Valid Epistemology

JAD, at Telic Thoughts, recently made a comment containing these remarks:

In the same way, the empirical study of a natural process is, is a cumulative process that is never sufficient, to give us absolute knowledge. It is, furthermore, illegitimate to claim that a philosophical worldview, supposedly based on scientific evidence, is any more certain or reliable than an alternative world view the interprets the evidence differently. And, it is arrogant to argue that the alternative is irrational.

1500+ years ago St. Augustine observed:

“Miracles do not happen in contradiction to nature, but only in contradiction to that which is known to us of nature.”

It appears that, Mr. Augustine, also understood the limitations of inductive reasoning.

A fundamental reason why knowledge, acquired solely as a consequence of empirical efforts, cannot be deemed superior to alternatives lies with the limitations of empirical investigations. Science is limited and so too is the authority of philosophical positions based on scientific data.

Augustine also was correct in noting that it is our knowledge of nature which sets parameters for what is miraculous. Sometimes though one can be confident in that knowledge. Rising from the dead after several days would be a reliable indicator.

Teleology

Allen MacNeill and Rock are two of the more thoughtful commenters at Telic Thoughts. Allen recently wrote a comment containing these remarks:

The presence or absence of design or purpose (technically teleology) in nature is not a "finding", it is an inference. That is, the presence or absence of teleology cannot be directly observed, nor can it be indirectly observed (as is the case for, say, atoms).

Rather, the presence or absence of teleology can only be indirectly inferred on the basis of its necessity. If teleology (i.e. pre-existing or "foresighted" design) were necessary to bring about those objects and processes we observe in nature, then it would be necessary to infer their existence and operation. Hence Dr. Behe's arguments for "irredicible complexity" and Dr. Dembski's arguments for "complex specified information", both of which they assert are arguments for the necessary intervention of a supervening "designing force" in evolution. In brief, if "you can't get here from there" without teleology, then teleology becomes an inference that flows from your analysis.

This means that the inference to teleology is an inference by exclusion. Only when one has conclusively shown that the observable objects and processes in nature cannot have come about via non-teleological processes is it legitimate to infer teleology. To be as clear as possible: teleology is a post hoc inference, not a propter hoc assumption. This is why scientists (at least those who practice in the "natural" sciences, such as biology, chemistry, and physics) do not assume the existence of teleology. Rather, we attempt to explain those objects and processes we observe without resorting to post hoc inferences, such as teleology.

That comment induced this response by JAD containing these remarks:

It’s true that teleology is a metaphysical inference, but so is dysteleology (to use the term the Ernst Haekel coined.) And, I think that both sides should be free look at the evidence and argue for their respective interpretation and/or point of view. However, such interpretations are not strictly empirical interpretations, rather they are top-down interpretations that are based on presumptions and assumptions that are themselves unproven and perhaps are un-provable. If we limit natural science to things that can be studied empirically, then both teleology and dys-teleology fall outside those limits.

I do think that there are some minimal metaphysical assumptions that are necessary to do natural science. For example, I think that we need to assume that there really is real world out there, and that the laws of nature are for all intents and purposes universal, acting the same everywhere throughout the whole history of the universe. These are a couple but not all the assumptions, that we need to do science, at least if we extrapolate our study into the past or into the future.

However, I don’t see why it is necessary for a scientist to assume that the universe, or the natural processes we observe in the universe have no plan no purpose or no ultimate meaning. If that is your philosophical or theological interpretation, fine. Argue for it in that way. But, it is not, in itself, an empirical argument, and neither is it a position one needs to accept metaphysically or methodologically to do science.

In other words, dysteleology is a post hoc inference, not a propter hoc assumption. And, it is unnecessary to do science.

History is full of examples of scientists who metaphysically saw God in nature and yet have made major discoveries and contributions. My favorite is, Johannes Kepler, who said about his scientific work:

"I was merely thinking God's thoughts after him. Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it benefits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."

...as well as a comment of my own:

If you can't get there except through teleology then a teleological inference is imperative but you might be too exclusionary in your your application of a necessity standard. Direction is sufficient and bias toward outcomes of stochastic processes, which are inconsistent with probability assessments, can infer teleology. The difference can be subtle but important. A strict necessity paradigm requires a concurrent standard of demonstrating impossibility. Not only is that requirement too stringent, it may be impossible. But if observed outcomes deviate from expectations (but fall within physical possibilities) then biased outcomes are evident. If a biased stochastic process is not attributable to physical causality then a prima facia case is made for teleology.

The downside to this is a teleological predisposition toward expectations of non-teleology. We see this with some "gap" issues like the origin of life. If you cannot empirically derive non-teleological explanations based on finding suitable causes for mappings of codons to amino acids you maintain that necessity is implicated but not yet pinpointed. This is the flip side to exclusionary requirements. If some demand the demonstration of impossibility for teleology they likewise apply an always possible standard to expectations of non-teleology. That representation of a specific amino acid could not have been the causal result of conscious assignment even indirectly. It must have incidentally resulted from unexplained physical necessity coupled to a stochastic process. Conscious symbolism is unintentionally mimicked by a blind code maker.

JAD was spot on when he pointed out that "dysteleology is a post hoc inference, not a propter hoc assumption. And, it is unnecessary to do science." The meaning of concepts is framed by contrasting concepts. Old earth creationists are contrasted to young earth creationists. The contrast highlights the uniqueness of respective points of view. Dysteleology, as the default position for science, requires a rationale justifying its preferred status or it ceases to offer a meaningful contrast to teleology. Teleology is intrinsic to life. Survival and reproduction are obvious goals. Why are causal trails associated with them considered dysteleological when complete causal trails remain unelucidated?

Schindewolf on Paleontology

TT commenter Daniel Smith posted a comment at Telic Thoughts containing the following remark:

Most evolutionists won't read Schindewolf because his anti-Darwinian hypothesis is so fully developed. "Basic Questions in Paleontology" is a dangerous book for the 'Darwinist' (by that I mean all those attached to modern synthesis). Schindewolf cites mountains of evidence based on decades of painstaking research. His case is devastating to the 'undirected evolutionary' mindset – so they avoid it like the plague. The nearest they will get is to read Stephen Jay Gould's foreword and consider Schindewolf's ideas refuted because Gould discounts them. I guess the argument from authority is always good enough so long as it backs up your worldview.

I have not read Schindewolf but the comment has piqued my interest. For the Wikipedia entry on Otto Schindewolf click here.

How Nature Stores Information

idnet.com.au posted A stunningly elegant solution to storing information at Uncommon Descent. It links to Comprehensive Mapping of Long-Range Interactions Reveals Folding Principles of the Human Genome by Erez Lieberman-Aiden et. al. At issue among other things are specifics related to storing genetic information and the compartmentalization of DNA within the nucleus. Different locations hold active and inactive genes. There is a dynamic flow correlating to gene expression. DNA has the capacity to condense and form a very dense structure able to fold and unfold to suit cellular needs.

On Intrinsic Intentionality

Techne returned to Telic Thoughts to post this entry. I enjoy his posts and comments. There was a link in the OP to Nano-Intentionality - A Defense of Intrinsic Intentionality which is authored by W Tecumseh Fitch. Quoting the abstract:

I suggest that most discussions of intentional systems have overlooked an important aspect of living organisms: the intrinsic goal-directedness inherent in the behaviour of living eukaryotic cells. This goal directedness is nicely displayed by a normal cell's ability to rearrange its own local material structure in response to damage, nutrient distribution or other aspects of its individual experience. While at a vastly simpler level than intentionality at the human cognitive level, I propose that this basic capacity of living things provides a necessary building block for cognition and high-order intentionality, because the neurons that make up vertebrate brains, like most cells in our body, embody such capacities. I provisionally dub the capacities in question "nano-intentionality": a microscopic form of "aboutness". The form of intrinsic intentionality I propose is thoroughly materialistic, fully compatible with known biological facts, and derived non-mysteriously through evolution. Crucially, these capacities are not shared by any existing computers or computer components, and thus provide a clear, empirically-based distinction between brains and currently existing artificial information processing systems. I suggest that an appreciation of this aspect of living matter provides a potential route out of what may otherwise appear to be a hopeless philosophical quagmire confronting information-processing models of the mind.

Events Leading to the Great Bailout: Part Two

In a previous post Thomas Sowell's book The Housing Boom and Bust was used as a source reference to explain some fundamental problems that led to a subsequent economic disaster and the historic bailout. The problems cited involved supply and demand and legal restrictions on land use that decreased land availability for home construction.

This blog entry will draw from information supplied in the second chapter of The Housing Boom and Bust. Sowell notes a political developmemt stressing the desireability of increased home ownership and the concept of affordable housing at the outset of the chapter. Leaders from both major parties have promoted home ownership. While there is nothing intrinsically wrong with home ownership, the formulation of political policies designed to make home ownership universal has a utopian air to it and the wisdom of it is highly questionable. Political policies manifested in the form of a revision of credit requirements for home purchases by the Fannie Mae Corporation. The intent being to enable minorities and lower income people to secure mortgages for homes.

Good intentions do not necessarily lead to sound lending policies. Loan standards are as old as loans and protect both the lender and recipients of loans. The housing bust was preceded by the granting of massive amounts of mortgage loans to individuals who would not have qualified for them in the past. The road to easy credit will be detailed in a subsequent blog entry.

Sowell provided useful indicators for the term affordable housing. For individuals it can be viewed as a ratio of mortgage payments to income. For the purpose of regional comparisons it is better viewed as the ratio of median home payments to median income. When sound loan standards are in effect individual applicants for mortgages will be approved and rejected based largely on payment to income ratio data. If payments consume too high a percentage of income not enough will remain for other essential spending like food, clothing, car expenses etc. It is not in the interests of lenders or consumers to have loans granted to those who cannot maintain the payments. We can see from the events of recent history that it is also not in the interests of the American economy as a whole to encourage unsound lending practices.

Sowell correctly pointed out an implicit assumption that has seeped into American political policies i.e. the belief that the government should ensure that home ownership is affordable. That view along with the related belief that there existed a shortage of affordable housing prompted calls for federal intervention. It's essential to understand the actual causes for housing problems in some localized areas of the United States so that effective solutions can be fashioned. It is also imperative for the economic health of this nation that people understand that skyrocketing home prices were not prevalent throughout this nation but rather tended to be localized in regions where government land use policies severely impacted real estate values.



Reference:

The Housing Boom and Bust by Thomas Sowell; Published by Basic Books; Copyright 2009; Chapter 2, Pages 30-36.

Endocytosis in Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology

Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology (doi:10.1038) has an edition devoted to endocytosis. There is a nice little introduction to the topic at the website. It notes that endocytosis is associated with numerous functions. These functions include cell adhesion and migration, receptor signalling, nutrient uptake, pathogen entry and cell polarity. Extracellular molecules absorbed through endocytic membrane trafficking need to undergo a sorting process. As stated the different "endocytic processes can be distinguished by the size of the vesicle formed, their cargo and the machineries involved." Origin of life theories often refer to the tendency of lipids to self-assemble as evidence for some kind of ancient proto-cell membrane; one apparently lacking trafficking functions. The linked article notes that "selection of cargo by adaptor proteins is considerably more complex than initially anticipated." Is this the type of process that nature can forego entirely or even tolerate at some sort of very suboptimal level? Maybe, but it looks like the kind of topic a science fiction writer should develop.

Events Leading to the Great Bailout: Part One

Thomas Sowell wrote an important book titled The Housing Boom and Bust. He traced the causes of the boom and subsequent bust and his analysis refutes many common notions about what actually took place. Like much of Sowell's writing this book is an educational adventure which focuses on both political and economic decisions that led to one of history's biggest economic debacles. Here are some highlight points from his first chapter which is titled The Economics of the Housing Boom.

• Some factors contributing to the boom and bust were localized and some were global.


• The law of supply and demand played its part particularly as it relates to less land leading to higher prices in some local markets.


• As the boom peaked the localities with the greatest increases in the price of homes, compared with a five year prior period, were all located within California.


• The impetus for the rise in the cost of California land can be found in an artificial shortage of land. The shortage resulted from changes in laws and policies affecting land use.


• A major cause of land use restriction can be found in movements advocating environmental protection or preserving open space or farmland. The restrictions are attributable to the values of special interest groups which may not reflect the values of the larger society or its interests.


• To cite an example, more than half the land of San Mateo County was declared as open space and off limits to home building construction. Economic laws of supply and demand predict what ensued- a rapid rise in land value resulting from policy decisions.

Reference:

The Housing Boom and Bust by Thomas Sowell; Published by Basic Books; Copyright 2009; Chapter 1, Pages 9-15.

A Weasel Implementation

Telic Thoughts commenter computerist wrote this in the linked comment:

Since there is much talk about weasel (plus JAD's request) I thought I'm probably missing out on all the hype and fun so to pass up on the opportunity to code a weasel implementation would be like a kid passing up the opportunity to bag candy during halloween.

Here is the external link (since I'm unable to syntax highlight/format on TT's) to the C code for anyone who is interested:

http://computerist29.wordpress.com/

Just compile and run!

In a follow-up comment computerist wrote:

To add to my previous comment, I'm not pretending the program what Dawkins or Dawkins-fans says it should do, its a very simple latching implementation, I'm sure Dawkins-fans out there have more "realistic" implementations. Weasel type algorithms show nothing except that it takes intelligence to select potential pre-function to reach functional "targets" from the onset and that these algorithms take advantage of intelligently designed computers. If you find a weasel program/algorithm that doesn't run on top of a intelligently designed system please give me a shout. If weasel simulates evolution in any way it should also be true that the same algorithm applies to explain all the pre-existing hardware and software its running on top of.

As Dembski and Marks might put it Dawkins had to front load problem-specific information to facilitate successful searches. That in turn indicates that far from being blind, the watchmaker had 20/20 vision.

Glycine Found in Comet Particles

The Los Angeles Times article Ingredient for life detected in comet dust mentions the finding of the amino acid glycine in comet material. Glycine is the simplest of the 20 standard amino acids found in living organisms. The article quotes a research scientist as mentioning the possibility that life was seeded on earth by cosmic material. This is not a new theory for previous findings of biochemical building blocks were discovered in meteorites.

This type of evidence for the origin of life falls within a building block rubric which is characteristic of OOL research. Different types of biomolecules are found in different conditions and theories are woven as to how more complex molecules and biological systems developed from these initial meager starts. Some amino acids here, some there. Some nucleotides here, other types there. Enclose them within lipid chains, add some enzymes, hope for some replication and whala, whala, we're on our way.

The last few sentences of the article are telling:

Just having the right materials is no guarantee that life will begin, of course, any more than leaving a hammer, nails and planks lying around will cause a barn to rise. Brownlee pointed out that many of the 30,000 or so meteorites that have been found on Earth bear traces of organic compounds, and there also is evidence that they were once warm and wet, all necessary conditions for life. Yet none of the meteorites has shown any evidence of life forms.

"They are all failed places where life could have arisen," Brownlee said.

The universe is one big lab and the real evidence for life arising in lifeless environments is paltry to put it kindly.

HT: Clare