Sir Isaac Newton, et al., Support the EF- OM Chokes on it
-
The explanatory filter (EF) is a process for doing exactly that a it starts with the minimum (entitites) and then keeps adding them as required.
That is why the EF is the process used to refute any given design inference.
"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."- Sir Isaac Newton
The explanatory filter (EF) is a process for doing exactly that a it starts with the minimum (entitites) and then keeps adding them as required.
That is why the EF is the process used to refute any given design inference.
posted by Joe G @ 3:20 PM
13 Comments:
At 5:32 PM,
CBD said…
Can you give me an example of the EF in action Joe?
With all the details at each decision node shown?
You can pick the object to use.
At 5:33 PM,
Joe G said…
Any and all scientific endeavors which seek the cause.
IOW get an education as you appear to be an ignorant dickhead.
At 5:45 PM,
CBD said…
Then what was Dembski's intent when he detailed the EF?
Why bother? What did he bring that was new to the table?
At 5:53 PM,
Joe G said…
Om:
Then what was Dembski's intent when he detailed the EF?
As Dembski- he called it standard operating procedure. So most likely he was justt building his cse for ID on that.
At 5:57 PM,
CBD said…
Dembski:
The filter is a criterion for distinguishing intelligent from unintelligent causes. Here I am using the word "criterion" in its strict etymological sense as a method for deciding or judging a question. The Explanatory Filter is a criterion for deciding when something is intelligently caused and when it isn't. Does it decide this question reliably?
As with any criterion, we need to make sure that whatever judgments the criterion renders correspond to reality. A criterion for judging the quality of wines is worthless if it judges the rot-gut consumed by winos superior to a fine French Bordeaux. The reality is that a fine French Bordeaux is superior to the wino's rot-gut, and any criterion for discriminating among wines better indicate as much.
Or consider medical tests. Any medical test is a criterion. A perfectly reliable medical test would detect the presence of a disease whenever it is indeed present, and fail to detect the disease whenever it is absent. Unfortunately, no medical test is perfectly reliable, and so the best we can do is keep the proportion of false positives and false negatives as low as possible.
All criteria, and not just medical tests, face the problem of false positives and false negatives. A criterion attempts to classify individuals with respect to a target group (in the case of medical tests, those who have a certain disease). When the criterion classifies an individual who should not be there in the target group, it commits a false positive. Alternatively, when the criterion fails to classify an individual who should be there in the target group, it commits a false negative. Take medical tests again. A medical test checks whether an individual has a certain disease. The target group comprises all those individuals who actually have the disease. When the medical test classifies an individual who doesn't have the disease with those who do, it commits a false positive. When the medical test classifies an individual who does have the disease with those who do not, it commits a false negative.
Joe, can you give a single example of the EF distinguishing intelligent from unintelligent causes? Ideally in biology (HIV, a banana) but you can choose anything you like.
At 6:21 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Joe, can you give a single example of the EF distinguishing intelligent from unintelligent causes?
Again any and all scientific endeavors which seek the cause.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
At 6:23 PM,
Joe G said…
I repeat:
"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."- Sir Isaac Newton
The explanatory filter (EF) is a process for doing exactly that a it starts with the minimum (entitites) and then keeps adding them as required.
That is why the EF is the process used to refute any given design inference.
At 6:30 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Again any and all scientific endeavors which seek the cause.
As ID is not about the designer, according to you, and the designer by definition is the cause of the design then does that mean ID is not scientific?
At 6:30 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
The explanatory filter (EF) is a process for doing exactly that a it starts with the minimum (entitites) and then keeps adding them as required.
What entity do you have to add to explain the banana?
At 7:24 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
As ID is not about the designer, according to you,
What do you mean? That is according to the ID leadership. And seeing it is obvious we don't need to know the designer before inferring design then it follows from reality.
OM:
and the designer by definition is the cause of the design
Exactly.
then does that mean ID is not scientific?
It doesn't follow as you are all mixed up to begin with.
At 7:25 PM,
Joe G said…
The explanatory filter (EF) is a process for doing exactly that a it starts with the minimum (entitites) and then keeps adding them as required.
OM:
What entity do you have to add to explain the banana?
The banana in your pants would be explained by you putting it there.
At 7:12 PM,
CBD said…
Any example of the Explanatory filter in action yet Joe?
You can choose the object!
At 9:09 PM,
Joe G said…
Yes- anyone doing science trying o determine the cause would use theEF- that is according to Newton, et al.
Post a Comment
<< Home