Unfortunately the Professor’s thinking is all downhill from there. In fact the parenthetical—where Pallen equates rationalists with believers in the laws of logic—is a dead give away of problems to come. It is true that rationalism draws heavily on logic, but this is hardly a distinctive of rationalism.
While it is good to see evolutionists acknowledge the inherent rationalism within their thinking, they also need to understand what this really means. Pallen later ridicules philosophers in what is all too common in the literature. Evolutionists present their sophomoric reasonings and then take a swipe at those from whom they should be seeking counsel.
Rationalism, empiricism and the Kalman filter
Rationalism is a style of reasoning that emphasizes axioms and preconceptions whereas empiricism focuses on observations. A good analogy is the Kalman filter which combines both a preconceived formula and measured data. Imagine a radar that tracks an aircraft flying overhead. The radar observations are used along with equations of how aircraft fly in the Kalman filter.
And the filter has a knob that controls its behavior. You can tell the filter to follow the data closely and ignore the equations of flight. This is like extreme empiricism. On the other hand you can tell the filter to follow the equations of flight closely and ignore the data. This setting—affectionately known as the “Oblivious Filter”—is like extreme rationalism.
Most scientists operate somewhere in between in the Happy Medium zone where theory and evidence are combined using common sense. Evolutionary thought, on the other hand, is in the Oblivious Filter zone. It doesn’t matter how many predictions are contradicted, evolution must be a fact. Evidence does not affect the fact of evolution.
The mother of all false dichotomies
And so Professor Pallen, like all evolutionists, believes there is only one way to deny the fact of evolution. The only escape is through Berkeley’s eighteenth century trap door that leads into the matrix. All of reality is just inside our heads, or maybe inside some computer somewhere in another reality.
Pallen walks his patient readers through such bizarre notions as though they are the only alternatives to evolution. In the mother of all false dichotomies, either evolution is true or everything must be a dream.
But this is standard evolutionary reasoning. A professor once explained to me that it’s either evolution or else there must be a grand cosmic conspiracy of deception. So this is the evolutionist’s absurd dichotomy: either the world just happened to arise all by itself or the world is a fiction.
Evolution is the result of religious rationalism and it is truly astonishing to see where it leads. Religion drives science and it matters.
"Evolutionary thought, on the other hand, is in the Oblivious Filter zone. It doesn’t matter how many predictions are contradicted, evolution must be a fact. Evidence does not affect the fact of evolution."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely wrong. Evidence is critical to the scientific method, of which evolution is a part. IF the evidence contradicted ToE, then the theory would fall and evolution would no longer be considered a fact.
Which is one of your many sticking points. You take every surprising biological discovery, every instance of narrowing down our understanding, and every unexplained biological mystery as evidence which contradicts evolution - when they are clearly nothing of the sort. In your head, there is a massive mountain of evidence which contradicts ToE - and probably very little supporting it. It is this perception which is totally at odds with reality.
Cornelius Hunter: Evolutionist Mark Pallen asks “Is it possible to be a rationalist (a believer in the laws of logic) but not believe in evolution?” Pallen’s answers is “no,” which seems almost correct.
ReplyDeleteMark Pallen: Is it possible to be a rationalist (a believer in the laws of logic) but not believe in evolution? Just about! But only just!
CH: Rationalism is a style of reasoning that emphasizes axioms and preconceptions whereas empiricism focuses on observations.
ReplyDeleteWow. Not sure where two start here. Do you actually think your target audience is really that ignorant? Really?
I'm asking because anyone with a firm grasp of the differences between early science, based on an assumption that all knowledge comes to us though the senses, and modern-day science, which was transformed by aspects of Karl Popper's critical rationalism, would realize this is a blatant misrepresentation.
Specifically, it's not that science excludes observations, rather it's that you have their application in the process backwards, Theories are tested by observations, not derived from them.
CH: And the filter has a knob that controls its behavior. You can tell the filter to follow the data closely and ignore the equations of flight. This is like extreme empiricism. On the other hand you can tell the filter to follow the equations of flight closely and ignore the data. This setting—affectionately known as the “Oblivious Filter”—is like extreme rationalism.
This is yet another misrepresentation, not to mention a poor illustration.
First, you've ignored the underlying problem with extreme empiricism. One cannot "follow the data closely" to reach conclusions without first putting that data into some sort of explanatory framework. As the idea that one can turn the dial all the way to the left to avoid theory is a myth.
Second, you're attempting to conflate a difference in where observations are applied in empiricism vs. rationalism with the conditions of the "obvious filter".
Specifically, the "obvious filter" is a condition when a filter applied to a small number of inputs cannot respond to abrupt or small changes in value or operate under impoverished sampling rates in real-time scenarios. This is typically resolved by increasing the number of input parameters, increasing the sample rate or a combination of both.
On the other hand, the difference between rationalism and empiricism is the specific point in which observations are applied in the process, not the quantity of observations or the abruptness of changes in those observations.
Furthermore, evolutionary theory explains multiple lines of observations, which is how most "obvious filter" conditions are resolved, in practice.
CH: Evolutionary thought, on the other hand, is in the Oblivious Filter zone. It doesn’t matter how many predictions are contradicted, evolution must be a fact. Evidence does not affect the fact of evolution.
Given you have yet to illustrate an understanding of what the underling explanation behind predictions of evolutionary theory, it's unclear how you've conclude they have been contradicted.
Nor are predictions of scientific theories prophecy, in that they somehow take into account a near infinite number of parallel yet unrelated possibilities. There is little difference between having a divine revelation shaped hole in one's scheme of things and believing divine revelation is a valid means of justifying conclusions.
CH: And so Professor Pallen, like all evolutionists, believes there is only one way to deny the fact of evolution. The only escape is through Berkeley’s eighteenth century trap door that leads into the matrix. All of reality is just inside our heads, or maybe inside some computer somewhere in another reality.
ReplyDeleteYou're a perfect example of why this false dichotomy.
He's right in that your argument is based on solipsism. However, what you've done is simply move the boundary at which one claims human reasoning and problem solving cannot pass from our minds to the biosphere. Both cases represent a bad explanation.
Scott, theories are not born in the minds of scientists who are blindfolded and handcuffed and live in a cave only for their theories to see the light of day for testing once their theory has been formulated.
ReplyDeleteCornelius the example of the radar that you provide is too simplified and thus does not reflect reality. I challenge you to explain what this “Happy Medium” in your example is and I bet you can't. And the reason for that is that science does not work this way.
ReplyDeleteGood article CH! For evolutionists the logic of their theory is so compelling that empirical evidence is not necessary. Sure they do empirical investigations but whatever is found does not change the false premises of the evolutionist. Empirical investigations by evolutionists are a disgusting study of cherry picking evidence and shoe horning whatever is found into the increasingly big footed theory.
ReplyDeleteNeal: Scott, theories are not born in the minds of scientists who are blindfolded and handcuffed and live in a cave only for their theories to see the light of day for testing once their theory has been formulated.
ReplyDeleteExactly how did you get that from what I wrote? Apparently, when presented with an arguments that threatens your religious beliefs, you think the best tactic is to misrepresent it?
Again, while observations compel us to modify existing theories or even replace them with new ones, we do not derive the details of updated/replacement theories from these same observations themselves. Rather, the details we end up with are based on conjecture, which are then tested by observations. It's an educated guess, but a guess none the less.
Of course, by all means, please enlighten us as to how it's possible to extrapolate observations without putting them into an explanatory framework. I won't be holding by breath.
Better yet, why don't you respond to the comment in an earlier thread where I illustrated that you only think you use induction, but actually do not. I'll post it here for your convenience.
For the sake of argument, let's assume the method you claim to justify this conclusion (induction) is adequate, in that intelligence and intent is necessary to create complex things merely because every time we've observed the creation of complex things, it was accompanied by intelligence and intent.
However, I'd also point out that every time we've observed intelligence and intent, it's also been accompanied by some sort of material nervous system. And in the case of the creation of extremely complex things, like computers, it's always accompanied by the complex nervous system of a material human brain.
As such, if you assume that mere observations alone are adequate to justify conclusions, as you seem to suggest, you should also conclude a complex material brain is necessary to design complex things, like living cells. After all, the accompaniment of a complex nervous system is precisely what we observed over and over, time and time again, right?
Yet, I'm guessing this isn't the case. If you did, this would exclude God as a creator of complex things as he supposedly has always existed, even before the entire material universe, let alone nervous systems, ever existed. And this would conflict with your personal theological views.
As such, it would seem your merely think you use induction to justify conclusions, or disingenuously portray yourself as doing so. However, this is yet another misconception you hold or present, as you do not actually use induction in practice.
second opinion:
ReplyDeleteI challenge you to explain what this “Happy Medium” in your example is and I bet you can't.
For problems that are not well understood, science often has some theories and some data. And for such problems the theories and data don't quite agree. You don't ignore one or the other, but work with both.
Cornelius Hunter
ReplyDeleteSince you expectedly avoid the question I'm going to explain how science works.
One the one hand you have the data on the other hand you have the equations, laws, models and theories. The equations for fitting the data have to be derived from higher principles because obviously you can always find an equation that fits the data with 100 % accuracy but that equation would not make you understand anything.
But because the equation is derived from higher principle it can deviate from the data. And this deviation needs an explanation, too. If you don't have an explanation for the deviation when that could be due to your original theory being wrong or it could have an not yet known reason.
In any case science does not work with the data because the data does not predict anything. The only thing that predicts something is your model or theory and the explanation for the deviation of your original data form the theory. And these two predictions are tested against future data.