Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Stonehenge and ID
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 77 of 95 (5465)
02-25-2002 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by John Paul
01-28-2002 7:50 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Dembski derived the Design Explanatory Filter:
start with an event- E
Does E have a High Probability of occurring?
if yes it is attributed to regularity.
If No, we ask does E have an intermediate probability of occurring?
if Yes we can attribute it to chance.
If No we ask does E have a Small Probability of occurring AND is it specified?
If Yes we attribute it to Design.
if No we attribute it to chance.

I agree with joz - let's get this topic back up to the top of the list. It has always struck me that Dembski's work has serious formal and informal flaws.
One of the most interesting informal flaws is that his intuitively persuasive examples rely on additional, but unstated, information for their persuasive power.
JP infers from an ordered grid of 100 x 100 pine trees that their disposition is the result of design. But the inference here inlcudes additional premises from our knowledge of how trees naturally dispose themselves.
The much quoted "filter" also has an informal flaw (in addition to its formal failings) which you can think of as follows:
All designed objects exhibit features of regularity, because the process of design is that of manipulating regularity - the engineer works with the "regular" properties of metals.
The issue is how we decide between the two positions - design and regularity. The chance hypothesis and it's position in the filter, is, I suspect, a red herring in Dembski's argument - a way of biasing the reader towards a design hypothesis because intuitively they will skip over the chance hypothesis.
The thought that regularity may have occured by chance is egregious, even though there are circumstances in which it will occur. For example, a colleague won some money on the national lottery: the winning numbers were based on her families birthdays and the modest amount won was exactly enough to pay for the repairs needed to her car. Intuitively, she felt this outcome to be "designed": in her case "fated" in some way. And indeed many would be intuitively persuaded by this example.
The jump from regularity to design is therefore made easier - the extra step "feels" like we are adding an additional valuable judgement and therefore our conclusion is somehow more vindicated.
Dembski could eliminate chance as the first step of the filter by detecting any regularity in the object of vanishingly small probability - though the formal difficulty of justifying this inference would remain. Instead he segues the reader into accepting a design hypothesis. (From my reading of his books, I do not believe this is deliberate on Dembski's part - he has perhaps been seduced himself by intuitive comfort the move provides.)
If chance is eliminated first, the remaining options of designed and undesigned regularity are now to be distinguished - but the probability to be considered is no longer "did this occur by pure chance?" but "did this occur by an accumulation of regularities?" Regularity has already been observed in the object - which is why chance was eliminated - subsequently the probability of its state being the result of accumulated regularities is many orders of magnitutude greater.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by John Paul, posted 01-28-2002 7:50 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 78 of 95 (5519)
02-26-2002 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by John Paul
01-29-2002 4:08 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
[B]
quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
Dembski derived the Design Explanatory Filter:
start with an event- E
Does E have a High Probability of occurring?
if yes it is attributed to regularity.
If No, we ask does E have an intermediate probability of occurring?
if Yes we can attribute it to chance.
If No we ask does E have a Small Probability of occurring AND is it specified?
If Yes we attribute it to Design.
if No we attribute it to chance.
It seems to me that Demski's filter (apart from being based upon
value judgements) is about differentiating between design and
chance ... in the context of this forum, the only occurance
that could be attributable to chance is the original formation
of the chemicals on which life are based.
Maybe that's all we're talking about here.
You can't use this to infer design in a frog (I like frogs BTW
)
because a frog is NOT formed by chance. It comes from pre-existing
frogs, and frog ancestors.
Once life took hold, chance is removed (except in the sense of
chance changes to the environment sparking natural selection).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by John Paul, posted 01-29-2002 4:08 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by toff, posted 02-26-2002 7:13 AM Peter has not replied

  
toff
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 95 (5522)
02-26-2002 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Peter
02-26-2002 6:40 AM


[b] [QUOTE] Dembski derived the Design Explanatory Filter:
start with an event- E
Does E have a High Probability of occurring?
if yes it is attributed to regularity.
If No, we ask does E have an intermediate probability of occurring?
if Yes we can attribute it to chance.
If No we ask does E have a Small Probability of occurring AND is it specified?
If Yes we attribute it to Design.
if No we attribute it to chance.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Surely it is obvious to anyone who studies this filter that it is completely arbitrary and establishes nothing. Vastly improbable events happen all the time - do they all need a designer? It's vastly improbable that I will win the lottery - but somebody wins it every time it's drawn. To say "it's improbable, but it occurred, so it must have been designed" is ludicrous.
And to hark back to the earlier Stonehenge argument...we can look at Stonehenge and infer design because we can look elsewhere and see what the 'natural' (ie., undesigned) state of rocks like that is. They don't form structures like Stonehenge without ID. The same cannot be said for any examination of life. We have nowhere to look that is similar to the earth, but has no life and say "See? WithOUT design, no life forms. But life formed here...so it must have been designed." The Stonehenge analogy is flawed if for no other reason. If we one day discover a hundred other planets with everything very like earth, but no life, it might become reasonable to claim ID in the life on earth. Until then, it's purely wishful thinking, since you have no basis at all to say that life could not have arisen by chance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Peter, posted 02-26-2002 6:40 AM Peter has not replied

  
Weyland
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 95 (5524)
02-26-2002 7:30 AM


Here's a little question. If the EF can distinguish between natural design, could you explain to me how it would distinguish between the following objects:
1) Giants Causeway:
http://www.malcomson.com/photos/ireland/images/giants.jpg
http://www.science.ulst.ac.uk/ics2002/steps.jpg
2) Honeycomb
http://www.mutrux.com/bk24T.jpg
3) Hexagonal Tiles
http://www.annsacks.com/assets/images/ terraCotta_about.jpg
For a bonus mark, how would you use the EF to distinguish between stonehenge (a group of rough but regularly shaped stones standing in a regular formation) from the giants causeway (a group of rough but regularly shaped stones standing in a regular formation)
Please pay particular emphasis to how you would make this distinction if the Victorians had not spent so much time and effort putting the lintel stones back across the uprights - ie the henge consisted of some freestanding pillars and some fallen stones.

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by joz, posted 02-26-2002 9:50 AM Weyland has not replied
 Message 82 by Caerbannog, posted 02-26-2002 10:27 AM Weyland has not replied
 Message 83 by John Paul, posted 02-26-2002 6:53 PM Weyland has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 95 (5538)
02-26-2002 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Weyland
02-26-2002 7:30 AM


Also as pointed out (by me) in post 22 of this thread the giants causeway (and Bedruthan steps) has a mythology of designed creation associated with it.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Weyland, posted 02-26-2002 7:30 AM Weyland has not replied

  
Caerbannog
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 95 (5540)
02-26-2002 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Weyland
02-26-2002 7:30 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Weyland:
.....
For a bonus mark, how would you use the EF to distinguish between stonehenge (a group of rough but regularly shaped stones standing in a regular formation) from the giants causeway (a group of rough but regularly shaped stones standing in a regular formation)
Please pay particular emphasis to how you would make this distinction if the Victorians had not spent so much time and effort putting the lintel stones back across the uprights - ie the henge consisted of some freestanding pillars and some fallen stones.
[/B][/QUOTE]
If John Paul responds to this, his response will certainly
consist of nothing but a bunch of content-free huffing and puffing.
Hopefully, JP's huffing and puffing will be at least a little bit entertaining....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Weyland, posted 02-26-2002 7:30 AM Weyland has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 95 (5597)
02-26-2002 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Weyland
02-26-2002 7:30 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Weyland:
Here's a little question. If the EF can distinguish between natural design, could you explain to me how it would distinguish between the following objects:
1) Giants Causeway:
http://www.malcomson.com/photos/ireland/images/giants.jpg
http://www.science.ulst.ac.uk/ics2002/steps.jpg
2) Honeycomb
http://www.mutrux.com/bk24T.jpg
3) Hexagonal Tiles
http://www.annsacks.com/assets/images/ terraCotta_about.jpg
For a bonus mark, how would you use the EF to distinguish between stonehenge (a group of rough but regularly shaped stones standing in a regular formation) from the giants causeway (a group of rough but regularly shaped stones standing in a regular formation)
Please pay particular emphasis to how you would make this distinction if the Victorians had not spent so much time and effort putting the lintel stones back across the uprights - ie the henge consisted of some freestanding pillars and some fallen stones.

John Paul:
1) Giants Causeway- 1st box of the EF- does this formation have a high probabilty of occurance? We have never observed such a thing but we do have computer simulations that say this is a natural consequence of cooling lava. But the similation is tainted by man's touch. We should not attribute this formation to regularity.
Next box- does this formation have an intermediate chance of occurring? Again it has never been directly observed and for some reason our minds can't fathom it was built by man and we won't accept giants, so on to box 3.
Box 3- does this formation have a small probability of occurring? Yes it does. Is it specified? Not as much as Mt. Rushmore is specified to us, but that doesn't mean someone didn't design it.
In this case you would need more data. Look for signs of counterflow and any volcanic activity that is or was in the area. Data confirming specificity would mean design.
Our mind correlates to the hexagonal shape, but not to the feat it would take to design and build such a thing.
2) the honeycomb- well we see insects building those. Case closed.
3) terra cotta- again, very similar to #1. More information would be required. Photos are not the best way to conduct an investigation.
Extra credit- the stones themselves (at stonehenge) suggest something other than a natural formation. There isn't stone like that for miles (or is it kilometers?). That would be the telling difference. Then you need to do some investigation and put that data with the event.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Weyland, posted 02-26-2002 7:30 AM Weyland has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-26-2002 7:01 PM John Paul has replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 84 of 95 (5600)
02-26-2002 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by John Paul
02-26-2002 6:53 PM


I'm glad to see you have also taken to rubbishing the so-called filter. It's good to see you doing so so effectively.
quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
Next box- does this formation have an intermediate chance of occurring? Again it has never been directly observed and for some reason our minds can't fathom it was built by man and we won't accept giants, so on to box 3.

I wish creationists would follow your example. Presumably if we can't fathom it was designed and we won't accept a designer we can just skip the design step?
Pretty cool, though. Used this way, the filter works!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by John Paul, posted 02-26-2002 6:53 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by John Paul, posted 02-26-2002 8:54 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 95 (5610)
02-26-2002 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Mister Pamboli
02-26-2002 7:01 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
I'm glad to see you have also taken to rubbishing the so-called filter. It's good to see you doing so so effectively.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
Next box- does this formation have an intermediate chance of occurring? Again it has never been directly observed and for some reason our minds can't fathom it was built by man and we won't accept giants, so on to box 3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wish creationists would follow your example. Presumably if we can't fathom it was designed and we won't accept a designer we can just skip the design step?
Pretty cool, though. Used this way, the filter works!

John Paul:
In reality I was cutting out the chase and getting TO the DESIGN box. Read it again. The "Next box" I am refering to is none other than box #2 (we usually assume 2 would follow 1, especially in this context). Design is saved for box 3, which, in this context, is after 2, which we determined I was referring in the above quote box.
Once in box 3 (the design box), we make the determination of design, not by photos, but by actual data gathering using all means possible. I am sure I said it does exhibit some extent of mind correlation, and until shown evidence to the contrary, I could see how the design inference could be made. Honestly, my inability to accept that giants built these structures would lead me to seek the evidence so that I may ascertain the truth. And with the evidence at hand, the design filter would start me on my way.
If this formation was found all over the world and observed occurring, the filter may just the inquiry stop at box 1- ruling out design altogether. Truthfully reading his book The Design Inference would do his filter more justice than I am.
He (and others) have some pretty interesting articles and posts that may help shed some light on this :
International Society of Complexity, Information and Design
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-26-2002 7:01 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by joz, posted 02-26-2002 11:40 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 87 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-27-2002 12:13 AM John Paul has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 95 (5627)
02-26-2002 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by John Paul
02-26-2002 8:54 PM


Humour me and apply the filter to DNA will you....
I know (don`t ask me how I just have this feeling) your going to get to step three and exclaim design, what I`m really intrested in is where you eliminate the possibility of chance changes WITH a selection mechanism.....
Because untill the filter acounts for selection it really can`t be applied as a critique of evolution, can it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by John Paul, posted 02-26-2002 8:54 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Caerbannog, posted 02-27-2002 12:15 AM joz has not replied
 Message 89 by John Paul, posted 02-27-2002 7:25 PM joz has replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 87 of 95 (5629)
02-27-2002 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by John Paul
02-26-2002 8:54 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
[b] John Paul:
In reality I was cutting out the chase and getting TO the DESIGN box. Read it again.[/QUOTE]
Ok - here goes ...
quote:
Again it has never been directly observed and for some reason our minds can't fathom it was built by man and we won't accept giants, so on to box 3.
Well, to paraphrase Ms Spears - Oops! You did it again. The whole point of the design inference is that the nature of the designer doesn't matter. It's supposed to be an entirely objective method of deciding if something has been designed without regard to the nature of the designer. You can't just say "our minds can't fathom it was built by man and we won't accept giants" without destroying the purpose of the filter.
[QUOTE][b]Honestly, my inability to accept that giants built these structures would lead me to seek the evidence so that I may ascertain the truth.[/QUOTE]
[/b]Good.
[QUOTE][b]Truthfully reading his book The Design Inference would do his filter more justice than I am.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
I read it - and some of his other stuff, and some of his articles and articles by others. I even sat through a dire video by Behe. And I took the time to check Dembski's symbolic logic, and I loaned my copy to my old Logic tutor from Uni - and we both found it hopelessly misguided.
You see, I'm interested in how we infer design, because one of my abiding interests is in the early writing and languages of man and often we have to try to understand whether marks on artifacts are deliberate or accidental, and if regular whether they are intended to be reegular by design or are the result of a process which gives rise to regularity, and whether they have meaning or are purley decorative. Unfortunately, Dembski's filter fails to help in cases where we don't have additional clues to contextualise our inferences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by John Paul, posted 02-26-2002 8:54 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Caerbannog
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 95 (5631)
02-27-2002 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by joz
02-26-2002 11:40 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
Humour me and apply the filter to DNA will you....
I know (don`t ask me how I just have this feeling) your going to get to step three and exclaim design, what I`m really intrested in is where you eliminate the possibility of chance changes WITH a selection mechanism.....
Because untill the filter acounts for selection it really can`t be applied as a critique of evolution, can it!

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'd like to point out once again that DNA sequence data for a number of organisms are available at http://www.tigr.org/tdb . There's plenty of data there for use with entropy/information/"specified complexity" computational exercises. Unfortunately, however, creationists seem to have a pronounced aversion to the notion of testing their "theories" with this sort of real-world data, so I doubt that we'll see them do anything with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by joz, posted 02-26-2002 11:40 PM joz has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 95 (5735)
02-27-2002 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by joz
02-26-2002 11:40 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
Humour me and apply the filter to DNA will you....
I know (don`t ask me how I just have this feeling) your going to get to step three and exclaim design, what I`m really intrested in is where you eliminate the possibility of chance changes WITH a selection mechanism.....
Because untill the filter acounts for selection it really can`t be applied as a critique of evolution, can it!

John Paul:
OK DNA enters box #1. Does DNA have a high probabilty of originating via purely natural processes? We have never observed DNA do this. That doesn't mean it can't happen but it just doesn't happen regularly. On to box #2.
Does DNA have an intermediate probability of origination via purely natural processes? Again DNA has never been observed originating via purely natural processes. Even if we put all the amino acids we know are in living organisms into a flask, DNA does not form. On to box # 3
Does DNA have a small probability of originating by purely natural processes? For discussion sake we will say Yes. Is DNA specified? Yes, unless it is shown that any DNA sequence would give rise to a living organism.
We could then run with that premise or set out to falsify it.
CSI (complex specified information) is the hallmark of the design inference and ever since Darwin's black box has been opened it can no longer be ignored.
DNA doesn't replicate so well outside of a cell. And even then it is in the protection of a lab environment.
As Mr. P pointed out there are more factors that go into determining design, especially when the object of study does not exhibit specified complexity.
------------------
John Paul

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by joz, posted 02-26-2002 11:40 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Mister Pamboli, posted 02-27-2002 9:18 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 91 by joz, posted 02-27-2002 9:34 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 93 by joz, posted 02-28-2002 8:50 AM John Paul has not replied
 Message 95 by Peter, posted 03-14-2002 9:52 AM John Paul has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 90 of 95 (5744)
02-27-2002 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by John Paul
02-27-2002 7:25 PM


quote:
OK DNA enters box #1. Does DNA have a high probabilty of originating via purely natural processes?We have never observed DNA do this.
Just because we haven't observed it doesn't mean there is not a high probability it occurs. Certain species of whales have never been observed breeding or giving birth - but it seems very probable indeed that they do, wouldn't you agree? Very poor logic.
quote:
That doesn't mean it can't happen but it just doesn't happen regularly. On to box #2.
I hope you're not confusing two meanings of "regular"? Happening frequently v conforming to rules or laws. Looks like you are. Rather twists the application of the filter, don't you think? There are of course other meanings, too - or perhaps you think the "regular army" is a body of soldiers with notably healthy bowels?
Don't worry, you're in good company with this linguistic technique. Dembski flits from one meaning of "information" to another as it suits him, too.[b] [QUOTE]Does DNA have an intermediate probability of origination via purely natural processes? Again DNA has never been observed originating via purely natural processes.[/b][/QUOTE]
The same logical fallacy again - you must be fond of it.[b] [QUOTE]Even if we put all the amino acids we know are in living organisms into a flask, DNA does not form. On to box # 3[/b][/QUOTE]
How on earth would you expect it to? I agree we do not know the environmental factors required to make DNA form - however, that doesn't mean it is impossible. The calculation of the probability of DNA forming depends entirely on the conditions required for it to form - we do not know what they are, so we cannot even begin to calculate the probability. It may be that, given the right conditions, there is a very high probability indeed that DNA will form. Don't mistake my intention here - I have no interest in DNA or primordial goo or whatever - it is the form of argument and the logic that concerns me. The logic fails.
Your discussion of the third box is confessed speculation, so I'll largely leave it, except for this:
[b] [QUOTE]Is DNA specified? Yes, unless it is shown that any DNA sequence would give rise to a living organism.[/b][/QUOTE]
I don't understand you here at all. I fail to see what any strand giving rise to a living organism has to do with specification. It's like saying that aeroplane blueprints are only specificied if every single one of the planes can fly, or every fragment of a drawing defines a component that can fly.
Let's see if DNA is "specified" in Dembski's flawed use of the term...
Is it "detachable"? Can a pattern in it be recognized? Certainly not "tractably" in the mishmash of junk DNA, orphan genes, fragments, pseudogenes, retroviral sequences etc.
Could one distinguish between DNA being "specified" (in Dembski's sense) and "fabricated" (in Dembski's sense): I cannot see how, but I would be interested in an explanation. [QUOTE]CSI (complex specified information) is the hallmark of the design inference and ever since Darwin's black box has been opened it can no longer be ignored.[/B][/QUOTE]
It is indeed the "Hallmark" of the ID movement - sentimental, unoriginal, but comforting. And worth about 2 bucks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by John Paul, posted 02-27-2002 7:25 PM John Paul has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 95 (5747)
02-27-2002 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by John Paul
02-27-2002 7:25 PM


You seem to be applying the filter to a case where DNA sprung up out of nowhere with no predecessors that isn`t what abiogenesis puts forward and you know it (and if you don`t you should before jumping to conclusions about its feasibility).....
Secondly before the third step of the filter can be applied you need to show that CSI can only be designed and never arrive by a set of laws acting on a set of starting conditions....
[This message has been edited by joz, 02-27-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by John Paul, posted 02-27-2002 7:25 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by mark24, posted 02-28-2002 5:09 AM joz 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