Re: The CSI Challenge of snex

On Jul 3, 7:10 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Jul 3, 12:21 pm, snex <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jul 3, 12:59 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
if you think you have a more appropriate way to testCSI, you come up
with a test that can be double-blinded, and i will have data generated
for you. that way you cant complain that the person making the test
doesnt understandCSI, because it will be you yourself making it.

Given knowledge of the material in question (i.e., radiosignals,
granite, marble, ripples on a lake, etc), I can very successfully
predict, ahead of time, that certain types of patterns will not be
realized outside of deliberate artifact - even being completely blind
to the actual artifactual or non-artifactual origin of the patterns
being produced in these materials.

That is what a double-blind test is. It doesn't mean that one is
completely blind to any match to the hypothesis. In order to test the
hypothesis the hypothesis must actually be known ahead of time. What
is being tested, in a double blind manner, is the ability of the
hypothesis to avoid being wrong when it actually makes a prediction as
to which one of a group of patterns was produced in a specific
material via deliberate artifact.

you have not passed such a test, nor have you proposed a way to make
one.

I just did propose a way to test an algorithm for predicting
deliberate artifact given knowledge of the material in question ahead
of time. This is exactly what SETI scientists have done when it comes
to radiosignals.

In your challenge, you don't say anything about what your patterns
represent - the material in question. Do they represent radiosignals,
DNA, red and white marbles, what? Also, you don't seem to have
grasped the concept that the inability of the algorithm to detect a
useful bias, and therefore produce a non-result (i.e., a non-
prediction) is not evidence against its usefulness. The algorithm
cannot detect non-deliberate processes to the exclusion of deliberate
artifact. It can only detect deliberate artifact to the exclusion of
non-deliberate processes - given a certain specific medium that is
known and experimented with ahead of time.

had you read the challenge, youd see they represent radio waves. pick
whatever modulation scheme youd like.




This does not mean that a hypothesis must always make a prediction. If
the pattern in question doesn't match the criteria for successful
prediction, a non-prediction is given - which is basically equivalent
to "I don't know". The "I don't know" prediction is not a failure of
the hypothesis. A failure of the hypothesis is when the hypothesis
makes a positive prediction of deliberate artifact that is in fact
wrong.

surely you must realize that until CSI passes a double-blind test, it
is just as worthless as any other idea that cannot do so.

You've set up an inappropriate test - one that highlights your basic
misunderstanding of the problem.

your methods have never passed ANY such test, and yet you want to go
off applying them to biology. pass a test first, then submit it to
peer review.

My methods have indeed passed a great many tests - the same ones that
the algorithms used by SETI scientists have passed. It's just these
tests are not your type of test because your test method isn't set up
appropriately.

your methods have passed no tests. if they have, theyd be in the
literature. SETI is not using the same methodology as you are, as has
already been explained ad nauseum.


Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The CSI Challenge of snex
    ... realized outside of deliberate artifact - even being completely blind ... to the actual artifactual or non-artifactual origin of the patterns ... I just did propose a way to test an algorithm for predicting ... prediction) is not evidence against its usefulness. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The CSI Challenge of snex
    ... realized outside of deliberate artifact - even being completely blind ... to the actual artifactual or non-artifactual origin of the patterns ... completely blind to any match to the hypothesis. ... This does not mean that a hypothesis must always make a prediction. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The CSI Challenge of snex
    ... realized outside of deliberate artifact - even being completely blind ... to the actual artifactual or non-artifactual origin of the patterns ... completely blind to any match to the hypothesis. ... This does not mean that a hypothesis must always make a prediction. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Chez Watt nomination:
    ... realized outside of deliberate artifact - even being completely blind ... to the actual artifactual or non-artifactual origin of the patterns ... completely blind to any match to the hypothesis. ... This does not mean that a hypothesis must always make a prediction. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Predicting the Future and Kolmogorov Complexity
    ... The same way SETI scientists propose how to detect artifact. ... give clear evidence of deliberate artifact - same as what ... to detect design? ... what algorithm do I feed it in to, and how do I interpret the results? ...
    (talk.origins)