Jason Rennie interviews

Rennie does appear to be rather sympathetic to ID, repeating many of the standard talking points they use, however he seems open to exchange and generally polite. I respectfully disagree. If he were merely "rather sympathetic," rather than firmly in their camp, he would have been more quick to respond to the objections raised here, and less quick to distort what we've said and insinuate that we were running away from the honest debate he pretends to offer. Instead, he's a lot like Sal: full of courteous invitation when he has a talking-point he thinks he can win with, but not so eager to face the music when the talking-point gets debunked or his facts and logic are called into question.

There doesn't appear to be much of a downside to taking him up on his podiobook offer, in any event, whether or not it becomes a hit... Here I agree: the downside is that he'll pretend we're all running away from an honest debate --- but the creationists have been doing that anyway, regardless of what anyone really says or does. There's also the possibility that he'll distort or quote-mine anything an interviewee says to support his own prejudices, but, again, the creationists do that all the time anyway.

So all in all, Jason can't be trusted to give a decent interview, and people like him should be avoided; but if you're trying to get face-time in a creationist publication, you may not have any choice.

We cannot even identify something as an 'artifact' without some degree of knowledge of the designer. Please don't throw such big yummy slabs of meat to the trolls; this simply is not true. The epistemology of science is based on inference to the best explanation, and sometimes "created by an intelligent agent" is the most likely inference...

One question, Jason-- What do you mean, exactly, when you say Darwinist? Do you mean evolutionary biologists? If you are, your claims that 'Darwinists' are intransigent is weird, to say the least. Evolutionary biology is in ferment at the moment. If you'll look back ten years to when Behe published his book, you'll find that since then there have been far, far more radical changes in evolutionary theory than in ID.
But perhaps you are creating (intentionally or otherwise) a straw man who believes in protoplasm because Darwin did, believes the continents have always been in their present positions because Darwin did, etc? Because, obviously, no such person exists.
Or, worse, are you implying to your audience that people like Dawkins and PZ Myers are representative of the thinking in evolutionary biology? Excuse me, but that would be so far from the truth that it borders on libel. When Dawkins and Myers refer to their atheism, they are talking about their personal religious beliefs (or lack thereof) not accepted theory in biology. It's possible for people to be led to atheism after studying Darwin-- although I don't personally know anyone who has. It's also possible to be led to atheism by going to church and noticing that there are contradictions in the bible, or that the minister happens not to be a good person. In fact, I know far more people who became atheists from reading the bible than from reading The Origin of Species. Using 'Darwinist' as a portmanteau word with an apparently neutral meaning (evolutionary theorist) while slipping in the implication that it really means atheist is dishonest in the extreme. If you would like to contribute to a more civil tone in this debate, you should stop doing that.

I'm withholding argument because it seems counter productive to do so here. I thought that much was obvious. I've found a couple of the responses interesting and emailed the people in question about contributing interviews.

So all in all, Jason can't be trusted to give a decent interview, and people like him should be avoided; but if you're trying to get face-time in a creationist publication, you may not have any choice.

One question, Jason--- What do you mean, exactly, when you say Darwinist? Do you mean evolutionary biologists?

It's possible for people to be led to atheism after studying Darwin--- although I don't personally know anyone who has.

Using 'Darwinist' as a portmanteau word with an apparently neutral meaning (evolutionary theorist) while slipping in the implication that it really means atheist is dishonest in the extreme. If you would like to contribute to a more civil tone in this debate, you should stop doing that.

Jason Said: I might note the recent controversy over the quality of that decision. [Dover]

This is a bit of a bummer. Based on Nick M.'s and Glen D.'s assessment you can give a fair hearing. This is an uncensored blog, so naturally some of the comments will come across more acerbic than others.

...none of whom have ever complained about my "honesty" in interviews, and have in all instances been happy with the results. Yet I don't agree with any of them on the question of metaphysics.

If you're honest when you conduct interviews (assuming you're telling the truth here), then you have no excuse not to be honest here.

After all, Mike Gene and Mike Behe have no problem with ideas like common descent of evolution in general, they just don't think it can account for lifes diversity all by itself.

What they "think" is not backed up by any proof. Behe himself admitted -- under oath in the Dover trial -- that there was no peer-reviewed work supporting any tenet of modern-day creationism. Gene and Behe are entitled to their opinions about God, but when they try to confuse those opinions with science in the public debate, they're being dishonest to the point of bringing disgrace onto any religion they might embrace.

I don't know of anyone who is not an IDist or a creationist who calls Myers and Dawkins religious, or religious fundamentalists.

If you're honest when you conduct interviews (assuming you're telling the truth here)

then you have no excuse not to be honest here.

I'm happy to discuss thing by email if you like, and if there is anything in particular you would like me to address here then let me know.

That teleology exists is a seperate question from what that teleology is.

If you really wanted, you could probably fill an entire chapter of your book with all the material we've given you about "design inferences" alone.

Instead, you brush it all off with the laughable --- and transparently false --- claim that we're passing up a chance to make our case.

Also, you know as well as I do that plenty of evolutionists have been publishing our case for generations. Ever heard of "research?" People who try to write about factual issues tend to do it.

Yes, Jason, you have indeed been dishonest here. In comment #155755 above, you tried to blame evolutionists alone for "muddying the waters" and rejecting ID for solely personal, "religious" purposes. Also, hoary puccoon, in his first comment here (#156491) pointed out that you had grossly misrepresented what we know of ancient cave paintings. Furthermore, your avoidance of certain points made here, while insinuating that we're the ones running away from debate (as you do in post #157171) is also a form of dishonesty.

Flat denials of the obvious don't work here.

And I didn't suggest that it was being avoided out of "fear" I said that is the sort of inference other people might draw.

An inference that you explicitly reinforce, while pretending not to.

It is pretty obvious you are passing on it because of some sense of smug elitism.

Another standard dodge of creationists and other con-artists: control the ignorant by sowing mistrust of "outsiders" who might expose the fraud.

In comment #155755 above, you tried to blame evolutionists alone for "muddying the waters"

and rejecting ID for solely personal, "religious" purposes.

Also, hoary puccoon, in his first comment here (#156491) pointed out that you had grossly misrepresented what we know of ancient cave paintings.

Furthermore, your avoidance of certain points made here, while insinuating that we're the ones running away from debate (as you do in post #157171) is also a form of dishonesty.

An inference that you explicitly reinforce, while pretending not to.

Another standard dodge of creationists and other con-artists: control the ignorant by sowing mistrust of "outsiders" who might expose the fraud.

I'm impressed we are able to work out as much as we have about ancient cave paintings, but we are certianly missing a large amount of data...

Your original comment, on which hoary called BS on you, was that "next to nothing" was known. This statement is false -- due to either ignorance or dishonesty. Given that you're now trying to backtrack from it, without admitting you were wrong, I'm inclined to guess the latter.

What points would you like me to comment on specifically ?

At the risk of sounding selfish, you can start with every point of mine that you've so far ignored, and respond to them. They're still where I left them, quite easy to find. You can skip the "design inference" stuff; that's already been debunked.

Jason --- Read

R. Dale Guthrie
The Nature of Paleolithic Art
University of Chicago Press, 2005

to discover a most plausible collections of motivations, intentions, etc.

And by the way, this book has more fully informed me about what it means to be human and male than any other single volume. Highly recommended, and that not just by me...

Your original comment, on which hoary called BS on you, was that "next to nothing" was known. This statement is false --- due to either ignorance or dishonesty. Given that you're now trying to backtrack from it, without admitting you were wrong, I'm inclined to guess the latter.

At the risk of sounding selfish, you can start with every point of mine that you've so far ignored, and respond to them. They're still where I left them, quite easy to find. You can skip the "design inference" stuff; that's already been debunked.

Oops, 'collection', not the plural.

And Jason, you really ought to read it before claiming 'next to nothing' is known about the motivations of the artists. Knowledge bets ignorance every time... ;-)

Next to nothing is known about the artists in question

Next to nothing is known about the motivations of the artists.

Jason --- Read R. Dale Guthrie The Nature of Paleolithic Art University of Chicago Press, 2005 to discover a most plausible collections of motivations, intentions, etc. And by the way, this book has more fully informed me about what it means to be human and male than any other single volume. Highly recommended, and that not just by me...

Dennet himself used the term "Darwinian Fundamentalist" and his atheism is definitely a metaphysical position.

I would wager there is no consistent way to define the term "religious" in such a manner that would include everything thought of as religion and yet exclude such naturalism.

It really won't do to cobble a few ideas out of popular books together to hang your labels on "one side" as if Dennett or Dawkins were representatives of our stance

I'd bet that there's no consistent way to define the term "religious"

Ideas do have meanings, hence "anti-Darwinist" does not mean "Darwinist", nor does "anti-religious" mean "religious".

I guess I've been told. Did everyone else here know that a Darwinist was not the same as an evolutionary biologist? Does everyone in Jason Rennie's radio audience know that, too? They really turn on the radio, hear 'Darwinist' and say, 'Oh, yeah, that's some guy who contends that atelic processes are sufficient to explain the diversity of life on earth.'??
Anyway, it seems to me that this is a fairly obscure topic for a radio show. A much more important topic, from the viewpoint of the scientific community, is that evolutionary biologists can't figure out a coherent research plan based on ID. The research based on ID all seems to end with some version of 'it's too complicated for us mere mortals. Give up.' THAT's the complaint I've heard over and over about ID. It's not the presence of God that bothers most biologists. It's the absence of science.

Did everyone else here know that a Darwinist was not the same as an evolutionary biologist?

Does everyone in Jason Rennie's radio audience know that, too? They really turn on the radio, hear 'Darwinist' and say, 'Oh, yeah, that's some guy who contends that atelic processes are sufficient to explain the diversity of life on earth.'??

A much more important topic, from the viewpoint of the scientific community, is that evolutionary biologists can't figure out a coherent research plan based on ID.

The research based on ID all seems to end with some version of 'it's too complicated for us mere mortals. Give up.' THAT's the complaint I've heard over and over about ID. It's not the presence of God that bothers most biologists. It's the absence of science.

But I have lots of experience over the years talking to people who would agree with Dennet and Dawkins. But I would not expect you to know any of these people so it would be pointless to name them wouldn't it.

The research based on ID all seems to end with some version of 'it's too complicated for us mere mortals. Give up.' THAT's the complaint I've heard over and over about ID. It's not the presence of God that bothers most biologists. It's the absence of science.

don't know how He did it," Behe said "He might have done it in a puff of smoke, ...

They would also point to deadend ideas like vestigal organs and "junk dna" as ideas that held up scientific progress.

Yes, yes, I know someone will now jump in with, "its non-coding DNA" and so on. Yeah, sure, now it is, but not in the past.

Eukaryotic genes: Are introns structural elements or evolutionary debris? Athel Cornish-Bowden CONTEXT: THE discovery of introns - sequences of non-coding DNA that interrupt the coding sequences of genes but are excised from gene transcripts - burst upon an unsuspecting world in 1977. Since then, much information has accumulated about the... Nature 313, 434 - 435 (07 Feb 1985) News and Views Sequence the Human Genome Douglas McCormick CONTEXT: ...a large supply of starting material. Others have objected to the project on the grounds that the great mass of non-coding DNA is of no scientific interest. Do we really know that? If the project is begun, there could be unpleasant... Bio/Technology 4, 925 - 925 (01 Nov 1986) The First Word Mapping and Sequencing the Human Genome: How to Proceed Lloyd Smith, Leroy Hood SUMMARY: The proposal to map and sequence the genome has engendered a controversy among biologistsÂ---a controversy that involves personalities and politics, as well as scientific CONTEXT: ...entire human genome than to identify and characterize all or most of the individual genes. Second, much of this so-called junk DNA could have functions that are as yet unknown. The chromosome is an organelle that self-replicates and... Bio/Technology 5, 933 - 939 (01 Sep 1987) Review A mammalian gene with introns instead of exons generating stable RNA products Kazimierz T. Tycowski, Mei-Di Shu, Joan A. Steitz SUMMARY: THE nucleoli of eukaryotic cells are the sites of ribosomal RNA transcription and processing and of ribosomal subunit assembly. They contain multiple small nucleolar CONTEXT: ...the human and mouse UHG transcripts, respectively. Thus, UHG provides a striking example of the utilization of so-called 'junk' DNA, lending support to the existence in eukaryotic organisms of RNA-based gene-expression regulatory... Nature 379, 464 - 466 (01 Feb 1996) Letters to Editor

The research based on ID all seems to end with some version of 'it's too complicated for us mere mortals. Give up.' THAT's the complaint I've heard over and over about ID. It's not the presence of God that bothers most biologists. It's the absence of science.

don't know how He did it," Behe said "He might have done it in a puff of smoke, ...

They would also point to deadend ideas like vestigal organs and "junk dna" as ideas that held up scientific progress.

Yes, yes, I know someone will now jump in with, "its non-coding DNA" and so on. Yeah, sure, now it is, but not in the past.

Eukaryotic genes: Are introns structural elements or evolutionary debris? Athel Cornish-Bowden CONTEXT: THE discovery of introns - sequences of non-coding DNA that interrupt the coding sequences of genes but are excised from gene transcripts - burst upon an unsuspecting world in 1977. Since then, much information has accumulated about the... Nature 313, 434 - 435 (07 Feb 1985) News and Views Sequence the Human Genome Douglas McCormick CONTEXT: ...a large supply of starting material. Others have objected to the project on the grounds that the great mass of non-coding DNA is of no scientific interest. Do we really know that? If the project is begun, there could be unpleasant... Bio/Technology 4, 925 - 925 (01 Nov 1986) The First Word Mapping and Sequencing the Human Genome: How to Proceed Lloyd Smith, Leroy Hood SUMMARY: The proposal to map and sequence the genome has engendered a controversy among biologistsÂ---a controversy that involves personalities and politics, as well as scientific CONTEXT: ...entire human genome than to identify and characterize all or most of the individual genes. Second, much of this so-called junk DNA could have functions that are as yet unknown. The chromosome is an organelle that self-replicates and... Bio/Technology 5, 933 - 939 (01 Sep 1987) Review A mammalian gene with introns instead of exons generating stable RNA products Kazimierz T. Tycowski, Mei-Di Shu, Joan A. Steitz SUMMARY: THE nucleoli of eukaryotic cells are the sites of ribosomal RNA transcription and processing and of ribosomal subunit assembly. They contain multiple small nucleolar CONTEXT: ...the human and mouse UHG transcripts, respectively. Thus, UHG provides a striking example of the utilization of so-called 'junk' DNA, lending support to the existence in eukaryotic organisms of RNA-based gene-expression regulatory... Nature 379, 464 - 466 (01 Feb 1996) Letters to Editor

It would give the game away if they did, wouldn't it? How anyone can miss the inference, though, I don't know.

Is it just me, or are people here tiptoeing around the observation that the ID "scientists" have no journals, do no research, are not peer reviewed, have no budget, have produced no science based on ID, and spent their entire $4 million a year budget on PR efforts and political campaigns to get creationists onto school boards? That no ID "scientist" has ever made a research-based prediction, nor has ever been able to propose a singly ID-based hypothesis when challenged, nor has ever proposed a single line of research into ID.

This isn't just a swearing contest where evolutionary biologists claim there's no science to ID, and ID "scientists" (who have never done any science, never do any now, and have no plans or budgets or proposals to do any) claim there is ID science. So far, the best the ID "Scientists" have been able to do is make two claims: (1) Actual research science can't come up with enough details to satisfy their requirements that scientific theories are sufficient NO MATTER the level of detail discovered; and (2) Design is supportable on the grounds that it "looks designed" and this conclusion requires no details or research at all. And that's it.

And Jason Rennie for the life of him can't see any difference here?

Earlier in the thread someone objected to "creationists" conflating "darwinism and hitler" and the like. How are you doing any different ?

They have explictly denied your charge on multiple occasions and yet you claim essentially they are just lying about it.

If you would not accept such reasoning from a "creationist" then you have the responsibility to not hypocritically do the same thing.

As I said, it prompts different questions that go in different directions. That is not the same as saying "science stops". It says, "science goes in a new direction".

What Flint said, too.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Is it just me, or are people here tiptoeing around the observation that the ID "scientists" have no journals, do no research, are not peer reviewed, have no budget, have produced no science based on ID, and spent their entire $4 million a year budget on PR efforts and political campaigns to get creationists onto school boards?

Now here's problem for anyone contemplating an interview with Rennie. Would one have to put up with these near-demands that we accord intellectual honesty to those who have never shown themselves to be intellectual honest? If so, a free hand to discuss these matters as an intelligent and learned individual would be impossible.

He further stated that evolutionary theory today has much greater explaining power than ID and that ID consequently should not be taught in schools. Well, at least he got something right!

He further stated that evolutionary theory today has much greater explaining power than ID and that ID consequently should not be taught in schools. Well, at least he got something right!

continuing from above:

The idea that we should give up an explanatory theory for Paul's faith in an essentially religious concept to eventually explain life is tantamount to saying "Give up on science" to anyone who is serious and knowledgeable about how science is developed and operates. True, Paul Nelson probably would not actually say that, however others suggest this in most of their posts. And if Paul is right about the relative explanatory values of evolution and ID (yes he's wrong that ID has explanatory value, but that isn't important at this juncture), as one must properly judge him to be, the result of overthrowing "darwinistic dogma" would be a cessation of much science until another theory might replace it (unlikely as that might be. Surely it can't be beyond imagination, though, even if ID has about as good a claim as Raven's myths do to science).

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

I do have 1 question for you Glen or anybody else here. It is certianly one I would probably throw into any interview because I think it is a reasonable question.

What would convince you of the existence of genuine teleology in biology/physics/etc ?

Or do you think the very idea itself is illegitimate ?

And if you do think it is illegitimate why do you think such manifest anti-realism is reasonable in a discipline like science ?

I was planning to offer the reverse of the question to the relevant ID people. I'm interested to hear Mike Behe's answer to the reverse of the above.

I believe that he has on several occasions admitted that ID oughtn't be taught in schools.

Re "Did everyone else here know that a Darwinist was not the same as an evolutionary biologist?"

The term "Darwinist" (in some contexts, at least) might include laypeople who accept evolution, in addition to actual biologists.

Henry

Would you consider it reasonable to have your motives questioned rather than your ideas addressed in a discussion ?

That is essentially what you are asking to do. Hardly reasonable.

Though if you wanted to do that in an interview and belittle your opponents I would let you do so freely. That doesn't bother me. If you wanted to present yourself as a rude jerk I would simply get out of the way, although I would caution against such an approach as it is unlikely to get people to take you seriously.

Is it really a coincidence with attitudes like this Glen that "science" has such a PR problem with the general public ?

What would convince you of the existence of genuine teleology in biology/physics/etc ?

Or do you think the very idea itself is illegitimate ?

And if you do think it is illegitimate why do you think such manifest anti-realism is reasonable in a discipline like science ?

Once it has been established that creationists and IDists have no evidence to present, there is little more to discuss than the motivations behind ID that drive it. The desire for knowledge is obviously not it.

Oh yes, it's the usual IDist playbook, to insist that we either accept sheer bias as the equal of an honest approach to the evidence, or be smeared as "rude jerks". Nothing new, nothing different. I believe that all pseudosciences use that tactic to some extent.

That your side does nothing except PR and accusation does damage science in the public's eyes, which not surprisingly reveals the same old motivations typical of your side.

Still no apology for your misleading "factual" statements, I see. This is called misdirection, another less than fully honorable tactic.

What would convince you of the existence of genuine teleology in biology/physics/etc ?

I believe that he has on several occasions admitted that ID oughtn't be taught in schools.

This is not true at all. What exactly would count as, according to you, having journals, do ing research, being peer reviewed, having a budget, having produced science based on ID.

Jason wrote:

Ok, if you can stop making assumptions about my dishonesty.

They weren't assumptions, they were conclusions based on your own words here, which I explicitly cited by comment number. And I'll stop drawing such conclusions when you start addressing the issues honestly.

Actually I asked this question of Mike Behe and Salvador Cordova when I interviewed them. both said that it results in a differnt research direction not none.

Did they specify WHICH direction resulted from ID? Did they specify what positive results this new direction had got them?

Actually I think the current round of politicisation of science and the distortion of science to suit agendas, not to mention some recent outright frauds, do the most damage to science.

The damage done to science is minimized and corrected by ongoing peer review, repetition of experiments, open access to raw data, and well-reasoned criticism. Fraud in science is exposed by other scientists. Having said that, I'd like Jason's opinion about the politicization, and outright fraud, that we've been seeing in religion since the dawn of history.

I have no problem with being critical of ideas, it is just that bein critical of your opponents honesty will only do harm to your side in such a circumstance.

This is how dishonest people typically react to criticism: they can't refute the criticism, so they try to pretend that the criticism itself is harmful. I've heard this sort of cowardly dodge from the wanker left, and from dimwitted Moonies.

Also, kudos to Flint, for getting straight to the central point:

Is it just me, or are people here tiptoeing around the observation that the ID "scientists" have no journals, do no research, are not peer reviewed, have no budget, have produced no science based on ID, and spent their entire $4 million a year budget on PR efforts and political campaigns to get creationists onto school boards? That no ID "scientist" has ever made a research-based prediction, nor has ever been able to propose a singly ID-based hypothesis when challenged, nor has ever proposed a single line of research into ID.

To which you, Jason, replied with nothing but a flat denial, and no evidence or citation to back it up. I will say it again: Behe, a leading light of ID, admitted under oath in the Dover trial that ID had produced no results as science. Was that perjury on Behe's part, or is ID/creationism really all hat and no cattle?

Flint, Glen, and others have made excellent and relevant points in my absence, and have exposed and debunked the logical fallacies in your statements, and you are still failing to address a single one of them head-on. My conclusion of dishonesty on your part still stands. You may be an honest interviewer, but you've done a piss-poor job of advertizing yourself here. Unless you're willing to make some new point here, one that hasn't already been taken apart on this very thread, I'm done with you.

I know it's dorky to pop back in after saying goodbye, but I can't help asking Jason one more question: What's your response to the efforts of certain "Christians" in Kenya to get physical evidence for human evolution out of the public's sight? Check out this article for the latest:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/update_on_kenya.html#new-comments

Is that your idea of ID "science?"

You may be an honest interviewer, but you've done a piss-poor job of advertizing yourself here.

So you can infer design and hence telos without knowing what that telos was.

I think this is relevant to Jason's claims about SETI. The search itself is based on a good many assumptions which are frankly pure guesswork combined with what people are capable of examining. In a very real sense, SETI is the drunk searching for keys under the streetlight, because that's the only place he can see anything, except in this case the drunk doesn't know what keys even look like, he's just hoping that they'll look "unusual" enough to catch his attention. If our science decides something was intelligently designed/manufactured despite no information about the designer, I'd put my money on a false positive. Nature produces too many rainbows, snowflakes, frost patterns and heaves, etc. Too easy to be fooled.

I commented on SETI earlier:

Behe, with his different research direction, has actually done some research in that direction? Where is the evidence of such research?

Balderdash...

That direction leads to Behe's Favorite Chair.

David:

Behe SAYS there is research, which seems good enough for Rennie. But when pushed, Behe points to research that is not based on the ID faith and does not support his foregone conclusions. But the only way Rennie can know Behe is making it up, is to either accept what scientists say (but to Rennie, that's just a swearing contest), or understand the research Behe misrepresents, well enough to realize Behe is misrepresenting it. But that's hard, and not Rennie's job.

I think Rennie inadvertently raises a serious problem here. Competing truth claims, both of which assert that they're supported by actual investigation of reality, are in principle not simple to evaluate. As Rennie himself illustrates, if one is inclined to believe in magic and utterly uninformed in the relevant science, even totally dishonest or hollow claims SEEM as valid as any others. All a complete outsider can see is a bunch of people swearing to different claims, and swearing that they're right and the other side isn't giving them due diligence.

So just how much diligence does the interested but scientifically uninformed layman need to exert, to distinguish between genuine science and the Potemkin science ID pretends to? As I wrote just above, Rennie is ID's poster child - intelligent, predisposed to Believe, unable to see through hollow claims or past carefully cribbed jargon, willing to solicit more and more claims from both sides, forever unequipped to go further.

Is it any wonder the ID proponents want to target children, the younger the better, through the presumed trustworthiness of public education? One can only hope Rennie is willing to notice that for Official Consumption they deny this is their goal, hoping the Rennies of the world won't notice that their denial contradicts the express purpose for which their budget is spent. And so Rennie can say "They're not doing this at all - they SAID so!" and hopefully notice that's what they ARE doing, and that's ALL they're doing.

Flint --- Thank you for the lucid explanation.

Love the phrase "Potemkin science"... :-)

I think Rennie inadvertently raises a serious problem here. Competing truth claims, both of which assert that they're supported by actual investigation of reality, are in principle not simple to evaluate.

Flint: you're hitting another central point here, which is that most of this "controversy" is based on huge misunderstandings between scientists and laymen.

Of course, misunderstandings between different groups of people are nothing new: we've spent decades, if not more, dealing with white vs. black, male vs. female, Christian vs. Muslim, rich vs. poor, schooled vs. unschooled, etc. etc. The important thing to note here is that a huge part of Jesus' teachings were all about connecting to other people, putting aside worldly disputes, and fostering understanding, and peaceful relationships, among differing groups of people. JC himself set a shocking example by dining with the very publicans and sinners whom his followers considered enemies.

And many Christian denominations have gone out of their way to fulfill this obligation, using their breadth of support and international connections to at least sincerely try to diminish conflict by buiding bridges, gathering and disseminating knowledge, and fostering understanding. On the evolution controversy, in particular, the Catholics and Lutherans (among others I don't recall right now)have used their pulpits to assure their flock that there doesn't HAVE to be any conflict between religious faith and a true understanding of the physical universe. They have reinterpreted their dogma to accomodate new facts, and assured their people that science, as a means of understanding Creation, is not ungodly.

But there are other so-called Christian leaders, who, instead of taking up the task of teaching their flock, have instead actively sought to profit from the misunderstanding, and have actively, and with malice aforethought, sought to increase this misunderstanding, in order to subvert the ability of people to think rationally, prevent their own followers from trusting any outside voices, and thus prevent their followers from ever having the ability to question their con-games, or their power over them. Science, and rational inquiry in general, are the most effective enemies of dishonesty, and this is why so many dishonest people are now trying to discredit and destroy them.

Many religious leaders are trying to roll back the entire Enlightenment, and turning decent religions like Christianity into religions of overt tribalism, cowardly scapegoating, and uncontrolled mindless hatred of "the other."

Indeed. Precisely why the world needs judges and peer review.

Jason: in case you're still here, I'd like to offer a bit of advice from a Christian who spent a lot of time on the problem of science vs. literal interpretation of Genesis a long time ago -- St. Augustine:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

Any comment, Jason?

ID is the ultimate in rationalization.

Flint --- Again, most insightful. Thank you again!

Jason, since you admit that you were wrong about the cavemen and their intentions, I'm wondering if you still think this is true: So you can infer design and hence telos without knowing what that telos was. and why. So far you've used human artifacts and SETI as evidence, and you seemed to have admitted that at least the former was bogus.

If you were the first to discover the cave paintings would there be any doubt in your mind that they were purposed ?

No, because I know that humans paint things for various purposes -- artistic, archival, informative -- and it would thus be perfectly reasonable to suppose that primitive humans would have painted images on cave walls. I would be inferring, here, that the painting was done either by humans like me, or by other physical beings, subject to physical laws, using material means to meet material needs.

None of the above assumptions would apply to a supernatural being whose purposes, methods, constraints, and motives are completely unknown to me. Your analogy of cave paintings and ID therefore fails completely.

What is unreasonable about looking at the structure of the cell and starting from the assumption that it was built for a purpose ?

It is unreasonable because we have no evidence of the "builder," no clue as to said builder's purposes, and no idea of the builder's manufacturing process. Such knowledge is present in relation to man-made objects, but not in relation to allegedly God(s)-made objects.

Also, if we assume that a cell was "built," by a "builder" whose motives and methods we can't even credibly guess, where would that assumption lead us in the way of useful insights into biology, medicine, or any other field of endeavor? What experiments would we do to verify our assumption?

Any comment on the Augustine quote?

Oops, I almost forgot: once I had assumed that those cave paintings were man-made, I would be able to observe them further, looking for other signs of human presence or activity (trash, artifacts, huts, etc.), what material was used as paint, what tools may have been used to apply it, and, sooner or later, what the specific images may have meant.

How would you test your assumption of "design" in a cell?

It's true that we need judges and peer review, but we need one more ingredient: the agreement that the judges and peer review we operate under are *legitimate*.

What the ID people have done is to set up a sham system, whose "scientists" only claim to do science, whose journals have no scientifically useful content, whose peers meet only religious qualifications, no more being necessary to claim "peer review". All of which is couched in quasi-scientific terminology calculated to cover an empty system with a veneer of plausibility the target (uninformed) audience can't see through.

And the goal of all this is what Rennie illustrates: the uninformed layman, not knowing who to trust or how to see through the facade, is reduced to going with what "seems reasonable."

Compared to what? Well, the flagellum sure LOOKS designed, right? Don't we design outboard motors? Sure we do. Is the flagellum not like an outboard motor? And so it goes.

As a non-biologist (indeed, not a scientist of any kind), I face the same problem. Which peers are better? Which claims are better? Do competing claims battle on the same field?

Even though I try to pay attention to the content and the merits, I'm not qualified to make informed evaluations at that level.

Instead, I have to notice things like: that the Steve list dwarfs ID's total list, and that most of the people in the ID list aren't biologists, and that what binds the ID "scientists" is fundamentalist religious faith rather than any scientific field or knowledge.

That the ID peoples' claims to research never actually produce any. That the pro-science scientists are of all OTHER religions, bound together by common (or closely related and relevant) fields of study, that they have degrees from reputable schools and not mail-order degrees from bible colleges, and not degrees in math or engineering or law. That the pro-science scientists are not obligated to sign a pledge to Praise Jesus and NEVER criticize a creationist, in order to publish in the ICR "journals", a practice anathema to science. And so on, through an indirect but ultimately crushing list of indicators.

When all these indicators are added together, what emerges is a picture of Rennie alleging that the guy in the mental hospital *might actually be* Napoleon. He says he is. The psychiatrist says he isn't. Rennie's willingness to flip a coin fails to ring true here. The disingenuous claim that he can't tell fails the sniff test.

But legitimate judgement and peer review isn't something the judges or peers have, it's something GIVEN to them, analogous to respect or reputation or admiration. What the judges and peers have is knowledge, skill, ability, and integrity. Legitimacy, they must earn. When religious faith determines what is earned, merit is irrelevant.

I think the ID peoples' efforts to confect the *appearance* of science is deviously corrosive, as intended. The powerful desire of the public for science to find God provides wonderful leverage. When the leverage is used to buttress the claim that science endorses the literal reading of Genesis, people hear what they want to hear.

If you were the first to discover the cave paintings would there be any doubt in your mind that they were purposed?

I certianly don't understand the animosity to the concept itself. What is unreasonable about looking at the structure of the cell and starting from the assumption that it was built for a purpose ?

If you were the first to discover the cave paintings would there be any doubt in your mind that they were purposed ?

With SETI much was made of the "blind man flailing about in the dark" and the "requirement that the signal be of the sort we know to look for".

I don't see how either of those are not relevant to ID. Of course any attempt to make a design inference is going to require an assumption about what a designed artifact will look like. Of course we are likely to get false negatives in such a case. I don't think that is a problem though.

I certianly don't understand the animosity to the concept itself. What is unreasonable about looking at the structure of the cell and starting from the assumption that it was built for a purpose ?

Once it has been established that creationists and IDists have no evidence to present, there is little more to discuss than the motivations behind ID that drive it. The desire for knowledge is obviously not it.

Oh yes, it's the usual IDist playbook, to insist that we either accept sheer bias as the equal of an honest approach to the evidence, or be smeared as "rude jerks". Nothing new, nothing different. I believe that all pseudosciences use that tactic to some extent.

That your side does nothing except PR and accusation does damage science in the public's eyes, which not surprisingly reveals the same old motivations typical of your side.

Still no apology for your misleading "factual" statements, I see. This is called misdirection, another less than fully honorable tactic.

With SETI much was made of the "blind man flailing about in the dark" and the "requirement that the signal be of the sort we know to look for". I don't see how either of those are not relevant to ID. Of course any attempt to make a design inference is going to require an assumption about what a designed artifact will look like. Of course we are likely to get false negatives in such a case. I don't think that is a problem though.

As astronomer Allan Sandage wrote recently: "The danger in devising a classification from scratch is that, if the classifier has preconceived notions of what those explanations might be, then the classification becomes circular if it is later used to provide the explanation." Sidney Van den Bergh. "Out of order." Nature p. 265 vol. 445 18 Jan. 2007

Instead, I have to notice things like: that the Steve list dwarfs ID's total list, [...] And so on,

Re "I certainly don't understand the animosity to the concept itself."

What animosity there is, is not from the concept itself, it's from the incessant claiming that said concept is supported by evidence, without those doing the claiming ever getting around to presenting that evidence.

Re "What is unreasonable about looking at the structure of the cell and starting from the assumption that it was built for a purpose?"

That assumption doesn't explain any pattern of observations - if it did, people wouldn't be having this argument. n

Henry

Re "The danger in devising a classification from scratch is that, if the classifier has preconceived notions of what those explanations might be, then the classification becomes circular if it is later used to provide the explanation."

Such as accidentally lumping together a bunch of species into a taxon that later turns out to be polyphyletic? (Is that the right word?)

Henry

What animosity there is, is not from the concept itself, it's from the incessant claiming that said concept is supported by evidence, without those doing the claiming ever getting around to presenting that evidence.

— Henry J

If you were the first to discover the cave paintings would there be any doubt in your mind that they were purposed?

I think this is a very important point. After all, no one is denying that intelligent designers exist, or that some objects are not the result of intelligent design. The contention of the ID movement, however, is that we can identify designers without any collateral evidence of those designers.

Even if true... And you make no effort to prove, or even assert, that SciPhi's statement is NOT true.

to quote another dead white male scientist, in Neil Bohr's terms, ID is 'not even wrong.'

The question has to do, I think, with the probability of getting it wrong. We can always "identify something as an artifact" by the simple expedient of flipping a coin - heads, it's an artifact!

I read the contested claim as "our ability to make correct identifications in the absence of relevant knowledge may not exceed random chance by any significant amount."

Dennet himself used the term "Darwinian Fundamentalist" and his atheism is definitely a metaphysical position.

to quote another dead white male scientist, in Neil Bohr's terms, ID is 'not even wrong.'

That was Pauli, not Bohr.

PG may use less words, but his points come across brilliantly. Insults or no insults: sooooooooooooo sexy!

What part of "inference to the best explanation" don't you understand? Inferring from coin flips isn't the best procedure.

All I said was that sometimes "created by an intelligent agent" is the most likely inference --- like, say, Kubrick's monolith.

Kubrick's monolith

Re: "Kubrick's monolith"

Shouldn't that be "Clarke's monolith"?

I think once we measured the monolith and determined that its proportions were exactly 1² x 2² x 3², we would immediately realize it was designed, and the question would become whether there was a purpose behind the monolith besides serving as a crystal clear message that it was intentionally designed (and in contrast to ID's approach, science would naturally try to discover as much as it could about the designers, instead of just standing around saying "yup, looks designed to me, Cletus. By who? Dunno.")

Of course, ID's designer works exactly the opposite, designing all life while doing everything possible to make it seem like it's the result of undirected natural processes (to everyone but the razor-sharp engineers, doctors and property managers that make up ID's crack biological research team).

I think once we measured the monolith and determined that its proportions were exactly 1^2 x 2^2 x 3^2, we would immediately realize it was designed...

I think once we measured the monolith and determined that its proportions were exactly 12 x 22 x 32, we would immediately realize it was designed, and the question would become whether there was a purpose behind the monolith besides serving as a crystal clear message that it was intentionally designed

Having thought about this a bit, I'm not sure that we could infer that the monolith was designed, especially not at first.

After more thought, you might realize WHY Clarke (and Kubrick) designed it the way they did, and why everyone reading or watching immediately drew the same conclusion of an artifact.

Having thought about this a bit, I'm not sure that we could infer that the monolith was designed, especially not at first. Based completely on appearance and texture (never mind that it started humming as soon as it was unearthed), we couldn't rule out the possibility that it was some sort of crystal, formed in outer space somewhere (you can form some pretty big crystals in outer space, artificially at least) which landed on the moon.

— GuyeFaux

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you arguing that Clarke and Kubrick exploited our tendency to see design? Or are you saying that they designed the artifact in such a way that design was the only legitimate conclusion? I think in one case you agree with the design inference, and in the other you do not.

The radio pulse also argues for artificiality simply because there is (AFAIK) no known natural radio source that small and bright.

That's the problem. OK, the thing looks according to our lights distinctively different from its surroundings, and behaves in what we would also consider distinctively different ways. According to the yardsticks we would choose to bring to bear, this think certainly qualifies as "very unusual". Furthermore, while all the surrounding stuff fits neatly into our (pretty damn reliable) model of how such things come to be and what they should look like, this monolith thingus violates all our models. We have no knownn process for making such a thing that's not artificial, and no known process for generating such radio signals (and then, only when exposed to sunlight) that isn't artificial.

So we're basically choosing between "alien artifact" and "beats the hell out of me." Is the first choice a "more scientific" inference? I guess I need to ask a real scientist.

Re "(to everyone but the razor-sharp engineers, doctors and property managers that make up ID's crack biological research team)"

Don't forget mathematicians and lawyers.

We have no known process for making such a thing that's not artificial, and no known process for generating such radio signals (and then, only when exposed to sunlight) that isn't artificial.

So we're basically choosing between "alien artifact" and "beats the hell out of me."

Just as one example, we find that planetary orbits are locked into small-integral ratios to one another. By this same reasoning, someone is trying to send us a message, right?

...a realization that there was no known means by which that shape of crystal could form from that material would tend to support the artifact hypothesis.

After more thought, you might realize WHY Clarke (and Kubrick) designed it the way they did, and why everyone reading or watching immediately drew the same conclusion of an artifact. It resembles a good deal of known human design, serving purposes humans are known to have. I just don't think Popper's Ghost realized how instinctive the projection of human design is ingrained. He "knew" as automatically as the watching audience, but didn't stop to wonder exactly why, or what made design the "best inference." It's because it's a human design.

— Flint

Now, what would a truly alien design look like? Something not necessarily remotely like anything a human would (or perhaps even could) build, for purposes perhaps utterly irrelevant to anything that might motivate any humans?

The radio pulse also argues for artificiality simply because there is (AFAIK) no known natural radio source that small and bright.

— GuyeFaux

But that's the argument from ignorance, no?

And about it looking like it was buried, so what? That's the "it looks designed, so it's designed" argument.

It giving off a radio pulse is not qualitatively different from it having an unnatural looking shape, is it? It's more surprising, but still surprising in the same way, no?

...a realization that there was no known means by which that shape of crystal could form from that material would tend to support the artifact hypothesis.

By the same logic, we should conclude that the monolith was made and planted by human beings. Come to think of it, that's probably the best knee-jerk explanation.

— GuyeFaux

It's not a sure bet, plenty of opportunities for false positives but it's a working hypothesis.

Not really, because there are known small, bright, radio sources---they're simply man-made. It's not ignorance if you actually have an example of the mechanism you're proposing; generalizing from known examples is what science is all about.

The radio pulse also argues for artificiality simply because there is (AFAIK) no known natural radio source that small and bright.

Not qualitatively different, but quantitatively much more convincing because an unnatural shape could, as you say, be due to crystallization.

GuyeFaux:

I think we're suffering a semantic problem here, as much as anything.

Assume some set of observations. Two scientists ponder this set, and derive what they consider "best fit" explanations, as tentative working hypotheses. Let's say these two scientists have derived different hypotheses. Does this indicate that either or both are developing any argument from ignorance? Perhaps this term doesn't mean what you think it does.

Now, let's go further. Imagine these are archaeologists, differing over whether something at a dig is part of a human artifact, or just an ordinary rock. Do we have an argument from ignorance yet?

What the Monolith is, is a *possible* artifact. Yes, the artifact hypothesis must posit a Designer of the monolith either similar enough to humans, or familiar enough with humans to have patterned their design after human patterns. But without some way to test this hypothesis, it's noise. Empty speculation. The simplest hypothesis is usually NOT the ultimately correct one.

There are a couple of important distinctions between this exercise, and Behe's efforts in Dover. In this exercise, we really know almost nothing, beyond the simple existence and something about the behavior of the monolith. Behe, on the other hand, is aware that there is an enormous, 150-year-old research basis, ratified by countless zillions of actual tests, within which the hypothesis of natural origin is perfectly consistent. And surely we could (and would) dream up lots and lots of ways of testing any hypothesis that the monolith was designed, such that it could fail these tests. Behe proposes no tests, sees no sense in doing so. For Behe, design is primary and inherent. No need to test, there it is!

This is the distinction I think you are missing. With the monolith, any hypothesis is the starting point of exhaustive research. For Behe, the presumption of design precludes any possible test, since no test can possibly be failed. Design is Behe's ending point, not his starting point.

You may consider that something being an alien artifact is so implausible that it should NEVER be adopted as a working hypothesis until we have considerably more background information (like the knowledge that aliens exist, and something about what they do). But I can see that others might legitimately prefer to start with a design hypothesis. So long as conclusions are not being used as assumptions, we do not fall into Behe's trap.

Flint --- Your examples of archaeologists is completely real and quite a serious problem in archeology. Some archaeologists have begun to turn to formal Bayesian methods, which seems to aid in sorting out the most probable hypothesis, given the evidence collected.

David:

I think the confusion here is between a hypothesis and a conclusion. The canonical argument from ignorance is to draw a conclusion that because we lack knowledge, magic is the appropriate "explanation". But the essence of this argument is that there is a valid default we can presume as an explanation in the absence of relevant evidence, other than "not known at this time." In general, anyone who substitutes a conclusion for ignorance is making the argument from ignorance. Substituting a testable, tentative hypothesis is NOT making this argument. Arguments as to which hypotheses should be tested first on the basis of disagreements as to "best fit" strike me as hollow. So long as these are hypotheses to be tested, I don't care which hypothesis anyone thinks is the best fit. We might even select a hypothesis we agree is NOT the best fit, if it's both plausible and easiest to test.

Now, where Rennie's obfuscation enters is in the issue of how plausibility is to be determined. It seems clear to me that it's determined on the basis of all background knowledge we can bring to bear that might be relevant. And at least some of this background knowledge is that, if only a tiny minority of "trusted" authorities (those who have devoted their lives to studying the issue in question) consider an explanation plausible, AND if that tiny minority all happens to be members of the same religious sect, AND the proposed "plausible" explanation is a matter of fixed doctrine followed by that sect (and by nobody else), THEN we have reason to suspect that the assessment of plausibility is based on religious beliefs rather than on the evidence per se.

Now, is the monolith plausibly an alien artifact? Sure it is. Is "alien artifact" the best-fit explanation? Maybe, maybe not, who cares, why does it matter? The determination that it is "sufficiently odd" to justify focused investigation is much more a policy decision than a scientific determination. Policy decisions determine resource allocation. It's the determination that resources spent investigating the monolith are most likely to return higher dividends.

nor does so-called "methodological naturalism" really explain the scientific endeavor, no matter how many think that it does.

— Glen Davidson, some days ago,

Flint --- We seem to use various words differently. With formal Bayesian methods, one attempts to conclude that hypothesis H is the best one. While relatively little rests upon this conclusion in archeology, quite a bit does in hydrology, agriculture, geology, etc.

So the best hypothesis becomes a conclusion which is then a basis for action. The only remaining question, before acting, is to determine how likely the best hypothesis is. That is, is there enough evidence?

However, all of the above is part and parcel of the generally accepted scientific method. Your comments about beginning with unshakable dogma are correct. In formal Bayesian reasoning, nothing is held with certainty...

Not really, because there are known small, bright, radio sources---they're simply man-made. It's not ignorance if you actually have an example of the mechanism you're proposing; generalizing from known examples is what science is all about.

— GuyeFaux

I think your original argument is just from ignorance (note the AFAIK): The radio pulse also argues for artificiality simply because there is (AFAIK) no known natural radio source that small and bright.

So what you're saying here is new to this discussion,

and unless you're saying something different than what I think you're saying, this is the same as Behe's reasoning with the flagellum. That since we've only ever seen outboard motors that are artificial, the functionally equivalent flagellum is therefore artificial.

The quantitative difference is due to our ignorance: We have a tough time accounting for large black crystals, but we have a really tough time accounting for a beeping crystal.

But more importantly, if the difference is simply a matter of degrees, I don't see why we should ever prefer the design inference, since it's never going to be a simpler explanation than some completely contrived natural model.

The reason I keep harping on this is because this is sounding an awful lot like Behe from Dover.

No, not at all. Panda's Thumb has been discussing the differences between SETI and ID for years now, and one of the biggest differences has always been that SETI looks for signals that closely resemble man-made ones and don't resemble any known natural ones.

And if the flagellum resembled an outboard motor in any way beyond the vague and subjective "functional equivalence," and if there really was no known natural mechanism by which such a structure could appear, and if Behe was positing a designer who resembled humans enough in its desires, abilities and limitations to explain why it would construct similar artifacts to our own, he'd have a point.

Er...why not? Of course a not-completely-contrived model involving design will be simpler than a completely contrived natural model. Hell, "Godidit" is the simplest model of all---it just doesn't explain much.

IDing stone tools as made by early hominins.

My conclusion is that "was it designed?" is simply the wrong question.

A more appropriate question would be "what events led to it being that way?".

Henry

Flint, Anton, excuse my late reply: weekend.

— GuyeFaux

I am aware of this discussion; I was referring to your posts just on this thread.

And if the flagellum resembled an outboard motor in any way beyond the vague and subjective "functional equivalence," and if there really was no known natural mechanism by which such a structure could appear, and if Behe was positing a designer who resembled humans enough in its desires, abilities and limitations to explain why it would construct similar artifacts to our own, he'd have a point.

But it seems once again we're talking degrees here, and nothing qualitatively different. Sure the monolith looks a lot like an alarm system, but only about as vaguely as a bacterial flagellum.

"Goddidit" being the "simplest" model is simply not true. Because not only are you still left to explain the artifact's creation, you're left to explain God's creation as well.

(You can substitue "aliens" for God.)

So a completely contrived natural model will beat design almost every time.

Another example is animal artifacts; and I think we'd really have to split hairs at this point to differentiate between a natural explanation and the design explanation.

Actually, I said much the same thing near the beginning of the thread.

I would say there's one important qualitative difference---with the monolith we're actively speculating about the aliens' desires, abilities and limitations from the get-go, which is what makes the hypothesis falsifiable at least in principle.

(You can substitue "aliens" for God.)

I guess this goes to the related point that a posited intelligence becomes a good explanation when it becomes a naturalistic explanation. I.e. when you can't tell the difference between a materialistic explanation and ID. Which implies that a completely contrived natural model will beat a design inference, insofar as that inference is not a natural explanation. I think an example of such a conclusion (i.e. a non-natural inference) is the design inference made by the characters and the audience in 2001. Even considering the repetition of the monoliths on Earth and then the moon, the design inference is really not a naturalistic conclusion.

— Guye

I think 'naturalism' is the wrong word. What's needed is a testable explanation, not a natural one.

I'm not a philosopher, but aren't natural explanations by definition testable? Or at least the obverse of this is true? But anyways, I don't disagree in principle, I think all of the posts make senses with "testable" instead of "natural".

— Guye

Re "There comes a point (in high-energy physics, for example), where we simply can't afford to build big enough accelerators to test certain theoretic ideas."

Yep - most (I expect all) theories will have some untestable consequences. But that doesn't make the theory itself untestable as long as there are other consequences that are testable.

Henry

But the inability to falsify/test the entire theory is what's plaguing String 'theory' right now - the cost of the accelerators needed to distinguish between different flavors is reaching a point where it may not even be theoretically possible to build one.

Yep, string "theory" isn't yet really a theory in the scientific sense of the term; last I heard it was still in the hypothesis stage.

I kind of wish they hadn't prematurely started calling string theory a theory when it isn't yet one. That glitch gets in the way when trying to explain the scientific meaning of the word "theory" to somebody who doesn't yet understand it.

Henry

Henry J --- To me, stating that something is a hypothesis implies it is testable.

Maybe the subject should be called 'string idea', or 'string math'. ;-)

That would make strings a proposal for a hypothesis, rather than hypothesis or theory, wouldn't it?

Henry

Sure, call in stringy proposal. :-)

But it's not entirely fair to exclude String theory either. I mean, what happens when two theories fit the data equally well, and while in principle it's possible to differentiate the two experimentally (i.e. perform an experiment that falsifies one but not the other), it's not feasible to do so? On the one hand, it's arguable that the newer theory has no new research to recommend it, but on the other hand it has tons of old research with which it's consistent. So then which theory do we prefer? And I hope I portrayed the case with string theory, though I'm aware that not all of the math has been done to show that it is in fact consistent with old data.

Sentence preference --- Rather than proposal, hypothesis, or theory, just follow the logicians and call it a sentence.

If two sentences are equally supported by the evidence, Ockam's Razor says to take the simpler...

However, the goal of the string sentence is to unify the forces of physics. But it already fails, it some sense, in that it doesn't take into account dark energy. Irrespective of that, the unification is supposed to be worth a whole bundle of difficulties. I, for one, am not convinced.

If two sentences are equally supported by the evidence, Ockam's Razor says to take the simpler...

GuyeFaux --- My post wasn't intended to be a thorough description of a sentence as used in science as a hypothesis. Somehow sentence H is to explain data D. Clearly the sentence 0=0 fails to explain...

Actually, string theory is looking like it might be testable without AU-scale accelerators.

Somehow sentence H is to explain data D. Clearly the sentence 0=0 fails to explain...

GuyeFaux --- Sorry, I don't see any mistake. A set of sentences is formally equivalent to the conjunction of all the sentences in the set.

I, at least, do not agree that 'richer is better'. Indeed, I hold that a goal is to use as few constructs as possible, consistent with explaining the data.

aren't natural explanations by definition testable?

The Uncertainty Principle pretty much guarantees that we're never getting a completely accurate test of anything.

the cost of the accelerators needed to distinguish between different flavors is reaching a point where it may not even be theoretically possible to build one.

Sure, call in stringy proposal. :-)

In short, valid theories of physics are preferred over invalid ones; between valid theories, the one whose language more richly yet observably describe reality are preferred, and all things being equal, a shorted axiomatization is better.

On the one hand, it's arguable that the newer theory has no new research to recommend it, but on the other hand it has tons of old research with which it's consistent.

But it already fails, it some sense, in that it doesn't take into account dark energy.

Ok, so once again the reason the "design inference" is acceptable for the monolith is because it's not a conclusion; it's just a conjecture from which future research can spring. As opposed to id, who'd have us conclude "design" on the spot and be done with it.

— GuyeFaux

Right, but you'd still have to explain how the intelligence arose by natural selection, which going to be I think a longer explanation than any contrived naturalistic explanation.

I think an example of such a conclusion (i.e. a non-natural inference) is the design inference made by the characters and the audience in 2001. Even considering the repetition of the monoliths on Earth and then the moon, the design inference is really not a naturalistic conclusion.

I think this is a common misunderstanding. The UP prevents us from observing commutating observables at once to completely specify the state of a system. However, AFAIK we can observe any one to arbitrary precision by quantum squeezing.

— Torbjörn Larsson

Uups, I missed the discussion of richer (more powerful) theories. I agree with GuyeFaux excellent description, that is another part of theory building, where science and math, but possibly not philosophy at large, seems to agree. The more predictions or theorems is spawned is obviously the better and this is how the consensus seems to be.

Actually, it's non-commuting observables that can't be simultaneously specified.

Do'h!

GuyeFaux --- Sorry, I don't see any mistake. A set of sentences is formally equivalent to the conjunction of all the sentences in the set.

I, at least, do not agree that 'richer is better'. Indeed, I hold that a goal is to use as few constructs as possible, consistent with explaining the data.

But it already fails, it some sense, in that it doesn't take into account dark energy.

— Torbjörn Larsson

Why not? I don't think anyone was suggesting that the monoliths were supernatural in origin.

But natural selection is a naturalistic explanation, and we already use it to explain ourselves and our cousins, even though presumably we could contrive an explanation without it, such as the IDers' beloved "A bunch of atoms smacked into each other in just the right way and here we are!"

I simply meant that in terms of explanatory power, positing an intelligence in the case of extraterrestrials designing the monolith explains really very little since we know nothing about the aliens and how they came to be. So intelligent extra-terrestrials have the same explanatory power as "poof" or "Goddidit." And therefore, a contrived naturalistic explanation is unlikely to involve some sort of evolved intelligence. (This is what I should've said before; I did not intend to exclude intelligent agents and evolution from natural explanations.)

— Guye

But the point is that the explanation doesn't end there...

I simply meant that in terms of explanatory power, positing an intelligence in the case of extraterrestrials designing the monolith explains really very little since we know nothing about the aliens and how they came to be. So intelligent extra-terrestrials have the same explanatory power as "poof" or "Goddidit." And therefore, a contrived naturalistic explanation is unlikely to involve some sort of evolved intelligence. (This is what I should've said before; I did not intend to exclude intelligent agents and evolution from natural explanations.)

— Guye

I simply meant that in terms of explanatory power, positing an intelligence in the case of extraterrestrials designing the monolith explains really very little since we know nothing about the aliens and how they came to be. So intelligent extra-terrestrials have the same explanatory power as "poof" or "Goddidit." And therefore, a contrived naturalistic explanation is unlikely to involve some sort of evolved intelligence. (This is what I should've said before; I did not intend to exclude intelligent agents and evolution from natural explanations.)

— Guye

I simply meant that in terms of explanatory power, positing an intelligence in the case of extraterrestrials designing the monolith explains really very little since we know nothing about the aliens and how they came to be. So intelligent extra-terrestrials have the same explanatory power as "poof" or "Goddidit." And therefore, a contrived naturalistic explanation is unlikely to involve some sort of evolved intelligence. (This is what I should've said before; I did not intend to exclude intelligent agents and evolution from natural explanations.)

— Guye

I'm only talking about cases where the explanation does end there, as in it's something we conclude because it gives a satisfactory explanation.

— Guye