Re: The Artifact Hypothesis

On Dec 17, 7:04 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
0catch.com> wrote:
On Dec 17, 8:43 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:



On Dec 17, 4:27 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.

0catch.com> wrote:
Richard Forrest:
No, it's the argument that if we observe something being made we know
that the object we see was made and *how* it was made.
Sean Pitman:
We also know, most of the time anyway, that the object we see being
made could also be made in many different ways.
Richard Forrest:
So what? Are you saying that because
science doesn't offer absolutes, no
evidence is of any value?

How many times have I pointed out that science is never about
absolutes, but about *degrees* of certainty? Science produces
predictive value that is certainly useful while never being
absolute.

Another typical Pitman response.
You asserted that the nature of your fictitious cube itself is enough
to determine that it is an artifact, and that therefore no further
testing is necessary, and asserted that the possible ambiguity of
interpretation of evidence means that it has no value whatsoever.

So in Pitmanworld "scientists" simply go by first impressions and
don't do any further research.

Where did I say that?

When you said that because a granite cube *looks* like an artifact,
there is no point in making any further tests because the "hypothesis"
of artifact is confirmed.

Research should always be ongoing. It should
never end. All hypotheses and theories should be investigated over
and over again. Why? Because the potential for falsification is
always there. This doesn't mean that a hypothesis cannot be accepted
as being most likely true early on.

"This looks like an artifact" is not an hypothesis.

Which planet do you live on?

That is why the finding of a highly symmetrical polished granite cube
can be very reasonably hypothesized to be the result of deliberate
manufacture. It fulfills both sides of the equation you yourself use
for the detection of artifact. We know how it could have been
manufactured (Part A) and we know that no known non-deliberate force
of nature can mimic such a form in the material of granite (Part B).

No we don't, because we don't know what unknown natural forces can do.

I'm using your own argument here Richard.

No, you are not.

You said that because you
know that no *known* non-deliberate force of nature is likely to mimic
your tool marks, that you can be safe in assuming that they are in
fact tool marks. Is this not what you said?

No, I didn't. Try reading my posts.

If not, please do
clarify how you can detect tool marks as tool marks.

Try reading my posts.


You use the very same argument to support your proposal that certain
"tool marks" are in fact tool marks.

No I don't, and as I have pointed this out to you over and over again
I can only conclude that you feel obliged to lie about my argument.

Evidence allows us to test *specific* hypotheses of manufacture.

That's Part A of the two part method of detecting artifact Richard.
What about Part B?

There is no "Part B". That's your invention.

You yourself said that you have to know that known
non-deliberate forces of nature are very unlikely to mimic these tool
marks of yours. Isn't that true?

No I didn't. I said that no known natural processes could produce such
marks.



You argue that you know how they
could have been manufactured (Part A) because you've seen similar if
not identical markings being produced by certain forms of
manufacture.

Yes, it's what's called "evidence".

Yep - - Part A evidence.

You also say that there is no known non-deliberate force
of nature that can mimic such tool marks (Part B).

Quite so. Note the use of the word "known".

That's right - no *known* force of nature can produce your tool
marks. Therefore, you are pretty same in proposing that your tool
marks are in fact real tool marks - - right?

That's the hypothesis which is being tested. It's called "starting
with the evidence".


Therefore, you can
adequately conclude that these markings are in fact "artifacts".

Where is the difference between your basis for determining the
artifactual nature of tool marks and my basis for determining the
artifactual nature of a highly symmetrical polished granite cube?

Because I am identifying a *specific* process, and on the basis of
knowing the process can form a conclusion about whether or not it is
an artifact.

So am I. I can identify a specific process to produce highly
symmetrical polished granite cubes as well - just like you identify a
specific process than can produce certain kinds of tool marks.

"Made by deliberate processses" is NOT a specific process!



That's how scientists who need to make such determinations work.

I'm just using your own proposed method Richard.

No, you are not.


And let's put back the rest of my post, which you snipped without
marking and posted as a new thread. Why is this? Are you embarassed by
how many questions you evade, and think you can misrepresent me
without anyone noticing?

I've already answered these comments of your many times before. I just
don't have the time to repeat the same thing over and over . . . But
I'll do it this once because this is a new thread . . .

That gives us
evidence which we can then use to determine how *other* similar
objects were made.

Not quite right. It tells you how other similar objects could have
been made.

It's called "evidence".
Scientists seem to think that it
is important, but evidently you
don't.

I'm just using your own proposed method . . .


No, you are not.

It doesn't tell you how they were actually made.

I didn't say that it did. You really
do need to learn to read for
comprehension.

Very
similar objects can be made in many different ways.

Quite so, which is why we look
for evidence to narrow the field.

Exactly what I'm doing with a highly symmetrical granite cube -
narrowing the field as to how it is likely to have been made.

Knowing this
really isn't helpful in determining how, exactly, a particular object
or phenomenon was actually made.

So because the evidence can't show with
100% certainty exactly how an
object was made, all evidence is worthless?

Not at all. I can't show with 100% certainty how a particular granite
cube was made. But, this doesn't mean that the design hypothesis is
worthless. Exactly the same thing is true of your "tool marks".

You stated that evidence such as toolmarks is meaningless.


What a weird parallel universe you inhabit, Sean.

I'm really not sure where you think the significant differences in
your argument lie?

Then your ability to read for comprehension is severely impaired.


I'm sorry if my first post was not clear, but I
clarified it in a subsequent post.

Your clarification basically suggests the same thing - that the
hypothesis of artifact only requires research into how the object in
question could have been manufactured.

Well, that's what the scientists who work in such fields think.

That's only Part A of the formula Richard. Don't forget about Part B.

There is no "Part B". That's your invention.

A river rock could have been
manufactured, deliberately, in many different ways.

So what?

It means that knowing Part A of the formula, by itself, is not enough
to adequately support the hypothesis of artifact.

There is no "formula"! There is evidence, and hypothesis testing.
Hypothesis test for *specific* forms of manufacture.

So, demonstrating
how one could manufacture something very similar, even
indistinguishable, from a river rock is obviously not enough to
suggest how it was actually made.

So you are once again suggesting that because we can't establish with
100% certainty how something was made, no evidence is of any value.

Nope. What I'm suggesting is that it is only Part A of the equation -
which is not enough. You need Part B too!

Well, that's not what the scientists who work in the relevant fields
think.
They test hypotheses.


Since there are many different ways
to manufacture rocks that look very "similar" to river rocks, to
include both deliberate and non-deliberate natural processes, how is
your "method" going to tell the difference?

By looking for clues left by the different methods. If there is no way
of distinguishing them, we can't tell. In those circumstances we
conclude that we don't know.

You'd only conclude you don't know if all you had was knowledge of
Part A. Part B knowledge, together with Part A knowledge, is what is
capable of giving you a pretty good idea when it comes to tool marks
and highly symmetrical polished granite cubes.

"Part B" is merely your invention, Sean.



I know, you look for tool markings and other such things. This
argument has the very same problem. The tool markings you think are
tool marks because they match other markings you know were made by
tools could also have been made by non-deliberate natural processes as
well.

This is an extraordinarily silly
argument, even by your standards, Sean.
Are you seriously telling me that because some unknown natural process
*might* produce marks identical to those left by a known manufacturing
process, we cannot form the conclusion that an object bearing those
marks was made by that known process?

You can't conclude this unless you think it far less likely that a
natural process could have done the job.

If there are no known natural processes which could produce those
marks, why not? It's how the scientists who work in relevant fields do
it.


You simply have no idea if this might or might not be likely
unless you have at least some experience with the material in question
as it relates to various non-deliberate natural processes.

...and this coming from someone who thinks that he can carry out
statistical analyses of the shape of granite objects simply by looking
at them.

You can . . . to at least a somewhat useful degree.

Oh, please! Who the hell do you think you are fooling?

I suggest that unless you can produce any paper in any field of any
branch of any science or mathematics in which a statistical analysis
which does not involve a numerical dataset is used, you are simply
lying.


In science, Sean, we follow the evidence.

Absolutely . . .

If the evidence shows that
an object was manufactured by a particular process we form the
conclusion that this is how it was made.

Not without Part B.

Why? It's something you have invented.


If at a later date someone
produces evidence that it was made by a specific natural process, we
revise our conclusions accordingly. If there is no evidence that this
object was not made by the process which we know about there is no
reason to change our conclusions.

The same thing is true of granite cubes.


An unsubstantiated assertion, based on your assertion that you can
carry out statistical analyses without a numerical dataset.

You are either very stupid, very ignorant, or simply a bald-faced
liar.

RF

< snip rest of repetitive stuff >

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Artifact Hypothesis
    ... "You simply put more weight on such marks representing artifact than ... you do on the cube itself. ... actual evidence because the marks could have been made by "non- ... You place more weight on the fact that your "tool marks" could have ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Artifact Hypothesis
    ... that a granite cube could be deliberately manufactured because we ... "You simply put more weight on such marks representing artifact than ... you do on the cube itself. ... You place more weight on the fact that your "tool marks" could have ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Artifact Hypothesis
    ... interpretation of evidence means that it has no value whatsoever. ... for the detection of artifact. ... fact tool marks. ... and highly symmetrical polished granite cubes. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Artifact Hypothesis
    ... When you said that because a granite cube *looks* like an artifact, ... Evidently it is for your tool marks. ... try explaining the need for part A to Richard. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Artifact Hypothesis
    ... You place more weight on the fact that your "tool marks" could have ... that the cube itself could have been manufactured by a specific known ... evidence, and test the hypothesis by gathering more evidence. ... true artifact - i.e., that it was in fact the result of deliberate ...
    (talk.origins)