The Design Inference Game

03/03/03 | Moi

[general_re]

I thought a new thread was a good idea, and here seems to be a good place to put it, so as not to clutter up "News". The only topic available was "heated discussion", though. ;)

If any clarification about the pictures is needed, just say so, and I will try to at least highlight the part that I am interested in for you. Remember that I'm interested in the objects or structures or artifacts being represented, so don't be thrown off if the illustrations seem abstract.

[Diamond]

Thanks, betty.

...a "proper scientific proof" of an issue that is not properly a matter that falls within the range of the scientific method.

If there is such a thing as historical science, and I think there is, it seeks to answer questions of the form, "What happened?", or " What cause this event, etc. to arise?". The answer to these types of questions involves the use of abductive inferences.

On the other hand, nomological or inductive sciences involve questions of a different sort relating to how nature normally operates or functions.

I think both methods are legitimate avenues of scientific inquiry. What do you think?

Cordially,

[cornelis]

p.s. consent is procedure for rendering conclusion valid. Those who think it renders a conclusion true have not read their Plato or made aware of the injustice of voting away existence .

[PatrickHenry]

If there is such a thing as historical science, and I think there is, it seeks to answer questions of the form, "What happened?", or " What cause this event, etc. to arise?".

There are several such sciences, including: astronomy, geology, anthropology, paleontology, climatology, archaeology, criminology, and cosmology. And of course, evolution.

[longshadow]

dance of the equivocators placemarker

[Dataman]

In effect, what the General seems to be saying is that, if something cannot be demonstrated by means of the scientific method, then that something cannot be real. This strikes me as being a "pre-analytical notion" that has been smuggled in as a first principle without any kind of prior critical analysis. The "principle" is simply assumed to be true....

The "principle" is not only too far up the ladder to be a first principle, but it is ignored when inconvenient. Lots of evo stuff can't be demonstrated by the scientific method:

A FEW of the MATERIALIST'S MIRACLES	When the process was observed/ repeated
Matter has always existed/ matter is eternal.
Matter existed before (!) time began. Matter takes up space, space is impossible w/o time.
All the matter was compressed into the size of a point (some say "infinitely small").
The point exploded (The universe created itself).
Time began.
The universe was 100 trillion degrees celsius (some say "infinitely high").
Only quarks and photons existed which gave rise to hydrogen.
Hydrogen gave rise to all the other elements.
Some particles accelerated beyond the speed of light. (requires infinite energy)
Particles departing from each other at the speed of light formed planets and stars
Rain on rocks gave rise to life (spontaneous generation)
Rocks gave rise to intelligence.
1-celled structures invented their own genetic info.
Frogs gave rise to princes.

[cornelis]

Anyway, read these letters.

Great link, beckett. Thanks.

[balrog666]

Good stuff indeed. I liked these bits:

The fruits of evolutionary theory are disseminated in thousands of research articles in dozens of journals every year. Obviously, the people charged with the responsibility of entering their labs and solving problems find it useful. Numerous complex systems have been studied and the major steps of their evolution revealed. Where data are copious, they are all in accord with Darwinian expectations; where mysteries remain, the problem is a lack of data, not a lack of theoretical robustness. -JASON ROSENHOUSE

Because he cannot get his hands on the steering wheel, Mr. Berlinski reaches for the brakes, asserting that a large domain of interest is or should be permanently exempt from scientific inquiry. This has been a standard plea of the religious for the last several centuries, and Mr. Berlinski’s formulation—that the search for “the ineffable inimitable” is fruitless—is a classic of the genre. History has not been kind to those who predict an end to scientific progress, and declare God to be the sole possible explanation for the remaining mysteries. -CLAY SHIRKY

Intelligent-design theory can be summed up, as best I can determine, by two propositions: there is a creator and evolutionary theory is false. Its advocates do not believe the creator is sophisticated enough to have created our universe in such a complex way. It appears they would prefer a magician, waving a wand and shouting magical words of creation. -S.L. BACCUS

[cornelis]

The great "nature vs. design" debate is ready to begin. See the post above this one for details.

I see the Lucretian Umpire has been diligently conditioning (for at least a day).

[cornelis]

asserting that a large domain of interest is or should be permanently exempt from scientific inquiry

It is the Nature of the Game that any chosen set of Conditions necessarily exempt large domains of interest from inquiry.

[js1138]

Click for index

[general_re]

I'd be curious to know how "useful" such definitions are and if anyone is aware of clarifications posing as conditions. As for conditions, they have been previously agreed to.

They have, but I have to say that I had a sneaking suspicion from the beginning that the initial argument was going to be over what exactly constitutes design, and when I saw Diamond label a beehive (#10) and a termite mound (#6) as designed, I knew we were headed for choppy waters ;)

I don't think it's too much of a stretch, and PH will undoubtedly correct me if I go too far, to say that PH's category of "natural objects" can be taken as synonymous with "undesigned objects". So, that being said, let's all put our heads together and see if we can't find some definition of "designed" that we can agree on, such that we know exactly what it is the design inference is supposed to be discovering.

My initial thought is that we ought to stick with the dictionary definition of "design":

de·sign (d-zn)
v. de·signed, de·sign·ing, de·signs
v. tr.

1. 1. To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent: design a good excuse for not attending the conference.
   2. To formulate a plan for; devise: designed a marketing strategy for the new product.
2. To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form: design a building; design a computer program.
3. To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: a game designed to appeal to all ages.
4. To have as a goal or purpose; intend.
5. To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.

The problem here - well, it's a problem for someone ;) - is that all of these tend to imply some sort of abstract thought and conscious will; indeed, I think that this is rather what Dembski is leading towards - not a designer, but the Designer. But if we take that as the definition of "design", then can we really say that a beehive is "designed"? If it is, who designed it? It sure wasn't the bees - bees are probably not even capable of the sort of abstract thought that "design" implies.

So, there's one immediate problem, as I see it. How do we reconcile this definition of design with the notion of a beehive or termite mound as designed? Can we reconcile this definition of design with a beehive being designed? If not, is there some other definition of design that doesn't require conscious will and/or abstract thought, which bees are, after all, lacking?

[PatrickHenry]

How do we reconcile this definition of design [" ...tend to imply some sort of abstract thought and conscious will ..."] with the notion of a beehive or termite mound as designed? Can we reconcile this definition of design with a beehive being designed? If not, is there some other definition of design that doesn't require conscious will and/or abstract thought, which bees are, after all, lacking?

If you include among the "designed" a behive and a termite mound (and presumably a clam shell, a spider web, a gopher hole, a beaver dam and a bird's nest too), then why not a pile of dog poop? Just as much "abstract thought and conscious will" is involved -- by which I mean none. To my way of looking at things, all such phenomena are natural objects, and not the result of intelligent design.

I was serious back in post 489 when I proposed this:

Nature: By this, I mean something that happens, or that is formed, "naturally," in accordance with the laws of physics, chemistry, etc., and without intelligent intervention (ignoring the issue of whether Providence is deliberately causing everything to happen) -- for example, the Mississippi River, as it existed before humans lived in North America, is natural.

Intelligence (or Design): By this, I mean things or events that are the result of intelligent intervention in the otherwise natural processes of the universe -- for example, the Hoover Dam, the Panama Canal, etc., are not natural.

[general_re]

I think we're mostly on the same page here - I'm just trying to figure out how you would define "design" such that a beehive is designed, and I'm not having much luck with anything other than the design of the beehive being a one-off process, where the bees are designed, and the beehive is therefore designed as a part of bee behavior. But as I was getting at earlier, I don't think that's at all helpful, useful, or logically tenable...

[PatrickHenry]

Do you plan to give us the answers to each of your ten objects? Perhaps "answers" isn't the right word. At least identify the objects for us, so we can consider Diamond's conclusions and then debate them. And when you identify the objects, we should probably have an updated index.

[PatrickHenry]

Oh, with respect to my definitions, it occurs to me that the essence of ID seems to mean something that could not possibly be the result of natural processes alone. I suppose that leaves out the clam shell and the pile of dog poop, as well as behives and terminte mounds. But I suppose the debate will rage over such objects.

[tacticalogic]

Does that imply a basic premise that organic life is not a natural process?

[PatrickHenry]

Does that imply a basic premise that organic life is not a natural process?

I assume you refer to the ID position that some things cannot possibly have happened naturally. I think that is indeed a premise of ID, although it really ought to be the conclusion of a rigorous research effort. If they take it as a premise, they are assuming, ab initio, the very thing they tell us their "science" proves.

[js1138]

And when you identify the objects, we should probably have an updated index.

I'll be watching, but can't guarantee instant response.

[tacticalogic]

There also seems to be a problem of some arbitrary level of complexity being a deterministic factor. Being able to make that determination assumes a degree of understanding on our part of how natural processes work that isn't necessarily valid, IMHO.

[general_re]

Yeah, I figured I would give everyone a chance to speculate for themselves about whether or not these things might be designed before posting the answers. I can identify them all, and tell you which ones are definitely designed - judging how accurate the design inference is with those ones ought to give us something to work with in evaluating the "unknown" cases.

So, I will post what they are, and whether they are known to be designed, but I'll put it off until sometime tomorrow morning or afternoon. But then I will do it, I promise - I've freepmailed answers for some to a few people who've asked, but I imagine everyone else would like to know too ;)