Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Herald,

1. You don't have the power to tell me what I believe and don't believe.

2. You immediately reverted once again to the ILF/alien/god-of-the-gaps and argumentum ad ignorantium fallacies. That's all you have?

Not surprising that:

4:0

Quote:

ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE
Ad Ignorantium

(also known as: appeal to ignorance, absence of evidence, argument from personal astonishment, argument from Incredulity)

Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Logical Form:

X is true because you cannot prove that X is false.
X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.
Example #1:

Although we have proven that the moon is not made of spare ribs, we have not proven that its core cannot be filled with them; therefore, the moon’s core is filled with spare ribs.
Explanation: There is an infinity of things we cannot prove -- the moon being filled with spare ribs is one of them. Now you might expect that any “reasonable” person would know that the moon can’t be filled with spare ribs, but you would be expecting too much. People make wild claims, and get away with them, simply on the fact that the converse cannot otherwise be proven.

Example #2:

To this very day (at the time of this writing), science has been unable to create life from non-life; therefore, life must be a result of divine intervention.
Explanation: Ignoring the false dilemma, the fact that we have not found a way to create life from non-life is not evidence that there is no way to create life from non-life, nor is it evidence that we will some day be able to; it is just evidence that we do not know how to do it. Confusing ignorance with impossibility (or possibility) is fallacious.

Exception: The assumption of a conclusion or fact deduced from evidence of absence, is not considered a fallacy, but valid reasoning.

Jimbo: Dude, did you spit your gum out in my drink?
Dick: No comment.
Jimbo: (after carefully pouring his drink down the sink looking for gum but finding none...) Jackass!
Tip: Look at all your existing major beliefs and see if they are based more on the lack of evidence than evidence. You might be surprised as to how many actually are.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/54-argument-from-ignorance

3 Replies

@FBM,

You around, FBM?

1 Reply

@layman,

For a few minutes, yeah. What's up?

1 Reply

@FBM,

Well, I saw your lesson to Herald. A few days ago I had posed a question to you in the relativity thread which involves that topic. Just wondering: Is there a reason you haven't answered?

1 Reply

@layman,

I was in over my head. It was giving me a headache. I should've said something, I suppose. Mea culpa. Didn't mean to be rude and leave you hanging like that. I'm juggling several things at the moment. The semester just started, so suddenly I'm busy again.

1 Reply

@FBM,

OK, I see. Fair enough. If you ever get over your "headache," I'd still be interested in pursuing the answer to that particular question with you.

1 Reply

@layman,

Cool. I've got to run out of the office for a bit, but I think I'll have a little free time before my next class. I'll try to respond to it before class.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

also known as: appeal to ignorance, absence of evidence, argument from personal astonishment, argument from Incredulity

Was it this thread, of some other where Schrödinger's cat was brought up, I forget? I'm thinking it was different thread, I just can't remember which one.

But, while on the topic of physics, logical fallacies, etc., I thought I would bring in this example. I have seen many people claim that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle "proves" that, on the quantum level, events are uncertain, undetermined, and merely "probable." This strikes me as just another case of confusing subjective knowledge with ontological truth. A form of argument from ignorance in a slightly different form, if you will. The "argument" here is along the lines of "If I don't (or can't) know something, then there can be no "truth" about the matter." Or, "if I am unaware of the existence of X, then X does not exist."

Quote:

In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle...states that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Even assuming that's true (which I do), how can one conclude from that that "reality" is somehow uncertain? The same type of assertions (of "reality" being uncertain), and hence the same question, arises in connection with the "observer" effect.

Quote:

The uncertainty principle has been frequently confused with the observer effect, evidently even by its originator, Werner Heisenberg. The observer effect, notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems. Heisenberg offered such an observer effect at the quantum level (see below) as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty.,,,Throughout the main body of his original 1927 paper, written in German, Heisenberg used the word, "Ungenauigkeit" ("indeterminacy"),[1] to describe the basic theoretical principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics) and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Notwithstanding Heisenberg's confusion and the subsequent Copenhagen interpretation of QM, the "observer effect" does NOT mean that there is no "real" state of affairs. To state otherwise is merely to resort to the old "argument from ignorance," as I see it.

Quote:

In science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics).

Assuming the "observer effect" is true and real (which I do), then, so what? How could that make "reality itself" indeterminate? As wiki goes on to note"

2 Replies

@layman,

I get very uneasy when someone is proclaiming an ontological truth. It's one thing to acknowledge the direction that the preponderance of the evidence points towards, another thing entirely to declare something to be an ontologogical truth. Definitional and functional truths (like mathmatics and formal logic) are fine, but tentative conclusions and conventions should be recognized as such. Somebody may turn up some day and blast Heisenberg out of the water. Never know.

2 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

Somebody may turn up some day and blast Heisenberg out of the water. Never know

.

Yeah, FBM, I agree, but I really don't think there is any need to "blast Heisenberg out of the water." I was far from finished in that last post when I mistakenly hit "reply." I have since (mostly) finished it, except I once again hit "reply" by mistake and can no longer edit it.

0 Replies

@layman,

To finish that post:

Assuming the "observer effect" is true and real (which I do), then, so what? How could that make "reality itself" indeterminate? As wiki goes on to note:

Quote:

The observer effect on a physical process can often be reduced to insignificance by using better instruments or observation techniques.

The limitations on our ability to "measure" something in no way alters what it "is," as best I can conclude.

0 Replies

@layman,

It makes for good reading doesn't it?
I lean to the overall morphological response to these many aspects of evolution/development that seem to give the many workers in the recent past,"naming rights" adjida about what to call it when we speak of molecular evolution or evolution of the whole organism.
BTW-when Kimura proposed his neutral theory (theory), he (and most others) were speaking of the molecular level only. Kimura stated emphatically , and even Gould had inferred that
"at the genotype level, random gene drift is the predominant mechanism, while at the phenotype level (the actual organism), most ALL evolution is driven by natural selection.Jeez, that was the 1960's. I think were beyond that stuff.

Even Gould stated that ghe was being a bit too impetuous in declaring that Darwinian thinking is "dead".
"Its more in need of a whole lot of reassessment" (and incorporation of things discovered in the 80' and 90's).
Epigenetics, control of environmental changes in humans, genetic drift in genomics (BTW, this was NEVER ignored in the "neo Darwinian" mode ).
I think it was Daniel Fairbanks that said "lets get over this **** about what we call it and get back to work"

A lot of the whole krfuffle has been quieted since Gould's death (I always said that he was also guilty of mostly "huckstering" Punctuated Equilibrium as a real mechanism-even though Gould and ELdredge's own model fossil record (in the field) had been found to be inaccurate (it was released as data after Gould's deth in 2002). The PE Formation was regionally extensive and recorded many of the teeny intermediate forms displaying several minor changes that Gould and Eldredge ignored (Or more likely, didn't know about).

So many new form fossils of known genera have been found since the 1990's. So many minor variations are seen to exist that the concept of "Major stand-alone macroevolution" without microevolutionary changes (including such things as sexual dimorphism) just doesn't seem to hold out.

Dead? hardly.
Many scientists merely need to decide whether or not to include their ultimate audiences within their arcane discussions. Gould was always a kind of big -mouth who like to hear his own poetic voice over the importance of being clear.

4 Replies

@Herald,

saying what I need to explain to you is obvious a play on words. You fail to absorb even the simplest of concepts.
As I said to you early in this discussion
WHILE WE STIPULATE TO GENETIC MUTATION AS RANDOM EVENTS< THE ACTUAL EVOLUTION OF THE ORGANISM IS BY NATURAL SELECTION WHICH IS NOT < BY ANY MEANS ,A STOCHASTIC PROCESS

You seem to have your head stuck in one plane of discussion so why bother? Remain with your opinion, since youre not in any field of teaching or applied research involving evolution, youhave no responsibility tofully understand anything.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Epigenetics, control of environmental changes in humans, genetic drift in genomics (BTW, this was NEVER ignored in the "neo Darwinian" mode ).

Not sure I can agree with that, Farmer. As just one example, look that the absolute, out of hand, rejection that Barbara McClintock's corn maize findings (initially) received from the dogmatic "Neo-Darwinists." The treatment of Carl Woese and Lynn Margulis provide similar examples of strong resistance to any "extension" of the basic dogma (natural selection combined with strict genetic determination and inheritance on the basis of a strictly lineal descendency) of the synthetic theory.

Quote:

Gould was always a kind of big -mouth who like to hear his own poetic voice over the importance of being clear.

True that (the big-mouth part, anyway--I always thought he expressed himself pretty clearly).

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

...NATURAL SELECTION WHICH IS NOT < BY ANY MEANS ,A STOCHASTIC PROCESS
...

Just repeating that for its potential educational value. Probably a waste of time, given Herald's selective attention, memory and denialism, but what the heck.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Epigenetics, control of environmental changes in humans, genetic drift in genomics (BTW, this was NEVER ignored in the "neo Darwinian" mode ).

As I said, I can't really agree. As I'm sure you know, the Weissman barrier and Crick's "central dogma" were adopted as "indisputable" tenets of the synthetic theory. And, for that matter, so was the "universal common ancestor" assumption (which Margulis undermined and which Woese disproved).

0 Replies

@FBM,

Back to the "indeterminacy" issue again. I think that the blurring of the lines between what is subjective and what is objective is one major reason for this circumstance:

Quote:

The theoretical foundation of the concept of measurement in quantum mechanics is a contentious issue deeply connected to the many interpretations of quantum mechanics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

It all started with Al and his special theory. In 1905 he was a fervent admirer of Ernst Mach and a devout positivist. He later rejected his positivism and reportedly told Karl Popper that his early positivism was his "biggest regret."

Al himself argued vigorously against the Copenhagen interpretation. But his conversion came too late. Bohr and others pointed out that, after all, it was he himself who elevated subjectivity to the status of "truth" when he propounded SR.

All of which, FBM, forms part of the reason that I said, earlier, that I thought physics went off track a long time ago. As Louis Essen said in the 1970's (and as many others have noted, both before and since):

Quote:

Since the time of Einstein there has been a great increase in anti-rational thought and mysticism [in physics]

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

when Kimura proposed his neutral theory (theory), he (and most others) were speaking of the molecular level only. Kimura stated emphatically , and even Gould had inferred that "at the genotype level, random gene drift is the predominant mechanism, while at the phenotype level (the actual organism), most ALL evolution is driven by natural selection.Jeez, that was the 1960's. I think were beyond that stuf

I think you're over-simplifying the underlying issues, here, Farmer. Neo-darwinists always insisted that natural selection was a "creative force" (another dogmatic tenet). Don't ask me how it was supposed to be "creative" because I don't understand the "logic" at all, but that was the claim, nonetheless.

For them this "creative process" supposedly occurred at the molecular level, as I understand it, by way of regulating "random" variation (mutation). No one denies that "natural selection" can serve a "maintenance" function--disposing of unsustainable mutations, etc., but many claim that is of little consequence in "driving" evolutionary change.

Quote:

Traditionally, natural selection has been applied to biological individuals; however, the process has also been applied to levels both below the individual (the gene) and above the individual (species, higher taxa) (Dawkins 1988; Gould 2002)....However, the ability of natural selection to be the main creative force of changes on the macroevolutionary level, such as the development of higher taxa and major new designs, remains controversial....

The theory of evolution by natural selection [my insertion: i.e. neo-darwinistic theory] encompasses both minor changes in gene frequency in populations, brought about by the creative force of natural selection...Now, scientists use natural selection mainly to describe the mechanism, not the theory of evolution by natural selection. In this sense, natural selection includes any selection by a natural agent...

The theory of natural selection is one of two major theories presented by Darwin, the other being the theory of descent withmodification... According to this theory, natural selection is the directing or creative force of evolution. That is, it is more than just a force for weeding out unfit organism...However, the view that natural selection is the primary causal agent in macroevolutionary change remains controversial...

There are evolutionists, such as Gould (2002), who question whether one can extrapolate from microevolutionary change to macroevolutionary change (see macroevolution)...While natural selection is widely accepted as a force in nature, and the theory of modification by natural selection has been demonstrated on the microevolutionary level, the theory remains controversial as an explanation for macroevolutonary change.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Natural_selection

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

he (and most others) were speaking of the molecular level only...at the phenotype level (the actual organism), most ALL evolution is driven by natural selection.

That, too, depends a lot on which evolutionary school you want to rely on:

Quote:

...Some have proposed the gene as the principal object of selection. Dawkins (1976) argued that "the fundamental unit of selection, and therefore of self-interest, is not the species, nor the group, nor even, strictly, the individual. It is the gene, the unit of heredity…. Selection occurs at only one lowest level—the gene."

Although evolutionary theory has retained "natural selection" as one of the (many) "mechanisms" of evolution, that is a long way from the Neo-Darwinists view of the role of natural selection. The core meaning of the term "natural selection" has been substantially altered since the formation of the modern synythesis:

Quote:

For Darwin, the term natural selection was synonymous with evolution by natural selection... Now, scientists use natural selection mainly to describe the mechanism, not the theory of evolution by natural selection. In this sense, natural selection includes any selection by a natural agent, including sexual selection...

Same source as above

1 Reply

@layman,

, The mechanism of "natural selection" is not so misunderstood as you seem to want to believe. Whether or not we retain it as part of the Title of the theory, ? I think some popular writers must have some better things to do.

Gould ,in his later years, said (and I like it),
"Genes are merely the bookkeeping of evolution"

Quote:

natural selection includes any selection by a natural agent, including sexual selection...

BUT, ITS NEVER A RANDOM EVENT, that was my position throughout this discussion with herald.

PS-Your arguments are really good. I apologize for attributing your posts to Creationist thinking. I only rejoined the discussion after several weeks away. I hadn't caught any of your original posts .

Im not a DAwkins fan either. I find many of his arguments rude and fractious. He should know better that the beginnings of morphological adaptation can occur without any initial genetic mutations. I think hes modified his "beliefs" since The Selfish Gene. . In 2009 He summarizes what Id been saying to Herald.
"Mutations are the random changes in genes that constitute the raw material for evolution by non-random selection" (The Greatest SHow on Earth)

3 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know