|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
 Posted - 12/16/2012 : 10:02:15 [Permalink]
|
| I never said that there was a "theory of chemistry." Chemistry "... is the study of the composition, properties and behavior of matter," so if we can show that chemistry actually doesn't do that, we can "falsify" the entire field. |
So, in your world, it is NOT just theories of science that falls under the methodological naturalism inherent in Popperian thought? Is it all of life?
My car won't start....I think it is the battery...I will change the battery....OK, still won't start.....Must be the starter...so I have just falsified something here nullifying the entire concept that the car won't start? You have a long row to hoe to show anything in philosophy that equates to ID here, but I'm listening, go for it...
| Since ID cannot possibly distinguish between designed things and not-designed things, it is a false methodology. It doesn't do what it purports to do. |
Oh, but it can and you KNOW that it can. You and/or the other science deniers will never ACCEPT that it can because it violates your religious beliefs.....But there are NO unbiased people who study ID thoroughly that would draw this same conclusion.
I have already demonstrated that the way that you employ science and math is wrong. Two years ago you made it clear that you don't understand algebra, so your above-quoted statement is simply raw arrogance.
|
Yawn...why yes...(as Dave beats chest) of course you have...of course you have......(now waits for Dave to start pulling up old posts and twisting them). |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2012 : 12:09:49 [Permalink]
|
JerryB:
Oh, but it can and you KNOW that it can. |
It hasn't yet. Do you have something specific in mind? Putting aside man or animal made stuff, what has been clearly designed and can't be explained by way of natural processes? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2012 : 13:08:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
I don't remember this forum having no reply button for individual posts?? Probably something on my end. Oh well, guess I can use quick reply and cut and paste. |
The reply-button looks like this: |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2012 : 13:33:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
My car won't start....I think it is the battery...I will change the battery....OK, still won't start.....Must be the starter...so I have just falsified something here nullifying the entire concept that the car won't start? |
This is f**ing stupid. Do you really think this is the way we reason?
I'm insulted. Deeply insulted.
You won't get any respect from us if you treat us as first-graders.
You and/or the other science deniers will never ACCEPT that it can because it violates your religious beliefs..... |
Since you know us better than we know ourselves, please do tell us what our religious beliefs are. We need to know.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2012 : 13:43:53 [Permalink]
|
It hasn't yet. Do you have something specific in mind? Putting aside man or animal made stuff, what has been clearly designed and can't be explained by way of natural processes?
|
Funny that you bring up the word 'specific.' Although design is most often used with proteins, flagella, DNA...living stuff... as you point out....it certainly doesn't have to be.
One mathematical methodology we have discussed before (although it seems I only get in here every few years and I'm sure few remember those discussions) is complex specified information (CSI).
If a given system contains both complex and specified information, it is designed by intelligence. Windows 7, might be such a system, but let's simplify everything to a level I think anyone can understand.
When is a system complex? When it contains 10^150, or 500 bits of information or more. That's simple mathematics. But if we view a molecule or a pebble as information (yes, a simple pebble is information--if I see one laying along side the road and note there is a pebble there, it is even PROCESSED as information in my mind) and there are more than 500 bits of them (number of them in a given system), that still doesn't make a system CSI because just a group of pebbles in a pile is NOT a specified system.
It requires specificity, coupled with complexity to constitute CSI.
So what is specificity........
If I blindfold an archer and place him in the middle of a huge stadium and tell him to shoot an arrow into the stadium wall, he will probably hit the wall, the wall is massive, surrounds him; and I might be surprised if he MISSES the wall.
OK, I checkerboard the wall into black and white squares and tell him to hit black. He has a 50/50 chance of doing this, so it wouldn't surprise me still if he hits black.
But I keep marking of the wall into different colored squares...next 4 colors, then 8, then 16...and if he keeps hitting black, I'll start to suspect something is going on because he continues to hit the SPECIFIC color (black)even though the odds are becoming astronomically against him to do so.
So, I paint the walls all white, paint a tiny one inch by one inch square of black on a wall, spin him around a few times and tell him to hit that dot.....he bulleyes it.......SOMETHING is up here...Intelligence is at work.....there in NO WAY that this could occur by chance happening.....
That is specificity....now lets flip some quarters and put it all together.
I flip 10^150 quarters....they all come up heads...they can be calculated in bits because I WANT them to come up all heads, they can be on or off (heads=on, tails=off) therefore they meet Claude Shannon's definition of bits.......
1. So I was shooting for heads, hit them all against astronomical odds of me doing so and can conclude that this is DEFINITELY specified information.
2. The system contains 500 bits of information, so it is complex.
And I have CSI and a designed system....I detect design....we can move on...*wink*
So here is a mind toy for you to play with......Suppose I flip 10^150 quarters, they all come up heads and they all fall perfectly into lettering spelling this: "Good morning Kil. We quarters like you and want you to have a good day...."
Would you think that latter system could occur by chance happening?
|
| Edited by - JerryB on 12/16/2012 13:47:45 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2012 : 13:47:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
So, in your world, it is NOT just theories of science that falls under the methodological naturalism inherent in Popperian thought? Is it all of life? |
You are confusing categories. If chemistry doesn't do what it purports to do, then it is wrong (or, in other words, "false"). By analogy, if I call myself a plumber, but it is shown that I can't fix a leaky valve, that "falsifies" my claim to be a plumber. How hard is this for you to understand?| My car won't start....I think it is the battery...I will change the battery....OK, still won't start.....Must be the starter...so I have just falsified something here nullifying the entire concept that the car won't start? |
That's quite a bizarre straw-man you've built there.| You have a long row to hoe to show anything in philosophy that equates to ID here, but I'm listening, go for it... |
Why should I entertain your strange straw men for you?| Since ID cannot possibly distinguish between designed things and not-designed things, it is a false methodology. It doesn't do what it purports to do. |
Oh, but it can and you KNOW that it can. |
No, in fact I can prove that it can't.| You and/or the other science deniers will never ACCEPT that it can because it violates your religious beliefs... |
You are merely projecting your flaws onto others, not proving your assertions.| ..But there are NO unbiased people who study ID thoroughly that would draw this same conclusion. |
A no-true-unbiased-person argument. How predictable. Tell us, what qualities do unbiased people have that objectively distinguishes them from biased people? How can we tell that you are unbiased?| Yawn...why yes...(as Dave beats chest) of course you have...of course you have......(now waits for Dave to start pulling up old posts and twisting them). |
I have no need to twisting anything, anyone can go read the old thread and see your lack of understanding of algebra and units for themselves. You embarrassed yourself back then, so it's no wonder that you won't pull up the old posts and defend them. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2012 : 13:53:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
If a given system contains both complex and specified information, it is designed by intelligence. |
Provide an argument as to why that should be considered true.| When is a system complex? When it contains 10^150, or 500 bits of information or more. That's simple mathematics. |
No, that's a number Dembski pulled out of his ass.| So, I paint the walls all white, paint a tiny one inch by one inch square of black on a wall, spin him around a few times and tell him to hit that dot.....he bulleyes it.......SOMETHING is up here...Intelligence is at work.....there in NO WAY that this could occur by chance happening..... |
False dichotomy. Something is up, yes. But "chance" or "intelligence" are not the only two options for explanation.
Even Dembski knew that much. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2012 : 17:28:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
OK, I'll expand......How can one falsify something that is NOT a theory to begin with?? With me on that? ID is not a theory in itself....if you think it is, please state the theory of ID. Of course, you won't because there isn't one. It's just a field of study like biology or chemistry. Can you state the theory of biology or the theory of chemistry? Of course not, because there isn't one. These are just fields of study...methodologies....not scientific theories which can be falsified....his paper simply makes no sense. |
One can't falsify ID. Some ID supporters seem to think so but they are wrong. Sober never said that it could be falsified, so why do you keep bringing it up? Did you understand the paper?
Sober states the "theory of ID" in very general terms and also concludes that it is not scientific - meaning, in essence, that it is NOT a theory.
His paper makes perfect sense - if one understands it.
| Oh, but it can and you KNOW that it can. |
Are you lying or ignorant?
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2012 : 20:08:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
So what is specificity........
If I blindfold an archer and place him in the middle of a huge stadium and tell him to shoot an arrow into the stadium wall, he will probably hit the wall, the wall is massive, surrounds him; and I might be surprised if he MISSES the wall.
OK, I checkerboard the wall into black and white squares and tell him to hit black. He has a 50/50 chance of doing this, so it wouldn't surprise me still if he hits black.
But I keep marking of the wall into different colored squares...next 4 colors, then 8, then 16...and if he keeps hitting black, I'll start to suspect something is going on because he continues to hit the SPECIFIC color (black)even though the odds are becoming astronomically against him to do so.
So, I paint the walls all white, paint a tiny one inch by one inch square of black on a wall, spin him around a few times and tell him to hit that dot.....he bulleyes it.......SOMETHING is up here...Intelligence is at work.....there in NO WAY that this could occur by chance happening..... |
The problem is that you're attributing value to one particular outcome (life as we know it) without basis. With the black squares on the wall, this makes sense, but what you're doing with life is more equivalent to letting the blindfolded man shoot a fully white wall and then seeing where he hit and drawing a tiny black box around it and saying how unlikely it was for this to happen. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 12/16/2012 20:12:00 |
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1486 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2012 : 21:35:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Originally posted by JerryB
So what is specificity........
If I blindfold an archer and place him in the middle of a huge stadium and tell him to shoot an arrow into the stadium wall, he will probably hit the wall, the wall is massive, surrounds him; and I might be surprised if he MISSES the wall.
OK, I checkerboard the wall into black and white squares and tell him to hit black. He has a 50/50 chance of doing this, so it wouldn't surprise me still if he hits black.
But I keep marking of the wall into different colored squares...next 4 colors, then 8, then 16...and if he keeps hitting black, I'll start to suspect something is going on because he continues to hit the SPECIFIC color (black)even though the odds are becoming astronomically against him to do so.
So, I paint the walls all white, paint a tiny one inch by one inch square of black on a wall, spin him around a few times and tell him to hit that dot.....he bulleyes it.......SOMETHING is up here...Intelligence is at work.....there in NO WAY that this could occur by chance happening..... |
The problem is that you're attributing value to one particular outcome (life as we know it) without basis. With the black squares on the wall, this makes sense, but what you're doing with life is more equivalent to letting the blindfolded man shoot a fully white wall and then seeing where he hit and drawing a tiny black box around it and saying how unlikely it was for this to happen.
|
The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/09/11/the-texas-sharpshooter-fallacy/
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2012 : 21:52:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
When is a system complex? When it contains 10^150, or 500 bits of information or more. That's simple mathematics. But if we view a molecule or a pebble as information (yes, a simple pebble is information--if I see one laying along side the road and note there is a pebble there, it is even PROCESSED as information in my mind) and there are more than 500 bits of them (number of them in a given system), that still doesn't make a system CSI because just a group of pebbles in a pile is NOT a specified system. |
Let's look at the history of this 10^150 number. Dembski appealed to Borel, a very venerated mathematician but not well-known outside, but unquestionably a great authority on probability (it was very informal until the Russian mathematician Kolmogorov formalized the axioms of probability that are currently used early in the 1900s, and Borel was one of the primary probabilists involved in developing the theory). The trouble is that he references Borel from an elementary text on probability, where he said very low probabilities don't happen, then Dembski proceeeds to decide 10^150 is the right number due to universal constants and the mass of the universe, and multiplying by 10^25 (which he literally made up).
The reality is that what Borel said wasn't a scholarly article, it was a good rule of thumb for those reading his elementary textbook and just needed to understand how to use probability -- and, very very tiny probabilities are not useful in their applications, so effectively they can ignore them, but there's no universal number, he considered effectively negligible events under various scenarios.
Borel himself also wrote that such things don't make sense in the context of evolution because there is no hypothesis that life came about in an advanced form all at once, the hypothesis is that there were very many small incremental steps, and argued we don't have the ability to calculate the probabilities because it requires very many assumptions (physical laws force a complicated dependency structure among different small changes, and we simply don't have enough information to unravel all of this).
In any case, there's no mathematical basis for this, Dembski is literally saying 10^-150 = 0, which is obviously untrue. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 12/16/2012 22:17:07 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2012 : 02:39:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
When is a system complex? When it contains 10^150, or 500 bits of information or more.
|
So, which is it? 10^150 or 2^500? They are not the same.
And what basis (evidence) do you have for this arbitrary number?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2012 : 04:42:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
So, which is it? 10^150 or 2^500? They are not the same. |
2500 is about 3.3×10150.
"500 coin flips" is a lot easier to remember than "498.289-something coin flips."
It's an error of only 7.9 milliDembskis, anyway. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2012 : 06:49:31 [Permalink]
|
And I propose we are in the minds of some teenage mythical creatures like minotaurs and dragons while they play the RPG Students and Studies made by Wizards of the Coast. (No, real wizards and a different coast)
Now, prove me wrong, Jerry. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 12/17/2012 : 09:15:20 [Permalink]
|
| You are confusing categories. If chemistry doesn't do what it purports to do, then it is wrong (or, in other words, "false"). By analogy, if I call myself a plumber, but it is shown that I can't fix a leaky valve, that "falsifies" my claim to be a plumber. How hard is this for you to understand? |
So, here's the deal....we were discussing scientific theory and relating said theories to Karl Popper's concept that a positive aspect of a theory is its potential of falsifiability or refutability. If you DON'T have a scientific theory to begin with, there is not one in existence to falsify.......That would seem to me to be obvious to anyone. Yet, you seem to be declaring that, under Popperian thought there is a way to falsify nonexistent theories.......You are now so side-tracked on the conversation that you are into plumbing....Care to start over? <:0)
| No, in fact I can prove that it can't. |
Well, why on earth don't you just do so......If you can prove that ID CANNOT detect design, wouldn't that be the end of the discussion? Wouldn't the whole concept just go away? Isn't that what you want?
| A no-true-unbiased-person argument. How predictable. Tell us, what qualities do unbiased people have that objectively distinguishes them from biased people? How can we tell that you are unbiased? |
Am I unbiased at this point, no. I've studied the issues and even flirted with atheism at one point in my life--But I entered my studies unbiased, determined to let the chips fall where they may, utilizing an open mind coupled with a lot of thought. I was once unbiased, but not anymore. I made up my mind. So have you, apparently.
| No, that's a number Dembski pulled out of his ass. |
Actually, no he didn't. Borel's law has been a part of science at least since I studied chemistry in college. Borel mused that for a chemical reaction to occur, certain conditions must be present and if the odds are more than 1:10^50 against a chemical reaction occurring, it CANNOT happen given ANY amount of time.
Dembski is a mathematician who took Borel's law and mathematically expanded it accordingly: Dembski defines a universal probability bound of 10^-150, based on an estimate of the total number of processes that could have occurred in the universe since its beginning. Estimating the total number of particles in the universe at 10^80, the number of physical state transitions a particle can make at 10^45 per second (Planck time, the smallest physically meaningful unit of time) and the age of the universe at 10^25 seconds, thus the total number of processes involving at least one elementary particle is at most 1:10^150. Anything with a probability of less than 10^150 is unlikely to have occurred by chance.
That's hardly pulling numbers out of the air.
| False dichotomy. Something is up, yes. But "chance" or "intelligence" are not the only two options for explanation. |
Ahh...so we agree that "something is up." Now we only have to come to an understanding of what that 'something' is.
So, let's discuss the other options other than chance or purposeful design........what are those other options? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Our creator was a computer
