Re: The Artifact Hypothesis

On Dec 20, 5:45 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
0catch.com> wrote:
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.

You wrote
"You simply put more weight on such marks representing artifact than
you do on the cube itself. This is utter nonsense because the marks
themselves could have been the result of some non-deliberate process."

So you were saying that is it nonsense to place any weight on the
actual evidence because the marks could have been made by "non-
deliberate" process.

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.

But you've already said that such evidence is "nonsense"! What's the
point of pursuing nonsensical explanations?

That sort
of testing will never end.

Yes, but we have to start investigation, and scientists do that by
looking for evidence and testing hypotheses.


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.


No, in the case of the tool marks the hypothesis is that the marks
were made with a tool of a particular type, wielded in such-and-such a
way. We test that hypothesis by using the tool of that type on an
object similar to the one we are investigating to see what kinds of
marks it makes.

I fail to understand why this concept is so hard for you to grasp.

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?

Sean, you introduced this "Parts A and B" nonsense. I've never claimed
that scientists do anything except to test hypotheses of manufacture.

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.


Do you understand what SETI scientists are actually doing?
They are looking for *CANDIDATE* signals. They will not conclude that
an intelligent agency is involved simply on the basis if detecting
such a signal, as their web site makes very clear. They are looking
for signals of a type which we know to be artificially produced, and
which are not produced by any known natural process. This is not an
hypothesis, it's setting the search parameters as part of the
methodology they are using.

If they detect a signal, they will investigate it by hypothesis
testing.

< 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?

The "Parts A and B" refers to the setting of search parameters, not
testing hypotheses of "artifact".

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.

If the cube is found in a novelty store, we can assume that it is
manufactured.
If we find the cube lying in a crater on Mars, we can't leap to the
same conclusions. To repost:

If I found such an object, I'd say "Bugger me
sideways with a feather! That cube looks like an artifact! What in
seven hells is it doing lying here in this crater on Mars?"

Then I'd put on my hat as a scientist, and think "If this is an
artifact, finding it here on Mars is pretty extraordinary. How can I
confirm that this is an artifact?"

Then I'd subject that cube to every test I could think of to figure
out how it was made, I'd carry out an exhaustive search of the area in
which it was found to see if there were any other anomalous objects,
and I'd ask every other scientist I know if they could think of any
ways of testing if the cube was natural or artificial.

If the result of all these investigations was that we still didn't
know how the cube was made, I'd conclude that we have something which
looks like an artifact, but don't know if it is or isn't and
artifact.

Which part of that do you struggle to understand. It seems very clear
to me.

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?

The difference is that we are testing for *specific* processes which
we know to be used in making artifacts, not making general conclusions
about the nature of *ALL* manufacturing processes based on an utterly
phony claim to have carried out a statistical analysis without using a
numerical dataset.

By the way: You have not been able to produce any evidence whatsoever
that any scientist or mathematician has ever published any statistical
conclusions which are not based on a data set of numbers.

Are we supposed to accept your unsupported assertion that you alone in
the whole history of science and mathematics is capable of doing so?

RF

< snip rest >

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
    ... "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
    ... 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
    ... "You simply put more weight on such marks representing artifact than ... you do on the cube itself. ... in the case of the tool marks the hypothesis is that the marks ...
    (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)
Quantcast