Detecting Design is a Matter of Physical Evidence and Logic
To listen to intelligent design (ID) opponents tell it, you’d think that detecting design were a matter of closing your eyes, lifting your arms, and chanting “ooomm”. That it was some dubious subjective inference made in a transcendental state. But folks like that seem not to notice their own behavior. Even such design skeptics, when they walk down a street, easily decide that, say, a flower garden is the result of purposeful design, but that the weeds growing along the road are a matter of serendipity. Even design skeptics, when they first look at Mount Rushmore, or the images on Easter Island, or the Sphinx, immediately know that these are the products of a directing intelligence.
How do they know that? What features of some systems make us even suspect that they might have been purposely designed? Design is “the purposeful arrangement of parts”. Intelligent agents can plan ahead, and act on their plans. They can bring together separate components and place them in relationship to each other, to create an effect that may be extremely unlikely to occur by chance. So we detect design by inferring that some parts appear to have been arranged for a purpose. Any child who plays with Tinkertoys is familiar with making designs, and her Mom can detect many of those designs. Any engineer who plans sophisticated technology is arranging parts for a purpose, and almost anyone who sees the technology and understands how it works can conclude that it was purposely designed.
One thing you have to keep in mind is that the detection of design depends on the quantity and quality of evidence. The more parts that appear to be arranged for a purpose, and the more precisely they fit each other to achieve that purpose, the more and more confident we can be in our conclusion of design. For example, if you came across a broken stick on the ground in the woods that pointed toward a campsite, it may be a signal to campers, or it may just be a stick that happened to fall that way. If there were four broken sticks, arranged into an arrow shape pointing at the camp, you’d be fairly confident that that was no accident. If there were a nicely carved arrow on a pole pointing to the camp, inscribed with the words “Camp Bull Moose”, you would be as confident that it was designed as that anything was. Contrary to the assertions of many design opponents, a conclusion of design is based not on some gauzy faith, but on physical evidence and logic.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
IÂm impressed, I have to say. Really rarely do I encounter a blog thatÂs both educative and entertaining, and let me tell you, you will have hit the nail on the head. Your concept is outstanding; the difficulty is something that not enough people are speaking intelligently about. I am very happy that I stumbled throughout this in my seek for something relating to this. buy cialis we injectable buy xanax online Clean fioricet half life Buddhist
After study a number of of the weblog posts on your web site now, and I truly like your method of blogging. I bookmarked it to my bookmark website record and will probably be checking back soon. Pls check out my website online as well and let me know what you think. can i buy ambien online emulsive buy .25 mg klonopin imploringly cheapest tramadol madidans
and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Thanks.
Even simple guys like me can tell from experience that complex, purposeful things point towards intelligent design. Thanks for bucking peer pressure and following the evidence.
All this seems like common sense to me, but I'm not a perfesser.
The REAL mystery is the objection to TESTING the theory of design. What better way to prove design wrong, than by testing it's hypotheses? You would think that Evolutionist biologists would be standing in line to prove design wrong, instead of trying to shut it down.
It's hard for scientists to truly research ID. Pretty much any scientist who attempts to research ID or even allows ID to cross their lips is ousted by the scientific and academic community. Watch Ben Stein's "Expelled". He actually gets Richard Dawkins to say that ID is possible.
Sure Dr. Dawkins says it is possible... just like it is possible that life was seeded here by aliens.
And yes, those who promote ID lose standing in the Scientific community... but that is because they never support their ideas with Scientific evidence.
There is zero percent chance to confirm it if they refuse to test it.
Unqualified criticism: The Scientific Method.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
So should scientists take the time to fully test every hypothesis that comes about?
If the proponents of ID want to advance their ideas then they need to perform the experiments and submit the papers.
Marginalizing one side, only focusing on the other. That is not science , that is idealism.
Not that you would know the difference.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
The ID side is being marginalized because they have yet to present anything approaching credible evidence.
Nobody is focusing on geocenterists... or those who think that disease is caused by evil spirits either.
Which is not in line with their financiers' worldview, that will never change.
Imagine a football game between the shirts and the no-shirts. Imagine if the only ones allowed determine whether or not a goal was scored was the shirts. That the no-shirts could not enforce any rules/customs. Imagine how lopsided the score would become.
Who decides whether or not evidence is credible? It sure isn't the ID folks, as you well know. Looks like the scientific community needs a little social justice.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
That which is deemed "not credible" are those who do not present evidence... that is all there is to it. Present results that can be repeated, or a theory that makes a testable prediction and then you can start to say that there is credible evidence.
Or imagine a football game where the other team shows up wearing baseball uniforms and stands around throwing a ball back and forth saying that they are playing football. If the ID side has evidence, if they can make testable predictions then it can be said that they are presenting credible evidence. When ones arguments and evidence can be blasted apart by a well read amateur such as myself one can hardly expect for main stream Science to pay much mind.
Let me ask you this... if you had a child with a sustained temperature of over 100f would you take them to a shaman to have the evil spirits driven out... or a doctor?
What is testable?
Sometimes you guys don't even listen to yourselves.
WTF does shamanism have to do with this? If I was a member of a religion wherein the witch-doctor was the only available treatment, and that was how everyone else in my village took care of fevers, then I'd take my kid there, just like you would.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Testable means that a theory makes a repeatable prediction, or that another group can use that theory to predict some event.
Like let's say that you tell me that, once air resistance has been factored out, two objects near the earths surface fall at ~9.8m/ss. If your theory is correct then I should be able to replicate it in my own lab... As should anyone else who tries to mimic your results.
It can also make a prediction of an observable phenomena that others can go and test. Like saying that a solar eclipse will be visible at X location on Y day. Then anyone can read your prediction and go to that place / time and confirm your theory.
I'm asking you if given the option you would take someone who was deathly ill to a shaman to have the evil spirits cast out or to a doctor for a fever reducer and maybe for some antibiotics? Isn't the shaman's evil spirit theory just a competing theory denied by the medical establishment? It is not like there is an objective way to examine such bits to determine which is the most effective...
You assume that ID is based on what can be proven while ignoring that evolution has so many holes in it that it likewise cannot be proven.
Again, your opinion is that evolution is real and other theories are false. Just like the science community, you refuse to examine ID, and the support the theory presents, then say there is no support.
The only fact you have proven is that you are unwilling to look at either objectively. Just because you cannot weigh or measure something does not mean it does not exist. Imagine the sad state the world would be in is everyone only tested those things they had already convinced themselves of...
As for the second half of the discussion, if you loved in a culture where visiting the shaman was the accepted manner of treating illness, you'd know it worked as you would have been personally healed by him. At least you would believe so. Just like you believe that modern medicine is curative in the face of proof to the contrary.
What proof?
What was the last illness that was cured by modern western medicine? Wasn't it Polio? Who is snowing themself now?
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
If ID cannot be demonstrated Scientifically then it is not a Scientific Theory. Also, what holes?
Actually my opinion is that Evolution is the Theory with the most support (by a massive amount) out of competing theories. It is the same opinion I have regarding the heliocentric model, Electromagnetism, and Relativity. I say that the evidence doesn't support ID because it, rather obviously, doesn't support ID. Irreducible complexity, to pick an example, has never been demonstrated to exist... As, under evolution, a 'simpler' structure can still perform some function.
It would be very sad... But that is not the world I live in so . I do live in a world where evidence is needed to move from a hypothesis to a Scientific Theory.
What proof to the contrary? Does modern medicine have a higher success rate? If we take three thousand people with fevers, send one thousand to doctors, one thousand to shamans, and just had one thousand sith there doing nothing which group would have the fastest recovery rate?
Medical Science has advanced a great deal since the polio vaccine... Organ transplants, cancer survival rates, new vaccines, new surgical techniques...
IC is observable. That suffices as proof, obviously. Closing your eyes or burying your head in sand does not make it go away. That does not stop you from pretending it does.
There are plenty of holes in evolution. Asking what they are is either disingenuous or a sign of ignorance brought about by blind faith in the scientific community-- Neither of which I can cure you of.
I agree about evidence being needed, as you said. I think little of a community who, like you, will refuse to investigate a hypothesis and refuse to properly examine the supporting evidence; all while denying that the theory possesses enough "credible" evidence to be a theory. It is circular UN-logic.
Of the three, I'd say the person who did nothing has as much chance of survival as either of the other two, but those people will not be funding boats for doctors, so they'll be better off in the long run.
Medical Science, as a body, has perfected symptom treatment, in collusion with pharmaceutical companies while curing nothing. The most effective treatment is the removal of that large bulge in the patient's rear pocket area.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
In what way is IC both observable and contradictory to evolution? Is the eye irreducbally complex? Hardly! There are eyes both more and less complex then the human eye.
Such as?
Who is refusing to investigate? It falls to those who think it is a worthwhile line of research to gather the initial evidence, then convince others based on that evidence.
Do you have data to back up that claim?
If it is just symptom treatment then they have been doing a pretty amazing job. Who has made the advances at curing / preventing the causes?
Or are you one of those people who can see that ID is a valid, however weak, theory but think that evolution is far superior?
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
It is very much in the weak category. So far the closest ID has come to a testable hypothesis is IC... and that hypothesis has failed to produce anything that is contradictory to Evolutionary theories. It has yet to produce any structures that are truly irreducible... such as a function that cannot be either decomposed into a simpler function or multiple simpler functions.
You'd recognize the fact that IC is, in fact, supported by proof.
I have already shown this to you, but you cannot see it through all that sand. You mentioned the human eye above. Read a list of the individual parts of the human eye and show an evolutionarily viable use for each part on its own. You cannot. Same goes for the heart. And the brain. And even parts of very simple life forms like the bacterial flagellum. Remember, the flagellum has what 8-10? parts? Thinking that each would serve an evolutionarily viable purpose is self-delusion, pure and simple.
These are but a few of the many thousands of parts and systems found in nature which could not have evolved as a culmination of random changes.
This breaks the theory of evolution, just as Darwin himself stated it would. That is just one hole in the theory...
Does this mean I think evolution is incorrect? Of course not, many examples of evolutionary change are observable, thus provable. Likewise for ID, specifically when considering IC.
Besides, there is no evidence disproving IC or ID. Just agenda-ed opinions.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Couldn't the same be said for flat earthers or geocentrists? IC is not supported by evidence because it has yet to show a structure that is irreducible. The Eye? Reducible. The flagellumn? Reducible. Proteins? Reducible.
Though IC is h hypothesis it is a rather poor one. The number of possible combinations of genes and proteins is so vast that actually proving that a given structure cannot be reduced would require a monumental amount of computational power. The case for IC is further degraded when studies of existing organisms show that the various structures do exist in forms that are reducibally complex. The presence of bacteria proves that complex life (like you and I) can be reduced down to a single living cell that is still able to function. It really comes down to statistics... Though highly astronomically improbable it is not impossible for a single bacterium to mutate into a human zygote in the span of a single generation (and promptly die). As such the question then becomes "is the action of a designer more likely?". Which is rather meaningless without a description of the designer or evidence for the existence of that designer.
How can you say that a system could not have come about via random change? Any gene can become any other gene given the right combination of mutation, with a probability greater then 0.
The failure if ID and IC to make testable predictions is all that is needed... Coupled with the continued success of evolutionary models.
You are correct, regardless of how improbable such mutations might be, they ARE possible. But I was not saying they were impossible, I was saying that they would not be evolutionarily viable. By that, I mean those mutations would not give the organism some advantage so strong that the entire species would eventually possess such a mutation.
Sure it is possible to, for example, grow a tooth from the bottom of one's foot, but that does not give an advantage, rather it would be a disadvantage, meaning that trait would not be passed on because that organism would not survive.
Same thing goes for those organisms which get a random mutation that makes for part of a complex system. Like a heart, or a wing, or a flagellum. That mutation, while technically possible, would not lend to that organism's survival.
If it does not provide an advantage which allows that organism to better survive in its environment , it does not pass on. If it does not pass on, then how can those system "components" accrue?
Can an animal suddenly be born with a fully functional eye that species never had before? I think the chances of that are vanishingly small. Couple that with the tens of thousands examples of IC systems, and you have the closest thing to impossible possible.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Those are, possibly, harmful mutations... however what about helpful mutations? A mutation can either be helpful, harmful, or neutral. Harmful mutations reduce the chance of reproduction, helpful ones increase the chance, and neutral ones do not have an impact either way. If having teeth on ones feet was helpful the we would likely see it.
A heart can be, rather obviously, a helpful thing to have... of course it isn't likely that a heart would appear in one single generational step... rather what we would identify as a heart would come about through over the span of generations, starting with simple hearts and evolving into more complex ones as time goes on. Which is what we see... the heart of some invertebret species is much simpler then the heart of humans (and other mammals), consisting of a simple muscular tube. A wing is the same way... a proto-wing can help with gliding or stability while running. And a flagellum is used to propel a bacterium through a fluid in search of food .
No an animal with no history of an eye is not likely to be born with a fully functional one... but it can be born with a spot of skin that is a bit light sensitive. Not enough to see as you or I do, but enough to differentiate light from dark. Go down the road a few generations and the descendent of the animal born with a light sensitive spot may have become the dominant form of that species.... and a mutation that increases the density of light receptive cells starts to become dominant because those animals are better able to 'see' what is causing the light to change. So on down through the generations until you have an eye like the human eye.
That is Evolution, change over generations.... An animal being born with a fully functional eye where none was before is seen as having "the closest thing to impossible possible" under Evolution. But a slightly more human like eye emerging through a small set of mutations from a slightly less human eye? That is what the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution suggests.
Book won't get the joke unless I point it out, But I think I'd rather see if he can than spoil your...
A real scientist ought to say, "Please prove my theory to be false" , instead of , " There's no need to discuss competing theories because mine is indisputable and undeniable"
Refusing to test or discuss I.D. is the equivilent of Dr. Zaius barring all apes from the forbidden zone.
That is what Scientists have said... present the evidence first. Without evidence there is no reason to discuss the hypothesis.
There is no reason for a Scientist to spend their time and money investigating a hypothesis that they do not see as valid.
You are afraid of intelligent design, just like Doctor Zaius feared the forbidden zone.
For all practical purposes, a proof is any completely convincing argument. And the problem with Intelligent Design is that most scientists are simply not persuaded that the highly ordered physical reality we live in and obviously exists is the work of an Intelligent Designer. It could very well be, and I believe it's likely, that most scientists are being unreasonable in denying the existence of the Designer but it is the nature of science to be extraordinarily skeptical.
I don't want to see the standards of science lowered so that the whims of the Intelligent Design movement would be satisfied. According to Dr. Michael Behe, astrology is scientific theory and I don't want to go there. I believe that the standard of what is called science must be raised higher than it is now.
"So we detect design by inferring that some parts appear to have been arranged for a purpose."
Other inconvenient observations which bear inspection : purposefulness and intentionality.
Here is that impermissible notion to the effect: "personality is void of material and therefore personality is not worthy of notable consideration by science "
Following that is dismissal and denial of personal expressions and very often ad hominem character-assassination.
We are forced to confront these challenges which in a more spiritual world might appear trivial or pathetic.
Be prepared which might advise be patient and have pity.
Far from personality not being 'worthy of notable consideration by science ', scientists in the fields of psychology, psychiatry and neuroscience are the only people doing significant work in this area.
Materialism bears that attitude, no matter which 'ology' or 'ism' it studies.
Can you elucidate, specifically explaining why you are not satisfied with the work geneticists, behavioural psychologists, neuroscientists and the like are doing in this field, and perhaps point out to me sources where I can learn more about the meaningful work dualists and pluralists are doing in this field?
Many thanks...
This thread got a little diffused and the directions muddled. i don't see 'materialism' as controlling the subjects which you mentioned. Nor do i have particular feeling about those subjects in this thread.
You bemoaned, in a way that implied a derogatory judgement, that personality was not 'worthy of notable consideration by science '. I pointed out that science studies personality from many different perspectives.
You then accused science of 'bearing that attitude' and I asked "what attitude?" Not an unreasonable question.
Suffice it to say that making an implicitly negative claim that science has an 'attitude' is not the same as explaining what is wrong with it.
The kind service of Opposing Views does seem to allow installing a subject line for each post. My recent reply to your post actually had tried to disavow what seemed to be your interpretations of my own statements. Indeed, i accept your efforts of rationalization, but beg to differ with conclusions as may follow.
"You bemoaned, in a way that implied a derogatory judgement, that personality was not 'worthy of notable consideration by science '. I pointed out that science studies personality from many different perspectives."
As i briefly scanned this, i was not 'bemoaning' but rather , i expressed a bit of 'self deprecating humor'-- Now, please allow me to dig up my original comment of September 6:
"Other inconvenient observations which bear inspection : purposefulness and intentionality."
We see now a difference of words and therefore meanings. I see that mainstream sciences do somewhat sideline works or research of 'purposefulness' and 'intentionality', as taken from an individual's perspective. In physics there is some abstract work which may touch upon these. In psychology, we may find a bit, but psychiatry seems less so, in terms of individuals at large. Neuroscience includes some cool stuff and the pc today, with added gear, does allow individuals to experiment directly-- Though much of this personalized work is generally not counted nor admitted to highly funded programs of science. Need we mention funding for science? While i have personally not followed the latest news of the well-funded science programs and instead, have only scanned indirect sources and opinions on these subjects, i hardly claim an expertise on these main-line sciences.
Furthermore, the context of my statement was inspired by another poster's comment as follows:
"So we detect design by inferring that some parts appear to have been arranged for a purpose."
I do not contend i have obtained exact inferences of this comment to which i posted my first reply in this tread. I do admit to a very informal attitude with a local-to-me-cultural-style which uses self-depricating humor. Hereby, my comments, as i feel them, do not 'accuse science'. Instead, let tell you i have always loved science, in terms of personal comprehension.
My apologies, but I'm finding it a bit difficult to follow your reasoning. For that reason I would appreciate a couple of clarifications...
How exactly do 'mainstream sciences...sideline works or research into purposefulness and intentionality'? What is the relevance of the 'individual's perspective'? What 'personalized work' are you referring to? What is the problem with funding for science ?
With respect to the specific context in which your comments were made, the appearance of design doesn't mean it was designed or that there is a designer, as Darwin unequivocally showed in 1859.
Far from being 'inconvenient observations' purposefulness and intentionality have been well-researched and are understood to a high degree of detail and have had many books and papers written about them (Bentham, Dennett, Brentano, Satre, Heidegger etc.) .
There is nothing wrong with self-deprecating humour, I just didn't get the joke, for which I apologise.
My apologies, but I'm finding it a bit difficult to follow your reasoning. For that reason I would appreciate a couple of clarifications..."
It might be easier if you provide examples, also, or what sort of contexts you would appreciate.
'How exactly do 'mainstream sciences...sideline works or research into purposefulness and intentionality'?"
By 'mainstream', i refer to well funded science , which is much more advertised in public. Therefore, sciences which are more familiar to average readers in our North American media .
What is the relevance of the 'individual's perspective'?
It is very relevant to thinking individuals and to self-educating people who more or less dropped out-- Why did they drop out? One reason, such as mine, was because my limited talents did not match the 'flash-card' mentalities of schools in the 60s and thereabouts.
What 'personalized work' are you referring to?
There are so many examples which come to mind, such as the now famous historical example like Nikola Tesla. That he is remembered and credited posthumously did not help him personally-- In fact it took decades of individuals heralding Tesla's legacy, before 'the mainstream' finally and begrudgingly began to honor him. He seems to have been faulted by Edison and other powerful financiers, for apparently 'visualizing' his invention of polyphase AC power distribution, clearly in his mind's eye, (not a quote, but rather fond memory, needing citations). I can expect that you might not find my examples very applicable, as my own reactions to your question might not match.
"What is the problem with funding for science ?"
Is big-science not funded by big financiers? Do not these financiers largly fund universities, however directly or indirectly? Is this a false myth which circulates far and wide?
"With respect to the specific context in which your comments were made, the appearance of design doesn't mean it was designed or that there is a designer, as Darwin unequivocally showed in 1859. "
Yet each person is allowed to interpret the 'ands, ifs and buts', along with the context of Darwin's era. I feel entitled to imagine that if Darwin of that era could magically appear before us now, with all the contexts intact, from his era, and also engage this specific phrasing of yours, that he (Darwin) might in fact ad a lot of ands, ifs and buts-- Yet it feels a bit ludicrous to argue this particular point, as such, in my view, as contexts are so complex to sort out. Therefore, it is possibly better, to simply speak out, what is in our minds and leave it at that. I love that Darwin produced his works and i am not a ism-fundamentalist, btw. I do however believe the legacy of authoritarianism still ravages our world, from many competing sides. I do believe that secularism has kept alive, so many of the old trappings of perennial isms.
"Far from being 'inconvenient observations' purposefulness and intentionality have been well-researched and are understood to a high degree of detail and have had many books and papers written about them (Bentham, Dennett, Brentano, Satre, Heidegger etc.) "
Ah, no problem here, even if this were exactly as you state. In an intellectually free internet , we can hope to speak from our own experience, which may or may not agree with another person's expectations or their citations. I certainly did not mean to imply that my words were some sort of rule for all cases. I did expect that this website was set up freely in this regard and also to allow individualized forms of humor-expressions.
"There is nothing wrong with self-deprecating humour, I just didn't get the joke, for which I apologize."
No Apology needed, but your kindness is appreciated. I hope this satisfies your need for clarifications
The clarifications I requested were the questions I raised.
You have defined what you mean by mainstream science (personally I don't see anything wrong with science being 'well-funded' but perhaps that's just me), but not how it 'sidelines...research into purposefulness and intentionality.' Perhaps it doesn't, as I have shown by citing some of the many people who have published in this field.
I prefer a scientifically-informed consensus to an individual's perspective. In science, an individual's perspective is not given great weight for extremely good reasons - it promotes bias . That's why experimentation, observation, falsifiability, repeatability and peer-review are cornerstones of the scientific process. That it not to say that indivduals can't make breakthroughs, it's just that for it to be accepted as a meaningful contribution, it needs to meet certain criteria. This means that there is a level playing field, the rules are the same for everyone. I am deeply suspicious of individuals who claim to have made major breakthroughs without being able to withstand basic analysis and questioning, and, with respect, you should be too. There are a lot of agenda-peddling pseudoscientists out there demanding publicity and respect for their pet evidence-free hypotheses - ID being an excellent example, along with astrology, homoeopathy and the rest....
I'm not sure I agree with your Tesla analogy. Tesla was a rock-star among scientists and much of his work was widely accepted within the mainstream during his lifetime. Whilst it is true that recognition of the scale of his contribution has increased further posthumously with the development of technologies where his theoretical work can be applied, this is often the case with such orignal thinkers. Rather than leap at new ideas, embracing them without the requisite level of proof, science is conservative - always looking for evidence, more and more of it until a hypothesis becomes accepted as a tentative theory. This is not a weakness of science, it is a strength.
I am interested in your claim that Tesla was 'faulted' by Edison and others for 'visualising' his 'invention' of AC electricity. Do you have a source? Visualising is a very common technique for thinking creatively and I'd be surprised if Edison - a likely user of visualisation himself - trashed Tesla because of it.
I've never heard of the term big-science and wonder if you can define it for me. Big tobacco (PM, Loews, UST, RJR, RBH) I understand, as I do Big Pharma (Pfizer, Schering, Glaxo, Eli Lilly, Novartis etc.). But who are 'Big Science'? And who are the Big Financiers? How do they fund universities? Yes, I think it's a false myth. Science is funded by lots of things: government grants, venture capitalists, patent sales, royalties, university fees...the list is a long and diverse one. What's wrong with that?
I accept that people have the right to think what they want, but that doesn't mean thier opinions carry any weight or significance and it doesn't immunise them from being flat-out wrong. Religionists have a 'right' to believe in today's pseudoscience incarnation of their creation myth, but that doesn't mean that scientists have to take it seriously or 'respect' it. ID is religion , not science.
You wrote : "What's wrong with that?"
Tesla reportedly liked his public demos of AC, HF and lighting. Earlier, a professor of his reportedly scoffed at some of his (Tesla's) AC theorizing. Besides, he even had to dig ditches, as a laborer, to reach his destiny. What blinds us to ignore this maltreatment of genius? One's sabbatical or a career, would you say? Are we selling short, perhaps?
Rock Star Science
One academic difficulty for Tesla study is that much of his work, perhaps the cream, was crushed and hushed. Academia is spineless in probing this. Who dares tread on the emperor's feet? No wonder, but i would love to be proved wrong here. Tough love is it?
Academic- science goes through it's own evolutions and seems forever charmed by mythologies. Is it for lack of conviction or is it hate of real creativity? Mercury and Jupiter, etc... I wonder, what is there in names? Is this habitual ancestor worship, at the root? Is it fear of unknown wrath? Is reason addicted to metaphor? In truer science, everything is open for scrutiny. Creationism, might be used in a cowardly, adhominem detour, but is absolutely not required in this debate. Yet i need not disparage unpopular positions in this discussion.
To profess that "the whole of existence is simply chemical reactions" is not really verifiable except in a lab greater than said existence, which also reproduces all observers and materiality intact. Smaller experiments ignore the system as a whole. Ignore integrated system mechanics then. Mix apples with oranges. I conclude this is arguably abstract theory, or arguably belief. It is observed that intricacies of biological life manifest intelligence (abilities to acquire data and skill sets), which can prove shrewder than prior human intelligence, of the mechanics indicated. Bio-programing is manifested, from which even big-pharma copies mechanisms. Big-pharma even attempts to patent suc intelligence therein. (Perhaps arguing that matter has no intelligence, nor corporate-rights, in patent courts). Research grants would stop flat, if such intelligence is so termed, as 'intelligence'. No wonder the debate is hard pressed in public. No wonder science craves another renaissance, to lift undue burdens. It is not hard to dig up examples in other branches of science, but one had better know how to live on their own wits, and not just sharpen their wits. Tesla paid the price in trillions, a price of real genius.
Robotics need higher, intelligent designs and intelligence designers too. Not to mention financiers and all the mortal tax payers beneath. Robots might already compete with unwanted humans, for a place at the public trough. Tesla used the word 'automatons', look him up. (Sell the study to academia). It is always a familiar model-- Higher and higher chains of intelligence-- Yet our question concludes with, "which intelligence is really at the top?" If it is a human on top of this design chain, perhaps as a designer-reproducibility-experimenter, then why does the human clock ultimately run out? Is not time itself part of our experimental observation here? Then why cannot the experimenter endure all time and reproducibly time itself?
“Tesla reportedly liked his public demos of AC, HF and lighting. Earlier, a professor of his reportedly scoffed at some of his (Tesla's) AC theorizing. Besides, he even had to dig ditches, as a laborer, to reach his destiny. What blinds us to ignore this maltreatment of genius? One's sabbatical or a career, would you say? Are we selling short, perhaps?”
Tesla had to work to prove his discoveries; just like everyone else… and is only recognized for the genus after his ideas were demonstrated.
The same with Albert Einstein, who worked in a patent office until his work was published.
“One academic difficulty for Tesla study is that much of his work, perhaps the cream, was crushed and hushed. Academia is spineless in probing this. Who dares tread on the emperor's feet? No wonder, but i would love to be proved wrong here. Tough love is it?”
Nobody ‘crushed and hushed’ Tesla’s work… his theories are well known. The US government even paid for his ‘death ray’ research (because by that point Tesla’s record was so strong that it would be crazy to risk him going elsewhere with his ideas). Some of his ideas didn’t pan out… because being a genus does not mean that you are always right.
“Academic- science goes through it's own evolutions and seems forever charmed by mythologies. Is it for lack of conviction or is it hate of real creativity? Mercury and Jupiter, etc... I wonder, what is there in names? Is this habitual ancestor worship, at the root? Is it fear of unknown wrath? Is reason addicted to metaphor?”
Those are the names of the planets as they were named thousands of years ago. We keep the names for the same reason that we talk about North America, Utah, and the Milky Way.
“In truer science, everything is open for scrutiny.”
Everything is open to scrutiny… but that does not mean that every line of inquiry is valid. Someone scrutinizing the idea of the world being round, for example, would rightly be seen as crazy.
“To profess that "the whole of existence is simply chemical reactions" is not really verifiable except in a lab greater than said existence, which also reproduces all observers and materiality intact.”
We ‘profess’ that the whole of existence is a materialistic one because there is no evidence that indicates otherwise.
“Smaller experiments ignore the system as a whole.”
That is the point of having a smaller experiment, to test one thing. When testing gravity we don’t consider the breeding patters of dolphins .
“Mix apples with oranges.”
Which is a poor way to run a science experiment… it is hard to learn about apples when you keep looking at oranges.
“Tesla paid the price in trillions, a price of real genius.”
Tesla was a brilliant engineer and physicist… but he was not an adept business man.
“Robotics need higher, intelligent designs and intelligence designers too.”
If only intelligent designers can create intelligent creations then how did the designers come about?
“Robots might already compete with unwanted humans, for a place at the public trough.”
Robots are already in wide use, and they are not sentient. There is no reason to create a Machine Intelligence (MI) if there is no task for it to perform. Further a MI would not have the same needs as human beings (needing neither food nor shelter nor education ).
Your reply ignores my original questions:
1. How does mainstream science 'sideline...research into purposefulness and intentionality'?
2. Can you support your assertion that Edison 'faulted' Tesla for thinking using 'visualisation'?
3. Please define 'big science' and its key players
I asked what was wrong with science being funded by a diverse set of sources, not what was wrong with treating scientists with disrespect, which is the question you answered.
In addition, there are questions arising out of your latest offering:
Who is the emperor, and who is stepping on his feet?
What aspect of Tesla's work was 'crushed and hushed' and by whom?
Please give examples of modern scientists being 'charmed by mythologies' (I should point out that the first planets you quote were named in Roman times) and your proof that this is evidence of 'habitual ancestor worship', 'fear of unknown wrath' or 'addiction to metaphor'.
Why is Creationism used in a 'cowardly, ad hominem detour'?
And please, please tell me more about the 'truer' science you mention. I am very excited to learn more about this.
Why do you quote me as saying 'the whole of existence is simply chemcial reactions' when I didn't?
What is/are 'integrated system mechanics'?
Who is mixing apples and oranges and why? What is 'arguably abstract theory or arguably belief'? Mixing apples and oranges? Or the straw man of existence as chemical reactions?
Please provide an example of your observation that 'intricacies of biological life manifest intelligence (abilities to acquire data and skill sets), which can prove shrewder than prior human intelligence, of the mechanics indicated.'
Please provide evidence that science 'craves another renaissance' and tell me what its 'undue burdens' are.
Automatons have been in use since the time of the Greeks. Tesla did not invent them, or the term, which is derived from the Greek for 'acting of one's own will'. Why should I 'look him up' and 'sell the study to academia'?
With respect to your question 'which intelligence is really at the top?' I make the observation that a supernatural being capable of designing the universe and everything in it would need to be a very complex being indeed. Given ID's article of faith that complexity can only as a result of design, the obvious question emerges; who designed God?
As for your hypothesis that if humans were at the top of the design chain, then they would be able to invent immortality or reproduce time, this is a non-sequitur. Why would being at the top of a 'design chain' necessarily endow one with supernatural powers?
For me, your response raises more questions than answers...
“For me, your response raises more questions than answers...”
It’s not just you… TBG and I went through this before in the vaccination thread when she tried virtually the exact same argument regarding Tesla.
TBG holds some very curious ideas about Science, ideas which are very common in the alternative medicine fringe. A great deal of post-modern babble about viewpoints coupled with a sprinkling of new age philosophy.
Gosh Mr Book you're good...I didn't even realize that there was an argument in there!
Holding odd views is no problem, it's just when someone states them as 'fact' and then thinks that everyone will just accept it...
Did he/she ever explain to you what 'truer' science is?
“Holding odd views is no problem, it's just when someone states them as 'fact' and then thinks that everyone will just accept it...”
I’m not sure if I’m ready to give ‘odd views’ the easy pass that you do. ‘Odd views’ can be dangerous, and even deadly… and when presented should be confronted with the full weight of Science.
“Did he/she ever explain to you what 'truer' science is?”
A holistic approach that incorporates wide views and different methodologies is a good summation.
Largely what it amounts to a process that accepts all views as equally valid, in which rigorous Scientific processes are but one, flawed, view…. A philosophy in which a double blind medical study of a drug is less valid then ‘My cousin got a cold so he kept an onion around to suck up the sickness, three weeks later he was better and the onion was rotting… so it obviously works’.
It is the philosophy that accepts homeopathy and ‘ energy healing’… and builds cults of personality around people like Gary Null and Chopak.
Note how TBG seems to have set Tesla up as some sort of quasi-religious figure. To TBG all of Tesla’s projects were successful, and those that were ‘dangerous’ were suppressed (somehow).
Thanks, in the western, liberal, scientific sense of that word, of course, not the Mal'ai tribal sense, where showing 'thanks' actually requires washing one's face in a mixture of cow urine and orangutan colostrum.
How much time do you propose spending on so many branches of subjects?-- You do seem to expect me to cite verse and author, as if i do extensive research assignments. I just like to reflect on long past studies-- Apparently no purpose compelled me to polish up essays with footnotes. I'm confident references could be found, but not always at academic levels-- Perhaps that is beneath your standard.
Your 1) question suggests i was contending more than i would feel-- The "...." seems to collect different quotes together, as if one debated-position. I can't seem to find a single sentence of mine which starts and finishes as you quoted. In any case it is about feelings and not about hard-edge references. Tesla is far more interesting than my feelings.
Much of my early Tesla information can be found in the book with his name as title, sub titled "Lectures-Patents-Articles" 1956. I bought this in the 70's and looked through it, over many years. Various other writings of many kinds would take much more effort to locate-- it is generally said, that a government agency 'took everything' of studious interest, after his passing in 1943. Recall, this is the period when the military complex was beginning to assert itself aggressively in Washington, DC. Tesla's native countrymen, so it seems, preserved all that they could obtain and also published my mentioned book.
I appreciated watching a couple of movies about his life-- Though it seems Hollywood may have taken a few artistic liberties with his life story-- Large segments of this movie can be seen on line, or the whole thing bought on DVD, or perhaps rented somewhere? This movie enacts some critical sequences with a well known financier (Morgen?) and the brash treatment by Edison, at the same critical meeting . Many of the movies 'claims' seemed substantiated elsewhere, like the so called AC-DC war with Edison. The more advanced issues seem deserving of further research, if that is even possible. News paper articles likely exist, but will obviously be very limited in scope. I doubt the government would release much if any valuable data from their pillaging-party of 1943.
I note that you have still not answered the questions from my above post:
1. How does mainstream science 'sideline...research into purposefulness and intentionality'?
2. Please define Big Science and name the key players
3. What is 'truer' science?
4. What is 'integrated system mechanics'?
5. Is science 'craving a renaissance'? If so, why? What are science's 'undue burdens'?
You ask 'how much time do you propose spending on so many branches of subjects'? My answer: as long as it takes us to expose these claims you make as baseless.
In this exchange you have made one baseless claim after the next. Where I come from it is customary to provide actual evidence when it comes to supporting claims. It is not usually the case that "Go search for it' is considered a good argument.
Just prohibit casual exploration of viewpoints or feelings. Keep clear your perfected base, but post your rules up front. Avoid unpleasant wastes of time. I take it then, that casual reflections are out of place here, fine. Wait no more, your bases are all yours. Call that your victory if you like. I'm easy.
Casual reflections are perfectly acceptable on this forum, but when they turn into specific claims designed to support an argument, then it is up to you to provide evidence for them, or have them shot down.
You have made a number of pretty outrageous claims in this thread (scientists corrupting the scientific process, the existence of an entity called Big Science, the existence of something called 'truer' science , the existence of something called integrated system mechnanics, the claim that science is 'craving a renaissance' and so on). These are not 'casual explorations of viewpoints or feelings', they are specific, important and detailed claims and as such, they require evidence.
At the beginning of our exchange, I made a point of explaining why the scientific method is given more credence than 'personal experience' and this exchange is a living example of that principle at work.
You made a bunch of claims based on your personal opinion or experience. By posing a couple of very basic (and not even particularly scientific) questions, we have been able to expose these claims as baseless and we're all better off because now we don't have to discard the current scientific model in favour of a 'truer' one. That would've ruined someone's weekend for sure...