How Archaeologists detect design (for Steve V)
Artifact
However Steve may have an issue with the word used- work. Work in this sense is the same as counterflow.
However Steve may have an issue with the word used- work. Work in this sense is the same as counterflow.
posted by Joe G @ 10:03 AM
22 Comments:
At 10:24 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: "However Steve may have an issue with the word used- work. Work in this sense is the same as counterflow."
According to your cited article,
An object which is an artifact in a narrow sense [a concrete particular object] is usually made from some pre-existing object or objects by successive intentional modifications. This activity is called work.
In other words, work is manufacture, an activity; the same process described by standard laws of energy conversion and conservation. And this thermodynamic process is detectable by the usual means.
The causal tie between an artifact and its intended character -- or, strictly speaking, between an artifact and its author's productive intention -- is constituted by an author's actions, that is, by his work on the object.
This is an important principle in the forensic sciences. "Every contact leaves a trace." Artifacts leave evidence of the artisan! There is a causal tie. A close study of an artifact can reveal the purpose, methods and identity of the artisan.
At 8:28 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel,
I don't understand your point. Or even if you had one.
Counterflow is also manufacture, an activity. That was all I was trying to convey.
Zachriel:
A close study of an artifact can reveal the purpose, methods and identity of the artisan.
That is what I have been saying all along- that being we can only determine the purpose, method and designer by studying the design in question! And therefore we do NOT need to know those BEFORE detecting and then studying the design!
At 11:54 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: "I don't understand your point. Or even if you had one."
Manufacture connects artisan to artifact. That means we look at the evidence of manufacture to make determinations about whether the object is an artifact and the methods and motives of the artisan.
Please tell us about the process by which life was manufactured, that is, using the definition you provided, please provide us the eivdence of the activity which links the artifact to the artisan.
Joe G: "And therefore we do NOT need to know those BEFORE detecting and then studying the design!"
Please tell us then what you have determined about the artisan and the manufacturing process.
At 12:06 PM,
Joe G said…
Joe G: "I don't understand your point. Or even if you had one."
Zachriel:
Manufacture connects artisan to artifact. That means we look at the evidence of manufacture to make determinations about whether the object is an artifact and the methods and motives of the artisan.
Which is what counterflow is.
Zachriel:
Please tell us about the process by which life was manufactured, that is, using the definition you provided, please provide us the eivdence of the activity which links the artifact to the artisan.
CSI and IC. Living organisms contain both.
Joe G: "And therefore we do NOT need to know those BEFORE detecting and then studying the design!"
Zachriel:
Please tell us then what you have determined about the artisan and the manufacturing process.
Only when I am finished will I try to make such an irrelevant leap. And seeing that ireelevant leap is irrelevant to ID I really don't see the point.
But thanks anyway for confirming that neither the designer nor the process are required BEFORE reaching a design inference. That is a start.
At 1:51 PM,
Zachriel said…
Zachriel: Please tell us about the process by which life was manufactured, that is, using the definition you provided, please provide us the eivdence of the activity which links the artifact to the artisan.
Joe G: "CSI and IC. Living organisms contain both."
Those are the purported results, not the evidence of manufacture. Did He take clay and blow life into it or what? And what evidence can you provide to support whatever it is you think the artisan used to fashion modern organisms. Was there reproductive continuity with minor changes along the way, or was each 'kind' individually created from the dust? All at once or at different times? Or something else.
Joe G: "But thanks anyway for confirming that neither the designer nor the process are required BEFORE reaching a design inference. That is a start."
You cited article indicates there is a causal link between the artisan and the artifact. You have consistently failed to provide evidence of this causal link, or even to show any interest in studying this facet of the design argument.
At 3:23 PM,
Joe G said…
Joe G: "CSI and IC. Living organisms contain both."
Zachriel:
Those are the purported results, not the evidence of manufacture.
CSI and IC are evidence of intentional design, ie manufacture. They are the "traces" you spoke of.
Joe G: "But thanks anyway for confirming that neither the designer nor the process are required BEFORE reaching a design inference. That is a start."
Zachriel:
You cited article indicates there is a causal link between the artisan and the artifact.
Yes there is.
Zachriel:
You have consistently failed to provide evidence of this causal link, or even to show any interest in studying this facet of the design argument.
It isn't a facet of the design argument.
ID was formulated to detect and understand the design. Anything more than that requires something else. And perhaps someday someone will formulate a venue to answer the questions ID does not. However only a fool would reject the design inference until someone does so.
At 3:36 PM,
Zachriel said…
How Archaeologists detect design
joe g: "CSI and IC are evidence of intentional design, ie manufacture."
Archaeologists compare objects to known artifacts, known artisans and known manufacturing processes. Only by compiling a variety of evidence does archaeology become confident in its conclusions.
Archaeologists do not use a mathematical calculation of CSI to determine whether a stone was fashioned as a tool. Nor does CSI constitute evidence as to manufacture, which is the process of fabricating the artifact. You have not provided a clue as to the process or activity involved in manufacturing the purported artifacts. Nor have you provided a clue as to the characteristics and motives of the artisan intrinsic to the discussion in your own cited article.
At 4:49 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "CSI and IC are evidence of intentional design, ie manufacture."
Zachriel:
Archaeologists compare objects to known artifacts, known artisans and known manufacturing processes.
Not always. However that is basically what I have been telling you. We KNOW what intelligent agencies are capable of and we know what nature, operating freely, is capabale of.
Zachriel:
Only by compiling a variety of evidence does archaeology become confident in its conclusions.
The same with ID. "The Privileged Planet" makes it clear the design inference extends beyond biology and is evidenced in many venues.
Zachriel:
Nor does CSI constitute evidence as to manufacture, which is the process of fabricating the artifact.
CSI is evidence OF manufacture. We do NOT need to know how it was manufactured BEFORE making a design inference. ONLY by studying the design in question could one hope to determine the "how".
Zachriel:
You have not provided a clue as to the process or activity involved in manufacturing the purported artifacts.
I don't need to.
Zachriel:
Nor have you provided a clue as to the characteristics and motives of the artisan intrinsic to the discussion in your own cited article.
First I cited that article for a SPECIFIC reason. Obviously you are too clueless to understand that simple fact. And secondly "The Privileged Planet" tells us of a motivation and I know I have blogged about that.
And again all of what you are asking is secondary to first detecting and then studying the design. That you refuse to understand that just further exposes your agenda- which is obviously to conflate the issues.
At 10:00 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Not always."
A mathematical calculation of 'CSI' is not used in archaeology to identify whether an object is an artifact. The typical methodology is comparative analysis.
joe g: "We KNOW what intelligent agencies are capable of and we know what nature, operating freely, is capabale of."
The only intelligent agency that is known by science is not capable of producing the variety of life found on Earth. And claiming to know what nature is capable of is begging the question.
joe g: "The same with ID."
That is precisely the opposite. Instead of applying various methodologies to the same object in order to fully understand it, you have extrapolated a faulty method.
joe g: "ONLY by studying the design in question could one hope to determine the 'how'."
And what was the result of your investigation? How was the manufacturing done? Out of what materials? By what activity? What are the characteristics of the designer?
joe g: "I don't need to."
Of course you don't. But everyone can draw the obvious conclusion.
joe g: "First I cited that article for a SPECIFIC reason."
I assume because you wanted people to read it. I did. And it doesn't support your claims.
At 8:32 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel demonstrtaes that he cannot follow a discussion:
Zachriel:
Archaeologists compare objects to known artifacts, known artisans and known manufacturing processes.
Not always.
To which he responds:
A mathematical calculation of 'CSI' is not used in archaeology to identify whether an object is an artifact.
WTF?
joe g: "We KNOW what intelligent agencies are capable of and we know what nature, operating freely, is capabale of."
Zachriel:
The only intelligent agency that is known by science is not capable of producing the variety of life found on Earth.
There are a variety of intelligent agencies on Earth.
Zachriel:
And claiming to know what nature is capable of is begging the question.
We have to go with what we know.
joe g: "The same with ID."
Zachriel:
That is precisely the opposite.
Zachriel, I have 5 seconds which should be more than enough ime for you to tell us what you know about ID.
joe g: "ONLY by studying the design in question could one hope to determine the 'how'."
Zachriel:
And what was the result of your investigation?
It's an ongoing investigation.
joe g: "I don't need to."
Zachriel:
Of course you don't. But everyone can draw the obvious conclusion.
If "everyone" reads the information I provided then the obvious conclusion is that you are blowing smoke.
joe g: "First I cited that article for a SPECIFIC reason."
Zachriel:
I assume because you wanted people to read it.
Nope just Steve V. Just as the title suggests.
Zachriel:
I did. And it doesn't support your claims.
Sure it does. My claim was that archaeologists use counterflow to detect design. That claim was borne out by the cited article.
IOW once again you have demonstrated that you don't know what you are talking about.
At 9:06 AM,
Zachriel said…
The title of this thread is "How Archaeologists detect design".
Archaeologists do not use mathematical calculations of "complex specified information" to detect design.
Zachriel: Only by compiling a variety of evidence does archaeology become confident in its conclusions.
To which you replied "So does ID", and instead of providing additional evidence to support a single finding of ID, instead of independent and validating techniques of verification, you extrapolated the same unproven and faulty methodology to the universe. That means you ignored or misunderstood my point.
joe g: "I have 5 seconds which should be more than enough ime for you to tell us what you know about ID."
Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause". Of course, ID has consistently failed to provide a valid method of detecting intelligence design.
--
Zachriel: And claiming to know what nature is capable of is begging the question.
joe g: "We have to go with what we know."
Begging the question is a fallacy. It has nothing to do with "what we know". But, in fact, science knows of no intelligent agency that can create life, manufacture cells, or manipulate cells into complex metazoans. By your reasoning, life is not designed.
joe g: "It's an ongoing investigation."
In other words, nothing. Let us know when you find something.
At 10:06 AM,
Zachriel said…
Just for fun, I checked a few scientific journals dedicated to the study of Archaeology for the term "counterflow".
* American Journal of Archaeology
* Oxford Journal of Archaeology
* Stanford Journal of Archaeology
* Cambridge Archaeological Journal
* British Archaeology
You can imagine my surprise and understandable consternation when I didn't find any references to counterflow! However, a search of the Journal Nature found many references. Apparently, counterflow is an important aspect of understanding turbulent flow.
At 10:47 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel,
You are totally clueless. Please re-read the OP
HINT: counterflow = work (work as discussed in the article I linked to)
At 10:57 AM,
Joe G said…
ZAchriel:
It has nothing to do with "what we know".
It has everything to do with what we know. THAT is how science operates.
Zachriel:
Of course, ID has consistently failed to provide a valid method of detecting intelligence design.
Your ignorance is not a refutation. The FACT that there are several investigative fields that proport to detect design falsifies your claim.
So tell us what prevents tried-n-true design detection methodology from being used in biology?
Zachriel:
But, in fact, science knows of no intelligent agency that can create life, manufacture cells, or manipulate cells into complex metazoans.
But in fact science does tell us that only life begets life. Which demonstrates tat science does NOT know how or if life could arise from non-living matter via "sheer-dumb-luck" (remember prebiotic NS is a contradiction in terms)
Zachriel:
By your reasoning, life is not designed.
Nope that is your "reasoning", not mine.
joe g: "It's an ongoing investigation."
Zachriel:
In other words, nothing. Let us know when you find something.
In reality only a true scientific illiterate would demand all the answers and demand them now. And given the scenario you are protecting that is nothing but a giany double-standard. Sad but typical.
At 12:43 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "HINT: counterflow = work (work as discussed in the article I linked to)"
I note again that the term "counterflow" is not used in archaeology.
joe g: "It has everything to do with what we know. THAT is how science operates."
You did not reference facts in the argument at issue, but wanted to make an argument a priori (hand wave). Facts are irrelevant when you use fallacious reasoning. Your a priori reasoning failed, leaving us with the tentative scientific evidence. And whether the natural universe has a boundary in time is still unknown.
joe g: "The FACT that there are several investigative fields that proport to detect design falsifies your claim."
Forensic sciences closely tie together the artisan, the art and the artifact. As all scientific assertions are considered tentative, the more information available, the more confidence we have in the conclusions. That means when we discover something that appears to be an artifact (e.g. stone tool), we make every attempt to detect evidence of manufacture (flakes, mines), and evidence of the artisan (fire-pits, bones with scrap marks). No archaeologist stops with some vague claim of design.
Having developed knowledge of stone tools, then it may be possible to later classify such objects with less information. The methodology is based in comparative analysis, comparing objects to known to known artifacts, to known manufacturing processes, to known artisans; then drawing a tentative conclusion, forming a hypothesis, and trying to verify the prediction entailed in the hypothesis; repeating the process as required to reach a firm understanding.
There is no 'CSI' shortcut. And making up new words like "counterflow" that you say means exactly the same as "work" adds nothing to the available facts. It only makes the dialogue look 'scientific'.
joe g: "So tell us what prevents tried-n-true design detection methodology from being used in biology?"
Comparative analysis is exactly the method used in archaeology! And it turns out the biological adaptations are ad hoc modifications of ancestral forms.
joe g: "In reality only a true scientific illiterate would demand all the answers and demand them now."
You have provided no answers whatsoever. The Intelligent Designer has no characteristics that you are willing to posit and test.
At 9:58 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "HINT: counterflow = work (work as discussed in the article I linked to)"
Zachriel:
I note again that the term "counterflow" is not used in archaeology.
And again I note that counterflow (as defined in the linked to article) and work(as defined in the linked to article) are the SAME thing.
What part about that don't you understand?
Zachriel:
Forensic sciences closely tie together the artisan, the art and the artifact.
But we don't know who designed Stonehenge. We don't know why. We think we know how but that was only after years of study.
Zachriel obviously doesn't understand the process of investigation. When given something that no one knows its origins the first thing is to determone design or nature operating freely. Once that determination is made we study it in that light (designed or not).
There are many cases in which design is determined that we don't know the designers.
If we use Zachriel's logic design cannot be inferred unless it is proved by finding the designer and knowing the process. Unfortunately for Zachriel reality refutes his logic.
joe g: "So tell us what prevents tried-n-true design detection methodology from being used in biology?"
Zachriel:
Comparative analysis is exactly the method used in archaeology!
Not always. However we can compare what we know intelligent agencies are capable of with what nature, operating freely, is capable of.
Zachriel:
And it turns out the biological adaptations are ad hoc modifications of ancestral forms.
That is the speculation. Too bad it can't be objectively tested.
At 10:55 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "But we don't know who designed Stonehenge."
As usual, you confuse not knowing everything with not knowing anything. We know Stonehenge was made by neolithic humans.
--
Zachriel: And it turns out the biological adaptations are ad hoc modifications of ancestral forms.
joe g: "That is the speculation. Too bad it can't be objectively tested."
Sure it can. You just aren't interested in looking at the details of vertebrate evolution. For instance, we could start with the evolution of tetrapods, and the prediction that there must have existed fish about 375 million years ago that had intermediate characteristics. So to test this hypothesis, we would find exposed 375 million year old strata that was in a tropical region, perhaps a stream bed and see if we can discover any faunal fossils. And, indeed, we find fish with limb bones (including a funcational wrist joint), which are modifications of bones found in fish fins.
When you are done waving your hands, Tiktaalik will still be there.
At 8:36 PM,
Steve said…
Oh what baloney. You assume I have a problem with the idea of counterflow, although why gin up a new idea when we don't really need it, in regards to archaeology. Looking at things that are found at a dig and studying them to try and determine if they were made by humans, or even other animals, is not shocking or something I oppose. Your assertion to the contrary is misleading and dishonest.
CSI and IC are evidence of intentional design, ie manufacture. They are the "traces" you spoke of.
I'm sorry, but an IC system can occur in biological systems through duplication and loss of function. And CSI is bogus concept that Dembski simply made up. Hence it is not the "trace" that you think it is.
Not always. However that is basically what I have been telling you. We KNOW what intelligent agencies are capable of and we know what nature, operating freely, is capabale of.
As to the latter, no we don't, at least not when it comes to everything. What is truly ironic is that is what people like Dembski, Wells, and Meyer point too. The "gaps in the evidence" that supposedly disprove evolution, but now we have Joe G. telling us that there are no gaps. We know precisely what nature can and can't do. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.
The same with ID. "The Privileged Planet" makes it clear the design inference extends beyond biology and is evidenced in many venues.
Bah. The notion of the fine tuned universe, logically speaking, is evidence in favor of (or at least is neutral towards) the hypothesis of a natural universe not a designed/supernatural universe.
CSI is evidence OF manufacture. We do NOT need to know how it was manufactured BEFORE making a design inference.
But that is what archaeologist do, they look at things like the process, or the possible processes. When they find some metal in a given shape they might analyze the composition of the metal to see if it is the result of some sort of metallurgical process. You're saying that kind of thing is not needed at all. Of course, if you did have such knowledge you'd be crowing about the CSI of such a proess. Which raises the question of why you are so afraid of the process?
The FACT that there are several investigative fields that proport to detect design falsifies your claim.
Big deal, things like forensic science postulates that the designer in question is man. So man designs things wow, what a big shock. Who knew this...besides everybody older than 2 years of age? Nobody is saying that design is everywhere and anywhere impossible, but that claiming design is THE ONLY ANSWER and at the same time saying process is not relevant is just hand waving drivel.
At 10:42 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "But we don't know who designed Stonehenge."
People designed and built Stonehenge.
At 10:47 PM,
Zachriel said…
The article you cited doesn't support your assertions, so I would direct the reader to just read the article.
Artifact
At 3:40 PM,
Joe G said…
Steve:
Oh what baloney. You assume I have a problem with the idea of counterflow, although why gin up a new idea when we don't really need it, in regards to archaeology. Looking at things that are found at a dig and studying them to try and determine if they were made by humans, or even other animals, is not shocking or something I oppose. Your assertion to the contrary is misleading and dishonest.
In one of your responses you asked me to “Please cite one example of an archeologist doing this?” (this = using counterflow to detect design). Did you forget?
CSI and IC are evidence of intentional design, ie manufacture. They are the "traces" you spoke of.
Steve:
I'm sorry, but an IC system can occur in biological systems through duplication and loss of function. And CSI is bogus concept that Dembski simply made up. Hence it is not the "trace" that you think it is.
If you want to use duplication and loss of function then you have to do the following:
1) Demonstrate the duplication was a random and not directed event.
2) Demonstrate how the original more complex structure came about in the first place.
And Dembski defined CSI. Now that concept can be tested and falsified by referring to that definition. Now obviously you will not because you cannot show us any information arising from scratch via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) process, but that should not be counted as a refutation of the premise.
For example to refute both IC and CSI, and therefore falsify ID, as indicators of design just demonstrate that life can arise from non-living matter via some blind watchmaker process. And Dembski does tell us that CSI can beget other CSI. It is the origin of CSI that is being questioned.
Not always. However that is basically what I have been telling you. We KNOW what intelligent agencies are capable of and we know what nature, operating freely, is capabale of
Steve:
As to the latter, no we don't, at least not when it comes to everything.
No one says we need to know everything. We go with what we do know in order to derive a reasonable inference.
Steve:
What is truly ironic is that is what people like Dembski, Wells, and Meyer point too. The "gaps in the evidence" that supposedly disprove evolution, but now we have Joe G. telling us that there are no gaps.
Your inference skills suck. I never said there weren’t any gaps. I am saying we have a reasonable amount of knowledge of what intelligent agencies are capable of and we do have a reasonable amount of knowledge of what nature, operating freely, is capable of. To doubt that is just being imbecilic.
For example, what exactly, prevents nature, operating freely, from “constructing” a structure like Stonehenge? What would prevent erosion patterns from resembling written text etched in a stone? Perhaps in reality nothing prevents it. However in reality we don’t have any experience, ie knowledge, of such events. And we do have direct observations of intelligent agencies designing and building huge structures, as well as carving out text on a stone slab.
Steve:
We know precisely what nature can and can't do. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.
We do have some idea from which to draw a reasonable inference.
same with ID. "The Privileged Planet" makes it clear the design inference extends beyond biology and is evidenced in many venues.
Steve:
notion of the fine tuned universe, logically speaking, is evidence in favor of (or at least is neutral towards) the hypothesis of a natural universe not a designed/supernatural universe.
I will go with the greatest scientists who ever walked this planet who agree with what I stated. And as I stated there really isn’t a “natural” universe. Even YOUR scenario requires something beyond nature to get it started or set up the initial conditions.
Hawking starts with galaxies, like spots on a deflated balloon- then the balloon expands and all the galaxies, except for those which cluster, expand away from each othe-> A “self-contained” universe that “just is”.
CSI is evidence OF manufacture. We do NOT need to know how it was manufactured BEFORE making a design inference.
Steve:
But that is what archaeologist do, they look at things like the process, or the possible processes.
First they look for counterflow, ie work. Then they try to determine a process or possible process. They may never know for sure but again they can derive a reasonable inference from the data they do have. IOW determining the process is separate from determining design.
And again archaeologists have to be able to determine what nature, operating freely, is capable of doing and contrast that with what intelligent agencies are capable of doing.
Steve:
When they find some metal in a given shape they might analyze the composition of the metal to see if it is the result of some sort of metallurgical process. You're saying that kind of thing is not needed at all.
I am not saying that at all. That you choose to think so just further exposes your agenda- that being to not even try to understand what is being said but to attack for the sake of attacking.
Steve:
Of course, if you did have such knowledge you'd be crowing about the CSI of such a proess. Which raises the question of why you are so afraid of the process?
I am not afraid of the process. As I have said too many times to count the ONLY way to make any determination about the process in the absence of direct observation or designer input is by studying the design in question. IOW the process is a separate question, as reality demonstrates.
The FACT that there are several investigative fields that purport to detect design falsifies your claim.
Steve:
Big deal, things like forensic science postulates that the designer in question is man.
Ya that narrows it down. What about woman? What about other organisms which also design things? Forensic science relies on our ability to determine what nature, operating freely, is capable of and contrasts that with what intelligent agencies are capable of.
Both archaeology and forensic science rely on our ability to do that- differentiate between design, ie intelligent causation/ intervention and nature operating freely
Steve:
So man designs things wow, what a big shock. Who knew this...besides everybody older than 2 years of age? Nobody is saying that design is everywhere and anywhere impossible, but that claiming design is THE ONLY ANSWER and at the same time saying process is not relevant is just hand waving drivel.
Again you are twisted. No one is saying that design is the only answer. And no one is saying the process is irrelevant. The process and the designer are just separate questions. Questions that may be answered once the anti-ID lunacy is put to an end. (that way we can devote more resources to answering questions like that as opposed to dealing with the absolute stupidity and dishonesty demonstrated by the anti-ID mob.)
At 3:42 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "But we don't know who designed Stonehenge."
Zachriel:
People designed and built Stonehenge.
That is quite the breakthrough. Why couldn't nature, operating freely, do such a thing?
Zachriel:
The article you cited doesn't support your assertions, so I would direct the reader to just read the article.
My assertion is that work = counterflow. That is supported by the article.
Post a Comment
<< Home