|
Author
|
Topic: Design Inference Game II
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 23. January 2004 21:10
Well, you can't be ignorant of chance and regularity or of course you'll make mistakes. Very basic processes can produce hexagons--crystal lattices can be hexagonally packed; bubbles of uniform size are hexagonally packed; and so on. There's a very simple reason why this is. It's the densest regular way to pack things that like to be spherical. If the border is somewhat flexible, you get hexagons. (If not, you get packed spheres/circles.)
IP: Logged
|
|
Cre8ionist
Member
Member # 140
|
posted 26. January 2004 17:32
Although I sincerely appreciate the geometry lesson, I'd like to try to turn the focus back to SC if I may. The thread seems to have died out and nobody took up my challenge (really Dembski's), so I'll try to spell it out again. Perhaps I was misunderstood. I tossed together a couple of photos for my admittedly hypothetical example, but it's only hypothetical to make it interesting, it could also be evaluated with Dembski's criteria without respect to origin. But this is a game of sorts after all.
It was stated wrt my response to pic 1 that "No specification that delimits the universe of numerators to just that sequence has been provided beyond identifying its language as English. So far, the target has been drawn around the arrow."
I pondered the point and asked if RBH thought that the SETI researchers had likewise
drawn the target around the arrow? So far, no response. Furthermore, I asked for someone to run the Contact example through the EF. As yet nobody has here. The following is my feeble attempt to jumpstart some more conversation........
BTW, I have no problem with the pictures presented thus far, however, I'd like to suggest that a design advocate also be allowed to present a few afterwards, if there are no objections and one steps forward.
Scenario: Mars rover Spirit takes and sends following two photos:
The second photo is the prime numbers from 2 to 101(up close) obviously found etched there on the Martian surface, numbers = dashes, spaces = dots, again a hypothetical example, (repeated mostly for the Art Bell crowd, I'd hate to start a rumor you know ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ). My challenge to any anti-design advocate in this forum is to play the role of the researcher who receives these photos, and using Dembski's EF give the result, and the reasons for the result. And perhaps give your methods & result without using Dembski's EF, to see which method might be closer to the right one.
Otherwise, perhaps someone from the design side can do the honors.....If I am wrong in my position I'd like to be shown, but I don't see how that can happen if we don't study objects/events that have some sort of probabilistically quantifiable complexity, as well as geometrical specificity. Geometrical shapes give cause for a second look, however they do not in and of themselves trigger a design inference from the EF which relies on complexity as well as specificity in its evaluation of objects and events (see below):
-
-
-
-
Obviously these creatures (Australopithecus africanus) are supposed to be detecting design, yet their methods seem to be limited to identifying geometrical shapes. If our methods were limited to that then the second Mars picture above would simply be another interesting object filled with geometrical shapes, i.e., lines and circles, however there's more to the picture, much more. Seems to me that we need to move from the primitive design detection of the Australopithecus africanus into the more modernized version provided by the EF and "give the Dembski his due"........................Cre8
[ 26. January 2004, 17:52: Message edited by: Cre8ionist ]
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 26. January 2004 18:42
Cre8's "SETI" example is, of course, fictional, and doesn't represent what SETI is looking for. SETI researchers - real SETI researchers, not the movie version - are not looking for instances of "specified complexity." In fact, they are looking for a real simple (non-complex) signal: an anomalously strong narrow-band carrier signal, perhaps in the so-called "water hole", in the region of the radio spectrum between the H and OH emission lines, between 1.420 and 1.665 GHz. That is, they are looking for an anomalous signal, one not produced by known natural processes, not a complex signal in Dembski's definition of "complex." Furthermore, SETI researchers are explicitly basing their search criteria on what a known designer - humans - are likely to do by way of interstellar radio communications. See here for an introduction. "Specified complexity" is not in the signal processing algorithms of SETI.
Cre8's "2001" example is also fictional. It's easy to make up fictional examples of so-called "specified complexity" to which the filter can be applied. I'd sure like to see it applied by Dembski or Behe or Wells to a real example. Try the Oklo reactor or stone circles. If the Explanatory Filter is such an excellent design detection methodology, why isn't its use being demonstrated on real phenomena (instead of fictional examples) by the proponents of ID? This is an ID Board, fer cryin' out loud!
RBH
IP: Logged
|
|
gregorythegrey
Member
Member # 1088
|
posted 26. January 2004 20:20
Hello Cre8ionist,
Is that what I am really speaking to? And are you also a Creation Scientist or 21st century Creation Theist to make matters true? I recommend in this Game the next example should be a picture of a zoo.
quote:
“In this game picture selection is everything. - ”Cre8ionist
I thought the Filter was being proposed for everything? If this ‘game’ is really about ‘picture selection’ more than about the E-Filter’s (scientific) relevance or criterion-matching, then please tell me how it is not simply sociological? FRDiamond chooses pictures and we induce or deduce (pick your duality) or guess which ones are ‘designed,’ i.e. not just the pictures themselves. How then can one insist that a biological thing is ‘designed,’ just by positing some (probability) numbers tied to a theory of information? Isn’t this just a method of objectification or over-dependence on probabilities to weigh the hand of science? My view demands more precision.
Well, from another perspective, I suppose the answer would be different if in this game ‘picture selection isn’t everything’ or if it was more about information inferences than about inferences to Intelligence or Design. But then who would be left to press the button, and to send and say, ‘hello ID friends – fine theory we’ve got here!? Quite a predic-a-ment we’re in! How do you think it will turn out?’
It seems to me that it is the ‘design inference,’ which led to the ‘design inference’ to ‘design’ (or concoct) this Design Inference Game II itself that we’re really asking about here. Or is this not about origins at all? Contingency, complexity and specificity may be included in the conversation somehow as well. But since we could trace the pattern of realizations, conceptualizations and decisions to make the game (if not completely) by asking FRDiamond (or Dembski) directly or personally (i.e., the last time that the game happened, what is changed, what was learned, why it should be done again, etc.) our historical proof is already part way to be solved. And besides, why don’t I just get out of the way and let you finish the game and see what the reactions bring? One should quit standing in the way of history!
For my two bits (tacked onto the brief history and link about the basketball), in this game I think recognizing patterns is almost everything (and wearing glasses!!); i.e. does it look ‘random’ or not and other such ideological conundrums. Statistics and scientific predictions here are most prudent as in a microscope. But please don’t try to put a whole slough of numbers and probabilities by me, wrapped together with a scientifically-philosophical-theology that just makes the whole topic more confusing! It is now the 21st century, but how can you expect to leap that much or to hold yourself together in so doing? Doesn’t a design logically have to have a (hopefully peaceful) designer?
Though the pattern of photos in this game is entirely decided (though apparently open to change and variation), there should be no question that the pictures were themselves ‘processed’ before they could be shown to the public, and thus to you and I. This could be called something like ‘snap-and-click social design’ and intelligence could be asserted (or inserted) somewhere into the example method even without mentioning the eXample filter. Or do you think, were they busy re-constructing examples in order to run the filter without (self-)contextualizing it beforehand: human-made or ______-made? Either way, the message presents counter-evidence to the idea that the EF or IDT’s generally speaking are really primarily any longer about Biology.
If, Cre8ionist, your above one-line assertion is indeed the case (i.e. which appears could be logically defended), then I am curious what the difference is between ‘selection’ and ‘design,’ or if they are simply two words that describe the same thing in your mind or on this occasion. The same question could go toward asking the difference between ‘creation’ and ‘design’ in your opinion, but that would take us far away from the original task or goal of the thread; making a Design Inference. In these cases, however, we should rather speak of an ‘army’ (ID was pioneered as primarily an American-made phenomenon) of related concepts that define the vocabulary (grammar) of the intelligent design movement, including theology and teleology. In its complexity, that appears to be what we are talking about from behind the gap of science and philosophy.
And now we are reading Dembski’s recent inclusion of theories about ‘intelligent agency’ to cooperate with ‘intelligent design,’ which makes one wonder: how does one postulate this connection without recourse to a vast tradition of social and human sciences literature? Taking this into account would also dramatically influence what is spoken about in regard to the ‘picture selection’ in this Design Inference Game II. Perhaps that is what you meant too, Cre8ionist? Situate the social scientists or invite them to a discussion of intelligent design and how it differs when perceived between natural and social scientists.
Well then, I now submit I am preparing to build an alternative theory of Human Selection to counter the narrative of Natural Selection. This approach would seem to compliment the entire Design Inference Game, while adding to it a dimension or sphere that it never had (or acknowledged) before by incorporating human-social theories into the conversation of intelligent design. That sounds good, does it not? Well, it is still in the making. Any suggested references to help in this endeavor would be welcome, and criticisms invited.
One might say this is an inevitable conclusion or change of direction for the Intelligent Design Movement anyway. That is, when scientists who ‘select’ observations, classifications and comparisons realize that their sciences must also participate within a hermeneutic circle as human nature allows them, there comes a time when the objectivity claims of science break down. Subjectivity is recognized and reflected. This Design Inference Game is an excellent example. Or at least we can now say that science is supplemented by new contributions to knowledge and communication via the reflexivity of the scientists themselves, which involves also their philosophies about life and their worldview or faith-based perspectives. In the past this feature was not a large or important part of science. Today it is. And the layers-of-conversation are one thing intelligent design theorists have seemingly (thankfully) done well to promote.
But why make this discussion out to be primarily about Mathematics, Probability, and Complex Specified Information (which is indeed imho a helpful concept in some cases) when it is about so much more than that? That is my itching question. Why limit design criteria to such a dry informational world as picture-recognition (or Name that Image, though it can be fun), when pictures are themselves the product of human-making and not entirely isolated artifacts?
Cre8ionist, no disrespect meant, but you sound a bit like a broken-record or a copied lab report: ‘If we can conclude CSI or SC then that proves positive results for Dembski’s EF…’ You seem so intent to prove the filter that the rest of the project’s possible value is lost. But then again, I don’t really know you and so these are all assumptions if the spirit of things is wrong or right.
Oh yeah, nice catch with the SETI example. I could try to use rhetorical tactics and say that somehow what the SETI researchers are/were searching for is really just a reflection of them-selves and that it merely adds to the anthropo-centricity of this whole conversation (or something like that), but that would seem to be unwise. You mean my whole fallacy’s wrong? Well, if you don’t like that fallacy, I’ve got others. (MM) ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Not sure what else to say from there. Hope others will respond.
Kind regards,
GtG
p.s. I meant to send this after Rex Kerr's last post, but for some reason it wouldn't transmit
p.p.s. "give the Dembski his due" ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
[ 26. January 2004, 20:28: Message edited by: gregorythegrey ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Cre8ionist
Member
Member # 140
|
posted 26. January 2004 21:51
Not going to beat a dead horse here. But RBH, the great thing about the Dembski's filter is it works without respect to what part of the universe the object/event originates from. As I clearly pointed out to you, that picture of dashes and circles can be evaluated every bit as much as that basketball can and it's every bit as real. Perhaps your problem is with the fact that it cuts through the dodgeball tactics which are tossed out to delay the inevitable, namely that the filter is reliable in detecting specified complexity, nothing more, nothing less. Not going to take it on, fine, it's up to you. My main point is that there are plenty of examples to test on both ends of the spectrum and everywhere inbetween...........................Cre8
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 26. January 2004 22:51
My objections to the Explanatory Filter are easily rebutted. Take a simple example, say the snowflake picture above, and calculate its Dembskian "complexity." Leave specification aside for the moment, and just calculate its complexity, showing your work, of course. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) Then provide a specification with principled reasons for the choice.
I will also remark that the Explanatory Filter has not yet been formally applied to the (picture of the) basketball, so to say that the EF "works without respect to what part of the universe the object/event originates from" isn't saying a whole lot yet. No one has provided the final value for its "complexity." And no one has yet provided an unequivocal specification, a detachable pattern, for it.
Remember, if the specification is "round things", the lettering cannot enter into the complexity calculation. If the specification has to do with the lettering, one must provide a principled reason for not limiting its alphabet to the 8 characterr I mentioned earlier, and "round thing" is not part of the specification. And if the specification is "round things with letters on them," one must provide a justification for choosing that pattern rather than, say, "things with letters on them," or "things with black marks on them."
Here's what makes me real suspicious of the utility of the EF. When real scientists come up with a new measuring/detecting technology, they run around all over the place putting it to use - they look at everything they can think of with it. Think about MRI, or spectrosocopy, or microscopy. People looked at everything under the sun (and on the sun!) with their new toys. Where is the comparable excitement over applying the EF to anything one can get one's hands on - arrowheads and snowflakes and proteins and wind-sculpted rocks? Nowhere to be found.
Incidentally, Rex Kerr's remarks were not by way of a geometry lesson; they were a physics lesson, a "regularity" explanation for the occurrence of regular hexagons under certain natural circumstances.
RBH
[ 26. January 2004, 23:14: Message edited by: RBH ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 26. January 2004 23:38
Creationist: Perhaps your problem is with the fact that it cuts through the dodgeball tactics which are tossed out to delay the inevitable, namely that the filter is reliable in detecting specified complexity, nothing more, nothing less.
Such kind of arguments are not very useful when conducting an experiment to determine the usefulness of the design inference. When participants start to accuse others of have alterior motives rather than address the criticisms raised then it's time to perhaps take a deep breath.
While Creationist, without any evidence, claims that the filter is reliable in detecting specified complexity, there are some very good reasons to doubt his claims. Can his assertions be addressed by looking at the strawman SETI example? Of course not. I doubt that the argument is that the DI can never infer design with a reasonable reliability but rather that the design inference in general is both unreliable and untested.
Creationist: Not going to take it on, fine, it's up to you. My main point is that there are plenty of examples to test on both ends of the spectrum and everywhere inbetween.
And yet the realy tricky examples are easily brushed off as being motivated by what again? If the design inference is so reliable why not address the examples provided for by RBH or other participants on this board? Instead creationist seems to suggest that there is some unwillingness, or other motivation that drives the imho very valid criticisms.
In fact as RBH points out so far the design inference has yet to be formally applied to any of the examples given. Its inability to even address these simple examples seem to make the design inference somewhat suspect when claims that it can reliably infer design of lets say the flagellum are made.
Either the design inference is put to some real tests that help one decide the validity of the claims made such as reliable, no false positives etc or we have to accept that the design inference is quite limited in its applicability.
In the past people have asserted that SETI uses the design inference approach of that archaeologists do, but when looking at how design is infered, it becomes quickly obvious that their approaches do not even come close to the methods proposed by the design inference.
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 27. January 2004 03:28
I see a bunch of dashes and dots. But how were they produced? I don't know. Must they have all come out the same? I don't know. I could postulate a one-dash or one-dot marking process, but I really don't know that. How do I account for the regular array? Should I read left to right, top to bottom or in some other order?
Calculating a probability is not as easy as it first seems!
Since the LHS is aligned, I'd argue that the marks are produced starting from the left and aiming right (with that orientation of the picture). What is the probability of such an alignment? I don't know. A lot less than 1, I imagine, but I'm forced to overestimate the probability in order to get anywhere, so I'll just say it's 1.
Now, are the marks produced one at a time, or can more than one be produced at a time? Hard to say. To be on the safe side, let's assume they can come in groups. Maybe the whole block of dashes was laid down, and then the dots were scrubbed out on top of them? Let's calculate the probability of that. We don't really know the probability of a dot versus a dash--but there are 1186 marks there total and only 25 dots, so we'll say p(dot) = 0.021079. The probability of finding the dots in those exact 25 positions is p(dot)^25, and the probability of finding them nowhere else is (1-p(dot))^1160. Thus the total probability is p=pdot^25*(1-p(dot))^1161 = 2.3*10^-53.
Well, okay, not really below the UPB.
But that's a very sketchy thing to go by, because maybe there is no physical process that lays out arrays of dashes and then scrubs dots in them at random.
Or, maybe there's a physical process that outputs prime numbers. For example, one could imagine a process of resonant collapse, where a constantly increasing frequency damages a very long and narrow resonant cavity at exactly the node points, making it fail to resonate again at any multiple of that frequency. As you sweep upwards, it will get new damage exactly at the primes (as the existing damage will damp resonance at non-primes). Perhaps something like this occured, and somehow was translated into the dashes and dots. It doesn't seem very likely, but then again, 10^-150 isn't very likely.
Now, granted, you could warp this example to be the ASCII encoding, in binary, of this entire message, and that would be below the UPB. But it's pretty rare to find anything quite that clear, and with lack of clarity the utility of the filter falls apart (even if we were to conclude design rather than "weird, we don't know").
[ 27. January 2004, 03:29: Message edited by: Rex Kerr ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Cre8ionist
Member
Member # 140
|
posted 27. January 2004 08:24
RBH, I was tempted to put "physics/geometry lesson", but I didn't see Frances around, so I wasn't too worried about your grasping for every jot and tittle, but when you're on the ropes I guess every little thing becomes important. I could of course pick apart all of your posts in similar ways, but being that I wear the creationist label proudly my posts wouldn't make it past security. But, I'd prefer not to go there... I'm perfectly happy to say you're halfway correct on that minor point and it was rather sloppy of me.
Pim, I'm sorry if you think that using "dodgeball tactics" means "ulterior motive." Actually I didn't really mean it that way. Again, I don't want to turn this thread in that direction. I hope nobody here thinks that I don't want to get at the truth, I do. However, I've known for many years now that intelligent design has the edge on Mother Nature (hearken back to Robert Gange "The reason that Mother Nature can't create life is because her IQ is too low" paraphrase) , ID can often achieve its ends in a far shorter amount of time through the power of choice. Dembski struck a chord with me as did Behe before him (even though I was familiar with Dembski from "The Creation Hypothesis").
ID not only achieves quicker results, it achieves results which are far more complex than does Mother Nature alone. This is something that I can demonstrate fairly quickly (see below):
While Mother Nature can do the following with sand:
" Winds pile loose sand into complex shapes in this part of the Sonoran."
-
-
An intelligent designer can do this:
While Mother Nature can do this with rock:
Martian poodle
Intelligent designers can do this:
Now when it comes to biology, things get more difficult to discern. And yet, I see no reason (NDT notwithstanding) to change my opinion about MN's capabilities as compared to ID's. Life still only comes from life, like still begets like, and SC still only comes from SC.........I have something to say to you Rex, but outta time, more later, have to go now..........Cre8
[ 27. January 2004, 08:35: Message edited by: Cre8ionist ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Erik
Member
Member # 160
|
posted 27. January 2004 11:29
quote:
RBH: My objections to the Explanatory Filter are easily rebutted. Take a simple example, say the snowflake picture above, and calculate its Dembskian "complexity." Leave specification aside for the moment, and just calculate its complexity, showing your work, of course. Then provide a specification with principled reasons for the choice.
Dembski's flow chart representation (Fig 1.2, p. 13 of "No Free Lunch") of the Explanatory Filter misleadingly suggests that we should first compute the improbability and then search for a specification, but the order of these two steps must be reversed. We cannot compute the improbability relevant for the EF until we have a specification.
While I too would like to see the appropriate explicit calculation for a snow flake, I don't think there is any room to leave out the specification. Of course, the the improbability of the raw outcome sets an upper limit on the "Dembskian complexity" of the specification of the raw outcome. This can enable us to save efforts by aborting the EF procedure before the specification stage, but if the improbability of the raw outcome is below the threshold a second calculation will then be required.
Erik
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 27. January 2004 12:26
I am not sure why Creationist shows these pictures especially since no attempt was made to show how the filter may be applied to these cases. I would argue that in every case we use our knowledge about motives, history etc to reach our conclusions.
Creationist: Now when it comes to biology, things get more difficult to discern. And yet, I see no reason (NDT notwithstanding) to change my opinion about MN's capabilities as compared to ID's. Life still only comes from life, like still begets like, and SC still only comes from SC.........I have something to say to you Rex, but outta time, more later, have to go now
While I admire Creationist's faith despite the fact that he admits that things become difficult to discern, actual research has shown that NDT can explain the origins of SC, rejecting thus the validity of SC begets SC. But let's not forget that the thread was about determining if the design inference could be applied to any meaningful examples succesfully.
Creationist: ID not only achieves quicker results, it achieves results which are far more complex than does Mother Nature alone
The former may be true, the latter is definitely begging the question as I doubt that Creationist would accept that nature created the diversity of life for instance. That ID may achieve things quicker is somewhat irrelevant to the question of its relevance to for instance biology.
Have we come to the conclusion that application of the filter to realistic examples is almost impossible? And that is for cases in which we do know if they were intelligently designed or not. I think the excercise was very useful in determining the limitations of the filter. Many of the criticisms raised about the filter seem to become much clearer when actually trying to apply the filter.
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 27. January 2004 14:03
Erik wrote quote:
Dembski's flow chart representation (Fig 1.2, p. 13 of "No Free Lunch") of the Explanatory Filter misleadingly suggests that we should first compute the improbability and then search for a specification, but the order of these two steps must be reversed. We cannot compute the improbability relevant for the EF until we have a specification.
Quite so. It's the specification that must define the components whose improbability of spontaneous assembly is to be calculated to get the "complexity" of the object. That's why Dembski's example, in which the specification of the bacterial flagellum is a sort of outboard motor, but the calculation (in Section 5.10,, "Doing the Calculation," pp. 289ff) is of the improbability of spontaneous assembly of a bunch of proteins, is misleading. The level of analysis of the specification is different from that of the calculation. In the absence of a prior specification, one doesn't know what level of analysis to use in calculating complexity.
Cre8: Sorry. Two decades spent as a professor grading student papers sometimes take over my head. But the physical processes involved in creating ordered phenomena are not to be disregarded.
As for "on the ropes," I'd still like to see just one instance in which the formalism of the EF is actually applied to one of your examples. Just one, for starters. I say again, real scientists with a new measurement/observing toy can't wait to apply it to as wide a range of phenomena as possible, if for no other reason than to calibrate it, testing the limits of its resolving power. The EF is singularly deficient in that respect, suggesting that even its inventor doesn't think that highly of it. There are no calibration data, there are no comparative data on known designed and undesigned objects. There is only a bare claim: it works reliably. Well, show that. You've provided test stimuli for that comparative work: Do it! As Dembski urged, "Do the calculation."
RBH
IP: Logged
|
|
Cre8ionist
Member
Member # 140
|
posted 28. January 2004 02:38
Pim quote:
I am not sure why Creationist shows these pictures especially since no attempt was made
to show how the filter may be applied to these cases. I would argue that in every case we
use our knowledge about motives, history etc to reach our conclusions.
Pim, these pictures were shown to establish that there is a difference between what nature can do and what intelligent designers can do. Firstly, can you agree to that? Once you can agree to that then you can begin to develop methods for determining just what those differences are and whether or not they apply across the spectrum of the universe up to and including biology. William Dembski is leading the way here. Further, I have to think Dembski would agree that in the examples above SC is the key difference. Why others don't see this obvious difference I don't know. Solution: Developing methods of using the filter on cases like sculptures is of prime importance, it would seem to me.
Now back to Rex, and I'll try to tie it in:
quote:
I see a bunch of dashes and dots. But how were they produced? I don't know. Must they
have all come out the same? I don't know. I could postulate a one-dash or one-dot marking
process, but I really don't know that. How do I account for the regular array? Should I read
left to right, top to bottom or in some other order?
Since I'm asking you to evaluate the example based upon the EF we are only interested in whether this is one of those objects that displays the difference noted above (not necessarily how it was produced or where it came from, yet), the difference between what MN can do and what ID can do. Think of a Scrabble board for a moment, do you need to know how the pieces were made to evaluate if someone has left you a message written in the tiles? I don't think so. I'm afraid you're not giving it a fair shake, you're trying to evaluate it like the apes above evaluated the monolith, and like they'd evaluate this example if they had their chance, I'm trying to get you to move past that.
Now to the filter:
1. Establish contingency
quote:
In practice, to establish the contingency of an object, event or structure, one must establish that it is compatible with the regularities involved in its production but that these regularities also permit any number of alternatives. Typically these regularities are conceived as *natural laws* or algorithms. By being compatible with but not required by the regularities involved in its production, an object, event, or structure becomes irreducible to any underlying physical necessity. Michael Polanyi and Timothy Lenoir have both described this method of establishing contingency. The method applies quite generally: the position of scrabble pieces on a game board is irreducible to the natural laws governing the motion of scrabble pieces; the configuration of ink on a sheet of paper is irreducible to the physics and chemistry of paper and ink; the sequencing of DNA bases is irreducible to the bonding affinities between the bases; and so on.
The sequence of etched dots and dashes forming a sequence of prime numbers is irreducible to the laws of physics that govern rock /land formation. "We therefore regard the sequence as contingent."
2. Establish complexity
The sequence is 1,126 bits long. This is more than sufficient to surpass the UPB. By my calculations it works out to 1 chance in 10^322.
3. Establish specification
According to Dembski an ad hoc set of 1126 dots and dashes would be a fabrication , and a non-ad hoc pattern would be a specification. Therefore, as Dembski notes concerning this exact same pattern "Not only is this sequence complex, but it also embodies a suitable pattern."
Therefore Rex, according to the proper use of the filter this object warrants a design inference.
RBH, The example above from the evolutionist's own film, "Contact" is good enough to put the SC out of the reach of nature. Its probability falls well below twice the UPB. Therefore it's a concrete example that is a legitimate design inference, which is why I used it here. Since I already knew that, I asked that someone from your side do the calculation more than once. Funny, your side is happy to run basketballs etc... through the filter.....Something wrong with using one of the countless things which actually display SC? As for the toy argument. I know IDers are discriminated against (not like us evil creationists though ). I mean, just look at the way the filter's treated here. Has even one of you actually tried to honestly evaluate the filter? Not in my opinion. Many of the people here are far more qualified than I and yet refuse to start with the easy cases and move to the more difficult. Is your method really the proper way to evaluate something? Immediately trying to use it on things in which you have difficulty ascertaining some necessary aspect of the object/event? Why not try it on things that meet the necessary criteria first? Try it on as many of those as necessary, get its basic use mastered, then try some blind tests, all the while trying to develop methods of running things like Martian poodles and sculptures through.............If ,as you say, the real scientists with a new measurement/observing toy were not afraid to give Dembski's methods a real chance (either because of peer pressure or some discriminatory reason) perhaps things would move quicker, in the mean time we'll have to move at our slow but sure turtle's pace...........Cre8
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 28. January 2004 03:39
Creationist: Pim, these pictures were shown to establish that there is a difference between what nature can do and what intelligent designers can do.
And as I argue these pictures, while interesting are also meaningless and fail to address the issue of this thread namely the use of the design inference filter to 'reliably' infer design.
Creationist: Once you can agree to that then you can begin to develop methods for determining just what those differences are and whether or not they apply across the spectrum of the universe up to and including biology. William Dembski is leading the way here.
Such methods already exist and I would argue that William Dembski's methods are irrelevant as to how we infer intelligent design in these cases. In fact I would argue that these methods come closer to motives, means, opportunities, historical pathways etc.
Creationist: Further, I have to think Dembski would agree that in the examples above SC is the key difference.
He may agree or not but without any relevant calculations such claims are fully meaningless.
Creationist: Why others don't see this obvious difference I don't know.
Because it is not obvious perhaps?
Creationist: The example above from the evolutionist's own film, "Contact" is good enough to put the SC out of the reach of nature.
Again arguing strawmen. How is a SCIFI example relevant to the issue of intelligent design in nature? Why not apply it to real examples? We will quickly see if the design filter has any practical value. So far other than some trivial examples, the design inference seems quite meaningless in the absence of reliable estimates, or even a formal mathematical foundation as to how.
So far the absence of any relevant application of this filter either by ID or Dembski suggests that these issues are non trivial.
Creationist: Has even one of you actually tried to honestly evaluate the filter? Not in my opinion.
I would agree, which is why imho the filter is so far lacking in evidence of applicability. It is the lack of application of the filter to real systems which make the claims about filter at least suspicious. I would even argue, as have others, that the filter will be unable to be applied to any meaningful example. Nothing to do with discrimination... As Del Ratzsch has shown, and Del is a well known ID proponent, the filter is just not very suitable.
In fact, given the failures or likely failures of the filter, Dembski seems to be arguing that even if SC does not point to direct intelligent design, he is convinced that somewhere intelligent design must be involved. We can take this argument all the way back to the Big Bang I guess... What does this do to a design inference? Wesley Elsberry has given some good insight into the answers to this questions.
If the filter is so capable of intereing ID reliably then I wonder why such tests have not been performed?
Let me clarify, the argument is not that the filter cannot work, the argument is that the filter suffers from unpredictable false positives, and a general inability to determine the necessary probabilities for any non trivial applications. Such applications include biology.
Let me give you another hypothetical example:
quote:
0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 377 610 987 1597 2584 4181 6765 10946 17711 28657 46368 75025 121393 196418 317811 514229 832040 1346269 2178309 3524578 5702887 9227465 14930352 24157817 39088169 63245986 102334155 165580141 267914296 433494437 701408733 11349031700 18363119030 29712150730 48075269760 77787420490 125862690251 203650110741 329512800991 533162911731 862675712721 1395838624452 2258514337172 3654352961622 5912867298792 9567220260412 15480087559203 25047307819613 40527395378813 65574703198423 106102098577234 171676801775654 277778900352884 449455702128534 727234602481414 1176690304609945 1903924907091355 3080615211701295 4984540118792645 8065155330493935 13049695449286576 21114850779780506 34164546229067076 55279397008847576 89443943237914646 144723340246762217 234167283484676857 378890623731439067 613057907216115917 991948530947554977 1605006438163670888 2596954969111225858 4201961407274896738 6798916376386122588 11000877783661019319 17799794160047141899 28800671943708161209 46600466103755303099 75401138047463464299 122001604151218767380 197402742198682231670 319404346349900999050 516807088548583230720 836211434898484229770 1353018523447067460491 2189229958345551690261 3542248481792619150751
Is this series SC?
Korthof provided the example of Fibonacci
quote:
The Fibonacci series is a sequence of numbers where each number is the sum of the two previous numbers: 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,... It is called after the thirteenth-century Florentine mathematician Leonardo Fibonacci who first defined it.
A surprising fact is that the Fibonacci series can be found in the arrangement of leaves on the stem of higher plants. In the great majority of plants with spiral arrangement, the arrangement conforms to Fibonacci numbers [6]. Now this looks a perfect case of design [10]. Is it indeed a case of design according to Dembski's Explanatory Filter? Is it a contingent system? The Fibonacci spiral pattern is not the only one present in the plant kingdom. There are other patterns. So there is no necessity. Is it a complex system? It is as complex and as non-random as Dembski's pattern D of binary numbers on page 137. Is it a specified system? A specified pattern needs to be independent of the event. The Fibonacci sequence is independent of the pattern of leaves, because it is 100% determined by the mathematical rules defined by Fibonacci. Is side information involved? Of course: knowledge of the Fibonacci sequence functions as side information and thereby renders the Fibonacci sequence a specification. That side information enables us to construct the Fibonacci pattern to which the leave pattern conforms, without recourse to the actual observation. So we have here Complex Specified Information and so Dembski is forced to conclude intelligent design. But the arrangement of leaves on the stem of a plant is a perfectly natural process, as was shown for example by a simple physical model [6,p115]. So the Fibonacci pattern of leaves is not intelligently caused and is a false positive for Dembski's design criterion. Thereby making the Explanatory Filter an unreliable criterion for design.
link
It is interesting to see how Dembski responded
quote:
"Korthof fails to appreciate that the design of the biological systems that give rise to Fibonacci sequences is itself in question. Korthof's example is logically equivalent to a computer being programmed to generate Fibonacci sequences. Once programmed, the computer will as a matter of necessity (cf the necessity node of the filter) output Fibonacci sequences."
An interesting shift indeed. Welsey Elsberry raised the specter of apparant CSI earlier
quote:
If Dembski's analytical techniques cannot resolve the issue of possible cheating in the "Algorithm Room", how does he hope to resolve the issue of whether certain features of biology are necessarily the work of an intelligent agent or agents? If Dembski has no solution to this dilemma, the Design Inference is dead.
I believe the example of Fibonacci was raised earlier in a thread in which you participated?
In a paper by Elsberry and Shallit this issue is further discussed
quote:
Just a paragraph later, Dembski discusses the occurrence of the Fibonacci sequence in phyllotaxis. Once again his discussion is not completely clear, but he seems to be saying (if we understand him correctly) that the occurrence of the Fibonacci sequence is, like the SETI primes sequence, a legitimate instance of CSI. However, he argues that the CSI is not generated by the plant, but rather is a consequence of intelligent design of the plant itself.
(He compares the generation of the Fibonacci sequence here to the Fibonacci sequence produced by a program, and then asks, whence the computer that runs the program?"
Here he seems to be invoking not the causal-history-based interpretation, but the uniform
probability interpretation. This seems inconsistent to us. If we apply the uniform probability interpretation consistently, it would seem that many natural processes, including some that are not biological, generate CSI. In a moment we will list some candidates, but first let us note that it seems unlikely Dembski will accept these as invalidating his specified complexity filter. Indeed, in response to one such challenge (the natural nuclear reactors at Oklo) he says But suppose the Oklo reactors ended up satisfying this criterion after all. Would this vitiate the complexity-specification criterion? Not at all. At worst it would indicate that certain naturally occurring events or objects that we initially expected to involve no design actually do involve design. [19, p. 27] In other words, Dembski's claims are unfalsi¯able. We find this good evidence that Dembski's case for intelligent design is not a scientific one.
For some exquisite examples of fibonacci in nature
Even prime numbers seem to be generated in nature. Even more interesting, the generation may be due to selection. See als the paper A Biological Generator of Prime Numbers 2000 Nonlinear Phenomena in Complex Systems
Even an interesting article on prime numbers and natural laws
[ 28. January 2004, 04:39: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 28. January 2004 12:17
Cre8 wrote quote:
I mean, just look at the way the filter's treated here. Has even one of you actually tried to honestly evaluate the filter? Not in my opinion. Many of the people here are far more qualified than I and yet refuse to start with the easy cases and move to the more difficult. Is your method really the proper way to evaluate something? Immediately trying to use it on things in which you have difficulty ascertaining some necessary aspect of the object/event? Why not try it on things that meet the necessary criteria first? Try it on as many of those as necessary, get its basic use mastered, then try some blind tests, all the while trying to develop methods of running things like Martian poodles and sculptures through.............If ,as you say, the real scientists with a new measurement/observing toy were not afraid to give Dembski's methods a real chance (either because of peer pressure or some discriminatory reason) perhaps things would move quicker, in the mean time we'll have to move at our slow but sure turtle's pace...
Why on earth should I, or anyone else in the biological and physical sciences, do Dembski's work for him? Why would one spend the time and effort on it? One would do so only if one though there were some potential value in terms of knowledge gained by doing so. The questions Cre8 asked, the process Cre8 outlined, should be addressed by the allegedly growing number of ID scientists beavering away in their research laboratories, the Wells's and Behe's and Kenyon's and Axe's and Shaeffer's (a 5-time Nobel nominee, no less!) who are cited in the ID literature as scientists working from an ID perspective. If they do not spend the time and effort on Dembski's approach, why on earth should I? The Explanatory Filter has been publicly available for six years, since the publication of The Design Inference. Even at a plodding pace one would expect to see some progress in calibrating and validating it. Yet all we see are the same examples, some of them fictional, over and over again.
The reason I do not spend the time and effort necessary to test the range of cases Cre8 mentions is that I know there are sufficient logical, conceptual, and practical problems with the method that after spending that time and effort, there's little prospect of having anything useful or interesting to show for it.
I will note that I said nothing at all about "real scientists with a new measurement/observing toy [being] afraid to give Dembski's methods a real chance ...". Real scientists don't pay a whole lot of attention to Dembski's method because there is little prospect of it leading to any useful knowledge. Research costs time, effort, and money, and one makes decisions about spending those resources based on the potential fruitfulness of the approach. My firm gets paid for designing, building, and deploying evolutionary models of (aspects of) the real world, and if I thought that employing Dembski's methods would somehow contribute to the services our clients pay for, I'd be on them in a flash. There's no "peer pressure" operating to constrain me: I run the bloody operation! But I see no prospect of Dembski's method leading anywhere. Hence I will not spend the time, energy, and money: I see no scientific or applied utility in them.
RBH
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic