Re: Answering the question (once and for all)

On Jan 23, 12:59 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 22, 6:54 pm, jillery <69jpi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:02:10 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez

<pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 20, 9:47 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip material addressed previously....]

The only way to observe directly design with relation to watches is if
we go to a watchmaker's studio, and observe people there making
technical drawings, mock-ups of watches, detailed sketches etc. Would
that be a direct observation, or something that relies heavily on
inferences?

Your notions and argument is utterly false. Everyone already agrees
that watches were designed and reflect design. One does not have to
know how or see production in order to come to these conclusions. We
all use cell phones. We all know these are the products of human
design. One does not have to see production or know how production
occurs in order to conclude for design.

Assuming it's true that "everyone" already agrees, it's because
"everyone" has seen watches before, and other manufactured items, and
learned about manufacturing watches specifically and other things
generally.  And so "everyone" can observe a particular watch, and
infer it is similar to other watches in their experience, and infer
that it was similarly manufactured. Absent the knowledge and
experience of manufactured things, a person could not make such
inferences.  In fact, they wouldn't have a clue what they were looking
at, nevermind that it was manufactured.

Completely false.

Your comments/claims assume design ascertained **only after**
knowledge of the manufacturing process is obtained. This has become a
PRATT: one does not have to know how a man-made object was actually
made in order to know that it was designed.

Probably the most famous on-topic words ever written is when Paley
wrote:

"In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and
were asked how the stone came to be there: I might possibly answer,
that for any thing I know to the contrary, it had lain there for ever:
nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this
answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should
be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should
hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that for any
thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should
not this answer serve for the watch, as well as for the stone? why is
it not as admissable in the second case as in the first? For this
reason, and for no other, viz., that when we come to inspect the
watch, we **perceive** (what we could not discover in the stone) that
its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose . . . This
**mechanism being observed** . . . the inference, we think, is
inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker...."

[** emphasis added **----R.M.]

First note that the mechanism is observed (design is seen) followed by
the inference (had a Maker).

Note also that in contrast to the inference (and Paley uses the word
right there to describe the connection with a causal maker) there is
no observation or discovery of anything of the kind "in the stone,"
the obvious conclusion being that the stone is unmade (no designer).
How do you interpret this in the light of your assertions that there
are no natural processes?

But the point concerning your false manufacturing argument is the
Paleyan scenario itself. The scenario (I didn't say the conclusion)
enjoys universal support among Creationists and Darwinists. In the
scenario he finds a watch on the ground. Upon examination, unlike
stones, it is perceived to be quite different. When the inner
mechanism is observed, Intelligence is then inferred. NO KNOWLEDGE of
how the mechanism was actually manufactured is needed in order to
perceive design.

This is incorrect. Note that in the part you elided Paley went on to
describe the watch's many parts and their functions, showing in the
process his extreme familiarity with not just the concept of a watch
but also springs, levers and other obviously man-made artifacts. He
attempts to downplay this experiential influence later on by saying,

"Nor would it, I apprehend, weaken the conclusion, that we had never
seen a watch made; that we had never known an artist capable of making
one; that we were altogether incapable of executing such a piece of
workmanship ourselves, or of understanding in what manner it was
performed; all this being no more than what is true of some exquisite
remains of ancient art, of some lost arts, and, to the generality of
mankind, of the more curious productions of modern manufacture."

But note that he pointedly does not go so far as to say "Nor would it
weaken the conclusion that we knew nothing whatsoever of tool-making
and usage, had no familiarity with or notion of any form of human
invention and fabrication." Paley got close to the applicable thought-
experiment here, he just didn't go far enough. If we imagine an
intelligent, pre-habilus type of primate happening upon a watch on the
heath I think few of us will disagree that there would be no immediate
or natural inference to a maker of any sort for this creature. It
would not be a leap he could make. He has the intellectual skills to
apprehend the facts but not the experiential background.

I wonder if Paley knew that this presented difficulty for his
argument. He continues,

"Does one man in a million know how oval frames are turned? Ignorance
of this kind exalts our opinion of the unseen and unknown, artist's
skill, if he be unseen and unknown, but raises no doubt in our minds
of the existence and agency of such an artist, at some former time,
and in some place or other."

Again, he comes close but just can't seal the deal. Arthur C. Clark's
perspicacious observation that "Any sufficiently advanced technology
is indistinguishable from magic," puts Paley's insufficient rigor into
sharp contrast. It's clear that without the experiential background we
are incapable of inferring design. This is not about some quality of
design intrinsic to the watch, it is an artifact of our evolution and
experience.

<snip>

No, inference is fundamentally theoretical, unlike observation. The
latter is not dependent on the former.

Again, what is the methodology of description? It has to be
observation. When physicists describe black holes they are not
engaging inference, but observation, solely. One must also distinguish
between description and observations made in service to some theory
concerning the object or phenomenon that was described. The latter is
inferential, unlike the former.

Assuming physicists actually try to observe black holes, what is it
that they would actually see?  At best, they would see some fuzzy
images on a screen or plate.  And that would not represent the black
hole itself, but the matter and energy surrounding the black hole.  By
compiling a series of images taken over time, physicists could infer
properties of the black hole, based on the evidence from the
observations.  But they could never actually observe a black hole
itself.  Without these inferences, their observations are as useful as
a random pattern of dots.

You miss the contextual point. When **describing** an object or
phenomenon the method employed is observation, not inference. In this
example the effects are seen, cause inferred (object known as a "black
hole").

You need to let this one go, Ray. You chose as your standard what is
perhaps (by virtue of the juxtaposition of observation and no
available light) the most iconic counterexample of your argument
possible. It is inference that enables us to extrapolate the existence
of black holes. It is, in fact, *only* inference that could allow such
a thing.

RLC

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Answering the question (once and for all)
    ... technical drawings, mock-ups of watches, detailed sketches etc. ... that watches were designed and reflect design. ... necessarily realise the inference process any longer (the idea of the ... Manufacturing or creating can be observed much more directly. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Orient Star WZ0021FH (black dial) first impression
    ... > movement and a chronometer grade watch may not differ greatly, ... > to "stress" the watches by subjecting them to extremes of temperature, ... Fit and design are more than anything a matter of personal ...
    (alt.horology)
  • Re: Answering the question (once and for all)
    ... that watches were designed and reflect design. ... But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, ... Note also that in contrast to the inference (and Paley uses the word ... When physicists describe black holes they are not ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Answering the question (once and for all)
    ... technical drawings, mock-ups of watches, detailed sketches etc. ... knowledge of the manufacturing process is obtained. ... But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, ... observation without inference. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Answering the question (once and for all)
    ... technical drawings, mock-ups of watches, detailed sketches etc. ... that watches were designed and reflect design. ... But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, ... the inference. ...
    (talk.origins)