|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Importance of Potentially Disconfirming Evidence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Has anyone posted the design explanatory filter?
If so, could it be referenced for us dummies? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bob_gray Member (Idle past 5014 days) Posts: 243 From: Virginia Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 169 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reina Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024