Re: The Artifact Hypothesis

On Dec 20, 1:52 pm, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

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.

As with your tool marks, there are many ways it could have been
manufactured. Where then is the need to demonstrate that one
particular method of manufacture could have done the job? - Don't we
already know that in both cases (tool marks and cubes)?

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.

Your hypothesis for tool marks is that they are in fact tool marks.
You then test your hypothesis by demonstrating that a particular
method of manufacture can produce essentially the same types of
marks. You then conclude that the tool marks were manufactured -
right? If not, please do detail the way you would in fact support
your hypothesis of deliberate manufacture for tool marks.

< snip >


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"!

Yes there is. There is the hypothesis that a particular object is a
true artifact - i.e., that it was in fact the result of deliberate
design and manufacture. That is the hypothesis Richard. It is this
hypothesis that is subject to potential falsification if any other non-
deliberate process of producing essentially the same thing were ever
discovered. Such a discovery would in fact undermine the artifact-
only hypothesis.

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.

Where is the difference, Richard?

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.

I've shown you specifically that highly symmetrical granite cubes are
in fact being manufactured and by what methods they are being
manufactured. There has been no departure from any of my previous
positions. Again, we already know how such cubes could be
manufactured because they are being manufactured as we speak.

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!

Yes, it is - the same way that your tool marks could have been made in
the way you demonstrate they could have been made. Again, your
demonstration of how tool marks could have been made is not the same
thing as demonstrating how they were actually made. Your argument
that it is better than nothing is valid, but the very same argument
can be used for granite cubes.

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.

Not true. Different methods can be used to produce exactly the same
form of tool marks in a way you cannot readily tell the difference
between methods.

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".

This is not always true. Different tools can be used to leave
essentially the same types of marks.

< snip >


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?

I've given you a citation to a quote from Rupert Morrish. Are you
saying that you disagree with Rupert Morrish? See quote below:

_____
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 >

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.

Yes, they do. It is this hypothesis that is open to potential
falsification.

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.

Nice copout.

< 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?

Even in the quotes you yourself have presented, ETI scientists say
that they require knowledge of both deliberate and non-deliberate
processes of nature.

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

We already know how the cube could have been made - same with your
tool marks. That doesn't mean that this is how either the cube or the
tool marks were actually made.

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.

It would be evidence for how it could have been made - i.e., many
different ways.


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.

The foundation is the same as you use for your tool marks.

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.

Tool marks are independent of the cube? How were the tool marks
themselves made? The basis for that answer is the same as the basis
for the cube itself being manufactured.

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.

Tool marks do exist independent of any specific granite form.

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.

Yep - the same thing goes for tool marks as well.

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.

Again, where is the difference between the basis for your tool marks
being tool marks and a granite cube being the result of deliberate
manufacture?

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.

Why not?

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?

So what? We already know this same answer for your "tool marks" as
well.

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.

Which can in fact be done in your head without writing anything down
to a useful degree of predictive value.

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!

Not at all. Experiments have demonstrated this. How do you think
rats know where to find the cheese in the maze? They do in fact form
a cheese location hypothesis, based on past experience, that has good
predictive value.

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.

This is the basis of learning. Look it up.

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.

Yes, it is. Without at least some rough form of statistical analysis,
this conclusion could not be reached to any degree.

RF

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

.

Quantcast