The limitations of science (The limitations of science)

by dhw, Wednesday, June 23, 2010, 12:48 (5028 days ago)

A letter to The Guardian a couple of weeks ago from a Dr Tariq Ali, who I assume is a medical doctor and not the activist writer and historian:-"You highlight a problem with scientific advice given by scientists with potential conflicts of interest (Report condemns swine flu experts' ties to big pharma, 4 June). Unfortunately, this is only the tip of an iceberg and reflects only one aspect of the problem with blind acceptance of scientific advice. Scientists are human beings and are driven by the same selfish desires as the rest of us. The altruistic scientist, driven only by "the search for truth", is a media fabrication. Fame and influence inflate egos. Hubris, arrogance and a woeful lack of self-awareness is common, in both scientific and medical communities.-In my experience many scientists cannot see beyond their limited horizons and only the most remarkable individuals are able to see the big picture. Wide-ranging controversies ... such as the MMR scare, withholding of climate change data and the recent overreaction to the swine flu pandemic ... show how powerful scientific evidence can be. This is neither intended to negate scientists nor scientific endeavour, but merely remind us that scientific advice must be tempered by a strong dose of common sense before public policy is altered."-To this very pertinent concluding remark, I'd just like to add that scientific speculation concerning origins, consciousness and the existence of God should also be tempered by a strong dose of common sense before dogmatic conclusions are drawn.

The limitations of science

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 23, 2010, 15:15 (5028 days ago) @ dhw

Scientists are human beings and are driven by the same selfish desires as the rest of us. The altruistic scientist, driven only by "the search for truth", is a media fabrication. Fame and influence inflate egos. Hubris, arrogance and a woeful lack of self-awareness is common, in both scientific and medical communities.-
Note is the following article on the extreme complexity of the genome, the declarative statement that is cannot be due to intelligednt design. Realy?? The article, itself, is fascinating in the description of the complexity of RNA and the results of that complexity:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627651.400-genome-at-10-a-dizzying-journey-into-complexity.html

The limitations of science

by George Jelliss ⌂ @, Crewe, Wednesday, June 23, 2010, 20:32 (5028 days ago) @ David Turell

DT writes [slightly edited] "Note in the following article on the extreme complexity of the genome, the declarative statement that it cannot be due to intelligednt design. ///-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627651.400-genome-at-10-a-dizzying-journey-into-complexity.html "-Far from being a "declarative statement", reasons are given for it.
 
Such convoluted mechanisms might seem odd and rather wasteful, but that is just what we should expect. "You sometimes ask yourself, 'Why on earth is biology working this way?'," says Birney. "But from evolution's perspective it doesn't have to look good in a textbook, it just has to work."
-Unfortunately, it only has to work in some of us. The Byzantine complexity and non-intelligent design of our genomes means there is an awful lot that can go wrong, and all too often it does, argues John Avise of the University of California, Irvine. Splicing mistakes and errant microRNAs play a role in some cancers, for instance. On the bright side, discoveries like siRNA could lead to potent new treatments for all kinds of diseases.
-The article linked to by clicking on "non-intelligent design" is:-http://www.pnas.org/content/107/suppl.2/8969-Which defines "intelligent design" in a very clear way, but not I suspect, one which DT will accept, since his God works in more mysterious ways, his wonders to disguise as accidents of evolution.

--
GPJ

The limitations of science

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 23, 2010, 22:21 (5028 days ago) @ George Jelliss


> The article linked to by clicking on "non-intelligent design" is:
> 
> http://www.pnas.org/content/107/suppl.2/8969
> 
> Which defines "intelligent design" in a very clear way, but not I suspect, one which DT will accept, since his God works in more mysterious ways, his wonders to disguise as accidents of evolution.-Everyone, please read this abstract. Avice presumes to know the 'best design' because he would not do it that way. We've seen this same approach before in the atheists claiming that the octopus eye is better than ours by looking at design, which is patently wrong when physiology is studied.

The limitations of science

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Thursday, June 24, 2010, 03:15 (5027 days ago) @ David Turell


> > The article linked to by clicking on "non-intelligent design" is:
> > 
> > http://www.pnas.org/content/107/suppl.2/8969
> > 
> > Which defines "intelligent design" in a very clear way, but not I suspect, one which DT will accept, since his God works in more mysterious ways, his wonders to disguise as accidents of evolution.
> 
> Everyone, please read this abstract. Avice presumes to know the 'best design' because he would not do it that way. We've seen this same approach before in the atheists claiming that the octopus eye is better than ours by looking at design, which is patently wrong when physiology is studied.-But remember. Biologists view ID as: -1. A front for creationism. The DI is evidence enough for that, and it will forever taint ID research until it's better elements wise up and divorce themselves from this bankrupt organization. -2. As a front for creationism, outlier theologies such as yours are patently not considered. Think of Dawkins, who typically argues against what is essentially mainstream theology; because "Those are the claims that are being made." While it is true that your theology (if it can be called that) suffers far less things to assail it, it also provides no way to make a bona-fide conclusion. And... very few people in America share a theology such as yours. From a religious perspective, you offer an argument for a deity that removes all capability to be connected to it. Other theists aren't likely to back your argument. (Frank doesn't count: two men don't make an army.) -I will assert here (as I have before) that if a human being can design any one thing in a simpler manner than how it appears in nature; than it means that man is smarter than God, plain and simple. If that design can be transplanted into a living organism, it gives life to my claim and further hurts any argument that God is a UI. (And if God isn't a UI, it isn't really worth much of anything.) -Again, I don't claim to have the answer, but at least from what I've seen argued here--and elsewhere--neither does anyone else.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

The limitations of science

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Saturday, September 11, 2010, 17:16 (4948 days ago) @ xeno6696


> I will assert here (as I have before) that if a human being can design any one thing in a simpler manner than how it appears in nature; than it means that man is smarter than God, plain and simple. If that design can be transplanted into a living organism, it gives life to my claim and further hurts any argument that God is a UI. (And if God isn't a UI, it isn't really worth much of anything.) 
> -
Aside from a slight sense of arrogance in, I see a few fundemental flaws in the statement, or rather in the scope of the argument. Perhaps if you altered it to say:-"If a human being can design any one thing in a simpler, more elegant, and more efficient manner than how it appears in nature, that performs all the same functions, has the same capabilities...."-The restrictions should actually be much tighter, because for me to believe a man was smarter than God, whatever man created would have to be able to reproduce new and more complex structures over time that, excluding free willed creatures, could maintain a semblance of homeostasis.

The limitations of science

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 11, 2010, 22:41 (4948 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


> "If a human being can design any one thing in a simpler, more elegant, and more efficient manner than how it appears in nature, that performs all the same functions, has the same capabilities...."
> 
> The restrictions should actually be much tighter, because for me to believe a man was smarter than God, whatever man created would have to be able to reproduce new and more complex structures over time that, excluding free willed creatures, could maintain a semblance of homeostasis.-I doubt man will ever be smarter in design competition with the natural micro-machinery we find in nature. We are already using many of nature's designs, and studying others for design help. That is why I put in 'Ain't Nature Wonderful' notes. The book, Nature's IQ, 2009 by Hornyanszky & Tasi is very convincing.

The limitations of science

by romansh ⌂ @, Saturday, September 11, 2010, 23:25 (4948 days ago) @ David Turell

I doubt man will ever be smarter in design competition with the natural micro-machinery we find in nature. We are already using many of nature's designs, and studying others for design help. That is why I put in 'Ain't Nature Wonderful' notes. The book, Nature's IQ, 2009 by Hornyanszky & Tasi is very convincing.-This assumes man is somehow separate from natural micro-machinery?-Take a look at the latest gadgetry from Apple - evolution in action. I can recall a time when my parents went to the neighbour's to make a phone call.

The limitations of science

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 12, 2010, 00:29 (4948 days ago) @ romansh

I doubt man will ever be smarter in design competition with the natural micro-machinery we find in nature. We are already using many of nature's designs, and studying others for design help. That is why I put in 'Ain't Nature Wonderful' notes. The book, Nature's IQ, 2009 by Hornyanszky & Tasi is very convincing.
> 
> This assumes man is somehow separate from natural micro-machinery?-No, not at all. We don't dialyze with a machine the size of a kidney, and we still haven't made a liver-filter machine, but they are all inside of us. And heart-lung machines in thoracic surgeery are rube goldberg contraptions
> 
> Take a look at the latest gadgetry from Apple - evolution in action. I can recall a time when my parents went to the neighbour's to make a phone call.-Nothing compared to the micro-biologic machines I'm talking about. Build a glomerulus and a Henlie's loop and I'll agree with you.

The limitations of science

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Sunday, September 12, 2010, 00:56 (4948 days ago) @ David Turell

As I have said, and will continue to say, just have a little humility. Admit that we, as a race can not do something. That is not to say that we will never be able to, just that we can't now. -Then, before you start tugging your beard over HOW science could do it, figure out IF science SHOULD. IMHO, most of humanities inventions have been terrible mistakes. We invented reading, and we lost our memories. We invented engines, factories, chemicals, structures, and destroyed our environment in the process. Geologist working for geothermal power stations just figured out they are responsible for an increase in earthquake activity. We invented antibiotics and vaccines, and have forced virus to evolve into an even more virulent state that is resistant to antibiotics, and have weaker immune systems to boot. We have invented hundreds of thousands of different ways to kill each other. Drugs to alter our brain chemistry without clear understanding of what the problem was in the first place, or what the long term effects will be. Weapons that can wipe out entire cities in seconds, and have to live with the knowledge that the greatest danger to our species is ourselves. Medications that have as much potential to end a life as save it, or make you depedent on them for life or you could die. Even our food and water have been poisoned by our trying to help to the point where they are detrimental to our well being. -We find faster more efficient ways to destroy ourselves and our home, and most of the time with the best intentions, simply due to a lack of comprehensive understanding. So, as for the limitations of science... I certainly hope we find some soon, preferably before we end up 'helping' our species out of existence.

The limitations of science

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Sunday, September 12, 2010, 05:29 (4947 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


> > I will assert here (as I have before) that if a human being can design any one thing in a simpler manner than how it appears in nature; than it means that man is smarter than God, plain and simple. If that design can be transplanted into a living organism, it gives life to my claim and further hurts any argument that God is a UI. (And if God isn't a UI, it isn't really worth much of anything.) 
> > 
> 
> 
> Aside from a slight sense of arrogance in, I see a few fundemental flaws in the statement, or rather in the scope of the argument. Perhaps if you altered it to say:
> 
> "If a human being can design any one thing in a simpler, more elegant, and more efficient manner than how it appears in nature, that performs all the same functions, has the same capabilities...."
> 
> The restrictions should actually be much tighter, because for me to believe a man was smarter than God, whatever man created would have to be able to reproduce new and more complex structures over time that, excluding free willed creatures, could maintain a semblance of homeostasis.-Well, specifically I was referring to some biochemical mechanisms that exist that actually have much shorter and more direct synthesis pathways; yet nature chose a more convoluted path. In these cases there is nothing gained in the convoluted path other than the consumption of more resources. In this instance; if humans can design something better than the UI, than the UI isn't really a UI. Or to put it more bluntly; if we can do something better than nature, than what does it say about nature?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

The limitations of science

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 12, 2010, 06:11 (4947 days ago) @ xeno6696


> Well, specifically I was referring to some biochemical mechanisms that exist that actually have much shorter and more direct synthesis pathways; yet nature chose a more convoluted path. In these cases there is nothing gained in the convoluted path other than the consumption of more resources. In this instance; if humans can design something better than the UI, than the UI isn't really a UI. Or to put it more bluntly; if we can do something better than nature, than what does it say about nature?-But the final question is: can we do better. we haven't so far.

The limitations of science

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Sunday, September 12, 2010, 21:28 (4947 days ago) @ David Turell


> > Well, specifically I was referring to some biochemical mechanisms that exist that actually have much shorter and more direct synthesis pathways; yet nature chose a more convoluted path. In these cases there is nothing gained in the convoluted path other than the consumption of more resources. In this instance; if humans can design something better than the UI, than the UI isn't really a UI. Or to put it more bluntly; if we can do something better than nature, than what does it say about nature?
> 
> But the final question is: can we do better. we haven't so far.-I will have to dig back a few years, but I recall that there were pathways dealing especially with energy production/consumption that nature follows that are inefficient compared with pathways built in the lab. A question was raised on why nature didn't go down these pathways. To my recollection this was never revisited in class. This is why I raised the question. If we can design a simpler and more efficient chemical pathway that isn't biologically harmful, then we are smarter than God, if he does in fact exist.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

The limitations of science

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Sunday, September 12, 2010, 22:15 (4947 days ago) @ xeno6696

I would posit that just because the reason isn't obvious or understood does not mean it doesn't exist. As an analogy, reference the Kissimme(sp?) river in Florida. Engineers knew that it twisted and turned, but could see no reason behind it. So, in their ignorance, they tried to straighten it, only to find that they had inadvertently poisoned the everglades by removing the bends in the river. Again, it goes back to what I keep saying about arrogance and a lack of understanding.

The limitations of science

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 12, 2010, 23:49 (4947 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

I would posit that just because the reason isn't obvious or understood does not mean it doesn't exist. As an analogy, reference the Kissimme(sp?) river in Florida. Engineers knew that it twisted and turned, but could see no reason behind it. So, in their ignorance, they tried to straighten it, only to find that they had inadvertently poisoned the everglades by removing the bends in the river. Again, it goes back to what I keep saying about arrogance and a lack of understanding.-What is worse is the abortion created by the Corps of Engineers in putting in levees and constructing canals for ships to go directly to the Gulf in Louisiana. The delta is shrinking and the tidelands are disappearing. Part of the effect of Katrina was loss of protective coast around New Orleans. The rule is simple: you can never fool Mother Nature.

The limitations of science

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Monday, September 13, 2010, 02:42 (4947 days ago) @ David Turell

I would posit that just because the reason isn't obvious or understood does not mean it doesn't exist. As an analogy, reference the Kissimme(sp?) river in Florida. Engineers knew that it twisted and turned, but could see no reason behind it. So, in their ignorance, they tried to straighten it, only to find that they had inadvertently poisoned the everglades by removing the bends in the river. Again, it goes back to what I keep saying about arrogance and a lack of understanding.
> 
> What is worse is the abortion created by the Corps of Engineers in putting in levees and constructing canals for ships to go directly to the Gulf in Louisiana. The delta is shrinking and the tidelands are disappearing. Part of the effect of Katrina was loss of protective coast around New Orleans. The rule is simple: you can never fool Mother Nature.-This will mark me as a giant a-hole: Federal funding to rebuild New Orleans should have been contingent on it being moved 20mi inland to higher ground.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

The limitations of science

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Monday, September 13, 2010, 02:40 (4947 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

I would posit that just because the reason isn't obvious or understood does not mean it doesn't exist. As an analogy, reference the Kissimme(sp?) river in Florida. Engineers knew that it twisted and turned, but could see no reason behind it. So, in their ignorance, they tried to straighten it, only to find that they had inadvertently poisoned the everglades by removing the bends in the river. Again, it goes back to what I keep saying about arrogance and a lack of understanding.-Remember, with me you're dealing with an engineer: How do we understand something without trying it? -To me, the river project you discuss is exactly the kind of thing that we can only learn by doing, there's no way, we could have figured out the importance of that river to the everglades if we hadn't f***ed it up. -A mistake is worth a hundredfold of a success.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

The limitations of science

by David Turell @, Monday, September 13, 2010, 04:59 (4946 days ago) @ xeno6696


> Remember, with me you're dealing with an engineer: How do we understand something without trying it? 
> 
> To me, the river project you discuss is exactly the kind of thing that we can only learn by doing, there's no way, we could have figured out the importance of that river to the everglades if we hadn't f***ed it up. 
> 
> A mistake is worth a hundredfold of a success.-Screw up parts of the world so we can learn? Isn't the world screwed up enough? And now we have a giant dam on the Bio Bio in southern Chile, right smack dab in an earthquake zone. One hellava disaster waiting to happen. Use nuclear power, not hydrologic. Dams have a rated lifetime, because every dam built is silting up at various rates. Did you ever hear the story how the Glen Canyon dam almost failed becasue the snowpack runoff was miscalculated. I can give references.- Engineer what you can understand and acurately predict.

The limitations of science

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Monday, September 13, 2010, 21:01 (4946 days ago) @ David Turell


> > Remember, with me you're dealing with an engineer: How do we understand something without trying it? 
> > 
> > To me, the river project you discuss is exactly the kind of thing that we can only learn by doing, there's no way, we could have figured out the importance of that river to the everglades if we hadn't f***ed it up. 
> > 
> > A mistake is worth a hundredfold of a success.
> 
> Screw up parts of the world so we can learn? Isn't the world screwed up enough? And now we have a giant dam on the Bio Bio in southern Chile, right smack dab in an earthquake zone. One hellava disaster waiting to happen. Use nuclear power, not hydrologic. Dams have a rated lifetime, because every dam built is silting up at various rates. Did you ever hear the story how the Glen Canyon dam almost failed becasue the snowpack runoff was miscalculated. I can give references.
> 
> Engineer what you can understand and acurately predict.-And my counter to that is: Then we will learn nothing. We can build all the computer models we want, but we won't get it right until we actually DO it. I see it happen all the time: I'm not saying don't plan, don't calculate, but forgive me if I'm wrong, but most of the information we have on ecosystems NOW simply didn't exist when the Florida engineers did their thing? They wouldn't have learned that if they hadn't done it wrong. -I said it once, I shall say it again: Man learns by doing. Far too much haunch-sitting in my generation. Too much caution. In the case of the Glen canyon dam, there needs to be outside corroboration. If it's done by the Army Corps, get an outside group to come in and verify the results. It costs more up front, but much less than a mistake.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

The limitations of science

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Monday, September 13, 2010, 21:53 (4946 days ago) @ xeno6696

Then I suppose you could add to your statement "If man could create something that met all the criteria, and get it right the first time, then they would be smarter than God." :P

The limitations of science

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 14, 2010, 00:45 (4946 days ago) @ xeno6696


> I said it once, I shall say it again: Man learns by doing. Far too much haunch-sitting in my generation. Too much caution. In the case of the Glen canyon dam, there needs to be outside corroboration. If it's done by the Army Corps, get an outside group to come in and verify the results. It costs more up front, but much less than a mistake.-Can 't really disagree with you. We really do learn by mistakes. What I am saying is lets not fool with mother nature so much. Leaving well enough alone with natural landscape may be the best thing to do. As for the GC dam, the folks running it misread the Rockies snow pack for the winter and in the spring did not release enough water. Picture 4x8 side-by-side plywood panels on top to keep the water from running over and vibrating the dam apart.

The limitations of science

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 12, 2010, 23:38 (4947 days ago) @ xeno6696


> If we can design a simpler and more efficient chemical pathway that isn't biologically harmful, then we are smarter than God, if he does in fact exist.-All I remember is the Krebs cycle and I couldn't draw it now for the life of me. There are other pathways, and you make an interesting point.

The limitations of science

by dhw, Monday, September 13, 2010, 10:20 (4946 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

BALANCE_MAINTAINED: [...] For me to believe a man was smarter than God, whatever man created would have to be able to reproduce new and more complex structures over time [...]-You have hit on one of the main reasons why atheism remains a step too far for me. I would say "as smart as" rather than "smarter", since God ... if he exists ... thought of it all first. We are not capable of creating live, self-reproducing organisms which bear within themselves the potential ability to adapt and innovate. Even if we could, that would only be proof of how consciously intelligent we are, and therefore would scarcely support the thesis that conscious intelligence is not required to produce such organisms.-P.S. Forgive me, but I can't resist it: I cut your sentence short in order to end on a striking word: "new and more complex structures" over...what? You see, you need "time" even if you don't believe it exists ... and I don't mean just the word.

The limitations of science

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Monday, September 13, 2010, 12:47 (4946 days ago) @ dhw

LOL I have said that Time is a linguistic construct that humans need to express an idea that we do not yet fully understand. I am not claiming to fully understand it myself, and by default I am left having to use the same literary constructs as everyone else. That does not mean it exists, it just means that our way of thinking and language are closely interwoven with that concept.

The limitations of science

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Thursday, June 24, 2010, 02:56 (5027 days ago) @ David Turell

David: -Time and again, the argument "Life must be designed because it is complex" is going to be considered -1. Fallacious. If for no other reason than the rules of the game dictate that you provide unequivocal evidence. If you can't do that, it's going to look empty every time. You admit that it can't be done: and that's enough for most skeptics. (But thank you for being honest--you do more for ID than Dembski, and frankly, I've recommended your book to friends because of it.) You and Shapiro--who I read as soon as "Lucifer Principle" is done--are correct that if/when a mechanism for life is discovered, there's still plenty of skepticism left. -2. Based on the fact that science hasn't done it yet. In some respects it looks like bet hedging. But you're discounting the human spirit. Nothing is impossible where man is considered. I don't have faith in "science" but I do have faith in man. -3. Rubber chicken. Because I feel like one every time I write a post that sounds like this. I probably have written the same thing ten times. -Again, I don't accuse you of fallacy, etc. But sometimes I think someone new might be lurking. We almost had one, heh.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

The limitations of science

by dhw, Thursday, June 24, 2010, 13:05 (5027 days ago) @ David Turell

David has referred us to an article*** on the complexity of the genome which contains the following statement:-"The Byzantine complexity and non-intelligent design of our genomes means that there is an awful lot that can go wrong, and all too often it does."-The design argument rests on the fact that the genome is a complex machine that works. The fact that a lot can go wrong is irrelevant. Our cars and computers are complex machines that work. All too often things go wrong. Does that mean they were not designed? -The article links up with another one, giving details of some of the things that do go wrong, which it says "defy notions of ID by a caring cognitive agent". It's a common and cheap device to discredit the whole by discrediting part, and in both articles it suits the authors to discredit the design argument by equating it with the creationist arm of ID. The notion of design (forget ID) automatically implies that the agent is cognitive, but not that it is caring. Who is to say that the agent (a) did not deliberately design the mechanisms so that its creations would have a limited life, or (b) that through the very nature of the materials used, the agent cannot produce a design that will never go wrong? Here the author (John C. Avise) appears to be attacking the whole concept of design on the basis of his own image of the designer. However, his conclusion suggests that his views are rather less clear-cut, even if they are somewhat confusing: -"Gross imperfection at the molecular level presents a conundrum for the traditional paradigms of natural theology as well as for recent assertions of ID, but it is consistent with the notion of non-sentient contrivance by evolutionary forces. In this important philosophical sense, the science of evolutionary genetics should rightly be viewed as an ally (not an adversary) of mainstream religions because it helps the latter to escape the profound theological enigmas posed by ID."-The "conundrum" for mainstream religions is dogmas such as an eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God, and I don't see how evolutionary genetics can be viewed as an ally. I would suggest it's the other way round: the science of evolutionary genetics, by revealing the complexity of the genome, is an ally to intelligent design (lower case), but not to the dogmas and enigmas of mainstream religions. Of course it cannot be seen as an ally to intelligent design if you insist that the faults of your motor car prove that it was put together by mindless chance.-*** I have just read the various posts from David, George and Matt. To George I would say that I have no problem understanding your opposition to the design theory if it's on the grounds that a "God in the traditional sense" runs contrary to common sense. I'm only surprised that you should swallow arguments as weak as the above. To Matt I would say you are quite right that complexity does not provide "unequivocal evidence" of design. If we had unequivocal evidence either way, there would be nothing to discuss. It's all a matter of what you think is or is not feasible. I prefer to leave my options open. David and George have made up their minds.

The limitations of science

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 24, 2010, 15:19 (5027 days ago) @ dhw


> *** I have just read the various posts from David, George and Matt. To George I would say that I have no problem understanding your opposition to the design theory if it's on the grounds that a "God in the traditional sense" runs contrary to common sense. I'm only surprised that you should swallow arguments as weak as the above. To Matt I would say you are quite right that complexity does not provide "unequivocal evidence" of design. If we had unequivocal evidence either way, there would be nothing to discuss. It's all a matter of what you think is or is not feasible. I prefer to leave my options open. David and George have made up their minds.-dhw certainly understands my view that the complexity of the genetic structure cannot be dismissed because it looks messy. Here is another article where messy pseudogenes have a definite function and have been conserved in evolution because they are vital to the system.-http://www.physorg.com/news196516390.html

The limitations of science

by George Jelliss ⌂ @, Crewe, Friday, June 25, 2010, 22:49 (5026 days ago) @ dhw

There is a four-part series on BBC Radio 4 currently on "The Age of the Genome"-http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00ss2rk-It is narrated by Richard Dawkins, which may not please dhw, but he has quotes from lots of other scientists, like Francis Collins and Craig Venter.

--
GPJ

The limitations of science

by dhw, Sunday, June 27, 2010, 12:37 (5024 days ago) @ George Jelliss

My thanks to George for drawing our attention to Richard Dawkins' radio series on 'The Age of the Genome'. George will be surprised to hear that I thought Dawkins did a good job. But as a neutral listener, what struck me most forcibly was the enormous complexity of the task. It took more than 2000 people working in 20 labs no less than 13 years to sequence the human genome, and it would take 80 years to read the sequence of letters. Again and again, Dawkins quite rightly emphasizes what a huge achievement the decoding is. -And the job is still not finished. One interviewee thought that about 90% of DNA is junk, but Dawkins made a very pertinent remark, along the lines of maybe we just don't know what it does. And the fact is that some scientists talk of "dark matter" in the genome, because they are still far from figuring out how the different parts interact, and it is this interaction that leads to the vast differences between humans and, for instance, worms and mice. -In relation to junk DNA, Dawkins draws a parallel with computers, pointing out that 90% of his computer's hard drive consists of junk. Of course it would not occur to him, or possibly to other listeners, that the computer is the product of intelligent design. Nor would it occur to him that all the above statistics and all the unsolved mysteries make it increasingly difficult for a neutral observer to accept that the genome is the product of mindless globules of matter having assembled themselves without any knowledge of what they were doing. It's an astonishing scientific feat to have unravelled the code. But doesn't that make the assembly of the code even more astonishing?

The limitations of science

by George Jelliss ⌂ @, Crewe, Tuesday, June 29, 2010, 21:01 (5022 days ago) @ dhw

dhw wrote: "Dawkins draws a parallel with computers, pointing out that 90% of his computer's hard drive consists of junk. Of course it would not occur to him, or possibly to other listeners, that the computer is the product of intelligent design."-I'm not so sure that computers are the product of "intelligent design". Judging by all the updates I get from Microsoft I suspect computers have evolved, by natural selection of ideas that worked competing with ideas that didn't do so well. Alan Turing may have set down the basic general principles, but today's computers were not "designed" by him, nor by Bill Gates.

--
GPJ

The limitations of science

by dhw, Wednesday, June 30, 2010, 10:14 (5021 days ago) @ George Jelliss

GEORGE: I'm not so sure that computers are the product of "intelligent design". Judging by all the updates I get from Microsoft I suspect computers have evolved, by natural selection of ideas that worked competing with ideas that didn't do so well. Alan Turing may have set down the basic general principles, but today's computers were not "designed" by him, nor by Bill Gates.-I'll take this comment on both its levels. First, the twinkle in George's eye. I often have the same feeling myself with all the updates, junk, spam, and things that go bump in the night. On the other hand, the evolution of computers as a serious image leaves you no alternative to belief in design. You begin with a mechanism that was assembled by a conscious intelligence, and built into this mechanism is the potential for an (almost) infinite variety of possible developments. The computer is totally inconceivable without the mind that originally gave rise to it, whereas its evolution is largely governed by mutations, adaptations to a changing world, and natural selection (though I sometimes wonder if there is any selection at all).--
---

The limitations of science

by George Jelliss ⌂ @, Crewe, Wednesday, June 23, 2010, 20:25 (5028 days ago) @ dhw

Tariq Ali: "This is neither intended to negate scientists nor scientific endeavour, but merely remind us that scientific advice must be tempered by a strong dose of common sense before public policy is altered."
 
dhw: "To this very pertinent concluding remark, I'd just like to add that scientific speculation concerning origins, consciousness and the existence of God should also be tempered by a strong dose of common sense before dogmatic conclusions are drawn."-Common sense tells me that there definitely cannot be a God in any traditional sense, that the "problem of consciousness" is highly overrated, and that life pretty certainly arose from non-life by natural processes not requiring the intervention of preexisting intelligent beings.

--
GPJ

The limitations of science

by dhw, Friday, July 02, 2010, 13:03 (5019 days ago) @ George Jelliss

As there seems to be a bit of a hiatus in our various discussions, I thought I'd go back to a remark of George's (23 June at 20.25) which succinctly sums up three central aspects:-"Common sense tells me that there definitely cannot be a God in any traditional sense, that the "problem of consciousness" is highly overrated, and that life pretty certainly arose from non-life by natural processes not requiring the intervention of preexisting intelligent beings."-1) If the "traditional sense" means an infinite, eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving father figure, I feel the same way as you, because common sense tells me that such a figure must have come from somewhere, that there is no sign of any such personal qualities in the universe or the tiny world we live in, and that the whole concept is and has always been a hugely embellished metaphor for the unknown power that brought us into being. It also tells me that if the unknown power doesn't care about me, there is no point in my caring about it.
2)	The "problem of consciousness", on the other hand, seems to me to be highly underrated by virtually everyone I know. All the mental processes, such as awareness, will, memory, imagination, reason etc. are completely beyond our understanding, and most people simply take them for granted. It's as if the words explain the reality, whereas they explain nothing. All we know is that somehow these abilities seem to be associated with electrical activities in specific areas of the brain. Common sense tells me that a functioning mechanism of such unfathomable complexity requires the intervention of preexisting intelligence.
3)	We learned recently that it took 2000 scientists 13 years to decode the genome, and still no-one knows how the parts interact in order to produce variations from species to species. Common sense tells me that a functioning mechanism of such unfathomable complexity etc.-The gulf between 1) and the other two can't be bridged except by an irrational faith in a particular concept of the unknown power, either in the form of a conscious god, or as a completely impersonal, unconscious mass of matter and energy. Common sense and irrational faith do not seem to me to make good companions. On the other hand, common sense tells me that one of these two concepts must be more closely akin to the truth than the other. It goes on to suggest that I have no way of knowing which one, since both seem equally unlikely, and that I would therefore be well advised not to reject either, and to pay careful attention to those more knowledgeable than myself in the various fields of scientific and philosophical research. However, it also warns me that the Pope, the Chief Rabbi, Nietzsche, Descartes, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, the postman and my two-year-old grandson have the same degree of authority when it comes to drawing conclusions.

The limitations of science

by David Turell @, Friday, July 02, 2010, 14:44 (5019 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Friday, July 02, 2010, 14:58

2)	The "problem of consciousness", on the other hand, seems to me to be highly underrated by virtually everyone I know. All the mental processes, such as awareness, will, memory, imagination, reason etc. are completely beyond our understanding, and most people simply take them for granted. It's as if the words explain the reality, whereas they explain nothing. All we know is that somehow these abilities seem to be associated with electrical activities in specific areas of the brain. Common sense tells me that a functioning mechanism of such unfathomable complexity requires the intervention of preexisting intelligence.
> 3)	We learned recently that it took 2000 scientists 13 years to decode the genome, and still no-one knows how the parts interact in order to produce variations from species to species. Common sense tells me that a functioning mechanism of such unfathomable complexity etc.-There are some errors of omission above: in 2 one should think of the amazing work of instinct. The baby foal or calf is born, struggles to walk within minutes and shortly thereafter is suckling its first meal. Birds fly thousands of miles to migrate and mitigate adverse weather changes as seasons shift. How does DNA in the neurons accomplish this? At a low level of consciousness, animals know what to do. Plants show heliotropism and geotropism, and they are probably less conscious.-In 3 the decoding is totally incomplete. Epigenetics is a recently awakening area of study. There is layer upon layer of complex controls, so a single gene can do ten jobs. Neo-Darwinism is under mathematical attack. See my last entry that I hope Matt will evaluate. It is in line with the James Shapiro work.-Here is an epigenetic study, 2,750 years to change human genetics at great altitude: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19117-tibetans-adapted-to-high-life-at-recordbrea... view of the increasingly complex underpinnings of life, one must highly consider an intelligence is at work.

The limitations of science

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Thursday, June 24, 2010, 02:40 (5028 days ago) @ dhw

dhw,-I think it rather interesting that Dr. Ali makes such a broad and encompassing statement. Yes, at the upper echelon's of academia, life is brutal. But name a single human pursuit that isn't. But the vast majority of PhD's fall into--you guessed it--the vast majority of the bell curve. In general, if you're familiar with the "normal" distribution on statistics, this serves as a better predictor of human activities than anything else psychology has ever invented. It's almost eerie at how often it pops up. -Anyhoo, the difference between science and other human endeavors (such as business) is that science is inclusive of every datum as it is an open standard. Contrast that with business where there's only room for a few to succeed in a given market. I know you're probably not super "in-touch" with the Linux operating system, but it's a great microcosm of science at large. -Everyone who's an expert at some very small piece is open to contribute. If someone is good at concurrency, he contributes. If someone is good at file handling, he does that piece. In the end, each specialist contributes something that makes the whole better. Science is absolutely identical: PhD's are made on being the expert on some teeny-tiny--but very deep--piece of knowledge that contributes to the betterment of the whole. -Add to the fact that it's a self-correcting mechanism; you have a meme-generator par-excellence.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

The limitations of science

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 15, 2010, 14:03 (5006 days ago) @ dhw


> To this very pertinent concluding remark, I'd just like to add that scientific speculation concerning origins, consciousness and the existence of God should also be tempered by a strong dose of common sense before dogmatic conclusions are drawn.-John Polkinghorne's 80th birthday has been celebrated with an attempt to discern his philosophy which uses chaos theory, and this article declares that he is not using God-of-the-Gaps. He is using the limitations in what science can fully explain:-http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jul/14/chaos-theory-polkinghorne-god

The limitations of science

by David Turell @, Friday, August 06, 2010, 14:14 (4984 days ago) @ dhw

A letter to The Guardian a couple of weeks ago from a Dr Tariq Ali, who I assume is a medical doctor and not the activist writer and historian:
> 
> "You highlight a problem with scientific advice given by scientists with potential conflicts of interest (Report condemns swine flu experts' ties to big pharma, 4 June). Unfortunately, this is only the tip of an iceberg and reflects only one aspect of the problem with blind acceptance of scientific advice. Scientists are human beings and are driven by the same selfish desires as the rest of us. The altruistic scientist, driven only by "the search for truth", is a media fabrication. Fame and influence inflate egos. Hubris, arrogance and a woeful lack of self-awareness is common, in both scientific and medical communities.
> 
> In my experience many scientists cannot see beyond their limited horizons and only the most remarkable individuals are able to see the big picture. Wide-ranging controversies ... such as the MMR scare, withholding of climate change data -I have railed against peer review in the past. It is a direct road to politicization of science. Read the following discussion of an idiotic article 'identifying' "deniers" of climate change:-http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/expert-embarrassment-in-climate-change/#more-23048

The limitations of science

by dhw, Monday, September 20, 2010, 11:08 (4939 days ago) @ dhw

An article in yesterday's Sunday Times reports on a study of more than 4000 British children. "One of its main conclusions is that intelligence is controlled by a network of thousands of genes [...] rather than the handful of powerful genes that scientists once predicted."-There are two reasons for drawing attention to this: 
1)	Yet again we're confronted with the complexity of the genetic network, and the massive leap of faith required to believe that the mechanism leading to such complexity could assemble itself spontaneously.
2)	Science is continually changing its tunes. Some people may take this as confirmation of their faith that science will always correct itself and come up eventually with the facts. Others will point out that the constant revisions, new theories, new discoveries make it necessary to remain sceptical of all current pronouncements masquerading as facts.-That doesn't mean science is not our best chance of unravelling truths about the material world. It may even be the only chance. However, it does mean that we should remain open-minded when scientists attempt to draw authoritative conclusions from speculative findings, and that so long as we have no solution to basic mysteries such as the origin of life and the universe, and consciousness with all its ramifications, we should not assume that the material world ... as we know it ... is all there is.

The limitations of science

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Monday, September 20, 2010, 13:07 (4939 days ago) @ dhw

Well said.

The limitations of science

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 09, 2011, 15:18 (4828 days ago) @ dhw

Another limitation of science has appeared. It seems the ozone hole is very persistent, and the reasons for it may not be freon. Welcome to government control through science. It's been around a while. WUWT has a great piece:-http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/08/new-rate-of-stratospheric-photolysis-questions-ozone-hole/

The limitations of science; first impressions can disappear

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 15:17 (4825 days ago) @ dhw

A letter to The Guardian a couple of weeks ago from a Dr Tariq Ali, who I assume is a medical doctor and not the activist writer and historian:
> 
> "You highlight a problem with scientific advice given by scientists with potential conflicts of interest (Report condemns swine flu experts' ties to big pharma, 4 June). Unfortunately, this is only the tip of an iceberg and reflects only one aspect of the problem with blind acceptance of scientific advice. Scientists are human beings and are driven by the same selfish desires as the rest of us. The altruistic scientist, driven only by "the search for truth", is a media fabrication. Fame and influence inflate egos. Hubris, arrogance and a woeful lack of self-awareness is common, in both scientific and medical communities.
> 
> In my experience many scientists cannot see beyond their limited horizons and only the most remarkable individuals are able to see the big picture. -A wonderful article in New Yorker should be read thru and thru. There is forceful new evidence of how true the above statement is:-http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=1

The limitations of science; first impressions can disappear

by romansh ⌂ @, Sunday, February 06, 2011, 23:40 (4800 days ago) @ David Turell

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=1-The article above while interesting has a limitation.-But it does remind me of when I started my PhD. My supervisor got me to replicate an undergraduate experiment to make sure my techniques were accurate. The experiment was supposed to produce a graph with a line of slope 2.0. I got a slope of 1.8. All previous similar PhDs had got 2.0, most papers seem to get 2.0 for this family of experiments. I went to my supervisor and he got me to reproduce the the experiment and find the problem for three months. I could replicate other families of experiments but not this one. Wasted three months, but eventually gave up and got on with my studies.-For a couple years supervised the undergraduate prac class only one time did an undergraduate complain they were getting 1.8 rather than 2. The final straw came when a fellow PhD student also noticed he was getting 1.8 rather than 2. At this point I went through the chemistry/math of what was going on and realized the theory was incomplete, the slope should be nearer 1.8.-Now my point - sure people will tend to give the expected answer/interpretation (I may have fallen into the same trap, I don't know). But science sorts things out over time. Tariq, the New Yorker and I suspect David are into an instant gratification mode?

The limitations of science; first impressions can disappear

by David Turell @, Monday, February 07, 2011, 00:26 (4800 days ago) @ romansh

Now my point - sure people will tend to give the expected answer/interpretation (I may have fallen into the same trap, I don't know). But science sorts things out over time. Tariq, the New Yorker and I suspect David are into an instant gratification mode?-I'm not. Instant gratification appeared in the next generation after mine. As a practicing physician I can give you a list of drugs first thought safe and then had to be withdrawn as much larger numbers revealed the danger.

The limitations of science; first impressions can disappear

by romansh ⌂ @, Monday, February 07, 2011, 00:39 (4800 days ago) @ David Turell

I'm not. Instant gratification appeared in the next generation after mine. As a practicing physician I can give you a list of drugs first thought safe and then had to be withdrawn as much larger numbers revealed the danger.-I believe you David, medicine is like building bridges - we learn from our mistakes. We may be able to avoid the obvious ones but we will just start making ever subtler mistakes. -As a physcian, I heartily commend you wanting to avoid making mistakes. But science is about testing theories - sadly with medicine the costs of mistakes can be particularly high.-But we are not going to get perfection in our or anyone else's lifetime. This is my point.

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum