Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Importance of Potentially Disconfirming Evidence
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 182 (116039)
06-17-2004 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by nator
06-17-2004 10:11 AM


Re: JM spews raw nonsense
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can NOT stop an inference by what may be found out in the future. The future may also confirm ID. ID is inferred by what we know NOW. IOW ID is based on our current state of knowledge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
No, it seems to me that you are basing ID on our currrent LACK of knowledge of a naturalistic explanation for certain systems.
John Paul:
That is wrong. ID is based on what we do know, not on what we don't know.
schraf:
How can you tell the difference between an ID system and a natural system we will never understand because we do not have the intelligence to understand it?
John Paul:
The same way archaeologists, anthropologists and other researchers tell the difference now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by nator, posted 06-17-2004 10:11 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by NosyNed, posted 06-17-2004 12:27 PM John Paul has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 167 of 182 (116047)
06-17-2004 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by John Paul
06-17-2004 12:06 PM


The Difference
The same way archaeologists, anthropologists and other researchers tell the difference now.
And how do they do that?
And how does that apply to living things?
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-17-2004 11:30 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 12:06 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 12:58 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 182 (116057)
06-17-2004 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by NosyNed
06-17-2004 12:27 PM


Re: The Difference
NN:
And how do they do that?
John Paul:
They follow a process designed to help them make that determination. The process is very similar to the design explanatory filter.
NN:
And how does that apply to living things?
John Paul:
Why wouldn't it? What stops the design inference at the border between living and non-living?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by NosyNed, posted 06-17-2004 12:27 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Percy, posted 06-17-2004 2:06 PM John Paul has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 169 of 182 (116058)
06-17-2004 1:00 PM


Has anyone posted the design explanatory filter?
If so, could it be referenced for us dummies?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by MrHambre, posted 06-17-2004 1:19 PM jar has not replied
 Message 171 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 1:29 PM jar has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 170 of 182 (116067)
06-17-2004 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by jar
06-17-2004 1:00 PM


Jar,
I went through Dembski's design filter here, and I'll reprint what I said:
Dembski's explanatory filter (as outlined in The Design Inference and elsewhere) is the procedure through which we're supposed to be able to determine whether an 'artifact' is the product of intelligent design.
First, according to Dembski, we're supposed to gauge the probability that this phenomenon was the product of chance alone. Then we assess the probability that the phenomenon is the result of physical laws or natural mechanisms. If it cannot be determined to be the result of 'chance' or 'necessity,' we are led to the conclusion of design, meaning intelligent agency.
However, why is design the default? Shouldn't the probability that the phenomenon is the direct product of intelligent agency be assessed independently, just like chance and necessity? It only looks like Dembski is trying to make it harder to conclude design by assessing the other possibilities first; in fact he's ensuring that by the time we make it to step three, no probability for design need be assigned.
In addition, the second step of the explanatory filter assumes that we know all the natural forces or mechanisms that could conceivably exist. Historically, it's plain to see that with scientific progress comes a better understanding of the power of natural mechanisms. It certainly does depend on our ignorance of possible natural mechanisms to assume that no such mechanisms exist or will ever be discovered and understood.
Lastly, there is no reason to exclude the possibility that a combination of chance and natural mechanisms could give rise to a certain phenomenon. This is exactly what Darwinism claims is responsible for the diversity of life on Earth: time, chance mutation, and the deterministic process of cumulative natural selection. It seems Dembski wants people to think that no such combination of forces exists, and it may be in his best interests if they believe him.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by jar, posted 06-17-2004 1:00 PM jar has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 182 (116072)
06-17-2004 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by jar
06-17-2004 1:00 PM


DEF
jar, the DEF is a flow chart. The first block asks if the event has a high probability of occuring. If it does we attribute the event to regularity/ law. The second block, if the event does not have a high prob., asks if E can occur by chance. If no then E proceeds to block 3 where two questions are asked. Does E have a small probability of occurring AND is E specified? If yes we attribute/ infer E was designed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by jar, posted 06-17-2004 1:00 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by bob_gray, posted 06-17-2004 1:34 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 174 by Percy, posted 06-17-2004 2:13 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 177 by jar, posted 06-17-2004 3:14 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 178 by Loudmouth, posted 06-17-2004 5:41 PM John Paul has not replied

  
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 172 of 182 (116073)
06-17-2004 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by John Paul
06-17-2004 1:29 PM


Re: DEF
If no then E proceeds to block 3 where two questions are asked. Does E have a small probability of occurring AND is E specified? If yes we attribute/ infer E was designed.
What happens if the answer is "NO" to one or both of the questions asked in block 3?
added by edit:
Also, can you quantify the words "small" and "high" as they apply to probability? Is there some sort of break point where it changes or is it an inferred assessment?
This message has been edited by bob_gray98, 06-17-2004 12:39 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 1:29 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by JonF, posted 06-17-2004 2:19 PM bob_gray has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 173 of 182 (116084)
06-17-2004 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by John Paul
06-17-2004 12:58 PM


Re: The Difference
John Paul writes:
They follow a process designed to help them make that determination. The process is very similar to the design explanatory filter.
Archaeologists and anthropologists are not looking for evidence of design, but for evidence of being man-made. There is a big difference. Your various criteria, such as specified complexity and irreducible complexity and so forth are not tools of these fields. That practitioners in these fields aren't bigtime IDists also speaks against your point. Whatever evidence of ID you think you are seeing out there, it certainly doesn't resemble anything man-made.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 12:58 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 174 of 182 (116085)
06-17-2004 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by John Paul
06-17-2004 1:29 PM


Re: DEF
John Paul writes:
jar, the DEF is a flow chart. The first block asks if the event has a high probability of occuring. If it does we attribute the event to regularity/ law. The second block, if the event does not have a high prob., asks if E can occur by chance. If no then E proceeds to block 3 where two questions are asked. Does E have a small probability of occurring AND is E specified? If yes we attribute/ infer E was designed.
This clarifies further that this isn't a process followed by archaeologists and anthropologists, and certainly not by practicing scientists. It is notable for its lack of objective criteria, and it strongly exhibits a subjective Beyesianism quality.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 1:29 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by PaulK, posted 06-17-2004 2:41 PM Percy has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 175 of 182 (116087)
06-17-2004 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by bob_gray
06-17-2004 1:34 PM


Re: DEF
Also, can you quantify the words "small" and "high" as they apply to probability?
ID people typically use an arbitrarily chosen "Universal Probability Bound", such as 1 in 10150. (Note that the 1 in 1050 number attributed to Borel is a "rule of thumb", not a mathematically established bound, as discussed at Borel's Law and the Origin of Many Creationist Probability Assertions). Since it's easy to demonstrate that events which are more improbable than that do happen, or that events that are more improbable than any finite number you care to pick do happen, the probability should depend on the situation ...
Note also that steps 1 and 2 cannot be accurately carried out unless we know all possible ways in which the item under investigation could have arisen. Since we certainly don't know that, or even an approximation to that, for any item of practical interest, the EF is at best an academic toy (and there's good reason to believe it's not even that).
The only attempt (of which I'm aware) to apply the EF to a biological system was by Dembski in "No Free Lunch", in which he calculated the probability of the bacterial flagellum arising from random assembling of proteins, and concluded that it couldn't have happened that way. Well, duh! He then, of course, concluded that it arose by intelligent design, illustrating a major problem with the EF; if we don't have enough knowledge to make an accurate calculation but calculate anyway, the "conclusion" of ID may be in error (a false positive) and may be overturned in the future when more knowledge is available. This is all discussed in much more detail at Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates. There's also some recent criticism of the EF at Wrongly Inferred Design. Other interesting articles are The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance and Information Theory, Evolutionary Computation, and Dembski's "Complex Specified Information".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by bob_gray, posted 06-17-2004 1:34 PM bob_gray has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 176 of 182 (116090)
06-17-2004 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Percy
06-17-2004 2:13 PM


Re: DEF
It isn't followed by the IDists either. The only attempt I know of to apply it to a real biological problem was Dembski's go at a bacterial flagellum. And he made a right mess of that.
As I said fairly recently here:
Nobody uses the formal version of the EF for serious problems because it is too impractical. You've got to be certain you've accounted for EVERY posssible explanation AND show that the probability of each of them is below your probability bound.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Percy, posted 06-17-2004 2:13 PM Percy has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 177 of 182 (116095)
06-17-2004 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by John Paul
06-17-2004 1:29 PM


Re: DEF
I can see how that might be applied to future predictions, but it seems to me to fall apart with anything that already exists,
First, the probability of something occuring is totally unimportant if it happened. It happened.
Second, speaking of probabilities of something occuring is silly unless you also include large numbers of both solutions and time. The odds against winning a lottery might seem high to those who have only one ticket. Those of us with all the tickets do not find it remarkable.
In addition, buying all the tickets for every lottery makes it pretty easy to beat the odds fairly regularly.
Based on that definition I'd say ID is a crock and certainly not something worth wasting any further time on.
Thank you sir.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 1:29 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 182 (116152)
06-17-2004 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by John Paul
06-17-2004 1:29 PM


Re: DEF
quote:
The first block asks if the event has a high probability of occuring. If it does we attribute the event to regularity/ law.
  —John Paul
And in measuring the probability, you must include mechanisms that could cause the event other than chance. Within biological systems, this includes evolutionary mechanisms. On top of that, all possible mechanisms other than evolution have to be considered (ie unknown mechanisms). Therefore, evolution must be shown to be incapable of creating the "event" AND all other possible effects have to be considered before design can ever be considered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by John Paul, posted 06-17-2004 1:29 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Reina
Inactive Member


Message 179 of 182 (120158)
06-29-2004 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MrHambre
05-03-2004 11:07 AM


Excuse Me, But ...
Quite a few scientists are changing their minds about evolution, simply because there are, indeed, myriads of "complex organs"..."which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications," which have convinced such notable former-evolutionists such as William Dembski, Scott Minnich, and Dean Kenyon that the probabilities are simply too infinitesimally small to be considered scientifically possible. There are MANY more!
Just look for the amazing results of studying the little "out-board motor" of the paramecia flagellum. You have an amazing mind, if you believe that chance and circumstance could bring this about, without any creator or designer. But each must place his faith in something or Someone, and you are as free as anyone to make up your own mind.
Look for the video, "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life", and take a nice, long drink of real research in detail.
I propose: it takes greater faith to believe that Chance and Spontaneous Creation could design this awesome universe, than it requires to believe that an Eternal, All-powerful Creator did it, with the simple power of His Word.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MrHambre, posted 05-03-2004 11:07 AM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Percy, posted 06-29-2004 10:28 PM Reina has not replied
 Message 181 by Loudmouth, posted 06-30-2004 1:36 AM Reina has not replied
 Message 182 by contracycle, posted 07-01-2004 8:44 AM Reina has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 180 of 182 (120172)
06-29-2004 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Reina
06-29-2004 9:26 PM


Re: Excuse Me, But ...
Reina writes:
Quite a few scientists are changing their minds about evolution...
Creationists have been touting this sea change in scientific opinion for well over half a century now. Were it actually taking place, the scientific consensus would long ago have begun endorsing Creationism.
I propose: it takes greater faith to believe that Chance and Spontaneous Creation could design this awesome universe, than it requires to believe that an Eternal, All-powerful Creator did it, with the simple power of His Word.
Science means basing conclusions upon evidence. Believing in an "Eternal, All-powerful Creator" as a matter of faith is fine, but before you can call it science you must have evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Reina, posted 06-29-2004 9:26 PM Reina has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024