Science vs.? Intelligent Design?

[Ray]

I think we should use science to help us intelligently design cities, transportation systems. etc.

 

[Empty Hands]

I never said that "love is outside of science", I said that science can't prove love.

I think those two statements are functionally equivalent.

Again, you talk about the science of attraction and pair bonding. You completely ignored all other types of love.

AFAIK, they are all based off the same mechanism.

Since your masters is on neuroendocrinology where does thought actually come from? I'm not talking about the processes, such as the firing of the brain in certain areas or what chemicals are released etc. I mean your ACTUAL thought itself.

The processes, neuron firing, and chemicals ARE thought. Asking what thought is while excluding what actually makes up thought is meaningless.

 

[arnisador]

The "Scientific Method" is one form of methodology. It is a method to interpret raw data. It is unique in that it was designed for a specific field of study, and that method has been almost universally accepted for that specific field.
[...]
There are other forms of Methodology, however, many more. Some commonly defined ones include Rationalism, Agnosticism, Empiricism, Fideism (Don't discount it quickly - it was taught by the likes of Pascal, Hamann, Kierkegaard, and Wittgenstein), Evidentialism, Experientialism, Pragmatism, and Combinationalism. Science is just one method of many.

To take just one example, do you really think that C.S. Peirce would have agreed that Pragmatism is somehow in conflict with the Scientific Method? If anything, he sought to extend it. This list seems like distraction to me.

However, it also is not fair to denounce as "ignorant" any methodology other than the scientific method

It is, however, fair to ask after their success rate. In fairness, philosophical methods seek to answer a different kind of question.

 

[arnisador]

I said that science can't prove love.

What does that mean--to "prove love"?

There's a lot that isn't yet understood, but you're postulating a distinction that I don't think you could describe in a way that could be measured. It may be that the distinction you are certain is there...isn't.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Same as a computer, just a lot more complicated (so far )

And before we get into a computers can't evolve a thought process, have a quick look into evolutionary algorithms, which is a really neat branch of Computer science that uses the ideas of evolutionary theory in programming and has gotten some really amazing results.

Actually, this has always amused me. What has alway struck me about Genetic Algothrithms, Game Of Life, etc.. kinds of simulations and other evolutionary problem solving with computers is that is that from what I've seen and played with them, well, they don't really say much about biological evolution. First off, those that use an iterative, generational approach pretty much always have a 'fitness' measurement, whether it's with a G.A. where you are trying to get closer to an optimal solution or a Life where you have some, perhaps arbitrary, criteria for surviving to the next round. Now that survival criteria is determined by... an outside intelligence, the programmer or the runner of the program. Sometimes the survival criteria is very intentional, such as a GA where you are reaching for a specific solution, or sometimes it's pretty randomly applied, but even the random parameters were picked as the parameters to be applied. All of this exists in a 'reality' that was built by someone who was intentionally building an environment for just such an evolution to occur in.

Don't get me wrong, I think they are really cool tools for problem solving and exploration, but it always have seemed to me to be, if anything, more an argument for ID then for purely mechanical evolution, but above and beyond that, the correlation to biological systems is superficial and fairly simplistic

 

[FearlessFreep]

What does that mean--to "prove love"?

There's a lot that isn't yet understood, but you're postulating a distinction that I don't think you could describe in a way that could be measured. It may be that the distinction you are certain is there...isn't.

Well the analogy that kept running through my mind about it all was that because you've figured out that when a pedal moves, the car goes forward. You can even simulate it and stimulate it in controlled environment. The car is therefore self-sufficient in it's mechanical operation and thus can operate with need for a driver.

 

[Ray]

I never said that "love is outside of science", I said that science can't prove love. Again, you talk about the science of attraction and pair bonding. You completely ignored all other types of love. You again, talked about the chemicals which I also readily admitted and talked about. Yet ignored the other aspects of it. You have only shown the footprint in the sand, but not the person who made it so to speak.

While I can't speak to the chemical reactions that make the feelings of love manifest, we can certainly look to the improved chances of survival that the several types of love bring about. Love for our spouse and children increase the odds that our genes will continue another generation.

For example: Brotherly Love will help to ensure that humans, in general, will continue another generation. etc.

 

[arnisador]

it always have seemed to me to be, if anything, more an argument for ID then for purely mechanical evolution, but above and beyond that, the correlation to biological systems is superficial and fairly simplistic

Well, criticizing the applicability of these models to biological systems is certainly fair, but remember that before the Game of Life etc. people would make sweeping statements about the impossibility of simple rules giving rise to complicated structures from basic components. This type of thing demonstrated that it was in fact possible in principle; it didn't show that it was possible in the specific case of organic molecules. So, a fair criticism but in its context it did refute a certain argument against evolution, and continues to refute the sweeping claims of those ID proponents who say that complicated structures and behaviours must be designed.

As to the fact that a fitness measure is put in by fiat...well, it's surely more complicated in the real world, but I think it's the same proof-of-concept thing. Using simpler mathematical models is how airplanes were and are designed, for example--you can't perfectly model turbulence. Simplified (but increasingly complicated) models put men on the moon. I remember in graduate school taking a nuclear engineering course in reactor design and being shocked at the use of a first-order linearized model for a certain nonlinear ODE's solution--this was, after all, a nuclear reactor we were designing--but it's how science proceeds. How many things are designed via a Bode plot? This is science at work, I'd say.

 

[Big Don]

The major difference I see, is that proponents of creationism don't scream and whine about how those who believe in evolution are ignoring science/stupid/neo-luddites, etc.
If the science is so strong, why do evolutionists (for lack of a better term) fear from creationism?

 

[Sukerkin]

Ladies and gentlemen, at best that is an aside.

Please feel free to step over this little fillip and continue discussing the subject under the spotlight rather than being distracted by matters that are not pertinent to evaluating the merit of either Evolutionary Theory or Intelligent Design.

 

[punisher73]

I think those two statements are functionally equivalent.



AFAIK, they are all based off the same mechanism.



The processes, neuron firing, and chemicals ARE thought. Asking what thought is while excluding what actually makes up thought is meaningless.

Fair enough, what I meant when I said science can't prove love (and Empty Hands stated that all forms of love are from the same mechanism which I had asked about-and any further breakdown would result in a philosophical only discussion on 'love' and not the OT). But, he still never answered the original challenge of how would you "prove" that your mother loved you? All you have to rely on are your own personal experiences and interpretations of her actions. Again, he has identified the footprints left by it (body/brain chemistry) but not the source.

As far as the processes of neuron firing and chemicals ARE thought. That kind of still misses an important part, and on that a number of scientists agree with. FearlessFeep actually used the analogy I was going to use. You have described the car and how it works, and may have watched the car go down the road, but you haven't identified the driver yet. What is the "it" that causes the neurons etc. to go in the first place? Some scientists differentiate between the brain and "the mind", while others say there is no differentiation we are just an epiphenomenon.

Do you think that we are nothing more than a giant chemical reaction with nothing "controlling" the experiments so to speak? If so that is fine, we can agree to disagree.

 

[Andrew Green]

The major difference I see, is that proponents of creationism don't scream and whine about how those who believe in evolution are ignoring science/stupid/neo-luddites, etc.
If the science is so strong, why do evolutionists (for lack of a better term) fear from creationism?

The problem is that it is being presented as science, it isn't and teaching it as such is doing a huge injustice to all the kids that fail to get a proper education.

What I would like to know is why Creationist try so hard to get their beliefs considered "science", what's wrong with keeping it as religion?

 

[elder999]

I think you are misusing the razor.

I'm using the razor precisley the way you and others like you do to discount a creator-humans everywhere believe in a creator and afterlife, and apparently almost always have. There is no useful evolutionary reason for such a belief-indeed, given the chaos and slaughter that one can historically attribute to "religion," the very notion of a creator and an afterlife seem counterproductive to some, and have a history of counterproductivity. If there is no useful purpose to it, from an evolutionary standpoint, and yet humans everywhere have always believed in such things, then the least complicated reason for it is that there is a God. :lol:


Of course, I'm just doing that to demonstrate your misuse of the razor-not out of any need or desire to prove there is a God. It's as I said, I think: "evidence of God" is for the individual: such things are not normally repeatable, cannot normally be reproduced, are unprovable or disprovable and thus , un-testable-much the same as Intelligent Design, which is why it's not a theory-it isn't even worthy of the name.

 

[arnisador]

Well, I agree. It isn't really Occam's razor as much as a theory ("God was the prime mover") for which no evidence has been adduced. From a scientific (and philosophical) standpoint, statements made without support need not be refuted. Otherwise, we'd still be stuck trying to prove that we're not all brains in vats. Still, saying "Occam's razor" isn't a bad shorthand way of saying that until you make a case for it, we won't include it, is it?

From a faith-based standpoint it appears to be different.

 

[Empty Hands]

But, he still never answered the original challenge of how would you "prove" that your mother loved you? All you have to rely on are your own personal experiences and interpretations of her actions. Again, he has identified the footprints left by it (body/brain chemistry) but not the source.

As far as Mom goes, those personal experiences and interpretations ARE evidence. Her behavior was observed, and it was consistent with love. If you want "proof" in the sense of "100% certainty" then you have stepped beyond the bounds of science. Science doesn't deal with 100% certainty. Everything is provisional based on the totality of the evidence. A useful definition of "fact" written by Stephen J. Gould is "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." You'll notice that the words "proof" and "certainty" aren't in there, while "provisional" is. Under that scientific definition, my Mother's love is a fact.

What is the "it" that causes the neurons etc. to go in the first place?

I can describe the mechanism of neuronal firing, what causes it, but I think that would be a bit far afield for this discussion and still wouldn't satisfy you. Science can describe what thought is and "why" it occurs sufficient for a naturalistic explanation. If you try to push beyond that to a "driver" or "controller" or "greater purpose" you have left science behind. There is also no evidence for any such view. The theory of vitalism, which describes something like what you are driving at, was discredited long, long ago.

Do you think that we are nothing more than a giant chemical reaction with nothing "controlling" the experiments so to speak? If so that is fine, we can agree to disagree.

Yes. You can disagree if you want, but you should understand that their is no scientific backing for your view. Science can describe what is going on perfectly well without recourse to hypothesizing a "controller", so to assume one exists is simply faith.

 

[thardey]

To take just one example, do you really think that C.S. Peirce would have agreed that Pragmatism is somehow in conflict with the Scientific Method? If anything, he sought to extend it. This list seems like distraction to me.

I'm not familiar with Peirce, but generally, I would consider pragmatism to be applied science. That is, science (knowledge) couple with intent, for a specific purpose. Thus, you have an intelligen design behind applied science, it's just easier to point to the designer. (Usually an engineer.)

It is, however, fair to ask after their success rate. In fairness, philosophical methods seek to answer a different kind of question.

Exactly, each is designed to answer different questions, and if you're using the wrong tools to solve the wrong problems, then we'll have problems exactly like the OP was talking about!

 

[Empty Hands]

Of course, I'm just doing that to demonstrate your misuse of the razor-not out of any need or desire to prove there is a God.

I still don't understand what you are driving at. From my view, using the razor, not to disprove God, but to simply say such an explanation is unneccesary, is perfectly legitimate because a naturalistic explanation suffices for everything we see. On the other hand, I don't see how your use is not a misuse or equivalent to what I am saying. You are saying because we all have this belief that is "useless" then God must exist as the simplest explanation. I just don't see the equivalence. As I have pointed out, God belief could be a benefit. Or it could simply be random chance without enough evolutionary pressure to weed it out.

Help me understand what you are driving at because I just don't see it.

 

[elder999]

I still don't understand what you are driving at. From my view, using the razor, not to disprove God, but to simply say such an explanation is unneccesary, is perfectly legitimate because a naturalistic explanation suffices for everything we see. On the other hand, I don't see how your use is not a misuse or equivalent to what I am saying. You are saying because we all have this belief that is "useless" then God must exist as the simplest explanation. I just don't see the equivalence. As I have pointed out, God belief could be a benefit. Or it could simply be random chance without enough evolutionary pressure to weed it out.

Help me understand what you are driving at because I just don't see it.

That "Occam's razor" has no point in the "debate between science and 'God' " That there is no point to the debate between science and god? That there is no debate worth having between the two-mostly, here though, that Occam's razor cuts both ways, that it has no place in the debate. You say "creation" is less complex without a Creator? I'm not so sure, but okay....I say "human religious behavior" which dates back to the Neanderthals, is less complex to explain with a Creator-if one uses Occam's razor, and stops at the simplest of points-no need for rationalizing an evolutionary or possible evolutionary benefit, no need for complicating it with the tag of "random evolutionary anomaly that serves no useful purpose," or even saying it's like the appendix, a vestige of something no longer necessary. The simplest explanation is that we're hardwired for God by our Creator-and that there therefore isone. The fact that it doesn't prove a goddam thing doesn't make it any less valid a use of Occam's razor than yours is-in fact, it's just as valid.

 

[punisher73]

As far as Mom goes, those personal experiences and interpretations ARE evidence. Her behavior was observed, and it was consistent with love. If you want "proof" in the sense of "100% certainty" then you have stepped beyond the bounds of science. Science doesn't deal with 100% certainty. Everything is provisional based on the totality of the evidence. A useful definition of "fact" written by Stephen J. Gould is "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." You'll notice that the words "proof" and "certainty" aren't in there, while "provisional" is. Under that scientific definition, my Mother's love is a fact.

I can describe the mechanism of neuronal firing, what causes it, but I think that would be a bit far afield for this discussion and still wouldn't satisfy you. Science can describe what thought is and "why" it occurs sufficient for a naturalistic explanation. If you try to push beyond that to a "driver" or "controller" or "greater purpose" you have left science behind. There is also no evidence for any such view. The theory of vitalism, which describes something like what you are driving at, was discredited long, long ago.
.

That was my point. Your definition for "proof" of your mother's love is no different than someone's belief in God. It is based on their personal experience and interpretation. You have "faith" that your mother loved you, based on what you believe she did for you. One argument would be that they interpreted 'God's actions' wrong and there was another explanation. I would point out that I have talked to MANY people who were in abusive relationships that didn't see anything other than "love" from the person. Now we are left with judging someone's experience and judging for ourselves whether their experience is valid.

I am familiar with the theory of vitalism and that is not what I am suggesting. I am more inclined with quantum mechanics and it's theory.

PS: When I say "prove" I am using the general meaning of the term, not the scientific term of "proof". I was at one time a chemistry/biology major before switching to psych. so I am familiar with hypothesis, postulates etc. and what science can and can't do.

 

[Empty Hands]

That was my point. Your definition for "proof" of your mother's love is no different than someone's belief in God.

Oh no, it's radically different. For one thing, everyone can agree that my Mother existed at one point. If she hadn't, I wouldn't be here! Furthermore, while colored by my interpretation, she definitively performed actions for me which can be interpreted. Furthermore, you could find several existing witnesses who can describe in detail those actions, and were actually present for them. If we could do all that for God, no one would be having this discussion!