Re: The Artifact Hypothesis

On Dec 20, 9:15 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
0catch.com> wrote:
On Dec 20, 10:20 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

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.

You misquote me. I didn't say "any weight". I said, "more weight".
You place more weight on the fact that your "tool marks" could have
been manufactured via a specific mechanism than you do on the fact
that the cube itself could have been manufactured by a specific known
process as well.


No Sean, that's not what you are saying. You are saying that it is
more important to recognise the cube as being manufactured than to
test hypotheses of how it is manufactured.

Where then is the difference in basis for
determining that your tool marks are clearly artifacts while the cube
isn't so clearly artifactual?

The fact that we look for evidence, form an hypothesis based on that
evidence, and test the hypothesis by gathering more evidence.


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?

I never said that such evidence is nonsense. It is just that this
evidence never reaches perfection and does not need to reach
perfection before the hypothesis of artifact can be adequately
supported. What I did say was nonsense is searching for more evidence
to support the hypothesis that a particular phenomenon, like a highly
symmetrical polished granite cube, could have been the result of a
specific process of manufacture. We already know the answer to that
question to an absolute degree of perfection. There is therefore no
need to pursue that particular question any further.

Well, no scientist who actually studies objects to determine if they
are artifacts seems to agree with you.
I've challenged you repeatedly to provide a citation to support your
assertion, but you have failed to do so.
This demonstrates that your assertion is unfounded.

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.

The point is that scientists do not need to end this particular
investigation before the hypothesis of artifact can be adequately
supported.

There is no "hypothesis of artifact"!


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.

Exactly the same thing is true of the granite cube itself.

No Sean, it isn't.

The
hypothesis is that the cube was made with a tool or tools of a
particular type, wielded in such-and-such a way.

That is a huge departure from your previous position! You have
asserted that you have carried out a statistical analysis of granite
forms and determined statistically the limitation on forms in granite
produced by "deliberate" or "non-deliberate" forces.

This hypothesis can
be tested using the tool of that type on a granite rock to see if the
form in question can be produced.

That is not testing the hypothesis that the cube was made in that
way!

And, we know that it can be
produced by many different kinds of tools used in many different ways.

....and we know that the different methods leave different evidence,
and we look for that evidence.

Exactly the same thing is true of your tool marks. Regardless of what
marks you are considering, your marks can be made with many different
types of tools in many different types of ways.

In general tools leave rather characteristic marks. It's something
that experimental archaeologists and forensic scientists study in
great detail. It's called "evidence".

Proving that one
particular way will work doesn't mean that this is the way that was in
fact used. All it means is that it could have been make in the way
you investigated.


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

Your concept doesn't go far enough. By itself, it is only half of the
equation.

Well, as you are unable to produce any reference to any paper in any
branch of science in which your "methodology" is used, it seems that
you are making yet another unfounded assertion.


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.

That's the problem. I know you have only been making this claim.
However, others think that you have actually been trying to support
both parts of the equation. You haven't. Your position is that you
only really need one part of the equation. This is where you don't
seem to grasp the importance of having both parts before being able to
adequately support the hypothesis of artifact.

If you think that this is the case you should be able to produce a
citation to support your assertions.
I'll take your inability to do so as evidence that you can't do so.
Why should anyone think that your unfounded assertions have any value?


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.

The already know how to produce the signals they are looking for.
Therefore, what do you mean by "hypothesis testing" here?

Studying the signal for clues as to how it was made, formulating
hypotheses based on that evidence and testing them by acquiring more
evidence.

What would
the SETI scientists test for?

Evidence for the process by which the signal was made.

Please do explain the basis upon which
SETI scientists could reasonably propose the hypothesis of artifact/
deliberate manufacture for a given phenomenon.

SETI scientists don't test the "hypothesis of artifact". That's your
invention, Sean.


Please do detail the
type of signal and the process of testing that would be needed to
achieve this.


Why? I'm not a scientist working on SETI.


< snip >

you were trying to do?

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

Not true. Parts A and B refer to both searching and testing
parameters.

So where does SETI say that this is a "testing" parameter?
I've seen nothing to think that this is the case on their site.
Surely not another unfounded assertion, Sean?


If the cube is found in a novelty store, we can assume that it is
manufactured.

Based on what? I've seen naturally formed river rocks being sold in
novelty stores as well.

Because we know that the owners of novelty stores don't spend their
lives looking for naturally occuring granite objects which happen to
be cubes.

If we find the cube lying in a crater on Mars, we can't leap to the
same conclusions. To repost:

So, upon what basis could you conclude that your tool marks, if found
on some rock on Mars, would be clearly artifactual while a highly
symmetrical granite cube would not be just as clearly artifactual?

Because I'd be testing an hypothesis of how the cube was made, not
basing my conclusion on an unfounded assertion
..



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?"

You'd say exactly the same thing for your "tool marks".

If I found tool marks on the granite cube, they'd be evidence for how
it was made.


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,

Like with your tool marks, we already know how it could have been
made. We can never know for sure how either was actually made.

That doesn't mean that we should form conclusions based on unfounded
assertions.

I'd carry out an exhaustive search of the area in
which it was found to see if there were any other anomalous objects,

Good idea - but what if you don't find anything else? - either tool
marks or cubes or tools or anything else? Your tool marks are still
clearly artifactual while a cube is not?

Tool marks on the cube are evidence of how it was made.

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.

Great . . . You'd have to do the same thing for your tool marks too.

Tool marks do not exist independent of any objects.


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.

We already know how such a cube could have been made.

So what? We also know that naturally occurring objects have been
mistaken for artifacts.

The same thing
is true of your tool marks. It is therefore impossible to come to the
conclusion that you don't know how it could have been made in either
case (cube or tool marks). Your notion that you have to determine how
it was actually made is also impossible because the best you can do
for both tool marks and cubes is determine how it could have been
made.

Which is a lot better than handwaving and making unfounded assertions.



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

Your argument applies equally to both tool marks and highly
symmetrical polished granite cubes (probably better for the cube than
for tool marks because many types of tool marks are very difficult to
distinguish from known non-deliberate processes of nature).

No it doesn't.

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.

We already know about specific manufacturing processes that are in
fact capable of producing highly symmetrical polished granite cubes.

So what?

Also, no one said that all deliberate manufacturing processes could do
an equivalent job. What was said is that no known non-deliberate
process comes remotely close to doing an equivalent job. Therein lies
the uses of both Parts A and B in the adequate determination of
artifact.

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.

I never said otherwise. What I said is that it is possible to do
useful statistical analyses without actually writing down the numbers
or publishing your work. You yourself do this all the time - even if
you don't realize it. And, this is a valid form of statistical
analysis that is actually quite useful.

Well, none of the publishers of scientific papers seem to think so.

A statistical analysis is a specific and precise mathematical process,
not guesswork.

Even animals are capable of
performing this level of scientific analysis. This sort of
statistical analysis, of trial and error hypothesis testing, forms the
fundamental basis of all forms of learning.

What utter bull***, Sean!


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

Everyone is capable of doing this sort of analysis.

Then it should be easy for you to produce a reference in any
scientific or mathematical publication in which this is presented as a
statistical conclusion.

I'll take your inability to produce any such reference as evidence
that you are making an unsupported assertion.

I'm quite
surprised that you don't seem to understand its validity - that it is
in fact the basis behind your ability to quickly recognize an
"anomalous" phenomenon as being "anomalous". How would you know this
unless you had done some sort of statistical analysis which told you
that such an event was "rare" or "unusual" in a certain context?

Thinking that an object has characteristics similar to those we know
to be manufactured is not a statistical analysis.

RF

RF

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com

.

Quantcast