Discussion of Big Science Today, by an Important Member of the National Association of Scholars

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Faizal_Ali

That the most intelligent species to evolve on our particular planet just happened to be terrestrial may have something to do with that.

I’d be more careful with my phrasing. “Just happened to be terrestrial”? There are assumptions loaded into that wording. It’s least logically possible that only terrestrial creatures could develop natural science and technology and thus be able to understand their place in the universe and their own origin. And it’s not just logically possible; there is strong evidence for it. I recommend to you Denton’s book Fire-Maker. I know you won’t, but if you did, you’d find plenty of evidence to render your expression highly questionable.

@John_Harshman

The question is why high temperatures would preclude the evolution of multicellular life and of intelligent life. Why do you think so?

First, as already stated, absent extreme atmospheric pressure, high temperatures would boil the water away. I would like to know how advanced life (not just a handful of microbes) could evolve without water. Second, as already stated, if we postulate high atmospheric pressure to keep the water on the ground, it’s not clear that a number of other factors would not be affected. But to be clear, I’m not arguing that it’s impossible for life to evolve in a high-temperature, high-pressure atmosphere. I’d just like to see some scenarios. If anyone could provide plausible narratives about how that would work, it would be you. I remain open to your suggestions.

@John_Harshman

Why not? What is your objection? You are implicitly assuming the answers to your various questions, but do you have any reasons?

One of the difficulties here is that you are seizing on one thing I said (on my own account, not claiming it was Denton’s point), and pressing it. I’ve tried to indicate to you that in Denton’s books, he takes great pains to show the interconnectedness of the conditions that promote life and intelligent life. All I’m saying here is that it strikes me that if you “rescue” water by postulating super-high atmospheric pressure, it’s unlikely that there will be no other significant environmental changes connected with that high pressure. You don’t seem to think that those other changes could possibly have a negative impact on the rise or development of life.

I’m uncomfortable with discussion based solely on single points or solely on abstract considerations. What I like about Denton’s books is their massive concreteness, their detailed discussion of the nuts and bolts of the phenomena of light, vision, movement of elements inside the earth, cycles of carbon compounds, etc. I don’t think the force of his line of argument can be appreciated without reading at least one or two of his books, and seeing his argument for the tight interconnection of conditions. This is why I vastly prefer discussions in which everyone in the discussion has read a book in common, over discussions where everyone “wings it” by arguing against isolated statements. I know, however, that I’m outnumbered here regarding that preference.

@John_Harshman

Yes, and I am pointing out that those factors are not necessarily relevant. Can you give reasons?

I could not give reasons anywhere near to your satisfaction without reproducing large chunks of text from Denton’s books, and as I don’t have pdfs, but only paper copies, I’m unwilling to spend long hours typing from the books, or scanning pages from the books, every time someone here raises an objection. I can guarantee you that he gives extended argument for the interconnection of things and that he makes use of data that I think you would not for the most part contest. But I don’t have the stamina to reproduce pages at a time.

Again, I am not saying that it’s impossible that intelligent life could occur under drastically different conditions. I do believe it’s unlikely – but I can’t hope to persuade you of even that if you are unwilling to read some of Denton’s books. I know from experience here that arguing isolated points, one by one, never produces any real learning, but only disputes over those single points. And it’s of the essence of Denton’s line of argument that everything is viewed synoptically, not as a series of hit and run claims. I’m sorry if this is not satisfying to you, but given the nature of the author and books we are talking about, I don’t see any way around this communication problem, other than for you to read some of the books.

I’m not trying to dodge or avoid anything; I honestly believe that for certain kinds of book, where the argument is cumulative rather than a series of scattershot “evidences,” the argument of the book needs to be discussed as a whole. Indeed, I would say that the Origin of Species is such a book – which I why I read it all the way through, more than once, before I commented on it or criticized it. Other books of this type would include The Technological Society, by Ellul, Small Is Beautiful by Schumacher, and The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom, plus a large number of the classics of philosophy, political science, linguistics, etc.

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@Eddie

But it’s quite clear, from several statements made here, that none of the data (and you’re always yapping about data – well, there’s tons of it in Denton’s books, but you won’t look at it) “count” because, in the view of the atheists here, the whole line of argument is fatally flawed.

That’s wrong. We see this argument as flawed, not because we are atheists but because we are scientists. As scientists we learn, sometimes from bitter experience, that we need strict standards for what we will consider to be evidence.

I point this out as an example of where you are blaming atheism for a disagreement that is actually about something else.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@John_Harshman

What is the use of “hence” there other than to cover an immense gap in logic?

The “immense gap” is covered in detail in his books, but briefly: if you can’t look at the stars, how are you going to start asking about planetary motions, and how are you going to come up with the idea of a universe of stars, planetary systems, nebulae, star formation, supernovae, a Big Bang, etc.? And absent those concepts, how can an intelligent being understand his own origin? Do you think deep-ocean crustaceans think about their origin? How could they possibly come to correct conclusions about their ultimate origin, if they don’t even know that they are on a planet orbiting a star, etc.? And could you not have filled in this “gap” without my help? You’ve read tons of science fiction and science fact; you must have run through such ideas many times in your head.

@John_Harshman

It was to the implication that single-celled beginnings are incompatible with the evolution of intelligent life.

No, I neither said nor implied that. In fact, with Denton, I was taking the evolutionary perspective of “microbe to man” for granted. But we know that on our earth, the evolution of intelligent life – of the type Denton is talking about, life which inquires into its own ultimate origins and develops the scientific and technological tools to find those origins – took place only after life moved to the surface of the planet. And I’m not convinced that this would not be necessary everywhere. I would recommend his book Fire-Maker on this point.

@John_Harshman

Now me, I think that intelligent life is extremely unlikely to evolve under any conditions. Multicellularity also seems quite unlikely, given the billions of years in which it didn’t happen.

Agreed.

@John_Harshman

If it was part of a plan, the very purpose of the universe, all I can say is that someone chose a very roundabout way of achieving that purpose.

I don’t see this as a problem for designer for whom time does not matter – and most people who believe there is a designer think that time does not matter for the designer.

@John_Harshman

That would of course likely be dark at its surface, at least in the visible spectrum, and the stars would not be visible.

Thank you. Denton deals with the importance of the visible spectrum in his book on Light, and as for the stars, I’ve already explained that.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@nwrickert

That’s wrong. We see this argument as flawed, not because we are atheists

I did not say that anyone found the argument flawed because he was an atheist, but I can see how you might read my words that way. I will rephrase: It happens that the people here who have declared the argument fatally flawed are all atheists – or agnostics living lives of practical atheism. Of course, I don’t rule out that there are some Christians here who also see flaws in it. But I haven’t heard from them yet.

@nwrickert

I point this out as an example of where you are blaming atheism for a disagreement that is actually about something else.

See above. I’m not blaming atheism. I’m objecting to a form of a priori argument that makes all evidence, no matter how abundant, irrelevant. And potentially a Christian could make the same argument. I would oppose the same line of thinking if it came from a Christian. If you were on BioLogos, you would have seen me argue against Christians all the time, and on some points where they agreed with atheists.

[Paul_King]

@Eddie

I’m objecting to a form of a priori argument that makes all evidence, no matter how abundant, irrelevant.

But that’s not what is really going on. The conclusion of the design argument is rejected because there is a better - or at least less bad - explanation of the evidence. And that is not something you can reasonably object to.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Paul_King

I did directly address the question of motive which was the actual point.

I don’t see any direct address of motive in the paragraphs I’m talking about.

@Paul_King

That the Pyramids are designed is a far sounder inference than that our universe is designed.

I don’t know about "far’, but otherwise I would agree. I’ve not claimed that fine-tuning arguments are logically inescapable.

@Paul_King

I was talking about our universe being designed, not the Pyramids.

You did not make the switch clear; we had been talking about Pyramids and the motives for building them. I have nothing against applying the one idea to the other (especially since we were both making a parallel), but sometimes a direct indication of movement helps a conversation.

@Paul_King

I was referring to your dismissal of the multiverse as an explanation.

We were not at that point discussing a multiverse, but a parallel with pyramids. If I wasn’t behaving arrogantly there, it was gratuitous for you to throw the word in. But of course, you’ve never yet indicated a moral fault on your part in our conversation, and I don’t expect you will any time soon.

[John_Harshman]

@Eddie

First, as already stated, absent extreme atmospheric pressure, high temperatures would boil the water away.

Well, absent extreme pressures for one reason or another. But why not extreme pressures?

@Eddie

Second, as already stated, if we postulate high atmospheric pressure to keep the water on the ground, it’s not clear that a number of other factors would not be affected.

What factors of importance?

@Eddie

I’d just like to see some scenarios.

Why?

@Eddie

You don’t seem to think that those other changes could possibly have a negative impact on the rise or development of life.

And you seem to think that they would. But why?

@Eddie

This is why I vastly prefer discussions in which everyone in the discussion has read a book in common

But you, as I understand it, haven’t watched the video.

@Eddie

I could not give reasons anywhere near to your satisfaction without reproducing large chunks of text from Denton’s books

Why not? Doesn’t Denton’s video attempt a short version? Did Denton fail?

@Eddie

I don’t see any way around this communication problem, other than for you to read some of the books.

This seems an unlikely claim on the face ot it. Denton’s books constitute a monolithic block, no part of which can be considered apart from the whole? I certainly do not recognize the Origin of Species in that description. It is indeed one long argument, but the pieces of that argument can be separated and discussed individually.

@Eddie

The “immense gap” is covered in detail in his books, but briefly: if you can’t look at the stars, how are you going to start asking about planetary motions, and how are you going to come up with the idea of a universe of stars, planetary systems, nebulae, star formation, supernovae, a Big Bang, etc.? And absent those concepts, how can an intelligent being understand his own origin?

Surely, to you and Denton, the most important thing about origin is to know that it came from God. How are planets, stars, and the Big Bang relevant to that understanding? If you were an intelligent being at the bottom of the sea, doubtless you would consider something else the most important knowledge, something not easily available to those living in a thin atmosphere. This is nothing more than a lack of imagination.

@Eddie

No, I neither said nor implied that.

You did. I am willing to suppose that you didn’t say what you meant. If conditions were different, things would be different. That’s all we have here.

@Eddie

I don’t see this as a problem for designer for whom time does not matter – and most people who believe there is a designer think that time does not matter for the designer.

If time doesn’t matter, neither does probability, and Denton’s argument is moot. Of course a design to whom time doesn’t matter is so divorced from the human analogy as to be inscrutable and further insulated from detection and testing. Human designers of course make what they want to have, when they want to have it.

@Eddie

Denton deals with the importance of the visible spectrum in his book on Light, and as for the stars, I’ve already explained that.

It’s a lame explanation, though. It strikes me that the bottom of the ocean is an excellent spot for neutrino detection. Why isn’t that the key to knowledge of the universe?

[Paul_King]

@Eddie

I don’t see any direct address of motive in the paragraphs I’m talking about.

Here it is, with the word “motives” boldened for your benefit. And that is indeed from the post where you were looking for “tombs” to find the discussion of motive.

@Paul_King

Far from it. I don’t choose motives because they are essential knowledge I choose them because they are at least potentially accessible when we have no independent knowledge of a candidate designer and are usable to make predictions. So your objection is quite misplaced.

@Eddie

I don’t know about "far’, but otherwise I would agree. I’ve not claimed that fine-tuning arguments are logically inescapable.

They are not even close to compelling. And cannot be while there is a better explanation on offer.

@Eddie

You did not make the switch clear; we had been talking about Pyramids and the motives for building them. I have nothing against applying the one idea to the other (especially since we were both making a parallel), but sometimes a direct indication of movement helps a conversation.

The fine tuning argument was the main point of discussion, with the Pyramids offered as an example of identifying design. Expanding the comparison seems an entirely natural thing to do. Indeed it is about the only thing to do.

@Eddie

We were not at that point discussing a multiverse, but a parallel with pyramids. If I wasn’t behaving arrogantly there, it was gratuitous for you to throw the word in.

Not at all. I was pointing out how you dealt with alternative explanations of “fine tuning”. And the adjective “arrogant” certainly fits - the more so since the dismissal was unfounded.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

Actually, all I originally said, way back when the first person asked me, was that Denton provided “evidence” – not proof – for design in nature.

That’s absurd, because science doesn’t deal in proof. No one is asking you for proof. Everyone is asking for evidence. Got any?

@Eddie

I recommend to you Denton’s book Fire-Maker. I know you won’t, but if you did, you’d find plenty of evidence to render your expression highly questionable.

What evidence, specifically?

@Eddie

What I like about Denton’s books is their massive concreteness, their detailed discussion of the nuts and bolts of the phenomena of light, vision, movement of elements inside the earth, cycles of carbon compounds, etc.

If they are so concrete, why are you unable to cite any concrete evidence that you think is convincing?

@Eddie

I’m objecting to a form of a priori argument that makes all evidence, no matter how abundant, irrelevant.

There is no such argument; the one pathologically avoiding evidence is you. If the evidence is so abundant, cite it.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Paul_King

But that’s not what is really going on. The conclusion of the design argument is rejected because there is a better - or at least less bad - explanation of the evidence.

I presume you allude to the multiverse. If so, you’ve forgotten, or are not aware, that some people here, both briefly here now, and many times in the past, have rejected fine-tuning arguments not only because a multiverse idea is on the floor, but also because, even supposing there were only one universe, fine-tuning arguments rest on an assumption that we can calculate the ratio of hypothetical life-friendly universes to life-unfriendly universes, and that ratio is not available to us. That being the case, it doesn’t matter whether Denton gathers only ten pieces of evidence, or ten trillion; the argument for fine-tuning would be invalidated. This is the a priori argument I was talking about.

My objection to the multiverse is different: there seems no way in practice or even principle to empirically confirm the multiverse. And it’s a postulate (or hypothesis or theory or model or whatever word you prefer – I won’t wrangle about the term) at the outer edge of theoretical physics, and, like all such postulates, may well be dropped one day. I’m not inclined to rest much weight on alleged realities based entirely on certain assumptions and models, when we know that such assumptions and models change in cosmology, and when there is no was of testing them empirically now, and may never be any way of doing so.

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@Eddie

I’m not blaming atheism. I’m objecting to a form of a priori argument that makes all evidence, no matter how abundant, irrelevant.

But that’s not what is happening here.

I just listened to a podcast by @Paul_Nelson1 :

Freeing Minds Trapped in a Naturalistic Parabola | Evolution News

Paul argues the same point – that scientists are making an a priori commitment to naturalism. But Paul is as mistaken about this as are you. There is no such commitment. What we are committed to, is a strict view of what we will accept as evidence.

Give us a version of ID that makes actual testable hypotheses, and we might begin to take it more seriously.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Paul_King

Far from it. I don’t choose motives because they are essential knowledge I choose them because they are at least potentially accessible when we have no independent knowledge of a candidate designer and are usable to make predictions.

Thank you. I now see the word motives. But your response regards the abstract case; you did not address the concrete motive I supplied for the Pyramid builders. I demonstrated that we do not need to always need to understand the motive for a designed object in order to know that it was designed. You did not respond to that specific point about the Pyramids, and as for what you do say here, it’s unclear how it relates to your original point that I did not supply any motives for a designer of the universe. You seem to be implying that in the case of the universe, given that we don’t have “independent knowledge” of a designer, we need to know the hypothetical designer’s motives before we can make any design argument. If that’s not what you’re saying, you can clarify.

@Paul_King

They are not even close to compelling.

That’s a matter of judgment, not pure logic. And your judgment is not necessarily unimpeachable.

@Paul_King

And cannot be while there is a better explanation on offer.

Of course, if by “better” you mean multiverse, I reject your premise. Surely you realize by now that this is not going anywhere?

@Paul_King

Expanding the comparison seems an entirely natural thing to do. Indeed it is about the only thing to do.

I already agreed with expanding the comparison; I merely asked for a verbal indication of the shift of level.

@Paul_King

I was pointing out how you dealt with alternative explanations of “fine tuning”.

I was not discussing the multiverse alternative. But hey, since it makes you feel good to throw in “arrogant,” even when I’m not at that point in the discussion “arrogantly” dismissing something, go ahead. You’ll fit in well here, stylistically.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@Mercer

If they are so concrete, why are you unable to cite any concrete evidence that you think is convincing?

Probably because “it’s amazing that life on the surface of the earth uses the energy that reaches the surface, rather than the energy that doesn’t” is pretty much the BEST of Denton’s arguments, and it only gets worse from there. Given that scenario, one would be wise to avoid evidence like the plague.

Also, any particular bit of evidence tends to make people ask the next, inevitably fatal question: how the hell does that make creation by Baal any likelier?

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@nwrickert

What we are committed to, is a strict view of what we will accept as evidence.

But that “strict view of what we will accept as evidence” entails a built-in occupational hazard which science, as you define it, cannot avoid: science may be, in some cases, blind to the truth about nature, because its very mode of operation does not allow the canvassing of all real possibilities. And if you say, well, it’s worth that hazard (occasionally missing the truth) because science is so often effective with its methods, then fine, but just don’t pretend that science in your sense has no blind spots. Admit that science may sometimes come up with the wrong answer (or fail to see the right answer) precisely because of its self-limiting method. If you can admit that, we will probably disagree on very little that is of great importance.

[Paul_King]

@Eddie

I presume you allude to the multiverse. If so, you’ve forgotten, or are not aware, that some people here, both briefly here now, and many times in the past, have rejected fine-tuning arguments not only because a multiverse idea is on the floor, but also because, even supposing there were only one universe, fine-tuning arguments rest on an assumption that we can calculate the ratio of hypothetical life-friendly universes to life-unfriendly universes, and that ratio is not available to us.

True, you did mention both responses, and it is clear that the multiverse explanation was included in your objection.

Even the other objection is about the quality of the argument, not about the amount of evidence. Indeed evidence could - at least in principle - refute the objection. Adding evidence which fails to address the objection won’t help - and it shouldn’t. It doesn’t say that tethering more evidence is futile - only that gathering unhelpful evidence is futile.

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@Eddie

science may be, in some cases, blind to the truth about nature

Or perhaps there is no “truth about nature”. You have a very naive view of truth.

@Eddie

Admit that science may sometimes come up with the wrong answer (or fail to see the right answer) precisely because of its self-limiting method.

Perhaps there is no “right answer”. Science is pragmatic. It usually comes up with the best answer available at the time. Future advances might make better answers available.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@John_Harshman

Surely, to you and Denton, the most important thing about origin is to know that it came from God.

That understanding may come later, but before that, one must know about the Big Bang, etc. I’m waiting for you to explain how creatures in the dark at the bottom of the ocean will reason their way back to the Big Bang.

@John_Harshman

If you were an intelligent being at the bottom of the sea, doubtless you would consider something else the most important knowledge, something not easily available to those living in a thin atmosphere.

It’s not a question of which knowledge is “more important”; it’s a question which knowledge tells us of our origins. I maintain that without knowledge of the stars, the creatures at the ocean bottom will never know their origins. If you want to say they wouldn’t think origins important, then fine; but if one does want to know one’s origins, one has to be able to see the stars. Do you concede that much?

@John_Harshman

You did.

I didn’t. Shall we have a Monty Python exchange over this?

@John_Harshman

Why isn’t that the key to knowledge of the universe?

Neutrino detection with which scientific equipment? Specify. And tell me how the ocean-dwellers built it.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Paul_King

It doesn’t say that tethering more evidence is futile - only that gathering unhelpful evidence is futile.

I am guessing you meant “tendering”, but be that as it may, thanks for your generous concession that Denton or anyone is welcome to provide any “helpful” evidence. The problem is that given the structure of the rejecting argument, no empirical evidence could ever count as helpful, so what you give with one hand, you take away with the other.

[Paul_King]

@Eddie

Thank you. I now see the word motives. But your response regards the abstract case; you did not address the concrete motive I supplied for the Pyramid builders

Obviously I did not waste time addressing an irrelevance. The abstract case is the whole point.

@Eddie

That’s a matter of judgment, not pure logic. And your judgment is not necessarily unimpeachable.

In this case I do not think that there are any valid objections to my judgement. The multiverse is indeed a better explanation because it doesn’t require assumptions which practically beg the question. Even if we assumed that there was an intelligent entity capable of creating our universe - a big assumption to start with - we have absolutely no assurance that it would do so.

@Eddie

Of course, if by “better” you mean multiverse, I reject your premise. Surely you realize by now that this is not going anywhere?

That’s a fact, not a premise as I explain above.

@Eddie

I already agreed with expanding the comparison; I merely asked for a verbal indication of the shift of level.

It should be rather obvious by the mere fact of making a comparison - as I did.

@Eddie

I was not discussing the multiverse alternative. But hey, since it makes you feel good to throw in “arrogant,” even when I’m not at that point in the discussion “arrogantly” dismissing something, go ahead. You’ll fit in well here, stylistically.

I was pointing out that the “fine tuning” argument fails to rise even to the level of Dembski’s Design Inference - and I think it was appropriate to indicate just how poor the level of argument was.

[Paul_King]

I meant “gathering” - occasionally the spelling “corrector” goes wrong.

I don’t think that empirical evidence can directly address the issue by finding the frequency of life-friendly universes. But surely there is some hope that we will one day better understand the mechanisms by which our universe formed. Understanding that is the only way we could come up with useful probability estimates. Which is what the argument really needs.