not at all contradictory to what Popper was arguing."
Frankly, not knowing the literature, you are quite wrong here. Those were certainly not the arguments that convinced the mainstream!
"Snide"? James, you're a specialist in snide.
Frankly, not knowing the literature, you are quite wrong here. Those were certainly not the arguments that convinced the mainstream!
"Snide"? James, you're a specialist in snide.
Point taken on snide. I am many things, nice isn't one of them, and snideness is one of my many failings.
Back to the issue: I am open to the possibility that I may have missed the crucial refutations of Popper that go substantially beyond the observation that knowledge is socially constructed, to use the fancy term, that truth is impossible to define, and that our senses are horribly deficient beyond the needs of immediate survival.
If you could kindly point me in the direction, though, and possibly suggest where I can read more about how Popper's insight that only logically or empirically falsifiable statements are properly the subject of scientific inquiry, I would be very much obliged.
So far, all I have found among the critics of Popper are variations on themes already developed by Popper, or already addressed by Popper as unsound.
The role of Scientists as a social group in determining the progress of science is in fact integral to Popper's ideas, and Kuhn did little but elaborate on it.
Some of Popper's more idiosyncratic ideas, such as Plato as Totalitarian, the Three Worlds, and some others, are of course open to debate.
Popper's most dramatic error is probably in his failure to consistently apply the logic of scientific discovery to his argument on democracy. But, the error is largely due to Popper's insufficient understanding of economics and spotty history of the industrial revolution.
But, again, I frankly don't care very much about the 'mainstream' acceptance of Popper, and I could be cute by invoking the ghost of Kuhn in my defense. I also don't care much about what the mainstream thinks about von Mises or Rothbard.
If the mainstream were convinced the earth in the center of the universe, and I happened to know differently, i wouldn't change my point of view, either.
So, you are certainly free to consider Popper refuted, and Behe the cutting edge of biological thought. But from my point of view, you are wrong on both counts, and as for the mainstream - it doesn't take to kindly to Behe.
So, if acceptance by the mainstream is important, then Behe doesn't cut it. That is not why I reject him, though. My rejection I have explained already.
Back to the issue: I am open to the possibility that I may have missed the crucial refutations of Popper that go substantially beyond the observation that knowledge is socially constructed, to use the fancy term, that truth is impossible to define, and that our senses are horribly deficient beyond the needs of immediate survival.
If you could kindly point me in the direction, though, and possibly suggest where I can read more about how Popper's insight that only logically or empirically falsifiable statements are properly the subject of scientific inquiry, I would be very much obliged.
So far, all I have found among the critics of Popper are variations on themes already developed by Popper, or already addressed by Popper as unsound.
The role of Scientists as a social group in determining the progress of science is in fact integral to Popper's ideas, and Kuhn did little but elaborate on it.
Some of Popper's more idiosyncratic ideas, such as Plato as Totalitarian, the Three Worlds, and some others, are of course open to debate.
Popper's most dramatic error is probably in his failure to consistently apply the logic of scientific discovery to his argument on democracy. But, the error is largely due to Popper's insufficient understanding of economics and spotty history of the industrial revolution.
But, again, I frankly don't care very much about the 'mainstream' acceptance of Popper, and I could be cute by invoking the ghost of Kuhn in my defense. I also don't care much about what the mainstream thinks about von Mises or Rothbard.
If the mainstream were convinced the earth in the center of the universe, and I happened to know differently, i wouldn't change my point of view, either.
So, you are certainly free to consider Popper refuted, and Behe the cutting edge of biological thought. But from my point of view, you are wrong on both counts, and as for the mainstream - it doesn't take to kindly to Behe.
So, if acceptance by the mainstream is important, then Behe doesn't cut it. That is not why I reject him, though. My rejection I have explained already.
None of the following has anything to do with the sociology of knowledge:
Grünbaum, A. (1976a). "Karl Popper Versus Inductivism," in Essays in Honor of Imre Lakatos, ed. R.S. Cohen, P.K. Feyerabend, and M.W. Wartofsky, Dordrecht, Holland and Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Grünbaum, A. (1976b). “Is the Method of Bold Conjectures and Attempted Refutations Justifiably the Method of Science?”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 27, pp. 105-136.
Kyberg, H.E. Jr. (1988). "The Justification of Deduction in Science," in The Limitations of Deductivism, pp. 61-94.
Salmon, W.C. (1988). "Rational Prediction," in The Limitations of Deductivism, pp. 47-60.
By this 1988 paper, Popper was pretty much cooked.
And I don't think I've ever exalted Behe anywhere -- the only thing I've written about him was fairly critical -- so I'm not sure why you keep going on about how great I think Behe is.
Grünbaum, A. (1976a). "Karl Popper Versus Inductivism," in Essays in Honor of Imre Lakatos, ed. R.S. Cohen, P.K. Feyerabend, and M.W. Wartofsky, Dordrecht, Holland and Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Grünbaum, A. (1976b). “Is the Method of Bold Conjectures and Attempted Refutations Justifiably the Method of Science?”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 27, pp. 105-136.
Kyberg, H.E. Jr. (1988). "The Justification of Deduction in Science," in The Limitations of Deductivism, pp. 61-94.
Salmon, W.C. (1988). "Rational Prediction," in The Limitations of Deductivism, pp. 47-60.
By this 1988 paper, Popper was pretty much cooked.
And I don't think I've ever exalted Behe anywhere -- the only thing I've written about him was fairly critical -- so I'm not sure why you keep going on about how great I think Behe is.
That's actually very helpful, thank you. I'll get back to you in due time.
Re. Behe: my apologies for misinterpreting your comments. I'm glad we probably agree that Behe is not a very good scientist.
Re. Behe: my apologies for misinterpreting your comments. I'm glad we probably agree that Behe is not a very good scientist.
Gene, haven't read it all yet, but I am glad you directed my towards Salmon - never heard of the guy, but I like him. That's a lot better than Kuhn & Co. Nice.
So it's back to turtles all the way down after all?
So it's back to turtles all the way down after all?
Gene, that was excellent reading. I have come across similar arguments in very brief formats before a long time ago, but did not pay much attention. This is really very good.
Thank you.
Post a Comment
Thank you.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]