[extropy-chat] intelligent design homework

[justin corwin]

On 8/7/05, Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:
> Leibniz covered this centuries ago.  In every conceptual system there
> are the fundamental units - the "force" or "matter" whose role in the
> formalism of the system is well defined but the existence and nature of
> which are left forever undefined - we can not use a fundamental system
> to explain what its fundamental postulates -mean-.  Everything must be
> explained in terms of them.  One accuses the generations of the past of
> talking about "occult forces" - but how have we really improved over
> "occult forces" by invoking "quantum fields"?  We still can't predict
> what will happen, exactly, -and- the word "field" is no more
> explanatory than the word "force" occult or otherwise.

This is a terribly foolish misunderstanding. Maybe you saw some
scientists on tv talking about how mysterious and wierd quantum
effects are, or perhaps you read eminent scientific philosophers
talking about ontological uncertainty, but "quantum fields" by which I
assume you indicate Quantum Electro Dynamics or similar, is one of the
most ACCURATE, descriptive, confirmed physical theories in the history
of science. Quantum theory predicts very specific physical phenomena
which previous theories did not, quantum tunneling, semiconductance,
superconductance, photoelectric reactions, the mechanism of
chloroplastic energy capture, etc etc. quantum uncertainty is a
fundamental physical constraint, it's not equivalent to vague human
social uncertainty.

occult forces explain nothing, and have nothing to do with scientific
theory. This comparison makes no sense.


> This is literally false.  There have been lots of well documented
> events for which we have not found any new information that would push
> God's involvement back any further - both common events (like, wow, I'm
> thinking about love) and uncommon events (like people being seen after
> they've died).  Not only this, the common procedure is not to actually
> EXPLAIN those phenomena but rather to ignore them.

This is an interesting claim. Insofar as I'm aware, scientists are
always very interested in explaining phenomena. Things like love, and
persistent social reports of ghosts have stimulated an enormous amount
of studies, monographs, books, and op-ed pieces in science-ish
magazines. The fact that you don't like the primary conclusions of the
majority of these, namely that love is a consequence of brain state,
which is a function of genetics and environmental factors, and ghost
reports are incoherent and still unconfirmed by evidence, is of no
consequence.

>  This is common in
> the history of science - one picks the phenomena one wants to explain
> and that fit well with one's theory and then ignores those phenomena
> that don't fit well with the theory.  I think Feyerabend's "Against
> Method" is still the classic on this point.

Feyerabend's "Against Method" was a cry against backward evaluation of
new theories against old theories, and complaints about rigorous
scientific methods slowing scientific progress. He proposed
independent evaluation of a new theory's explanatory power, and a more
enlightened view of falsificationism, namely that theories are viewed
against physical facts, not old theories. I don't see how this
applies. Feyerabend if anything would be against you. He argued that
interesting theories often are not in alignment with all reported
facts, because some reported facts are wrong. An example of this is
that modern physical theories don't have to explain angels, because
there aren't any, no matter how many are reported.

> Not a very good lesson.  Perhaps we should learn the other lesson, that
> God does everything.

This is not a very well supported theory. It has little to recommend
it, because the God theory has never predicted anything. There are
cases where religious people point out superficial relationships in
ancient religious texts to modern physical law, but sadly, there are
no cases where traditional religious beliefs have predated scientific
discovery of such laws. The only quasi-example I can think of is the
rediscovery of the heliocentric theory of the solar system. Several
religious ancient cultures understood this clearly, but western
societies were poisoned by Aristotle's religious beliefs that the Sun
must be the physical as well as philosophical center of the universe.
Here we have ancient religious belief in heliocentrism predating
religious belief in terra-centrism, which later gave way to scientific
heliocentrism. A tough call, particularly when it seems clear that
these ancient cultures developed their theories from observation using
sun-based tools to create calendars.

To further the comparison of 'lessons', there are no cases where a
scientific explanation existed, that was later replaced by the theory
"God/Gods made it so". There are many cases where theories that
consisted of "God/Gods made it so" have been replaced by a scientific
explanation. A betting man can clearly make money here.

> "Why are there laws of physics and why are they this way?"
> 
> This is not a question invented by appologeticists and clergy, but
> rather the kind of question that our young people actually ask and is,
> in fact, the original impetus for the study of physics at all.  If we
> quash -these kinds- of questions, then of course our children will be
> uninterested in physics.

This is of course another terrible strawman. Scientists spend a lot of
time on such questions, in terms of people involved, and various
theories proposed. Things like string theory, Tegmark's universe of
universes, dissection of the Anthropic Principle, and other such heady
endeavors all try to find basis, consistency, and explanation in the
underpinnings of physics(if any exist).

Your religious flounderings do not impress these scientists, not
because they are all involved in a complicated conspiracy of
repression and fear, but because they are largely useless to someone
who is actually looking for an explanation.

Religious explanations like "God did it" don't explain anything, and
require increasing contortions in order to protect their territory
from scientific encroachment. "God did it" is an empty hypothesis,
because "God" could have done anything, and could have any
characteristics. It doesn't narrow the space at all, so it doesn't
help. You might as well say "Someone did it", or "bleem did it", they
are essentially the same hypothesis.


-- 
Justin Corwin
outlawpoet at hell.com
http://outlawpoet.blogspot.com
http://www.adaptiveai.com