Re: The CSI Challenge of snex

On Jul 3, 12:59 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
0catch.com> wrote:
On Jul 2, 12:19 pm, snex <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jul 2, 1:36 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Jul 2, 10:32 am, snex <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

this is the kind of thing that i am asking ID proponents to do. they
dont even need to do any actual decoding - just measure theCSIin
each bit string and tell me if it seems to have enough to warrant a
design inference. why arent they jumping at the chance?

You don't understand the concept ofCSI. . . as illustred in my
response to yourCSIchallenge above in this thread.

your response validates my challenge as legitimate. the claims of
dembski validate my challenge as legitimate. you simply refuse to
apply the mathematics because you know that you cant know the answer
ahead of time.

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.


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.


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 ... 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: 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 ... I just did propose a way to test an algorithm for predicting ... prediction) is not evidence against its usefulness. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Intelligence by definition
    ... Complexity theory defines similarity ... costs, not benefits, of prediction. ... which is a second type of vector: the one scaling inputs' ... Patterns of negative Net_V are deleted, ...
    (sci.cognitive)