4 ms·

Notably, a combination of: 1) significant (improbable) information content, and 2) appearance of fulfilling a functional specification ... is taken by some phil

by a9h74j 4y ago

Notably, a combination of: 1) significant (improbable) information content, and 2) appearance of fulfilling a functional specification ... is taken by some philosophers as supporting a hypothesis of design. FWIW, Return of the God Hypothesis by Stephen Meyer is a surprisingly well-argued book, exploring such support.

technothrasher 4y ago
On point 1, how would you know it is improbable? We're back to the initial issue of having nothing else to compare it to. Perhaps it's not improbable but in fact inevitable? Can't tell with only one example. On point 2, it only looks to fulfill a functional specification if you beg the question. Otherwise, we're simply generating a description of what is. Stephen Meyer is a founder of the Discovery Institute, a political group who lobby conservative issues and state as part of their mission to promote "a rigorously God-centered view of creation". That doesn't mean Meyer's work on intelligent design is incorrect, per se. But it does strongly suggest that he is starting with a conclusion and then working backward, which is the antithesis of proper scientific research. There are also plenty of eviscerating rebuttals to Meyer if his bias doesn't dissuade.
- a9h74j 4y ago
  > But it does strongly suggest that he is starting with a conclusion and then working backward, which is the antithesis of proper scientific research. His is not scientific research, but the book IMHO is a surprisingly effective and professional weaving of philosophy, history of philosophy, popular science, and history of science toward consideration of Natural Theology. Point 1: Shannon applies. Point 2: s/supporting a hypothesis/required to support an interpretation/ He acknowledges IIRC that we do not know ranges for potential tunings of physical constants, if that description applies. Has his reference to unexplained low entropy in the Universe been eviscerated? I can't assess his arguments about sparse solutions in protein/fold design space; if you cite a rebuttal of course I'm interested.

by a9h74j 4y ago

technothrasher 4y ago

On point 1, how would you know it is improbable? We're back to the initial issue of having nothing else to compare it to. Perhaps it's not improbable but in fact inevitable? Can't tell with only one example. On point 2, it only looks to fulfill a functional specification if you beg the question. Otherwise, we're simply generating a description of what is. Stephen Meyer is a founder of the Discovery Institute, a political group who lobby conservative issues and state as part of their mission to promote "a rigorously God-centered view of creation". That doesn't mean Meyer's work on intelligent design is incorrect, per se. But it does strongly suggest that he is starting with a conclusion and then working backward, which is the antithesis of proper scientific research. There are also plenty of eviscerating rebuttals to Meyer if his bias doesn't dissuade.

a9h74j 4y ago
> But it does strongly suggest that he is starting with a conclusion and then working backward, which is the antithesis of proper scientific research. His is not scientific research, but the book IMHO is a surprisingly effective and professional weaving of philosophy, history of philosophy, popular science, and history of science toward consideration of Natural Theology. Point 1: Shannon applies. Point 2: s/supporting a hypothesis/required to support an interpretation/ He acknowledges IIRC that we do not know ranges for potential tunings of physical constants, if that description applies. Has his reference to unexplained low entropy in the Universe been eviscerated? I can't assess his arguments about sparse solutions in protein/fold design space; if you cite a rebuttal of course I'm interested.