Re: Challenge to Intelligent Design practitioners

On Mar 24, 2:06 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"noctiluca" <robertlc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1174757255.651299.171060@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 24, 12:58 am, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"snex" <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1174718935.207733.42910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 24, 12:41 am, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"snex" <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1174708837.814528.5120@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 23, 10:50 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
<pcl6...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1174706200.028524.259580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 23, 6:28 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
<pcl6...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1174682126.314204.140030@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 23, 3:50 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
<pcl6...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1174677855.890129.257500@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<snip>

In any case, you (and pcl6510) are clearly creating a strawman by suggesting
that the ID or CSI folks are claiming some secret method of analyzing evidence.
To the extent that they have such methods, they have already published them,
and if you wish to prove that they don't work, all you have to do is read their
publications, try their methods yourself, and tell us that they didn't work.

I think the real utility of the challenges presented by snex and
pcl6510 lies not in their ability to specifically address ID
"theorists" (Dembski's) methods but in the fact that they focus
attention on the logic of the resultant inference. Dembski did have
constraints on the EF, including specificity (a shaky concept as he
uses it) and things like the universal probability bound, and he did
allow, as Steven J. has pointed out, that it could produce false
positives. So it is probably correct to note that the aforementioned
challenges do not specifically apply to actual methodology so much as
broad theoretical expectations.

But the crucial part of those broad expectations *is* the inference to
"design" and all that that entails. These challenges have the virtue
of helping us to see that the only true diagnostic of design is
*intent*, and knowledge of intent relies upon knowledge, of some sort,
of the designer. Complexity doesn't get you there, simplicity is just
as often diagnostic of things we know to be designed. Organization
doesn't do it, irreducibility doesn't do it. Neither do things like
robustness or redundancy. It seems to me that as we examine the list
of possible characters that are diagnostic of design the only one that
holds true in all cases is that said artifact or activity is the
result of volition.

I fully agree with this.

Thus we need to find evidence of this before
"design" can be an empirical conclusion, as opposed to merely
importing this quality with a "design" inference, as ID proponents
wish to do.

But here is where I think I disagree. We don't need a priori evidence
of intent. All we require is a specific hypothesis of intent with some
non-zero a priori probability of being the case. Evidence or argument that
the empirical facts before us are likely under the assumption of the hypothesis
and unlikely under the null assumption then constitute evidence for the
hypothesis of intent. Whether it is *convincing* evidence or not will depend
on what (subjective) number was attached to the a priori probability of the
hypothesis. But it IS evidence as long as we start with any non-zero
a priori probabilities.

I don't claim to speak for snex and pcl6510. They have their own ideas
as to what their challenges accomplish. I just want to make the point
that these kinds of thought exercises do help to illuminate some of
the problems with ID.

And I don't speak for Dembski and Behe. They seem to think that you don't
need a hypothesis of intent. And I thank you for explaining once again
why they are wrong.

You are right that this kind of challenge can be illuminating, but in this
case I think that the illumination reveals that snex and pcl6510 don't
understand the ID position and have no intention of learning something about
it.

Whether or not I have an intention of learning something about
intelligent design, I'm picking up a few ideas about it. I did
however make the original post in an effort to learn something about
intelligent design. I fully admit that I don't understand the
intelligent design position. I don't understand what the theory is.
And I don't understand why we can't come up with some sort of test to
check the theory. Like the example I gave before. if I claim to have
a device (which I construct based on my theory of radio-activity)
which can detect radio-activity, then there is a pretty simple way to
set up a test, and my device can be shown to work or not work.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Challenge to Intelligent Design practitioners
    ... that the ID or CSI folks are claiming some secret method of analyzing evidence. ... "design" and all that that entails. ... *intent*, and knowledge of intent relies upon knowledge, of some sort, ... non-zero a priori probability of being the case. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to Intelligent Design practitioners
    ... that the ID or CSI folks are claiming some secret method of analyzing evidence. ... "design" and all that that entails. ... *intent*, and knowledge of intent relies upon knowledge, of some sort, ... non-zero a priori probability of being the case. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to Intelligent Design practitioners
    ... that the ID or CSI folks are claiming some secret method of analyzing evidence. ... "design" and all that that entails. ... *intent*, and knowledge of intent relies upon knowledge, of some sort, ... non-zero a priori probability of being the case. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge to Intelligent Design practitioners
    ... that the ID or CSI folks are claiming some secret method of analyzing evidence. ... "design" and all that that entails. ... *intent*, and knowledge of intent relies upon knowledge, of some sort, ... non-zero a priori probability of being the case. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge for Seanpit
    ... the same scientific evidence in life: ... Dr. Scott has a Ph.D. in philosophy and religion and a Ph.D. minor is ... One cannot deny the existance of God, ... 1986 Dawkins attempted to answer the "Argument from Design" and failed. ...
    (talk.origins)