ID as natural philosophy/ emergence as a competing philosophy? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

hellohellohi -> ID as natural philosophy/ emergence as a competing philosophy? (6/16/2008 9:44:51 AM)

Might it be appropriate (even welcome to many!) to rebrand ID as "natural philosophy" and withdraw its claim to science?

I like this since I think ID is a valid metaphor or narrative tool for discussing the natural world, but it doesn't seem to have any use in science itself as a generator of experiments.

ID and belief in a creator could certainly be a motive for science -- the drive to explore the majesty of creation -- and could play the central role in a scientist's self-narrative.

However, to the extent that a proponent of ID looks to things like complexity, calling it irreducible, is to supopse that there is somewhere that questions of science will stop. It is as if they are not doing science but conducting a legal inquiry, looking to demonstrate God beyond a shadow of a doubt. Science, aka inquiry, is free to proceed on the merest shadow of a doubt -- all questions must be asked! In the same way, when atheist scientists point to complexity, calling it irreducible, pointing to the concept of "emergence," then they are being fancy, but not expressing an idea that would seek to asks questions -- rather one that seems content with a bit of mystery. This seems to be a competing narrative of natural history or philosophy -- to say that complex physical systems develop INHERENTLY?? inexplainable capabilities, like consciousness, through emergence -- which is equally unscientific, in that it seems content to end inquiry at an arbitrary or premature point.

I hope you all don't mind a seemingly redundant thread -- it seemed appropriate to me anyway.



Embedded -> RE: ID as natural philosophy/ emergence as a competing philosophy? (6/16/2008 11:06:11 AM)

Great idea.... but it has already been done.

The ID Movement(TM) basically dropped all pretense of being a "science" after Dover. The two "ID labs" have yet to produce any new research results and get them published anywhere... even in their own journals. Speaking of their own journals... the ID journal ISCID.org last published in November 2005 (about 2.5 years ago) shortly before the Kitzmiller v Dover decision came down. While some here pretend that ID is still all about science, they haven't been paying attention. Just recently "the Dick Butkus of Intelligent Design" (William Dembski) declared on his blog:

quote:


What’s our strategy. The strategy is multipronged. Let me just give you one prong: WIN THE YOUTH. The release date for Miller’s book is June 12th. I’ve got a book titled Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language (co-authored with youth speaker and high-school teacher Sean McDowell) whose release date is July 1st. It is geared specifically at mobilizing Christian young people, homeschoolers, and church youth groups with the ID alternative to Darwinian evolution.

(source: Uncommon Descent )
As some people have noticed and translated the above:
quote:


Bill seems to be telling us that his Great Master Plan now is to take kids who would otherwise be Creationists and to indoctrinate them in Intelligent Design.

Shorter DI Master Plan:
quote:


What we'll do, ya see, is take kids who would be indoctrinated with Creationism, and instead, we will indoctrinate them with Creationism!!!

(credit: Arden Chatfield and ERV)
IOW preaching-to-the-choir. Which seems to be the main objective of apologetics in general.

I think Bill Dembskis new "prong" will be quite successful. How can it possibly fail?

But to convince scientists that ID is anything more than creationism wearing a fig leaf I think it will take more than mere re-branding. For almost the entire history of creationism and its ultimate goal of getting it taught in public schools has been one of re-branding. To convince scientists one needs to collect credible data, do credible research, propose a workable theory, and publish the results. In the ten+ years that ID has been pretending to do science while being funded in the millions of dollars each year it has very little to show for it.



drj11 -> RE: ID as natural philosophy/ emergence as a competing philosophy? (6/16/2008 11:49:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

Might it be appropriate (even welcome to many!) to rebrand ID as "natural philosophy" and withdraw its claim to science?

I like this since I think ID is a valid metaphor or narrative tool for discussing the natural world, but it doesn't seem to have any use in science itself as a generator of experiments.

ID and belief in a creator could certainly be a motive for science -- the drive to explore the majesty of creation -- and could play the central role in a scientist's self-narrative.

However, to the extent that a proponent of ID looks to things like complexity, calling it irreducible, is to supopse that there is somewhere that questions of science will stop. It is as if they are not doing science but conducting a legal inquiry, looking to demonstrate God beyond a shadow of a doubt. Science, aka inquiry, is free to proceed on the merest shadow of a doubt -- all questions must be asked! In the same way, when atheist scientists point to complexity, calling it irreducible, pointing to the concept of "emergence," then they are being fancy, but not expressing an idea that would seek to asks questions -- rather one that seems content with a bit of mystery. This seems to be a competing narrative of natural history or philosophy -- to say that complex physical systems develop INHERENTLY?? inexplainable capabilities, like consciousness, through emergence -- which is equally unscientific, in that it seems content to end inquiry at an arbitrary or premature point.

I hope you all don't mind a seemingly redundant thread -- it seemed appropriate to me anyway.


Well, ID as a philosophy has been around quite a long time, in some form or another... I think it's pretty accurate to say modern ID is like a shiny new wrapper for the ages old argument from design.



essentialsaltes -> RE: ID as natural philosophy/ emergence as a competing philosophy? (6/16/2008 11:55:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Embedded

Shorter DI Master Plan:
quote:


What we'll do, ya see, is take kids who would be indoctrinated with Creationism, and instead, we will indoctrinate them with Creationism!!!

(credit: Arden Chatfield and ERV)


If it means fewer children will be indoctrinated with YEC, and instead with ID/OEC, that would be a huge step in the right direction, with less religiously-motivated mistrust and ignorance of science.



DanJames -> RE: ID as natural philosophy/ emergence as a competing philosophy? (6/16/2008 4:43:06 PM)

There is no mistrust or ignorance of science involved in believing that life was designed. Nor is there a requirement to believe in Universal Common Descent to perform research and have your research published in a science journal. There are plenty of scientists who subscribe to Creation and Intelligent design who are doing research and having their research published in scientific journals. Dr. Dewitt's research on Alzheimer's is one example.



essentialsaltes -> RE: ID as natural philosophy/ emergence as a competing philosophy? (6/16/2008 5:24:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

There is no mistrust or ignorance of science involved in believing that life was designed. Nor is there a requirement to believe in Universal Common Descent to perform research and have your research published in a science journal. There are plenty of scientists who subscribe to Creation and Intelligent design who are doing research and having their research published in scientific journals. Dr. Dewitt's research on Alzheimer's is one example.


I wasn't suggesting that YEC's are "100%" ignorant or mistrustful of science, but it's clear to me that OEC is 'less' antagonistic to science than YEC.



Jhud -> RE: ID as natural philosophy/ emergence as a competing philosophy? (6/16/2008 5:39:54 PM)

quote:

The ID Movement(TM) basically dropped all pretense of being a "science" after Dover. The two "ID labs" have yet to produce any new research results and get them published anywhere... even in their own journals.


Actually, this is wrong, as I pointed out elsewhere:

Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints



swan42 -> RE: ID as natural philosophy/ emergence as a competing philosophy? (6/16/2008 6:38:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

The ID Movement(TM) basically dropped all pretense of being a "science" after Dover. The two "ID labs" have yet to produce any new research results and get them published anywhere... even in their own journals.


Actually, this is wrong, as I pointed out elsewhere:

Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints


Stylus is just a software simulator that is only as good as the model chosen.
Yes, it is the result of ID researchers but it does advance ID much at all... yet.



hellohellohi -> RE: ID as natural philosophy/ emergence as a competing philosophy? (6/17/2008 9:25:24 AM)

What about the OP y'all?

For instance, DanJames, that sounded interesting:

quote:

There are plenty of scientists who subscribe to Creation and Intelligent design who are doing research and having their research published in scientific journals. Dr. Dewitt's research on Alzheimer's is one example.


Would you say that ID is just these scientists personal belief or does it inform their methodology? Just wondering. Perhaps I ought to do my own research as well.

Jack,
Was that article supposed to be about ID? It seemed to me that the authors were treating evolution are their mode of inquiry. Such as in "In view of the central importance of function to evolution, and the impossibility of incorporating real functional constraints without real function, it is important that protein-like models be developed around real structure–function relationships. " It sounds as if they already accept evolution, and they are simply interested in this software that can model the relationship between structure of a protein and its function.

I could imagine an experiment in which the authors were considering how they would solve a particular challenge using the approach of engineering. But scientists already do this when they speak metaphorically of evolution "designing" such and such. Am I undermining my point that ID is not science? Still, the difference between ID and Darwinism, in this case, would be that Darwinism would hopefully seek to find the mechanisms behind engineering -- God's tool-kit if you will! -- rather than being pleased by the notion of a "black box." However, those who cry "emergence" are equally pleased with and use self-servingly apparently "black box" phenomena, like the brain. E.g.: Oh, consciousness is just an illusion that pops up whenever you stick a bunch of white matter on some gray matter, fold it around a whole lot, and juice it up with electricity -- it gets REALLY complex, y'know -- like, if *I* can't understand it, how could YOU possibly; like, what are your credentials, man." That is, some scientists and philosophers are contributing more to the Age of Aquarius than the Age of Reason.



DanJames -> RE: ID as natural philosophy/ emergence as a competing philosophy? (6/17/2008 1:02:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

What about the OP y'all?

For instance, DanJames, that sounded interesting:

quote:

There are plenty of scientists who subscribe to Creation and Intelligent design who are doing research and having their research published in scientific journals. Dr. Dewitt's research on Alzheimer's is one example.


Would you say that ID is just these scientists personal belief or does it inform their methodology? Just wondering. Perhaps I ought to do my own research as well.


In a lot of cases it doesn't matter whether you are a YEC or a staunch evolutionist, the biology is just the same. I have no qualms trying to research the evolutionary history of two closely related plants, which I am assisting this semester. They probably do share a common ancestor. Heck, I'll even use the words "evolutionary history" when describing it. This is because Creationists are not interested in denying the truth of Biology and natural selection. It is a search for the truth. Why would I be interested in anything other than the truth?

But concerning science journals, when people make the comment that Creationists/IDists do not publish material in secular science journals, I assume that what they mean is that they want articles presenting evidence through research that demonstrates a biblical history of the world. It demonstrates that some people just like to parrot old arguments. Science journals publish research in a specific field. Botany for instance. You won't find a study done on the DNA of a snake in a Botany journal. What journal, then will you find a study on the taxonomic study of the originally created kinds?



hellohellohi -> RE: ID as natural philosophy/ emergence as a competing philosophy? (6/17/2008 1:52:54 PM)

quote:

In a lot of cases it doesn't matter whether you are a YEC or a staunch evolutionist, the biology is just the same. I have no qualms trying to research the evolutionary history of two closely related plants, which I am assisting this semester. They probably do share a common ancestor. Heck, I'll even use the words "evolutionary history" when describing it. This is because Creationists are not interested in denying the truth of Biology and natural selection. It is a search for the truth. Why would I be interested in anything other than the truth?


Pretty interesting position! Certainly in the right to value truth!

What is your position on the age of the earth then and why?

Also, about your second point. I'm not necessarily wondering whether IDers ever get published but whether such ideas inform their inquiry. Like you said, perhaps one could try to trace the "original" ancestor of a modern organism, meaning the primary created one on which evolution later acted. What about ancestors of humans? Was the originally created human (Adam) a little more ape-like than us? Or perhaps was there a gradual change from monkey to man, one day in the course of which it oculd be said that God created man? Seem like fair questions to me. Just trying to understand your position.



DanJames -> RE: ID as natural philosophy/ emergence as a competing philosophy? (6/18/2008 1:19:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

What is your position on the age of the earth then and why?

My position is that the earth is around 6,000 years old. I come to this conclusion because it's what the Bible says. God created Adam on the 6th day. Adam was XXX years old when Seth was born, and Seth XXX years old when his son was born and so on until we get to recorded history and badabing, you've got the age of the earth. If the Bible is to be taken seriously, then geology would have to agree with the Bible's presentation of history. I think it does to a reasonable degree.

quote:


Also, about your second point. I'm not necessarily wondering whether IDers ever get published but whether such ideas inform their inquiry. Like you said, perhaps one could try to trace the "original" ancestor of a modern organism, meaning the primary created one on which evolution later acted.

In some cases I'm sure some creationists would be able to get grants from donations to be able to do this kind of work. It's not something that the government will sponsor I'm sure. Research is all about the Benjamins. No need for the research, no funding for the research.
quote:


What about ancestors of humans? Was the originally created human (Adam) a little more ape-like than us? Or perhaps was there a gradual change from monkey to man, one day in the course of which it oculd be said that God created man? Seem like fair questions to me. Just trying to understand your position.

To the contrary, it's reasonable to believe that Adam was more perfect a human than any of us since no deleterious mutations would have yet occurred. What you are asking is whether or not God could have used evolution to create man. While apes were created before man (as indicated in the first chapter of Genesis), man was created from dirt, in God's image, apart from the animals. There are many other problems with reading the current evolution theory into the first chapter of Genesis. And yes, it is a fair and valid question.



hellohellohi -> RE: ID as natural philosophy/ emergence as a competing philosophy? (6/18/2008 2:32:40 PM)

DanJames,
I suppose we have a number of things to has over! But I am particaulrly interested in a new idea regarding this notion:

quote:

Adam was XXX years old when Seth was born, and Seth XXX years old when his son was born and so on until we get to recorded history and badabing, you've got the age of the earth. If the Bible is to be taken seriously, then geology would have to agree with the Bible's presentation of history. I think it does to a reasonable degree.


Is the age of the earth then, the number of days until Adam was created + Adam's age at death minus Adam's age at his creation + the age of death of all the "begats"? But maybe I am being funny, since I am assuming Adam had an age at the moment of his creation, which of course ought to be assumed to be zero.

I've read Genesis, and I could certainly look it up really quick, but I just wanted to pose that question.


Also, to reiterate -- I'm not asking whether IDers do or DO NOT get published, just whether their ideas are scientific (in that they lead to inquiry) or are "natural philosophy" in that they represent valid modes of thought about the natural world from which to speak. I guess a fair way to restate this is: Do IDers see the universe as intelligible or do they view aspects of creation as a "black box." If the answer is the former, I would agree that they are interested in science, even if their mode of speech (represented by ID) may not be scientific (but nevertheless valid.) Carrying this concept to its logical end, a truly scientific IDer would have to admit that it may not SEEM that the earth is 6,000 years old and we must consider how to tweak our methodologies if in fact they lead us to error. That is, they would have to be led to ask the question, "What went wrong?" A scientist cannot simply say "It is wrong;" one must submit one's ideas to peer review and approach CONSENSUS. However, I would be glad to listen to an argument concerning the proper definition of science if mine is in error. -- Even if there is a CONSPIRACY against the truth in the scientific world, if one cannot approach the problem with the assumption that reality is objectively intelligible, one is not doing science (as I understand it.)



DanJames -> RE: ID as natural philosophy/ emergence as a competing philosophy? (6/18/2008 5:18:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

DanJames,
I suppose we have a number of things to has over! But I am particaulrly interested in a new idea regarding this notion:

There is never an end to the number of things that must be hashed over.
quote:


quote:

Adam was XXX years old when Seth was born, and Seth XXX years old when his son was born and so on until we get to recorded history and badabing, you've got the age of the earth. If the Bible is to be taken seriously, then geology would have to agree with the Bible's presentation of history. I think it does to a reasonable degree.


Is the age of the earth then, the number of days until Adam was created + Adam's age at death minus Adam's age at his creation + the age of death of all the "begats"? But maybe I am being funny, since I am assuming Adam had an age at the moment of his creation, which of course ought to be assumed to be zero.

It is reasonable to assume that Adam's age when Seth was born is indeed the number of years since his creation up to that point. Or as you put it, he was zero when he was created. So the number of years from the creation of the earth up to the birth of Seth, would have been (according to Genesis 5:3) 130 years. Add the age of Seth when his son Enosh was born, and you have an age of the earth as of Enosh's birth of 235 years (Adam's age at Seth's birth plus Seth's age at Enosh's birth: 130+105=235 years). So on until recorded history. Age at death is not necessary.

quote:


Also, to reiterate -- I'm not asking whether IDers do or DO NOT get published, just whether their ideas are scientific (in that they lead to inquiry) or are "natural philosophy" in that they represent valid modes of thought about the natural world from which to speak. I guess a fair way to restate this is: Do IDers see the universe as intelligible or do they view aspects of creation as a "black box." If the answer is the former, I would agree that they are interested in science, even if their mode of speech (represented by ID) may not be scientific (but nevertheless valid.)

It's not necessary to believe that the universe will be less knowable from an intelligent design perspective. Indeed many sciences (some would say all the major sciences) were started by people that believed the universe was created. A created universe is one with order and predictability. Of course, nobody that believes in Uniformitarianism would say that there is no order in the universe, otherwise they wouldn't be studying it. But it's assumed without basis, rather than implied by a belief in a creator.

quote:


Carrying this concept to its logical end, a truly scientific IDer would have to admit that it may not SEEM that the earth is 6,000 years old and we must consider how to tweak our methodologies if in fact they lead us to error. That is, they would have to be led to ask the question, "What went wrong?" A scientist cannot simply say "It is wrong;" one must submit one's ideas to peer review and approach CONSENSUS. However, I would be glad to listen to an argument concerning the proper definition of science if mine is in error. -- Even if there is a CONSPIRACY against the truth in the scientific world, if one cannot approach the problem with the assumption that reality is objectively intelligible, one is not doing science (as I understand it.)

This post is getting long, but I hope you have the time to read it. I don't think it's necessary to believe that there is a conspiracy. The reason that the earth SEEMS old is that we have been taught from a young age that when we see layers stacked on top of each other, what we are looking at is eon upon eon. If we were taught from a young age that layered earth represents stratification through geologic activity such as floods, volcanoes, gas and water charged slurries, etc., we would ask, "Where's the evidence for millions of years?" This is because, if Noah's flood did in fact occur in the manner the Bible describes, all of the evidence for millions of years would be washed away. Indeed, there is no room for a catastrophic deluge in the Grand Uniformitarian Scheme. It is impossible for it to have occurred and still retain the evidence that is claimed to exist for the age of the earth.

There are other assumptions that are drilled into kids heads to create the impression that a young earth is silly. The foundation is laid for an old earth, and only a REASON to believe otherwise (and a darn good reason at that) could convince someone to consider alternatives.



hellohellohi -> RE: ID as natural philosophy/ emergence as a competing philosophy? (6/18/2008 5:26:34 PM)

quote:

This is because, if Noah's flood did in fact occur in the manner the Bible describes, all of the evidence for millions of years would be washed away.


Hmm, but where would all of the sediment, run-off, silt, or what-have-you, been deposited? Why wouldn't it have resettled to earth forming a new strata, like the one's you mentioned? There could be a pre-flood strata and and a post, no?

Still, one would have to objectively investigate, present, and talk-over this claim in order to call it scientific.

Thank you though for pointing out my error, that the date of death would not be necessary.

Have you seen either of the posts in which I asked why we don't seek to follow the Biblical way of life that apparently enabled such long lives though? What are the pros and cons? What is lessening our life expectancy now? I would love to hear an answer to this since I have received none yet. I forget which thread(s) I asked it in.



essentialsaltes -> RE: ID as natural philosophy/ emergence as a competing philosophy? (6/18/2008 6:09:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
The reason that the earth SEEMS old is that we have been taught from a young age that when we see layers stacked on top of each other, what we are looking at is eon upon eon.


That is not why it 'seemed old' to the scientists who originally discovered the great age of the earth. That is not why it seemed old to the scientists that followed and studied that work and came to the same conclusions.

quote:

Indeed, there is no room for a catastrophic deluge in the Grand Uniformitarian Scheme. It is impossible for it to have occurred and still retain the evidence that is claimed to exist for the age of the earth.


I don't see why a catastrophic deluge would destroy the radiometric age of rocks or meteorites. There is plenty of 'room' for a deluge in the GUS, just no evidence.



Method -> RE: ID as natural philosophy/ emergence as a competing philosophy? (6/18/2008 9:58:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

Might it be appropriate (even welcome to many!) to rebrand ID as "natural philosophy" and withdraw its claim to science?


I think William Paley got it right when he called it "natural theology" in the early 1800's. ID is not that far removed from Paley's argument.

quote:

ID and belief in a creator could certainly be a motive for science -- the drive to explore the majesty of creation -- and could play the central role in a scientist's self-narrative.


Religious inspiration has certainly been a part many scientists' motivations for doing science. There is very little doubt of this. Names that come to mind are Francis Collins, George Lemaitre, Isaac Newton, and Galileo Galelei. However, no scientist has found a way to make God a part of a scientific theory. No theory in science is dependent on the actions of a supernatural deity.

quote:

In the same way, when atheist scientists point to complexity, calling it irreducible, pointing to the concept of "emergence," then they are being fancy, but not expressing an idea that would seek to asks questions -- rather one that seems content with a bit of mystery.


Emergence is used all of the time in science. It is the reason that water molecules form complex crystals. It is the explanation for flocking patterns. It is simply a concept where the properties of the whole are not expressed in any one part of the whole.

As to irreducibility, it was predicted as a product of evolution by Muller in 1918, before Behe was even born. Now IDer's want to claim it is a problem for evolution. It wasn't and it still isn't.

Most present day animals are the result of a long process of evolution, in which at least thousands of mutations must have taken place. Each new mutant in turn must have derived its survival value from the effect which it produced upon the "reaction system" that had been brought into being by the many previously formed factors in cooperation; thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters are factors which, when new, where originally merely an asset finally become necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; ... Hermann J Muller, in Genetics, Vol 3, No 5, Sept 1918, pp 422-499

quote:

This seems to be a competing narrative of natural history or philosophy -- to say that complex physical systems develop INHERENTLY?? inexplainable capabilities, like consciousness, through emergence -- which is equally unscientific, in that it seems content to end inquiry at an arbitrary or premature point.


You and I, as well as everyone, started from a single cell that was not conscious and did not have complex physical systems. Our consciousness and morphology are an inherent property of emergence from the interaction of millions of cells that split off the original.



hellohellohi -> RE: ID as natural philosophy/ emergence as a competing philosophy? (6/19/2008 10:01:43 AM)

quote:

Emergence is used all of the time in science. It is the reason that water molecules form complex crystals. It is the explanation for flocking patterns. It is simply a concept where the properties of the whole are not expressed in any one part of the whole.


Yes, it is very intriguing. But, let it be a source of wonder for science, and as long as it is not regarded as a "mystery" then they will still deserve their science badges. However, the concept is abused, perhaps less by scientists than philosophers. It should be a signpost for INQUIRY, rather than an excuse for lacking what to ask next. It may be a product of quantum disambiguation that occurs with the conjunction of particles on greater and greater scales with particular organization. Wonder at it, but beware the temptation to worship. These things may be so obvious to you that you haven't considered them. All I am asking is that science ask questions.

The term "emergence" sounds too much like transcendence to me. If we are stuck with the word, fine, but let's ask some questions surrounding it now.

Also, when you say that "it is the explanation for flocking patterns," for instance, perhaps you ought to say, it is an attribute or it can be spoken of in flocking patterns. You see, it is a NAME (and science is of course in the business of naming -- but only insofar as this also advances INQUIRY) for a phenomenon, but a vague one. Compare "theory of emergence" to "theory of evolution." If the former's contention is that emergence is simply an inevitible property of complexity, then science is dead. Perhaps science has become confused between its dual task of naming and inquiry. Perhaps this sums up ALL the problems of science -- especially the one it has brought on itself, I say, which is its conflict with irrational religionists.



hellohellohi -> RE: ID as natural philosophy/ emergence as a competing philosophy? (6/19/2008 10:15:26 AM)

quote:

Our consciousness and morphology are an inherent property of emergence from the interaction of millions of cells that split off the original.


If you believe this, you are perhaps a dupe -- that I cannot say for certain -- but you do not sound like a scientist, one who is expected to ask questions, such as "How."

You are helping me express exactly what is wrong with science, and which also has brought it into conflict with religion.

I say it is not too far-fetched to say that scientists, perhaps being disinclined to religion, being of a questioning and doubtful nature -- which is very productive and good in the realm of investigating objective phenomena!! -- let slip through peer-review the notion of emergence qua salient phenomenon (contrast with signpost or "post-it" marking further inquiry) because it fit with their inclination to chide religious dogma. Perhaps I can grant "theory of emergence" as a useful and valid term in that I say a theory is merely a launch-pad for a broad set of questions -- and INDEED, emergence can be seen boradly in nature. What underlies it may be different in distinct contexts. Whether one thing is reponsible which would rightly deserve the name "emergence" I am very skeptical. Everything from flocking patterns to crystals? Don't get all spiritual on me, dear science, please just keep asking questions.

Science is certainly capable of chiding dogma through asking questions, but it should not overstep its bounds by establishing its own "mysteries." The moment emergence is both a mystery and a dogma is the moment I ougt to leave the West and go hide out in Tierra del Fuego or somewhere until the world ends or I die, whichever comes first, because I will know those that were asked to carry the banner of rationality and inquiry -- of the Socratic method! -- have lost their heads.



hellohellohi -> RE: ID as natural philosophy/ emergence as a competing philosophy? (6/19/2008 10:36:54 AM)

Here's a quote about emergence, apparently from one of the experts in the field. I found it on wikipedia.

" For Goldstein, emergence can be defined as: "the arising of novel and coherent structures, patterns and properties during the process of self-organization in complex systems." "

I have no problem with coming up with a word (emergence) to contain that concept. Really, what is different from saying that one can put together a structure out of components that each have their own different functions to together produce a new effect? Something like that. I have no problem with how Goldstein refers to it though.

The next question for science, though, is how does this synergistic -- or even completely heterogeneous and unexpected -- effect arise? I think one area to investigate is dismbiguation of quantum particles, but I am very ignorant. I am just suggesting that questions MIGHT be asked of it.

Otherwise, (if one cannot ask questions of it) then what is the differenec between emergence and "magic." They are both ways of saying, look we can see something interesting and novel is happening here, but we don't know what it is. The magical thinker, to contrast, will make up some quixotical story for the explanation; the "emergent thinker" will just say, my, isn't complexity amazing? Yeah, but so what. Start doing your job and figure that mess out, you lazy bookseller!



hellohellohi -> RE: ID as natural philosophy/ emergence as a competing philosophy? (6/19/2008 10:54:46 AM)

I will further let the theorists speak for themselves, as they are apparently not unreasonable (wikipedia again):


"

Regarding strong emergence, Mark A. Bedau observes:

"Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing."(Bedau 1997)

However, "the debate about whether or not the whole can be predicted from the properties of the parts misses the point. Wholes produce unique combined effects, but many of these effects may be co-determined by the context and the interactions between the whole and its environment(s)." (Corning 2002) Along that same thought, Arthur Koestler stated, "it is the synergistic effects produced by wholes that are the very cause of the evolution of complexity in nature" and used the metaphor of Janus to illustrate how the two perspectives (strong or holistic vs. weak or reductionistic) should be treated as perspectives, not exclusives, and should work together to address the issues of emergence.

"

I don't deny that it would be nice to supplement reductionist investigations with "top-down" approaches. Ironically, one top down mode of thinking is engineering, i.e.: ID (if it considers itself a pragmatic way to advance inquiry rather than a form of Creationism.) Perhaps we should be honest and admit that top-down modalities will be a convenience for stumped scientists, and may not be fit for public display and consumption. Also, I would be wary as a scientist to take any philosophers advice on things, because philosophers should really be in the business of asking questions as well -- helping others identify and acknowledge the nature of their ignorance and presumably help them take the next step of addressing that ignorance -- rather than simply supplying answers or rubber stamps to hair-brained ideas, like the emergence of consiousness from the brain. It seems obvious that the mind supervenes on the brain, but then again, our only METHOD for investigating SUBJECTIVITY is REPORTING -- the scientist asks the subject QUESTIONS. That is how all neurological inverstigations into correlation are begun. Thus, we can conclusively say that reporting is supervenient on the living brain and its physical correlates, but there is no way to ask whether consciousness itself survives death, for instance (though some serious scientists are investigasting the "out of body" thing in a hospital OR, see Mary Roach's "Spook"). There are plenty of honest scientists out there that will agree with me! I imagine there are a few also who read too much Daniel Hofstatder!



Method -> RE: ID as natural philosophy/ emergence as a competing philosophy? (6/19/2008 11:11:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
Yes, it is very intriguing. But, let it be a source of wonder for science, and as long as it is not regarded as a "mystery" then they will still deserve their science badges.


The only one presenting emergence as a "mystery" or a scientific god is you.

Scientists are looking for the simple rules that the parts obey and then scaling this up to explain the larger effect. They do not treat it as a great mystery but as a puzzle worth figuring out. They have started with simple problems like flocking behavior, and emergence has been modelled quite well for this behavior. They are now moving up to more complex behavior. In the world of embryonic development emergence is a very important aspect of research. The simple rules of gene regulation and gene expression are being modelled to better understand the whole.

You act as if scientists use emergence as an excuse for being ignorant in a specific field. This is not the case.

quote:

All I am asking is that science ask questions.


They are doing one better than that. They are finding answers.

quote:

Also, when you say that "it is the explanation for flocking patterns," for instance, perhaps you ought to say, it is an attribute or it can be spoken of in flocking patterns.


Or we can leave emergence out of it. The simple rules that each individual in the flock follow results in a complex pattern seen in the flock. These rules include staying a prerequisite distance from those around you and following the bird in front of you. This produces the appearance and disappearance of the flock from the position of the predator. Schools of fish follow the same rules to avoid predation.

quote:

Compare "theory of emergence" to "theory of evolution."


It is a FACT that pieces of a whole follow simple rules that result in complex behavior in the whole.



hellohellohi -> RE: ID as natural philosophy/ emergence as a competing philosophy? (6/19/2008 11:18:54 AM)

quote:

They are doing one better than that. They are finding answers.


Sure, I can grant that.

Anyway, what you said is good! I am very glad that you agree with me. I was making a bald accusation, because it is a pet peeve of mine when scientists cumbersomely say that the understanding of consciousness is all but a done deal. It refelects ignorance of how inquiry is actually conducted in the field. And it is asking the public to accept something that is not apparently (fully) intelligible to science (which studies things objectively or must rely on reporting when it peers into subjectivity) based solely on the trust placed in their expertise -- in other words, it is an abuse of expertise. Anyway, yay.

I think you may be able to better understand what I mean, though, when I suggest that emergence could conceivably be a competing philosophy to ID. That is, only if both are an excuse for accepting mystery in the world rather than investigating it.



DanJames -> RE: ID as natural philosophy/ emergence as a competing philosophy? (6/20/2008 1:21:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

Hmm, but where would all of the sediment, run-off, silt, or what-have-you, been deposited? Why wouldn't it have resettled to earth forming a new strata, like the one's you mentioned? There could be a pre-flood strata and and a post, no?


The Flood occured about 4400 years ago. That means that wherever you see layers stacked on top of each other like pancakes with no evidence of erosion between them, they were deposited by the Great Flood, or some other geologic catastrophe such as the Mt. St. Hellens eruption. Current geologic activity is depositing more stuff on top of the flood layers, so yes, there is what you might call post-flood strata.

quote:


Still, one would have to objectively investigate, present, and talk-over this claim in order to call it scientific.

Thank you though for pointing out my error, that the date of death would not be necessary.

Have you seen either of the posts in which I asked why we don't seek to follow the Biblical way of life that apparently enabled such long lives though? What are the pros and cons? What is lessening our life expectancy now? I would love to hear an answer to this since I have received none yet. I forget which thread(s) I asked it in.


I don't recall. There are a couple hypothesis though. Using cloned DNA to make Dolley resulted in a dramatic decrease in her life span, as it has with all the clones that I'm familiar with. This is proposed to be due to the decreased length of the telomeres in "older" DNA. A telomere the buffer region at the end of a chromosome. Some propose that this might have something to do with the shortening of our life expectancy after the flood. Every time a cell divides, the telomere gets shorter until there is no more telomere left and the cell simply stops dividing, and wears out. This is the 11th hour for any organism.



Marcus. -> RE: ID as natural philosophy/ emergence as a competing philosophy? (6/28/2008 11:51:12 AM)

This may be of interest to you guys.

Scientific Thinking Can Underlie Intelligent Design



Page: [1]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI