Tuesday, January 1, 2008

Is IC falsifiable?

I happened upon the blog of one "professorsmith" in a Google search, and a couple of exhanges ensued here and here. Due to professorsmith's increasingly itchy trigger finger, it's probably wise to just post this here, where it won't be "disappeared", as has happened a couple times already. Here's my latest comment to William Bradford:

William Bradford,

You said:
The historic nature of the analysis does complicate things does it not? Let me note that ID critics do not hesitate to allege that ID is unscientific because of evidentiary difficulties. Let me return the favor in a way by pointing out that a legitimate position to take is that the answer to a specific question currently lies outside the boundaries of an empirical answer.
Yes, since we don’t have certainty, let’s just call it a solipsistic tie, shall we? I understand that’s a position many ID proponents would like to sue for, but there’s no legitimate expectation of certainty in any of this, especially in forensic questions. Instead, we depend on consilience, parsimony, predictions, and liability to falsification. That won’t produce the kind of satisfaction you’re demanding, but that’s the point: such demands are euphemisms for “unfalsifiable”. That is, the reason my researcher friend say “get outta here” with that suggestion (along the lines of what you demand) is that it’s not a practical expectation, even in principle.
And while science is all about “evidentiary difficulties”, the difficulties ID struggles with of a different kind. As I said, a century ago, we didn’t have the knowledge of DNA that led to the modern synthesis, and even when the modern synthesis was formulated, we had not uncovered the evidence that has given rise to the move towards evo-devo extensions of the model. The whole reason for engaging in the enterprise of science is because we have evidentiary difficulties, but as the evidence accumulates, positive hypotheses emerge that excel in terms of explanatory and predictive power, as well as rationalizing the evidence and surviving potent opportunities to be falsified. The problem is addressed in a positive way.

IC, as I was mention to professorsmith, is a negative argument applied evolutionary theory. It doesn’t have an “evidentiary problem” of the same sort mainstream science does. It is committed to “proving a negative” as a principle, asserting that X cannot be accounted for, as opposed to saying “here is the evidence that X happened, and if X were not true, this other evidence would be in view, but is absent”. It’s a negative model, which completely reverses the nature of the evidentiary problem.

Unless ID proponents are prepared to advance a positive hypothesis (”here is evidence of the Designer as a phenomenological entity, and here is the explanation of of how the Designer effected the phenomena we see…”), it simply must remain a “critique”, a sophisticated expression of incredulity.

I have no problem with that orientation for ID, so long as they are upfront about that orientation. The evidentiary challenges are fundamentally different for evolutionary theory and ID, though.

You said:
Indeed. Unsatisfactory as they are incapable (so far) of rendering definitive answers.

I think you misunderstood the objection. “Definitive” is an artificial hurdle criterion for science. It’s precisely when the complaint comes back that a given framework isn’t ‘definitive’ that the scientist shrugs and realizes he’s been pushed outside of the boundaries of science. It’s an illicit demand, scientifically speaking, when “definitive” becomes the bar to acceptance.

You said:
This is a revealing comment Touchstone, although one you probably have not thought through thoroughly. My comments about IC (and those of other IDists) are firmly grounded in what we know. When I point out that translation mechanisms needed to enable protein synthesis are dependent on the function of enzymes x, y, z… I’m making an observation backed by the evidence of effects of rare diseases brought about by the disablement of a single one of these enzymes. No suppositions needed. You and others may argue that we will someday find pathways to mechanisms needed for translation and you can label criticism of that contention critiques based on ignorance however you need to note that the belief that such non-telic pathways exist is one firmly rooted in a form a faith.
Sure, I don’t think that’s even controversial. Science doesn’t eschew axioms and epistemic presuppositions. I certainly haven’t claimed that, and do not encounter that position in scientific circles I travel in. It’s a method, and as such, begins with a set of givens it considers necessary to enable the enterprise — natural explanations as a requirement for natural phenomena, for example. That’s not a revelation to anyone.

There’s no “guarantee” that the world is intelligible in naturalistic terms. It may not be. But science proceeds on the “faith-based” assumptions that it is, as a means of enabling the acquisition of (natural) knowledge. There are plenty of other domains (e.g. religion) that do not need the constraints of methodological naturalism, as they are not organized around the development of natural knowledge, as science is.

Science may well “overlook” God, if he’s invisible on natural terms, and that’s a risk inherent in the model. But it’s a profitable risk, as MN provides essential protection from the conflation of supernatural ‘knowledge’ with natural knowledge. Epistemically, natural knowledge is fundamentally destabilized if supernatural “evidence” is mixed in.

You said:
Neither do worn out tread mill arguments aimed at straw men. Try dealing with what IDists are actually claiming.
I keep hearing that I’m offering strawmen, but I’ve yet to see what the strawman is. In this post, professorsmith states “IC is falsifiable”. So I think that quote is clearly what one IDist is “actually claiming”. As I took that statement up in the comments, I learned from professorsmith that IC was, after all, NOT falsified in the general sense, if the flagellum were falsified.

So that raises the question of what she means by “IC is falsifiable”. Does that mean IC is only put to rest if every single biological structure any ID proponent can imagine as IC is furnished with a documented fully detailed step-wise pathway? That’s an absurd and cynical use of the term “falsifiable”, if so, simply because ID proponents can keep scientists running in the hamster cage ad infinitum that way.

So, I’m still unclear what the falisification regime for IC is generally. Even if we were to agree on the specific tests for the flagellum, and it was falsified, IC would remain intact, from what professorsmith says. So what does “falsifiable” mean in that case?

If you want to show me where the straw man is in that, I’d be obliged. It may be useful point out that I have been responding to professorsmith’s post, and subsequent comments, as opposed to a post belonging to Gene, Behe, or Dembski. I’m happy to be directed to statements from them or others that professorsmith subscribes to as answers, but as it is, I don’t see what “falisifiable” means for IC as a general proposition.
I’m glad you mentioned DNA. DNA is an information rich molecule whose function is dependent on the sequential order of its nucleotides and an encoding convention by which sequences acquire biological significance. There is no atelic chemical process which generates systems like this.
That’s just a naked beg to the question, isn’t it? I might as well just say there is no telic process which generates system like this, so long as that kind of begging works.

-Touchstone


As you can see, a torrent of vicious epithets there.

41 comments:

beuty said...

168情色貼片18禁情色18禁情色自拍貼片18歲情色3a情色3d情色3d情色遊戲3d情色貼圖520免費情色電影av女優.成人情色av影片,情色,a片,av女優,美女,av情色火影情色無碼情色片無碼情色網無碼情色貼圖無碼情色貼圖片無碼情色影片無碼情色影片免費觀看無名情色熊貓免費情色影片熊貓情色網熊貓情色網站熊貓情色貼熊貓情色貼片熊貓情色圖庫熟女情色熟女情色自拍火影忍者情色電影火影忍者情色遊戲火辣情色無碼貼圖av情色網av情色論壇av情色小說av情色影片av情色影片免費下載av情色影片下載av情色影音下載av情色成人av情色排行榜

逛街 said...

成人圖庫,口交技巧,成人18,自慰方法,Fleshlight,情色自拍貼圖,成人情色貼圖,少婦自拍,一夜情聊天,本土av,色情av,av圖片,色情聊天,成人情色網,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,080視訊聊天室icandy,情色少女貼圖,免費視 訊聊天網,av女優18,免費線上視訊fm358,avdvd免費AV女優,女優王國,做愛,無碼影片,情色交友

香蕉哥哥 said...

hello~~........................................

雅雯雅雯 said...

安心亞寫真top1069拓網交友做愛自拍免費情色影片寫真集美女正妹照片正妹貼圖正妹視訊250av女優免費影片旺來出品辣妹寫真鋼管秀旺來風情寫真秀-辣妹過招旺來風情寫真秀旺來蓬萊仙山寫真集 vcd旺旺仙貝的狂想境地早洩韭南籽早期歐美a片早期范冰冰照片早春小老婆日本三性影片美女 視訊洪爺sex免費看a片論壇秘密情人影音視訊網 bt成人網av一葉情貼影色網18 禁一葉情貼影入口女生自衛影片免費聊天女同志聊天室成人聊天室做愛影片網交聊天室性愛姿勢免費av影片觀看拓峰交友plus論壇hbo論壇一夜情視訊聊天室五分鐘護半身視訊美女激情網愛聊天室臺灣情色網

v奎峰奎峰 said...

I love readding, and thanks for your artical.........................................

BertR_Dimarco223965 said...

thank for share, it is very important . ̄︿ ̄

鍾FeR_Quade0426 said...

thank you for you to make me learn more,thank you∩0∩

ZenaT_Pinter2284 said...

嘿,你的部落格不錯耶~~只是想跟您問聲好!! ..................................................

俊冠樺宇 said...

錢,給你帶來歡愉的日子,但不給你帶來和平與幸福........................................

佳穎盛卿 said...

wonderful...................................................

陳育政 said...

More haste, less speed.......................................................

M12aeganT_Moe12 said...

北台灣視訊 情色視訊小站 拓網aio交友愛情館 情色視訊天堂 視訊聊天交友1799 壞朋友論壇一夜情視訊 0509電話視訊聊天 視訊影音聊天fm358 sex免費成人影片 sex美女視訊 彩虹頻道免費影片卡通aa片 淫蕩女孩自拍 情色文學999成人性站 免費性感影片 成人漫畫-a片天堂 免費性影片 18成人space 豆豆出租情人視訊美女 QQ美女視訊秀 kk121視訊俱樂部 gogo辣妹視訊 2sex999情人輔助品a片線上試看 1111我姊是惡魔 真愛視訊聊天室 視訊網愛聊天室網路援交168論壇 北台灣視訊交友 米克綜合論壇 aio性感辣妹34c甜心寶貝貼片 交友網 sexy girl比基尼美女 免費聊天交友mm17i sex女優王國avdvd無碼 18x us 38girl 影音視訊聊天fm358 做愛視訊聊天室 性愛教學,色情 影片 免費視訊聊天aqaq 彩虹avdvd 色咪咪貼影片 avdvd免費影片 無碼avdvd無碼卡通情色 sex movie 亞洲東洋影片sexy girl,dvd 桃園視訊t 6成人網頁 無碼影片,情色交友 後宮0204movie免費影片 嘟嘟情人色網免費線上成人影片 av片-性愛 情色影片免費觀賞0204貼圖區

熙辰 said...

黃金千金,不如季布一諾。 ............................................................

琬真 said...

感覺很好的blog,祝你開心喔........................................

慶天 said...

人不能像動物一樣活著,而應該追求知識和美德..................................................

tyroneb said...

你不能左右天氣,但你可以改變心情..................................................

王周宏儒 said...

想要推動天下,先要發動自己。..................................................

欣來 said...

Where did you purchase this product?.............................................................

林奕廷 said...

休息才能再次出發-隨時保持好體力-加油.................................................................

WallaceD依來 said...

所有的資產,在不被諒解時,都成了負債.................................................................                           

江婷 said...

生存乃是不斷地在內心與靈魂交戰;寫作是坐著審判自己。.................................................................

靜宸靜宸靜宸 said...

幸福不是一切,人還有責任。............................................................

吳婷婷 said...

向著星球長驅直進的人,反比踟躕在峽路上的人,更容易達到目的。............................................................

姿柯瑩柯dgdd憶曾g智曾 said...

友誼能增進快樂,減少痛苦............................................................

恩如 said...

看到大家都留言-我也忍不住說聲---加油..................................................................

姿柯瑩柯dgdd憶曾g智曾 said...

美麗的事物是永恆的快樂,它的可愛日有增加,不會消逝而去................................................

佩璇佩璇 said...

不錯唷~我會常常來 >"<............................................................

楊儀卉 said...

來看你了~心在、愛在、牽掛在,幸福才會繁衍不息^^..................................................

珮瑜 said...

來幫你衝一下人氣,捧個人場囉~~............................................................

佳瑩佳瑩 said...

Man is not made for defeat. A mean can be destroyed but not defeated..................................................................

蕭v柯凡豐珈火 said...

一個人的價值,應該看他貢獻了什麼,而不是他取得了什麼....................................................

黃智樺黃智樺 said...

很精彩的部落格 期待你的繼續加油..................................................................

少明秋菁 said...

想別人怎樣對你,你便怎樣對待別人。.......................................................

家唐銘 said...

Circumstances are the rulers of the weak, instrument of the wise.............................................................

凱v胡倫 said...

Quality is better than quantity...................................................................

旺劭旺劭旺劭旺劭 said...

天道酬勤,blog也是!相信你的用心會讓你更受歡迎的..................................................................

幸平平平平杰 said...

may the blessing be always with you!!............................................................

偉冠儒冠儒倫 said...

時間就是塑造生命的材料。..................................................... ............

8468 said...

Necessity is the mother of invention..................................................................

蕾蕾 said...

加油!期待更新哦!

苗承凡 said...

困難的不在於新概念,而在於逃避舊有的概念。......................................................................