Intelligent Design case decided - Dover, Pennsylvania, School Board loses [Fox News Alert]

Fox News | 12/20/05

[unlearner]

"If it's not falsifiable, it isn't science."

Science does contain elements which are not falsifiable. Observations provide supporting evidence but are not falsifiable. Having not observed them does not falsify them either. For example, the statement "black birds exist" is not falsifiable, but it does not need to be in order to use observations of crows within scientific data.

So my contention against historical events not being falsifiable does not necessarily disqualify them from science, which is where I agree your arguments proved me wrong.

"I spent a considerable amount of effort to get you past that hurdle, and now you have retrenched to the brain-dead contention that modern astronomy, paleo-geology, and paleo-meteorology aren't sciences"

No. I am not changing back to that position. I think you successfully defended these against my argument. I believe historical events are not falsifiable, but that your comparisons show that it should be possible to draw conclusions in a similar fashion as other sciences wherein direct observation is possible.

"You put on a good show of being genuinely interested, and you fooled me good. Please address further inquiries to someone else."

However you prefer. You had a lot of good points. Thanks for the lively discussion.

[donh]

o. I am not changing back to that position. I think you successfully defended these against my argument. I believe historical events are not falsifiable,

Here we go again. Was predicting elements that would be found on the periodic table an experiment that could have failed, if the periodic table had been constructed incorrectly?

[donh]

Without redefining the universe as a big cumultive "nothing", or rethinking conservation, something from nothing does not work.

This is just a confusing way of trying to sneak the law of causality back onto the discussion. There is no scientific law of conservation of causality, just as there is no scientific law of the conservation of something-ness. there is nothing that can "not work", because there is not work to be done. "Causality" or "something-ness" is a human classification scheme, not a force of nature. As per your reference to Hawking--first there was nothing, then there was a particle and its anti-particle. Energy was conserved, which is a scientific law. Something-ness was not, because it ain't.

This is a prime example of using the fallacy of the excluded middle to make an argument.

[donh]

I just think "something from nothing" is outside the scope of natural science - very much like the supernatural. It might be within the scope of math, as well as philosophy. It might even be complimentary to science. But I am skeptical that science could be used exclusively to support such a claim.

Exactly right. "something from nothing" is a supernatural claim, just as is the law of conservation of something-ness" you have proposed. There is no scientific law that states that something must come from something. If there were, you could locate it for me in a scientific treatise.

[donh]

Between the two of us, you are the only one trying to make this into an issue of the supernatural. I have avoided any connotations of the supernatural in my assertion.

Which is why it is such a good camel's-nose-in-the-tent strategy. Were it not for supernatural sources of design, this discussion would have never left the back pages of the sci-fi pulps, which is where it belongs on it's merits.

[donh]

It is the best I could come up with to reference a supposed self organizing mechanism (or group of mechanisms) within nature. My comparison is the self organization of periodic elements. Any better description you come up with is welcome.

The chemical elements did not "self-organize" themselves on the periodic table. An abstract description of a thing is not an example of that thing self-organizing. This is a self-serving corrupt definition, and I think you should drop it.

What must be demonstrated is that the process, at some point contains only lifeless matter, and, at some point, produces life. A distinction must be made between what is alive and what is not. If you cannot pinpoint the precise moment of the transition, it does not matter. But the transition must exist. And it must be evident.

Or you'll take your ball and go home? How will your proposed lab experiment produce this effectively infinite stretch of continuous gradual change from lifeless to lifeful? I think it does matter. Your proposed experiment, as I have suggested before, can only demonstrate something about the instantaneous !poof! version of abiogenesis--for the obvious reason that IS a !poof! experiment. It can't significantly address what science actually does think is the way life formed--the only leverage we have for digging into that question, is the historical evidence buried in DNA, and in the stars, and in the rocks. None of which as much of a chance of being subject to affordable laboratory recreation any time soon.

"Is a citrus cycle an example of non-living matter?"

Now, what do you think?

I think you belong in the 14th century, in a monastery, constructing air-tight proofs of the existence of God, from the sheer force of your capacity to propound definitions. There's no reason I shouldn't consider a citrus cycle caught in closed system, such as a free floating bubble, a possible example of early life. I'm not all that far, morphologically, from describing an earthworm. The exact definition of "life" is not a touchstone of scientific inquiry, even though it is for your desperate attempts to make an imagined rigorously accurate laboratory creation of "life" somehow significantly relevant to the likelihood of natural abiogensis.

[donh]

"You mean like a Sears santa is useful"

No. That Santa serves no scientific purpose. His utility is not a scientific one.

Whereas, an imagined attempt to rigorously produce "life", "from scratch", including every little valve, faucet, and membrane, is just dripping with scientific utility.

"Compared to machine tool approaches organic structures leave a lot to be desired."

But biological ones tend to be better designed and more efficient,

What? In what sense? You really think a mechanical flaggelum would require that many parts, that expensive to procure, feed and maintain? Biological systems only look efficient when you don't take into account the support system that keeps them operational.

which is why they are and will be mimicked. For example, synthetic muscles are currently about 10000 times weaker than actual muscles.

Really? In what sense? When was the last time your sink faucet twisted it's ankle?

What you are referring to is the inherent shortcomings of engineering when it comes to duplicating the functions of nonlinear systems. It is more desirable to have linear systems because they are easier to engineer.

Very few biological functions related to motion cannot be adequaely modeled as linear systems subject to laplace analysis, because motion is inherently linear.

"You are vastly unaware, apprently, of how much engineering it would take to duplicate a living cell 'from scratch' as you have insisted." And, contrary to your claim of being well versed in nanotechnology, you are vastly unaware of the ultimate goal of this field. It is to develop atomically precise manufacturing in an atom-by-atom fashion. The vision is programmable matter.

Another escapee from the back-pages of Analog and F&SF. Nanotechnology has neither an "ultimate goal", nor any plans on the table to produce an exacting copy of "life", literally from scratch.

Am I assuming a lot. Yes, I am. And I am well aware that testing my assertion presumes vast leaps in our technical know how. And I am assuming this will happen. Soon.

Groovy. Having spent most of my life repairing software that was supposedly working fine, for which I had the sources, and could run a debugger, I am not so sanguine about the unlimited potential of itty-bitty minicomputers running amok in the environment, working together to produce ever more useful results.

[unlearner]

"Here we go again. Was predicting elements that would be found on the periodic table an experiment that could have failed, if the periodic table had been constructed incorrectly?"

Your arguments forced me to reevaluate my past position. After thinking on this further, I am inclined to say that the periodic elements are not falsifiable, only verifiable. Perhaps you can demonstrate otherwise.

What would be falsifiable is the underlying cause for elements to self organize in incremental steps based on a particular model. I am not sure how failing to find a particular element would impact a theory. But finding one that does not fit the paradigm would falsify the theory.

The problem is that historical events can sometimes be verified or supported, but we cannot disprove most historical claims without having specific knowledge of a history which contradicts such claims.

Although I agree that you defeated my line of reasoning against historical data being part of science, I still cannot see how you can generally falsify a historical claim.

Well, in some cases you can. For example, if someone claimed there was a specific person who was president of the USA, and we know he was not because we know who was. But how do you falsify something like Lincoln's assassination? We do not need to falsify it though. It is enough to verify or support it.

You did expose some errors in my reasoning before, so I am more than willing to consider your objections to this point as well.

[unlearner]

I think we are at an impasse on causality and nothingness. You made some good points, albeit not persuasive enough for me. While I think it might be useful to explore the implications of causality not being true, perhaps we have explored enough tangents for this thread.

[unlearner]

"Which is why it is such a good camel's-nose-in-the-tent strategy."

Yes. I do think ID implies God... philosophically. I think nature implies God. I think that science exists and logic works also implies God. But these are philosophical views.

[unlearner]

"Exactly right. 'something from nothing' is a supernatural claim"

Wow. We do agree on something. That's not nothing. ;-)

[donh]

implications of causality not being true

I have not contended causality is not "true". I have contended that causality is a human classification scheme, not a tangible force of nature. Much in the same manner as I concede that horses and zebras are two different species, even though zebras and horses can interbreed, because I accept human classification schemes as being adequately "true".

[donh]

Your arguments forced me to reevaluate my past position. After thinking on this further, I am inclined to say that the periodic elements are not falsifiable, only verifiable. Perhaps you can demonstrate otherwise.

You have some pretty strange notions of how science works. Here's a quote from a typical history of the Periodic Table.

In all Mendeleev found that 17 elements had to be moved to new positions from those indicated strictly by atomic weight for their properties to correlate with other elements. These changes indicated that there were errors in the accepted atomic weights of some elements (atomic weights were calculated from combining weights, the weight of an element that combines with a given weight of a standard.) However, even after corrections were made by redetermining atomic weights, some elements still needed to be placed out of order of their atomic weights. From the gaps present in his table, Mendeleev predicted the existence and properties of unknown elements which he called eka-aluminum, eka-boron, and eka-silicon. The elements gallium, scandium and germanium were found later to fit his predictions quite well. In addition to the fact that Mendeleev's table was published before Meyers', his work was more extensive predicting new or missing elements. In all Mendeleev predicted the existence of 10 new elements, of which seven were eventually discovered -- the other three, atomic weights 45, 146 and 175 do not exist. He also was incorrect in suggesting that the element pairs of argon-potassium, cobalt-nickel and tellurium-iodine should be interchanged in position due to inaccurate atomic weights. Although these elements did need to be interchanged, it was because of a flaw in the reasoning that periodicity is a function of atomic weight.

from http://www.wou.edu/las/physci/ch412/perhist.htm. I guess your theory of clean-hands science is in keeping with the notion that you can call it science when you do abiogensis experiments inside your head.

[unlearner]

"The chemical elements did not 'self-organize' themselves on the periodic table. An abstract description of a thing is not an example of that thing self-organizing. This is a self-serving corrupt definition, and I think you should drop it."

Do you prefer self assemble? I am unsure what you are objecting to. I understand that the periodic table is merely a model for how elements are grouped. Am I wrong to assume that matter that is not in the form of plasma, will naturally gravitate, group itself, assemble, or however better you can describe it, into periodic elements? This is due to the nature of matter's chemical and physical properties. It flows naturally from electromagnetic, weak and strong forces, apparently.

"How will your proposed lab experiment produce this effectively infinite stretch of continuous gradual change from lifeless to lifeful?"

It only needs to simulate the final stage of this infinite process. Unless you are claiming the transitional structures cannot be created more quickly in a controlled environment. But how do you know they can't? You should at least be able to simulate their properties in a computer (or other) model. There should be a reason why they cannot exist any other way but an infinitely long process. If life came to exist through an infinitely long, unguided process, you would have as much challenge of proving it as proving God exists via the scientific method.

"It can't significantly address what science actually does think is the way life formed"

So now you are claiming abiogenesis is what science thinks? Verification and falsification are not necessary prerequisites to think this. It is not just assumed, the conclusion has already been reached? On what basis is this conclusion science?

"the only leverage we have for digging into that question, is the historical evidence buried in DNA, and in the stars, and in the rocks."

Only? So physical laws are irrelevant? You already implied that causality is not allowed to get in the way of abiogenesis. (Of course if it is troubling for ID then it must be valid. /s) Now you are saying lab tests are irrelevant. I assume because physical laws are irrelevant. I mean if understanding the correlation of physical laws to the formation of life is too costly, then those laws must be unimportant. Never mind that we spend millions testing claims of super string theory when they are not even falsifiable.

"There's no reason I shouldn't consider a citrus cycle caught in closed system, such as a free floating bubble, a possible example of early life."

If you want to use this description as a possible precursor to life, fine. But calling it an early form is ridiculous. You need to define life a lot more than I do. I don't think any reasonable person would allow a simple process to encompass the definition. Otherwise, we already have living computer programs and machines.

[unlearner]

"Whereas, an imagined attempt to rigorously produce 'life', 'from scratch', including every little valve, faucet, and membrane, is just dripping with scientific utility."

Sure is. Even if abiogenesis was true, my test will demonstrate how complex biological systems can be assembled. What works and what doesn't. In other words, engineering linear systems is easy. We know how to build a building by starting with the foundation. But how can you assemble a functional nonlinear system with interdependent parts? Which part is put into place first? What order can it be assembled? Answering these questions would shed light on any model of abiogenesis.

"You really think a mechanical flaggelum would require that many parts, that expensive to procure, feed and maintain? Biological systems only look efficient when you don't take into account the support system that keeps them operational."

Nuts. Biological systems are extremely more efficient taken as a whole. Efficient in every sense. Energy efficient - more energy converted to do more work. And I really think you are obsessive about the "expensive" issue. You included it in your demarcation criteria, and now you are saying that supporting life is "expensive". I am unsure how. Biological systems do not have currency; they get what they need for free.

" Really? In what sense? When was the last time your sink faucet twisted it's ankle?"

This is your reply to my comparison of synthetic muscle to real muscle? A faucet does not have and ankle to twist. If engineers try to duplicate the ankle using every resource available and sparing no expense, they will be unable to duplicate the functionality of a healthy one. Now you can chock that up to ID or your "infinite" evolutionary process, but it the reality of it.

"Very few biological functions related to motion cannot be adequaely modeled as linear systems subject to laplace analysis, because motion is inherently linear."

But motion alone does not represent the work being performed by these complex systems. You can duplicate individual tasks and do them more efficiently using linear systems. But they cannot replace the overall functionality of complex ones.

"Another escapee from the back-pages of Analog and F&SF. Nanotechnology has neither an 'ultimate goal', nor any plans on the table to produce an exacting copy of 'life', literally from scratch."

The "ultimate goal" was not a claim I invented, but quoted from a leader in the field. Once this goal is achieved, atom by atom assembly of living organisms will be on the table.

Your unwillingness to even consider the implications of intelligent assembly of life versus an "infinite" process, underscores that you are essentially conceding that intelligent assembly is simpler and more efficient way for life to form.

"I am not so sanguine about the unlimited potential of itty-bitty minicomputers running amok in the environment, working together to produce ever more useful results."

But I thought unguided processes working over infinite amounts of time were the way to go. Are you suggesting intelligent intervention and guidance of these technologies?

[unlearner]

"You have some pretty strange notions of how science works. Here's a quote from a typical history of the Periodic Table."

My comment was that periodic elements are not falsifiable, not the periodic table. The periodic table is a model which has been modified to comply with the periodic elements which have been found.

Do other elements exist which have not been observed? Since we understand the underlying principles better, we can probably predict that other heavier elements are not stable and will not naturally occur in most environments. But maybe there are some which do exist somewhere which have not even been modeled or created experimentally.

The outcome does not need to be falsifiable because it contains the actual data. So the data is not falsifiable.

You cannot falsify that carbon exists because it does. If it did not and was only a model, the only thing we could falsify is where carbon should be found or where it should be plentiful. If we did not find it, it would not mean that it does not exist.

How is that falsifiable?

[donh]

My comment was that periodic elements are not falsifiable, not the periodic table. The periodic table is a model which has been modified to comply with the periodic elements which have been found.

As opposed, I guess, to the law of gravity, which has never been modified in all the history of science, due to an increased understanding of the behavior of the universe. If being "modified to comply" with new data disqualified a theory from falsifiability, there's be a sudden dearth of scientific theories.

[donh]

But I thought unguided processes working over infinite amounts of time were the way to go. Are you suggesting intelligent intervention and guidance of these technologies?

Nanomachines don't evolve--and if they did, I sort of doubt that their investors expect them to mature into useful entities over the next few million year. Your grapeshot approach to logic never fails you, does it?

[donh]

Your unwillingness to even consider the implications of intelligent assembly of life versus an "infinite" process, underscores that you are essentially conceding that intelligent assembly is simpler and more efficient way for life to form.

I almost cut off this conversation at this point. Every phrase is almost too stupid to believe. Why in the world would it matter that natural processes are inefficient to the theory that abiogensis was natural and gradual? At what point did I "refuse to consider" the implications of any of this ever-branched diahrrea of a set of arguments you have been extruding?

If you want to hold my attention any further, stop being such a scatter-gun artist.

[donh]

Nuts. Biological systems are extremely more efficient taken as a whole. Efficient in every sense...Energy efficient - more energy converted to do more work.

My nutcracker weighs less than the palm of my hand, it takes a good deal more pressure for a needle to penetrate its skin, it requires less pressure to crack nuts, and can sit in a kitchen drawer consuming absolutely no energy for 100 years, and will still work fine when I choose to deploy it. What do irrelevant, overblown statements like this serve? Is this how you think science works?--you make vastly overreaching statements of doubtful meaning, probity, or relevance, hang a science label on it, and claim it's just as good as actual science? Or is the point just to wear down your deponents with this constant barrage of distracting nonsense?

And I really think you are obsessive about the "expensive" issue. You included it in your demarcation criteria,

I see, so science marches on experiments or field work that can't possibly be done with the resources we possess. I can understand, given the argument you are trying to make, that you'd prefer that science be pretty much any feverish incantation of a thought-experiment you can conjure up.

and now you are saying that supporting life is "expensive". I am unsure how. Biological systems do not have currency; they get what they need for free.

Biological systems do not get what they need for free. They pay dearly for what they need, and sooner or later, it kills them for the trouble.

The "ultimate goal" was not a claim I invented, but quoted from a leader in the field.

I see. Did the other couple of thousand researchers and investors sign a document concurring? Do you think the ultimate goal of mathematics is to be formally demonstrable from the basic laws of logic, because a leading light of the field, Bertrand Russell, said so?

Once this goal is achieved, atom by atom assembly of living organisms will be on the table.

Yea, this is how you do science--you remake some warmed-over, unlikely, drivel out of an adolescent science fiction story and claim it's a significant scientific experiment.