Is Biological Life the Product of Intelligent Design?

[hellbender]

[ QUOTE ]
Just so we're on the same page, please give an example of a scientific proposition that can't be invalidated though the verification principle.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make sense. How can you invalidate something by being unable to verify it? That's classic Philosopher's Syndrome: mistaking a failure of imagination (no way to verify A) for an insight into necessity (therefore A must be false/insufficient.)

[ QUOTE ]
It matters a great deal. It shows that the property of "naturalism" as being sufficient for life does not have an empirical basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, plz read The Logic of Scientific Discovery . This is science philosophy 101. Naturalism does provide a logically sufficient explanation for life (evolution), and that is all science requires. Hypotheses for individual evolutionary mechanisms will continue to be proposed, debated, and falsified, but until evolution itself is falsified, naturalism does provide a logically sufficient basis for life.

[ QUOTE ]
Then forget verificationism. Show me the observational evidence establishing the reducibility of life to universally observable "natural" (whatever that is) properties.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science ASSUMES methodological naturalism. No scientist in his right mind starts looking for supernatural causes unless no natural cause can be conceived as possibly sufficient.

[ QUOTE ]

Because you haven't defined biological "naturalism" in a way that can be observationally falsified.

[/ QUOTE ]
Naturalism:
"a. the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.
b. the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value."

Any phenomenon that could not be modeled by natural laws would falsify naturalism. As non-religious example, if Benjamin Libet's neurosurgical experiments had actually demonstrated a nonphysical temporal dissociation between "mental" and "physical" events, that would be enough to falsify naturalism.

[matrix]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Why do whales have lungs?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on his bioinformatics spiel, I'm pretty sure this guy is peddling softcore ID---that is, theistic evolution. Questions like this will completely miss the point. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Whales got a bum rap - not only do they have to surface to breathe they also have to leap out of the water to reproduce (salt water is a spermicide)

Not very intelligent design if you ask me...

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just so we're on the same page, please give an example of a scientific proposition that can't be invalidated though the verification principle.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make sense. How can you invalidate something by being unable to verify it? That's classic Philosopher's Syndrome: mistaking a failure of imagination (no way to verify A) for an insight into necessity (therefore A must be false/insufficient.)

[/ QUOTE ]

No way to verify A = lack of scientific basis for believing A. That's the point.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It matters a great deal. It shows that the property of "naturalism" as being sufficient for life does not have an empirical basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, plz read The Logic of Scientific Discovery . This is science philosophy 101. Naturalism does provide a logically sufficient explanation for life (evolution), and that is all science requires. Hypotheses for individual evolutionary mechanisms will continue to be proposed, debated, and falsified, but until evolution itself is falsified, naturalism does provide a logically sufficient basis for life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before you laugh too much, try to understand what is being said. I'm not disputing that "naturalism" is a logically sufficient explanation for life. So is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then forget verificationism. Show me the observational evidence establishing the reducibility of life to universally observable "natural" (whatever that is) properties.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science ASSUMES methodological naturalism. No scientist in his right mind starts looking for supernatural causes unless no natural cause can be conceived as possibly sufficient.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nonsense. Show me one instance of the specific distinction between naturalism and supernaturalism in any of the formalisms of science.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Because you haven't defined biological "naturalism" in a way that can be observationally falsified.

[/ QUOTE ]
Naturalism:
"a. the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.
b. the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value."

Any phenomenon that could not be modeled by natural laws would falsify naturalism. As non-religious example, if Benjamin Libet's neurosurgical experiments had actually demonstrated a nonphysical temporal dissociation between "mental" and "physical" events, that would be enough to falsify naturalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's talking about models? The issue is empirical reducibility. The two are very different. Of course life can be "modeled" using the observational phenomena of the "natural" domain and plenty of handwaving, but that's not science, it's more like hand jive. When you play with the big boys you need to establish experimental rigor.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just so we're on the same page, please give an example of a scientific proposition that can't be invalidated though the verification principle.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make sense. How can you invalidate something by being unable to verify it? That's classic Philosopher's Syndrome: mistaking a failure of imagination (no way to verify A) for an insight into necessity (therefore A must be false/insufficient.)

[/ QUOTE ]

No way to verify A = lack of scientific basis for believing A. That's the point.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It matters a great deal. It shows that the property of "naturalism" as being sufficient for life does not have an empirical basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, plz read The Logic of Scientific Discovery . This is science philosophy 101. Naturalism does provide a logically sufficient explanation for life (evolution), and that is all science requires. Hypotheses for individual evolutionary mechanisms will continue to be proposed, debated, and falsified, but until evolution itself is falsified, naturalism does provide a logically sufficient basis for life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before you laugh too much, try to understand what is being said. I'm not disputing that "naturalism" is a logically sufficient explanation for life. So is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then forget verificationism. Show me the observational evidence establishing the reducibility of life to universally observable "natural" (whatever that is) properties.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science ASSUMES methodological naturalism. No scientist in his right mind starts looking for supernatural causes unless no natural cause can be conceived as possibly sufficient.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nonsense. Show me one instance of the specific distinction between naturalism and supernaturalism in any of the formalisms of science.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Because you haven't defined biological "naturalism" in a way that can be observationally falsified.

[/ QUOTE ]
Naturalism:
"a. the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.
b. the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value."

Any phenomenon that could not be modeled by natural laws would falsify naturalism. As non-religious example, if Benjamin Libet's neurosurgical experiments had actually demonstrated a nonphysical temporal dissociation between "mental" and "physical" events, that would be enough to falsify naturalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's talking about models? The issue is empirical reducibility. The two are very different. Of course life can be "modeled" using the observational phenomena of the "natural" domain and plenty of handwaving, but that's not science, it's more like hand jive. When you play with the big boys you need to establish experimental rigor.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF is 'empirical reducibility'?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
WTF is 'empirical reducibility'?

[/ QUOTE ]

A reducibility that is based on observation, not wishful thinking etc.

Phenomenon A is empirically reducible to phenomenon (or group of phenomena) B if the observable properties of A can be exclusively accounted for (expressed in terms of) the observable properties B.

[hellbender]

[ QUOTE ]
No way to verify A = lack of scientific basis for believing A. That's the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't imagine why you're so confident about this. Nowadays, philosophers say things like, "Dennett has become the Village Verificationist." (Hint: think "Village Idiot.") In fact, some of science's most tried-and-true models in fields like quantum electrodynamics (e.g. model of the electron) cannot be verified empirically. Nonetheless, these models are astoundingly predictive and experimentally useful, so we use them.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not disputing that "naturalism" is a logically sufficient explanation for life. So is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whaaaat? As far as I know, the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't an explanation for anything. And unless the FSM explanation makes some observationally falsifiable claim about life, it's certainly not on equal scientific footing with evolution.

[ QUOTE ]

Show me one instance of the specific distinction between naturalism and supernaturalism in any of the formalisms of science.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about...let me think...um.... THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD? If you can't observe something through empirical experimentation, you can't apply science to it. (Note: I am not suggesting philosophers have reached consensus on the problem of induction, etc. Merely that the scientific method as practiced excludes the supernatural.)

[ QUOTE ]

Who's talking about models? The issue is empirical reducibility. The two are very different. Of course life can be "modeled" using the observational phenomena of the "natural" domain and plenty of handwaving, but that's not science, it's more like hand jive. When you play with the big boys you need to establish experimental rigor.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and will be impressed if you can convince me that you do. Why don't you start by defining "experimental rigor."

[hellbender]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WTF is 'empirical reducibility'?

[/ QUOTE ]

A reducibility that is based on observation, not wishful thinking etc.

Phenomenon A is empirically reducible to phenomenon (or group of phenomena) B if the observable properties of A can be exclusively accounted for (expressed in terms of) the observable properties B.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this have to do with anything? Are you trying to arrive at an argument that biological processes are an insufficient explanation for consciousness?

You're sure pounding away with this emphasis on empiricism and rigor, but don't seem to be talking about science at all to me. What is it that you really want to discuss?

[vhawk01]

I'm enjoying the hellbender addition around here.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WTF is 'empirical reducibility'?

[/ QUOTE ]

A reducibility that is based on observation, not wishful thinking etc.

Phenomenon A is empirically reducible to phenomenon (or group of phenomena) B if the observable properties of A can be exclusively accounted for (expressed in terms of) the observable properties B.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this have to do with anything? Are you trying to arrive at an argument that biological processes are an insufficient explanation for consciousness?

You're sure pounding away with this emphasis on empiricism and rigor, but don't seem to be talking about science at all to me. What is it that you really want to discuss?

[/ QUOTE ]
He wants science to explain the entirety of the natural world on every time, length, and hierarchical scale to the absolute exclusion of all other explanations. Shouldn't be too daunting of a task.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No way to verify A = lack of scientific basis for believing A. That's the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't imagine why you're so confident about this. Nowadays, philosophers say things like, "Dennett has become the Village Verificationist." (Hint: think "Village Idiot.") In fact, some of science's most tried-and-true models in fields like quantum electrodynamics (e.g. model of the electron) cannot be verified empirically. Nonetheless, these models are astoundingly predictive and experimentally useful, so we use them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, when someone resorts to classic fallacies like ad hominem and appeals to authority and convention, it does tend to increase my confidence.

The quantum field theory formalism differs from your "naturalism" speculation about the sufficient bases of life in that it makes useful predictions. So far, your funny notion makes none that are falsifiable.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not disputing that "naturalism" is a logically sufficient explanation for life. So is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whaaaat? As far as I know, the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't an explanation for anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is an explanation for EVERYTHING. That is why his legend has persisted for so long.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Show me one instance of the specific distinction between naturalism and supernaturalism in any of the formalisms of science.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about...let me think...um.... THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD? If you can't observe something through empirical experimentation, you can't apply science to it. (Note: I am not suggesting philosophers have reached consensus on the problem of induction, etc. Merely that the scientific method as practiced excludes the supernatural.)

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly is the distinction between of naturalism and supernaturalism to be made based on observation?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Who's talking about models? The issue is empirical reducibility. The two are very different. Of course life can be "modeled" using the observational phenomena of the "natural" domain and plenty of handwaving, but that's not science, it's more like hand jive. When you play with the big boys you need to establish experimental rigor.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and will be impressed if you can convince me that you do. Why don't you start by defining "experimental rigor."

[/ QUOTE ]

What impresses you hardly seems relevant to this discussion. Experimental rigor (in the sense I used it) exists if all the causal relationships implied by imputing the reducibility of A to B have actually been observed rather than imagined.