|
Author
|
Topic: Design Inference Game II
|
FRDiamond
Member
Member # 1072
|
posted 14. January 2004 15:24
I'm a newbie here, and this post is made at William Dembski's suggestion.
Last year I received the following friendly challenge at FreeRepublic.com in response to a post of mine about making design inferences:
quote:
(Me): For analagous example, even though I might lack exhaustive
knowledge of the ultimate purpose of the designer and sculptor of Mount
Rushmore, that subjective inscrutablity does not preclude the immediate
defeasible inference that the work was the product of intelligence, as opposed
to wind erosion. quote:
(general_re) Ah. But can you do that for any arbitrary case?
There was another poster not too many months ago, who posited much the same
thing as you do here, but he turned out to be unwilling to play the "design
inference game" - would you like to play? It's very simple - I'll post pictures
of various objects and artifacts, one at a time, and for each one, you infer
whether or not it was designed (or, "the product of intelligence", if you like),
and then defend that inference as best you can.
Ready to play? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
As no one was apparently willing to take up the challenge, I, though particularly unqualified for the task, took up the challenge. The result of my innocent little remark ended up being a huge and very interesting thread. At Dr. Dembski's suggestion to post the pictures here, I propose a sort of Design Inference - Game II in which I post the same pictures here as general_re did on the original thread, one by one, followed by your analysis. I am a design proponent, but I'm sure that there are others much more qualified than I who might be willing to much more ably take up the baton here. I would prefer just to post the pictures and generally watch the fray.
Here were general_re's original rules:
quote:
Briefly, I post ten pictures of my choosing. Diamond, as the player, judges whether or not those objects are designed or not, according to Dembski's design inference. I post the pictures one at a time, he posts his verdict, and then his rationale behind each verdict. He is free to solicit advice or assistance from any source he sees fit - the only information that is off-limits is historical knowledge of whether a thing is designed or not. Using the same example from the previous thread, he cannot reason that a car is designed by using the fact that he once visited a car factory, or because he happens to know someone who designs cars - each object must be evaluated strictly on its own merits, by examining its inherent properties and qualities. Aside from that, he can use any method of analysis he likes. And at the end, we'll discuss the cases more fully.
Anyone is free to formulate an opinion if they wish, but Diamond is the only player, and the only person whose opinion counts right now, so if anyone out there wishes to toss their two cents in, I recommend it either be directed to him, or held until we complete all ten items. Personally, though, I suggest that anyone who might want to offer assistance to him wait for him to state for himself whether or not he wishes to receive unsolicited advice, before flooding him with messages out of the blue.
Cordially,
IP: Logged
|
|
Micah Sparacio
Member
Member # 6
|
posted 14. January 2004 16:05
This sounds cool. However, I think some rules are in order to keep it fun.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 15. January 2004 20:48
FRDiamond writes,
quote:
Briefly, I post ten pictures of my choosing. Diamond, as the player, judges whether or not those objects are designed or not, according to Dembski's design inference. I post the pictures one at a time, he posts his verdict, and then his rationale behind each verdict. He is free to solicit advice or assistance from any source he sees fit - the only information that is off-limits is historical knowledge of whether a thing is designed or not. Using the same example from the previous thread, he cannot reason that a car is designed by using the fact that he once visited a car factory, or because he happens to know someone who designs cars - each object must be evaluated strictly on its own merits, by examining its inherent properties and qualities. Aside from that, he can use any method of analysis he likes. And at the end, we'll discuss the cases more fully.
I think the idea for this game is flawed in some important ways, and that the flaws in the game mirror some of the flaws in Dembski’s theory (or at least some of the undeveloped and critiqued ideas that Dembski has not, in my opinion, satisfactorily responded to.)
I also realize that the objections I am about to bring up are ones I have brought up before - one reason I don’t participate much here anymore (and this may be true for others) is that what seem to me like clearcut issues that need to be addressed aren’t.
But anyway, here are my thoughts:
Diamond say that all historical knowledge is off limits - “each object must be evaluated strictly on its own merits, by examining its inherent properties and qualities.” This criteria therefore assumes that a designed object has qualities that exist at a moment in time irrespective of how that object came to have those qualities.
And yet Dembski’s design inference is not about properties - it is about history: his Explanatory Filter says that if a combination of chance and natural law (which operate over time) can not explain how something came into being (within very small limits of probability), then we can conclude that it is designed.
So Diamond’s rules of the game are not compatible with the design inference, because his rules exclude exactly the type of knowledge necessary to exclude chance and law, which is the only way to conclude design.
Although I don’t know what kind of pictures Diamond might post, I imagine that another problem is likely to arise: that being that question of who the designer might be, because our intuitive judgments of what is designed are inevitably colored by our background knowledge of the only kind of designer we know - human beings (and lower animals to some extent, perhaps.)
So perhaps Diamond needs not so much to clarify the rules of the game as to clarify the concepts: what is his understanding of how the design inference would allow one to conclude design based solely upon the properties of something without any knowledge of its history and without any preconceptions of the nature and qualities of the designer(s).
IP: Logged
|
|
FRDiamond
Member
Member # 1072
|
posted 16. January 2004 10:24
Evan,
Thank you for your response. I have consulted with general_re, the originator of the game, and I have his response to your points:
(Let me preface his remarks by saying that I believe that by historical information about a particular object, general_re is referring to direct knowledge of how that object came into being, not to side knowledge about such things as mathematics or chemistry, or any other type of knowledge that might be useful in applying the explanatory filter.)
quote:
Perhaps I should clarify what I mean by historical
knowledge and historical context - I simply mean one's background knowledge of
that *particular* object. The game was designed as an exploration of the
explanatory filter - if I post a picture of, say, a frying pan, one could
certainly look at it and say "ah, ha - that's a frying pan, frying pans are
known to be made by intelligent agents - namely, humans - and therefore this
object is designed." All well and good, but it doesn't make use of Dembski's
tools in arriving at that conclusion, as undoubtedly correct as it is. So,
although it sounds as though it might prove to be difficult as a practical
matter, I think it is necessary to set aside one's background knowledge of such
objects, and treat each one as a new and novel thing, with which one has no
first- or secondhand experience or knowledge of.
Now, that being said,
the whole point is to infer design - if, in the process of so applying the
filter, one draws inferences about the background and history of the object
*not* based on one's knowledge of the particular thing's particular priors, that
seems reasonable to me. For instance, in the case of the aforementioned frying
pan, one could certainly infer that its composition and structure suggest that
it is unlikely to be the product of, say, erosion - in such a case, you would
clearly be drawing inferences about the history and background of the object.
But what should in all cases be avoided is short-circuiting the filter by simply
saying to oneself "everybody already knows that frying pans are designed" - that
defeats the purpose of the game. And so in order to ensure that the filter
itself is the thing being tested - and not simply one's knowledge of the sorts
of things that humans make - requiring the application of the filter seems
reasonable enough.
The other point that needs addressing is the idea
of whether the nature of the designer colors one's judgement of such things,
given that we only have actual knowledge of one sort of designer. That may be
so. If so, it is obviously a handicap inherent in the filter itself. However, as
I recall, Dembski says that while one *may* take the conclusions of the filter
and the qualities of the object, and *then* infer from that some or all of the
qualities of the putative designer, one is not required to know anything about
the designer *in advance* in order to successfully/productively apply the
filter. Given that, that's the other reason that certain sorts of historical
knowledge were ruled out of bounds - you're not supposed to *need* to a priori
know anything about the designer to infer design.
It is difficult to see
how it could be any other way, actually - even if we agree that certain
biological structures are designed (by non-human agents), discussions of the
qualities of the designer or designers are A) speculative, and; B) likely to be
rather tendentious. If you deduce that an object was designed based on what you
*think* you know about the designer, your deduction can only be as good as what
you *actually* know about the designer. Many people have presented speculations
about who or what the designer might be - others have speculated that ID theory
is merely a stalking horse for one particular sort of designer, of course -
but in all cases, such speculations are inherently non-scientific by virtue of
the fact that they are neither testable nor falsifiable.
In truth,
though, the points about historical knowledge and the qualities of the designer
turn out to be moot, for the most part - the bulk of the objects selected for
this initial round were not what we might call "obviously" or "trivially"
designed by human agents, and so the players had little choice but to operate
via the filter, as background knowledge of the "frying pans are made by humans"
sort wasn't really available. At least, that was the idea.
I'm still
interested in running another round. Since the first round, some ideas about how
to successfully attack the filter have occurred to me, or been proposed by those
who made suggestions for the first round. I believe that it is possible to
select a set of artifacts which more adequately explore the filter than those
presented the first time around.
best,
g_r
Cordially,
IP: Logged
|
|
Evan
Member
Member # 164
|
posted 16. January 2004 11:11
On the one hand, I appreciate the comments made (although I think they still miss the big issue,) but I also find it not particularly useful, or at least odd, to be having a conversation with someone by proxy, so to speak. However I think the response is thoughtful and worth replying to - I'll try to find time tonight.
Thanks.
IP: Logged
|
|
FRDiamond
Member
Member # 1072
|
posted 16. January 2004 12:31
Yes, Evan, I agree that it is odd to be having a conversation by proxy, but I am simply trying to be an honest broker. You see, general_re is on your side of the divide, while I am a design proponent. What I seek here is a design inference champion more knowledgeable than I who will play here the Design Inference game that I did. I can only hope that in an otherwise un-noteworthy life that I am not the the only person in the world willing to take up the challenge. If it keeps up at this glacial rate I'll be a 150 years old before the first picture is posted.:^)
Cordially,
[ 16. January 2004, 12:35: Message edited by: FRDiamond ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Mesk
Member
Member # 630
|
posted 16. January 2004 18:53
Why does the game need a specific player? Why not simply post the pictures gradually, and use them to stimulate a more general discussion about the features which could be used to distinguish design from non-design?
If a "design inference champion" decides to attempt to apply Dembski et al.'s methods to the pictures, so much the better, but the exchange of ideas between participants should be the most important goal. After all, open exchange of ideas between IDists, ID critics and agnostics is the primary reason that this forum exists.
Mesk.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Cre8ionist
Member
Member # 140
|
posted 19. January 2004 08:34
Great thread, proceeding slower than I'd like though. I'm no champion, but, if I could help to move this thread any.... The ball in the picture triggers a design inference by virtue of the complex specified English text it contains. The basketball exhibits the three elements which Dembski claims are essential for inferring design (pg 10 NFL), in Dembskian it might look like this:
1. A reference class of possible events (Any letter of the alphabet could appear at any position);
2. A pattern that restricts the reference class of possible events (here the English language);
3. The precise event has occurred ( here the complex specified English text).
Therefore, it triggers a design inference.
Obviously, if you remove all the text from the ball and re-ask the question you would have much more work to do to infer design...................Cre8
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 19. January 2004 13:59
Creationist proposes
quote:
1. A reference class of possible events (Any letter of the alphabet could appear at any position);
2. A pattern that restricts the reference class of possible events (here the English language);
3. The precise event has occurred ( here the complex specified English text).
Therefore, it triggers a design inference.
Which version of the design inference is Creationist using here?
IP: Logged
|
|
Mesk
Member
Member # 630
|
posted 19. January 2004 17:54
Let me just check the ground rules here: with regard to the first image, are we permitted to include our knowledge of the English language to explore its potential design? Or would it be more fair to examine the object independent of our knowledge of English, i.e. perceive the markings on the object as squiggles, rather than words?
It seems more useful to me to assume that we do not understand the language it is written in, or indeed know that it is a language at all - since this is likely to be the case for any truly mysterious object which we explore for evidence of design.
Working from this perspective, it is vastly more difficult to determine the likelihood of design for Object 1. The object is clearly regular, but this in itself is no indicator of design, and the regularity is quite simple. The markings on the object also show evidence of regularity in terms of overall shape, but their overall complexity is also not great. They may form some sort of code or language, but there is insufficient data to decipher this code - if indeed it exists at all. There is nothing to strongly suggest that these markings are not the product of some unknown regularity, or even pure chance. I submit that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not Object 1 is designed. While I am not well-versed enough to perform a formal analysis, I suspect it would also slip through Dembski's filter without triggering a design inference.
Mesk.
[ 19. January 2004, 18:03: Message edited by: Mesk ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 19. January 2004 19:20
I'm going to take a non-Dembskian approach first. I may come back with the design inference later, but it's hard to do it with pictures.
For the first one, I'll assume I can't read the text, but I know of the idea of text. There may be natural processes that can produce something like this--I really don't know--but the obvious feature is apparently non-functional patterns from a character set placed very cleanly on the object. This is the kind of thing that intelligent beings use as labels--so I would call those labels, and provisionally decide that the object was designed. However, it may also be that the labels accidentally became affixed to the object, in which case the text was designed (in some sense), but the important parts of the construction of this object were not due to design. Even if I knew that this was English, it would be hard to rule out some sort of process whereby ink transferred from a sheet of paper, or there was some sort of dictionary-copying process at work.
The second one may or may not be designed--there is too little information to really tell here, either. It is regular, with small flaws, which could be a result of some regular physical process, or some regularized design process. (It looks like a snowflake, or like a beach umbrella viewed from above, for example.) If we knew that it was, say, 0.7mm across, then I would opt for natural, simply because it is too difficult for known designers to make things that small for no apparent reason.
IP: Logged
|
|
Cre8ionist
Member
Member # 140
|
posted 19. January 2004 20:30
It is my understanding, and feel free to correct me where I'm wrong, that the marker Dembski's filter weeds out is specified complexity.
Dembski says an object/event must be contingent, complex and specified to trigger a design inference using the EF, however, if you've exited the filter and aren't left with specified complexity you are unable to state, using the EF, if an object/event is designed or not. Dembski explains this latter point:
quote:
And this brings us to the problem of false positives. Even though the Explanatory Filter is not a reliable criterion for eliminating
design, it is, I argue, a reliable criterion for detecting design. The Explanatory Filter is a net. Things that are designed will
occasionally slip past the net. We would prefer that the net catch more than it does, omitting nothing due to design. But given
the ability of design to mimic unintelligent causes and the possibility of our own ignorance passing over things that are designed,
this problem cannot be fixed. Nevertheless, we want to be very sure that whatever the net does catch includes only what we
intend it to catch, to wit, things that are designed.
Italics mine.
So let's say a picture with an object resembling an arrowhead is displayed (I have no knowledge of what pictures may be in store for us here). Designed? Maybe, maybe not.
I don't believe the filter is up to making that kind of a determination, or perhaps it is better to say, our ability to run such an object through the filter accurately is questionable at this time.
Therefore, the object in picture two could be designed, but without some accurate way of measuring it's complexity etc... I don't see the EF as rendering a conclusive result. Again, this wouldn't mean it isn't designed, it simply means that there's not enough info to gain a positive result from the filter.
I need again to point out, I'm no champion, this is simply my understanding of the applicability of the EF as described by Dembski to objects/events.
BTW, Pim, I believe that there is only one accepted EF, the so-called "extensions" have, to my knowledge" been rejected by Dembski. Again, if you can correct me here, I would appreciate it......Cre8
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic