Re: The Artifact Hypothesis

On Dec 17, 11:36 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

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.

I never said that. What I said was that there is no point proving
that a granite cube could be deliberately manufactured because we
already know that it can be manufactured in many different ways. This
does not mean that there is no point in continuing to test the
hypothesis of artifact by looking for various non-deliberate processes
that could potentially falsify the hypothesis of artifact. That sort
of testing will never end.

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.

Evidently it is for your tool marks.

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.

I have read your posts in great detail. Are you now claiming that you
don't need both Parts A and B to adequately propose the hypothesis of
artifact? If so, then it seems like Rupert Morrish was way off base
in his defense of your off-the-wall notions of how to detect artifact
when he wrote:

_____
Rupert:
"There are two considerations here. SETI is considering signals
that (a) are not generated by any known natural process, and (b) can
be generated by known artificial means. (a) reduces false positives.
(b) increases your chances of finding a signal in the first place.

I wrote:
"Yep - Now, try explaining the need for part A to Richard. Also,
try explaining the concept that although part A cannot be completely
excluded as a possibility, 100%, it can be excluded to at least a
useful degree of confidence."

Rupert responded:
"You need part A and part B. You are ignoring B, and that is why
Richard
is arguing with you."

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/39cb61ea0bcd208d
_____

I guess Rupert didn't understand your argument either? What are you
trying to say Richard? I didn't make this concept of a need for two
parts up. It is downright obvious. You simply refuse to see the need
for part A as well as B.

< snip >

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.

There most certainly are two parts Richard. And, I didn't invent this
concept. It was in fact used to support your off-the-wall notions
here. Are you now rejecting the argument that this was in fact what
you were trying to do?

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.

Yes - and the same thing is true about my highly symmetrical granite
cube. No known natural process could produce such a cube in the
material of granite. The same arguments you use for your tool marks
can be used for my granite cube. Where is the difference?

< snip rest >

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: Science = 100% falsifiability? Really?
    ... Richard argues that this is not enough. ... sort of additional evidence of manufacture - like some sort of "tool ... is that even if the looked for "tool marks" ... There is no way to reach any sort of absolute proof of artifact. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Artifact Hypothesis
    ... interpretation of evidence means that it has no value whatsoever. ... When you said that because a granite cube *looks* like an artifact, ... fact tool marks. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: All Creationists are Evil Liars
    ... centimeters or inches (depending on the size of the rock). ... What the hell has that to do with determining if it's an artifact? ... I can also roughly judge symmetry by looking at a rock. ... materials - like a highly symmetrical polished granite cube. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Manufacture vs. Artifact?
    ... artifact from the granite cube to the tool marks which are somehow ... more easily detected as the result of deliberate artifact than is the ... If scientists were involved, ...
    (talk.origins)