Interesting article about ID

[Dr Adequate]

Presenting both sides is bogus. Not because that isn't a good idea, but because "both sides" is false. In any interesting area there are usually at least 20 sides that need to be presented.

Let's go a little further than that.

In any interesting --- or boring --- area, there are an infinite number of possible conjectures, and it would be impossible to present them all.

Fortunately, in some areas, just one of them has been shown to be correct, and the most popular alternatives have been shown to be rubbish.

 

[hammegk]

Will you provide me with a proper reference that the scientific community in 1899 was all happy about things?

No. Kill your own strawman. Now what?

What can I say? You are not working within a philosophical system I know --- that's fine, make up your own --- but where on Earth did you define your terms?

Sorry your PhD fails you at this point. Try thinking for yourself, it probably won't hurt.

Fortunately, in some areas, just one of them has been shown to be correct ....

Depending on the initial assumptions you make, yes. Godel has mentioned your axiom problem.

 

[drkitten]

So Dembski's book, The Design Inference, that involved high level mathematics and was published by Cambridge University Press... if I'm hearing you correctly, that is Creationism?

Yes.

And the mathematics is error-ridden and fallacious as well, but because it's presented in a biological context, the CUP reviewers chosen to evaluate it were mostly biologists and weren't mathematically sophisticated enough to pick up on the errors. One of the risks of specialization in science -- it's fairly easy to blind the specialist with terminology from outside their own disciplinary speciality.

 

[hammegk]

Yes.

And the mathematics is error-ridden and fallacious as well ...

Er, ok. Are there specific and identifiable errors, or is the entire treatment just "flawed"? Can you say a bit more for the benefit of a layman like me?

One of the risks of specialization in science -- it's fairly easy to blind the specialist with terminology from outside their own disciplinary speciality.

Indeed.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Can you say a bit more for the benefit of a layman like me?

I think he means that it's a complex and impressive mathematical LIE. Intelligent design people like to make their lies very complex and scientific sounding.

 

[drkitten]

Er, ok. Are there specific and identifiable errors, or is the entire treatment just "flawed"? Can you say a bit more for the benefit of a layman like me?

Classic mathematical fallacies. Fallacies of equivocation on terms with exact mathematical definitions (for example, he confuses the Shannon-Weaver-Fano definition of "information" with the Kolmogorov-Chaitin definition). He similarly flips between Bayesian and frequentist notions of "probability" without warning and without legitimacy. He assumes causality where at best the evidence supports correlation. He has no understanding of type I and type II errors (and simply asserts magic numbers where a more nuanced treatment would present the various rationales). His "explanatory filter" is simply an argument from ignorance, and a particularly poor one, at that (he admits from the start that it's a probabilistic filter, but then claims it will produce no false positives). He badly mistreats the null hypothesis. All of these are errors that a sophisticated college sophomore would be embarrassed to have committed.

His understanding of the general underpinnings of the field is also horrible. Some of his "theorems" are in fact mere restatements of forty and fifty year old results, stripped of their context and of enough background to make them useful. Others are simply wrong because they ignore the assumptions of the other (underlying) theorems that he is using to prove his theorem of choice. For example, Wolpert (the co-discoverer of the No Free Lunch theorem) wrote a rather devastating critique in which he said that Dembski's results (on the NFL) were "written in Jello." (Example : "is that neo-Darwinian evolution of ecosystems does not involve a set of genomes all searching the same, fixed fitness function, the situation considered by the NFL theorems. Rather it is a co-evolutionary process. Roughly speaking, as each genome changes from one generation to the next, it modifies the surfaces that the other genomes are searching. And recent results indicate that NFL results do not hold in co-evolution.") Again, a sophisticated college sophomore would at least be familiar with the current results before trying to extend them.

 

[Hawk one]

No. Kill your own strawman. Now what?

Except that I didn't bring up a strawman. My question is highly relevant to your first comment. If you have problems understanding this, allow me to explain it to you. And don't worry, I'll type a bit slower, just for you:

Your first post in this thread is a sarcastic comment that indirectly claims how at least one branch of science (physics, that is) thought they had discovered everything that could be discovered by 1899. Now, naturally, I started assuming that you had once read about the patent commisionare that supposedly resigned because there was nothing left to invent. I then went on to show you that this is an urban legend.

However, I also left open the possibility that your opinion about science thinking they had discovered everything in 1899 by some other source. A real quote, or perhaps even a survey that was held among the scientists. This is what I gave you the chance to prove to me. And I'm still giving it.

Now, there are two ways you could have convinced me of anything but you being a lonely person attacking anything and everything that doesn't agree with you (facts included):

a) You could have admitted that your only basis for your sarcastic comment was based on that fake quote, and that you didn't know it was fake, and that you don't really have any idea whether science thought they knew everything by 1899. If you had done this, then I would have said "OK, that's fine. Now you knowthe quote is a fake, and that what one person said does not at all mean everyone agrees. Things are cool." And you could still hate science as much as you do.
b) You could have brought me the aforementioned evidence that you had another source which you based your comment upon. Then I would have read this and studied it, and checked out whether or not it was relevant, correct, etc. But there would still be a chance that we could argue relevantly about it.

Instead, you choose to do neither. You dodge the question, you bring up strawmen, and now you just blatantly refuse to answer me, just like a 3-year old that refuses to eat his porridge. And until you actually answer my questions, I will continue treating you like the stubborn child you act, until you finally grow up, or alternatively just run away crying. I suspect the latter will happen first.

So, there you have it. Now all that is left is for you to actually answer my first question. Meanwhile, I will sit here quite secure that science didn't think they had all the answers by 1899, and that they still don't believe they're anywhere near having all the answers now in 2005. Which, by the way, is a claim I can't say I could attribute to you.

 

[hammegk]

Thanks for a good overview. Dembski never struck a chord with me, thank goodness. The "Mathematics of ID" sounds like trouble from the get-go.

Fallacies of equivocation on terms with exact mathematical definitions (for example, he confuses the Shannon-Weaver-Fano definition of "information" with the Kolmogorov-Chaitin definition).

After a google, I admit I would too.

He similarly flips between Bayesian and frequentist notions of "probability" without warning and without legitimacy.

I suspect the legitimacy of choice is also arcane.

He assumes causality where at best the evidence supports correlation.

Agreed that correlation is the best one can manage.

He has no understanding of type I and type II errors ...

Do you have a specific example?

(and simply asserts magic numbers where a more nuanced treatment would present the various rationales).

His "explanatory filter" is simply an argument from ignorance, and a particularly poor one, at that (he admits from the start that it's a probabilistic filter, but then claims it will produce no false positives).

I don't understand those comments. What magic numbers, where? And a claim of "no false positives"? How so?

He badly mistreats the null hypothesis.

Often another discussable subject iirc.

All of these are errors that a sophisticated college sophomore would be embarrassed to have committed.

Umm. That's a pretty sophisticated sophomore.

His understanding of the general underpinnings of the field is also horrible. Some of his "theorems" are in fact mere restatements of forty and fifty year old results, stripped of their context and of enough background to make them useful.

Again, those comments are ones I don't understand.

Others are simply wrong because they ignore the assumptions of the other (underlying) theorems that he is using to prove his theorem of choice. For example, Wolpert (the co-discoverer of the No Free Lunch theorem) wrote a rather devastating critique in which he said that Dembski's results (on the NFL) were "written in Jello." Again, a sophisticated college sophomore would at least be familiar with the current results before trying to extend them.

From http://www.nctimes.net/~mark/bibl_science/orr_demb_NFL.htm

Later Orr offers his explanation of why Dembski’s use of the NFL theorems is wrong, “The problem with all this is so simple that I hate to bring it up. But here goes: Darwinism isn't trying to reach a prespecified target.” He says further, “Evolution isn't searching for anything and Darwinism is not therefore a search algorithm.”

The paper provides more detail as to Orr's position, but does the complaint actually hinge on the 'specified target' comment?


Again, thanks for some actual info.

As apposed to whines from the peanut gallery, e.g.

I will continue treating you like the stubborn child you act, until you finally grow up, or alternatively just run away crying. I suspect the latter will happen first.

Have fun, newB ... do you understand {plonk} ??

 

[Hawk one]

Have fun, newB ... do you understand {plonk} ??

I am fairly new here, but I am already aware that you will not ever provide me with an actual answer. Basically, I just think of you as the kind of forum troll that newbies wane their teeth on before they start joining the real discussions. Now answer my question or run home to your mama, little boy.

 

[Dr Adequate]

No. Kill your own strawman. Now what?


Sorry your PhD fails you at this point. Try thinking for yourself, it probably won't hurt.


Depending on the initial assumptions you make, yes. Godel has mentioned your axiom problem.

Ooh, this is funny.

Hammy seems to be challenging Hank One to justify his stupid mistake, which Hawk One knows to be false, and challenging me to assign meaning to his gibble, which I know to be meaningless.

As with everything else in the world, seemingly, he's got the whole thing ass-backwards.

Hammy, it is your job, not ours, to justify your drviel.

However, since you put the onus on me rather than you to interpret your steaming pile of horsedroppings, here's my interpretation:

"I know that I cannot debunk evolution. If I could, I would! I know from bitter experience that if I put forward all the arguments against it I have, which I've cribbed from fundie nuts, I would see them ripped to shreds by people much cleverer than I am. Therefore I shall drivel out witless nonsense, claim that it is a refutation of evolution, but refuse to say what it means."

That's my interpretation of your stupid spam, hammy. That's the conclusion I came to from thinking for myself. But I'd value your input. Is it really just the defense mechanism of a monomaniac, or does it secretly all mean something. If so, what?

And then the stuff about Goedel... we're going to get some real woo here.

I don't see how he dares be so loud-mouthed about a subject of which he's so ignorant, but it's going to be very very funny.

So... hammy... please explain... in your finest witless spam... the relevance of Goedel to evolution or vice versa.

Mocking you in advance.

 

[hammegk]

Perhaps you did buy the PhD. The axioms that would be of interest to Godel begin at a definition of reality; Terran evolution as theorized by Darwin etal begins after 12 billion years have elapsed, and -- like magic -- "life" has made an appearance.


Hawk patooie; that rates a ... plonk .... have fun.

Huh. Up to 1 again.

 

[Dr Adequate]

The axioms that would be of interest to Godel begin at a definition of reality.

Oh thank you.

You did not disappoint.

Here's a tip for you, hammy: if you boast and brag about how smart you are, and it turns out that you know nothing of what you're talking about, people will think you a liar, a braggart, and a fool.

 

[Hawk one]

And I am not disappointed either, Dr Adequate, since, as you can see, my original question still remains 100% unanswered. Hell, even though I keep brining it up, he won't even say why he's not answering it.

I can only conclude that this is because hammegk only have the false quote as "evidence" that the scientific community thought they knew everything in 1899, but is way too stubborn to admit this. Apparently he thinks that he should rate me instead of answering my question, which of course would have given him a big fat, red F if he were to do any school assignement the same way.

But it's still not too late, hammegk. If you can just answer my initial question, there may still be a possiblity for you to actually have made a reply that makes sense.

 

[Renfield]

Hammy is master of hyperbole and strawman tactics. It's because he really has no substantial arguments.

Sometimes its hard to tell what point he is trying to make, some of his comments are so left of field. Its an interesting debating tactic, saying something so bizarre and devoid of logic (not logically flawed mind you, but pretty much without any relavence to what's being discussed) that its difficult to come up with a response.

 

[T'ai Chi]

To respond to kitten who said the ", the CUP reviewers chosen to evaluate it were mostly biologists and weren't mathematically sophisticated enough to pick up on the errors":

From the CUP Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory website:

"Editors: Ernest W. Adams, Ken Binmore, Jeremy Butterfield, Persi Diaconis, William L. Harper, Brian Skyrms "

Are you claiming that these people aren't able to pick out mathematical errors?

If not, just who?

He has no understanding of type I and type II errors

Got evidence?

 

[drkitten]

Perhaps you did buy the PhD. The axioms that would be of interest to Godel begin at a definition of reality;

Perhaps you could be more specific here. I consider myself something of an expert on Godel, and the connection still escapes me.

If you could, for example, demonstrate how one could formalize the Peano axioms in evolutionary theory -- that would be a big step forward.

 

[drkitten]

"Editors: Ernest W. Adams, Ken Binmore, Jeremy Butterfield, Persi Diaconis, William L. Harper, Brian Skyrms "

Are you claiming that these people aren't able to pick out mathematical errors?

Hint: editors != reviewers.

 

[hammegk]

Perhaps you could be more specific here. I consider myself something of an expert on Godel, and the connection still escapes me.

My comment is directed at reality, which we can probably agree pre-dates Darwinian theory.

To begin epistemological analysis, one has the choices:
a) objective reality exists,
b) objective, physical (that is, ~mental), reality exists.

Science works equally well under either axiom, yet leads to different conclusions.

Given choice b) a Darwinian type theory is not only inevitable, I'd say mandatory, and has already ignored 12 billion years of ??? that has presented life on a platter, ready to "evolve".

If you could, for example, demonstrate how one could formalize the Peano axioms in evolutionary theory -- that would be a big step forward.

Why? Any such would be absolutely contingent on choice of a) vs b) above.

Do you see what I deem the real problem, expressed by my earlier comment ' "Is given" is incomplete; it assumes 1) the source by which existence is given, 2) the means by which existence is given, and 3) the reason for which existence is given. If the source, means and reason are actually real, they are inside reality.' ?

 

[drkitten]

My comment is directed at reality, which we can probably agree pre-dates Darwinian theory.

To begin epistemological analysis, one has the choices:
a) objective reality exists,
b) objective, physical (that is, ~mental), reality exists.

Science works equally well under either axiom, yet leads to different conclusions.

And how do these relate to Godellian mathematics?

Given choice b) a Darwinian type theory is not only inevitable, I'd say mandatory, and has already ignored 12 billion years of ??? that has presented life on a platter, ready to "evolve".

And how does this relate to Godellian mathematics?

Why? Any such would be absolutely contingent on choice of a) vs b) above.

Not as far as I can see -- neither Godellian mathematics nor Peano arithmetic addresses question of the physical universe, since they deal only with abstract issues of information processing and representational transformations.

Do you see what I deem the real problem, expressed by my earlier comment ' "Is given" is incomplete; it assumes 1) the source by which existence is given, 2) the means by which existence is given, and 3) the reason for which existence is given. If the source, means and reason are actually real, they are inside reality.' ?

Yeah, I see the real problem. The real problem is that you don't understand any of the advanced material that you are continually citing, and when people with a genuine understanding of the material either ask for clarification or outright call you on your misstatements, you retreat into insult and a refusal to discuss.

If you think you can explain how Peano arithmetic relates at all to the question of whether nonphysical aspects of the universe exist, you're welcome to try. I predict instead either a retreat into postmodern bafflegab or a simple set of insults directed at me.

Alternatively, if you would prefer to explain in what sense the scientific community thought that they knew everything in 1899, I'm confident that Hawk would be as interested as I. Again, I predict either a retreat or a series of insults.

 

[hammegk]

And how do these relate to Godellian mathematics?

And how does this relate to Godellian mathematics?

Not as far as I can see -- neither Godellian mathematics nor Peano arithmetic addresses question of the physical universe, since they deal only with abstract issues of information processing and representational transformations.

If you think you can explain how Peano arithmetic relates at all to the question of whether nonphysical aspects of the universe exist, you're welcome to try.

Linear reductionism substituting for thought is fun, what?

My invocation of Godel is somewhere between your worries of lumpen mathematics and

Kurt Godel proved two extraordinary theorems. Accepted by all mathematicians, they have revolutionized mathematics, showing that mathematical truth is more than logic and computation. Does Godel's work imply that someone or something transcends the universe?

Courtesy of http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/GODEL.html

Yeah, I see the real problem. The real problem is that you don't understand any of the advanced material that you are continually citing, and when people with a genuine understanding of the material either ask for clarification or outright call you on your misstatements, you retreat into insult and a refusal to discuss.

Hmm. Do I think myself capable of discussing Godel's work with a good mathematician? No.

I predict instead either a retreat into postmodern bafflegab or a simple set of insults directed at me.

Are you cute when you're angry?

Alternatively, if you would prefer to explain in what sense the scientific community thought that they knew everything in 1899, I'm confident that Hawk would be as interested as I.

Ummm. Perhaps the two of you will be happier having in depth discussions on that topic? I pass.

Again, I predict either a retreat or a series of insults.

Do you often bet on your hunches?