The basic unit of life is the cell and in addition to the various functions it performs it also divides itself into two every so often. Cell division is incredibly complex as the cell contents must be duplicated and segregated before the cell splits into two identical daughter cells. External forces that deform the cell could easily disrupt this delicate process so the cell needs to sense such distortions and recover from them. New research is learning more about how this happens.Working with single-celled protozoa the researchers found that two proteins monitor and adjust the cell geometry to ensure successful cell division. These proteins congregate at the location of distortions and perform structural functions. As one of the researchers explained:
What we found is an exquisitely tuned mechanosensory system that keeps the cells shipshape so they can divide properly ... It's clear that the two [proteins] need each other to operate as a cellular mechanosensor.
It is yet another example of life's exquisite tuning.
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteThis is all mind-boggling. I'd love to see someone work up some probabilities against the appearance of even the simplest form of life--and then some additional probabilities against it learning how to replicate.
Cornelius,
ReplyDelete"New research is learning more about how this happens."
how is the research learning? through rote memorization? or is it Hooked on Phonics?
"how is the research learning?"
ReplyDeleteNo thanks to evolution, that's for certain. It is by trying to figure out how nature works.
um, you do understand that research can't learn anything, correct? I was trying to point out your grammatical error in a light-hearted manner. perhaps you're a little fixated on evolution, eh?
ReplyDeleteTwo (fallacious) aspects to this post.
ReplyDelete1) Complexity -> design (alternatively, runs contrary to evolution). Not only does this not follow, it opposes the most basic knowledge of natural selection (among other mechanisms), which is to say that with natural selection you expect to find codependent systems and complexity, it's a messy way to go about arriving at the organisms we see.
2) Codependency -> design. This is basically Behe's "irreducible complexity" in a dumbed-down form. I.e. if you find something which seems to require two or more parts to function, they must have come about at the exact same time (unlikely if through evolutionary processes). Aside from ignoring pleiotropy, this ignores what you would expect from natural selection yet again: systems which arise from messier precursors and are trimmed down/modified ("scaffolding") *and* the adoption of new functions for existing (modified) proteins.
And that's basically the entire post. Two fallacies that require one to ignore the mechanisms of evolution.
Khan:
ReplyDeleteDid you not understand what Dr. Hunter meant? I thought it was pretty obvious.
Shirakawasuna:
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that your comment is the one containing two fallacies.
1) In point #1, you commit the fallacy of equivocation -- that is, you misleadingly switch to an alternate definition of "complexity" in order to make your argument. Dr. Hunter used the word to denote the fact that the cell performs myriad functions with pinpoint accuracy. You use the word as a synonym for sloppiness.
Although he didn't say it, you concluded that Dr. Hunter was saying that "complexity implies design."
This appears to be the logic of your reply:
- The cell has a high degree of complexity.
- Complexity implies sloppiness.
- Sloppiness does not imply design.
- Therefore complexity does not imply design.
This is not valid. This is an example of the logical fallacy of equivocation.
2) In point #2, you commit the fallacy of "begging the question" -- that is, you assume what you are attempting to prove.
You assume that pleiotropy etc can produce the DNA information necessary to create "an exquisitely tuned mechanosensory system". This unproven assumption is then used as "proof" that intelligence is not necessary to produce the finely tuned nanotechnology in the cell.
You are assuming what you are attempting to prove. This is an example of the logical fallacy of "begging the question."
Dr. Hunter's post is logical. Your attempted refutation is not logical.
Brian, I was intentionally vague with my use of the word complexity. I didn't make any equivocation, it's still a fallacious complexity -> design argument. If you're hung up on me calling this stuff sloppy, don't be. It's a way do describe how you'd expect complicated systems, even with great specificity, to have a bunch of interacting parts.
ReplyDeleteYour intended summary of my point is inaccurate. I said it directly: complexity does not imply design. There are very good alternative hypotheses, mechanistic ones, that just happen to be testable (and have been tested).
As for point two, I never said anything about information - it's a rabbit hole I won't be going down, as ID advocates have an awful time coming up with a defensible, consistent, and mathematical definition. They tend to get hung up when you insist on, you know, standards, like kolmogorov complexity and such. When I referenced pleiotropy, it was with respect to one of many alternative hypotheses for the ways in which complex biologicaly systems can arise. It has little to do with 'information' and everything to do with the actual molecules being discussed.
"This unproven assumption is then used as "proof" that intelligence is not necessary to produce the finely tuned nanotechnology in the cell."
First, what you claim is my assumption is not. Adding to that, I noted that there are alternative hypotheses, mechanistic ones with a basis in phylogenies (themselves generated from sequencing) and basic molecular biology. Much better than the argument from ignorance you seem to want to imply: intelligence is necessary for X because you don't think the alternatives suffice (as if you've explored the alternatives).
"You are assuming what you are attempting to prove. This is an example of the logical fallacy of "begging the question.""
What am I attempting to prove, Brian? I remember showing some very plausible, mechanistic, and even tested hypotheses for how such systems can arise and pointing out that inserting design is unnecessary and fallacious. There isn't much room for question-begging there.
Shirakawasuna:
ReplyDelete[1] As regards point one, I will point you again to the definition of the fallacy of equivocation: you misleadingly switched to an alternate definition of "complexity" in order to make your argument.
Dr. Hunter referenced the "exquisitely tuned mechanosensory system" which the researchers described in their article. This suggests one form of complexity, akin to the complexity of a marching band or a jet engine, which in turn strongly suggests intelligent design.
Your "intentionally vague" comment admitted that the cell was complex, but admitted the only kind of complexity which could be produced by blind directionless processes: messiness.
You redefined complexity from high precision to messiness. By definition, you committed the logical fallacy of equivocation. It seems to me that this is inarguable.
[2] As regards point two, I will point you again to the definition of the fallacy of "begging the question": you assume what you are attempting to prove.
You are attempting to demonstrate that known mechanistic processes can produce highly ordered systems which we term "irreducibly complex." Your assumption is that these mechanistic processes have been proven to produce highly ordered systems which we term "irreducibly complex."
In other words, you are saying that irreducibly complex systems can't exist, because we know that mechanistic processes are capable of producing them. You have not demonstrated this, but you have assumed it in your argument, which is illogical.
[3] No good purpose can be served by being "intentionally vague" with your use of the word 'complexity.'
[4] Further, it is unreasonable to define "complicated systems ... of great specificity" as 'sloppy' or 'messy.' Your personal definition of complexity may not imply design, but how have you defined it? The researchers in the article defined it as a "exquisitely tuned mechanosensory system".
[5] I am concerned that you have also redefined 'information' from its common-sense meaning, to the only kind of information which you are comfortable with -- the kind which occurs outside of the DNA molecule.
"This suggests one form of complexity, akin to the complexity of a marching band or a jet engine, which in turn strongly suggests intelligent design."
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter, I was talking about complexity in general. The complexity you and him are citing is certainly unrigorous, but it's within the subset of complexity and general and *still* constitutes a complexity -> design argument. 'Fine tuning' and all that. "Strongly suggests" is overly confident wording for something completely undemonstrated and relying on fallacy. In short, no I didn't equivocate and you need to get over it or actually address my response.
"Your "intentionally vague" comment admitted that the cell was complex, but admitted the only kind of complexity which could be produced by blind directionless processes: messiness."
Admitted? Sounds like you want to put me on the defensive. No, I pointed out that you expect codependency and complexity from natural selection, coming about from a messy system. I didn't say it's the only kind of thing produced nor did I make it the focus of my comment. In fact, the messiness I'm referring to is the roundabout way in which novel features or functions come about, which is to say often from coopting older genes (indirect and via common descent). I call that messy and it *can* mean lots of proteins working together in one situation where fewer may do a similar job for a separate clade. It can also mean an elegant or elegant-seeming system, the process through which it came about is the point.
"You redefined complexity from high precision to messiness. By definition, you committed the logical fallacy of equivocation. It seems to me that this is inarguable."
You're misrepresenting what I wrote for a second time. It's not appreciated nor is it honest.
"In other words, you are saying that irreducibly complex systems can't exist, because we know that mechanistic processes are capable of producing them."
Oh my, so silly. Is that what you were trying to say originally? I pointed out that codependency doesn't imply design. There is no rule of deduction saying it's what is implied, so we must fall back on induction, where alternative hypotheses need to be dealt with. Irreducible complexity constitutes an argument from ignorance, so it's crippled from the start with respect to induction, and alternative hypotheses (like, say, natural selection) account for the types of situations listed, such as this 'fine-tuning' argument (precisely controlling cell division isn't exactly damaging to the idea of adaptation) or codependent systems.
Where in that claim did I beg the question, Brian? I'm assuming that the support I give is accurate? I hope you don't think my point there was to demonstrate what natural selection can do, because all I'm doing is listing it as an accepted premise.
"[3] No good purpose can be served by being "intentionally vague" with your use of the word 'complexity.' "
ReplyDeleteYes, it can. I can (attempt to) avoid the rigamarole of playing games with the different types of complexity which ID advocates love but have a terrible time rigorously defining. As you can see, it's not working, but it sure isn't because I actually said something inaccurate.
It's not my job to tease out which version of complexity (always subject to change) you've chosen to use this time, if it's even coherent, but only to note that the logic doesn't work (for any of them). I've seen 'fine-tuning' claims before and they're hardly specific enough for me to pretend they need special treatment.
"[4] Further, it is unreasonable to define "complicated systems ... of great specificity" as 'sloppy' or 'messy."
No it isn't. Proteins are quite floppy, they wiggle around all the time and slam into things. They're messy. They are also often extremely specific and will 'do their job' only with a small subset of compounds. With enzymes, small changes in sequence need not even change the activity if the side chains are similar and they don't affect the active site. That's messy.
"Your personal definition of complexity may not imply design, but how have you defined it? "
I don't use a personal definition of complexity, I refer to the general notion used by others in a non-rigorous manner to refer to biological systems as well as the actually-rigorous definitions and uses wrt Shannon or Kolmogorov. I have seen no situation where complexity -> design is not fallacious and utterly lacking the imagination necessary to address such a topic.
"The researchers in the article defined it as a "exquisitely tuned mechanosensory system"."
And I'm sure it is, but they didn't give a definition of complexity. That's a distortion and it wouldn't matter even if they had, as it would likely lack the rigor necessary for a half-respectable attempt at a design argument.
"[5] I am concerned that you have also redefined 'information' from its common-sense meaning, to the only kind of information which you are comfortable with -- the kind which occurs outside of the DNA molecule."
Actually, I explicitly told you that I'm avoiding the word (because ID advocates can almost never define it in a half-useful and consistent manner, preferring vaguerries). I'm discussing the actual molecules, as in proteins and nucleic acids (among other things). Why does your response completely ignore what I said?
Brian,
ReplyDeleteI did understand it, but I also understand the meaning of "me is hungry".. it doesn't make it correct.. and since Corenlius has given up science and taken up writing professionally, he should probably learn to write better.
Shirakawasuna, would you please stop playing the "wannabe smarter than you game" and just try to learn the facts and and how to reason correctly.
ReplyDeletecomplexity -> design, is not and never has been the ID argument.
This has been explained ad infinitum ad nauseum to Darwinists yet they never get it.
That's because, as Sir Fred Hoyle stated, they are in a sense, "mentally ill".
:
"Because the old believers said that God came out of the sky, thereby connecting the Earth with events outside it, the new believers were obliged to say the opposite and to do so, as always, with intense conviction. Although the new believers had not a particle of evidence to support their statements on the matter, they asserted that the rabbit producing sludge (called soup to make it sound more palatable) was terrestrially located and that all chemical and biochemical transmogrifications of the sludge were terrestrially inspired. Because there was not a particle of evidence to support this view, new believers had to swallow it as an article of faith, otherwise they could not pass their examinations or secure a job or avoid the ridicule of their colleagues. So it came about from 1860 onward that new believers became in a sense mentally ill, or, more precisely, either you became mentally ill or you quitted the subject of biology, as I had done in my early teens. The trouble for young biologists was that, with everyone around them ill, it became impossible for them to think they were well unless they were ill, which again is a situation you can read all about in the columns of Nature [magazine]." (Hoyle, F., "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987])
Maybe you should wonder why he said that and take the hint.
So what is the mechanistic explanation for the origin of this complexity? It seems to me that a number of accidents had to happen at the same time for this system to appear. Two homologous proteins had to change in very specific ways at the same time. Now proteins can be up to 20% different intheir amino acid configurations and still be considered closely homologous. That means that, in a protein 100 amino acids long 20 amino acids have to change in very specific ways.
ReplyDeleteKhan:
ReplyDeleteIt does not appear to me that you are trying to help him with his writing. It appears to me that you are trying to harass him rather than engage with his arguments.
Nevertheless, I am sure your comments are serving to make Dr. Hunter a better writer, in some sense.
If you are truly motivated to help him with his writing, then I must say that is noble of you to risk the appearance of being a trivial person, in order to help him reach his goals.
Shirakawasuna:
ReplyDeleteI have not tried to misrepresent your ideas, just tried to put them in a more coherent form in an attempt to understand them.
I would like to understand you better, but it is difficult to understand people who don't mind being "intentionally vague", so perhaps that is part of the problem.
Another hindrance to communication is when someone has a personal definition of a term that is at variance with common usage.
If you don't want to use the term 'complexity' as it is commonly understood, and wish to establish a rigorous new mutually agreed-upon definition for the purposes of rational discussion, that would be laudable.
On the other hand, if you substitute your own arbitrary definition for Dr. Hunter's, then you forfeit your right to complain about the rigor of his definition.
You said:
"I have seen no situation where complexity -> design is not fallacious."
The Hadron Super Collider possesses the kind of complexity which logically requires design. I could go on. You are either equivocating or prevaricating.
Another hindrance to communication is the avoidance of words, like 'information'. Insistence on a rigorous definition is a smoke-screen. Assembly instructions must contain information, written, electronic or molecular. DNA is assembly instructions. If you say DNA is "only" a collection of molecules, you must say that a book is "only" a collection of wood pulp and ink molecules.
As regards "begging the question", I can only point out once more that you assume that mechanistic processes have the power to produce systems with such high degrees of interdependence and complexity that we term them "irreducibly complex". It has not been proven, so you can't use it for proof against irreducible complexity. Indeed, sufficiently high levels of codependency certainly imply design, such as the interdependency of the systems of the Sequoia supercomputer (which are incidentally miniscule when compared to those of the cell).
Hitch: "complexity -> design, is not and never has been the ID argument."
ReplyDeleteExcept for when it is like when Dembski comes up with an obfuscated concept like 'specified complexity', when Behe finds biological systems with multiple interworking parts which (he claims) wouldn't have functional precursors (complex systems), or when Cornelius just now cited 'fine tuning'. They're all variations on a theme.
Look at what Cornelius posted just today, Hitch: "Can you see why evolution is not a very good scientific theory? Evolutionists want us to believe that, in addition to the DNA molecule and its information, this incredible DNA replication process just arose all on its own. And of course this is only the beginning (the DNA has to be used somehow, for instance)."
ID advocates realize that they have to poo-poo evolution in order to insert their fallacious ideas. Flat-out claiming that evolution couldn't produce a biological system (due to its complexity, in whatever form they choose) is precisely how they do that.
Oh no, that's not complexity -> design. He used the word 'incredible DNA replication process' so it doesn't count, right?
Anonymous: "Two homologous proteins had to change in very specific ways at the same time."
ReplyDeleteWhy? Are you aware of pleiotropy, gene duplication? Do you know the genetic basis for these proteins and whether they have identifiable relatives? Have you excluded other functions for each one in the past? Arguments from lack of imagination are pretty poor. Incidentally, who said they were homologous?
It's hard to see how considering some 80% similar proteins homologous is somehow improper.
Brian: "I would like to understand you better, but it is difficult to understand people who don't mind being "intentionally vague", so perhaps that is part of the problem."
ReplyDeleteThen I appreciate the sentiment, but there's nothing wrong with being intentionally vague when the word used can have many implications, none of which I'd insert into Cornelius's mouth. You tried to ding me for equivocation, which is precisely what I was avoiding due to ID advocates' less than rigorous uses of their terms (fine-tuning, for example). If you'd prefer that I be a mind-reader and make *his* post more fleshed-out or "nuanced", you'll be disappointed.
"On the other hand, if you substitute your own arbitrary definition for Dr. Hunter's, then you forfeit your right to complain about the rigor of his definition."
But I"m not, as I explained. Why do your posts give me the sense that you aren't reading what I say, but sticking with a convenient 'gotcha' response? I'll see if I can make it simple: I used complexity in a very general sense, such that 'fine-tuning' is a subset of it and so are some other concepts thrown around by ID advocates. If you have a rigorous definition of Cornelius' usage, I'd be happy to use that in a criticism (although I might rename it).
"The Hadron Super Collider possesses the kind of complexity which logically requires design. I could go on. You are either equivocating or prevaricating."
And yet it's fallacious, Brian. You have chosen a system we know to be designed, we know through far more than a vague idea of complexity that is was build by workers and planned by people. If you randomly stuck it off somewhere in space and came upon it without such knowledge, you would still recognize common signs of human work and design. We haven't seen particle accelerators in any other context nor is there a plausible alternative hypothesis for their existence. There's more than just 'complexity -> design' at work.
On the other hand, biological systems are much, much different from designed machines. They possess huge redundancies, roundabout pathways, function in an environment dominated by brownian motion and envelopes, self-replicate, and of course when you compare sequences or fossil evidence, the best-fitting pattern is a nested hierarchy. The mostly reasonable inference used on a collider in space doesn't work on biology, either.
"Another hindrance to communication is the avoidance of words, like 'information'. Insistence on a rigorous definition is a smoke-screen."
ReplyDeleteComplete bull. If your definition isn't rigorous, 'information' can be so floppy and vague that it's meaningless. You can't seriously think that you can have a good argument when the language used can be lethally nonspecific. For example, what are you talking about when you say 'molecular information'? What does that mean? Are the molecules themselves information just because you say they are? Are you talking about considering them as information (abstraction)? It's pretty important to know, as abstractions can miss significant details.
"If you say DNA is "only" a collection of molecules, you must say that a book is "only" a collection of wood pulp and ink molecules."
DNA is a collection of molecules, Brian. It's a polymer of nucleotides which can be manipulated in a lab. In biological systems, the sequence is very important and determines the generation and expression of proteins and RNA. It possesses one of four (sometimes five) bases attached to a ribose sugar, bridged together with a phosphate linkage. It's a molecule. I'm not sure what you expect, should I have a sense that it has 'information'? If so, in what sense? The base pair sequence has information: it's a sequence. A model of DNA has information: it's a mathematical abstraction. Without a rigorous definition of information, I'd have no idea what I was 'admitting' to by saying it has it.
"As regards "begging the question", I can only point out once more that you assume that mechanistic processes have the power to produce systems with such high degrees of interdependence and complexity that we term them "irreducibly complex"."
And you're wrong, *again*. Why do you find it necessary to twist my claim? I noted, for the third time, that arguments based on *irreducible complexity* ignore plausible and tested alternative hypotheses, you know, the ones that make up modern biology. Thousands and thousands of people willing to be specific with their claims and test them. I don't know where you're confused, do you know what an alternative hypothesis is? Do you know what's expected from common descent, natural selection? You're using an extremely common tactic when it comes to ID: try to put the other person on the defensive, illegitimately, by demanding they prove to your satisfaction that X happened, where your Y wins by default through some very poor argumentation. Sadly, I haven't claimed 'X to your satisfaction', I've listed alternative hypotheses which have been tested, and your 'Y' (fine-tuning) is vague mush, hardly a strong premise.
"Indeed, sufficiently high levels of codependency certainly imply design, such as the interdependency of the systems of the Sequoia supercomputer (which are incidentally miniscule when compared to those of the cell)."
ReplyDeleteAgain, I fail to see your reasoning here. All you're doing is listing a system we already know to be designed (it's a supercomputer), noticing that it has codepenent parts, and then claiming that you got there through an inference from having codependent parts. If you're getting that specific, I suppose I could come up with examples where there are codependent parts and no designer needed, such as the gravitational effects of a binary star system. With just one star, the gravitational effects are different. Remove one from the binary system and the whole dynamic disappears: they must have arisen at the same time, eh? Therefore, design? The primary difference in the reasonableness of this here and when it applies to molecular biology is that we can visualize the effects of a single star, the effects of two stars, and imagine them coming about. You don't do that for molecular biology because it's an alien world and the possibilities of origin are much larger. It 'looks' designed because the molecules can perform very specific functions, some of which are similar to human-designed machines, some of which are not. The fallacious reasoning does not improve with the change of scenery, only an intuitive sense and confirming bias. The codependency of biology is higher? Hey, the possibilities in biology are much higher - you have handy things like genetic inheritance, mutation, and natural selection for a large 'tinkering' space for a blind process along with even more pleiotropy.
In short, codependency -> design does not follow. Listing a single example where we already found design and there's codependency is post-hoc rationalization nor does it constitute a controlled inference (in lieu of deduction).
But how did codependency evolve? Did it start as one protein, then another protein joined up? But that means that the frist protein had to change to accomodate the second protein. And this had to happen simultaniously.
ReplyDeleteShirakawasuna:
ReplyDeleteCongratulations on your long reply. You are obviously an energetic typist.
It may have seemed like I was being elusive, but actually I was just trying to keep to the main point of our exchange, which was whether the two points you made in your first comment were logically fallacious.
It seems we will not reach an agreement on the matter. I contend that they were both classic examples of logical fallacy, by simple definition. To my mind, they could be used as teaching examples (perhaps they may).
However, you continue to insist that "there's nothing wrong with being intentionally vague" and admit to using equivocal language, but then deny equivocation.
Furthermore, you continue to rest arguments against irreducible complexity on the assumption that irreducible complexity has been scientifically disproven (when it has not) and then deny begging the question.
I have no further interest in arguing these points with you anymore. I will leave it to others to judge who is right.
There is also no point in continuing our other debates if you refuse to define terms, or accept common-sense definitions of words like "complex" and "information".
Finally, it is remarkable to me that you claim in your last response that you have the ability to recognize design in human technology on sight, even if you came across it in a random place in space. Then, you claim the inability to recognize design in an artifact which possesses much greater complexity and order.
Indeed, your whole response to Dr. Hunter's post is telling. All he did was quote an evolutionist researcher who said that he had found an "exquisitely tuned" mechanosensory system in the cell. He then agreed with the evolutionist that this is yet another example of life's "exquisite tuning," which is true. He did not state in this post that fine-tuning implies intelligent design. Your mind is the one that made that inference. It is suggestive, isn't it?
Anonymous: A protein changing in response to the binding of another protein happens all the time. It's how your immune system recognizes non-self compounds (antigens).
ReplyDeleteBrian: Yet again you ignore my responses, or at least give them a cheap skimming and repeat yourself. We aren't getting anywhere because you're stuck on your original false premise, which is that you understood what I was saying. Despite my clarification, you labor under that impression.
"I contend that they were both classic examples of logical fallacy, by simple definition. To my mind, they could be used as teaching examples (perhaps they may)."
If your premises were accurate, you would have identified fallacies. However, your premises are inaccurate and I have explained why. That you barely acknowledge this difference but plod along anyways is disengenuous.
"However, you continue to insist that "there's nothing wrong with being intentionally vague" and admit to using equivocal language, but then deny equivocation."
That's right. My being vague in that situation is not equivocation, it's making a blanket statement. My statement does not require the modification of any use of the word(s) invoked in the argument nor the implication of a false definition. As such, it does not satisfy the fallacy of equivocation.
"Furthermore, you continue to rest arguments against irreducible complexity on the assumption that irreducible complexity has been scientifically disproven (when it has not) and then deny begging the question."
Undemonstrated, all of it. You'll have to do better than inaccurately rephrasing my points, Brian. Quote me.
Your next comment is a declaration that you won't continue. That's up to you, of course, but this embarrassingly bad-faith effort of yours, despite its appreciated civil tone, hardly stands on its own merits. You have misunderstood, despite clarification, and refuse to acknowledge it. You ignore further clarifications. You ignore the arguments explaining your misidentification of fallacies.
It's strange that you declare no more response, then set out to say three more paragraphs, but I'll gladly respond.
ReplyDelete"There is also no point in continuing our other debates if you refuse to define terms, or accept common-sense definitions of words like "complex" and "information"."
My term was a blanket term. Throw any argument from complexity at me, it will surely apply. I've explained this many times. I am not sticking a single definition into yours or anyone else's mouth(s). *That* would be equivocation, and it's what I avoided.
A common-sense definition of information is too vague for you to make half-decent arguments for design, arguments that have a terrible track record to begin with. How can you presume to tell me what information implies for a biological structure if you can't quantify it or precisely define what information is important for design for it versus that for other chemical phenomena? Appealing to an intuition, one for which the word 'complex' likely applies better than 'has lots of information', does not an argument make. I do understand the common-sense meaning, I just refuse to acknowledge that they have the rigor required.
"Finally, it is remarkable to me that you claim in your last response that you have the ability to recognize design in human technology on sight, even if you came across it in a random place in space. Then, you claim the inability to recognize design in an artifact which possesses much greater complexity and order."
If you would refer again to what I wrote, I did not use a fallacious complexity/order -> design argument. That's the specialty of ID proponents, remember?
You finish up by implying that the post's point was to indicate an 'exquisitely tuned' system and that my interpretation of this as an argument for design is suggestive of presumably unwanted qualities in myself. I would ask you to read, "Fine Tuning and the Intellectual Necessity" from May 17 if you honestly expect me to believe such garbage. He has used fine-tuning before, in respect to biology, and it's use is/was in attacking evolution and implying design (interchangeable in the ID movement).
There are called-for and juvenile rephrasings of what you tried to sell me, but I'll refrain.
Shirakawasuna:
ReplyDeleteSorry for the delayed response; it was unavoidable. I hope you are still watching this post.
Let me reassure you that I did not merely skim your replies, but read them several times to try and make sense of them. I also did not intend to use any unfair tactics to make my points while closing down discussion. I don't mind you having the last word, but it seemed to me that we couldn't agree on terms, so further discussion was fruitless.
I thought you were being deliberately obtuse, but you seem to feel misunderstood, and I will admit the possibility that I misunderstand what you said. You use a lot of run-on sentences with unclear subject/verb relationships which are difficult to follow. I am willing to give it one last try, if you are game, but let's have a disciplined discussion, in clear English.
In your last reply, you made this clear statement to me:
"If your premises were accurate, you would have identified fallacies."
That is very fair-minded of you to say, and I think it is a starting place for a reasonable discussion. Were my premises accurate?
I don't want to re-hash the whole discussion yet. I want to re-state my argument once more, as clearly as possible, and let you have a chance to respond, as clearly as possible, and perhaps we can move on from there.
Once more, then:
1. EQUIVOCALITY:
You made the direct statement that "complexity does not imply design." You seem to think I didn't recognize the directness of your statement, but the directness of your statement is not the issue. What is at issue is whether you maintain a true and consistent definition of "complexity."
I see basically three possibilities:
1. If you define "complex" as "messy" as in "disorganized", then your statement would be logical, but it would also be false. The cell is demonstrably not messy, in the sense of being disorganized. It is highly organized; we could not live if it were not.
2. On the other hand, if you define "complex" as "exquisitely ordered and fine-tuned," then your sentence may be true or untrue. Human technology is marked by exquisite order and fine-tuning, and the nature of its order is what allows us to infer that it is designed. Therefore, this definition makes your statement either false or illogical because of equivocality.
3. If, in fact, you can't define the term complex for me or yourself, then your statement is certainly ambiguous, or equivocal in meaning, in which case you have committed the fallacy of equivocation.
So, my question is how do YOU define complexity for yourself, when YOU make the statement, "Complexity does not imply design?" Please do not complain about how others use it. You are the one who made the statement, and I want to know what YOU mean when YOU say that.
If we are successful at working this one out, maybe we can take a crack at some of the other issues you raised.
Brian, I appreciate (again) the civil tone, but the answer you seek has been written three times with respect to defining complexity. I used it as a blanket term: I have seen no situation where complexity implies design, in fact it's often clearly and obviously fallacious as the person using it doesn't understand the subject matter.
ReplyDeleteYou listed three specific options for me to choose. I choose 4), which should really be 1), as I listed it before, as I'm referring to design from complexity arguments in general without equivocating by using only one of the definitions.
I have said this many times, so why don't you address it? I'm using a general catch-all term for its uses, particularly with respect to design. I've seen no serious complexity -> design arguments which are not fallacious. I'm repeating myself.
With respect to your specific definitions, I've clarified what 'messy' referred to. When I originally mentioned messy, it wasn't even in reference to this point but to a mechanism. What are you still confused about?
I have seen no 'fine-tuning' arguments which are not fallacious, Brian. In fact, what they lack in coherence they often make up for in short-sightedness, but I digress. I have also dealt with your attempt at proving by example the accuracy of some design arguments and rejected them for a very good reason: choosing something known to have been made by people, then saying it's fine-tuned, then claiming that you made the reverse inference is post-hoc rationalization.
To repeat myself yet again, I was making a general reference to design arguments based on complexity. They don't follow, Brian. Defining complexity as a single version would be equivocating and it's what I avoided by using a general reference. This is probably the fourth time I've said that as well, with no response.
Shirakawasuna:
ReplyDeleteThat was clearer; thanks.
You said,"complexity does not imply design."
I really wasn't listing three alternatives for you to choose from, and asking you to make a false choice. I was explaining three different approaches to understanding your statement, from my standpoint.
One makes the above sentence make sense, but is false. Another makes the statement equivocal, or possibly false. The final approach (non-choice) makes the statement equivocal. I can see no way of making the sentence both logical and true, and you have not offered me another alternative.
In relation to this, let me clearly respond to your last paragraph:
The *only* way to *avoid* equivocation is to assign a single definition to "complexity", and if you refuse to do that, for whatever reason, the statement is equivocal.
It seems to me that your response is that:
"complexity does not imply design"
literally means
"I (Shirakawasuna) do not accept design from complexity arguments in the field of biology, because I have never seen an example which I judged to be valid."
Those two statements are not equivalent. If that is what you mean, that's what you should say, because this statement:
"complexity does not imply design."
is equivocal (when "complexity" is undefined), as I have repeatedly demonstrated, and any reasoning based on that statement is fallacious.
Agreed?
"The *only* way to *avoid* equivocation is to assign a single definition to "complexity", and if you refuse to do that, for whatever reason, the statement is equivocal."
ReplyDeleteNo, you are wrong. Let's try an example.
"I say that no personal computers are created solely from dolphins."
It's a silly example, but you see the point. I see you as demanding to know the definition of personal computers, and my response would be that I mean it in a general sense: I have seen nothing described as a personal computer which is created solely from dolphins. You might try to offer options: a beige box with a CRT monitor? Any mass-produced computer with a screen? What about headless computers? Do iPhones count since they have a screen, keyboard interface, and more power than many computers satisfying 'beige and mass-produced'?
It doesn't matter, I'm describing my experience with arguments claimed or implied to be from complexity in any of its forms (typically fairly vague). You've been getting my point, I suspect, because you keep trying to list some arguments which you think work. So why are we still talking about this?
"I (Shirakawasuna) do not accept design from complexity arguments in the field of biology, because I have never seen an example which I judged to be valid."
False. I haven't seen any arguments which do complexity -> design successfully anywhere. When a reasonable design inference is made, it's hardly merely citing an abstract or vague form of design but instead finding not merely analogy, by direct overlap between the actions of men (defined as designers) and the object in question.
The fallacy of equivocation arises when a definition is used in one part of an argument but changes in the middle, when they are implied to be the same. I have not done this at any point.
Shirakawasuna:
ReplyDeleteYour example does not relate to our discussion. We are not discussing whether complexity ever implies design. You are repeatedly answering a question that I am not asking.
I was asking whether you agree that your statement
"complexity never implies design"
is an ambiguous statement.
It is obviously an ambiguous statement, just as "complexity implies design" is an ambiguous statement. Both statements require further clarification to be meaningful, i.e. "complexity" must be further defined. It is this definition which you will not commit to, which leads to fallacious statements and logic. If you were debating someone who said "complexity implies design," you would recognize it as an ambiguous statement, and you would demand clarification, but you do not hold yourself to this standard.
The fallacy of equivocality occurs when you use the term "complexity" as a synonym for Dr. Hunter's description of finely tuned cellular structures, then later effectively redefine "complexity" as a sloppy, haphazard state of affairs which should be expected as a result of unguided natural forces. You will no doubt deny that you did this; others will have to judge for themselves.
You later seemed to be trying to say that you use the above phrase as some kind of shorthand for a much more complex concept. I attempted to craft a sentence which I felt restated your position exactly, but you rejected that as well, although I don't understand your objections to my attempt.
I thought we could proceed with this discussion, but I don't see it going anywhere. I made a good faith attempt to explain one last time, but it seems to be beyond my powers to make you understand. It appears to me that you wish to hold to a very tightly scripted rejection of design arguments, and resist further admissions which might be "damaging to your case."
This may be a successful rhetorical or argumentative technique, but it will not lead you to the truth.
I do want to congratulate you on your improved syntax in the last two posts. Sloppy writing both reveals and promotes sloppy thinking.
With that, I will give you the last word. Give me your best shot.
Brian, how is commenting on an implication from complexity -> design off-topic? It's my point 1) that I started out with, it's what you got us derailed on by demanding a single definition of complexity. My example wasn't even about design: it was about dolphin computers. Why not reply to it rather than yet again misrepresenting me? I know I can be accidentally pedantic, but I'm not *that* unclear.
ReplyDelete"I was asking whether you agree that your statement
"complexity never implies design""
When did I say that, Brian? Why use double quotes if you're paraphrasing? When did you ask something that appears nowhere in this thread? No, my point is that I've never seen a design from complexity argument which follows, AKA complexity does not imply design. Using the word 'never' can imply a level of certainty restricted to math and logic.
Now then, you're asking me if I'm being ambiguous when I say that complexity does not imply design. The answer is: yes and no. I am being ambiguous as to which particular complexity arguments are used as they vary and often don't have a coherent idea of complexity to begin with. There's nothing wrong with that, as for the upteenth time I prefer to refer to all of the arguments touted as such rather than using a restrictive definition and therefore equivocating (as you wish to say I'm already doing). I am being unambiguous concerning their validity or cogency.
"It is obviously an ambiguous statement, just as "complexity implies design" is an ambiguous statement. Both statements require further clarification to be meaningful, i.e. "complexity" must be further defined. "
Well then it's a good thing I didn't say your lie of a quote, isn't it? I've repeatedly told you precisely what I mean. If you have any problems with my usage as I've clarified, bring them up. Rehashing the same points as if I hadn't already replied is disingenuous.
"If you were debating someone who said "complexity implies design," you would recognize it as an ambiguous statement, and you would demand clarification, but you do not hold yourself to this standard."
Their claim implies that there is at least one cogent complexity -> design argument, which should be specific enough for that cogency to exist. My claim, as I've repeatedly made it, is that I've seen no complexity arguments which imply design. List one, you'll find it fails. you've already tried and they've already failed. The burden of proof here is on the claimant of the positive claim, not the one with reasoned skepticism of a range of claims.
"The fallacy of equivocality occurs when you use the term "complexity" as a synonym for Dr. Hunter's description of finely tuned cellular structures, then later effectively redefine "complexity" as a sloppy, haphazard state of affairs which should be expected as a result of unguided natural forces."
I didn't do that, Brian. Somehow, despite me pointing it out, you've misunderstood *again* what the context of messy was. It's astounding that you labor under these false impressions despite my clarification.
"You will no doubt deny that you did this; others will have to judge for themselves."
Oh, so you do recognize that I pointed it out? Then why not address it rather than repeating yourself? Brow-beating is rather pitiful.
"You later seemed to be trying to say that you use the above phrase as some kind of shorthand for a much more complex concept."
No, I didn't. I didn't use "the above phrase" because you seem wont to actually quote me. I did use 'messy' as a reference to the process of evolution, though. You know, how I *originally stated the point*: "[...] it's a messy way to go about arriving at the organisms we see."
See if you can tell me what is before the ellipsis.
"I attempted to craft a sentence which I felt restated your position exactly, but you rejected that as well, although I don't understand your objections to my attempt."
ReplyDeleteI rejected it because it revealed an easily-corrected misunderstanding: you mixed up to what noun the messy was applying. You keep going on about my cells aren't messy. I would argue that they possess elements which are quite messy and some which are beautifully elegant, but it's another topic from what I said originally and you continue to be confused about. I have clarified this. If the clarification is lacking then you need to ask specific questions rather than restating the misapprehension, as it often seems you really haven't read what I said very carefully. Every time you make those mistakes, I explain how it's wrong or push you towards reading my clarification. Every time, you restate your original erroneous idea without addressing my specific replies.
"I thought we could proceed with this discussion, but I don't see it going anywhere. I made a good faith attempt to explain one last time, but it seems to be beyond my powers to make you understand."
I'm not the one with demonstrated problems understanding the other person. Whenever I make a mistake concerning your meaning, go ahead and correct me, I'm game. There's a difference between agreeing with you and understanding what you're saying and I believe you've confused the two.
"It appears to me that you wish to hold to a very tightly scripted rejection of design arguments, and resist further admissions which might be "damaging to your case.""
I haven't a clue what you're talking about, I reject design arguments because they don't follow: I've never seen one successfully even approach cogency. You haven't even listed the best ones, which still make serious errors. What about my statements there are equivocal? I'll remind you that I've explained what equivocation is twice, without your reply.
So, what admissions are you suspecting? It's hilarious that you think I'm hiding an agenda.
"This may be a successful rhetorical or argumentative technique, but it will not lead you to the truth."
Yet again you refer to this nonspecific agenda of mine. What is it, exactly? I'm the most interested in hearing what you think I'm doing, as it's beyond me.
You ended your message as 'parting'. If you won't be responding despite the unnecessary rehash of your misconceptions, I suppose that's up to you.
Shirakawasuna:
ReplyDeleteI offered you the last word of the debate so we could end on civil terms, not so you could dismiss my words as those of a liar.
Regarding my "lie of a quote", as you call it:
"complexity never implies design"
You now ask:
"When did I say that, Brian?"
Post #8, paragraph 1-2 (in context):
****************
Brian, I was intentionally vague with my use of the word complexity. I didn't make any equivocation, it's still a fallacious complexity -> design argument. If you're hung up on me calling this stuff sloppy, don't be. It's a way do describe how you'd expect complicated systems, even with great specificity, to have a bunch of interacting parts.
Your intended summary of my point is inaccurate. >>>I said it directly: complexity does not imply design.<<< There are very good alternative hypotheses, mechanistic ones, that just happen to be testable (and have been tested)."
****************
In a sea of garbled and vague assertions, this is one of the few clear statements you made, which is why I remarked on it. Unfortunately, it appears that you can't even remain true to your clearest, most "direct" statements.
Shirakawasuna, be honest with yourself. Did you just tell a lie, and then call me a liar? Why would you do that?
Brian, you've repeatedly misunderstood what I've been saying. Then you bring up "quotes" of myself which exist no place in this thread (nor elsewhere). That's disingenuous and I called them lies, but I never *called* you a liar. Why not admit your mistake, call them lies, then move on? It's hardly civil to make up quotes and stick them into someone else's mouth, yet you find it so terrible that I call the result a lie?
ReplyDeleteAh, of course. You don't think you were wrong.
You say I have a "sea of garbled and vague assertions" and have identified something clear, yet you make it up and pretend it's a quote? No. What you claimed I said was: "complexity never implies design". I have been very, very clear on what I mean here and if you have a complaint, address it against what I actually said. Quote me. You managed to do it now that you're indignant.
In case you're still laboring under the impression that your "quote" captures my point, I will say yet again (why so many times?) that I have never seen a complexity argument which follows. They aren't cogent. I do not use the word 'never' because it implies a level of certainty I do not claim. It would place the burdon of proof on me to disprove complexity -> design, something I don't claim. Do I have to explain this over and over or will you listen this time?
Shirakawasuna said...
ReplyDelete"I said it directly: complexity does not imply design."
Post #8, Paragraph #2, Sentence #2.
Yup, Post #8, my second post. I made the mistake of using common language, so I had to clarify later exactly what was meant. I did it many times with no acknowledgment (and you kept making the same mistake). After all that, you come back and rephrase the statement in stronger words.
ReplyDelete"In case you're still laboring under the impression that your "quote" captures my point, I will say yet again (why so many times?) that I have never seen a complexity argument which follows. They aren't cogent. I do not use the word 'never' because it implies a level of certainty I do not claim. It would place the burdon of proof on me to disprove complexity -> design, something I don't claim. Do I have to explain this over and over or will you listen this time?"
Shirakawasuna said... (earlier)
ReplyDelete"Then you (Brian) bring up "quotes" of myself which exist no place in this thread (nor elsewhere)."
Shirakawasuna said... (just now, faced with undeniable evidence)
"Yup, Post #8, my second post. I made the mistake of using common language, so I had to clarify later exactly what was meant."
Thanks for clarifying that I did not make up the quote. Just wanted to set that straight.
Now, the question of why you claimed I made it up is still unsettled. If you made a simple mistake, why not just confess it?
Aha, I have finally figured out the miscommunication, Brian.
ReplyDeleteI was referring to this: ""complexity never implies design"
I replied first with this:
"When did I say that, Brian? Why use double quotes if you're paraphrasing? When did you ask something that appears nowhere in this thread? No, my point is that I've never seen a design from complexity argument which follows, AKA complexity does not imply design. Using the word 'never' can imply a level of certainty restricted to math and logic."
Then after some more commentary, I moved on to your next sentence:
"It is obviously an ambiguous statement, just as "complexity implies design" is an ambiguous statement. Both statements require further clarification to be meaningful, i.e. "complexity" must be further defined. "
And then I said it was a good thing I didn't say your lie of a quote (i.e. "[...] never[...]"). I had already clarified what I meant severeal times by then just to have you resimplifying it and putting words in my mouth.
If that isn't the problem, then I have no idea what to tell you. I never said, "complexity never implies design", I said repeatedly that complexity doesn't imply design and when it was misunderstood, what that meant.
Shirakawasuna:
ReplyDeleteI think we have established that there was never any "lie of a quote."
Again, Shirakawasuna said...
"I said it directly: complexity does not imply design."
This whole thing has gotten far too complicated. You accused Dr. Hunter of fallacy, and supported your point with a fallacious statement. I called you on it, and you backed off the statement. I don't know why there had to be so much hub-bub about it. There is no shame in backing off of an illogical statement.
Now, here is the really interesting point to me:
If you reject the statement:
"complexity never implies design"
then it logically follows that you must accept the statement:
"complexity sometimes implies design".
Right?
"This whole thing has gotten far too complicated."
ReplyDeleteI agree. I stand by my allegation that you ignore my clarifications and stick to your original opinions, despite said clarifications. I wouldn't be surprised if when I look back at what was written, a large amount of the confusion is due solely to that.
"You accused Dr. Hunter of fallacy, and supported your point with a fallacious statement."
First clause yes, second clause disputed and argued, with a poor performance on your side (see the complaint above).
"I called you on it, and you backed off the statement."
Nonsense, you accused me of it and I explained my meaning. I still use the same phrase I used originally, now that I've explained what I mean.
"I don't know why there had to be so much hub-bub about it. There is no shame in backing off of an illogical statement."
Of course there isn't. Your insinuation that the problem is a sense of shame is speculation directed at my person and is particularly silly considering that I keep telling you over and over and over how I think you're wrong.
"If you reject the statement:
"complexity never implies design"
then it logically follows that you must accept the statement:
"complexity sometimes implies design".
Right?"
If you completely ignore everything I've told you and focus only on the fact that I called your quote a lie of a quote (which it still is, I didn't say it), then yes you would be right.
If you were go peruse what I have actually said, though, you would find that I say your "quote" implies a level of certainty I do not claim, i.e. that I can disprove the entire notion rather than pointing out that I've never seen any version which follows.
Let's take an example: "Apples never implies leprechauns". Now, I actually would claim that. It implies that I can disprove such a notion or otherwise is an argument from ignorance/lack of imagination (implicit). I would say, however, that I have seen no such argument which follows, certainly not one where the apples are actually the fruit you're thinking of, leprechauns are the actual mythical creatures referenced, and they are proven by the mere existence of apples.
How many times do I need to repeat this reply until you acknowledge its existence? It seems like an awful lot of work just to force you to follow my points.
typo: "Now, I actually would claim that" -> "Now, I actually wouldn't claim that"
ReplyDeleteShirakawasuna
ReplyDeleteFirst, you took pains to "directly" state your illogical position. Then, you "clarified" by making a completely different statement, and asserting that the two statements were consistent with each other. They were not.
Attempts to clarify your new statements were met with Humpty Dumpty logic:
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
Read your Carroll if my meaning is not clear.
As to the last half of your reply, you imply that I am making a nonsense statement. I am not. I am making propositional statements, and asking you to agree or disagree. I am attempting to ascertain whether you accept the basic principles of logic -- it is not clear to me that you do.
I have acknowledged your reply repeatedly, but I do not accept it, because it does not comport with logic or the facts.
"First, you took pains to "directly" state your illogical position. Then, you "clarified" by making a completely different statement, and asserting that the two statements were consistent with each other. They were not."
ReplyDeleteBull. Why is it that every time you make a reference to what I've said, you manage to get it wrong? This is the internet, just *read*, Brian.
When I said 'directly': "Your intended summary of my point is inaccurate. I said it directly: complexity does not imply design. There are very good alternative hypotheses, mechanistic ones, that just happen to be testable (and have been tested)."
When it became clear that you were misinterpreting what I said (and getting confused about the fallacy of equivocation), clarification was necessary. Remember my computers -> dolphins example? Having said that comuters are not derived from dolphins, wouldn't expect someone to ask for a disproof that dolphins are not made of computers: it's a statement derived from induction. I would also not say, "computers are never made of dolphins", because I understand the implications of the word 'never'.
So, how was I inconsistent, Brian? You have a terrible track record of knowing what I've said so I expect actual quotes and demonstrated inconsistency rather than another inaccurate summary and implication.
"Attempts to clarify your new statements were met with Humpty Dumpty logic:"
Nonsense, I told you precisely what I meant and you at no point addressed it. You happily continued under your misapprehensions, acting oblivious to the clarification. You're doing it now, in fact.
I'll note that this is *still* true: "Nonsense, you accused me of it and I explained my meaning. I still use the same phrase I used originally, now that I've explained what I mean."
I will still gladly say that complexity does not imply design. If you don't know what I mean by that, you haven't been paying attention the last 12 times I've explained it.
"As to the last half of your reply, you imply that I am making a nonsense statement."
When? Did you confuse a silly analogy for implying that you have a nonsense statement?
"I am not. I am making propositional statements, and asking you to agree or disagree."
And your logic did not follow. I explained my meaning and what it means to reject your "quote". Perhaps I was not direct enough in explaining what it means to have a provisional position, that (for the 73rd time) I have never seen a complexity argument with follows and that that is what "complexity does not imply design" means. Having never seen one which follows does not mean one cannot exist, so I reject the "never" claim. Having never seen one also does not imply that one does indeed exist. You are taking my position as if it's based, in totality, in deduction, when it is also an inductive statement. I hate to sound mean here, but I would have thought that would be obvious having said again and again and again and again that my position is that I've never seen one which follows. You seemed to understand what that meant before, as you started coming up with examples you thought worked.
"I am attempting to ascertain whether you accept the basic principles of logic -- it is not clear to me that you do."
Yet it is your misunderstanding that is at question, here. Perhaps, *again*, you should read what I say more carefully, dare I say, for comprehension?
"I have acknowledged your reply repeatedly, but I do not accept it, because it does not comport with logic or the facts."
Then demonstrate it. Your exercise so far seems, to me, to be to repeat your initial misunderstandings and pretend that clarification is equivalent to a moving goalpost.
Correction: rather than not following, your argument (to which you want me to agree or disagree) assumes a false premise.
ReplyDeleteShirakawasuna:
ReplyDeleteI think I owe you an apology.
At your urging, I re-read the thread again and I now see what you mean about the altered quote. I used your real quote in one reply --
"I said it directly: complexity does not imply design."
and then I used a paraphrase
"complexity never implies design"
a little later on, without catching the subtle difference in meaning which you insist upon.
Now the significance of your "double quote", "lie of a quote", and other comments becomes clear, and my reaction was unjustified.
We could quibble about how significant the difference is between "does not" and "never" but I do now see your point, and I am sorry for the muddle which resulted from my substitution. I did not mean to put words in your mouth.
That said, I still think most everything else you have written is vague, false, and/or illogical, if not self-refuting. Nothing personal! :-)
Brian: "I think I owe you an apology."
ReplyDeleteI accept! I appreciate your explanation later as well. The only reason I keep replying is that I can tell you would like to be fair, even though we disagree.
I don't take your rejection or disrespect of my points personally at all, don't worry. That's my personal first tenant of rationalism. Also, complexity doesn't imply design :D.