“…the essential syllogism that defines ID is actually presented in three all-encompassing lines.Let’s take a look at the individual claims PZ makes.
1. DNA is not just a molecule - it is a coding system with a language & alphabet, and contains a message
2. All languages, codes and messages come from a mind
3. Therefore DNA was designed by a Mind
As I'm sure all of you sensible readers can immediately detect, his first premise is a deeply flawed analogy and his second is simply undemonstrated and entirely false, so his "therefore" is unwarranted. Three lines, three errors: a perfect representation of creationist thought.”
First, if you don’t see it PZ’s way, you’re not “sensible”. Let’s let that one slide, it’s just an insult, not an argument.
Second, the first premise is (a) an analogy; (b) deeply flawed. This statement is not, however, an analog of any sort; it is a statement of characteristics intrinsic to the DNA molecule. The “deeply flawed” charge is not substantiated at this point, and the subsequent argument will be discussed below, PZ’s cockroach analogy.
Third, for premise 2, it is “undemonstrated” that “all languages, codes and messages come from a mind”, and it is “entirely false”. For this assessment PZ presents no contradictory evidence of languages, codes or messages that do not come from a mind, but presumes in advance that the one code under discussion is the one single “language, code or message” that has a material, non-mind origin. The actual origin of the code (which is not known) is not given as proof, it is assumed true a priori. It is therefore circular, in the sense “it is true because it is true”. It is in fact an axiom in that it is assumed true without proof, and it corresponds to the First Principle, Tautology. However, unlike true axioms, this one could be proven if the proper data – material evidence for the material claim – existed. Such evidence does not exist. The claim then is fallacious, and premise 2 stands, for the moment.
Another clue here is the use of the word "undemonstrated". This is a buzz word that has two contradictory meanings within the Atheist lexicon. First, "undemonstrated" is taken to mean that "you have no empirical facts, so you can't prove it and it is therefore wrong". An example of this is the argument against divine interference: "instances of gods operating on the universe are undemonstrated, and thus ideas of divine interference are therefore unwarranted" (the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is possible). Second, "undemonstrated" is taken to mean "probable" as the following demonstrates: "Just because a so-called non-material effect is undemonstrated does not mean that science won't demonstrate it, possibly very soon." (Science of the Gaps: the burden of proof is on you to prove it is not possible). PZ has used both contradictory meanings in his works; this time he chooses the first meaning, demanding material evidence for the claim. However the claim is in keeping with empiricism in that it could be falsified, an approach not taken by PZ. Premise 2 still stands, for the moment.
PZ’s main argument is the cockroach story, itself an analogy: A cockroach has DNA but is not smart enough to use a code; the DNA molecule does its work independently of the intellectual machinery of the cockroach, or of bacteria for that matter. PZ goes on to make this amazing statement:
“We can trace the origins of that DNA back and back and back, and at no point in its history does it seem to be produced by conscious design, and the farther back we look, the less available potential there was for intelligent intervention. Bacteria are even less clever than cockroaches, you know.”
Now PZ knows full well, and presumably knows that we know, that DNA is not coded for use by the conscious or unconscious mind of the individual organism being formed, be it human or cockroach, much less bacteria. He is arguing here - it appears - that the cockroach is expected to have been intelligent enough to have created its own DNA. PZ has minced up the subject badly. The issue is not the intelligence of the organism being formed. So arguing that case is totally beside the point. In fact, it is an example of setting up an unrelated issue (DNA coding needs a mind in the organism being formed to interpret the code in order for the code to be useful to the formation of the organism), and then destroying it, rather than face the issue at hand. (This is the classical strawman fallacy in full bloom, and so PZ’s analogy is the false analogy here). The real issue is whether or not organisms are constructed on the basis of instructions that are coded into DNA. It is obvious that they are, and that DNA contains such coding, although possibly not all of it. So premise 1 also stands, for the moment.
PZ regains his honesty at the end, however, with the following statement:
” If you want to understand our history and our evolution, the first concept you have to be able to grasp is that natural processes produce all the complexity and diversity of extant life without the guiding hand of any external agents.” [emphasis in the original].
There is rarely a more clear statement made of Philosophical Materialism (aka Naturalism). The mind must first be closed to anything that is not material. This is imperative for understanding that there is nothing but material existences. Circular reasoning at its most blatant, extravagant, exquisitly painful pinnacle. And it is also a painfully honest admission of the Atheist agenda being bolstered by Philosophical Materialism.
PZ’s conclusions are false, all of them.
However that does not mean that the syllogism is an actual proof. Empirical science itself does not offer proofs, it offers contingent factoids based on the current accumulation of test data. The factoids of empiricism can change at any time, and frequently do, being contingent upon the discovery of new information. The logical syllogism above is actually based on an empirical factoid concerning DNA. That makes the syllogism itself contingent upon the propensity for factoid mutation within empiricism.
The syllogism is not all that useful then, and is not conclusive in any real manner. But not for the reasons that PZ gives. PZ seems too caught up in his personal religious agenda to use actual logic in his analysis. That’s too bad because this time he was right about the syllogism not being useful, even though he was completely wrong about why he was right(!)
5 comments:
Excellent disection of PZ's arguments.
A great problem of materialism is it begs the question. Most materialists don't offer evidence for their position, but they pressupose it as true.
Currently, I'm reading the book "Atheist Universe" by David Mills. He tends to create straw men and simplified versions of his opponents' beliefs (specially Christian's ones), and if you read it carefully, you can spot inconsistences and ad hoc rhetorical reasonings. It seems to be the standard type of atheistic argumentation.
Stan, maybe you have interest in a recent paper by philosopher of mind William Lycan who, regarding materialism, wrote: "Being a philosopher, of course I would like to think that my stance is rational, held not just instinctively and scientistically and in the mainstream but because the arguments do indeed favor materialism over dualism. But I do not think that, though I used to. My position may be rational, broadly speaking, but not because the arguments favor it: Though the arguments for dualism do (indeed) fail, so do the arguments for materialism. And the standard objections to dualism are not very convincing; if one really manages to be a dualist in the first place, one should not be much impressed by them. My purpose in this paper is to hold my own feet to the fire and admit that I do not proportion my belief to the evidence
http://www.unc.edu/~ujanel/Du.htm
Keep in mind that Lycan is a well-known professional philosopher, and a materialist too. And he conceded that arguments for materialism fail (so, belief in it isn't rationally justified). It's a very interesting case of intellectual honesty.
So it's true, why do materialists assume their position as a proven fact? Why do they are so uncritical regarding materialism?
They seem to believe that while debunking other people's religious beliefs, they're arguing for a positive case for their worldview.
Zetetic Chick,
Thanks for the link, I'll check it out. My favorite philosopher of the mind (so far) is John Locke, and I appreciate his work, "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding". There are portions that I return to occasionally, to refresh.
I read Mill's book and it seemed very derivative and repetitive of known arguments that are easily refuted. There are a few books that I wish I hadn't wasted my money on, this is one.
Another one is Michel Onfray's book, rather his other book. He put out two titles, "In Defense of Atheism" and "Atheist Manifesto". They are the same identical book, word for word down to the notes on the back; only the cover design and title are different. I ordered both, and now consider him to be fraudulent.
I should mention, regarding the quote from Lycan:
"...Though the arguments for dualism do (indeed) fail, so do the arguments for materialism."
The arguments for dualism fail only when viewed through the darkened prism of materialism. In fact, even under materialism they actually cannot be resolved except prejudicially. If Philosophical Materialism is acknowledged to be falsely restrictive, then dualism can be properly considered without prejudice.
The admission that Philosophical Materialism is not the true arbiter of the limits of reality cannot happen when the religious basis for Atheism demands that it be the only arbiter. So, along with evolution, Philosophical Materialism is a firmly entrenched dogma, unassailable, holy, unquestionable. PZ Meyers made that very clear in his materialism statement.
Stan, let me suggest that while I DO think that DNA can be defined as a coding system---and thus demur from PZ's first premise---I also think it's demonstrably true that a variety of natural objects exist which appear to be produced by natural causes without any evidence of Mind, and that these objects carry coded information. More generally, there is a rather clever argument made by Tipler and others as to the relationship of a generalized computing system (which of course uses codes) with any sufficiently complex system, including the Universe. These arguments conclude that there is no barrier to regarding the latter as functionally equivalent to the former, but they in no way require an intelligent agent as a FIRST cause.
And while we're on the topic of the Mind, I'm shocked that you would express ANY enthusiasm for Locke's conception of same. The evidence is overwhelming that we are NOT tabula rasa when we come into this world, and Locke's views are largely falsified. You might as well refer to Aristotle's explanation of why some things appear to float, or (more risibly) Rush Limbaugh's explanation of why global warming couldn't possibly cause ocean levels to rise. The Greek philosopher thought that some things had an inherent property called 'levity', whereas Limbaugh (reasoning from analogy) noted that when the ice in his iced tea melted, the liquid didn't overflow. I will leave it to the reader to figure out why both views are as (ahem) wrong-headed as John Locke's conception of mind.
Scott said,
"I also think it's demonstrably true that a variety of natural objects exist which appear to be produced by natural causes without any evidence of Mind, and that these objects carry coded information. More generally, there is a rather clever argument made by Tipler and others as to the relationship of a generalized computing system (which of course uses codes) with any sufficiently complex system, including the Universe."
Which specific items carry coding of an intelligent nature? And given the natural conclusion that a First Cause be required for the entire space-time, mass-energy continuum, what objects not requiring intelligent input are we talking about here? It's not possible to respond to such non-specific claims.
As far as Tipler goes, my understanding is that his theory hinges on the use of the concept of infinity, and that it requires a double singularity in the universe that is now thought not to be the case. The second singluarity is the Big Crunch which will not happen given the extra-rapid expansion happening at the outer reaches of the universe due to "dark energy". That notwithstanding, I doubt that any meta-simulations will be done on the universe-as-a-computer. The universe behaves more like a simple clock, not a data processor. So, I remain skeptical of this concept, which is out of the mainstream anyway.
Scott also said,
"And while we're on the topic of the Mind, I'm shocked that you would express ANY enthusiasm for Locke's conception of same. The evidence is overwhelming that we are NOT tabula rasa when we come into this world, and Locke's views are largely falsified."
and,
" I will leave it to the reader to figure out why both views are as (ahem) wrong-headed as John Locke's conception of mind."
Scott, I think this is probably a summary of your argument:
Throughout the last half of the twentieth century, social scientists have been deprived of their intellectual creativity by the myth of "tabula rasa." This is a myth that human beings are born with minds resembling a blank slate or a "tabula rasa" on which culture draws a picture. That is, the human mind's initial state is blank, void of any built-in "human nature," and that it is only through experience of culture that a biological homo sapience becomes a fully-fledged human being with the full capacity of reason and knowledge. To be a human requires an individual to absorb the culture into which they were born. Therefore, human minds vary greatly reflecting variations in the cultures internalized.
However, by the end of the twentieth century, the myth of "tabula rasa" has been almost completely refuted by findings in psychology and the cognitive sciences. Similarly, the idea that the human mind is not, in fact, infinitely malleable but instead works under certain constraints is shared among social scientists. Discarding the myth of a mind characterized by "tabula rasa," social scientists began to apply a new theoretical assumption: The human mind cannot be changed arbitrarily just as people cannot arbitrarily change the number of fingers on one hand from five to seven. Efforts to advance research on the human mind from this new perspective are currently being expended in several research centers around the world, including George Mason University (USA), Zurich University (Switzerland), the Max Planck Institute (Germany), the Santa Fe Institute (USA), and the University of California, Los Angels (USA).
Researchers at these centers more or less share the basic view that humans are capable of building and maintaining societies because we are endowed, through evolutionary processes, with psychological mechanisms that enable us to behave in certain social ways. Based on this view, they engage in research to elucidate aspects of the human mind and the relationship between the mind and society. They further attempt to apply these new understandings of the mind and society in designing better social institutions."
Please read more here :
http://lynx.let.hokudai.ac.jp/COE21/english/outline/index.html
This is, in fact, pretty much what Locke proposes. I think that equating Locke to tabula rasa is an indicator of not having read all of Locke's treatise, "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding", in which he makes the following points (amongst numerous others):
1. there is no need to posit that humans are born possessing objects of objective knowledge, BECAUSE,
2. humans are born with the intellectual faculty of discernment, which consists of,
3. the faculties of apprehension, memory, discrimination, judgment, comprehension; AND,
4. humans have the ability to operate their faculty of discernment on intuitive evidence; AND,
5. They have the ability to discern the existence of God, AND,
6. humans can and sometimes do evade that which is probabilistically true by formation of prejudices, which is misuse of the faculty of discernment.
Locke's intent was to set aside the idea of innate objects of objective knowledge and install the idea of innate capabilities of rational thought.
Is this your idea of Locke being wrong-headed??
I am not aware of anyone positing that there exist innate, objective objects of knowledge with which humans are endowed; that would smack too much of an external intelligence being involved, or Lamarkian evolution (although some Lamarkian ideas are resurfacing).
Innate subjective knowledge ("I exist, I hurt") might be someday agreed upon, yet not be provable.
At any rate, it is not fair to limit Locke to tabula rasa in its meager form. That was only a tiny piece of his work and thought.
BTW, the ideas of Locke are consistent with the concepts of plasticity of brain and neuron that are now coming to the fore.
Post a Comment