Re: The Artifact Hypothesis

On Dec 21, 8:34 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
0catch.com> wrote:
On Dec 21, 1:15 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:



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

No Sean, it isn't.

Where is the difference, Richard?

Which part of this do you not understand?

"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."

Don't you understand that there is a difference between testing for
*specific* ways in which something could be made and making sweeping
generalisation about how something could have been made?

We already know specific ways something like a highly symmetrical
granite cube or your tool marks "could be made". This is not the same
thing as knowing how a specific object or mark in question was
actually made of it is likely artifactual or not. You don't seem to
understand that you have to have both Part A and Part B elements in
play before you can detect artifact. You are only concentrating on
one aspect of the two-part equation.

UNFOUNDED ASSERTION #1


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.

Yes there is, because you are now referring to *specific* methods of
manufacture, not generalisations about *all* methods of manufacture.

The same thing goes for your tool marks. Demonstration of a specific
method of manufacture only means that such a method could have been
used to form your tool marks or my granite cube. It doesn't mean that
this is the only possible method or even the most likely method
because we know that the same marks or cubes could be produced in many
different ways with many different methods. Again, this says nothing
about the likelihood that deliberate manufacture was required to make
such a cube or tool mark. This element of detection of artifact
requires the second part of the equation - i.e., knowledge concerning
the limits of non-deliberate processes of nature.


UNFOUNDED ASSERTION #2


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.

You are, perhaps deliberately, confusing testing for *specific* ways
in which the cube could be manufactured with *generalisations* about
the ways in which the cube could be manufactured.

You claimed very specifically to be able to detect on the basis of a
statistical analyses characteristics of *all* "deliberate" processes
which could distinguish them from *all* "non-deliberate" processes.

You are saying that you can detect artifact by simply demonstrating
how a particular feature, like a tool mark, could have been made.

MISREPRESENTATION #1


I'm
suggesting to you that such a demonstration is only half of the
equation - a half that has almost already been done and is generally
known. You are forgetting about the other half of the equation; the
half that requires some sort of knowledge concerning the limitations
of non-deliberate forces of nature to do the same thing.

Also, I never said that I could distinguish a given phenomenon from
all deliberate processes. That cannot be done because many very
deliberate processes can produce phenomenon that are indistinguishable
from what non-deliberate forces of nature can also produce. However,
the opposite is not true. There are many deliberately produced
phenomenon that go far beyond anything that non-deliberate forces of
nature are capable of achieving.

Again, your
demonstration of how tool marks could have been made is not the same
thing as demonstrating how they were actually made.

No, but it's a lot better than making sweeping generalisations on the
basis of statistical studies which it is very clear that you have not
carried out and lack the competence to do so.

Where is the difference in the basis for your conclusion that your
tool marks are in fact artifacts vs. the conclusion that a granite
cube is in fact an artifact? You seem perfectly able and willing to
conclude artifact on the one hand, but not on the other - - when both
can be evaluated by the very same method you seem to be proposing.

Your argument
that it is better than nothing is valid, but the very same argument
can be used for granite cubes.

Sean, do you truly not understand the difference between testing for
*specific* ways in which something can be made and making broad
generalisations about who something might be made?

Again, how is the demonstration of a specific method of manufacture
the demonstration of deliberate artifact? I can show how to
deliberately manufacture rock that looks indistinguishable from an
river rock. Therefore, how is such a demonstration of deliberate
manufacture, by itself, evidence of deliberate manufacture? That
makes no sense to me. You are only using half of the equation
Richard. Don't you see that?

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.

If different methods could produce the same marks, we can't tell which
method has been used. In practice this doesn't happen very often.

How can you know that this doesn't happen very often if you never
actually saw the tool mark in question produced? I mean really, we
still don't know exactly how the pyramids were built, but it is
downright obvious that the blocks were put into place by some non-
deliberate force of nature. We know how the blocks could have been
placed by various methods. But, just because we don't know for sure
which method was used doesn't mean we have no idea that whatever
method it was, it was certainly deliberate and intelligently designed.

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.

And you can support this with evidence, can you?

Sure . . . for example, there are many different ways that a chisel-
type mark could be made - with a stone tool, flint tool, bone tool,
fine jet of water or sand under high force, fine grained sanding,
laser etching . . . and on and on. And, you could not readily tell the
difference between the various methods either. And, it wouldn't
really matter given the type of pattern under consideration when it
comes to determining artifact vs. non-artifact.

No, of course not. Tell me Sean, why do you think anyone should take
your word for it when you pontificate on subjects which are obviously
outside your area of competence?

Don't tell me you think there is only one way to make a narrow band
radio signal. Is this honestly what you are proposing? Really?

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 Morrish is not a scientist who has been involved in determining
if objects are artifacts or not! As it happens, yes, I disagree with
him. There is no "Parts A and B". We test hypotheses of how objects
are made. If we know how an object is made we can determine if it's an
artifact or not. If we can't figure out how it was made we don't know
if it's an artifact or not.

How can you say you agree with Morrish and argue that "there are no
Parts A and B"? Morrish is the one who proposed that there are in
fact Parts A and B. Did you not read what he actually wrote? How can
you say you agree?


I said that I *disagree* with him, Sean.
You need to learn to read for comprehension.

You can't know how the object in question was actually made. You can
only know how it could have been made and how it couldn't have been
made. That's it. You have to have at least some idea on both aspects
- how it could (Part A) and how it couldn't (Part B) be made. One
part, by itself, is not enough. If you know how an abject was made,
you already know if it is an artifact or not. You don't need science.
You already know. But, if you don't know for sure, then you do need
science and you need both Part A and Part B elements.


Tell you what, Sean: produce a reference from any science which tries
to determine if objects are artifacts or not which uses your "part A
and B" elements. If you can't, all you are doing is making unsupported
assertions.,



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.

So how does one falsify the assertion that an object is an artifact?

What one falsifies is the assertion that an object could only be an
artifact.

That is not falsifying the assertion that an object is an artifact!

Again, as I've explain to you over and over again, it is
the design-only hypothesis that is being presented here (SETI too).

Sean, this is simply false. SETI makes no such claim. They are not
even *looking* for "design". They are looking for technology.

This hypothesis is falsifiable.

We've been here before, and you changed your argument rather briskly.

Not remotely true. You just have the memory of a goldfish is all.

It is perfectly true. You were previously claiming to be able to tell
is something is an artifact or not on the basis of a statistical
anlysis of shape alone, and in fact your whole "granite cube" nonsense
is based on this assertion.


< snip rest >


Oh, no. Let put back the rest.

Yep - the same thing goes for tool marks as well.
Quite so. But starting with known processes is a lot better than
making sweeping generalisations based on an utterly phony statistical
argument.

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?
It's starting with the evidence, not making sweeping generalisations
based on an utterly phony statistical argument.
Why not?
Because it's starting with the evidence, not making sweeping
generalisations based on an utterly phony statistical argument.
So what? We already know this same answer for your "tool marks" as
well.
No it isn't, because it's starting with the evidence, not making
sweeping generalisations based on an utterly phony statistical
argument.
Which can in fact be done in your head without writing anything down
to a useful degree of predictive value.
So why do no publishers of scientific or mathematical papers agree
with you?
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.
Statistics is a branch of mathematics. It deals with numbers. Rats
learning how to find their way in a maze are not calculating
statistics.
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.
Why not produce a citation? You are the one making an utterly
ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim. It's up to you to support it.
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.
If you think that this is the case you should be able to support this
assertion with evidence.
I'll take your continued evasion as evidence that you can't.
RF

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Artifact Hypothesis
    ... "In the case of the tool marks the hypothesis is that the marks were ... granite cube or your tool marks "could be made". ... about the likelihood that deliberate manufacture was required to make ... This element of detection of artifact ...
    (talk.origins)
  • 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
    ... "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. ... When you said that because a granite cube *looks* like an artifact, ... fact tool marks. ...
    (talk.origins)