Re: The CSI Challenge of snex


On Jul 2, 4:21 pm, snex <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Your "CSI Challenge" really doesn't amount to anything significant
with it comes to the predictive power of the ID hypothesis.

my CSI challenge is exactly the way to test the limits of your claims
to detect design. its easy enough to rattle off examples where we
ALREADY KNOW the result, but you still have not passed the double-
blind test.

Not being able to find a biased pattern in a particular sequence
doesn't mean there isn't one. Randomness is never provable. However,
non-randomness is provable. If the non-random bias happens to be of a
certain quality that is clearly beyond what any known non-deliberate
processes is capable of achieving, that bias can be used to support
the design hypothesis.

This is where CSI comes into play. If the irregularities of the
radiosignal match irregularities of a known type of pattern, like a
certain type of symmetry or a pattern with a known bias like pi or the
first 20 prime numbers, such a match builds up the hypothesis of non-
randomness and artifact very quickly.

You are trying to attack a strawman misrepresentation of CSI is all
you're doing. Not every sequence that is in fact artifactual can be
detected as such. Asking for such a demonstration is a demonstration
of your own misunderstanding of this problem.

if you dont think my data is appropriate, give me an appropriate test
that can be applied in a double-blind manner, and i will get the data
for you.

If by "double blind" you mean that the pattern in the sequence is
difficult to detect, that's an irrelevant red herring. Having a
system to adequately detect design doesn't mean that all artifactual
involvement in the production of all sequences can be detected by any
particular mechanism. That's impossible. What is possible, however,
is the detecting of design given that a certain type of pattern is
recognized. If this pattern is not recognized does that mean there
was no deliberate design involved? Not necessarily. This possibility
will always be there. However, if the pattern is recognized, beyond
certain parameters, the hypothesis of deliberate artifact can indeed
be very well supported.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The CSI Challenge of snex
    ... Not being able to find a biased pattern in a particular sequence ... the design hypothesis. ... This is where CSI comes into play. ... randomness and artifact very quickly. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: CSI, by itself, does not = ID
    ... figures will be construed as proof that you cannot measure CSI. ... or not detect a bias in a pattern of numbers is the same thing IDists ... when exposed to various kinds of non-deliberate forces of nature. ... But wasn't ID supposed to be a method that was able to detect "design" ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: John Conways game of Life and order from chaos
    ... and it's defined as a pattern in the Game of Life ... mathematically proven to be gardens of eden. ... I'd challenge the IDers here to calculate the CSI of a Garden of Eden ... (remember that CSI is the hallmark of design, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Pitman CSI Formula
    ... unlikely to make a design predictor. ... RNG -- to generate a string of a million binary digits and write them ... and thus not have any Dembski-style CSI because ... it would not conform to "an independently given pattern". ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution is not random?
    ... Below is the definition that best meets my "intent". ... "intent" than the third or later definitions of a guiding agent. ... "optimize" is used in the pattern sense and not design sense right? ... pattern, not something that is different from "pattern". ...
    (talk.origins)