South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

July 23, 2019, 16:28:49 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Follow saskeptics on twitter.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Fool’s Gold: Teleology in Science

 (Read 15338 times)
Description: Ignoramuses feverishly delve for it.
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3748


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #45 on: July 28, 2009, 13:36:43 PM »

Mine, yours, other minds...
So the mere existence of intentionality itself makes ID and creationism plausible to you?  It’s a good thing then that science demands significantly more rigorous standards of proof than loose and uninformed jumping from ignorance to a conclusion, isn’t it?



A reasonable argument can be made that chance alone won't explain the fine-tuned universe.
As I said before, “Oh, look at all the coincidences!  I can’t explain them therefore a greater intelligence must be at work!”  And you call that “reasonable.”  Oh dear me.  How about saying instead, “We don’t exactly know why the universe is as it is, so let’s find out.  It looks like it may have come about by pure chance – maybe it’s a special universe among quadrillions – or maybe a more comprehensive cosmogony will shed light on why it is as it is.”  That’s a much more honest approach than pretending to know “answers” that actually answer nothing, now isn’t it?



Someone throws the die.... Nice analogy.
No, nice rhetorical dodge.



[Much stuff about “information,” a sizeable part of it irrelevant and/or obfuscatory.]
See, you’re being thoroughly uncivil again because you’re deliberately setting out to deceive your audience.  You know nothing about QM.  That just gets clearer every time you fabricate something self-serving about it.  The experiments by Salart et al. extend the earliest ones of the 1980s by Alain Aspect et al. about the same phenomenon.  It emphatically had nothing to do with any “teleportation” or “transmission of bits of information.”  To say this is either to be ignorant of the facts or purposely to misrepresent them.  The experiment was a test of Bell’s Theorem, and it showed that non-locality is at work in correlated quantum states.  This means only that no gauge theory using local variables alone can adequately model QM reality.  All of the rest that you conjure out of the results is unsupported by anything in the paper or by its authors.

Besides all of which, the definitions of “information” you have given fail to meet my request.  Nothing in them suggests what experiments I can perform to distinguish information itself from non-information.  More than that, by those definitions, you may as well ask whether “symbology” is a “fundamental category of Nature” – a question you can surely answer yourself.  Then again, maybe not.  Nor are “information” and “meaning” properly separable by those definitions.



[Much stuff about “intentionality” and “intention,” plus a SEP link to “Propositions.”]
Again, your definitions are inadequate (you really should try to read more carefully what I ask for), but it looks like you would attribute matter with consciousness and an ability to abstract, despite no-one knowing what these things really are.



Science is a teleological endeavour... An endeavour with a purpose and an end.... the search for truth. It is carried out by teleological agents (scientists)... searching for the truth. So perhaps you have found teleogy [sic] in science and your fool's gold in the scientists that do the actual science but not in scientific explanations.
Another cool rhetorical dodge.



Do you think it can not be argued that Metaphysical Materialism is so throroughly [sic] anti-scientific that it does not even warrant any consideration?
Sure it can, but so what?  Much the same can be said of any metaphysical starting position – and has been.  That’s why philosophy is both humanity’s oldest intellectual endeavour and its most divided one.  As for “not even warrant[ing] any consideration,” admit you just made that up because it has warranted consideration, and the rejection of the supernatural as an explanatory force has delivered more and better results than any other approach.  Or do you perhaps think all of our modern knowledge and conveniences were “teleologised” before being prayed into existence?

'Luthon64
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #46 on: July 28, 2009, 14:34:36 PM »

Mine, yours, other minds...
So the mere existence of intentionality itself makes ID and creationism plausible to you?  It’s a good thing then that science demands significantly more rigorous standards of proof than loose and uninformed jumping from ignorance to a conclusion, isn’t it?
Which conclusion straw man did you just build and burn?

A reasonable argument can be made that chance alone won't explain the fine-tuned universe.
As I said before, “Oh, look at all the coincidences!  I can’t explain them therefore a greater intelligence must be at work!”  And you call that “reasonable.”  Oh dear me.  How about saying instead, “We don’t exactly know why the universe is as it is, so let’s find out.  It looks like it may have come about by pure chance – maybe it’s a special universe among quadrillions – or maybe a more comprehensive cosmogony will shed light on why it is as it is.”  That’s a much more honest approach than pretending to know “answers” that actually answer nothing, now isn’t it?

Apply that kind of logic to forensic science...


Someone throws the die.... Nice analogy.
No, nice rhetorical dodge.
Sooo, nobody throws the die? Does it throw itself? Do elaborate on your analogy.



[Much stuff about “information,” a sizeable part of it irrelevant and/or obfuscatory.]
See, you’re being thoroughly uncivil again because you’re deliberately setting out to deceive your audience.  You know nothing about QM.  That just gets clearer every time you fabricate something self-serving about it.  The experiments by Salart et al. extend the earliest ones of the 1980s by Alain Aspect et al. about the same phenomenon.  It emphatically had nothing to do with any “teleportation” or “transmission of bits of information.”  To say this is either to be ignorant of the facts or purposely to misrepresent them.  The experiment was a test of Bell’s Theorem, and it showed that non-locality is at work in correlated quantum states.  This means only that no gauge theory using local variables alone can adequately model QM reality.  All of the rest that you conjure out of the results is unsupported by anything in the paper or by its authors.

Besides all of which, the definitions of “information” you have given fail to meet my request.  Nothing in them suggests what experiments I can perform to distinguish information itself from non-information.  More than that, by those definitions, you may as well ask whether “symbology” is a “fundamental category of Nature” – a question you can surely answer yourself.  Then again, maybe not.  Nor are “information” and “meaning” properly separable by those definitions.

Nothing to do with transmission of bits of information? Tell that to the people who uses this non-locality to encrypt sensitive information... eg. MagiQ Technologies Inc.

Nothing to do with transfer of information?
Tell me, if you have two entities A and B that can switch between two states x and y. A(x) and B(y) exist. Upon changing B(y) to B(x), you find that A(x) turns to A(y) and the exact opposite happens if B(y) is changed back to B(x). Can you come to the conclusion that A carries information about B and visa versa, non-local or not?

[Much stuff about “intentionality” and “intention,” plus a SEP link to “Propositions.”]
Again, your definitions are inadequate (you really should try to read more carefully what I ask for), but it looks like you would attribute matter with consciousness and an ability to abstract, despite no-one knowing what these things really are.
Are you anything else than matter? Do you have intentionality?

Science is a teleological endeavour... An endeavour with a purpose and an end.... the search for truth. It is carried out by teleological agents (scientists)... searching for the truth. So perhaps you have found teleogy [sic] in science and your fool's gold in the scientists that do the actual science but not in scientific explanations.
Another cool rhetorical dodge.
Dodge from what?


Do you think it can not be argued that Metaphysical Materialism is so throroughly [sic] anti-scientific that it does not even warrant any consideration?
Sure it can, but so what?  Much the same can be said of any metaphysical starting position – and has been.  That’s why philosophy is both humanity’s oldest intellectual endeavour and its most divided one.  As for “not even warrant[ing] any consideration,” admit you just made that up because it has warranted consideration, and the rejection of the supernatural as an explanatory force has delivered more and better results than any other approach.  Or do you perhaps think all of our modern knowledge and conveniences were “teleologised” before being prayed into existence?

'Luthon64

You seem to confuse methodological naturalism with metaphysical materialism. The one has yielded wonderful scientific results, the other is not scientific in any way, and merely a philosophical outlook on life.
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #47 on: July 28, 2009, 14:48:20 PM »

Hey again Mechanist,

First off, let it be said that I admire your tenacity and dedication to whatever it is you are trying to bring across. From what I gather from all the posts with a Biochemical flavour you are indeed an ID enthusiast. Wink

To answer your question on wether scepticism also applies to materialism and naturalism, I would think yes. Honest scepticism is  not affiliated to any particular philosophy or subject matter. Rather, the methods of science have scepticism at its roots. As do the methods of purchasing a second hand washing machine. Any claim that requires a leap of faith will come under scrutiny of the sceptics, be it from an astrologer or a physicist, a naturalist or a naturist.  

But getting back to the answers to my questions on God's intentions that you kindly provided earlier:

To summarize, you are willing to accept as probable that God had a plan, hatched billions of years ago, to bring the crown of His creation, human beings, onto earth by means of evolution.

The next logical question, which you have no doubt preempted, is how do you know that God intended human beings as his ultimate goal? For example,  if God's plan was to ultimately come up with the chihuahua, then man would be no more than a clever instrument in the Big Plan. So is it not a bit presumptuous to assume that humans are an evolutionary aim?

Mintaka



 
« Last Edit: July 28, 2009, 15:03:54 PM by Mintaka » Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #48 on: July 28, 2009, 15:09:55 PM »

Hey again Mechanist,

First off, let it be said that I admire your tenacity and dedication to whatever it is you are trying to bring across. From what I gather from all the posts with a Biochemical flavour you are indeed an ID enthusiast. Wink

To answer your question on wether scepticism also applies to materialism and naturalism, I would think yes. Honest scepticism is  not affiliated to any particular philosophy or subject matter. Rather, the methods of science have scepticism at its roots. As do the methods of purchasing a second hand washing machine. Any claim that requires a leap of faith will come under scrutiny of the sceptics, be it from an astrologer or a physicist, a naturalist or a naturist.  

But getting back to the answers to my questions on God's intentions that you kindly provided earlier:

To summarize, you are willing to accept as probable that God had a plan, hatched billions of years ago, to bring the crown of His creation, human beings, onto earth by means of evolution.

The logical next question, which you have no doubt preempted, is how do you know that God intended human beings as his ultimate goal? For example,  if God's plan was to ultimately come up with the chihuahua, then man would be no more than a clever instrument in the Big Plan. So is it not a bit presumptuous to assume that humans are an evolutionary aim?

Mintaka
Hi,

Thanks.

With regards to your summary, either an original plan, or an ongoing work of art can be argued for I guess. With humans having free will having their way as well... chosing whatever reality they wish to bring upon themselves.

Your question? I can't know without any doubt that we are God's ultimate goal. You might argue that it is a bit presumptuous to make such a claim. Perhaps it is. Perhaps chihuahuas are and we are not. Although I have not heard a chihuahua make that belief or argued why it is so... Does that mean they are not and we are. No. Until other beings other than humans come to argue they are the ultimate goal, I think it is not beyond reason to believe we might just well be...part of a plan. Whether the plan is that we have sufficient reason to believe our cognitive faculties are designed reliable enough to freely understand and seek truth, just to have free will, just to have intentionality etc. remain open questions... Who knows, perhaps we have not reached the global optimum on the evolutionary fitness landscape (like sharks and crocodiles) with regards to Reproduction success and Intelligence (Ability to process information - genetics, proteomics, metabolomics) Agency (Ability to manipulate information) and complexity ?
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #49 on: July 28, 2009, 16:08:30 PM »

Fair enough. The "we don't mind answering questions." above just does not apply to you it seems  Wink. Who is this "we" you are refering to again?


I answered your question loudly and clearly and explained why I'll be vague on this one. In so many words. Only a complete moron wouldn't get it the first time.

And it is the royal "we" of course.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #50 on: July 28, 2009, 16:14:12 PM »

Where have you answered these questions? Point it out please.

1) Lay out what exactly you agree and disagree with naturalism and materialism.
2) Lay out these "metaphysical biases" you disagree/agree with?

You maintain that you are not a materialist, not a naturalist and bear no metaphysical biases. How about pointing out where you have answered the above questions...
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #51 on: July 28, 2009, 16:21:21 PM »

Post 42 in this thread would be the latest one. (not counting the one I just showed you in the "preadaptions" thread)

Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #52 on: July 28, 2009, 16:24:45 PM »

Haven't said anything about what exactly you agree and disagree with naturalism and materialism or any of the "metaphysical biases" you disagree/agree with now have you...
Mind answering them please? Really interested now  Grin.
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #53 on: July 28, 2009, 16:29:09 PM »

nope. not going to. so there.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3748


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #54 on: July 28, 2009, 18:04:36 PM »

Which conclusion straw man did you just build and burn?
If you think it’s a straw man then maybe you should try being a lot clearer about how “Intentionality for one.... Mine, yours, other minds...” (the sum total of your answer in this context thus far) adds up to a defence of ID and/or creationism – that is, right after you clear up exactly what intentionality it is you’re hand-waving all around.



Apply that kind of logic to forensic science...
Sure – just as soon as it has been properly established (a) that a crime has in fact been committed, and (b) that there is a preponderance of evidence indicating a probable scenario beyond a reasonable doubt.



Sooo, nobody throws the die? Does it throw itself? Do elaborate on your analogy.
More rhetorical dodging, and not very artful either.  It doesn’t matter whether the die was thrown by someone or it got bumped by the cat or fell off the table because of an earth tremor or it is a virtual die that is part of a computer’s screensaver that shows spontaneously-rolled dice.  What matters is that the possible outcomes form a limited set of six, and that over many, many throws the die’s behaviour is exactly in line with that of a discrete random variable, irrespective by what means the die is tossed.



Nothing to do with transmission of bits of information? … [Followed by reams of profoundly ignorant mumbo jumbo.]
No, and you’re continuing to make an ever-bigger ass of yourself with such comprehensive ignorance of QM and these hollow pretences to the contrary.  It’s true enough that secure code transmissions can make use of correlated quantum states to detect eavesdropping, but correlated quantum states themselves cannot be used to transmit information because measurements, e.g. of spin, are neither deterministic nor pre-settable.  What you’re saying here is very similar to claiming that a proper message can be transmitted by transmitting a live movie of face-down Scrabble tiles that are randomly turned over one at a time.

Now, I won’t be wasting any more of my time dissecting such ignorant QM distortions, nonsense and impostures (except to the extent of merely labelling them thus) until you decide to show the subject the proper “civility” it deserves, okay?



Are you anything else than matter? Do you have intentionality?
I have no reason to suppose otherwise, and it certainly seems that way, respectively.  Your next question will surely be something like, “How do you get from matter alone to intentionality?”  My answer is that I don’t know because I don’t know exactly what life, consciousness and mind are to begin with, and all of these seem to me to be prior to “intentionality,” whether one adopts the colloquial or philosophical usage of that term.



Dodge from what?
From delivering any cogent defence for why an assumption of teleology should benefit science.  The observation that scientists are teleological agents (in the sense that they aim for something) rather misses the point.  It does not follow from the existence of teleological agents in one sphere that everything else is teleologically driven.

And, lest we lose sight of the self-evident here, an obvious question to ask is, if the world is teleologically determined at a fundamental level, why is it that the basic assumption of ateleology has been vastly more fruitful in revealing the workings of the world than has its contrary?  Could it be that the ateleological assumption encourages us to dig deeper and to keep digging?  Why should that be?  Further, one should ask about the eminent success of the ateleological assumption in science.  One should ask if that success itself is an outcome of the teleology that the world is allegedly imbued with.



You seem to confuse methodological naturalism with metaphysical materialism. The one has yielded wonderful scientific results, the other is not scientific in any way, and merely a philosophical outlook on life.
Are you challenging the definitions I provided earlier – the ones you yourself asked me for?  If not, the above is untainted nonsense.  If yes, how does your conception of metaphysical materialism make it “not scientific in any way”?

'Luthon64
Logged
rwenzori
Sniper
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


Merda accidit.


« Reply #55 on: July 28, 2009, 18:15:30 PM »

Sure, God could make us in 1 second, everyday, for eternity, or not make us, what is wrong with chosing a process that will inevitably result in the emergence of beings of our kind and suitably adapted to their fitness landscape?

I suppose that would then make you a Defecatory Theist - "God makes sh1t happen".

Would said god be Bebeh Jebus, by any chance? Why not Pretzlpakit?
Logged
mdg
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +5/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 337



WWW
« Reply #56 on: August 03, 2009, 12:40:04 PM »

Um, at the risk of adding fuel to the fire, I thought I'd add my two cents worth, so here it goes......

Mechanist, could you please address the questions put to you in this thread, plus this one, and this one, and this one, with straightforward, simple answers ( for dumbasses like me). Your continuous evasion of questions and changing of the topic in the middle of debates is beoming very frustrating. Not to mention the flood of links that pepper your posts; I think I have developed carpal tunnel syndrome just reading through some of your posts - which; frankly, I have started skipping because they're TL;DR.

There's a phrase that keeps running through my head when I see your posts....

"If you can't dazzle 'em with your brilliance, baffle 'em with bullsh1t."
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3748


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #57 on: August 03, 2009, 20:58:22 PM »


'Luthon64
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 3.189 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page March 20, 2019, 21:38:34 PM
Privacy Policy