{{Leaving ID aside, I am not sure I buy the idea that it is IN GENERAL wrong or problematic to explain something complex in terms of something more complex.}}
I quite agree, and still would if I was a naturalist. After all, I could hardly argue that the complexity of the most advanced biological organism is _more_ complex than the system of Nature on which it depends (and which must be sole cause of its production if naturalism is true.)
Ahab:
I have similar problems with Bill's analysis (at least the part you mentioned first); but if you think from _this_ he would make a "crappy scientist", then I suggest you consider that his mistake here was philosophical and not strictly scientific. (i.e. if he made a philosophical mistake, and from that you conclude he would make a crappy scientist, you'd better make sure the scientists aren't making philosophical mistakes in their analyses.)
Furthermore, knowing Bill as I do, I know very well he does _NOT_ think that proving evolutionary theory completely false (which I also know he isn't trying to do) will automatically mean that ID is correct. You're doing him an injustice by imputing this to him.
Speaking of philosophical topics, such as category errors (in relation to accuracy of claims by advocates of a scientific theory): it's a category error to claim that if NDT fails to explain a complex entity scientifically, then ID is in the same boat and would necessarily fail just as well because it would have to explain God scientifically.
A theory of process within a system may succeed or fail in explaining the production of an entity (complex or otherwise) by the system; but this is completely different from trying to explain the system itself (much less doing so by appealing to subordinate processes _of_ the system.) ID, per se, doesn't have to scientifically explain the existence of God (whether it succeeds or fails at accounting for production of subordinate entities), any more than NDT, per se, has to scientifically explain the existence of Nature (whether it succeeds or fails at accounting for production of subordinate entities).
Whatever actual mistakes an ID proponent makes, can be dealt with without resorting to such nonsense.
There _is_ good science (and quite a lot of it) on the NDT side of the aisle, even in Dawkins; but a lot of the distrust engendered concerning the theory comes because of sloppy logical moves such as Dawkins (as one example) commonly makes in order to try to protect and promote the theory. He _is_ a crappy philosopher, and this constantly leads to hamstringing his scientific claims. (Contrariwise, when he manages to get his basic logic right, his science comes out proportionately good, and so to that extent is worth accepting and even admiring.)
Not to play favorites: when the ID crew make _their_ mistakes, I can trace pretty clearly they're making them due to being (at those points) crappy philosophers. (e.g. errors in their foundational logic, or avoiding points to protect their position.)
Ahab wrote: "He seems to have missed completely the point that even if evolutionary theory were proven to be completely false that does not mean that ID is correct." At first glance this appears to be unimpeachable. However, I am not so sure. If one answer to a question is proven false, it does not mean that a second answer is true if there is a third and fourth and fifth possible answer to consider. However, I think there is a real dichotomy behind the argument. Either the world we live in shows evidence of design or it is a result of naturalistic chance. There may be many origins that fit in the divine category (creator, aliens, demons...)and there may be many naturalistic explanations (Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, ???,...) but the dicotomy seems real. Help me out.
Bill certainly seems to have reading difficulties.
Swinburne writes in his book 'The same laws of nature govern the most distant galaxies we can observe through our telescopes as operate on earth, and the same laws govern the earliest events in in time to which we can infer as operate today.
Or, as I prefer to put it, every object, however distant in time and space from ourselves, has the same powers and the same liabilities to exercise those powers as do the electrons and protons of which our own bodies are made.
If there is no cause of this, it would be a most extraordinary coincidence -too extraordinary for any rational person to believe. But science cannot explain why every object has the same powers......'
Any child of 4 can see that Swinburne is saying that something is causing electrons and protons to have the same properties throughout time.
In his entry 'Dawkins on Swinburne', Bill writes 'What S. is saying is that science must take it to be a brute fact that electrons (e.g.) have the same powers and liabilities everywhere and everywhen. He is not saying that their natural tendency is not to have the same powers and liabilities.'
So Swinburne claims something causes electrons to retain their properties, and Bill turns this into a statement that electrons natural tendency is to retain their properties.
Poor Swinburne. He tries to hit atheists over the head by saying that they have no explanation for why electrons retain their properties and Bill undermines him totally by claiming electrons would do so anyway.
'Nowhere can I find "their natural tendency IS to have the same powers and liabilities."'
Exactly! You have grasped precisely what Swinburne said.
Swinburne says there is a *cause* of the fact that electrons do not fluctuate in their powers.
Dawkins point is that Swinburne thinks God gave electrons properties *they would not otherwise have*, and Dawkins points out that there is no need at all to assume that electrons would fluctuate if it were not for God.
And a God who can prevent trillions of sub-atomic particles from fluctuating on a moment-by-moment basis is a very complex being.
You may believe what you wish about what Swinburne wrote.
I merely quoted Swinburne saying that there was a cause of fundamental particles retaining their properties over time.
This rather implies that sans cause, they would not retain their properties over time, does it not?
But if you want me to lose all respect for you, by denying what I can read with my own eyes, please feel free to start denying what Swinburne wrote.
Dawkins did not misrepresent Swinburne, when Dawkins claims that Swinburne believes that God sustains the properties of fundamental particles, almost as though something would happen to them, if they were not so sustained.
5 comments:
{{Leaving ID aside, I am not sure I buy the idea that it is IN GENERAL wrong or problematic to explain something complex in terms of something more complex.}}
I quite agree, and still would if I was a naturalist. After all, I could hardly argue that the complexity of the most advanced biological organism is _more_ complex than the system of Nature on which it depends (and which must be sole cause of its production if naturalism is true.)
Ahab:
I have similar problems with Bill's analysis (at least the part you mentioned first); but if you think from _this_ he would make a "crappy scientist", then I suggest you consider that his mistake here was philosophical and not strictly scientific. (i.e. if he made a philosophical mistake, and from that you conclude he would make a crappy scientist, you'd better make sure the scientists aren't making philosophical mistakes in their analyses.)
Furthermore, knowing Bill as I do, I know very well he does _NOT_ think that proving evolutionary theory completely false (which I also know he isn't trying to do) will automatically mean that ID is correct. You're doing him an injustice by imputing this to him.
Speaking of philosophical topics, such as category errors (in relation to accuracy of claims by advocates of a scientific theory): it's a category error to claim that if NDT fails to explain a complex entity scientifically, then ID is in the same boat and would necessarily fail just as well because it would have to explain God scientifically.
A theory of process within a system may succeed or fail in explaining the production of an entity (complex or otherwise) by the system; but this is completely different from trying to explain the system itself (much less doing so by appealing to subordinate processes _of_ the system.) ID, per se, doesn't have to scientifically explain the existence of God (whether it succeeds or fails at accounting for production of subordinate entities), any more than NDT, per se, has to scientifically explain the existence of Nature (whether it succeeds or fails at accounting for production of subordinate entities).
Whatever actual mistakes an ID proponent makes, can be dealt with without resorting to such nonsense.
There _is_ good science (and quite a lot of it) on the NDT side of the aisle, even in Dawkins; but a lot of the distrust engendered concerning the theory comes because of sloppy logical moves such as Dawkins (as one example) commonly makes in order to try to protect and promote the theory. He _is_ a crappy philosopher, and this constantly leads to hamstringing his scientific claims. (Contrariwise, when he manages to get his basic logic right, his science comes out proportionately good, and so to that extent is worth accepting and even admiring.)
Not to play favorites: when the ID crew make _their_ mistakes, I can trace pretty clearly they're making them due to being (at those points) crappy philosophers. (e.g. errors in their foundational logic, or avoiding points to protect their position.)
Jason
Ahab wrote: "He seems to have missed completely the point that even if evolutionary theory were proven to be completely false that does not mean that ID is correct."
At first glance this appears to be unimpeachable. However, I am not so sure. If one answer to a question is proven false, it does not mean that a second answer is true if there is a third and fourth and fifth possible answer to consider. However, I think there is a real dichotomy behind the argument. Either the world we live in shows evidence of design or it is a result of naturalistic chance. There may be many origins that fit in the divine category (creator, aliens, demons...)and there may be many naturalistic explanations (Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, ???,...) but the dicotomy seems real. Help me out.
Bill certainly seems to have reading difficulties.
Swinburne writes in his book
'The same laws of nature govern the most distant galaxies we can observe through our telescopes as operate on earth, and the same laws govern the earliest events in in time to which we can infer as operate today.
Or, as I prefer to put it, every object, however distant in time and space from ourselves, has the same powers and the same liabilities to exercise those powers as do the electrons and protons of which our own bodies are made.
If there is no cause of this, it would be a most extraordinary coincidence -too extraordinary for any rational person to believe. But science cannot explain why every object has the same powers......'
Any child of 4 can see that Swinburne is saying that something is causing electrons and protons to have the same properties throughout time.
In his entry 'Dawkins on Swinburne', Bill writes 'What S. is saying is that science must take it to be a brute fact that electrons (e.g.) have the same powers and liabilities everywhere and everywhen. He is not saying that their natural tendency is not to have the same powers and liabilities.'
So Swinburne claims something causes electrons to retain their properties, and Bill turns this into a statement that electrons natural tendency is to retain their properties.
Poor Swinburne. He tries to hit atheists over the head by saying that they have no explanation for why electrons retain their properties and Bill undermines him totally by claiming electrons would do so anyway.
'Nowhere can I find "their natural tendency IS to have the same powers and liabilities."'
Exactly! You have grasped precisely what Swinburne said.
Swinburne says there is a *cause* of the fact that electrons do not fluctuate in their powers.
Dawkins point is that Swinburne thinks God gave electrons properties *they would not otherwise have*, and Dawkins points out that there is no need at all to assume that electrons would fluctuate if it were not for God.
And a God who can prevent trillions of sub-atomic particles from fluctuating on a moment-by-moment basis is a very complex being.
You may believe what you wish about what Swinburne wrote.
I merely quoted Swinburne saying that there was a cause of fundamental particles retaining their properties over time.
This rather implies that sans cause, they would not retain their properties over time, does it not?
But if you want me to lose all respect for you, by denying what I can read with my own eyes, please feel free to start denying what Swinburne wrote.
Dawkins did not misrepresent Swinburne, when Dawkins claims that Swinburne believes that God sustains the properties of fundamental particles, almost as though something would happen to them, if they were not so sustained.
Post a Comment