An intelligent design, requires an intelligent designer, it should be obvious...?

[Armoured]

You accused me of arguing from incredulity.

That's right. Then you accused me of it.

Please describe in detail how the following definition describes my approach to this subject?

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.

The fallacy is an argument from ignorance and an informal fallacy

Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki

It is nonsensical to say that chemicals build brains all by themselves without anyone having arranged the sequences which lead to the formation of a brain. Since when does that kind of nonsense make any sense-since Darwin who was unaware of DNA thought it up?

Looks like an argument from incredulity to me. Invoking a designer because you think anything else would be nonsense. Now, where'd I argue anything from incredulity?

 

[Radrook]

That's right. Then you accused me of it.


Looks like an argument from incredulity to me. Invoking a designer because you think anything else would be nonsense. Now, where'd I argue anything from incredulity?

Please note that I don't think that mindless chemicals can create a brain by themselves by programming themselves with the info to do it is nonsense-it is nonsense and you have so far provided absolutely nothing whatsoever to dissuade me that it is indeed total nonsense. If indeed it isn't nonsense-then provide evidence that proves me wrong instead of accusing me of not understanding how mindless chemicals can be so intelligent as to design and build a brain.

As for your argument from ignorance or incredulity, yes, I believe that you are arguing from the stance of not understanding that information is never traced to mindlessness. It is always traceable to a mind and it is illogical to infer otherwise. That you cannot understand this is evidence of ignorance so you are arguing from incredulity or an incapacity to perceive a basic principle concerning coded information.

 

[Armoured]

Please note that I don't think that mindless chemicals can create a brain by themselves by programming themselves with the info to do it is nonsense-it is nonsense and you have so far provided absolutely nothing whatsoever to dissuade me that it is indeed total nonsense.

yep. That's an argument from incredulity. Pretty much textbook

If indeed it isn't nonsense-then provide evidence that proves me wrong instead of accusing me of not understanding how mindless chemicals can be so intelligent as to design and build a brain.

I'm not the one making the claims here. You have made the "information always comes from a mind" claim, it's up to you to provide evidence supporting the claim, not for me to find evidence disproving it

As for your argument from ignorance or incredulity, yes, I believe that you are arguing from the stance of not understanding that information is never traced to mindlessness. It is always traceable to a mind and it is illogical to infer otherwise. That you cannot understand this is evidence of ignorance so you are arguing from incredulity or an incapacity to perceive a basic principle concerning coded information.

I'm not incredulous of anything. If you can show me evidence that supports your claim, I'll be perfectly credulous. But your sole "evidence" that "information is always traceable to a mind" appears to be that you are incredulous that it could be otherwise.

For the nth time, if you have actual, objective evidence that information is always traceable to a mind, please show us.

 

[Speedwell]

Please note that I don't think that mindless chemicals can create a brain by themselves by programming themselves with the info to do it is nonsense-it is nonsense and you have so far provided absolutely nothing whatsoever to dissuade me that it is indeed total nonsense. If indeed it isn't nonsense-then provide evidence that proves me wrong instead of accusing me of not understanding how mindless chemicals can be so intelligent as to design and build a brain.

So where do you draw the line? Can mindless hydrogen and mindless oxygen design and build water without special "designer" intervention?

As for your argument from ignorance or incredulity, yes, I believe that you are arguing from the stance of not understanding that information is never traced to mindlessness. It is always traceable to a mind and it is illogical to infer otherwise. That you cannot understand this is evidence of ignorance so you are arguing from incredulity or an incapacity to perceive a basic principle concerning coded information.

You should be careful about making pronouncements like that. It gives you the appearance of having gotten all of your information about Information Theory from propaganda mills like the Discovery Institute and CRI.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Er, who says that they *have* to play "nice" together?

I have no idea - what makes you ask?

Even that doesn't *necessitate* string theory.

Of course not.

But you made a *gigantic* leap of faith between a desire for a quantum definition of gravity, to a theory that requires "faith" in multiple extra dimensions of spacetime! Holy smokes! Talk about a giant leap of faith!

How did you expect to falsify that idea, and or what are it's *unique* "predictions"? Did you "cheat first" by using "observation" to create "predictions", or did the predictions just naturally fall out of it?

Lol! It was nothing to do with me

Your impolite suggestions are better aimed at those who proposed the idea.

You do seem to have remarkable difficulty distinguishing between reportage and authorship. I hope you manage to work it out - I'd hate to be mistaken for the author of General Relativity at some point...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...While the biological substrate of the algorithm remains to be identified...

It's not known yet.

Also, the article doesn't mention anything about slime mold having "awareness".

I spent a lengthy but fruitless discussion with Michael on this, suggesting an appropriate definition of 'awareness' for creatures like slime-moulds, e.g. 'responsiveness to the environment' - but that it was important not to equivocate with conscious or self-awareness. But it had no obvious effect.

Just sayin'.

 

[durangodawood]

Please note that I don't think that mindless chemicals can create a brain by themselves by programming themselves with the info to do it....

But thats exactly what happens when a baby develops in a mothers womb, right?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As for your argument from ignorance or incredulity, yes, I believe that you are arguing from the stance of not understanding that information is never traced to mindlessness. It is always traceable to a mind and it is illogical to infer otherwise. That you cannot understand this is evidence of ignorance so you are arguing from incredulity or an incapacity to perceive a basic principle concerning coded information.

I'd like to refer you to post #605 in thread 'DNA Code Indicates Creator', where I explain why this is a fundamental misunderstanding of information.

Spoiler: post #605

Here's your problem, an incomplete understanding of information. You're using a selective anthropocentric viewpoint. The term information is used informally in a variety of ways, but it has a strict scientific definition that those usages are subsets of, approximations to, or corruptions of.

Information is not a mental quantity, it is a property of the universe, of real systems; it is the number of possible alternatives for something (a 'bit' is the minimum amount of information - two alternatives, e.g. 0 or 1). The information content of a system is the number of different ways that system (e.g. its atoms) can be arranged (so is related to the inverse of entropy).

Information about a system is transferred by direct or indirect interaction between two systems; the result is that both systems change, and the resulting correlation between the two systems is the information exchanged - and when one of those systems is you, you have some information about the other system.

So when a stream runs down a rocky valley, the water interacts with the rocks in the stream bed, resulting in turbulent motion that is correlated with the particular arrangement of the rocks, and so it carries information about the stream bed (e.g. the amount of turbulence might correspond to the roughness of the stream bed, so supplying that information).

So the world consists of a continuous set of interactions between systems, producing correlations that are a continual exchange of information.

The 'mental' aspect of information is the way we arbitrarily divide the information exchange in the world into that which is of interest or value to us and that which is not. It is the way we structure our relations to the world and give it meaning.

But from an information point of view, a living organism is a set of chemical processes continually interacting with the world, exchanging information. Only the most efficient at managing these correlations (at integrating this information), will persist, so we should expect to see natural selection producing highly efficient information management systems. The use of indirect mappings, abstractions, and representations makes information systems more effective and efficient, so it is no surprise that we see that such systems have evolved in living things, including DNA and its related cellular systems, and nervous systems, and brains capable of abstract thought, that have a misleading tendency to attribute agency (purpose & meaning) to the interaction of systems...

 

[Michael]

You speak as if string theory is @FrumiousBandersnatch 's invention and/or that he accepts it as nothing short of fact.

Not at all. I'm simply noting that *various* scientific theories either lack a falsification mechanism, or they don't make unique testable predictions, or both.

So it looks like you are twisting reality again, simply so you can start ranting about your obsession again.

Gah. The only point I've been trying to make is that falsification requirements and useful "predictions" aren't actually a requirement of "scientific" theories. If such things did reign supreme in the realm of "science", there would be no such claim as "exotic matter did it", and/or such claims would have already been falsified based on a series of *failed tests*.

 

[Cearbhall]

An intelligent design, requires an intelligent designer, it should be obvious that life's design, has a design and a designer behind it...? It should be obvious that Life or this reality was engineered and has an engineer behind it...

Why do you deny that there is a "mind" behind all we see and know...?

I don't see an "intelligent design."

And even if I were to suppose that there's a "mind" behind it all, that wouldn't answer any questions, because who designed that mind?

 

[Michael]

...While the biological substrate of the algorithm remains to be identified...

It's not known yet.

So even rudimentary intelligence can occur in the absence of any "brain", and no specific chemical reaction can be cited which is known to give rise to "intelligence".

Also, the article doesn't mention anything about slime mold having "awareness".

It does mention intelligence, as do several published papers on the topic of slime molds. I have no idea how intelligence can exist in the absence of 'awareness' of at least the environment to which it responds "intelligently.".

 

[Michael]

I have no idea - what makes you ask?

You more or less implied that a "TOE" had to exist which ties everything nicely together. Even that "belief" is an "act of faith".

Of course not.

Then your argument is without merit.

Lol! It was nothing to do with me

Your impolite suggestions are better aimed at those who proposed the idea.

The atheists around here seem to falsely assert that for an idea to be "scientific", it has to be A) falsifiable and B) produce useful unique "predictions", and M-theory (string theory) just so happens to demonstrate that both of those claims/requirements are false.

You do seem to have remarkable difficulty distinguishing between reportage and authorship. I hope you manage to work it out - I'd hate to be mistaken for the author of General Relativity at some point...

I'm not blaming you personally for the sins of the "scientific' community. I'm simply pointing out to the resident atheists that there is no scientific requirement that an idea be falsifiable, nor is there a requirement that any specific idea produce any unique predictions. Both of those "emotional needs" apparently come from within atheists themselves, not from the realm of science.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... If such things did reign supreme in the realm of "science", there would be no such claim as "exotic matter did it", and/or such claims would have already been falsified based on a series of *failed tests*.

You're confusing 'claim' with 'hypothesis', there is a difference.

Also, scientific tests don't, strictly speaking, pass or fail, they make observations that either support or don't support an hypothesis or theory. If they fail it means that some problem or fault meant they did not function correctly, and results weren't obtained or were not valid. Falsification is the result of a successful test that returns results that show that a crucial prediction of the hypothesis under test is not fruitful.

Just sayin'.

 

[Michael]

For the nth time, if you have actual, objective evidence that information is always traceable to a mind, please show us.

Well, in fairness, one might argue that the scientific method is based upon an "observer", which does indeed imply a 'mind'.

Everything in nature produces 'raw data', but only a "mind" treats that raw data as "information" which can be 'processed' in some way.

 

[Michael]

You're confusing 'claim' with 'hypothesis', there is a difference.

With respect to the basic assertion: "Exotic matter did it", what's the empirical difference?

Also, scientific tests don't, strictly speaking, pass or fail, they make observations that either support or don't support an hypothesis or theory.

I thought you said that scientific hypotheses had to make 'testable predictions'? What good are the "predictions" if they can't be used to falsify the claim? Sounds like a bad case of confirmation bias to me.

If they fail it means that some problem or fault meant they did not function correctly, and results weren't obtained or were not valid. Falsification is the result of a successful test that returns results that show that a crucial prediction of the hypothesis under test is not fruitful.

Just sayin'.

Even if that were the case, the *numerous* revelations about stellar miscounts that applied to that landmark 2006 "dark matter" paper would have falsified the entire claim. There are absolutely no useful "predictions" that have been made by dark/exotic matter proponents. All their "predictions" went down in flames, so what good is their theory in the first place, particularly when we *know* that they grossly underestimated whole *stars* in those galaxy clusters?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You more or less implied that a "TOE" had to exist which ties everything nicely together.

Nope; not only are you reading opinion into reportage, you're getting it wrong. I'll rephrase it - the failure of the two (otherwise successful) theories to mesh suggests an integrating theory (quantum gravity) may be necessary, and String Theory is an attempt to do that as part of a TOE.

Then your argument is without merit.

I didn't make an argument - you're dissing your own straw man.

The atheists around here seem to falsely assert that for an idea to be "scientific", it has to be A) falsifiable and B) produce useful unique "predictions", and M-theory (string theory) just so happens to demonstrate that both of those claims/requirements are false.

It seems to me that A implies B, but in any case, there's a debate among scientists about that point. Falsifiability is obviously a 'nice-to-have', but an hypothesis can't become a scientific theory if it isn't testable (i.e. produces testable predictions). The majority apparently feel that M-theory isn't strictly scientific because it isn't yet falsifiable and doesn't yet produce testable predictions, and a minority (especially string-theorists) think that those criteria are too restrictive. You shouldn't be surprised if comments about science here reflect the views of the scientific community.

I see it as just another philosophical argument about nomenclature; what is testable changes with technology and understanding, and unfalsifiable hypotheses that start without testable predictions may become testable as they are developed and elaborated.

I'm not blaming you personally for the sins of the "scientific' community. I'm simply pointing out to the resident atheists that there is no scientific requirement that an idea be falsifiable, nor is there a requirement that any specific idea produce any unique predictions. Both of those "emotional needs" apparently come from within atheists themselves, not from the realm of science.

Well, the scientific community is divided about that, so to each his/her own opinion. For example, here are some opinions that support what many think is the mainstream or 'traditional' view, that a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable:

Hypotheses
What is a Scientific Hypothesis?
What is a Falsifiable Hypothesis
Falsifiability
coo- even Conservapedia - Falsifiable
and so-on.

Wikipedia has a balanced approach, 'teaching the controversy': Hypothesis.

Respected physicist Sean Carroll thinks it's time to retire the 'traditional' view: Falsifiability - Ready for Retirement, but not all agree: Time to Ditch Falsifiability? and some are just pragmatic - Falsifiability is Useful, but a Matter of Judgement.

So it appears that your comments about it are mistaken, or at least, misleading.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

With respect to the basic assertion: "Exotic matter did it", what's the empirical difference?

You just said it - an hypothesis isn't an assertion, it's a proposal or supposition.

...I thought you said that scientific hypotheses had to make 'testable predictions'?

What you thought I said and what I actually said do not often seem to correlate... I did say that, "an hypothesis can't become a scientific theory if it isn't testable", which isn't the same thing. But as it happens, at present I do think that a hypothesis isn't strictly scientific if it doesn't make testable predictions - because that's the definition I'm accustomed to; but I don't feel strongly about it - if the scientific community consensus changes, I'm happy to move with the times. Definitions reflect the world, they don't determine it.

What good are the "predictions" if they can't be used to falsify the claim?

Here's the thing - not all testable predictions can falsify the hypothesis (I see you still have trouble with the distinction between hypothesis and claim).

Consider an hypothesis that predicts an intermediate fossil form between what is thought to be an ancestral form and its descendant. That's a testable hypothesis - you can go and dig in the intervening strata, and you might find the intermediate form your hypothesis predicted - the prediction was fruitful (a useful confirmation). On the other hand, you might not find it - but that doesn't falsify the hypothesis.

 

[Michael]

You just said it - an hypothesis isn't an assertion, it's a proposal or supposition.

A "proposal" is typically judged by the outcome of it's "tests". In this case the 'exotic matter did it" assertion lives on in spite of the negative outcome of those tests. After all those negative lab results, and all the evidence of botched baryonic mass estimates, the dark matter hypothesis is more akin to "dogma" than it is to a "proposal".

What you thought I said and what I actually said do not often seem to correlate... I did say that, "an hypothesis can't become a scientific theory if it isn't testable", which isn't the same thing.

So why exactly do they call it "M-*Theory* again?

But as it happens, at present I do think that a hypothesis isn't strictly scientific if it doesn't make testable predictions - because that's the definition I'm accustomed to; but I don't feel strongly about it - if the scientific community consensus changes, I'm happy to move with the times. Definitions reflect the world, they don't determine it.

I'm just looking at the functional process and noticing their reluctance to *falsify* a belief based upon the outcome of any or many specific "tests". The notion of falsification then becomes rather dubious.

Here's the thing - not all testable predictions can falsify the hypothesis (I see you still have trouble with the distinction between hypothesis and claim).

Ok, but then dark matter has become an exotic matter of the gaps claim at this point, with potentially an infinite number of ever shrinking gaps to deal with. How is that 'falsifiable"?

Consider an hypothesis that predicts an intermediate fossil form between what is thought to be an ancestral form and its descendant. That's a testable hypothesis - you can go and dig in the intervening strata, and you might find the intermediate form your hypothesis predicted - the prediction was fruitful (a useful confirmation). On the other hand, you might not find it - but that doesn't falsify the hypothesis.

You're now (evolutionary theory) discussing empirical "touch with your hands" physics, which isn't really the same thing as theoretical particle physics, or cosmology.

Granted, it's "nice" when a concept makes testable predictions which are unique to that particular theory, but often the predictions of one theory are pretty much the same as another theory.

It's cool that people sat down with SUSY models prior to LHC and made "predictions" about what they expected to see, but alas no sparticles were found. Now what? Ignore the outcome? Continue to postulate ever more complex SUSY models?

 

[Michael]

Nope; not only are you reading opinion into reportage, you're getting it wrong. I'll rephrase it - the failure of the two (otherwise successful) theories to mesh suggests an integrating theory (quantum gravity) may be necessary, and String Theory is an attempt to do that as part of a TOE.

But I just handed you a perfectly good way to describe gravity with QM without resorting to something as messy as string theory, so string theory isn't necessary or helpful in that respect. Therefore there really is no evidence or any logical basis for presenting a string theory in the first place. It's just a "whim" in the final analysis.

It seems to me that A implies B, but in any case, there's a debate among scientists about that point. Falsifiability is obviously a 'nice-to-have', but an hypothesis can't become a scientific theory if it isn't testable (i.e. produces testable predictions). The majority apparently feel that M-theory isn't strictly scientific because it isn't yet falsifiable and doesn't yet produce testable predictions, and a minority (especially string-theorists) think that those criteria are too restrictive. You shouldn't be surprised if comments about science here reflect the views of the scientific community.

Admittedly I'd guess that most physicists see string theory as an "outcast" of sorts due to the lack of A and B, but human beings devote their entire lives to the concept none the less. The same (lack of) falsification criticism however applies to quantum definitions of gravity, several hypothetical elements aspects of mainstream cosmology theory, and theoretical extension to the standard particle physics model. SUSY theory made lots of "predictions", none of which bore any empirical fruit in the lab. Nevertheless, I still see lots of papers on WIMP theories being published in cosmology all the time.

I see it as just another philosophical argument about nomenclature; what is testable changes with technology and understanding, and unfalsifiable hypotheses that start without testable predictions may become testable as they are developed and elaborated.

I'm most skeptical about the instance where the results of the "predictions" and "tests" come back negative, and yet the "dogma" continues. LHC has been a total godsend to the standard particle physics model, and a complete nightmare for exotic matter proponents.

Well, the scientific community is divided about that, so to each his/her own opinion. For example, here are some opinions that support what many think is the mainstream or 'traditional' view, that a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable:

Um, you mean except for the fact that the "mainstream" cosmology model isn't falsifiable either? What would it take to *fully falsify* SUSY theories (plural)? How do I falsify a hypothetical process like "space expansion"?

I think there might be a consensus of such a requirement within *empirical* branches of physics, but any delve into the "hypothetical" branches of physics is bound to deviate from that requirement.

Respected physicist Sean Carroll thinks it's time to retire the 'traditional' view: Falsifiability - Ready for Retirement, but not all agree: Time to Ditch Falsifiability? and some are just pragmatic - Falsifiability is Useful, but a Matter of Judgement.

So it appears that your comments about it are mistaken, or at least, misleading.

In what way was I "misleading"? If falsification is a requirement, how is the "dark matter" hypothesis falsifiable and not a "dark matter of the gaps" claim at this point in time? How is it "testable" in ways that actually produce any tangible and positive results?

IMO astronomers today are more than happy to criticize any theory *other than* LCDM on such grounds, but never their own beliefs on such grounds.

 

[Michael]

Respected physicist Sean Carroll thinks it's time to retire the 'traditional' view: Falsifiability - Ready for Retirement, ...

The cosmological multiverse and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics posit other realms that are impossible for us to access directly. Some scientists, leaning on Popper, have suggested that these theories are non-scientific because they are not falsifiable.

The truth is the opposite. Whether or not we can observe them directly, the entities involved in these theories are either real or they are not. Refusing to contemplate their possible existence on the grounds of some a priori principle, even though they might play a crucial role in how the world works, is as non-scientific as it gets.

That's quite an interesting quote. He is suggesting that falsification cannot be used as an absolute criteria for rejecting a concept as 'non-scientific'. In fact he says that rejecting an idea on those grounds would be "non-scientific". Based on that argument, rejection of "God theory" based on such grounds is about as non-scientific as it gets.