Introduction to Information

As well as the definition in most common use.Biologists and geneticists may very well have their own definition. But isn't it misleading at best to try to redefine such a loaded word to describe DNA?What's the purpose of saying "DNA has information", if it doesn't really have information in the way that most people understand information?I mean, if I re-defined "kittens" to mean exactly what geneticists mean by "information", then I could very well say "DNA has kittens" and defend it by saying exactly what you say: Why, exactly? What's to be gained by misleading people? If most people don't understand "information" to mean what you mean when you use it, then what's the purpose of setting up such a misleading equivocation?

Because that different meaning is not misleading. What was hard to understand about that? Boy, you're all about that argument from authority, aren't you? And I see you've branched out into "argument by calling you stupid." Actually all I said was if the theory isn't about information in the original sense of information, then what the hell is the point of calling it "information"? Actually, yes. Science, like all endeavors that expect to be relevant to society as a whole, needs to use a lexicon compatible with society as a whole. If there's a reasonable rationale for science to re-define terms, then they're free to do so. But science isn't in a privledged position to re-define terms at will simply because it's science. Language is a democratic process. No group is in a position to dictate meanings to the majority.You've provided no rationale to defend the re-definition of information by Shannon or by anybody else. Something may very well be in DNA. But it sure as hell isn't "information".What Peter and I are talking about doesn't exist in DNA. You've agreed with that. If you didn't understand what we meant by "information", how is it our problem if your definition doesn't match ours?

So now you're using your inability to elucidate a flaw in my argument as evidence that my argument is flawed? What is this, "argument by being unable to argue"? It's a new fallacy a minute with you, DNA. Logicians should study you as a negative example.

I'm sorry, are you aware of any other common-use definition of "lexicon"? I'm not. Perhaps you might inform me.

I'm sorry, where did I make up a definition for information? At most, I've accepted Peter's definition, which you agreed wasn't his invention but rather the common parlance.I can hardly be accused of a strawman argument if I haven't at any time made the argument you've accused me of.It's Shannon et al. who have re-defined information in a way apparently not compatible with it's accepted definition. Geneticists may very well re-define "kittens" or any other word they choose but that doesn't mean I have to believe that there's kittens in DNA when I'm talking to them.

Yet, in his context, where he was paid to exert effort, he would be absolutely correct to inform you that he in fact had done work. Your greater education is no rationale for defining his terms for him. No one is in a priveledged position to define words.

Do you honestly believe that Shannon invented the word information? Or that information had a definition relating to information theory before the theory was even developed? Why should I bother to support my statements when your own are self-refuting?

No, just correcting your misapprehensions about language. Apparently you think that the only valid definitions of words are the scientific definitions. That's obviously momumentally stupid. If your arguments prove my points, how can I be blamed?

Yet, they must look to thesmelves for blame if their re-definitions give rise to misunderstanding. I don't see why you don't see the obvious problem in giving fields of study open license to re-define words as they see fit. But since you regularly employ misdirection, misunderstanding, and deliberate obfuscation as debate tactics I can see why you'd openly support the same disingenuity in science.

Oh, I'm sorry. What do you believe that the opposite of the statement "A definition of information predates Shannon's use of the term" is? That is of course my assertion - that a definition of information predates Shannon's use. What do you believe that the original definition of information, prior to the 40's, is? Do you believe that it's closer to Shannon's definition or yours?

How could I make a strawman out of an argument that is itself without merit or content?

I find it highly unlikely that you believe that anybody as ignorant as you believe me to be could be able to magically manipulate your arguments into saying the opposite of what they're saying. If you don't like the ridiculous extremes that your arguments logically point to, then how is it my fault when I point them out?

... of you asserting that I've raised a strawman.Look, you brought up that biologists and chemists had re-defined "information" in this context. I merely pointed out how ridiculous it is to re-define words - in any context - without appropriate justification. You seem to believe that biologists and chemists are above justification for their word use. I do not.You may see that as a strawman. I see it as your exact original argument taken to its ridiculous extreme. If it's a strawman, then it's because your original argument contains nothing but straw.So, again - if the definition of the word "information" in this context bears no resemblance to information as it is commonly known, what's the justification for its use in this context? Merely the fact that biologists and chemists use that word is insufficient. If they weren't actually talking about information, then they shouldn't use the word.

I agree with you that this is the conflict at hand. Out of your two ways to solve the porblem we've obviously chosen the opposite ones. Why? Just because it reduces disagreement with scientific authority? Why is that necessary or important?I'll tell you what. I chose the first alternative because I'm not familiar enough with Shannon's theories to defend them or counter their misuse. So I chose the first alternative. I know what information is in the informal context. The thing about debates with creationists, is that they're using Shannon's terms in the informal context. They're trying to apply Shannon's (and other's) logic (which is valid for what he called information) to what information is informally.If your argument is that that's incorrect in context, I agree. It's wrong to apply Shannon's work on Shannon-defined information to informally-defined information. You apparently think that whenever biology is discussed, the biological context is assumed. I wish this were the case. What is the case is that creationists talk about biology in the informal context, usually because they're not biologists.By Shannon's definition, DNA has information. But that wasn't the context I was referring to when I made my statement.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-23-2003]

C'mon, admins. This guy is just out of control. You can't afford to ignore this any longer.

quote:

---

Discussion Guidelines
These are in effect at all times:
...
3 Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."

---