Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Of Pulsars, Specified Complexity and the Explanatory Filter

The Explantory Filter is a process that can be used to reach an informed inference about an object or event in question.

In order to get to the third node it "takes considerable background knowledge" (Dembski NFL page 111). He goes on to say "What's more it takes considerable background knowledge to come up with the right pattern (ie, specification) for eliminating all those chance hypotheses and thus inferring design."

In an article about SETI (that misrepresents ID) we have the following:

Consider pulsars – stellar objects that flash light and radio waves into space with impressive regularity. Pulsars were briefly tagged with the moniker LGM (Little Green Men) upon their discovery in 1967. Of course, these little men didn’t have much to say. Regular pulses don’t convey any information—no more than the ticking of a clock. But the real kicker is something else: inefficiency. Pulsars flash over the entire spectrum. No matter where you tune your radio telescope, the pulsar can be heard. That’s bad design, because if the pulses were intended to convey some sort of message, it would be enormously more efficient (in terms of energy costs) to confine the signal to a very narrow band. Even the most efficient natural radio emitters, interstellar clouds of gas known as masers, are profligate. Their steady signals splash over hundreds of times more radio band than the type of transmissions sought by SETI.


A properly applied EF and the researchers who initially inferred design wouldn't have. And with a properly applied EF we would never get to apply the "complexity- specification" criterion to pulsars as the EF would have eliminated them before that node.

16 Comments:

  • At 12:15 PM, Blogger secondclass said…

    At which node would the EF have eliminated pulsars?

     
  • At 6:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    frank:
    At which node would the EF have eliminated pulsars?

    I said that didn't I- that the EF would have eliminated...

    My apologies. I meant to say that with a properly applied EF the investigators should have eliminated pulsars before the 3rd node.

    At which node, 1 or 2, would depend on the investigators and the amount of research. But I would think it would be kicked out at the first node given that they "flash over the entire spectrum" and are highly regular. IOW if one jumped to the design inference, as you appeared to do, that inference would be easily falsified, ie little research required.

    But that's just me and it takes quite a bit to convince me that chance and necessity can't accomplish something.

     
  • At 7:21 PM, Blogger secondclass said…

    IOW if one jumped to the design inference, as you appeared to do, that inference would be easily falsified, ie little research required.

    I applied Dembski's equation:
    SC = -log2(ReplRes * SpecRes * P(T|H))

    If that's jumping to a design inference, then the problem is in Dembski's method, unless you can show me where I misapplied it.

    It's true that it didn't take long (I think less than a year) to figure out a plausible cause and verify it, but the point of a design inference is to detect design without knowing the cause. The question is whether Dembski's method would give us the right answer, "not necessarily designed", before a cause was discovered.

     
  • At 8:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    IOW if one jumped to the design inference, as you appeared to do, that inference would be easily falsified, ie little research required.

    frank:
    I applied Dembski's equation:
    SC = -log2(ReplRes * SpecRes * P(T|H))


    Why? That equation would only come into play if one reaches the third node.

    frank:
    If that's jumping to a design inference, then the problem is in Dembski's method, unless you can show me where I misapplied it.

    No, that is jumping to the thrid node. IOW you didn't apply the EF, you played hopscotch on it.

    frank:
    It's true that it didn't take long (I think less than a year) to figure out a plausible cause and verify it,

    I wouldn't need to know the cause to know the signal wasn't from an intelligent source:

    But I would think it would be kicked out at the first node given that they "flash over the entire spectrum" and are highly regular.

    but the point of a design inference is to detect design without knowing the cause.

    That is the point.

    frank:
    The question is whether Dembski's method would give us the right answer, "not necessarily designed", before a cause was discovered.

    And while you question the method I question the people (ab)using it.

    As with any tool the EF is only as good as its operator(s). And I don't have have to be frank to say that. ;)

     
  • At 11:32 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So why wouldn't an intelligent agent broadcast radio signals over the entire EM spectrum? Does the EF have ananswer for this?

     
  • At 9:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    So why wouldn't an intelligent agent broadcast radio signals over the entire EM spectrum?

    First tell me if it is possible to build a transmitter to do so and if you say "yes" please provide the supporting citations.

    Or are we building many, many transmitters each with it's own frequency? Then you would have to show that is possible.

    blipey:
    Does the EF have ananswer for this?

    Umm the EF is a process...

     
  • At 11:35 AM, Blogger secondclass said…

    Joe: Why? That equation would only come into play if one reaches the third node.

    The equation is Dembski's latest mathematical definition of SC, and it therefore incorporates all of the nodes of the EF. If you don't believe that, I encourage you to ask Dembski.

     
  • At 12:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Seeing that we don't even consider sp/SP?- and therefore specified complexity- until the third node I suggest you talk to Wm. He knows my blog and email addy.

    The nodes are sequential. The process step-by-step.

    Do you understand anything about processes and procedures?

    Do you put the ingedients of a cake in the oven BEFORE properly mixing them?

    I once worked with a a guy who thought he was very smart. He made it point that everyone knew how smart he was.

    One day he was testing some equipment that was unfamiliar to him (but very familiar to me). He thought he found a problem and began troubleshooting it. He used up at least one full workday in his pursuit.

    He then got our supervisor involved. A couple hours later they approached me to explain what they had observed. They wanted my opinion about the solution the guy had come up with.

    Having run the test I knew the procedure was sound yet it was one test in the procedure that was failing- every time. So I had to look further before even thinking about his "solution". So with both of them watching I ran the test.

    It turned out the guy did NOT follow the procedure to the letter. He made an assumption along the way.

    He was left the company within a month.

     
  • At 9:41 AM, Blogger secondclass said…

    Joe, see my response on Alan's blog.

     
  • At 10:03 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    More unsubstantiated assertions is hardly a response.

    Perhaps someday you will respond with something that actually substantiates what you say. But anyone who thinks that an equation from step 3 can be applied in step 1 or 2 is ignorant on how processes and procedures work.

    IOW it is YOUR ignorance that is the obstacle here.

     
  • At 10:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Just a little background knowledge for secondclass:

    I have been writing processes and procedures as part of my job for over 30 years. And I will put my knowledge of processes and procedures up against ANYONE on this planet.- especially those who think they can take an equation from step 3 and apply it at step 1.

     
  • At 4:41 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    The question, Joe, was how would the EF decide if a transmission across the entire EM spectrum was natural or designed.

    I'm sure the PROCESS of EF has a result? Please let me know what it is.

    Provide citations. And a calculation.

    Thanks in advance for not answering this with unsubstantiated words.

     
  • At 4:43 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe:

    I once worked with a a guy who thought he was very smart. He made it point that everyone knew how smart he was.

    Now that's funny.

     
  • At 8:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I once worked with a a guy who thought he was very smart. He made it point that everyone knew how smart he was.

    blipey:
    Now that's funny.

    Ya, come to think of it, he was a cross between Zachriel, and blipey!

     
  • At 8:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey:
    The question, Joe, was how would the EF decide if a transmission across the entire EM spectrum was natural or designed.

    The answer, blipey, is that the investigators using the EF would decide.

    However I noticed that YOU have refused to answer the following:

    First tell me if it is possible to build a transmitter to do so and if you say "yes" please provide the supporting citations.

    Or are we building many, many transmitters each with it's own frequency? Then you would have to show that is possible.


    You really should try to follow along. But I understand how difficult that must be for someone with your very diminished capacity.

     
  • At 3:36 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    2nd class is a cupcake

     

Post a Comment

<< Home