Letter to the Editor

[Darth Wong]

Okay, let's look at the life cycle of a scientific theory:

1) Observation. Find something which is not explained by present theories.

2) Devise a theory to explain it.

3) Determine other consequences of this theory

4) Test them. If contradictions are found, this is part 1 for the next theory.

Now, you're saying that since ID has nothing or very nearly so in category #3, it isn't a scientific theory. Okay.

I'm saying, why did you even let them get to step #3? They're screwed to hell on step #1! You are effectively giving them ground by even raising the question implied by #3.

Incorrect. The fact is that we can't necessarily explain every feature of every organism on Earth. We don't have that kind of comprehensive knowledge yet, and if you try to pretend that we do, a skilled ID debater will crush you in front of an audience. You have to be willing to concede that there are things we do not yet understand, and then attack the logic that this automatically lends credence to ID.

Like it or not, their best point of vulnerability is at point #2: the part where they claim to have a theory which explains this data, but which in fact is not capable of explaining anything.

[Lord Zentei]

ANALOGY:

Alice says, "Hey, I've got an idea to explain why pianos fall at 1 meter per second per second."
Bob says, "They don't."

End of argument. The detail that Alice's explanation of pianos falling behavior is really bad doesn't need to enter into it.

And the fact that Alice's explanation cannot produce this 1 m/s^2 prediction (or any other rate of acceleration) would not also serve as a valid rebuttal? You're still missing the point.

Okay, let's look at the life cycle of a scientific theory:

1) Observation. Find something which is not explained by present theories.

2) Devise a theory to explain it.

3) Determine other consequences of this theory

4) Test them. If contradictions are found, this is part 1 for the next theory.

Now, you're saying that since ID has nothing or very nearly so in category #3, it isn't a scientific theory. Okay.

I'm saying, why did you even let them get to step #3? They're screwed to hell on step #1! You are effectively giving them ground by even raising the question implied by #3.

You have now reaced the point in your exchanges with DW that you had reaced with me a few posts up.

[drachefly]

DW: So the Mmrnmhrm cannot scientifically conclude that they were designed?

Holy Christ are you ever stupid. They have a fucking factory right next to them. There's your comprehensible mechanism right there.

You were dismissing the speculations of genetic tampering or special creation. Sure, the evidence wouldn't be there for which one.

Now, in the Mmrnmhrm case, is it provable that they came from the Mother Ark? No. After all, the Mother Ark did not have a mechanism for getting them out the door and into the scattered array they woke in. The Mmrnmhrm did not have a clear mechanism for moving themselves there and then forgetting all about it, either... some unknown mechanism would have to be postulated anyway...
Maybe their job was to BUILD it, and they finished, then malfunctioned, lost their memories, and turned back on.
Maybe a whole bunch of things.

Sure, a set of CONSISTENT and somewhat PLAUSIBLE mechanisms exist, but this is one thing ID does not have a shortage of. They have too many possible explanations, not too few.

[Darth Wong]

You were dismissing the speculations of genetic tampering or special creation. Sure, the evidence wouldn't be there for which one.

If the evidence were there, it would imply that each option had been sufficiently defined to make predictions which could be compared with this evidence. This is what the ID camp has FAILED to do, and this is the point you keep ignoring. You cannot, as a matter of logic, say that a hypothesis explains anything unless it is sufficiently well-defined to make specific predictions. An inscrutable term cannot, by definition, be defined. You honestly don't see the problem?

Now, in the Mmrnmhrm case, is it provable that they came from the Mother Ark? No. After all, the Mother Ark did not have a mechanism for getting them out the door and into the scattered array they woke in.

Don't be ridiculous; they can move, therefore there's an obvious explanation for how they could have moved around before they were rendered unconscious.

The Mmrnmhrm did not have a clear mechanism for moving themselves there and then forgetting all about it, either... some unknown mechanism would have to be postulated anyway...

Bullshit; it would be quite easy to explain how they got moved around.

Maybe their job was to BUILD it, and they finished, then malfunctioned, lost their memories, and turned back on.
Maybe a whole bunch of things.

And any one of those ideas could be explored, but could not be considered a scientific theory until it was sufficiently well-defined to make accurate predictions based on observed data.

Sure, a set of CONSISTENT and somewhat PLAUSIBLE mechanisms exist, but this is one thing ID does not have a shortage of. They have too many possible explanations, not too few.

No, ID does not have any mechanisms at all, and I don't know where you got the asinine idea that it does.

[Lord Zentei]

Sure, a set of CONSISTENT and somewhat PLAUSIBLE mechanisms exist, but this is one thing ID does not have a shortage of. They have too many possible explanations, not too few.

Name one plausible mechanism that ID has.

[drachefly]

Well, great. Use that [i.e. that they are using "pseudo-mystical handwaving at some point or other in order to explain away their failures"], then; but that has nothing to do with lack of mechanism.

Yes it is. I require that a scientific mechanism be describable with observable data. Otherwise, any harebrained idea could be classified as a "scientific mechanism". You seem to be confusing "describable with obervable data" with "in principle describable with observable data IF we existed in a universe where such data were observed".

What do you mean by "a scientific mechanism [must] be describable with observable data."?

1) a scientific mechanism must explain the observable data
2) a scientific mechanism must be testable in detail by observations
3) a scientific mechanism must be specific.

As for 1, ID's mechanisms (all of the many) explain the observable data. They have enormous parsimony issues because they haven't knocked out the much simpler competitor, evolution.

As for 2, there are many scientific theories which do not have this characteristic (e.g. the standard model)

As for 3, I do not think this is a necessary requirement for a scientific theory. It is a necessary requirement for the theory to be specific enough to be useful.
In the Mmrnmhrm illustrative case, the theory that they were built some time for some purpose is very much not specific in regards to time and reason; and it has doubts on the how scale as well. Still, we all agree that it is scientific.

[drachefly]

Sure, a set of CONSISTENT and somewhat PLAUSIBLE mechanisms exist, but this is one thing ID does not have a shortage of. They have too many possible explanations, not too few.

Name one plausible mechanism that ID has.

Some alien biologists came to Earth, and saw critters down here which lacked some irreducibly complex part X. One said to the other, "Wow, these guys could really amount to something if they had an X. Too bad their parts will never in a trillion years form that kind of thing. We got lucky, our parts are simpler." they then put together the N-part irreducibly complex part X, reintroduced the critter into the ecosystem, and left. Or hung around, or whatever.

Parsimonious? No. Consistent? Yes.
If your estimate is that evolution could not produce the observed organisms, the parsimony problems of this scenario cease to be severe enough to discard it out of hand.

If on the other hand.... blah blah you know where I'm going here.

[Lord Zentei]

Sure, a set of CONSISTENT and somewhat PLAUSIBLE mechanisms exist, but this is one thing ID does not have a shortage of. They have too many possible explanations, not too few.

Name one plausible mechanism that ID has.

Some alien biologists came to Earth, and saw critters down here which lacked some irreducibly complex part X. One said to the other, "Wow, these guys could really amount to something if they had an X. Too bad their parts will never in a trillion years form that kind of thing. We got lucky, our parts are simpler." they then put together the N-part irreducibly complex part X, reintroduced the critter into the ecosystem, and left. Or hung around, or whatever.

Parsimonious? No. Consistent? Yes.
If your estimate is that evolution could not produce the observed organisms, the parsimony problems of this scenario cease to be severe enough to discard it out of hand.

If on the other hand.... blah blah you know where I'm going here.

How the fuck is that PLAUSIBLE? Where is the EVIDENCE?

[Darth Wong]

As for 1, ID's mechanisms (all of the many) explain the observable data.

Wrong. They cannot make a prediction at all, because the designer is not subject to analysis or even definition.

[Lord Zentei]

What do you mean by "a scientific mechanism [must] be describable with observable data."?

1) a scientific mechanism must explain the observable data
2) a scientific mechanism must be testable in detail by observations
3) a scientific mechanism must be specific.

As for 1, ID's mechanisms (all of the many) explain the observable data. They have enormous parsimony issues because they haven't knocked out the much simpler competitor, evolution.

As for 2, there are many scientific theories which do not have this characteristic (e.g. the standard model)

As for 3, I do not think this is a necessary requirement for a scientific theory. It is a necessary requirement for the theory to be specific enough to be useful.
In the Mmrnmhrm illustrative case, the theory that they were built some time for some purpose is very much not specific in regards to time and reason; and it has doubts on the how scale as well. Still, we all agree that it is scientific.

Urgh. What I mean is that there must be evidence that requires the mechanism and that the mechanism is capable of describing observations.

[drachefly]

What I mean is that there must be evidence that requires the mechanism and that the mechanism is capable of describing observations.

Okay... what about a class of mechanisms?

Is the theory that the solar system condensed from a stellar accretion disk scientific, even though we cannot say which route it took to get here from there?

[Lord Zentei]

What I mean is that there must be evidence that requires the mechanism and that the mechanism is capable of describing observations.

Okay... what about a class of mechanisms?

Is the theory that the solar system condensed from a stellar accretion disk scientific, even though we cannot say which route it took to get here from there?

If the evidence requires a mechanism and the mechanism can describe observations, sure you can have variants. So what?

[Darth Wong]

What I mean is that there must be evidence that requires the mechanism and that the mechanism is capable of describing observations.

Okay... what about a class of mechanisms?

Is the theory that the solar system condensed from a stellar accretion disk scientific, even though we cannot say which route it took to get here from there?

Why the fuck is an exact route necessary in order to state a mechanism? Are you deliberately being a complete retard?

[drachefly]

When I say 'exact route' I mean such wildly divergent things as it being caused by friction with interstellar gas, friction of gas inside the accretion disk, gravitational 'friction' among the larger bodies, gravitational disturbances by nearby stars, and magnetic fields.

Those are really quite different mechanisms.

[Lord Zentei]

When I say 'exact route' I mean such wildly divergent things as it being caused by friction with interstellar gas, friction of gas inside the accretion disk, gravitational 'friction' among the larger bodies, gravitational disturbances by nearby stars, and magnetic fields.

Those are really quite different mechanisms.

Blah, blah, blah. I'm well aware of the distinctions between the variants of the accretion disk model. I surmise that there is some kind of point to all this that is relevant to the discussion of whether ID has plausible mechanisms that describe obervable data (and are required by available evidence)?

[drachefly]

I wasn't replying to YOU. I was replying to the previous post.

[Lord Zentei]

I wasn't replying to YOU. I was replying to the previous post.

Then my previous question still stands: so what?

And my second question still stands: what does this have to do with our discussion on ID not having any plausible mechanisms that are required by evidence and that describe observed data?

[Darth Wong]

When I say 'exact route' I mean such wildly divergent things as it being caused by friction with interstellar gas, friction of gas inside the accretion disk, gravitational 'friction' among the larger bodies, gravitational disturbances by nearby stars, and magnetic fields.

Those are really quite different mechanisms.

And every one of them is capable of generating predictions because it is based on concepts which can be defined and analyzed: something which cannot be said for ID. What part of this do you not understand?

[drachefly]

There is a huge number of ways aliens could interfere with life on Earth. Each of these would comprise a separate instance of an Intelligent Design theory. Each one of these would make specific predictions and be testable.

It just so happens that there are so many such theories that we couldn't reasonably test them all. This is because aliens are intelligent, and therefore extremely complicated... and therefore posess an enormous number of possible states.

what does this have to do with our discussion on ID not having any plausible mechanisms that are required by evidence and that describe observed data?

You admitted a class of variants is acceptable, so what's the problem? The class of variants of ID is enormous, but they all share certain common features. If you prove that the common feature must be the case, you've proven ID.

The reason I said what I did that prompted your 'so what' was pointing out that variants can be pretty freaking different yet remain scientifically acceptable; and there can be a substantial number of them.

If you think 5 isn't enough, try string theory. They've got like 10^500 variants, each of which is completely unlike its 'neighbors'.


Okay, I'm going to disappear for the day. See you tomorrow...

[Darth Wong]

There is a huge number of ways aliens could interfere with life on Earth. Each of these would comprise a separate instance of an Intelligent Design theory. Each one of these would make specific predictions and be testable.

And IDers have chosen none of these. They specifically choose to say that there is a Designer whose motives and methods are impossible to discern. They do this because they know that if they try to concoct a plausible explanation of why an intelligent being would "design" our biosystem the way it is, they would fail. You are still ignoring the point, not to mention disregarding the fact that they would still have to develop themselves somehow, and that the "Designer" is a nudge-nudge wink-wink name for "God".

[Lord Zentei]

There is a huge number of ways aliens could interfere with life on Earth. Each of these would comprise a separate instance of an Intelligent Design theory. Each one of these would make specific predictions and be testable.

It just so happens that there are so many such theories that we couldn't reasonably test them all. This is because aliens are intelligent, and therefore extremely complicated... and therefore posess an enormous number of possible states.

Hey, I guess that DOES make the Flying Sphagetti Monster plausible. Jesus Fucking Christ.

what does this have to do with our discussion on ID not having any plausible mechanisms that are required by evidence and that describe observed data?

You admitted a class of variants is acceptable, so what's the problem? The class of variants of ID is enormous, but they all share certain common features. If you prove that the common feature must be the case, you've proven ID.

The reason I said what I did that prompted your 'so what' was pointing out that variants can be pretty freaking different yet remain scientifically acceptable; and there can be a substantial number of them.

If you think 5 isn't enough, try string theory. They've got like 10^500 variants, each of which is completely unlike its 'neighbors'.

Holy fucking dog you are a moron. Whatever gave you the asinine idea that the fact there are several acceptable variants of the accretion theory makes ID acceptable? Are you seriously saying that simply the fact that real scientific theories have numerous variants makes any kind of bullshit with numerous variants comprable? I thought you were supposed to have a degree in physics or something - what fucking kind of school did you attend? I don't reject ID because of its numerous vairants moron, I reject it because IT DOES NOT HAVE A PLAUSIBLE MECHANISM THAT IS REQUIRED BY EVIDENCE AND THAT CAN MODEL AND DESCRIBE OBSERVATIONS!

[drachefly]

Dangit, this made me miss my train. One more round.

I'd hazard that they say the designer's motives would be possible to discern because there are so many conceivable motives, many of which would be highly different yet close enough in effect to be indistinguishable. Yet, their mark would be clear.


Okay, suppose the evidence against an evolutionary origin of life on Earth were somehow made rock-solid. What other theories would you look into before the idea that some intelligent designer created us?

Note, the Intelligent Design will always have one prediction: we exist. If no other theory permits this, ID always will.

[Darth Wong]

Okay, suppose the evidence against an evolutionary origin of life on Earth were somehow made rock-solid. What other theories would you look into before the idea that some intelligent designer created us?

What would our biosystem look like in this hypothetical scenario?

Note, the Intelligent Design will always have one prediction: we exist. If no other theory permits this, ID always will.

No it won't, because an undefined entity cannot be used to make predictions. How many fucking times do I have to point this out? ID is as likely to predict people made out of cream cheese as it is to predict anything else, because it has no rational mechanism for predicting anything.

[Lord Zentei]

Dangit, this made me miss my train. One more round.

I'd hazard that they say the designer's motives would be possible to discern because there are so many conceivable motives, many of which would be highly different yet close enough in effect to be indistinguishable. Yet, their mark would be clear.


Okay, suppose the evidence against an evolutionary origin of life on Earth were somehow made rock-solid. What other theories would you look into before the idea that some intelligent designer created us?

What's up with all these "what-ifs"? It has no bearing upon the fact that in reality, ID has no mechanisms that are required by evidence and that model and describe observations.

Hey, if ID were not bullshit, it would not be bullshit. Cool.

Note, the Intelligent Design will always have one prediction: we exist. If no other theory permits this, ID always will.

That's an observation, not a prediction, fool.

"Wow, we exist, therefore, Go - errr an intelligent designer exists". BZZZT! Sorry, no go.

[Darth Wong]

Pursuant to my previous point, show why ID theory does not predict humans made entirely of cream cheese, with laser vision.

You can't, can you? That's the problem with ID.