Talk:Watchmaker analogy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Creationism Portal
This article is supported by the Intelligent design WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Intelligent design-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

The Article is well worth reading as well as this discussion. I think the image of Gaia improved the article. I fixed the spelling here and will fix a few more. The poverty of spelling ability on this page reflects (IMHO) the poverty of clear thinking in the whole analogy, mostly or all on the "pro-analogy" side. Even multiple editors can't spell ("rearrangments"). I liked the bit about money growing on trees. Cute. Carrionluggage 22:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] History

Image:Gaia (Greek Mythology).jpg
Gaia was one of the "Design team" who according to the Ancient Greeks brought creation into being.

Monotheists have suggested: if we find a watch in a field, it is too complex to have appeared there by natural process so they assume that there must have been a watchmaker responsible for its creation. Similarly, the argument goes, life is extremely complex and requires a creator. Polytheists have pointed out that the more historically correct assumption would be that a great multitude of people had contributed to the creation of the watch. The analogy then requires multiple creators.

The historical accuracy of single watchmaker vs a great multitude of contributors, comes into play in the Intelligent Design debate. The two sets of assumptions in the watchmaker analogy are one of the few reasoned arguments differentiating between the appropriateness of Monotheism vs Polytheism. If Intelligent Design is to be taught in science classes, the principle of parsimony, combined with the history of watchmaking, will require the teaching of polytheism as correct.

[edit] The watchmaker analogy before Paley

The Roman Cicero used ideas which later developed into the subject of this article. For Romans Tellus was the Romanised version of the Greek goddess, Gaia. Gaia played an important part in the Creation mythology of Ancient Greece. Creation mythology of traditional religions frequently gives a prominent role to a Mother goddess who gives birth to other things in creation. Frequently also love-making is involved. Gaia in some versions of the story made love to her son, Ouranos. Other parts of creation arose from this union. Cicero, by contrast, claimed that Caelus, the Romanised form of Ouranos, was the offspring of the ancient gods Aether and Hemera.

The Watchmaker analogy was anticipated by Cicero (106 BC – 43 BC) in De natura deorum, (About the nature of the gods), ii. 34 Cicero wrote in a polytheist context about what he thought was the design of the universe.

When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?

– Cicero, quoted by Dennett 1995, p. 29, (Gjertsen 1989, p. 199)

This article seems to make little sense. While the article describes the watchmaker analogy as a false analogy, the watchmaker analogy is an argument, not a proof. While it's clearly a false analogy in the sense that it doesn't logically imply its conclusion, that's not what we typically mean when talking about false analogies in arguments.

A false analogy used in an *argument*, as opposed to one used in a logical proof, isn't one that "assumes that because two objects share one common quality, they must have another quality in common." After all, by that criterion, all analogies are false analogies. Rather, a false analogy, in an argument, is an analogy where the two objects aren't similar *enough* that you can draw similar conclusions about them. This means that if you want to show that the analogy is a false one, you can't just point out that the two objects are different; you need to be more specific than that. Ken Arromdee 17:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The claim that Descartes wrote before the invention of the watch is contradicted in the very next section, which states the watch was invented in the 16th century. Why do we have a section of the invention of the watch, anyway? Very tangential.

[edit] The watchmaker analogy before Paley - David Hume

David Hume also used the watch analogy in his work "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion", from the charactre Cleanthes:

"Throw several pieces of steel together, without shape or form; they will never arrange themselves so as to compose a watch." and "But the ideas in a human mind, we see, by an unknown, inexplicable economy, arrange themselves so as to form the plan of a watch or house. Experience, therefore, proves, that there is an original principle of order in mind, not in matter."

Philosopher Andrew Pyle of Bristol University, states that Paley's Watchmaker analogy is essentially derivative of Cleanthes and simply a convoluted version, nevertheless reaching critical success (Paley's "Natural Theology"). Paley also notes some of the objections to the analogy in his work.

[edit] False analogy

The watchmaker has been called a false analogy because it assumes that because two objects share one common quality, they must have another quality in common.

  1. A watch is complex
  2. A watch has a watchmaker
  3. The universe is also complex
  4. Therefore the universe has a watchmaker

Critics say that the last step is illogical, because it concludes something that is not supported by the criteria, yet this itself is a false assumption. A false analogy to this argument would be:

  1. Leaves are complex cellulose structures
  2. Leaves grow on trees
  3. Money bills are also complex cellulose structures
  4. Therefore money grows on trees (which, according to the saying, it doesn't)

This is a false argument and avoids the concept of first causes.

- by several editors

  • The missing step in the first sequence is that of comparing the probability of specified complexity forming by random rearragements with the four primary forces compared to the Universal Probability Bound. The second sequence argument is just a spoof. DLH 04:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Modern Watchmaker Analogy

The proper comparison above to the Watchmaker analogy would more likely be:

  1. Designers make paper-making machines
  2. Paper-making machines have quantifiably complex specified structures
  3. The probability of natural forces forming paper making machines is far smaller than the Universal probability bound (of all rearrangements of the universe over all time.)

To clarify the Watchmaker Analogy in modern terms, propose adding the following example:

  1. Designers make watches with quantifiably complex specified structures assembled in a quantifiably complex specified order.
  2. The probability of natural forces forming a watch is far smaller than the Universal probability bound (of all rearrangements of the universe over all time.)
  1. Self reproducing blue green algae require use of Photosynthesis and ATPsynthase molecular machines
  2. Photosynthesis and ATPsynthase molecular machines have quantifiably complex specified structures that are assembled in quantifiably complex specified orders.
  3. The probability of natural forces forming these structures (abiogenesis) is smaller than the Universal probability bound
  4. Therefore there is a high probability that self reproducing blue green algae were formed by a designer.

DLH 04:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Growing watches from seed

Watches have makers whether they are complex or not. A sundial is a simple kind of watch with no moving parts, but they do not occur naturally, and have to be made. Exceptionally, a suitable living tree might make a sundial if it was positioned on its own and there were suitable hour-stones marking the progress of its shadow. Exceptionally, a naive person might honestly mistake the ticking of a watch for the beating of a heart and conclude that a watch made out of wood or metal was a living thing.

Assuming that the watch that Paley encounters lying on the ground is taken to be a machine, rather than a living thing, the the reason why it has to have a maker and designer has little to do with being complex or not, but rather has to do with whether it is not a living thing or not. Living things can and do make copies of themselves, while machines like watches never do without the help of makers or designers. Watches (with the trival exception of that tree accidentally forming a sundial), never grow on trees or grow from seed.


To summarise:

  • if watches are NOT living things, then they must have designers and makers.
  • if watches ARE living things, then they need not have designers and makers at least for every generation - living things can make copies of themselves and grow from some kind of seed - this clause does not apply because watches (with the exception of trees acting as sundials) are not living things. Amongst other things, living things can be grown from seeds, or grow on trees or whatever, none of which watches are known to do.


Consider a lifeform such as a horse, which may or may not be complex, depending on how you define complex. A horse has a heart which beats a bit like a watch, and therefore a horse is a machine a bit like that watch.


Repeating our test:

  • if horses are NOT living things, then they must have designers and makers, but most people who are not naive accept that horses ARE living things, and thus this clause does not apply.
  • if horses ARE living things (and most non-naive people would agree that they are), then they need not have designers and makers at least for every generation - living things can make copies of themselves - note that you cannot prove a negative -

The biggest flaw in Paley's Watchmaker analogy is that he does not consider machines and living things comprehensively, but uses half of one and half of the other. Also, the argument should honestly consider borderline exceptions such as the living tree acting as an accidental sundial. Tabletop

This train of argument founders on abiogenesis. See the above Modern Watchmaker AnalogyDLH 04:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further differences among watches and many living things, including humans

Just wondering if any of the renowned critics of WA have asked any of these questions:

  • Do watches reproduce themselves?
  • If so, do watches ever mutate, so that offspring watches are different from ancestor watches?
  • Do watches reproduce sexually with other watches, shuffling their design criteria so that each offspring watch is of slightly different design from, and has parts slightly different from, its parent watches?
  • Do watches that tell time well have reproductive advantages over those that do not (perhaps from humans refusing to allow bad watches to breed)?

If so, perhaps said critics and said criticisms should be added to the article. Just wondering... Unimaginative Username 00:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gratutitous

GRATUITOUS CONCLUDING SENTENCE:

This article concludes as of 10/29/05 with this erroneous (and tangential) assertion: "Darwin later returned to faith in God and even read scripture to his family on his deathbed."

Darwin's deathbed conversion is an old urban legend based on accounts by his visitor Lady Hope, as per this Wikipedia article:: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Hope

I recommend the article's final sentence be omitted (and have attempted to remove it...). Thanks, 208.201.231.139 23:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC) Ron Goldthwaite, rogoldthwaite@ucdavis.edu

[edit] Specified complexity; God(s)

Two points.

  • The article begins by mentioning specified complexity. While this has some bearing on the watchmaker analogy, this term is a recent invention, and it would be better to re-word to something less specifically from intelligent design (not least to be fair to non-ID creationists).
  • Near the start of the article there's a ridiculous section on polytheism. This is possibly in response to earlier remarks on monotheism, but neither has a monopoly on the watchmaker analogy. In fact, if we're to consider ID in its more-secular-than-thou mode, this false dichotomy precludes space aliens.

I object - I find the polytheism argument as cogent as or more cogent than the others, though I find the whole of "Intelligent Design" and the watchmaker analogy to be twaddle. Carrionluggage 22:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll edit unless anyone reasonably objects. --Plumbago 17:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article

Barbara Shack 12:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Is this article yet good enough to get it featured? I think its on the way. Lets work to improve it.

TWADDLE is TWADDLE

These kinds of arguments may have been worthwhile in the days of Cicero, or even Descartes, because laboratory equipment was almost nonexistent or, at any rate, much less powerful than today. Charles Darwin was not yet born, nor was Gregor Mendel. In the absence of good laboratories, breeding research (Mendel), or detailed biological and fossil studies (Darwin), it made sense to argue about divine creation of living things within the time periods spanning the Cambrian to the Holocene. Today, it is silly to pursue that - why are not Creationists satisfied to say God made the Universe, with its laws (including Evolution) and perhaps, possibly, started living things on their journey in the pre-Cambrian? The arguments are as useful as those about how many angels can stand on the head of a pin.Carrionluggage 04:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Copyright

The images were all in Wikipedia before. I assume their copyright status has already been checked. Please tell me if it hasn't. If I hear nothing I'll put the images back later.

[edit] the retina as "poor design"

hello, my name is Sara, I am a medical student and really enjoyed this article on the watchmaker analogy.

however, I would like to suggest to remove the example of the retina as "poor design" for the following reason:

There is actually a very useful aspect to the way it is designed, although maybe not visible at first. The light sensitive "rods and cones" are directly adjacent to the choroid membrane, because they have to rely on this pigment layer for nutrition and for the constant recycling of their pigments. If the rods and cones were at the forefront of where light hits (which in the article is suggested would be "good design"), there would maybe be no blindspot, but there would be no possibility to recycle the pigments and to obtain enough energy for the retina to function efficiently and continuously.

Also, I think that care should also be applied when concluding from the fact that something can go wrong in a design (like an ectopic pregnancy) that hence the overall design is "poor". It is only a small percentage that "goes wrong", which, even before modern medicine, did not lead to the extinction of the human race. Hence the benefits of such a design to the whole population (if there are any that we may not understand) would clearly have outweighed the risk carried by an individual. After all, the design of cells we would, I believe, agree on is "smart" overall, even though it can go wrong and lead to cancer.

This being said, I think the example of the "false analogy" should definitely be in the main article!! I think nowadays any logically thinking mind would agree that the "watchmaker analogy" is not a sound argument.

best wishes, and great job..

Sara

  • There is actually a very useful aspect to the way it is designed, although maybe not visible at first. The light sensitive "rods and cones" are directly adjacent to the choroid membrane, because they have to rely on this pigment layer for nutrition and for the constant recycling of their pigments. If the rods and cones were at the forefront of where light hits (which in the article is suggested would be "good design"), there would maybe be no blindspot, but there would be no possibility to recycle the pigments and to obtain enough energy for the retina to function efficiently and continuously.
Which is odd, since Cephalopod eyes do have the rods and cones oriented in the opposite direction and their eyes seem to still function perfectly adequately. Hrimfaxi 00:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. yes, in the cephalopod eyes, the rhabdomeres (which is how their photoreceptors are called, as they are different from and not to be confused with rods and cones...) are indeed towards the outer part of the retina. However, their optic nerve is also extensively simplified, does not contain amacrine, horizontal or bipolar cells. This means that their simplified optic nerve can fit in between the choroid and the photoreceptors, without disturbing nutrition flow. With the human eye, this would not be possible. to place amacrine, horizontal and bipolar cells between the rods/cones and the choroid would make energy supply inefficient.. solution: place the optic nerve on top of the rods/cones, trade some light (without which we can obviously survive and procreate because there is more than enough above the sea...) for more energy supply, and adapt our eye to the inreased "above seawater sunlight radiation". quite "intelligent" actually. so, again, I would argue not to use this example for "poor design". There is a whole section in wikipedia under "poor designs" about that, why not take some that are undisputable? I am only playing devil's advocate here... cheers.

[edit] Complexity

I forget where I read this argument, but the argument was that if you were walking along in an area with a bunch of rocks, you would see rocks of diferent shapes and colors, none of them spherical, or completely one color. But if you saw a spherical rock that was one consistent color you might think that someone had made the rock like that. The point was a spherical rock is actually much simpler than a non spherical rock and the reason why you think something is created is not because it's complex but because it's diffrent than what you naturally see. If People made 10,000,00 pocket watches and made a beach out of them, then the next day you were born you would think that watch beaches were natural and if a rock washed ashore you would think it odd, and that it must have been disigned, not because it's complex, but because it's different. 24.237.198.91 09:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Watchmaker or Clockmaker

In what way is the watchmaker analogy different from the clockmaker hypothesis? Shouldn't the page of the clockmaker hypothesis be redirected to this site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.51.106.185 (talk • contribs)

No it shouldn't. They are unrelated ideas, similar only in name. There is already talk about that on the Clockmaker page. Meggar 01:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creation Paradox

The most interesting fact about the watchmaker analogy is that it is an attempt to prove we were created by a sentient being or a group of them. But in this attempt, it creates a troublesome paradox. Wouldn't our creator, as well need to have been created? If so, then the analogy is a broken, misdirected failure of logic. If not, then if the watchmaker didn't need to be created, why does the watchmaker even have to be assumed to exist? It is, no matter what the answer, a broken, misdirected failure to disprove the evolution theory.

[edit] POV?

As I'm new here, I'd rather not jump straight into editing until I understand more fully what is expected - the etiquette of the site. So I'll point out a problematic piece of text under the 'challenges' section:

But to argue that because there are mistakes in organisms they were not designed in the first place is faulty reasoning as well. A watch may have defects in it, but that does not mean that no one designed it! Furthermore, many biological features that were considered defects, such as the inverted retina, turned out to be examples of clever design.[2]

While I may agree that dismissing the watchmaker argument on the basis of defects is open to such a criticism as this, the way in which it is stated (or exclaimed, in fact) makes it read as the editor trying to convince the reader of this.

But the real problems are in the final sentence. To use the term 'many' when only providing a single example is only the start. It then states outright that the inverted retina is an example of 'clever design' - definite POV here. And the reference cited is an article by a man with worryingly vague credentials, copyrighted by Creation Ministries International and published in the supposedly peer-reviewed Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal - which is produced by Answers In Genesis. Though I'm unable to judge the article's scientific validity, it's origin makes me suspicious. While removing it may not be the best option, to cite it as definitive evidence of 'clever design' is clearly not befitting an encylopedia. ApathyAndExhaustion 08:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - removed last two sentences of that. Vsmith 14:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
You guys are missing the biggest thing about this. The whole edit in which the discussed section was added is bad, not at alll within the standards of the rest of the article. and laid out as an argument to the reader. This includes offhand claims like "this is clearly wrong" and very poor references about how the fossil record has "proven darwin wrong". I'm removing it. Whoever wrote it can feel free to rewrite it as an encyclopedic text and reinsert it. Moquel 13:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I just noticed that the first paragraph of this article does a much better job of challenging the analogy than the section in question even comes close to. Moquel 14:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Blind Watchmaker.jpg

Image:Blind Watchmaker.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)