tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post3997547890999569436..comments2023-05-14T05:58:07.794-07:00Comments on Languedoc Diary: A neutral venue: "How Carefully Do Dembski's Advocates Read His Work?" by SecondclassAlan Foxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16470368958109056177noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-10950060972246368172007-05-21T10:31:00.000-07:002007-05-21T10:31:00.000-07:00One more post to note another case of Joe getting ...One more post to note another case of Joe getting Dembski completely and hilariously wrong. In sections 3.4 and 3.5 of NFL, Dembski describes CSI as a coincidence of conceptual and physical information, with <I>conceptual</I> information referring to a specification, and <I>physical</I> information referring to an event that meets the specification. Dembski is very clear about this, and even depicts it in figures.<BR/><BR/>But here is how <A HREF="http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=13&Number=30333031&page=0&fpart=all##30333103" REL="nofollow">Joe explains it</A>:<BR/><BR/><B>CSI can be understood as the convergence of physical information, for example the hardware of a computer and conceptual information, for example the software that allows the computer to perform a function, such as an operating system with application programs. In biology the physical information would be the components that make up an organism (arms, legs, body, head, internal organs and systems) as well as the organism itself. The conceptual information is what allows that organism to use its components and to be alive. After all a dead organism still has the same components. However it can no longer control them.</B><BR/><BR/>Apparently Joe thinks that a computer sans software has no conceptual information, and therefore no CSI. And that living things lose all their CSI when they die. Good one, Joe.R0bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12140319137607912834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-35414376975633161372007-02-09T13:42:00.000-08:002007-02-09T13:42:00.000-08:00Alan Fox is created this I said to discredit me, b...Alan Fox is created this I said to discredit me, because I threatened him that I would tell people about the racial slurs he threw at me in a email.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539732071554392080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-82842893394561110122007-02-09T04:24:00.000-08:002007-02-09T04:24:00.000-08:00Jordan,I really have no idea what you are talking ...Jordan,<BR/><BR/>I really have no idea what you are talking about. Also I commented on the subsequent thread where you also posted.Alan Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16470368958109056177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-30084690720930697922007-02-09T04:10:00.000-08:002007-02-09T04:10:00.000-08:00Me getting answers today is in your best intrest. ...Me getting answers today is in your best intrest. I promise after today I will not be the victim.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-28166621613627012512007-02-09T02:48:00.000-08:002007-02-09T02:48:00.000-08:00ok... they work here, i have got in involved in so...ok... they work here, i have got in involved in some strange manipulation study. I have been gathering bits of information until I found my way here. All the research surrounding your field is enough for me to conclude that you must how be involved or have some knowledge of what I am talking about...My story is too long to go through the entire thing, but it was a semi-tramatic experience at times.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-21240823929336774902007-02-09T02:45:00.000-08:002007-02-09T02:45:00.000-08:00My post have no been going through....My post have no been going through....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-70629086708897516342007-02-08T23:19:00.000-08:002007-02-08T23:19:00.000-08:00Sorry for curseing but I have been unwillinly part...Sorry for curseing but I have been unwillinly part of some psedo-experiements and this stuff is clearly a main factor. I want answers to what I have been going through. I am very angry and will not be a sheep. I will not be a victim rather you give me answers or not, because someone is going to be held accountableAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-22294620118896404192007-02-08T22:28:00.000-08:002007-02-08T22:28:00.000-08:00Hey Al Fox the forums where your a moderator at ar...Hey Al Fox the forums where your a moderator at are killing free speech.....You are working with a fascist underground...I WANT TO KNOW WHAT ALL THIS SHIT on this website IS ABOUT!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-66084298908785911112007-02-08T22:26:00.000-08:002007-02-08T22:26:00.000-08:00I want to know exactly what the fuck all of this i...I want to know exactly what the fuck all of this is. I have been on the trail of underground internet fasism. Blog are a main piece of the puzzle and this site has something to do with it. Email me at XronartestX@aim.com....Keep free speech alive!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-10153493778558316672007-02-07T23:14:00.000-08:002007-02-07T23:14:00.000-08:00Ye Gods Zachriel, you and Pixie have incredible st...Ye Gods Zachriel, you and Pixie have incredible stamina. I especially liked Joe's "A branching tree is not an example of a nested hierarchy".Alan Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16470368958109056177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-83378673768933863932007-02-05T17:56:00.000-08:002007-02-05T17:56:00.000-08:00Joe, you never corrected your misstatement.
joe ...Joe, you never corrected your misstatement. <br /><br />joe g: "A properly applied EF and the researchers who initially inferred design wouldn't have."<br /><br />The researchers never made a scientific inference of design. You need to correct this misstatement.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-4274391972615193572007-02-05T14:44:00.000-08:002007-02-05T14:44:00.000-08:00Joe, believe it or not, I understand flowcharts. ...Joe, believe it or not, I understand flowcharts. Sometimes order is crucial; sometimes it isn't. Is it crucial to put the baking soda in before the baking powder?<br /><br />I've given several reasons why we can start with the third node if we're only interested in whether the event was designed or not. You've never explained why order matters with a chain of mutually exclusive decision nodes. The fact is that it doesn't. I've shown that Dembski skips right to the third node in his latest design detection method.<br /><br />But if it will further the discussion, I'll say that I was a very bad boy in skipping the first two nodes. To make amends, I added two redundant sentences to my <a href="http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000651.html">analysis</a>, so now I'm traversing all of the nodes.<br /><br />Now please tell me what's wrong with my analysis.R0bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12140319137607912834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-32648182459117655102007-02-05T14:19:00.000-08:002007-02-05T14:19:00.000-08:00secondclass:
Your claim my pulsar analysis is void...secondclass:<br /><I>Your claim my pulsar analysis is void because I didn't traverse the nodes of the EF in order. This claim is specious for so many reasons that it will probably take several posts to cover them.</I><br /><br />It is only specious to those who do not understand flow charts.<br /><br />And if you don't understand flow charts there is no reason to discuss the EF with you- for obvious reasons-> It <b>is</b> a flow chart.<br /><br />I am sure the researchers, had it been available to them, would have understood it and applied it properly. And by doing so they would have came to the same "conclusion" that they finally arrived at.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-81396126920181532562007-02-05T14:15:00.000-08:002007-02-05T14:15:00.000-08:00joe g: "A properly applied EF and the researchers ...joe g:<b> "A properly applied EF and the researchers who initially inferred design wouldn't have."</b><br /><br />Zachriel:<br /><i>The researchers "never made an inaccurate scientific inference of design". They included design with many other explanations, sought additional evidence and ruled out design without ever referencing Dembski or his Explanatory Filter.</i><br /><br />LoL! Is Dembski even 40? IOW in 1967 there wouldn't be any reason to reference Dembski or the EF.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-40950425512814390062007-02-05T13:39:00.000-08:002007-02-05T13:39:00.000-08:00To recap, Joe, here are your challenges so far:
#...To recap, Joe, here are your challenges so far:<br /><br /><b>#3: Under what chance hypothesis (identifiable when pulsar signals were first discovered) is a pulsar signal high or intermediate probability?<br /><br />#4: Please provide a quote from Dembski showing that not everything that has a small probability is complex according Dembski's usage of the term.<br /><br />#5: Please provide a quote from Dembski indicating that a knowledge of designers' capabilities is necessary in order to infer design.<br /><br />#6: Please provide evidence that I don't know that simplicity of description requires pre-existing knowledge.<br /><br />#7: I said that the Caputo case exhibits specified complexity according to Dembski, and that you don't know that. Please provide evidence that this statement is a lie.<br /><br />#8: Provide a quote from Dembski demonstrating that the Caputo court did not share Dembski's inference.<br /><br />#9: Please tell me what's wrong with my repaired <a href="http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000651-p-2.html">pulsar analysis</a>.</b>R0bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12140319137607912834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-78015270773269489102007-02-05T13:08:00.000-08:002007-02-05T13:08:00.000-08:00The funny thing about the you-can't-skip-nodes obj...The funny thing about the you-can't-skip-nodes objection is that it doesn't matter because it's trivially reparable.<br /><br />Here is the repaired version of my pulsar analysis:<br /><br />START<br /><br />Imagine that it's 1967 and the first regular periodic radio signal from space has just been discovered. Its pulse width is 0.04 seconds, so we can express the signal in binary at a rate of 25 bits per second. We observe the signal for an hour, gathering 90000 bits of information.<br /><br />To determine the amount of specified complexity in this information, we use Dembski's definition given here: SC = -log2( 10^120 * SpecRes(T) * P(T|H) ), where T is the pattern, H is the chance hypothesis, and SpecRes is the number of patterns that are as simple and as improbable as T. Nobody knows anything about pulsars yet, so our chance hypothesis is random noise, giving us a P(T|H) of 5*10^-27092. <b>This probability isn't high. Nor is it intermediate.</b> To be generous with SpecRes, we assume that all signals that repeat every 34 bits are equally simple. (This particular signal repeats every 1.337 seconds, which is about 33.4 bits.) This gives us a SpecRes of 1.7*10^10.<br /><br />Putting it all together we get -log2(10^120 * 1.7*10^10 * 5*10^-27092) = about 90000 bits of specified complexity. Since this value is far greater than 1, we have a very solid design inference. False positive.<br /><br />Given that SpecRes is inversely correlated with simplicity, a simple periodic signal generates more specified complexity than a signal that answers our questions in morse code, all else being equal. Since we've found specified complexity to be unreliable for the former signal, by what logic should we consider it reliable for the latter signal?<br /><br />[Edit: I miscalculated P(T|H) by a factor of 25. The final answer is still about 90000 bits.]<br /><br />END<br /><br /><br />Now your objection is moot, Joe, as are my first two challenges to you, so you're welcome to skip them.<br /><br /><b>#9: Please tell me what's wrong with my repaired pulsar analysis.</b>R0bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12140319137607912834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-23100071490924592612007-02-05T13:01:00.000-08:002007-02-05T13:01:00.000-08:00And the final refutation of your you-can't-skip-no...And the final refutation of your you-can't-skip-nodes argument is that Dembski does it all the time, and he advocates doing it.<br /><br />See <a href="http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdf">this paper</a> where Dembski tells us how to detect design using the specified complexity criterion. Does he say anywhere in the paper that we should check for HP and IP before checking for specified complexity? No. Dembski, genius that he is, knows that if something is improbable, it necessarily follows that it's not highly probable or intermediately probable.<br /><br />That paper is Dembski's most current description of his design detection method, and that's what I used in my analysis. If I had wanted to know whether pulsars could be attributed to regularity or chance, I would have stepped through the first two nodes of the EF. But since I only cared about whether it was designed, I immediately calculated the specified complexity (which maps to the sp/SP node), which is what Dembski tells us to do in that paper.R0bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12140319137607912834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-51891341266235090652007-02-05T12:53:00.000-08:002007-02-05T12:53:00.000-08:00With regards to your claims that the EF must be fo...With regards to your claims that the EF must be followed step-by-step because it's a flowchart, I respond that the ordering of nodes in flowcharts isn't <i>always</i> important. The example I gave was this:<br /><br />1. If the temperature is greater than 80 degrees, then it's hot.<br /><br />2. If the temperature is between 60 and 80, then it's moderate.<br /><br />3. If the temperature is below 60, then it's cold.<br /><br />Question: If the temperature is 0, can I determine that it's cold without passing through all nodes?R0bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12140319137607912834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-52516770144639109382007-02-05T12:48:00.000-08:002007-02-05T12:48:00.000-08:00Joe's response to my first challenge was: Because ...Joe's response to my first challenge was: <i>Because you don't know if the probability is small until due diligence is first applied. </i><br /><br />To which I said: <i>We have to calculate the probability before we can evaluate any of the nodes, and once we calculate it we can immediately tell whether it's high, intermediate, or small.</i><br /><br />To which you responded: <i>That's false. We calculate the probability only based on the knowledge gained via due diligence, ie research.</i><br /><br />I agree that "We calculate the probability only based on the knowledge gained via due diligence, ie research." And since we have to calculate the probability before we can determine whether the event is high probability, it follows that the due diligence and research must be done <i>before</i> applying the filter.<br /><br />So what do you mean by "That's false"?R0bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12140319137607912834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-10535085463905977242007-02-05T12:46:00.000-08:002007-02-05T12:46:00.000-08:00Zachriel: The researchers involved (Bell & Hewish)...Zachriel: The researchers involved (Bell & Hewish) in the discovery of pulsars never made an inaccurate scientific inference of design (though they certainly did consider the possibility).<br /><br /><b>joe g</b>: "<I>Thanks for the support. However someone did dub the signal LGM for little green men. So THERE you have it secondclass. The case is closed. The design inference was never made by the scientists doing the research- according to Zachriel.</i>"<br /><br />The case is closed. This statement is based on a faulty premise. <br /><br /><b>joe g</b>: "<I>A properly applied EF and the researchers who initially inferred design wouldn't have.</i>"<br /><br />The researchers "never made an inaccurate scientific inference of design". They included design with many other explanations, sought additional evidence and ruled out design without ever referencing Dembski or his Explanatory Filter.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-2024183747374080092007-02-05T12:42:00.000-08:002007-02-05T12:42:00.000-08:00I'll respond to your answer to the first challenge...I'll respond to your answer to the first challenge while you work on answering the other 7.<br /><br />Your claim my pulsar analysis is void because I didn't traverse the nodes of the EF in order. This claim is specious for so many reasons that it will probably take several posts to cover them.<br /><br />Here is the significant portion of my <a href=http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000651.html>analysis</a>:<br /><br /><i>Nobody knows anything about pulsars yet, so our chance hypothesis is random noise, giving us a P(T|H) of 5*10^-27092. To be generous with SpecRes, we assume that all signals that repeat every 34 bits are equally simple.</i><br /><br />Apparently, I should have inserted the following:<br /><br /><i>Nobody knows anything about pulsars yet, so our chance hypothesis is random noise, giving us a P(T|H) of 5*10^-27092. <b>This probability is not high. Nor is it intermediate.</b> To be generous with SpecRes, we assume that all signals that repeat every 34 bits are equally simple.</i><br /><br />Later, I calculate that the probability is small enough to infer design, and the fact that it's small means that it's neither high nor intermediate, making those two inserted statements redundant. But according to you, the argument is not valid until I insert them, even though they're superfluous.R0bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12140319137607912834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-716700326414619522007-02-05T12:24:00.000-08:002007-02-05T12:24:00.000-08:00secondclass:
My claim all along has been that if t...secondclass:<br /><i>My claim all along has been that if they had applied Dembski's method, they would have come up with a false positive.</i><br /><br />And that is false for the reasons already provided.<br /><br />Just because you don't understand flowcharts should not be confused with no one understands them.<br /><br />And now it is obvious they wouldn't have inferred design if they applied due diligence.<br /><br />Case closed c-yaJoe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-18213158654892417842007-02-05T12:23:00.000-08:002007-02-05T12:23:00.000-08:00I said: And until he was corrected, Joe thought th...I said: <i>And until he was corrected, Joe thought that detachability was a sign of fabrication rather than a requirement for specification.</i><br /><br />Joe responded: <i> Yes, in my haste to figure out what secondclass was talking about I re-read TDI- a book I had read some 7 years ago- and misread Dembski.</i><br /><br />How long ago did you read NFL? Detachability is discussed throughout the book, as it is in TDI. If you don't understand detachability, you don't understand Dembski's approach.R0bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12140319137607912834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-54935393555792609912007-02-05T12:15:00.000-08:002007-02-05T12:15:00.000-08:00Joe: So THERE you have it secondclass. The case is...Joe: <i>So THERE you have it secondclass. The case is closed. The design inference was never made by the scientists doing the research- according to Zachriel.</i><br /><br />I never said it was. You are the one who referred to "the researchers who initially inferred design". My claim all along has been that <i>if</i> they had applied Dembski's method, they would have come up with a false positive.R0bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12140319137607912834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23603046.post-34475773580153614562007-02-05T12:05:00.000-08:002007-02-05T12:05:00.000-08:00I wouldn't mind seeing something indicating that D...I wouldn't mind seeing something indicating that Dembski has sufficient background knowledge regarding the bacterial flagellum such that he can even apply his 'filter' to it.Doppelgangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07019994267093407424noreply@blogger.com