"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Hey J_C, remember this post and this one? Those were fun. You reacted by bulk spamming bible quotes until the Christianity moderators told you to stop, then you went "on holidays" for a while. Good times.

Anyway, you never did refute those points and counterpoints, and it's been nearly three years. Just worth bringing up since you seem to be playing Dodge The Question again. So folks here be warned: you may have a long wait for those answers.

... we were over and back on these questions as far as I can recall ... but if you want to use them as the basis for further answers I'd be happy to oblige.
... so what do ye want to tackle next ?
... the paper, the videos or the AH questions?

... and I'm not dodging any question ... I'm now just wondering what questions ye guys want answers to first!!!

J C

Mr. Boo wrote: »

You must debunk the paper first.

If it's the videos first, then CFSI will be your only argument. So you must prove, beyond all doubt that it is not sh1te.

CFSI isn't the only argument ... but I take your point in relation to it's importance.
The general thrust of your point makes sense.

Sarky

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Hey J_C, remember this post and this one? Those were fun. You reacted by bulk spamming bible quotes until the Christianity moderators told you to stop, then you went "on holidays" for a while. Good times.

Anyway, you never did refute those points and counterpoints, and it's been nearly three years. Just worth bringing up since you seem to be playing Dodge The Question again. So folks here be warned: you may have a long wait for those answers.

Oh I don't think anyone seriously expects answers from him. But it is amusing (to me, anyway, in a Napoleon Dynamite, cringe-worthy sort of way) to see him demonstrate the depths of his intellectual dishonesty.

Mr. Boo

J C wrote: »

CFSI isn't the only argument ... but I take your point in relation to it's importance.
The general thrust of your point makes sense.

General thrust? What is this? It's a rather simple statement.

And I can't remember you making any other arguments that didn't involve CSI miami. I want to see your analysis of this paper. I really do. But I fear you are incapable of anything beyond overt trolling.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

... we were over and back on these questions as far as I can recall ...

Over, sure. Back, nope. You asked a bunch of questions, I replied. Nothing further from you. I asked a bunch of questions, you replied, I countered. Nothing further from you. Two lines of questioning, your turn on both. That's when you started spamming scripture in an appropriately vomit-green font.

Someone got a link to this paper everyone's talking about? I'm way out of practice on making good arguments, and I haven't picked apart a research paper in some time. Mind needs some exercise and J_C is a great punchbag. You can hit him for years and he'll keep on coming back.

AtomicHorror

Sarky wrote: »

Oh I don't think anyone seriously expects answers from him. But it is amusing (to me, anyway, in a Napoleon Dynamite, cringe-worthy sort of way) to see him demonstrate the depths of his intellectual dishonesty.

Some of the time, it's incapacity. Some of the time, dishonesty. Most of the time, it's a bit of both. Though I suppose it's dishonesty to himself in the first case, to us in the second. He hasn't the humility to recognize that his grasp of some subjects- probability stands out as a very good example- is simply too weak to be of use to him without making some effort to improve it.

Galvasean

Oh wow, Atomic Horror is back.

Things just got interesting...

Delirium

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Over, sure. Back, nope. You asked a bunch of questions, I replied. Nothing further from you. I asked a bunch of questions, you replied, I countered. Nothing further from you. Two lines of questioning, your turn on both. That's when you started spamming scripture in an appropriately vomit-green font.

Someone got a link to this paper everyone's talking about? I'm way out of practice on making good arguments, and I haven't picked apart a research paper in some time. Mind needs some exercise and J_C is a great punchbag. You can hit him for years and he'll keep on coming back.

Link to the paper

Killer Pigeon

J C wrote: »

... so, when 'push comes to shove' ... ye just run away ... shouting ad hominems ... as ye go???:eek:

Push comes to shove? The last time I read this thread was a couple of months ago. You're still here! TBH, not many people here have time to argue about the nonsense that is creationism.

RichieC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjcFSy1KCTI

AtomicHorror

koth wrote: »

Link to the paper

Thank you.

beerbuddy

koth wrote: »

Link to the paper

Thanks for the link i was wondering what all the shouting is on about.
Why not open a new thread about this paper.
I read the first 20 pages or so then got lazy and read the reviews by tut tut googling. I think this will get ripped to bits but i will of course take time.
I am not an ID fan by the way.

Galvasean

beerbuddy wrote: »

Why not open a new thread about this paper.

Because the Mods like to keep the evolution/creationism debate confined to one thread so it does not take over the forum. Proper order too.

The Mad Hatter

beerbuddy wrote: »

Thanks for the link i was wondering what all the shouting is on about.
Why not open a new thread about this paper.
I read the first 20 pages or so then got lazy and read the reviews by tut tut googling. I think this will get ripped to bits but i will of course take time.
I am not an ID fan by the way.

Also, because J C could then avoid the subject by simply not posting in the thread.

J C

OK let's start with the 'paper'.

Please resist the temptation to use ad hominems ... when ye have no other answer to what I have to say.

My comments will be in blue ... and the text of the paper will be in black.
Quote:-
Abstract
Intelligent design advocate William Dembski has introduced a measure of information called complex specified information", or CSI. He claims that CSI is a reliable marker of design by intelligent agents. He puts forth a "Law of Conservation of Information" which states that chance and natural laws are incapable of generating CSI. True
In particular, CSI cannot be generated by evolutionary computation. True ... and has never been done since, either.

Dembski asserts that CSI is present in intelligent causes and in the flagellum of Escherichia coli, and concludes that neither have natural explanations. He concluded that they have intelligent causes ... without any claim as to whether the intelligence is 'natural' or 'super-natural'. Indeed CSI is found in Human writing, for example ... and this doesn't have a 'super-natural' origin.
In this paper we examine Dembski's claims, point out significant errors in his reasoning, and conclude that there is no reason to accept his assertions. This is an assertion and a claim that I intend to show to not have been achieved in the paper.

J C

1 Introduction
In recent books and articles (e.g., [16, 17, 19]), William Dembski uses a semi-mathematical treatment of information theory to justify his claims about "intelligent design". He has backed up his contentions with mathematical rigour.
Roughly speaking, intelligent design advocates attempt to infer intelligent causes from observed instances of complex phenomena. They infer intelligent causes from observed instances of complex and specified phenomena
Proponents argue, for example, that biological complexity indicates that life was designed. They argue that biological complexity and specificity indicates that life was designed. There are many complex phenomena that are the result of random or deterministic processes ... things like mixtures of different coloured sand ... or snowflakes are examples of complex phenomena that are the result of random and deterministic processes respectively. They differ from living systems in their (lack of) specificity ... and not in their complexity.
This claim is sometimes offered as an alternative to the theory of evolution. It scientifically invalidates Materialistic 'Microbes to Man' Evolution. The appliance of intelligence is potentially capable of Creating a Man and/or developing a Man via a series of intermediary steps from a Microbe. Non-intelligently directed processes, like Materialistic Evolution cannot, even in theory, do this because of the observed specificity of all functional living processes and the effectively infinite combinatorial space occupied by non-functional systems.
Christian apologist William Lane Craig has called Dembski's work "groundbreaking" [17, blurb at beginning]. True.
Journalist Fred Heeren describes Dembski as "a leading thinker on applications of probability theory" [38].1 At a recent conference [53], University of Texas philosophy professor Robert Koons called Dembski the "Isaac Newton of information theory."2 True.
Is such effusive praise warranted? Yes it is ... and I intend to show that such praise is warranted, by the time I have fully reviwed this paper.

MrPudding

Wow. This is going to be excruciating.

MrP

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

Wow. This is going to be excruciating.

MrP

The truth can be very painful ... but it is the truth ... and you will be all the better for knowing it.

J C

We believe it is not. They are entitled to their beliefs As we will show, Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results. We shall see if any of these, as yet, unsubstantiated assertions can be stood up.
As a result, we believe few if any of Dembski's conclusions can be sustained. Again we shall see if this assertion can be sustained.
Several writers have already taken issue with some of Dembski's claims (e.g., [23, 71, 72, 92, 78, 22, 94, 32]). In this paper we focus on some aspects of Dembski's work that have received little attention thus far. I can hardly wait!!!
Here is an outline of the paper. First, we summarize what we see as Dembski's major claims. Next, we criticize Dembski's concept of "design" and "intelligence". We then turn to one of Dembski's major tools, "complex specifed information", arguing that he uses the term inconsistently and misrepresents the concepts of other authors as being equivalent.
We criticize Dembski's concept of "information" and "specification". We then address his "Law of Conservation of Information", showing that the claim has significant mathematical flaws. We then discuss Dembski's attack on evolutionary computation, showing his claims are unfounded. Finally, we issue a series of challenges to those who would continue to pursue intelligent design. Some of our ideas are based on Kolmogorov complexity, so we provide an introduction to this theory as an appendix. The appendix also contains an alternate account of specification and a suggested replacement for CSI. Good summary of what is being addressed in the paper.

We note that our criticism is based on all of Dembski's oeuvre, not simply his most recent work. We regard this as completely legitimate; all of Dembski's claims are assumed to be in force unless explicitly retracted, and virtually no retractions have been forthcoming. Fair enough - but I reserve the right, in common with all other sceintists, to amend/withdraw claims, as new evidence is uncovered and our understanding of ID has developed.

J C

2 Dembski's claims
Dembski makes a variety of different claims, many of which would be revolutionary if true. Very true ... and the fact that they are truly revolutionary means that the more 'conservative' elements within science are having difficulties in accepting them ... even when the evidence is unambiguous.
Here we try to summarize what appears to us to be his most significant claims, together with the section numbers in which we address those claims.
1. The "complexity-specification" criterion/"explanatory filter" is a reliable method for detecting design by intelligent agents, and accurately reflects how humans traditionally infer design. True ... the presence of a combination of complexity and specificity is an infallible proof of the intelligent action of intelligent agents.
2. There exists a multi-step statistical procedure, the "generic chance elimination argument", that reliably detects design by intelligent agents. Once the probability is less than 10^-100 then ID can be safely assumed.
3. There is a "souped-up" form of information called "specified complexity" or "complex specified information" (CSI) which is coherently defined and constitutes a valid, useful, and non-trivial measure. It isn't a 'souped-up' form of information ... it is intelligently generated information ... and it is identified by its complex specificity e.g. Human writing ... and it does constitutes a valid, useful, and non-trivial type of information.
4. Many human activities exhibit "specified complexity". All Human intelligently directed activity results in the production of "specified complexity".
5. The presence of CSI is a reliable marker of design by intelligent agents. True.
6. CSI cannot be generated by deterministic algorithms, chance, or any combination of the two. True In particular, CSI cannot be generated either by genetic algorithms implemented on computers, or the process of biological evolution itself. CSI generation by intelligently designed biological systems and computers is limited to the quality of the original CSI that was 'programmed' into the original organism or computer programme.A "Law of Conservation of Information" exists which says that natural processes cannot generate CSI. Non-intelligently created and/or directed systems cannot generate CSI ... but intelligently designed systems can produce CSI ... for example, an intelligently designed robot can produce the CSD in a car part.
7. Life exhibits specified complexity and hence was designed by an intelligent agent, possibly disembodied. Life exhibits specified complexity and hence was designed by an intelligent agent or agents unknown ... possibly bodied or disembodied.

J C

3 Design
Dembski's account of design is inconsistent. On the one hand, he never gives a positive account of design; we do not learn from reading his works what Dembski thinks design is.
In The Design Inference [16] he simply defines design as the complement of regularity and chance, and the possibility that this complement is in fact empty is not seriously addressed. Intelligent Design is the complement of regularity (or deterministic processes) and chance (or random processes). The complement of regularity and chance isn't empty ... as all forms of Intelligent Design (including known intelligently-directed design by Humans) are within it.

In No Free Lunch [19, p. xi] he gives a process-oriented account of design:
(1) A designer conceives a purpose. (2) To accomplish that purpose, the designer forms a plan. (3) To execute the plan, the designer specifies building materials and assembly instructions. (4) Finally, the designer or some surrogate applies the assembly instructions to the building materials.
But this is not a positive account of what constitutes design. This is indeed a positive process-oriented account of design in action.
Furthermore, the description is problematical. In common parlance, "design" can mean "pattern" or "motif", and the relationship between "pattern" and "purpose" is unclear.
Dembski isn't talking about 'pattern' or 'motif' which can be formed by deterministic processes, when they aren't specified ... and thus may have no relationship to any 'purpose' e.g. a snowflake.
Dembski is taslking about Intelligent Design which is identified by its specified complexity ... and the fact that it is functional or purposeful.

Intelligent design advocates claim that "design implies a designer", ID proponents claim that "Intelligent Design implies an Intelligent Designer".
but perhaps this claim owes more to the structure of English than it does to logic. After all, we would not likely say "pattern implies a patterner". The reason we don't say that "pattern implies a patterner" is because 'patterns' and indeed 'designs' that aren't specified can be produced by random and deterministic processes that don't require any intelligent input.

J C

It is certainly easy to claim a teleological account of biology, but other natural processes produce "design", in the sense of pattern, without evidently falling under the process-oriented view of design that Dembski provides. Consider, for example, the highly symmetrical 6-sided patterns that appear in snowflakes. If there is any evidence of purpose in the patterns seen in snowflakes, it eludes us. Snowflakes and other designs produced by deterministic and/or random processes lack specificity and functionality. They are therefore the product of non-intelligently directed design.
Living systems are highly specfied and functional ... and thus are the product of Intelligent Design.
We address this issue in more detail in Section 9.3. Good.
Dembski pleads for more consideration of design as a scientific explanation, but he seems to be of two minds concerning this. On the one hand, he claims "science has largely dispensed with design" and science "repudiates design" [19, p. 3]; on the other hand, just three pages later he cites archaeology [19, p. 6] as an example of a science that is based in part on inferring design. Dembski is clearly referring to the 'two minds' of most scientists in relation to Intelligent Design ... there are vast areas of the forensic sciences that deals with intelligent design (including Archaeology) ... yet when it comes to Biology these same scientists are in denial that Biological systems are Intelligently Designed
Contrary to Dembski's assertions, design is not arbitrarily ruled out as an element of scientific explanation, even in biology. I'm glad to hear it ... but what Dembski and I would like to know is does Evolutionary Biologists accept Intelligent Design in Biology?

J C

Scientists, however, are reluctant to infer "rarefied" design, a design inference based on ignorance of both the nature of the designer and regularities that might explain the observed phenomenon. That is fair enough ... but most scientists don't follow through on this logic ... as they accept that a combination of random and deterministic processes 'evolved' living organisms from 'Microbes to Man ... when a combination of random and deterministic processes has never been observed to produce Complex Specified Designs or information.
Equally, it is scientifically valid to infer intelligent activity whenever CSI or CSD is encountered ... as in all cases, where the design agent has been identified for CSI and CSD phenomena these agents are always intelligent.
But this reluctance is well-grounded. Empirically gained knowledge of designers and the artifacts which they create permit us to recognize regularities of outcomes, leading us to make an "ordinary" design inference in such cases. With an "ordinary" design inference, a designer becomes just another causal regularity. This is a confusion of categories under the term 'ordinary' design and 'rarefied' design ... the correct categories are 'non-specified comples design', which is observed to be non-intelligently directed and 'specified complex design' which is observed to always be intelligently directed, whenever the agent is identified.

This is not so with a "rarefied" design inference, which Dembski urges us to make in ignorance of the properties of any putative designer and also of other causal regularities which may be operative. For more details,
see [94].Once again the incorrect categorisation is being used ... 'rarefied' design is undefined and meaningless as it cannot be unambiguously identified by examining a designed artifact. On the other hand, whether an artifact is specified or not can be objectively determined ... and thus it can be objectively determined whether the artifact was Intelligently Designed or not.

J C

Where Dembski offers examples that have practical application, one finds that the operative mode of inference is to an "ordinary" design inference. The appeal to SETI is such an example, for actual SETI research is based upon knowledge of how intelligent agents (humans) actually use radio wavelengths for communication. SETI is based on an Intelligent Information inference ... and even though the potential 'Aliens' that we are trying to make radio contact with are an unknown ... we are still (validly) basing the SETI research on our ability to objectively recognise Intelligent Activity by whatever type of agent (via complex specified potential radio broadcasts) from the far side of the Universe.

Another is Dembski's claim that "the Smithsonian Institution devotes a room to obviously designed artifacts for which no one has a clue what those artifacts do." [19, p. 147]3 Dembski overlooks the fact that artifacts of "ordinary" designers can be recognized not only through something like his concept of CSI, but also by the more prosaic methods long employed in archaeology. Again there is a confusion of terminology ... the so-called 'ordinary' designers are actually 'intelligent' designers ... and their intelligent activity can be identified from its complex specificity.
These methods include signs of working of an artifact, where a chance explanation is eliminated due to the artifact showing characteristic signs of manipulation that we know by experience are attributable to human artisans.
The 'manipulation that is known by experience' is complex specified manipulation ... which is the definitive evidence of intelligent action.
The Smithsonian example turns out to be non-mysterious and unsupportive of Dembski's attempt to justify a "rarefied" design inference. Again, Dembski isn't justifying 'rarefied' design ... he is justifying an intelligent design inference ... which can be scientificlally drawn when we encounter Complex Specified Information and Design

J C

Dembski claims that, using his methodology, one can infer the existence of an intelligent designer responsible for certain forms of observed design. That is true
Sometimes he views this as the first step of a scientific inquiry: "Once specified complexity tells us that something is designed, there is nothing to stop us from inquiring into its production." [19, p. 112]. Later, however,
he claims that both the "Intentionality Problem-What was the intention of the designer in producing a given designed object?" and the "Identity Problem-Who or what is the designer?" are not legitimate "questions of science" at all! [19, p. 313] The intentionality and identity of the agent(s) are much more difficult questions to answer scientifcally than whether an intelligent agent designed the artifact ... and science may not be able to answer these questions in every case. This is similar to the fact that a forensic scientist is able to relatively easily establish that a person was murdered ... but may find it much more difficult to establish why and who did the murder.

This is especially noteworthy given Dembski's discussion of intentionality in his book, Intelligent Design [17, pp. 245{246].
Removing intention and identity from rational inquiry may be legitimate if, as many intelligent design advocates admit when pressed, the designer they have in mind is a disembodied supernatural being [65]. But it is certainly not legitimate if the designer is human, or even an extraterrestrial being. The same difficulty exists with scientifically establishing why people were intelligntly designed and who/what did it many years ago ... irrespective of whether the 'designer' was an embodied or disembodied 'extraterrestrial' being.

"Explaining" crop circles as the product of alien design does not end the inquiry; instead, it enlarges it. Where did the aliens come from? Why did
they wish to create the circles? And so forth. I agree that it enlarges the enquiry ... but it doesn't mean that scientifically verified answers will be forthcoming.
Crop Circles exhibit Complex Specificity ... and we can therefore definitively conclude that they are the product of intelligent action ... which could be Human or ET (or both) ... and unless and until we get direct evidence of who the 'entities' are that are creating crop circles, we cannot reach valid scientifc conclusions in relation to who is creating them - but we can still definitively conclude that they are intelligently designed.

... of course, this also shouldn't stop us from trying to scientifically identify who / what the intelligent 'entities' producing Crop Circles are ... or what their intention(s) are in producing them.
... but if we are unable or unwilling to identify the fact that an intelligent agent is causing them ... we will never enlarge the enquiry to even try to establish who they are or what their motives are.

dlofnep

Um, you do know there's a quote function, right?

5uspect

It took him a couple of years to figure it out before. Maybe he's forgotten again.

J C

Furthermore, questions of intention and identity arise all the time in archaeology. Agreed To give just two examples: in the 1890's historian Arthur Evans heard of mysterious seal-stones from Crete. The identity of their creators, as well as the script used, was then unknown. Evans went on to identify the stones as the product of a civilization now called Minoan, and eventually one of the scripts, Linear B, was deciphered [24]. Like I have said, the first step is to definitively identify that the artifact has been Intelligently designed ... and once this is definitively established, resources can be justifiably allocated to trying to determine who the Intelligent Designer(s) was/were ... and what they were communicating (if anything).
Similarly, the intention of the artists of the wall-paintings of the Bronze Age wall paintings from Thera is an active area of scientific controversy, with some arguing that rooms with such paintings were always intended to be shrines, and others disputing this [68, 64, 21]. Despite Dembski wishing to rule identity and intention of designers out of science, archaeologists are quite happily pursuing these questions. I don't think that establishing the identity or the intention of Intelligent Designer(s) should be ruled out of science ... but, as the above cited examples show, the difficulty of establishing these things is much greater than estsblishing that the artifact was intelligently designed, in the first place.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

Um, you do know there's a quote function, right?

I am structuring my postings to allow you to have both the quote from the paper and my comments when you use the quote facility on my postings ... this will allow you to easily make positive comment on the paper and/or negative comment on my comments.

I think that I will now stop and give you guys the chance to reply to what has been posted to date.

If one person could reply ... and take the postings/paper in sequence it would help retain clarity for everyone following the thread.

I will deal with any questions/comments on the 'paper' so far tomorrow ... and I will then proceed with the next part of the 'paper' ... if that is OK with everybody

J C

OK then ... I'll move on with my review of the paper:-

Quoting Jay Richards, Dembski says "If someone explains some buried earthenware as the result of artisans from the second century b.c., no one complains, `Yeah, but who made the artisan?' " [19, p. 355]. We find this reply altogether too facile. It is a very fundamental question ... that goes to the heart of all 'origins' worldviews ... Atheists believe that it all happened by purely materialistic means ... and Theists believe that an intelligence/intelligences was/were involved at some level. Science can be used to settle the question ... but Atheists and their fellow travellers have a distinct reluctance to follow the evidence where it leads.

In the case of human artisans from 200 b.c.e, we need no extraordinary explanation to account for their existence - there is abundant evidence for human life and pottery-making culture during that time period. Nobody is questioning the existence of people in 200 BC ... the controversal question that is being asked is how/when did Humans and other life forms come into existence?
On the other hand, if we found buried earthenware in Devonian strata, and the explanation proffered was "artisans from 300 mya", scientists certainly would want to inquire about the origin of the artisan. Would they really?
I would suggest that they would promptly deny that the particular stratum was Devonian ... by claiming that it was a 'disturbed' composite stratum, with a mixture of fossils of different 'ages' ... or some such 'explanation'.
In this regard Sharks, Rays and finned fish as well as spiders are all found as 'Devonian' fossils ... and if a dead Human was to be found beside a dead Shark or a live spider today nobody would 'bat an eyelid' ... so why would anybody get exicited about their fossils being found together?
Similarly, Dembski says if we find a scrap of paper with writing on it, we infer a human author and "there is no reason to suppose that this scrap of paper requires a different type of causal story" [19, p. xi]. But surely this depends upon the circumstances of the find and the causal hypothesis which is proposed to account for it. Dembski was clearly talking about finding a piece of paper on Earth with a recognisable Human language written on it ... and his conclusion is perfectly reasonable and vaild in these circumstances.
If Neil Armstrong had found a scrap of paper with writing on it on the moon, the remoteness of the location and a hypothesis that the writing was done in situ would conjointly exclude human agency and require a different type of causal story. Under these circumstances, the hypotheses would expand significantly to include Human travel to the Moon prior to Neil Armstrong or the deposition of the paper by an un-manned spacecraft prior to the Apollo 11 landing ... but this is a completely different situation to what Dembski was talking about ...
... and in either circumstances nobody would deny that the writing on the paper had an intelligent cause.

These are symptoms of a more general inconsistency in the level of explanation Dembski wishes to pursue. For Dembski, explanation of design always ends at intelligence, and we are not permitted to inquire further about the origin of the intelligence. The explanation for non-specified 'design' includes random and/or deterministic processes ... but the explantion of Specified i.e. Intelligent Design is the appliance of intelligence. We continue this line in the next section. Not much point, as it doesn't describe Dembski's actual position.