The Argument Clinic

[Tim]

@lee_merrill

No, this is another step to the argument, first we don’t trust conclusions produced by mindless causes, such as the delirium’s insistence that there are spiders on the walls.

First we reject this argument as a naturally-occurring brain that is sufficiently-trustworthy-for-survival (per Natural Selection) is not equivalent to a brain malfunctioning under the influence of hallucinations.

I would also point out that the existence of (occasional) hallucinations has less in common with the perfect trustworthiness that one would expect from a perfect Creator than with the only approximately trustworthy result we would expect from Natural Selection.

@lee_merrill

But the objective of evolution is fitness, not perception of reality!

That a reasonably trustworthy perception of reality has fitness benefits should be obvious to anybody who is not an apologist.

@lee_merrill

If belief in aliens produces hope that keeps people from destructive behavior, then believing in aliens will be selected for.

And if the moon were made of green cheese, we’d be able to mine it for dairy products. Your hypothetical is no more substantive than this one.

And I have only been specifying that Natural Selection would produce a reasonably trustworthy mind – and had in fact explicitly stated that cognitive biases exist. It does not seem at all likely that a propensity to believe in UFOs would have a sufficient fitness penalty that Natural Selection would work to eliminate it. And even if it did, the idea hasn’t been around for long enough for Natural Selection to go to work on it.

I saw a similar, and similarly-ludicrous, argument from Alvin Plantinga in defense of his execrable Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (that an Evolutionary argument, from a philosopher whose main source of information on evolution appears to be evolution-denying ID-Creationists, turns out to be bad would seem to be entirely predictable) – from memory it involved running away from tigers in order to make friends with them.

@lee_merrill

But not all truth is amenable to analysis by the scientific method, archeology for example, cannot produce repeated experiments to see if Napoleon fought at the battle of Waterloo.

Yes, the protagonists of the Battle of Waterloo are not discoverable by science strictly construed, but are discoverable by analogous evidence-based methodologies – ‘science, broadly-construed’, as some have termed it.

Now such methodologies cannot answer questions like whether Yahweh, Allah, or Vishnu exist – but then such questions do not appear to be even remotely amenable to objective adjudication by any alternative method either.

And even if Science (even ‘broadly construed’) is not universally applicable, does not contradict the point that it acts as a corrective to cognitive biases in the areas where it is applicable. So my original point remains unrebutted.

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@lee_merrill

I’m not saying our reasoning is perfect, but it does need to come from a perfect Reason in order to be fundamentally trustworthy.

So our reasoning is not perfect, yet is trustworthy, but could not be the outcome of living in the real world over millions of years. Why? I do not see why rationality has to come from a perfect Reason at all. Furthermore, individual’s reasoning ranges from insightful and adaptive, to self destructive, and this observation fits rather well with a rather messy emergence. Reason is not so much inherently trustworthy as it is proven in reality.

@lee_merrill

But the objective of evolution is fitness, not perception of reality!

Understanding that you cannot really fly off a cliff is most definitely a fitness attribute. Fitness heavily favors reliable situational awareness in just about every way possible, especially obtaining food and avoiding becoming food. You and I descend from a long line of ancestors who, without exception, possessed enough of a grip on reality to survive at least to breeding. So despite being mistaken that evolution has an objective, and somehow of the strange notion that reliable perception is immaterial to successfully passing on offspring, you have inherited the basic ability to perceive reality.

@lee_merrill

But not all truth is amenable to analysis by the scientific method, archeology for example, cannot produce repeated experiments to see if Napoleon fought at the battle of Waterloo.

Everyone understands that the scientific method is concerned not with history or poetic criticism, but with truth about nature. In that domain, the scientific method has proven demonstrably superior.

[lee_merrill]

@Tim

I can state with absolute certainty that no scientific paper of the Big Bang has stated that it is “evidence for the creation of the universe”.

In the case of Fine Tuning, all we have is arguments not evidence.

In the case of genetic code, what we have is assumption not evidence – in this case the (much repeated by ID-advocates, but repeatedly-debunked) assumption that information cannot arise through natural processes.

But scientific papers can point to God, if the conclusion of the paper is that the universe had a beginning. And arguments use evidence, you are confusing categories here. If the universe had a beginning, and the expansion rate of the universe was fine-tuned to 1 part in 10^20. And information can arise by natural processes, like evolution, but the arrival of the first genome is still prohibitively improbable.

[lee_merrill]

@Puck_Mendelssohn

That’s a seriously dreadful book, with some real howlers, like:

“Although the Cambrian explosion of animals is especially striking, it is far from the only ‘explosion’ of new living forms. The first winged insects, birds, flowering plants, mammals, and many other groups also appear abruptly in the fossil record, with no apparent connection to putative ancestors in the lower, older layers of fossil‐bearing sedimentary rock.”

As far as the rise of mammals, we read “In the early Cenozoic era, after the dinosaurs became extinct, the number and diversity of mammals exploded. In just 10 million years – a brief flash of time by geologic standards – about 130 genera (groups of related species) had evolved, encompassing some 4,000 species.” (PBS)

So there is no question about the explosion here, just a question about ancestry. Since the emphasis is on explosion, not exactly a sinking of the ship.

@Puck_Mendelssohn

My review is at: Intelligent Design Creationism meets its Maker, Again

“He supposes that the fact that we observe a universe that has the characteristics to produce us is likewise supportive of the existence of his god, but it’s simply not; it’s as surprising as the fact that our legs are exactly the length required to reach the ground.” But that’s not a refutation, that’s not even to the point.

“Here, he simply resorts to a long‐time favorite tactic of creationists: asserting that the fact that abiogenesis is a difficult nut to crack means that it is impossible to crack. Never mind the progress that is being made; it is always easy to pooh‐pooh scientific progress especially when there are unresolved questions remaining.”

But the progressions are few and far between, and miniscule compared with the problems of decades ago remain (Koonin estimates the probability of the first biomolecule as on the order of 1 in 10^1018, in “The Logic of Chance”), and new problems appear (the appearance of the interactome, for instance).

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

Context restored:

@lee_merrill

@Roy

“If mindless atoms control my [x], then I have no reason to trust them.”

was originally ‘thoughts’, but could equally well be ‘parachute’, ‘self-driving car’, ‘ladder’, ‘central heating’, ‘watch’, ‘rain gauge’, and myriad other items for which no-one would hesitate to reject that claim.

But would you take a parachute that was produced solely by non-reasoning processes?

I didn’t say “produced”, I said “control”. Parachutes, like the other items listed, operate through the properties of mindless atoms. But people trust parachutes anyway.

The parachute is imbued with function because it was produced by reason.

Poppycock. Parachutes work whether produced by reason or not. There’s absolutely no reason why a parachute produced entirely by machine wouldn’t work, parachutes “produced by reason” often do not work, and here’s a device not intended as a parachute that works as one anyway.

Your ‘reasoning’ leads to the conclusion that one cannot walk across a natural stone bridge or use a tree branch as a swing support because they weren’t produced by reason and so weren’t imbued with those functions. That’s ridiculous.

[lee_merrill]

@John_Harshman

Nor, even if you somehow control your thoughts through some kind of magic, immaterial process, that’s not a reason to trust them.

Unless my reason has a source in a supernatural Reason, then there is cause to trust it.

@John_Harshman

@lee_merrill

Yes, the validity of reason is a postulate, but we can see that reason coming from non-reason is invalid, just as a paragraph typed by monkeys would be a curiosity, but not to be taken seriously.

I’m afraid we can’t see that. You merely assume what you want to prove, that reason can’t arise from physical processes, and the typing monkey analogy does not help.

So you would take seriously what monkeys produce? If so, why?

@John_Harshman

@lee_merrill

I’m not saying our reasoning is perfect, but it does need to come from a perfect Reason in order to be fundamentally trustworthy.

Why?

Because a faulty source would seem to produce only a faulty outcome.

@John_Harshman

@lee_merrill

Because unreasoning processes have no interest in giving us a clear perception of reality.

How do you know God has such an interest? And can we not establish that our perception of reality isn’t all that clear? Consider the analogy of your visual system, which uses all sorts of heuristics and shortcuts that render it vulnerable to optical illusions. That’s just the sort of thing we might expect in an evolved system, and we see analogous failures in human reasoning.

“And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31). And I think you just proved my point, that unreasoning processes have no interest in giving us a clear perception of reality.

[lee_merrill]

@misterme987

You may not be a believer in eternal conscious torment, but if you are, this does add another enormous philosophical (and moral) hurdle to proving that the Christian God exists.

I believe that the end will be more than any of us expect, eternal punishment, annihilation of the wicked, and God “all in all”.

[lee_merrill]

@nwrickert

That does not mean anything at all, unless we have a clear distinction that enables us to decide what is a natural process.

When we see lightning, we might say that it is natural. But some people might say that it is supernatural. So naturalism is just an attitude or stance that you follow to decide what to call “natural” and what to call “supernatural”.

But the naturalist will say that lightning is part of nature, because nature is all there is.

[lee_merrill]

@Roy

I didn’t say “produced”, I said “control”. Parachutes, like the other items listed, operate through the properties of mindless atoms. But people trust parachutes anyway.

Well, the production is the point of control, and I reiterate, “would you take a parachute that was produced solely by non-reasoning processes?”

@Roy

Your ‘reasoning’ leads to the conclusion that one cannot walk across a natural stone bridge or use a tree branch as a swing support because they weren’t produced by reason and so weren’t imbued with those functions.

But I’m not saying that we cannot find usefulness in naturally produced objects. Doing so involves reasoning.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@lee_merrill

As far as the rise of mammals, we read “In the early Cenozoic era, after the dinosaurs became extinct…

But who’s talking about that era? Meyer wasn’t, and I wasn’t, so why are you bringing it up? It’s not relevant to defending his claim in any way, being a hundred-plus million years too late.

@lee_merrill

But the progressions are few and far between, and miniscule compared with the problems of decades ago remain (Koonin estimates the probability of the first biomolecule as on the order of 1 in 10^1018, in “The Logic of Chance”), and new problems appear (the appearance of the interactome, for instance).

Well, nobody within biology to whom I’ve ever spoken about the origins of life thinks so. I believe that in my review I recommended Nick Lane’s The Vital Question. Very worthwhile reading, that one. There’s no cause to despair where origin-of-life research is concerned.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@lee_merrill

I believe that the end will be more than any of us expect, eternal punishment, annihilation of the wicked, and God “all in all”.

Well that was cheerful.

[misterme987 (Andrew P.)]

@lee_merrill

I believe that the end will be more than any of us expect, eternal punishment, annihilation of the wicked, and God “all in all”.

I’m confused, are you saying that all of these things will occur in the end? (They are mutually contradictory positions.) Or are you saying that you believe none of them are correct?

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@Dan_Eastwood

@lee_merrill

I believe that the end will be more than any of us expect, eternal punishment, annihilation of the wicked, and God “all in all”.

Well that was cheerful.

Sounds good to me. More chocolate than any of us expect, eternal punishment for the ID proponents, annihilation of everything that has a wick, meaning we’ll have all burned our candles at both ends, and omnibuses carried in even larger omnibuses, in a bus-nesting party like the world has never seen. Sounds amazing.

[John_Harshman]

@RonSewell

@lee_merrill

But not all truth is amenable to analysis by the scientific method, archeology for example, cannot produce repeated experiments to see if Napoleon fought at the battle of Waterloo.

Everyone understands that the scientific method is concerned not with history or poetic criticism, but with truth about nature. In that domain, the scientific method has proven demonstrably superior.

Scientists, one would hope, understand that repeated experiment is not the sine qua non of the scientific method. And some sciences are in fact historical, making inferences about the past from traces left behind in the present, just as historians do.

Of course we know from those traces that Napoleon didn’t fight at Waterloo, though many of his soldiers did. There are many eyewitness accounts (including one by Napoleon), many consequences of the event, and if more were necessary an examination of the battlefield would prove instructive. The present is indeed the key to the past. Similarly, one can learn much about the history of life be making observations in the present. Even, on occasion, experiments.

@lee_merrill

As far as the rise of mammals, we read “In the early Cenozoic era, after the dinosaurs became extinct, the number and diversity of mammals exploded. In just 10 million years – a brief flash of time by geologic standards – about 130 genera (groups of related species) had evolved, encompassing some 4,000 species.” (PBS)

And is that "with no apparent connection to putative ancestors in the lower, older layers of fossil‐bearing sedimentary rock”?

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@John_Harshman

And is that "with no apparent connection to putative ancestors in the lower, older layers of fossil‐bearing sedimentary rock”?

Maybe he got confused between that and “with no apparent connection to the parts of Meyer’s argument one is putatively defending.”

[Dan_Eastwood]

@lee_merrill

But not all truth is amenable to analysis by the scientific method, archeology for example, cannot produce repeated experiments to see if Napoleon fought at the battle of Waterloo.

A Quibble: That is history, not archaeology, and history is not counted among the sciences.

It is very possible to conduct repeatable experiments in archaeology. You can’t dig up the same artifact twice, but you can (for example) make predictions about what sorts of artifacts should be found at sites originating from the same culture.

[John_Harshman]

@lee_merrill

Unless my reason has a source in a supernatural Reason, then there is cause to trust it.

You keep saying that, but you never provide a reason why there would be such cause.

@lee_merrill

So you would take seriously what monkeys produce? If so, why?

I’m going to charitably assume that wasn’t a serious question and ignore it. But I can’t figure out why you asked it. Something very clever, perhaps?

@lee_merrill

Because a faulty source would seem to produce only a faulty outcome.

Is there a difference between imperfect and faulty? This seems to be another argument that in order for an effect to have quality X, the cause must also have quality X. But you surely must know that this is not valid reasoning. Why, by that reasoning, since your reasoning is imperfect, God must also be imperfect.

@lee_merrill

“And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31). And I think you just proved my point, that unreasoning processes have no interest in giving us a clear perception of reality.

And I think you just proved my point, that we don’t have a clear perception of reality, only one that’s good enough for many purposes. Some of us better than others.

[Tim]

@lee_merrill

But scientific papers can point to God, if the conclusion of the paper is that the universe had a beginning.

1. I very much doubt that any scientific paper would baldly conclude that “the universe had a beginning”. This is likely to be an interpretation that others place on these papers. And it is highly likely that the definitions of “beginning” and “universe” would need greater clarification – clarification that is likely to highlight equivocation between what the papers show, and the gloss apologists wish to place on them.

2. Even if it were shown that the universe had a beginning, this does not “point to God” – it’s merely a case that a notorious Apologist has made a much-disputed argument claiming that it does.

@lee_merrill

And arguments use evidence …

More frequently, and particularly in the hands of Apologists, they misrepresent evidence.

@lee_merrill

… you are confusing categories here.

No, as you have presented no substantiation for any claim that arguments are evidence.

@lee_merrill

If the universe had a beginning …

Objection – assumes facts not in evidence.

@lee_merrill

… and the expansion rate of the universe was fine-tuned to 1 part in 10^20.

Objection – again assumes facts not in evidence.

@lee_merrill

but the arrival of the first genome is still prohibitively improbable.

Objection – this does not follow from the previous claims.

[faded_Glory]

@Dan_Eastwood

That is history, not archaeology, and history is not counted among the sciences.

History isn’t, but geology is. A large part of geology is reconstructing the ancient world which is obviously non repeatable, so there is room in science for abductive reasoning. The trick is to limit this abduction to natural processes grounded in what we already know about physics and chemistry.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@faded_Glory

A large part of geology is reconstructing the ancient world which is obviously non repeatable, …

That’s NOT what Repeatability means. You are arguing from a faulty premise.