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

Tuesday, February 05, 2019

How to Butcher the Explanatory Filter, by Gary Hurd, evoTARD

Gary Hurd was recently introduced over on Peaceful bullshit for Science. In his introduction he reminded people of his "contribution" to refuting Intelligent Design. You see Gary Hurd wrote a chapter in the lame-brain, strawman humping, concept butchering book "Why Intelligent Design Fails". Gary took on the Explanatory Filter and proved that he is just another demented asshole.

Earth to Gary- the explanatory filter is just to make sure that you do not rush to a design inference without considering other possibilities. And if you know anything about science that is the way to go about it, that is using Isaac Newton's four rules of scientific reasoning, we do not want to add agencies unnecessarily.

So the first step of the explanatory filter wants you to consider any cause with the least number of agencies by seeing if it, the thing being investigated, was the result of some law- stones falling- or regularity- Old Faithful. We try to explain it in the simplest of probable causes. If we cannot then we start adding agencies until we get to the design inference.

The EF is only a guide. And yes you have to use ALL of the evidence and contexts that you have. The EF isn't the investigation. The EF isn't the investigator. The EF just makes sure that you don't get burned by not considering other options. The EF makes sure the design inference is NOT the default.

Gary thinks it is a problem for the EF if the cause of death cannot be determined. He thinks it is a problem for the EF if the EF cannot tell you an accidental death, from a suicide from a homicide. But the EF is only as good as the investigators and the evidence they have.

Gary also makes the mistake that the EF mandates eliminating 100% of all law and chance explanations. But that is not so. You have to consider the most likely but science isn't about proving so the 100% is Gary's ignorance. He thinks if archaeologists used the EF they would be stuck.

The EF does not prevent anyone from "knowing an artifact when they see it". All the EF does is remind you to just check into some other possible cause too. If someone else does then it's egg all over your face. The EF is there to prevent that.

False positives don't happen because of that. False negatives might because humans can fool humans.


Post a Comment

<< Home