Following up on my last post I’d like to suggest another video from Leah Libresco that perhaps should be required viewing here.
Not only is it relevant to every conversation we have here but it is related to Turing Tests something that I find fascinating and important for “my Game” if I ever get around to it.
Here is a link for the corresponding Ideological Turing Test
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unequallyyoked/ideological-turing-test-contest
What do you think? Should we come up with some questions surrounding Intelligent Design?
peace
I fixed your url (you had “.cosm” in place of “.com”), and made it into a link.
Neil Rickert,
Thanks Neil
fmm,
That’s a laugh. You’ve had a year now to work out how to draw some lines.
How does this relate to your “game”? If your game existed and people played it, what would it demonstrate if they successfully “played” the game? What would it mean if nobody could play the game?
Suggested questions for the ID enthusiast
1) What evidence would convince you that there was no teleology in nature?
2) Why do you think ID has not been accepted so far in the scientific community?
3) What in your opinion is the strongest evidence for ID?
Questions for the ID “skeptic”
1) What evidence would convince you that there was teleology in nature?
2) Why do you think ID as an idea continues to exist?
3) What in your opinion is the best reason ID should not be considered a legitimate scientific enterprise?
What do you think?
I predict that the ID enthusiasts here could do a much better job posing as skeptics than the skeptics could do pretending to be IDers,
wanna bet on it?
peace
My game attempts to be a Turing test for whatever produced the string as well as for the observer who is playing.
It would mean that they are not a computer and/or that the “real” string question was not produced by an algorithmic or random process.
It would mean that the “real” string was produced by some combination of random and algrythymic processes and/or that we are nothing more than computers made of meat.
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Those aren’t the right questions. The debate isn’t about whether or not there is “teleology in nature”, and in point of fact, the question “is there teleology in nature?” is so vague as be meaningless.
Besides which, there are lots of scientists and philosophers who think that Darwinism (or something like it) is not only consistent with teleology in nature, but also the best explanation for it. I keep mentioning names and books, but no one takes notice, so I’ve stopped bothering.
The question is, “is the purposiveness and complexity of biological systems best explained by positing an intelligent designer?”
The relevant questions for the ID advocate would be:
1. Why is positing an intelligent designer the best explanation for the purposiveness and complexity of biological systems?
2. What evidence would persuade you that there is a better explanation than intelligent design?
3. Under what conditions would intelligent design successfully pass an empirical test designed to confirm or refute it?
The relevant questions for the ID skeptic would be:
1. What is the best explanation for the purposiveness and complexity of biological systems, if not intelligent design?
2. What evidence would persuade you that intelligent design is a better explanation than the alternative you favor?
3. Under what conditions would intelligent design successfully pass an empirical test designed to confirm or refute it?
I’ve never met an ID enthusiast who understands how science works, and I’ve never met a “skeptic” about evolutionary theory who understands biology.
My last two comments on this thread:
Firstly, there’s nothing “ideological” about opposing intelligent design.
Intelligent design has repeatedly failed to demonstrate its bona fides as a scientific theory that is sufficiently supported by evidence that it would be reasonable to accept. Opposing intelligent design is no different from opposing Atlantis, a flat earth, astrology, or Holocaust denial.
Is it “ideological” to oppose astrology or Atlantis?
Secondly, while there might an ideological bias at work in favoring religion or in opposing it — being exceedingly careful in what we mean by “ideology” — the debate between theism and naturalism is wholly irrelevant to intelligent design vs. Darwinism. Intelligent design is compatible with naturalism, as Darwinism with theism. The two debates have no logical relationship with one another. One is metaphysical, the other is scientific; the former is a priori, the latter is a posteriori.
(1) You might start with a precise and rigorous definition of “teleology”.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with there being teleology in nature. But what I consider examples of teleology would not be so considered by many others (on either side of the question of whether there is teleology). It’s just an unfortunate fact that people cannot agree on what we mean by “teleology”. And, without such agreement, talk of evidence is premature.
(2) ID thinking is deeply engrained in human thinking.
(3) ID, in its present form, is unscientific. It lacks the pragmatic core of actual science.
Neil Rickert,
Believing in teleology that is unplanned is beyond unscientific, it is philosophically preposterous.
Yes.
Now you owe us a precise and rigorous definition of “planned” and “unplanned”.
What evidence do you have that there is?
Will you ever get (and acknowledge as reasonable) the fact that nebulous claims, such as yours and ID’s, aren’t worth considering per se in the first place? And it’s up to the pushers of such ideas to come up with entailments that ought to convince. Science doesn’t need your tripe.
It’s simple-minded, many people don’t understand science and how evidence works and too many of those don’t want to, and ID is associated with rewards and punishments for believing “rightly” or “wrongly,” while science can only provide understanding (which means very little indeed to those who really are clueless).
It denies the evidence that points to unthinking evolution, and it tries to claims design as an explanation where complete scientific explanation does not now exist. Neither is at all reasonable thinking, nor do these make IDists willing to open-mindedly deal with the evidence, even to come up with possibly good alternative explanation.
Who cares either way? The actual issue is who thinks better scientifically. Understanding bad thinking is probably the best reason for us to discuss ID, all right, but aping the inanities of ID is no reason at all.
Glen Davidson
Kantian Naturalist,
How do you determine that it is not sufficiently supported by evidence? Is this just your current opinion?
How do you equate intelligent design with a flat earth or holocaust denial?
Do you believe that universal common descent by cell division and sexual reproduction is sufficiently supported by the evidence? If so how is ” sufficiently supported” determined?
Note that you have just managed to equate ID with creationism. While this is as it should be, I question whether that was your intent.
As for evidence, whenever anyone cites any you don’t read it. I see that as a problem.
I’m OK with questions one and two but I’m not sure why three is worded like it is.
For the sake of clarification do you think that a Turing test is an empirical test? If not why not?
Thanks in advance
peace
It was.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to. If you’re referring to peer-reviewed science papers, I don’t read those because (1) I’m busy reading other things that are directly relevant to my job and (2) my background in science isn’t strong enough for me to read a science paper quickly and with full understanding.
I’m pretty sure that he wasn’t writing in response to you, but to cole.
Glen Davidson
I worded #3 as I did because that’s what’s at stake: whether or not intelligent design is a good scientific theory. For scientific theories, empirical evidence is what counts. Theories need to be tested in light of empirical evidence in order for them to be reasonable explanations of the evidence they purport to explain.
I’ve never been happy with the Turing test as an operationalization of artificial intelligence. It seems too simplistic. But I’m not sure what else I’d prefer.
In the case of “ideological Turing tests,” Turing test is being used metaphorically, as a way of determining mutual understanding of other people’s worldviews.
Ah, I see that now! My apologies!
Correct. I’m pretty sure KN didn’t write any of the stuff I quoted and responded to.
Well OK
Again to clarify is a Turing test an empirical test IYO?
This is important because I feel ID boils down to determining if there is a mind behind the universe and/or life and so far Turing Tests are the best tool we have for doing that sort of thing.
Would you consider a properly constructed Turing test for the universe to be an adequate scientific enterprise?
leaving aside how such a test would be constructed
peace
Your question is meaningless. A Turing test involves a subject sitting down at a terminal and typing back and forth with a tester. It’s a test for the human-type intelligence of the subject. Immediately we should be able to see two problems: 1) the universe isn’t going to sit down at a terminal and 2) even if it did, that would be a test of whether the universe itself were intelligent, not of whether it had an intelligent creator.
Now, if you meant to refer not to an actual Turing test but to something vaguely similar in some way to a Turing test, you really do have to describe what you’re talking about before it can be discussed.
we have been over this all before, I mean something similar to this
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.4592.pdf
Would something similar to that if we could accomplish it be an adequate scientific enterprise?
Again this has only to do with KN’s introduction of the qualifier
“empirical” for test.
I’m not sure why he did that. I want to know if he has an open mind or if he is only looking for ways to deny this sort of thing as not sufficiently scientific.
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
OK. I see that the misuse of “Turing test” is not your fault, at least originally. You probably shouldn’t perpetuate it, though. I don’t see how that could be turned into a test for ID, though. It might be a test for random vs. non-random patterns, but there are many possible sources of non-randomness other than ID.
I disagree with the statement that ” ID boils down to determining if there is a mind behind the universe and/or life”.
ID says that it is an empirical truth that the interventions of one or more intelligent agents are the best explanation for certain features of the universe (cosmological intelligent design, or CID) or of life (biological intelligent design, or BID).
Notice that Thomism and other forms of classical theism will insist that “there is a mind behind the universe and/or life”. But they do on a priori grounds, not (as ID does) on a posteriori, or empirical, grounds.
Put more precisely: the question is not whether or not ID is true, but whether it is a good scientific theory.
I have no idea what that means.
In order for intelligent design to be a reasonable alternative to evolutionary theory, it must be a good scientific theory. That means that it must account for the evidence that evolutionary theory accounts for and explains the evidence that evolutionary theory cannot account for. And those explanations have to be tested against available empirical evidence.
Otherwise it’s just metaphysics, speculation, wishful thinking, fantasy — not science.
Kantian Naturalist,
Are you consciously trying to make a straw man argument here or do you not understand the ID argument?
It’s just that sort of misunderstanding that prompted me to start this thread. I would like to know if it is intentional or not.
peace
OK
Let me try this approach
When dealing with Artificial intelligence is a Turing test scientific or not ?
peace
It would be better if you explained what you think the straw man is here, and what the actual ID argument is.
That’s not how the test works, You need to be able to say what your opponent actually believes.
No cheating
I understand the ID view perfectly well. I’ve read Dembski and Behe, and I was a frequent commenter at Uncommon Descent for a few years. Maybe you don’t understand ID?
Reading a few books and commenting on a website is not enough to prove you understand something.
Might I suggest a Turing test? 😉
peace
Kantian Naturalist,
The designer is not discussed in ID theory. Design is the observation not the designer. It is very surprising that you did not know this. You have created a straw man that I guess you were not aware off. I think you need to take a fresh look at this argument. I have been confused by your arguments against ID now it is clear.
This is quite a different “Turing test” (and please stop misusing that term). What is it intended to show? I will have to say that I know of only one creationist who would have a hope of explaining the position of an evolutionary biologist, and it’s certainly nobody who has ever appeared here. On the other hand there appear to be nearly as many “theories” of ID as there are ID supporters, so I have no idea what you imagine is the true ID position.
We’re trying to find out if anyone here is intelligent. I think the term Turing Test is entirely appropriate.
Well, now you owe us a precise definition of precise. And a rigorous definition of rigorous. And a definition of definition.
All the words games in the world doesn’t prevent believing that life is teleological, without someone making it teleological, from being a thoughtless viewpoint.
Mung,
Generally intelligent. That’s what the Turing Test is about. Not Chess, for example.
colewd and fmm disagree on the fundamental definition of ID. And they wonder why nobody else takes ID seriously – there are as many flavours of ID as there are ID supporters.
It’s intended to demonstrate whether ID enthusiasts understand the position of the “Skeptic” and vise versa
That is just an empty claim. Wouldn’t it be nice if there was an objective way to verify it. Perhaps something like a Turing Test 😉
peace
I wonder how you can possibly know that since neither of us has offered a “fundamental definition” of ID. It seems to me that there are a lot of claims about what the other side believes.
It’s a shame there is no objective way to determine if you understand it 😉
peace
One way would be for you and colewd to provide a fundamental theory of ID. Best provide the page and book for Phodoo
I’m afraid that’s quite badly wrong.
I said — correctly — that intelligent design posits the existence of an intelligent designer as the best explanation of the empirically observed purposiveness and complexity of biological (or cosmological) phenomena. I never said that ID makes any claims about the properties of the posited designer, or about what kind of being it is. Your criticism of what I said is based on misunderstanding it.
In order for ID to avoid all claims about an intelligent designer, it would be committed to “design” that might or not might not be the result of a designer. I think we can all agree that that’s nonsense.
The relationship between design and designer is analytic or conceptual; to classify something as designed is at the very same time to posit the existence of some designer as having designed it, regardless of what one can infer about the properties of the designer.
ID supporters typically claim that ID is a reasonable alternative to evolutionary theory. In order for this to be right, one of two things has to be the case: either they are both scientific theories, or neither of them is. When ID was first crafted by Dembski, Behe, et al. they all took the first approach: ID is a scientific alternative to evolutionary theory. What we see now, interestingly, is more of the second: evolutionary theory isn’t a scientific theory in the first place, so it doesn’t matter if ID is a scientific alternative to it.
Since it’s a fool’s errand to show that evolutionary theory isn’t scientific, I’m only focused on the idea that ID is a scientific theory. I’m critical of that idea because the linchpin of a good scientific theory is that it be empirically tested and confirmed (or refuted) through iterated empirical testing. ID has manifestly failed to live up to that standard (so far).
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that KN’s two questions #3 are oddly put. #1 and #2 seem fine, anyhow. And I don’t believe the theists would do as well as they think answering them. Or, put better, I don’t believe the atheists here would do any worse on their questions than the theists do on theirs–theist pomposity on this matter, notwithstanding.
Kantian,
You have decided here to change the argument because you think there is a problem with the argument. You are creating a straw man which stops from you really exploring and understanding their position. The cells have engineering capability to repair themselves. They also have the ability to do intelligent search in order to adapt to foreign viruses.
You are around critics that constantly try to create a straw man to discredit ID. I can see how you could fall into this trap.
I think you are very confused here. How would you confirm through empirical testing that Universal Common Descent is true? Darwin argued for a different standard to evaluate evolutionary theory because it was historic science and critical claims could not be tested. Interestingly enough this standard also works for ID.
I freely admit that I don’t understand your position, perhaps because you have never managed to explain it. That would seem like a first step.
Blind tests are necessary only when a phenomenon is weak. They really aren’t needed to know that you don’t understand evolutionary biology and have no interest in understanding it.
Have you ever asked Behe why he accepts UCD?
dazz,
Yes, I have had a discussion with him on this and completely agree with his position. He understands common descent for exactly what it is.
You should share his comments here–if he wouldn’t mind. Or at least paraphrase them so others can see if they agree with his take on “exactly what it is.”