Analogies to Motors

[Nesslig20]

@Rumraket

Sadly I don’t think you denying that they are machines solves your problem in any way at all.

Agreeing or denying the label hasn’t solved your problem. If you deny it you just have to argue about whether that denial has merit, and the ID-creationist can (and will) just point to the definitions of the category, and then denial just looks rather silly. And they will exploit that. If you accept it you instead have to argue about whether the category machine or motor entails teleology (and it doesn’t, so you have the winning argument).

I am not saying that refusing to use the word “motor” solves the problem. Rather, it is understanding and acknowledging the reality that referring to the cell and its inner workings as ‘machinery’ is very misleading. The motivation of my argument is not as a counter to ID-creationism. It’s just that the theological thinking (that is common even among secular people and exploited by ID-creationism) is one notable symptom of how people are being misled by the perpetuated ‘machines’, ‘motors’, ‘programs’ and ‘blueprints’ analogies. I have made this clarification multiple times, yet you keep misrepresenting my position. I don’t know how clearer I can make this to you.

@Rumraket

No, categories such as machines or motors don’t “cite analogies”.

Yes they do. When you say “these are machines”, I would presume (form what you said earlier) you mean “they share a few similarities that are broadly encompassing, but may differ in many other respects”. In other words, the members of this category are, regarding some aspects, similar… comparable… i.e. ANALOGOUS to each other.

@Rumraket

Yes it’s a kind of inductive argument. But I don’t see how denying that flagella are motors is supposed to undermine this argument, if that is your goal.

Again, not my goal. Never has been. My point is not to deny the premises of this inductive argument. The point of me bringing up this argument from analogy is to illustrate that the following premise:
“Flagella and man-made propellers are motors”
IS the analogy that the argument is based on, and you seemingly recognize this in the next part.

@Rumraket

It’s, in part, to point out that the analogy is weakened by their dissimilarities. […] despite flagella meeting the requirements for being motors/machines (and therefore make them examples of things that are motors), they are also dissimilar in so many other ways that the inductive argument from analogy is considerably weakened.

Did you just admit that this is indeed an analogy? Or was this an accidental slip up?

@Rumraket

Primates share the defining characteristics of primates, and therefore all are primates. Are different primates analogous to each other?

Morphologically speaking, they are comparable in certain physical respects (i.e. analogous by definition), yes they are indeed.

When we experiment on Rhesus monkeys, do you think it is not inductive analogous reasoning to conclude that the results of such experiments probably applies to humans as well?

@Rumraket

I mean I guess you can say that, though I don’t really see why you would.

Do you think being “analogous to each other” and “members of a category defined by certain similarities” are mutually exclusive, i.e. if two things are part of category A (as defined by certain similarities) they cannot be analogous to each other? I would actually say they are mutually inclusive, since one implies the other.

@Rumraket

@Nesslig20

As I said before: “The point is not “these biological complexes don’t meet ANY definition of the word ‘machine’”. Rather, the point is that he mechanisms that underpin biological processes are fundamentally different from those of man-made machines. This is what makes such analogies between the two very poor and often misleading, regardless of what definition you want to use for words to describe both man-made machinery and biological processes.”

Rephrasing - The point is NOT these things don’t share any similarities whatsoever. Rather, the point is: what they are and how they work is fundamentally different, such that the machine analogy is more often very misleading rather than helpful in understanding the true nature of biological processes.

My aim has never been to call them machines in order to aid understanding of their origin or function. That’s not why I would call them machines. I would agree to call them machines because I think they meet the definition of a machine.

How is this a response to what I said there? Right there, I did not (nor anywhere else) speak about your intentions. Here, I only clarified what MY intentions are.

I know you argument is definitional. The definitions of ‘motor’ entails some characteristics. Flagella meet the criteria. Ergo, Flagella are motors.

All I am saying is (as you can see in the highlighted part of my quote above)… this doesn’t matter at all to the point I am actually making.

@Rumraket

I would actually go so far as to say I think denying this can be counterproductive in the context of arguing with ID-creationists, because when these biological entities so obviously share the defining characteristics of machines and motors that many reasonable people could agree to it, it just comes off as a sort of desperate denial of something blatantly obvious.

I don’t take positions based on how ID-creationists would think about them.

@Rumraket

Can we just settle this once and for all? We have a disagreement on the importance or merits of certain points. I’m not missing the point just because I don’t agree with it. Do me a favor and lay off this “you’re not getting X”, “you don’t understand Y”, okay?

I politely decline. I will point this out every time I believe you are missing the point. And I never said this when you disagree. I say this, because your points (like about definitions) do not counter the points I am actually making.

@Rumraket

@Nesslig20

I have highlighted the part where you are inadvertently admitting my point again. Calling both ‘machines’ is only in reference to “just a few characteristics” that “are so broadly encompassing”, such that biological ‘machines’ still “differ in many other respects”. In other words, you inadvertently admit here that they are NOT “so much alike”.

LMAO.

If you call that “admitting your point” then your “point” is of no dialectical value here. We have a disagreement on the merits of acceptance or denial of a certain categorization. We don’t have a disagreement on whether biological molecular machines are like man-made macroscopic machines in most or the majority of their characteristics.

I actually fully agree with you that biological molecular machines are unlike man-made macroscopic machines in many more ways than they are alike. It’s just that I don’t think this merits not calling them machines, since the definition of a machine is just a rather simple one that only refers to a small handful of characteristics. Thus, for anything to meet the label of a machine, it really only has to match that small handful of characteristics. And that is regardless of the total number and degree to which all it’s other characteristics are different.

Once again, I have highlighted the part where you admit the point I was making.
The point being: these things are fundamentally different and not “so much alike” at all.
A few comments ago, you characterized this statement as “just outright and demonstrably incorrect” and that I was “just flat out wrong”. I guess things have changed in since then.

@Rumraket

If it has been your impression that I have at any point disagreed with that viewpoint then you have been laboring under a misapprehension. And not one of my making, I might add.

Oh, so when you said the following:

@Rumraket

But I am the one saying they are so much alike that they’re not only analogous, I would go even further and say they are so much alike in these crucial respects that I think they meet the definitions in a way that qualify them to be members of the set.

It’s just me who has been under a misapprehension. Okay, my bad…cough…

@Rumraket

But it’s actually not relevant to my intended point whether their shared or different characteristics are fundamental to them.

But that’s MY original point. If it is not your intention to disagree with this, then you are not actually disagreeing with me. You’re speaking past my point… which is close at being a trend I am afraid.

@Rumraket

But I haven’t said you said that. Calm down. The point I was trying to get across is that to get someone to understand how something works you have to explain how it works, and you generally don’t get to there with labels and categories in any case.

So the “cure” for misapprehensions about how things at the molecular level isn’t merely to not label them machines in place of a proper explanation, it’s whether you teach proper principles of behavior at the molecular level.

You start by saying that you haven’t said this, but then you are doing it again! You are responding to a position that I do not hold. I never said that the “cure” for misapprehensions is “merely to not label them machines”. I maintain that avoiding these analogies, or better yet, providing an explanation for why the prevalent machine/motor/blueprint/program analogies are misleading is, while certainly NOT the only part, this is a significant part in educating people on the true nature of biological processes.

@Rumraket

I think it is entirely appropriate to avoid using concepts that can mislead people. But not because I think we have to then deny that technically biological molecular machines really are examples of machines should the topic come up (supposing a student asks).

Suppose they ask that, IMO an appropriate (short) response is the following:
“As was have pointed out by this student, there are many people who have noted the similarities to man-made machines, even stating that they are machines by definition. However, regardless of what definition you use that may describe both, we need to remember these things are fundamentally different and are not much alike at all. You may have seen pictures or animations of these complexes, but these are very simplified. If you could see these things in action in real life, it would be unlike anything you have ever experienced before. Hence paying attention to the machine analogy is not very useful and often distracting. In fact, the machine analogy has often misled people on how biology works, even very smart scientists. So, we should always bear this in mind.”