| Subject: heh |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/10/05 6:44pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "And yet you can't find anything baloney with it!" on 04/10/05 12:36pm
\
>
>That's not the only reason. We also believe the
>currents of nature are not reasonably capable of
>producing them. We know ice can be made by people
>too, but we don't always appeal to design to make ice
>because nature can make it too.
People don't exactly "make" ice in the same way they "make" a watch do they? I think you are overly eager to equivocate again.
>
>And note this can carry some problems with organic
>evolution. After all, we have seen human scientists
>make DNA, RNA, AMP etc. from scratch but haven't seen
>nature (outside of the cell of course) do it; instead
>we've got a number of nasty problems for the
>naturalistic scenario.
This, to me, simply highlights the inadequacy of the watch metaphor. "Making" RNA or DNA isn't exactly taking raw materials like springs and coils and making a watch.
>
>William Paley would disagree, and I think Paley would
>be right. Even if our culture had never invented a
>watch and yet one was found in the desert, we would
>almost certainly conclude it was designed (though it
>may have to be opened up and examined to make a
>reasonable conclusion; just as ID theorists do with
>life).
If Paley says so, and you say so, why, it must be. Of course, not everyone is so eager to automatically attribute design to things which lack any reference point.
>
>Among other things, that is sometimes the case yes.
>But then what does that say about some aspects of life
>(remember what I said about abiogenesis)?
It says we make attributions based on our experience. Life is unique in that we have no end points to compare it to.
>
>But we're not talking about life elsewhere, we're
>talking about life on Earth.
If life can start elsewhere in the universe, what would have kept it from coming to Earth?
And even so, we still
>don't have any naturalistic means to overcome
>the known chemical problems and naturally produce life.
So what? Design must be the answer? We STILL don't have an answer to the Riemann hypothesis either, does that mean we need to infer that primes all naturally follow his predicted pattern?
>
>True, but the point is the same. The premise of
>explanatory filter is that event E began to exist
>(which is true by definition) and the inputs are
>correct. You haven’t shown why it can’t give valid
>outputs.
It's because I don't care about it's validity; I care about it's truth. The premises THEMSELVES are too simplistic, and the model is less than complete as a result. So, while it may be logically valid, the premises are garbage.
>
>I don't see how. True, it doesn't calculate the
>inputs per se, but that doesn't imply that
>given correct inputs it's not a valid, rational means
>for detecting design. Again, you still haven't shown
>what's wrong with its validity.
And again, it's because I don't care about its validty. It simply is an incomplete model to mirror reality because it lacks taking into consideration the situation. It claims to be a model people use to think and arrive at conclusions, but it doesn't mirror the reality of thinking as shown by mountains of research in psychology. People do not simply tick through three options with limited recognition of some patterns they happen to like. It's more complicated than that.
>
>What mistake? And what would it have to do with
>psychology?
Oh, I don't know... the explanatory FILTER being a way to make attributions about the nature of something...seems like that MIGHT fall under psychology...seems like that field has been dealing with just such problems for quite some time. What do you gain by playing dumb?
And not academically astute? Are you
>aware that it was Cambridge who published it as
>part of a Cambridge monograph series: Cambridge
>Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision
>Theory? To quote
rel=nofollow target=_blank >href="http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.10.
>Scott_Response.htm">Dembski:
Yep. I'm also aware I'm not the first to level the criticism that Dembski didn't bother having a proper peer review. I really don't care if Cambridge or Oxford published it, the simple fact of the matter is that the model is worthless because it doesn't mimic attributional thinking closely enough to be useful.
>
>The reviewers not being academically astute regarding
>what Dembski was publishing doesn’t strike me as very
>plausible.
I'm sure it doesn't strike YOU as being very plausible, but nonetheless, it strikes me and evidently others as being pretty plausible.
>
>And that is precisely what it does when it
>factors in the probabilities and the specification
>criterion.
The probabilities themselves are incalculable, because the situation leads to inferences which rely on intuition. Hence, it DOESN'T take into account the situation as being the driving force behind the attribution made, specification criterion or no.
And you still haven’t given any reason why
>it can’t legitimately and validly detect design.
I'm sure throwing a dart at a piece of paper with three options can detect design, but I'm not going to be wreckless enough to put it forth as a real model for design detection.
>
>Indirectly you have said so by not pointing out
>anything wrong with the validity of the filter.
Nah, but thanks for playing.
>I may not know the mathematical details, but it seems
>pretty evident here that design is the most likely
>explanation. Would you really believe it happened by
>chance?
The reason you may not know the mathematical details is because design is an INFERENCE. Intuitively you may believe it was designed strongly, but that doesn't make it more PROBABLE that it was because one cannot assign odds to design.
>
>And the magician is factored into the specification
>criterion!
No, the magician isn't as far as I can tell. The pattern of the cards is. The magician, an integral piece of information, is pretty much left out.
>>
>>I don't think it's any MORE OR LESS unlikely, as far
>>as the math goes.
>
>You better check your calculations again. The odds of
>chance choosing that order of the cards are less than
>one in 1067.
Okay. What are the odds that that order was done intentionally? Got any for me? No? That's because it isn't quantifiable. You are comparing apples and oranges.
>
>And that situation is factored into with the
>specification criterion, because it reasonably
>establishes a non-ad hoc pattern.
That doesn't really take into consideration the whole idea that a MAGICIAN is doing it. That just simply looks at the pattern that emerges and says "hmm, this looks non-random to me". The situation shouldn't just be "factored" either. The situation IS the driving force that determines the attribution formed. By way of example, if a non-magician had the same out come, is it still design? What about a person who had NEVER been a magician and never even touched a deck of cards?
Again, you
>haven’t said anything about the explanatory filter
>not being able to legitimately detect design,
>i.e. if the filter selects “design” then design is the
>most likely explanation of the event.
No, that's true, I said it is inadequate as a tool for determining such because it isn't consistent with reality. The model isn't specific enough to do the job. Now, do you want to debate THAT point? Do you want to take the positition that the model represents ACTUAL thinking well enough to be a good determiner of design? On what psychological evidence is this model based that makes it a SOUND model?
Even if it
>wasn’t able to take into account literally every
>factor (which to some extent I think may be true),
>you’ve said nothing about it giving unreasonable
>answers, i.e. nothing about its actual validity.
Well no, I didn't, because I wasn't addressing it's validity, but now that you mention it, the filter fails when it comes to things that are complex that ARE random. For example, if we look at the big picture when it comes to quantum mechanics, we can predict the odds of something happening on the whole. We can say that even within chaos certain patterns exist. How exactly would this filter deal with such an occurence?
>
>As an analogy, many integration estimates don’t take
>in every factor. They can’t. Nonetheless they can
>make a reasonable estimate of the true value.
>Similarly, science is far from perfect, but it can try
>to make reasonable estimates of what the truth is.
>You haven’t shown why the explanatory filter can’t do
>the same.
1) It's an inadequate model in light of modern psychological research.
2) It can't handle certain types of order because it assumes the world fits into three neat sorts of situations.
>
>Except it is not numbers alone: you’ve
>neglected the specification criterion.
The specification criterion DRIVES the numbers in that it gives them meaning based on something fuzzy. It looks designed based on these patterns I've seen around before is supposed to lend creedence to the numbers, but of course what REALLY drives the attribution is not the pattern but the SITUATION itself.
>
>You misunderstand. Supposedly, the filter is
>empirically verified when we detect design.
But it isn't because it isn't the way people form attributions.
>
>On the contrary, it is you who don’t know the
>situation.
Oh!
Now, given the
>scenario that I have actually presented how could
>design not be the most reasonable inference?
Because design has no odds of its own.
You see,
>it isn’t the explanatory filter itself that should be
>disputed; if law and chance are not sufficient for the
>origin of life, then design is indeed the most
>reasonable inference.
INFERENCE!!! That's quite a bit differently than probability, and REASONABLE inferences are an entirely other hornet's nest.
Would you honestly believe
>organic evolution even if you knew it had odds
>of less than one in one trillion?
I'd still consider it more likely than something that could not have odds assigned to it at ALL.
That's sort of like asking would I buy a lottery ticket and try to win or jet myself off into an alternate reality and try to win. One I can assign odds to, the other I cannot.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 