You learned about DNA and proteins in your high school biology class, but you may not remember much about the cell’s membrane which is based on a dynamic, fluctuating sandwich structure. This cellular envelope controls what chemicals enter and exit the cell, partly due to molecular machines such as channels and pumps in the membrane, and partly due to the sandwich structure itself. This sandwich structure is a barrier to certain types of chemicals. But the membrane permeability and the operation of the molecular machines depend on the details of the sandwich structure. And as recent research has been finding, contra evolutionary expectations, organisms actively maintain and fine-tune the sandwich structure in response to environmental challenges.
The cell membrane’s sandwich structure consists of two layers facing away from each other. Each layer is made up of an array of phospholipid molecules lined up next to each other. Phospholipid molecules consist of a water-loving (or hydrophilic) head, a phosphate group, and two oily (or hydrophobic) hydrocarbon tails.
The two layers face away from each other in a tail-to-tail arrangement. This creates a very oily, low dielectric, interior of the sandwich. While small oily molecules are able to pass through this membrane structure, it is difficult for any water-loving molecule, including water itself, to pass through the barrier. So when this sandwich structure forms a closed sphere surrounding the cell, the inside compartment is separated and protected from the outer aqueous environment. But the sandwich structure is not a simple, rigid, structure. It fluctuates, and this influences the membrane performance.
At lower temperatures the sandwich structure has a more rigid, gel, phase and at higher temperatures it has a less rigid, fluid phase. As with the freezing and melting of water there is a distinct phase change, between the gel and fluid phases of the sandwich structure, which occurs over a rather narrow temperature range. This melting point temperature is strongly influenced by the degree of attraction between the adjacent phospholipid tails. Depending on the temperature and this degree of attraction, the sandwich structure may be like a gel or like a fluid, and this is important because the phase influences the membrane permeability and the membrane’s molecular machines.
Within the membrane sandwich structure, the phospholipid tails are attracted to each other via the weakest chemical force, van der Waals interactions. Unlike the stronger chemical bonds, van der Waals interactions do not arise from the trading or sharing of electrons. So how do these interactions work?
Consider two neighboring atoms. As the electrons quickly move about, uneven charge distributions can occur across the atom. One side of an atom may temporarily be positively charged, and the other side negatively charged. Such charges influence the neighboring atom. For instance, a negative charge will tend to repel the electrons of the neighboring atom causing an attractive, uneven charge distribution in that atom. The two atoms can then continue with synchronized, fluctuating charge distributions. But all of this depends greatly on the distance between the two neighboring atoms. If they are too far apart (or too close together), the entire interaction, weak as it is, becomes insignificant.
The distance between adjacent phospholipid tails depends on their shape. If the tails have two hydrogen atoms for each carbon atom, then there are no double bonds. Such saturated chains have a consistent, linear, shape and they pack tightly together at the van der Waals preferred distance.
Unsaturated chains, on the other hand, have double bonds which cause structural kinks, loose packing and therefore weaker van der Waals interactions. And the particular location of the double bond is important, as some locations disrupt the van der Waals interactions more than others.
So all of this means that the number and location of hydrogen atoms in the phospholipid tails is an important tuning parameter (there are other tuning strategies as well), determining the phase of the sandwich structure and, in turn, the cell’s membrane performance. This is particularly important for organisms that are subject to greater temperature variations, such as poikilotherms. Such temperature variations can cause unwelcome phase changes in the membrane’s sandwich structure.
Physiological response to temperature change
Years ago it was thought that the various protein machines in the cell’s membrane were more or less randomly distributed. It is yet another example of the influence of evolutionary thinking on biology. If the biological world is a fluke, then aren’t biological designs, such as the cell’s membrane architecture, random?
Now we know better. The cell membrane architecture is anything but random. In fact, the attention to detail is enormous. This includes the phase of the sandwich structure and its tuning mechanisms, such as the degree to which the phospholipid tails are saturated. Here are quotes from representative research papers discussing how organisms monitor and control their membrane fluidity, particularly in response to temperature variations:
E. coli incorporates increasing proportions of saturated and long-chain fatty acids into phospholipids as growth temperature is increased. It was found that this compositional variation results in the biosynthesis of phospholipids that have identical viscosities at the temperature of growth of the cells. [link to paper]
Numerous studies have shown that fluidity is an important factor in the function of biological membranes. Changes in fluidity affect the activity of membrane-bound enzymes and the activity of transporters, as well as the permeability of membranes to nonelectrolytes, water, and cations. Given that temperature has profound effects on membrane fluidity, it is not surprising that poikilotherms adjust the composition of their membranes in ways that defend fluidity in the face of changes in body temperature. …
Although the ways in which membrane composition is altered in response to temperature are not always consistent among species, tissues, cells, or even organelles, a few important trends have emerged. One prominent response to a decrease in the body temperature of poikilotherms is an increase in the percentage of unsaturated fatty acids that make up the phospholipids. … Phospholipids with saturated fatty acids pack readily into bilayers, whereas phospholipids with unsaturated (and therefore, kinked) acyl chains tend to disrupt hydrophobic interactions among acyl chains of adjacent phospholipids. An increase in the proportion of unsaturated fatty acids thus results in an increase in membrane disorder and fluidity, which tends to oppose the ordering effect of a drop in temperature. [link to paper]
The phospholipid composition of plasma membranes from the kidney of rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri, was determined over a period of 21 days as fish were acclimating between temperatures of 5 and 20 degrees C. Proportions of phosphatidylethanolamine (PE) were significantly higher (29.03 vs. 23.26%) in membranes of 5 degrees C- than 20 degrees C-acclimated trout [link to paper]
Our observations suggest that a physical parallel to the changes of lipid composition is the maintenance of an optimal lipid order in the hydrophobic core of the cytoplasmic membranes. It can be interpreted as a tendency of Bacillus subtilis to keep the lateral pressure in its membranes at an optimal value, independent of the temperature of cultivation. [link to paper]
Not only is the cell membrane intricate and complex (and certainly not random), but it has tuning parameters such as the degree to which the phospholipid tails are saturated. It is another example of a sophisticated biological design about which evolutionists can only speculate. Random mutations must have luckily assembled molecular mechanisms which sense environmental challenges and respond to them by altering the phospholipid population in the membrane in just the right way. Such designs are tremendously helpful so of course they would have been preserved by natural selection. It is yet another example of how silly evolutionary theory is in light of scientific facts.
Not only is the cell membrane intricate and complex (and certainly not random), but it has tuning parameters such as the degree to which the phospholipid tails are saturated. It is another example of a sophisticated biological design about which evolutionists can only speculate.
ReplyDeleteDo you mean, how did this arrangement evolve? What are your speculations?
Off topic:
Delete"What are your speculations?"
"What are your speculations now?" "Speculations?" exclaimed Faraday, "I have none! No speculations now. I KNOW whom I have believed. My soul rests on certainties."
Michael Faraday - stated to a visitor when on his deathbed - prolific inventor - perhaps the greatest experimental physicist of all time.
How about you actually read some research on the origins and early evolution of lipid membranes? It is quite substantial.
ReplyDeleteSo how did the monitoring and control of membrane fluidity evolve?
DeleteCornelius Hunter
DeleteSo how did the monitoring and control of membrane fluidity evolve?
As Dr. Liddle pointed out, there has been quite a bit of research done of the subject. This 2009 paper is only one of hundreds available.
Co-evolution of primordial membranes and membrane proteins
"Abstract: Studies of the past several decades have provided major insights into the structural organization of biological membranes and mechanisms of many membrane molecular machines. However, the origin(s) of the membrane(s) and membrane proteins remain enigmatic. We discuss different concepts of the origin and early evolution of membranes, with a focus on the evolution of the (im)permeability to charged molecules, such as proteins and nucleic acids, and small ions. Reconstruction of the evolution of F-type and A/V-type membrane ATPases (ATP synthases), which are either proton or sodium-dependent, might help understand not only the origin of membrane bioenergetics, but also of membranes themselves. We argue that evolution of biological membranes occurred as a process of co-evolution of lipid bilayers, membrane proteins and membrane bioenergetics."
Of course they won't help someone who has already made up his mind to not understand.
So how was the monitoring and control of membrane fluidity Intelligently Designed? You have any supporting work by your fellow Creationists? Or is this going to be just another round in the silly Creationist game of "I DEMAND INFINITE DETAIL!! while supplying none of your own?
"Q: So how did the monitoring and control of membrane fluidity evolve?"
Delete"A: the origin(s) of the membrane(s) and membrane proteins remain enigmatic"
Got it.
No, you haven't "got it", Cornelius.
DeleteQuite the reverse.
You seem not to understand the nature of scientific investigation at all, which is odd.
Cornelius, your position seems to be:
Delete1. Evolutionists say evolution is a "fact".
2. But there are things in biology we don't have good explanations for.
3. Therefore evolution is not a fact.
4. Therefore probably ID.
Would you agree?
I found this sentence also interesting, "The evolutionary scenarios that we analyze are predicated on the standard model of cell evolution and on the related assumption that the emergence of RNA and proteins preceded the appearance of membrane-encased life forms"
DeleteWe should thank Dr Hunter for taking the time to find these fascinating pieces of research. For me, they add to my sense of wonder at the awesome creative power of natural forces such as evolution, although I realize that was not his intention.
ReplyDeleteWe should also note that, almost without exception, they are the products of evolutionary biology such that, even if it is entirely wrong, it is still generating more fruitful lines of investigation than any of its purported rivals.
Finally, we should note the final sentence in the abstract of the first paper cited in the OP;
Our results are consistent with self-organization of biological membranes into a patchwork of coexisting domains.
Finally, we should note the final sentence in the abstract of the first paper cited in the OP;
DeleteOur results are consistent with self-organization of biological membranes into a patchwork of coexisting domains.
Science by edict. We say it evolved all by itself, therefore it did.
Pathetic.
Louis SavainJune 3, 2012 8:08 PM
Delete[...]
Science by edict. We say it evolved all by itself, therefore it did.
No, science by evidence.
That sentence was from the abstract of a research paper, one of many gathering data about biological structures and processes. That evidence points towards evolution as the best available explanation for what is observed.
That evidence points towards evolution as the best available explanation for what is observed.
DeleteOf course it points to evolution, but not your concept of evolution. Your concept of evolution is not supported by the evidence. Yours is what I call chicken feather voodoo science.
"Our results are consistent with self-organization of biological membranes into a patchwork of coexisting domains."
DeleteThe way to obtain the !nihil obstat".
as to ""Our results are consistent with self-organization of biological membranes into a patchwork of coexisting domains."
DeleteSelf-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models - Abel; Trevors
Excerpt: No falsifiable theory of self-organization exists. “Self-organization” provides no mechanism and offers no detailed verifiable explanatory power. Care should be taken not to use the term “self-organization” erroneously to refer to low-informational, natural-process, self-ordering events, especially when discussing genetic information.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064506000224
"they add to my sense of wonder at the awesome creative power of natural forces such as evolution,"
ReplyDeleteSave for the fact that the 'creative power' of evolution (RVNS), and 'natural forces' in general, are shown to overwhelmingly destroy things, I would have joined you in your sense of wonder. But seeing as God created the universe and all life in it I think your sense of wonder is severely misplaced!
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010
Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.(that is a net 'fitness gain' within a 'stressed' environment i.e. remove the stress from the environment and the parent strain is always more 'fit')
http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/
The Future of the Universe
Excerpt: After all the black holes have evaporated, (and after all the ordinary matter made of protons has disintegrated, if protons are unstable), the universe will be nearly empty. Photons, neutrinos, electrons and positrons will fly from place to place, hardly ever encountering each other. It will be cold, and dark, and there is no known process which will ever change things. --- Not a happy ending.
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/future/future.html
Big Rip
Excerpt: The Big Rip is a cosmological hypothesis first published in 2003, about the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the matter of universe, from stars and galaxies to atoms and subatomic particles, are progressively torn apart by the expansion of the universe at a certain time in the future. Theoretically, the scale factor of the universe becomes infinite at a finite time in the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip
Thermodynamic Argument Against Evolution - Thomas Kindell - video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4168488
Psalm 102:25-27
Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will have no end.
Brooke Fraser - CS Lewis Song (Cool interpretation)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT-sso5AhmA
bornagain77 June 3, 2012 7:28 PM
Delete"they add to my sense of wonder at the awesome creative power of natural forces such as evolution,"
Save for the fact that the 'creative power' of evolution (RVNS), and 'natural forces' in general, are shown to overwhelmingly destroy things, I would have joined you in your sense of wonder.
Evolution doesn't destroy. it just selects from available options, a bit like like human designers. Whatever contributes to fitness in a given environment is kept and passed on. Whatever has no particular effect one way or the other comes along for the ride. Whatever works against survival gets filtered out.
But seeing as God created the universe and all life in it I think your sense of wonder is severely misplaced!
Looking at Old Testamant accounts of how God and His people behaved, I'd say it is your sense of wonder that is misplaced not mine.
'Evolution doesn't destroy.'
DeleteProve it!
A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - December 2011
Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species' particular environment....By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became "heritable". -- As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The "remainder" has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) -- in the formation of secondary species.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_l_hughess_new053881.html
Oxford University Admits Darwinism's Shaky Math Foundation - May 2011
Excerpt: However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is. - On a 2011 Job Description for a Mathematician, at Oxford, to 'fix' the persistent mathematical problems with neo-Darwinism within two years.
Dr. John Sanford "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" 1/2 - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ-4umGkgos
Ian states:
Delete'Looking at Old Testamant accounts of how God and His people behaved, I'd say it is your sense of wonder that is misplaced not mine.'
Actually Ian, since you can't even account for your ability to selectively see evil in the world,,,
Albert Einstein and his answer to his Professor ! - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLOZDpE1rkA
,, without the reality of the goodness of God in the world to give you that ability, it is clear that it is your sense of wonder that is severely misplaced.
Which came first, the membrane or the cell?
ReplyDelete"We argue that evolution of biological membranes occurred as a process of co-evolution of lipid bilayers, membrane proteins and membrane bioenergetics"
ReplyDeleteIt was all so much simpler to understand when we just came from protoplasm.
John
ReplyDelete"We argue that evolution of biological membranes occurred as a process of co-evolution of lipid bilayers, membrane proteins and membrane bioenergetics"
It was all so much simpler to understand when we just came from protoplasm.
That's why Creationism is so popular among the double-digit IQ set:
"POOF, GAWDDIDIT!" is much simpler to understand than the technical scientific evidence.
Thorton:
DeleteThat's why Creationism is so popular among the double-digit IQ set:
"POOF, GAWDDIDIT!" is much simpler to understand than the technical scientific evidence.
I think you're the one with the room temperature IQ, Thorton. You cannot possibly believe that nobody can see through your pathetic little strawmen.
Besides, a man is known by his enemies. If your chosen enemies believe that the species were created by magic, you're pathetic indeed.
That's the thing, John.
ReplyDeleteNot only do you claim that "That's just what God must have wanted" really is an explanation, but you also claim it's the most simple. However, if this really was your criteria then "That's just what God must have wanted" would be the best explanation for anything and everything, not just the biological complexity we observe.
Yet, I'm guessing you do not think this really is the case, right?
Specifically, if we do exist in a finite bubble of explicably, which exists in a universe of inexplicability, the inside cannot be explicable either. This is because the inside is supposedly dependent what occurs in this inexplicable realm.
Any assumption that the world is inexplicable leads to bad explanations. That is, no theory about what exists beyond this bubble can be any better than "Zeus rules" there. And, given the dependency above, this also means there can be no better expiation that "Zeus rules" inside this bubble as well.
In other words, what's inside this bubble would only appear to explicable if one carefully avoids asking specific questions. Otherwise, you'd follow your own claims to the conclusion that "That's just what God must have wanted" was the best explanation for everything, rendering everything just as inexplicable as everything else.
Thorton: "POOF, GAWDDIDIT!" is much simpler to understand than the technical scientific evidence.
ReplyDeleteDidn't you just complain that creationists ask for too many details, hmm? And what details were you able to find? A protein that supposedly evolved reduced binding specificity in 450 million years? Thorton, I have no trouble believing that the apparently 1% structural difference between 2Q3Y, 2AA7, 3GN8 evolved in the 450 million years your last cited paper claims. But can you see the forest for the trees? Did the other 99% evolve in 99*450 million years? Or did that just poof into existence in your OOL box that you cram everything else into? I've added your paper to my collection of what evolution is able to do. Thank you for the details you provided. But what good are details to you, if you don't understand the significance?
Scott: "That's just what God must have wanted" was the best explanation for everything, rendering everything just as inexplicable as everything else."
With the added benefit over evolution of having intention and at least a claim to revelation. Besides that, you're right they are on otherwise equal footing. But if you ask yourself the question, "why does anything exist at all", then you will realize that you, in fact, don't have an explanation for anything ultimately. And, as you said, what's inside your bubble depends on what's outside. That's why Thorton's "poof" joke is so wonderful.
John: With the added benefit over evolution of having intention and at least a claim to revelation.
ReplyDeleteThe added benefit in that you prefer to be the intentional creation of a supernatural being?
John: Besides that, you're right they are on otherwise equal footing.
I do not think you've grasped the extent of the problem.
The basic objections are (i) Evolutionary theory is unnecessarily complex, in that "That's what God must have wanted" is not only an good explanation but the most simple and (ii) it's impossible to create a theory of biological complexity since we cannot rule out that some being from this unexplainable realm reached into our explicable bubble using some inexplicable means and method and created to biosphere as we observe it.
However, it seems you cannot see this for what it really is: a general purpose means of denying anything.
If "That's what God must have wanted" really is a good explanation, really is the most simple explanation and it renders a theory of biological complexity impossible beyond "That's what God must have wanted", then there could be no better explanation that "That's what God must have wanted" for anything, including the motions of objects, why stars give off light and heat, etc.
In other words, this would be no different than claiming God reached into this bubble using some unexplainable means and method to create atoms, which makes atomic theory impossible, or that he reached into this bubble using some unexplainable means and method to create objects in such a way that makes a theory of gravity impossible, etc.
This would represent the same appeal as you're making. However, apparently, you cannot recognize it as such.
John: But if you ask yourself the question, "why does anything exist at all", then you will realize that you, in fact, don't have an explanation for anything ultimately.
ReplyDeleteFirst, neither do you. To illustrate this, how was the knowledge God supposedly put in the genome created? Please be specific.
Second, you're projecting your problem on me.
From the following paper….
http://www.the-rathouse.com/Bartley/Leeson-vol.html
3. Responses to the dilemma of the infinite regress versus dogmatism
In the light of the dilemma of the infinite regress versus dogmatism, we can discern three attitudes towards positions: relativism, “true belief” and critical rationalism [Note 3]
Relativists tend to be disappointed justificationists who realize that positive justification cannot be achieved. From this premise they proceed to the conclusion that all positions are pretty much the same and none can really claim to be better than any other. There is no such thing as the truth, no way to get nearer to the truth and there is no such thing as a rational position.
True believers embrace justificationism. They insist that some positions are better than others though they accept that there is no logical way to establish a positive justification for an belief. They accept that we make our choice regardless of reason: "Here I stand!". Most forms of rationalism up to date have, at rock bottom, shared this attitude with the irrationalists and other dogmatists because they share the theory of justificationism.
According to the critical rationalists, the exponents of critical preference, no position can be positively justified but it is quite likely that one (or more) will turn out to be better than others in the light of critical discussion and tests. This type of rationality holds all its positions and propositions open to criticism and a standard objection to this stance is that it is empty; just holding our positions open to criticism provides no guidance as to what position we should adopt in any particular situation. This criticism misses its mark for two reasons. First, critical rationalism is not a position. It is not directed at solving the kind of problems that are solved by fixing on a position. It is concerned with the way that such positions are adopted, criticised, defended and relinquished. Second, Bartley did provide guidance on adopting positions; we may adopt the position that to this moment has stood up to criticism most effectively. Of course this is no help for people who seek stronger reasons for belief, but that is a problem for them, and it does not undermine the logic of critical preference.
I'm not the one who's a justificationist. You are. I'm a critical rationalist, which represents the latter.
So, you're argument is parochial (narrow in scope) because it fails to take into account other forms of epistemology.
except for the part where you put so many words in my mouth that you just ended up arguing against a phantom.
ReplyDeleteAre you sure about that? Then why don't you point exactly where I got it wrong. Please be specific.
ReplyDeleteI won't be holding my breath.
To clarify, why isn't "That's just what God must have wanted" the best explanation we can possibly have for anything? I know you do not claim everything would be inexplicable beyond, "that's just what God must have wanted", the question is, why don't you?
ReplyDeleteI'm merely taking what appears to be your own argument seriously.
For example, can we explain how God did it? Can we explain how God knew which gene sequences would result in the biological adaptations he wanted? How was the knowledge he used created?
Again, a being that "just was" complete with the knowledge of how to build adaptations, already present, doesn't serve any explanatory purpose. This is because one could more economically state that organisms "just appeared" complete with the knowledge of how to build these adaptations, already present.
Scott: "Are you sure about that? Then why don't you point exactly where I got it wrong. Please be specific."
DeleteBy "so many words" I mean most of what you have me saying. Throw a dart if you really care.
Scott: "I won't be holding my breath."
Trust me, I notice that about you. It would have helped you though in this case.
Scott: "Again, a being that "just was" complete with the knowledge of how to build adaptations, already present, doesn't serve any explanatory purpose."
How do you explain the creation of something that claims it always existed? If it is true, then what answer would you like instead of the truth?
Scott: "This is because one could more economically state that organisms "just appeared" complete with the knowledge of how to build these adaptations, already present."
For all you shove into the OOL box, you could just as economically say that over gradual evolution as well. Except that we don't usually see machinery appearing without intention. Check out Thorton's link to the corticoid receptors if you would like to see your conjecture and refutation at work over 450 million years.
Scott: "Are you sure about that? Then why don't you point exactly where I got it wrong. Please be specific."
DeleteScott: To clarify, why isn't "That's just what God must have wanted" the best explanation we can possibly have for anything? I know you do not claim everything would be inexplicable beyond, "that's just what God must have wanted", the question is, why don't you?
John: By "so many words" I mean most of what you have me saying. Throw a dart if you really care.
As I expected, you dogged the question, despite having explicitly clarified my comment. Let me guess, you skipped that part because I "object" to inductive reasoning as well?
Scott: "Again, a being that "just was" complete with the knowledge of how to build adaptations, already present, doesn't serve any explanatory purpose."
John: How do you explain the creation of something that claims it always existed? If it is true, then what answer would you like instead of the truth?
Just so I have this straight, what if an theory of biological complexity is impossible because a being in some unexplainable realm, using knowledge of some inexplicable origin, reached in to our bubble and did it? How is this different that what I wrote <a href="http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/complex-patterns-have-been-discovered.html?showComment=1338787389776#c3592585891529138863>here</a>?
Scott: "This is because one could more economically state that organisms "just appeared" complete with the knowledge of how to build these adaptations, already present."
John: For all you shove into the OOL box, you could just as economically say that over gradual evolution as well. Check out Thorton's link to the corticoid receptors if you would like to see your conjecture and refutation at work over 450 million years.
The underlying expiation behind evolutionary theory is that this knowledge is *created* using conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation in the form of natural selection. This explains the origin of this knowledge. As such, it serves an explanatory purpose.
On the other hand, a being that "just was" complete with the knowledge of how to build adaptations and organisms that just appeared" complete with the knowledge of how to build these adaptations, already present." do not.
Again, it's as if you understand the problem, yet reuse to see it,
John: Except that we don't usually see machinery appearing without intention.
Of course, using that logic, we've never observed intention appearing without a complex material nervous system, such as the human brain. So, you think all beings that exhibit intention have material brains, right?
Dear Cornelius:
ReplyDeleteIt's quite apparent that you have no understanding of science. What's the big deal about membranes anyways? Everyone knows that if you put certain lipids into water, a bi-layer spontaneously forms.
You see, simple physico-chemical forces can explain these things. Please wise up. It's very frustrating that you can't quite come to grips with all of this.
Yes, he does appear to be confused about how science works, as there is a reason why evolutionary theory is separate from abiogenesis.
DeleteHis objection is like calming umbrellas are useless unless until we have an exhaustive explanation of meteorology.
Scott: "As I expected, you dogged the question, despite having explicitly clarified my comment. Let me guess, you skipped that part because I "object" to inductive reasoning as well?"
ReplyDeleteI'm going to start dodging all your questions because I'm tired of correcting your supposed misunderstandings. And yes, this is helped along by your complete rejection of reason and logic when you lose.
Scott: "Just so I have this straight, what if an theory of biological complexity is impossible because a being in some unexplainable realm, using knowledge of some inexplicable origin, reached in to our bubble and did it? How is this different that what I wrote <a href="http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/complex-patterns-have-been-discovered.html?showComment=1338787389776#c3592585891529138863>here</a>?"
No Scott, the reason you don't have it straight this time is because you are conflating the creator with the method of creation.
Scott: "The underlying expiation behind evolutionary theory is that this knowledge is *created* using conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation in the form of natural selection. This explains the origin of this knowledge."
It seems to explain the destruction of knowledge and the extinction of almost all species.
Scott: "As such, it serves an explanatory purpose."
If you are trying to explain destruction and extinction.
Scott:"On the other hand, a being that "just was" complete with the knowledge of how to build adaptations and organisms that just appeared" complete with the knowledge of how to build these adaptations, already present." do not."
Unless it's true. Then it explains it at basically the same level of detail that evolution does.
Scott: "Of course, using that logic, we've never observed intention appearing without a complex material nervous system, such as the human brain."
This is known as question begging. The point at issue is precisely whether intention apparent in the designs of life and indeed the brain itself is real or not. If it is, then we have indeed observed intention appearing without human brains. Given that the configurations of protein complexes have the appearance of highly advanced machinery, I find the latter possibility more likely.
John: I'm going to start dodging all your questions because I'm tired of correcting your supposed misunderstandings. And yes, this is helped along by your complete rejection of reason and logic when you lose.
ReplyDeleteBefore you could *start* dogging them, you'd have to had actually addressed the substance of the questions I posed in the first place. Also, kindly point out where I completely reject reason and logic when I supposedly "loose". Please be specific.
Scott: Just so I have this straight, what if an theory of biological complexity is impossible because a being in some unexplainable realm, using knowledge of some inexplicable origin, reached in to our bubble and did it? How is this different that what I wrote here?
John: No Scott, the reason you don't have it straight this time is because you are conflating the creator with the method of creation.
How am I confusing the two? Why is this like pulling teeth? Again, before you could *start* dogging the questions I've posed, you'd have to had actually addressed the substance of them in the first place.
Are you saying the designer having done it this particular way, despite supposedly having the knowledge and ability to do otherwise, *is* explicable while the means by which the designer did it is not? If so, then what it that explanation? Please be specific.
Otherwise, it's unclear how this is different than what I wrote in the referenced comment.
Scott: "The underlying expiation behind evolutionary theory is that this knowledge is *created* using conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation in the form of natural selection. This explains the origin of this knowledge."
ReplyDeleteJohn: It seems to explain the destruction of knowledge and the extinction of almost all species.
Does my lack of belief that Jesus was actually resurrected mean that Christianly doesn't claim that it's though Jesus's death and resurrection that we will be saved? No it doesn't.
In the same sense, you're conflating the underlying explanation behind evolutionary theory with your incredulity of that explanation.
John: If you are trying to explain destruction and extinction.
If a designer preprogramed each species with knowledge representing a fixed number of built in response mechanisms for a fixed number of environments, then the extinction of those species would, in part, be because the designer didn't program them with the knowledge of how to response for those environments. Right?
So, the origin these adaptations, or the lack there off, is the origin of the knowledge used to build them.
John: Unless it's true. Then it explains it at basically the same level of detail that evolution does.
Again, you're conflating the underlying explanation behind evolutionary theory with your incredulity of that explanation.
Creationism is misleadingly named because it a general purpose means of denying that creation actually took place. If God crated the universe we observe 10 minutes ago, then he would have authored the comment I'm replying to, not you. Just because your personal theological beliefs assume otherwise doesn't mean this doesn't represent the same sort of appeal.
On one hand, the underlying explanation behind evolutionary theory is that knowledge of how to build biological adaptations were actually *created* through the error correction process of evolutionary mechanisms. Specifically, these mechanisms are forms of conjecture and refutation that create non-explanatory knowledge. For example, the knowledge of how to build the mammalian eye didn't exist before then, but evolved from the knowledge of how to build a single light sensitive cell.
On the other hand, creationism clams that it was actually some designer that put the knowledge of how to create the mammalian eye the genome of mammals, and the origin of this knowledge cannot be explained because God supposedly claimed to have always existed.
So, it's not the same level as evolution, because evolution doesn't claim that mammals "just appeared", complete with the knowledge of how to build eyes, already present.
John: Except that we don't usually see machinery appearing without intention.
Scott: Of course, using that logic, we've never observed intention appearing without a complex material nervous system, such as the human brain. So, you think all beings that exhibit intention have material brains, right?
John: This is known as question begging.
Without an explanatory theory from which to extrapolate observations from, it's naive inductivism.
Specially…
John: Except that we don't usually see machinery appearing without intention.
Scott: … we've never observed intention appearing without a complex material nervous system, such as the human brain
A summary of the criticism of the most common forms of inductivism can be found here. Do you have a solution for this criticism other than the parochial claim that I'm "rejecting reason and logic"?
Scott: "Also, kindly point out where I completely reject reason and logic when I supposedly "loose". Please be specific."
ReplyDeleteThe last two big conversations we had ended up with you claiming you objected to inductive reasoning which is what is enabling you to read and understand this now. I don't feel like going back to point it out to you because I'm tired of talking to you because there is no point.
Scott: "How am I confusing the two?"
I don't know. I think it's quite simple for most people to compartmentalize a creator from the process by which he creates. But the last time I asked you the difference between proximate and ultimate causes, you did not respond. Perhaps now would be a good time to work through that.
Scott: "Without an explanatory theory from which to extrapolate observations from, it's naive inductivism"
Good thing I skipped to the end. I guess this will count as the third time now.
Scott: Also, kindly point out where I completely reject reason and logic when I supposedly "loose". Please be specific
ReplyDeleteJohn: The last two big conversations we had ended up with you claiming you objected to inductive reasoning which is what is enabling you to read and understand this now. I don't feel like going back to point it out to you because I'm tired of talking to you because there is no point.
Of course there is "no point". Just as there there is "no point" to responding to the summary criticism of inductivism I linked to. This is yet another indication that you do not recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism.
And, again, the claim that I "completely reject reason and logic" represents a common misconception of Popperians. Specifically, It's not that I object to the use of induction. It's that no one has ever managed to formulate a ‘principle of induction’ that is usable in practice for obtaining scientific theories from experiences. As such, it's unclear how they could have used it.
So, it's not that I reject reason or logic, but think conclusions in these areas were reached by some other means that induction. To quote from an earlier comment…
For example, just because I think the use of induction is a myth, this doesn't mean that I think bridges are hazards that need to be redesigned unless those that designed them were Popperians. Rather, I think that non-Popperians merely thought they used induction to build them.
Scott: "How am I confusing the two?"
Scott: Are you saying the designer having done it this particular way, despite supposedly having the knowledge and ability to do otherwise, *is* explicable while the means by which the designer did it is not? If so, then what it that explanation? Please be specific.,
John: I don't know. I think it's quite simple for most people to compartmentalize a creator from the process by which he creates.
So, when I ask you to point out exactly where I'm confused, and even give you a staring point by which to begin, you still dodge the question?
Again, it's still unclear how this is different than what I wrote in the referenced comment.
John: But the last time I asked you the difference between proximate and ultimate causes, you did not respond. Perhaps now would be a good time to work through that.
Are you saying that proximate causes are supposedly comprehensible? But, again, God wouldn't need to use a proximate cause. For example, it's possible that God could have decided to directly pull on objects in just the right way to make it appear *as if* general relatively is true. As such, both theories would accept the same empirical observations, despite suggesting very different things occurring in reality. How do you know God isn't actually doing just this? How do you know he will not change his mind tomorrow for some inexplicable reason?
John: Good thing I skipped to the end. I guess this will count as the third time now.
If you want to remain ignorant then, yes. After all, this is the second time I've pointed out this is a common misconception of Popperians and skipping it seemed to work well for you then.
Scott: "Of course there is "no point". Just as there there is "no point" to responding to the summary criticism of inductivism I linked to. This is yet another indication that you do not recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism."
ReplyDeleteYou can't seem to wrap your head around the comments I make that most 12 year olds could understand, but now you know what my conceptions of human knowledge are? Oh please continue mind reader!
Scott:"So, it's not that I reject reason or logic, but think conclusions in these areas were reached by some other means that induction."
Yes, that seems to be very compatible with your habit of making up things and claiming other people said or thought it.
Scott: "So, when I ask you to point out exactly where I'm confused, and even give you a staring point by which to begin, you still dodge the question?"
I already told you where you were confused twice.
Scott: "Again, it's still unclear how this is different than what I wrote in the referenced comment."
I think your antecedent is missing.
Scott:"Are you saying that proximate causes are supposedly comprehensible?"
Some may be, some may not be. Why should they all be one way or the other? And what on earth did I say that you twisted into that? Dude, you are way off the deep end with your comments.
Scott:"But, again, God wouldn't need to use a proximate cause."
Whether or not that happened is irrelevant to the fact that you are complaining about only having an ultimate cause and not a proximate one. You yourself hold to an ultimate cause without the proximate analog but in your case, you can not appeal to intention or power for that matter (in terms of probabilistic resources).
Scott: "For example, it's possible that God could have decided to directly pull on objects in just the right way to make it appear *as if* general relatively is true. As such, both theories would accept the same empirical observations, despite suggesting very different things occurring in reality. How do you know God isn't actually doing just this? How do you know he will not change his mind tomorrow for some inexplicable reason?"
You don't, but the hypothesis is not necessary in this case because we can replicate the effects with natural forces that we don't normally consider "God". The same is not true for what we see in proteins and cells. They appear to be products of intention and the type of things that natural forces deteriorate, not create.
Scott: "If you want to remain ignorant then, yes. After all, this is the second time I've pointed out this is a common misconception of Popperians and skipping it seemed to work well for you then."
I'm afraid you've epistemologically undercut yourself sir. You seem to be using a lot of inductive reasoning to develop that idea. And now you've lapsed into the belief that you can read people's minds better than they themselves can when you can barely read English. Sorry I don't have time to hear you argue against inductive reasoning with inductive reasoning.
John, I'm not reading your mind. I'm taking your own argument seriously for the purpose of criticism.
ReplyDeleteHowever, If you think I'd have to be a "mind reader" to know what your position is, are you conceding to having dogged my questions designed to clarify your position?
Furthermore, when I point out that you're operating under a misconception, not only do I point out where the misconception is, but I correct you, in detail, multiple times. Yet, you keep making the same mistake, over and over again. Not to mention that you explicitly state that you skip over parts of my comment, etc. What other conclusion do you expect me to reach other than you wan't to remain ignorant?
Also, given that you refuse to see criticism of inductivism and justificationism as anything but "rejection of logic and reason", what other conclusion do you expect me to reach other that you cannot recognize that your conception of human knowledge is an idea that would be subject to criticism?
Again, if I've got it wrong, then why don't you provide a detailed correction. Here's a hint, saying a 12 year old could have understood "compartmentalizing a designer" isn't a detailed correction.
Scott:"Are you saying that proximate causes are supposedly comprehensible?"
ReplyDeleteJohn: Some may be, some may not be. Why should they all be one way or the other? And what on earth did I say that you twisted into that? Dude, you are way off the deep end with your comments.
I'm attempting to take your own argument seriously. Is this such a novel concept for you that you've confused it with mind reading?
Again, if you think that "God did it" it's the best explanation not only because it represents a good explanation, but a simpler explanation that evolutionary theory, then why isn't "God did it" the best explanation for everything?
To quote from my earlier comment…
if we do exist in a finite bubble of explicably, which exists in a universe of inexplicability, the inside cannot be explicable either. This is because the inside is supposedly dependent what occurs in this inexplicable realm.
Any assumption that [any part of the] world is inexplicable leads to bad explanations. That is, no theory about what exists beyond this bubble can be any better than "Zeus rules" there. And, given the dependency above, this also means there can be no better expiation that "Zeus rules" inside this bubble as well.
In other words, what's inside this bubble would only appear to explicable if one carefully avoids asking specific questions. Otherwise, you'd follow your own claims to the conclusion that "That's just what God must have wanted" was the best explanation for everything, rendering everything just as inexplicable as everything else.
What sort of questions must you avoid?
Why isn't "that's just what God must have wanted" the best explanation for the motions of objects? After all, God could decide to directly move objects in just the way we observe for some explicable reason, right? So, why do we even need to bother with secondary causes, which would supposedly be more complex?
Of course, I could be putting words in your mouth, in that you do not think "God did it" actually is a good explanation? Or perhaps you do not think "God did it" should be preferred because is less complex that evolutionary theory?
But, if this is the case, then why is "God did it" the best explanation in the case of the biosphere, or anything else?
Scott: "If you want to remain ignorant then, yes. After all, this is the second time I've pointed out this is a common misconception of Popperians and skipping it seemed to work well for you then."
ReplyDeleteJohn: I'm afraid you've epistemologically undercut yourself sir. You seem to be using a lot of inductive reasoning to develop that idea.
That's the misconception, John. When a Popperian says the use of induction in science is a myth, they mean that people cannot recognize when they (or others) are not actually using induction to reach conclusions.
So, when I say an argument is inductive, I mean that someone is actually working from some explanatory framework which they haven't disclosed or do not recognize as an explanatory framework in the first place.
So, no. I haven't epistemologically undercut myself. It only appears that way because you cannot recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism. After all, you previously claimed rejecting inductivism would be rejecting logic and reasoning itself, right?
Scott: "John, I'm not reading your mind."
ReplyDeleteScott: "Rather, I think that non-Popperians merely thought they used induction to build them."
So please tell me how you could know the minds of these men when the only evidence you have is contrary to your theory and is itself achieved through the use of inductive reasoning. This is why I called you a mind reader.
Scott: "I'm taking your own argument seriously for the purpose of criticism."
No, you're not. You constantly make up your own straw men styled so they can be rebutted by this book you read.
Scott: "However, If you think I'd have to be a "mind reader" to know what your position is, are you conceding to having dogged my questions designed to clarify your position?"
Nope, see above.
Scott: "Furthermore, when I point out that you're operating under a misconception, not only do I point out where the misconception is, but I correct you, in detail, multiple times"
only after you're 10 miles down your own made up rabbit trail that has nothing to do with what anyone said.
Scott:"Yet, you keep making the same mistake, over and over again. Not to mention that you explicitly state that you skip over parts of my comment, etc. What other conclusion do you expect me to reach other than you wan't to remain ignorant?"
I do want to remain ignorant of the responses to your own straw man arguments.
Scott: "Also, given that you refuse to see criticism of inductivism and justificationism as anything but "rejection of logic and reason", what other conclusion do you expect me to reach other that you cannot recognize that your conception of human knowledge is an idea that would be subject to criticism?"
I don't expect you to reach any conclusions at all without using inductive reasoning, a fact you always avoid.
Scott: "Again, if I've got it wrong, then why don't you provide a detailed correction. Here's a hint, saying a 12 year old could have understood "compartmentalizing a designer" isn't a detailed correction."
It's a good enough hint to an honest person. I will lead you to water but I won't make you drink.
Scott: "I'm attempting to take your own argument seriously. Is this such a novel concept for you that you've confused it with mind reading?"
No Scott, you aren't doing anything remotely close to that. Nothing in the comment you referenced had anything to do with the comprehensibility of proximate causes and it was irrelevant. Now you want to transfer the mind reading over to this issue for some reason? Amazing. This is the perfect example of you pretending to be confused.
Scott: "Again, if you think that "God did it" it's the best explanation not only because it represents a good explanation, but a simpler explanation that evolutionary theory, then why isn't "God did it" the best explanation for everything?"
It could be, but not all causes we find significant are ultimate ones.
Scott: "What sort of questions must you avoid?"
None.
Scott: "Why isn't "that's just what God must have wanted" the best explanation for the motions of objects? After all, God could decide to directly move objects in just the way we observe for some explicable reason, right? So, why do we even need to bother with secondary causes, which would supposedly be more complex?"
ReplyDeleteYou can rephrase the question, but I already answered it here;
John: "You don't, but the hypothesis is not necessary in this case because we can replicate the effects with natural forces that we don't normally consider "God". The same is not true for what we see in proteins and cells. They appear to be products of intention and the type of things that natural forces deteriorate, not create."
Scott:"Of course, I could be putting words in your mouth, in that you do not think "God did it" actually is a good explanation? Or perhaps you do not think "God did it" should be preferred because is less complex that evolutionary theory?
But, if this is the case, then why is "God did it" the best explanation in the case of the biosphere, or anything else?"
Because, as I said, it has the benefit of explaining the apparent design we see inside life. Evolution does not have this benefit.
Scott: "That's the misconception, John. When a Popperian says the use of induction in science is a myth, they mean that people cannot recognize when they (or others) are not actually using induction to reach conclusions."
If you can recognize it better than the people telling you they are doing otherwise, then please provide the method. Just remember not to use any inductive reasoning (or mind reading) while doing so.
Scott: "So, when I say an argument is inductive, I mean that someone is actually working from some explanatory framework which they haven't disclosed or do not recognize as an explanatory framework in the first place."
You're free to tell what it REALLY is any time you wish since you know it isn't inductive reasoning.
Scott: "So, no. I haven't epistemologically undercut myself. It only appears that way because you cannot recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism."
What non inductive reasoning did you use to arrive at this conclusion?
Scott: "After all, you previously claimed rejecting inductivism would be rejecting logic and reasoning itself, right?"
But maybe now I think some random new thing! Are you depending on inductive reasoning to form a theory of what I think based on what I thought in the past?
John: You can't seem to wrap your head around the comments I make that most 12 year olds could understand, but now you know what my conceptions of human knowledge are? Oh please continue mind reader!
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned before, you hold a pre-enlightemnt, authoritative, justiifcationist conception of human knowledge. Nor do I need to be a mind reader to know this. For example..
It's authoritative in that you think God is the authoritative source of what is right and wrong. To what ever degree you think the Bible is authoritative it's because that aspect represents God's word, etc.
It shares the above feature with the vast majority of all conceptions of human knowledge formed before the enlightenment.
It represents justificationism because, as William Bartley put it, "Most justificationists do not know that they are justificationists. Justificationism is what Popper called a "subjectivist" view of truth, in which the question of whether some statement is true, is confused with the question of whether it can be justified (established, proven, verified, warranted, made well-founded, made reliable, grounded, supported, legitimated, based on evidence) in some way."
Of course, if I'm confused about anything above, please point out where and provide a detailed correction as to what you do think.
Is that clear enough?
Scott: "Why isn't "that's just what God must have wanted" the best explanation for the motions of objects? After all, God could decide to directly move objects in just the way we observe for some explicable reason, right? So, why do we even need to bother with secondary causes, which would supposedly be more complex?"
ReplyDeleteJohn: You can rephrase the question, but I already answered it here;
John: "You don't, but the hypothesis is not necessary in this case because we can replicate the effects with natural forces that we don't normally consider "God". The same is not true for what we see in proteins and cells. They appear to be products of intention and the type of things that natural forces deteriorate, not create."
Apparently, you're still having difficulty with the argument I'm making.
Again, I'm taking your own argument seriously. Specially…
Scott: "Again, a being that "just was" complete with the knowledge of how to build adaptations, already present, doesn't serve any explanatory purpose."
john: How do you explain the creation of something that claims it always existed? If it is true, then what answer would you like instead of the truth?
God, from some realm where he has inexplicably always existed, reached into our sphere of explicably and, for some inexplicable reason, designed organisms in precisely the particular forms we observe, using some inexplicable means and method, using knowledge of an inexplicable origin.
In other words, no better explanation for the biosphere can be had than "That's just what God must have wanted" because God is inexplicable.
However, any combination of natural forces would supposedly be more complex then "That's just what God must have wanted". After all, God is supposedly non-material, so he couldn't have a complex nervous system. Nor do we need the complication of explaining how God obtained the knowledge of how to do anything. This is because he supposedly "just was", complete with the knowledge of how to build the biosphere, already present, right? Not to mention that God supposedly has the ability to make objects move *as if* space was warped by mass, should he choose to for some inexplicable reason.
So, again, unless there is something I was mistaken about in the above, it's still unclear why "That's just what God must have wanted" isn't the best explanation for absolutely everything and anything.
Again, this is what I meant when I wrote…
Any assumption that [any part of the] world is inexplicable leads to bad explanations. That is, no theory about what exists beyond this bubble can be any better than "Zeus rules" there. And, given the dependency above, this also means there can be no better expiation that "Zeus rules" inside this bubble as well.
Which you completely ignored, yet again.
Scott: "Of course, I could be putting words in your mouth, in that you do not think "God did it" actually is a good explanation? Or perhaps you do not think "God did it" should be preferred because is less complex that evolutionary theory?
ReplyDeleteJohn: Because, as I said, it has the benefit of explaining the apparent design we see inside life. Evolution does not have this benefit.
First, the question is, why isn't "That's just what God must have wanted" the best explanation for everything and everything. I'd insert a quip about the comprehension level of a 12 year old here, but that's more your style, not mine.
If there are no questions you must avoid answering to avoid the entire world from becoming inexplicable then this should be a problem.
Second, an explanation has been provided. Again, you're conflating the absence or presence of underlying explanation with your incredulity of said explanation.
Scott: "That's the misconception, John. When a Popperian says the use of induction in science is a myth, they mean that people cannot recognize when they (or others) are not actually using induction to reach conclusions."
John: If you can recognize it better than the people telling you they are doing otherwise, then please provide the method. Just remember not to use any inductive reasoning (or mind reading) while doing so.
As of yet, no one has managed to formulate a "principle of induction" that is works in practice. So, it's unclear how someone could employ induction to conclude anything.
A few examples from the summary here…
We do not get theories from evidence.
...Evidence doesn’t imply that any particular theory is right. So whenever a person claims to have got a theory from evidence what he actually did was come up with a conjecture that explained the evidence.
Nor does evidence confirm universal theories..
… Confirmation is sometimes said to be some sort of objective confirmation, i.e. – the theory is more likely to be true in some objective sense. That is, if we guess some theory is true in the light of evidence we are less likely to get it wrong. This is obviously nonsense. The theory is either right or wrong. That’s all there is to it.
Nor can we work out from evidence that the future will resemble the past.
Our best theories say that the world changes over time and so that the future will not resemble the past, except by virtue of obeying the same laws of nature. We try to work out those laws by conjecture and criticism.
Of course, feel free to enlighten us as to how you've managed to formulate such a principle. Please be specific.
Scott: "So, no. I haven't epistemologically undercut myself. It only appears that way because you cannot recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism."
ReplyDeleteJohn: What non inductive reasoning did you use to arrive at this conclusion?
You've claimed that objecting to induction is a rejection of logical and reason. You failed to acknowledge any criticism of induction and justificationism. You've posed questions that imply answering them would require the use of induction, as a sort of trap. Your arguments are parochial in that they completely ignore other forms of epistemologically. You haven't disclosed or argued for the particular epistemologically you do hold.
To quote you…
The last two big conversations we had ended up with you claiming you objected to inductive reasoning which is what is enabling you to read and understand this now. I don't feel like going back to point it out to you because I'm tired of talking to you because there is no point.
My conjectured explanation for these observations is that you cannot recognize your pre-enlightenment, authoritative conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism. The observations above collaborate this theory. That is, these are the sort of actions I'd would expect you to take should the explanation be true, in reality, based on background knowledge. As such, I've tentatively accepted this explanation until new observations suggest otherwise.
Of course, you could provide a better expiation for these observations.
Scott: "As I mentioned before, you hold a pre-enlightemnt, authoritative, justiifcationist conception of human knowledge. Nor do I need to be a mind reader to know this."
ReplyDelete"enlightemnt", "justiifcationist" Dude slow down and besides not destroying your replies, your ideas might become more coherent as well.
Scott: "It's authoritative in that you think God is the authoritative source of what is right and wrong."
If by authoritative you mean he authored everything, then I guess morality is not possible unless things exist. I do supposed that righteousness affects our ability to not suppress the truth, which would affect what we were talking about. I don't really see the connection you're making with how we assess whether we know something.
Scott: "It shares the above feature with the vast majority of all conceptions of human knowledge formed before the enlightenment."
I'm now supposed to believe that you have apprehended what were the conceptions of human knowledge held by the vast majority of people before the "enlightenment"? You don't think that beggars belief?
Scott:"It represents justificationism because, as William Bartley put it, "Most justificationists do not know that they are justificationists."
So because I don't know I'm a justificationist, therefore I am one? I suppose if I knew I was a justificationist, I would also be one. It appears there is nothing left for me then but to be a justificationist. You sir, are a hoot!
Scott: "Justificationism is what Popper called a "subjectivist" view of truth, in which the question of whether some statement is true, is confused with the question of whether it can be justified (established, proven, verified, warranted, made well-founded, made reliable, grounded, supported, legitimated, based on evidence) in some way."
I'm quite sure there are true things that can't be proven. Glad we cleared that up.
Scott:"So, again, unless there is something I was mistaken about in the above, it's still unclear why "That's just what God must have wanted" isn't the best explanation for absolutely everything and anything."
ReplyDeleteAs an ultimate explanation, I think it is. But this does not mean that no proximate cause is possible if you would call that "better".
Scott: "Any assumption that [any part of the] world is inexplicable leads to bad explanations."
We say the explanation of why things look designed is that they were. That is a good explanation. You are conflating that with "why this particular design exists in the mind of God over another" which if it existed eternally in the mind of God (something you get from theology, not ID) is inexplicable because there was no "before" to cause what came "after" outside of space-time". This is like me objecting to your conjecture-refutation model because you can't explain what came before the big bang. It is another step down the rabbit hole, but your explanation for apparent design fails before that, while mine does not.
Scott: "First, the question is, why isn't "That's just what God must have wanted" the best explanation for everything and everything."
Why post this below what I said? I already answered that matter twice and have now a third time above in different words. This does nothing to explain why "Evolution does not have this benefit."
Scott: "I'd insert a quip about the comprehension level of a 12 year old here, but that's more your style, not mine."
Yes, it is not immoral to be ignorant. However you subjected yourself to this understanding and felt slighted because you know I know the other likely alternative is that you are being dishonest. There is still a third possibility that you just keep amazingly misunderstanding by chance. But after 30-40 coin flips, we start to suspect something else.
Scott: "In other words, what's inside this bubble would only appear to explicable if one carefully avoids asking specific questions."
Scott: "If there are no questions you must avoid answering to avoid the entire world from becoming inexplicable then this should be a problem."
So if I avoid questions, I can remain in ignorance in my bubble, but if I do not avoid questions, I can't avoid the world becoming inexplicable? Is that like saying, because you can't explain the ultimate cause of everything, you shouldn't accept the proximate cause of anything? Do you apply this reasoning to evolution and the big bang?
Scott: "Second, an explanation has been provided. Again, you're conflating the absence or presence of underlying explanation with your incredulity of said explanation."
To explain something is to make it plain or clear. Evolutionists themselves say it is not plain or clear how any of these proteins were created. Thorton himself just finished complaining that it was the silly CREATIONISTS who wanted the details. So you can't say you've made it clear on one hand and then complain because you claim it is impossible to be clear on the other. If it's clear to you, please EXPLAIN, if not, don't call your theory an explanation.
Scott: "As of yet, no one has managed to formulate a "principle of induction" that is works in practice."
Seems to work fine for me. But how would you know if they did? "In practice" would mean repeating the method, so why would you reject the principle of induction by using the principle of induction?
Scott:"So, it's unclear how someone could employ induction to conclude anything."
What method did you use to determine the meaning of the words in the above sentence?
Scott: "Our best theories say that the world changes over time and so that the future will not resemble the past, except by virtue of obeying the same laws of nature. We try to work out those laws by conjecture and criticism.
ReplyDeleteOf course, feel free to enlighten us as to how you've managed to formulate such a principle. Please be specific."
You do realize that the quote above is not mine, and that it's the same guy you linked to who is trying to refute inductive reasoning right? I mean, I can understand you might get confused because he is talking about working out the laws of nature. But that is his confusion not mine.
Scott: "You've claimed that objecting to induction is a rejection of logical and reason. You failed to acknowledge any criticism of induction and justificationism."
I acknowledged that it is based on the use of inductive reasoning.
Scott: "You've posed questions that imply answering them would require the use of induction, as a sort of trap."
Oh you noticed that? So was I being unfair? How? Why should you be able to use inductive reasoning to convince me that conclusions arrived at via inductive reasoning are unsound?
Scott: "Your arguments are parochial in that they completely ignore other forms of epistemologically."
Seriously dude? Are you trying to become incoherent now to prove that you aren't using inductive reasoning?
Scott: "You haven't disclosed or argued for the particular epistemologically you do hold."
Ohohohooooh, Ok mister I know all about your conceptions of knowledge. So, you got tired of not being able to mind read, then tired of not being able to twist my words, and now you finally want me to tell you what I really think?
Scott: "My conjectured explanation for these observations is that you cannot recognize your pre-enlightenment, authoritative conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism."
So because I "posed questions that imply answering them would require the use of induction, as a sort of trap", this somehow indicates that I cannot recognize my conception of human knowledge is an idea that could be subject to criticism? Wow, I guess if you reject inductive reasoning, you can take away whatever self congratulatory theories you like from any type of conversation whatsoever! You fell into a trap, therefore it means I can't realize I might be wrong about what knowledge is. GOT IT!
Scott: "The observations above collaborate this theory."
I don't think that word means what you think it means. Also, it's unclear how you were able to make conjectures of any kind without using inductive reasoning.