Saturday, July 24, 2010

Evolutionary Thought in Action

Evolutionists claim evolution is a fact as much as gravity is a fact. As with gravity, we may not yet understand the details of evolution, but evolution in one way or another is an undeniable fact. Well is it? One evolutionist is certain and wrote this to me:

Do I need to recount for you the instances of observed evolution, past and present? You already have rejected short-term examples of the phenomenon, but when the exact same pseudogene for Vitamin C is broken in the exact same place in humans and chimpanzees, indicating we inherited it from a common ancestor, what else do you say it is other than a fact that we evolved from that common ancestor? If you have read the authors you claim to have, how many more examples of evolution in action do you want? You say that it's "immediately obvious from the evolution genre...that while evolutionists consistently make this claim, it is nowhere demonstrated." It baffles me how you can make that statement. How gilded do you insist the lily be?

I like this comment because it is a succinct example of evolutionary thinking. Can you see the metaphysics at work?

Yes there are scientific problems. Cases of observed evolution are of limited value in proving evolution to be a fact, unless we equivocate on evolution. In fact, they reveal complex response mechanisms at work which evolutionists have resisted acknowledging.

But these problems are inconsequential, for evolutionists have metaphysical certainty. If you can see the metaphysics at work, then you understand the evolution genre.

55 comments:

  1. Dr Hunter said:

    I like this comment because it is a succinct example of evolutionary thinking. Can you see the metaphysics at work?

    I don't see it, and would consider it a kindness if you would help me understand your point.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cornelius: In fact, they reveal complex response mechanisms at work which evolutionists have resisted acknowledging.

    Such as?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cornelius,

    What would count as evidence of common descent for you?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dr Hunter, perhaps you need to give them a bit more detail:

    The 'pseudogene' here contains homologues of only 4 out of 12 of the exons, and even those have many more substitutions than the 1 implied by your correspondent.

    In an ID theory sans Common Descent, the fact that this sequence appears in more than one species, tells us that it was deliberately designed, and therefore predicts that is probably functional. Therefore we should look for its function.

    In contrast, Common Descent (irrespective of a broader theory of ID, or not) predicts that these sequences appear in different species because they are evolutionarily conserved. Therefore, they could have been produced by accident without selection, and probably have no function at all. Therefore we should not look for any function.

    Which is the science-stopper now?

    ID predicts rationality, with errors produced by microevolution. Shared errors therefore would be indicative of Common Descent. Some errors could be reasonably obvious, traceable to a single mutation, such as human chromosome 2, which appears to result from the fusion of two chromosomes; a single recombination gone wrong. However, that error is not shared by other species, so we may conclude it is limited to the human lineage. The vit-C "error" involves many changes/mutations so it is premature to presume that it evolved and is therefore non-functional.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Do I need to recount for you the instances of observed evolution, past and present?

    It's an instance, but has to be evaluated in the context of the overall nested hierarchy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If evolution truly be a fact as much as gravity be a fact then it should take about the same amount of time to prove it to be true as it does to prove gravity.

    Suppose I take the position that gravity is a scam. How long will it take for a believer in gravity to demonstrate to me the error of my ways? 10 seconds? Five minutes?

    Can evolution be demonstrated to be a fact in the same length of time? The 150+ year old argument over the matter would suggest otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Evolution is a farce, which is why it can't be observed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. George: Suppose I take the position that gravity is a scam. How long will it take for a believer in gravity to demonstrate to me the error of my ways? 10 seconds? Five minutes?

    Universal Gravitation is hardly obvious. Showing that apples and planets respond to the same underlying force can be difficult, especially when people are convinced the planets are made of quintessence. Many centuries separate Ptolemy and Newton.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I wonder how difficult would it be Zach? Is it so difficult that we would spend 150 years arguing over it with no possible end in sight?

    My guess is that Universal Gravitation is now taken as fact based on a number of repeatable observations and experiments that would take no longer that a few years at the outside.

    Does evolution have the same kind of repeatable obvservations and experiments capable of being completed within the same time frame?

    ReplyDelete
  10. A Scientist Takes On Gravity:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html?_r=1

    "But what if it’s all an illusion, a sort of cosmic frill, or a side effect of something else going on at deeper levels of reality?

    So says Erik Verlinde, 48, a respected string theorist and professor of physics at the University of Amsterdam, whose contention that gravity is indeed an illusion has caused a continuing ruckus among physicists..."

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Is it metaphysical to say the sky is blue because of Rayleigh scattering?

    After all, I've given the scientific explanation that assumes methodological naturalism.

    I suppose a child could say the sky is blue because God made it that way. I can't argue against that-I can only give the scientific explanation. We could even have a middle ground-where she can personally believe God created Rayleigh scattering. But when her father demands we include her explanation alongside the scientific one in class, what to do?

    Is there really metaphysics in my example or the OP? Your data is undeniable, but interpretation metaphysical? Why? Because methodological naturalism is metaphysics? Is it really? Come on. Weak stuff.

    I suppose all science is then "metaphysical" because it seeks natural causes. Is the metaphysics in the OP that we don't offer "there isn't common descent-the designer did it that way because he did" as a counter hypothesis?

    If this is the case, I see no impact to the charge of 'metaphysics." It is just a restatement of what science is.

    Of course, creationists love the methodological naturalism=atheism ; or the science=metaphysics which is like religion (kinda?), therefore we're all equal, so we can teach religion in schools.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The idea that you Darwits think you give scientific explanations when quite frankly,,

      YOU DON'T! NO, NOT EVER. You guys are like L. Ron Hubbard where I read about this and say WHO WRITES THIS STUFF??

      This study of evolution is not even about science anymore, if it ever was. Its about advancing evolution like it is some kind of a God. As for your quip about atheism, well can ya blame us when they all act like the Philosopher Kings of Science. But in this case it's infallible science. I know you disagree and that would just be one more thing we disagree about.

      It's become the Alpha into the Omega. (Given enough time of course). I have heard science explain things in areas like Chemistry and Physics, but when Biologists start talking, they get to sounding more and more like a sleazy slippery used car salesman stuck in some semantics loop for any plausible way possible regardless of any well thought out contingencies, we see it stretch over everything like its evolution fits all sizes for any occasion. Year after year after year I see them filling children's heads with this garbage and yeah,, it's GARBAGE even as a hypothesis much less a theory or "FACT" of evolution which is nothing but a term of endearment.

      Delete
  13. George said...

    I wonder how difficult would it be Zach? Is it so difficult that we would spend 150 years arguing over it with no possible end in sight?


    "We" haven't been arguing over it. There haven't been any arguments in the scientific community over the basic tenets of ToE for well over 100 years. There are certainly arguments over the specific details, but none on the overall process.

    The only "arguments" aren't scientific ones, they're protests from a few religious fundamental nutters who can't deal with the fact that reality contradicts their religious beliefs.

    My guess is that Universal Gravitation is now taken as fact based on a number of repeatable observations and experiments that would take no longer that a few years at the outside.

    {creto nutter mode on} Sorry, that's just microgravity. You have no evidence that macrogravity is possible. No one alive has ever seen Pluto make a complete orbit around the Sun. {creto nutter mode off}

    Does evolution have the same kind of repeatable obvservations and experiments capable of being completed within the same time frame?

    Yes. See Lenski's long term E Coli experiments as an example.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The "metaphysics" here is the underlying assumption that God (yes, the evolutionist's boogyman) would NOT have designed "the exact same pseudogene for Vitamin C...broken...in the exact same place in humans and chimpanzees". ONLY because of they BELIEVE God "wouldn't do it that way" do they conclude that the break is evidence of Common Descent. Such a belief is purely metaphysical; it is a pure statement of faith and nothing more. Why WOULDN'T God have done it that way or any other way? Who but God could possibly know? At the root of the theory of Common Descent is an irrational faith sans any knowledge whatsoever in God's decision process and method. Such a faith has no basis in nature or revelation and can only be described as totally irrational.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Office


    The "metaphysics" here is the underlying assumption that God (yes, the evolutionist's boogyman) would NOT have designed "the exact same pseudogene for Vitamin C...broken...in the exact same place in humans and chimpanzees". ONLY because of they BELIEVE God "wouldn't do it that way" do they conclude that the break is evidence of Common Descent


    This is, I believe, exactly Cornelius' logic. But it is simply a fallacy. Biologists are not simply saying 'God wouldn't do it like that - therefore it must have a natural explanation'. We simply have no way of knowing whether God would have done it 'like that'. And without that knowledge - or indeed any reason to believe He exists - the rational thing to do is to leave Him out of the equation completely.


    Why WOULDN'T God have done it that way or any other way? Who but God could possibly know?


    Precisely. We wouldn't know. Therefore it is irrational to make the assumption that He did.


    At the root of the theory of Common Descent is an irrational faith sans any knowledge whatsoever in God's decision process and method. Such a faith has no basis in nature or revelation and can only be described as totally irrational.


    No, at the root of ALL SCIENCE is the assumption that the whole universe operates according to entirely natural laws. All theories, not just the theory of evolution through natural selection, must therefore be explained using natural laws.

    Could this assumption be incorrect? Yes. But the fact that science is so damn productive does act as very weighty evidence that it is, in fact, correct. And if you have a problem with this assumption of naturalism, then you have a problem with the WHOLE of science.

    This is a point Cornelius seems totally unable to grasp - the theory of evolution is not doing anything a respectable scientific should not do. Does ToE insist on methodological naturalism? Yes. And so does every other theory in science!

    Or, put another way, any theory which is NOT built on methodological naturalism simply is not science.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Office said:

    The "metaphysics" here is the underlying assumption that God (yes, the evolutionist's boogyman) would NOT have designed "the exact same pseudogene for Vitamin C...broken...in the exact same place in humans and chimpanzees".

    Thank you for your effort, but I don't see any underlying assumption about an imaginary entity called "God" in the quoted excerpt.

    Moreover, I don't see an equivalence between religion and metaphysics. A God is a religious concept that requires belief. Metaphysics, as I understand it, is a philosophical endeavor that entails no theological commitments.

    Also please consider that many of us who are not Western Europeans don't enjoy your concept of "God" in the Judeo-Christian sense. So how can we have any such assumption?

    At any rate, I hope that Dr Hunter will weigh in on this, also.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "The "metaphysics" here is the underlying assumption that God (yes, the evolutionist's boogyman) would NOT have designed."

    You, and Cornelius have a frightening double standard for shouting "metaphysics!" ID is supposed to be science, right? How many times have we heard IDers claim it is about design, not the designer? That the designer could be anything-a superior intellect, aliens, whatever, because its just about design.

    So when we respond-gee, that human Vitamin-C pseudogene doesn't look designed by any proposed criteria that explains its conservation with Chimps, you scream that we are inferring the will of God and making religious claims.

    So which is it-can we discuss design without invoking the will of God, or do you confess ID is religious at its core and all pro and counter-design arguments are inherently religious? One or the other.

    And perhaps, for the millionth time, if you could give us some criteria by which you've detected the intelligent design of the Vitamin-C pseudogene, and how you ruled out non design, we could discuss that.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Good point, Robert. We rule out pseudogenes as designed largely because they don't look designed. So we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.

    I and Behe are with you. I think shared pseudogenes are best explained by common descent.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Bilbo:

    "Good point, Robert. We rule out pseudogenes as designed largely because they don't look designed. So we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed."

    That doesn't sound very rigorous, Bilbo. How exactly do you decide in an objective way that some biological trait "looks designed"?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hi Troy,

    If we define "design" as the purposeful arrangement of parts, there appears to be no purpose to the arrangement of parts in pseudogenes. So they don't look designed. OTOH, there appears to be purpose to the arrangement of parts in flagellum and cilium. So they look designed.

    Objective? If we define objective as what most people would perceive if shown the same thing, then I think most people would think flagella and cilia look designed. Therefore it would be objective.

    If we define objective as having a quantifiably measurable value, then no, it's not objective.

    If we define science as the study of what is quantifiably measurable, then studying intelligent design probably isn't science.

    But I would argue that not all empirical knowledge is science.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Bilbo, by your level of "proof", we would still believe that the sun orbits around the earth.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Office said...

    The "metaphysics" here is the underlying assumption that God (yes, the evolutionist's boogyman) would NOT have designed "the exact same pseudogene for Vitamin C...broken...in the exact same place in humans and chimpanzees". ONLY because of they BELIEVE God "wouldn't do it that way" do they conclude that the break is evidence of Common Descent.


    What a ridiculous strawman. ToE says nothing of the sort, because ToE say nothing about the existence or capabilities of any Gods or supernatural beings. ToE just shows that positing such supernatural intervention is unnecessary, and that natural physical processes are completely capable of producing the results we see.

    Creationists like CH just can't seem to tell the difference between 'Gods didn't do it' and 'Gods aren't necessary'. Which is why we still get his inane rants over his confusion on the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hi Bilbo,

    "If we define "design" as the purposeful arrangement of parts, there appears to be no purpose to the arrangement of parts in pseudogenes. So they don't look designed."

    That is not a very useful definition, since "purposeful" is very vague. From an ID perspective, how do you know what the designer's purpose is? Without some form of testimony by the designer, how would you know?

    "Objective? If we define objective as what most people would perceive if shown the same thing, then I think most people would think flagella and cilia look designed. Therefore it would be objective."



    That's not objective. That's a poll on gut feeling. An objective method should give the same result regardless of the person employing it.

    "If we define objective as having a quantifiably measurable value, then no, it's not objective."

    Agreed.

    "If we define science as the study of what is quantifiably measurable, then studying intelligent design probably isn't science. "

    Agreed, but not a very good definition of science. The definition should include hypothesis testing.

    "But I would argue that not all empirical knowledge is science."

    Science is a method. It yields relatively reliable knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "How exactly do you decide in an objective way that some biological trait 'looks designed'?"

    Why don't you ask Richard Dawkins? He's the one that says biology is the study of things that look as if they were designed for a purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Bilbo: "We rule out pseudogenes as designed largely because they don't look designed. So we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed."

    So, for example Bilbo, I were to say that I thought pseudogenes looked designed and that the flagellum didn't look designed, how would you demonstrate my error?

    Bilbo:" Objective? If we define objective as what most people would perceive if shown the same thing, then I think most people would think flagella and cilia look designed. Therefore it would be objective." (emphasis mine)

    Most people throughout history have perceived the earth to be flat, despite 'seeing the same thing' Most people throughout history have perceived that the sun revolves around a stationary earth, and many, many, many other things that are just plainwrong. Science often reveals truths that go against common sense, or 'what most people would perceive if shown the same thing' as you call it.

    Bilbo:"If we define objective as having a quantifiably measurable value, then no, it's not objective."

    Bilbo, what do you think objective means?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hi doctorson,

    Yes, it looks like the sun revolves round the earth. But then it also looks like the earth rotates. So we need to decide the which view is right on other grounds. Likewise with design and non-design theories.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Matteo:

    "Why don't you ask Richard Dawkins? He's the one that says biology is the study of things that look as if they were designed for a purpose."

    But he doesn't claim that saying something looks designed is a scientific conclusion, does he?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quote:"But he doesn't claim that saying something looks designed is a scientific conclusion, does he?"

      No, he rejects it out of hand as evidence of design. I mean if it looks designed means evolution is true. I imagine this ability evolution has, to look as if it was designed, must have evolved also

      Delete
  28. Hi Troy,

    If most people think the sky is blue, then I would take it as an objective fact that the sky is blue. Yes, science is a reliable way of obtaining some empirical knowledge, but not all empirical knowledge. It cannot tell me if other human beings have consciousness. It cannot tell me if there is an independent physical world. It cannot tell me if torturing a baby for fun is right or wrong. And if it cannot tell me if something looks designed or has purpose, then it cannot tell me if it was designed or not. I must determine that some other way. The concept of purpose isn't vague at all. It just can't be put into a test tube.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Bilbo: "Yes, it looks like the sun revolves round the earth. But then it also looks like the earth rotates."

    It does not look like the earth rotates. Try this experiment: Ask all your friends who accept that the earth rotates to demonstrate it. For the most part you will receive blank stares. (unless most of your friends happen to be physicists or astronomers)

    Bilbo: "If most people think the sky is blue, then I would take it as an objective fact that the sky is blue."

    If most people thought that the stars were in a 'firmament' the same distance as the sun and moon, would you then take it as an objective fact? If most people thought that diseases were caused by demons as opposed to invisible microorganisms, would you take that as an objective fact?

    I'm really not sure you're clear on what 'objective' means.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hi Derick,

    You wrote:

    So, for example Bilbo, I were to say that I thought pseudogenes looked designed and that the flagellum didn't look designed, how would you demonstrate my error?

    Since I define design as the purposeful arrangement of parts, I would ask you what the purpose of pseudogenes was. And I would point out the purpose of flagella and cilia.

    Bilbo:" Objective? If we define objective as what most people would perceive if shown the same thing, then I think most people would think flagella and cilia look designed. Therefore it would be objective." (emphasis mine)

    Science often reveals truths that go against common sense, or 'what most people would perceive if shown the same thing' as you call it.

    True enough.

    Bilbo:"If we define objective as having a quantifiably measurable value, then no, it's not objective."

    Bilbo, what do you think objective means?

    It can mean either one.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Derick:

    It does not look like the earth rotates.

    Yes it does.

    Try this experiment: Ask all your friends who accept that the earth rotates to demonstrate it. For the most part you will receive blank stares. (unless most of your friends happen to be physicists or astronomers)

    So?

    If most people thought that the stars were in a 'firmament' the same distance as the sun and moon, would you then take it as an objective fact? If most people thought that diseases were caused by demons as opposed to invisible microorganisms, would you take that as an objective fact?

    No.

    I'm really not sure you're clear on what 'objective' means.

    I'm really sure I am.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Objective can have either meaning.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Me: "It does not look like the earth rotates."

    "Yes it does."

    Me: "Try this experiment: Ask all your friends who accept that the earth rotates to demonstrate it. For the most part you will receive blank stares. (unless most of your friends happen to be physicists or astronomers)"

    Bilbo: "So?"

    The fact that the earth rotates is anything but obvious. It took decades, if not centuries to convince most people that this is the case. I was just pointing out that the average person can't even really explain why we think that the earth rotates, so it most certainly doesn't just 'look' like it does, to most people.

    Not really related to the main discussion, I apologize.

    And in regards to the sky being blue, you're right that at some point you have to appeal to how 'most people' define 'blue', but after you establish what 'blue' is , it doesn't matter one bit what most people think about whether the sky is that color or not. Once you have a concise definition of 'blue' you could use, say, a spectrometer to determine whether the sky is blue or not, and you could have other people use their spectrometer, or instrument of choice, to validate your finding. It wouldn't matter in the least how many lay people agreed with your finding.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Derick:

    The fact that the earth rotates is anything but obvious.

    I agree. I'm just saying that it looks like it rotates. Of course, it also looks like the sun revolves around the earth. And since when we don't think that we are moving we attribute motion to the other object, we attribute motion to the sun.


    And in regards to the sky being blue, you're right that at some point you have to appeal to how 'most people' define 'blue', but after you establish what 'blue' is , it doesn't matter one bit what most people think about whether the sky is that color or not. Once you have a concise definition of 'blue' you could use, say, a spectrometer to determine whether the sky is blue or not, and you could have other people use their spectrometer, or instrument of choice, to validate your finding. It wouldn't matter in the least how many lay people agreed with your finding.

    Okay, for most of human history, nobody had a spectrometer. But they could use something similar, like a blue cloth that everybody agreed was blue. So yeah, once we have our independent standard of definition, then it no longer matters how many people think the sky is blue. But our original defintion was based upon what most people thought was blue.

    Look, I'm not trying to argue that ID is science. But I think most people have a good idea of concepts such as "purpose" and "design." And I think it's possible to have reasonable beliefs or knowledge that certain biological features were designed. Of course, such beliefs or knowledge would depend upon a great deal more than the fact that certain biological features look designed.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anyway, this all started because Robert pointed out that one of the reasons we think that pseudogenes are best explained by common descent is that they don't look designed. And I agree with him. It's not the only reason, but it's a strong one.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Bilbo - "it cannot tell me if torturing a baby for fun is right or wrong".

    How does ID tell you that?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Bilbo: Objective? If we define objective as what most people would perceive if shown the same thing ...

    Even if most people think the Mona Lisa is beautiful, that doesn't make it objective. Objectivity concerns sensible experience independent of individual thought or opinion, and nowadays is inextricably tied to instrumentation.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Dear Bilbo, please describe in our own words how it looks like the earth rotates. I was just out mowing my lawn, and the earth clearly wasn't moving. And another thing, I saw with my own eyes that the sun moved across the sky!

    ReplyDelete
  40. from OP: "but when the exact same pseudogene for Vitamin C is broken in the exact same place in humans and chimpanzees, indicating we inherited it from a common ancestor, what else do you say it is other than a fact that we evolved from that common ancestor?"


    who's to say the gene is "broken?" Humans have eaten fruit from the very beginning and therefore need no such way to make their own vitamin C. If fruit was removed from the diet, scurvy may indeed happen to those people, but maybe their offspring would have the "new and improved" version of the gene. has science ever tested this? I doubt it. In short, this vitamin C thing is probably just a case of non-random mutation occurring in animals that need it to happen. There is nothing "broken" about the human genetic condition.

    ReplyDelete
  41. tomnrh:

    "who's to say the gene is "broken?" Humans have eaten fruit from the very beginning and therefore need no such way to make their own vitamin C."

    Tell it to the people dying from scurvy!

    ReplyDelete
  42. Bilbo - "it cannot tell me if torturing a baby for fun is right or wrong".

    Tim: How does ID tell you that?

    Who said it did? My point is that we have ways of determining empirical knowledge besides science.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Bilbo: Objective? If we define objective as what most people would perceive if shown the same thing ...

    Zachriel: Even if most people think the Mona Lisa is beautiful, that doesn't make it objective. Objectivity concerns sensible experience independent of individual thought or opinion, and nowadays is inextricably tied to instrumentation.

    I agree that the Mona Lisa is beautiful, independent of what most people think. I take the fact that most people would think the Mona Lisa was beautiful as confirmation that it was beautiful. Had most people thought it ugly, I think the remaining minority would hesitate before calling it beautiful. Our judgments are often influenced by what other people think. I'm not sure how we would "inextricably" tie in the beauty of the Mona Lisa with
    instrumentation.

    ReplyDelete
  44. dochoson: Dear Bilbo, please describe in our own words how it looks like the earth rotates. I was just out mowing my lawn, and the earth clearly wasn't moving. And another thing, I saw with my own eyes that the sun moved across the sky!

    When I rotate my body and head, objects move around me the same way the sun seems to move around me. If I were on a rotating platform, that moved slowly enough so that it took 24 hours to complete one rotation, I wouldn't notice that I was moving. If not for the belief that the objects about me were stationary, I might believe that they were revolving around me.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Back to Zachriel. Okay, let's say we have a reading on the instruments that says 100 grams. But most people insist that it really says 120 grams. Now either it is 100 grams or it isn't. How do we tell which it is?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Bilbo:

    "Back to Zachriel. Okay, let's say we have a reading on the instruments that says 100 grams. But most people insist that it really says 120 grams. Now either it is 100 grams or it isn't. How do we tell which it is?"

    Use a different instrument of course.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Bilbo, if you're serious, read up on measurement theory and error analysis. It appears your education has almost zero overlap with scientific methods, quantitative thinking and all that. Are you a theology student?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Zachriel: Even if most people think the Mona Lisa is beautiful, that doesn't make it objective.

    Bilbo: I agree that the Mona Lisa is beautiful, independent of what most people think.

    You may have missed the point. It doesn't become objective just because people agree.

    Bilbo: Okay, let's say we have a reading on the instruments that says 100 grams. But most people insist that it really says 120 grams. Now either it is 100 grams or it isn't. How do we tell which it is?

    troy: Use a different instrument of course.

    Of course!

    Instrumentation is ultimately an extension of observation. We have a mass. We can hold it in our hand, and feel the pull towards the ground. We have a balance scale and compare to mass to various objects. Other people can use the same scale, or make a new scale, and verify our measurement. We might then use a spring and the mass to make a mark for how far the spring stretches. Galileo made use of a number of important instruments; the telescope for studying the planets, the incline plane for understanding gravity, and the pendulum for the measurement of time.

    People have bootstrapped from simple instruments to the very complex, but it always comes back to observation.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Zach: You may have missed the point. It doesn't become objective just because people agree.

    No, I get your point. And I agree that I mistakenly defined objective as what most people agree on. But here's the problem:

    Troy: : Use a different instrument of course.

    And if people continue to disagree on what 100 grams is? Keep using different instruments until we run out?

    Thinking it over, it occurred to me that I believe that there is an objective, independent world, not only because it appears that way to me, but because it appears that way to us. If each of us looked at the instrument and perceived the measurement significantly differently, I think we would lose confidence that the world was objective, and begin to think that it was subjective. It's the fact that most of us would perceive the instrument to read 100 grams that allows us to interact and communicate, and to believe that there is an objective world where there is an instrument that is measuring 100 grams. There might be a few goof balls among us, but if most of us perceive 100 grams, we can continue to believe in an objective world.

    So my definition is wrong, but the basis of our believing in an objective world isn't just that we can measure it, but that we can agree on what the measurement is.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Bilbo, you got it. Well said. I'm glad you are willing to change your mind.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Bilbo: And if people continue to disagree on what 100 grams is? Keep using different instruments until we run out?

    Measurements should be consistent to be considered objective.

    Bilbo: If each of us looked at the instrument and perceived the measurement significantly differently, I think we would lose confidence that the world was objective, and begin to think that it was subjective.

    It could be a problem with the instrument.

    There are two senses to the term objective; the sense of independent verification, and the sense referring to the "real world."

    troy: I'm glad you are willing to change your mind.

    Bilbo has always been quite reasonable. (We still wonder who banned Zachriel over at Telic Thoughts.)

    ReplyDelete
  52. The evolutionist asks “how gilded do you insist the lily be?” Well, to put it simply, things like shared breaks prove nothing in regards to MACRO-evolution. It isn’t even a lily to gild. Do shared breaks perhaps speak to common descent of MICRO-evolution? Probably (though shared design is still an option) but it sure proves nothing in regards to macro-evolution. Only those already converted to the Darwinian priesthood see things like shared breaks as a gilded lily for macro-evolution.

    Regarding gravity, we know it “works” but smart folks still disagree to some extent regarding how it works. I can prove gravity “works” by falling off my chair. There, I just did it (not really). MACRO-evolution, on the other hand, doesn’t deserve to the play on the same field as gravity. We don’t *know* for sure that macro-evolution occurs (I hate to break this to the true believers). We know for sure that MICRO-evolution occurs and can be persisted, but that’s the limits of what we *know*. To act as though things like shared breaks are to macro-evolution what my falling off my chair is to gravity makes you look silly (at best).

    And could we all agree to never bring up again the fact that some people once thought the world was flat? Lots of folks knew for a long time before Columbus sailed the ocean blue that the Earth wasn’t flat (though they couldn’t yet fully grasp that the Earth is a sphere – needed a little thing called gravity for that). I don’t get the utility of this argument.

    ReplyDelete