The Real EleP(T|H)ant in the Room
-
It is unbelievable that ID's opponents are so dim that they don't understand the meaning of P(T|H) in Dembski's "Specification" formula. That is they don't understand that theirs is the position defined by H and that means they have to provide it. The reason ID's claims remain unfalsified is because our opponents have been unable to provide experimental evidence to support the claims of evolutionism so all they have are probabilities to try to support them and yet cannot provide any.
Again, theirs is the position which claims to have an undirected step-by-step mechanism that produced the diversity of life. That means they have to either produce those steps, or some reasonable facsimile thereof, OR provide the proper probabilities of those steps occurring. Yet they cannot do either and they want to try to put the onus on us.
Hence the real eleP(T|H)ant in the room is our opponents' total inability to support their claims-> no evidence, no model, no probabilities. Just a prayer to Father Time, Mother Nature and some unknown mechanism.
It is unbelievable that ID's opponents are so dim that they don't understand the meaning of P(T|H) in Dembski's "Specification" formula. That is they don't understand that theirs is the position defined by H and that means they have to provide it. The reason ID's claims remain unfalsified is because our opponents have been unable to provide experimental evidence to support the claims of evolutionism so all they have are probabilities to try to support them and yet cannot provide any.
Again, theirs is the position which claims to have an undirected step-by-step mechanism that produced the diversity of life. That means they have to either produce those steps, or some reasonable facsimile thereof, OR provide the proper probabilities of those steps occurring. Yet they cannot do either and they want to try to put the onus on us.
Hence the real eleP(T|H)ant in the room is our opponents' total inability to support their claims-> no evidence, no model, no probabilities. Just a prayer to Father Time, Mother Nature and some unknown mechanism.
29 Comments:
At 1:02 AM, Rich Hughes said…
LOl @ Chubs. ID is the only conjecture proposing an probabilistic measure. The burden is IDists as the claim and methodology are theirs. Of course they can't, hence the butthurt in your current posts. ID, still no progress, but the corpse twitches.
At 4:38 AM, Unknown said…
Sigh.
In 2005 Dr Dembski self-published a paper in which he proposed a way to detect complex, specified, functional information or patterns. One of the terms he put into his formulation was P(T|H), the conditional probability of getting a pattern T given the appropriate chance hypothesis H.
In his words (he discusses P(T|H) at great length in general and for specific problems but this seems to be the particular quote Joe is focusing on):
"Next, define p = P(T|H) as the probability for the chance formation for the bacterial flagellum. T, here, is conceived not as a pattern but as the evolutionary event/pathway that brings about that pattern (i.e., the bacterial flagellar structure). Moreover, H, here, is the relevant chance hypothesis that takes into account Darwinian and other material mechanisms."
Now, as far as I know Dr Dembski no longer discusses his formulation or attempts to support it. Certainly no one is using it on a daily basis either as a CSFI detector or in research.
The Biological community is under no obligation to help define or specify H in terms that would be useful for someone wanting to compute P(T|H). They didn't come up with the notion and consider it to be unhelpful at best.
Dr Dembski came up with the term and anyone who wishes to use his mathematical argument needs to do the work to find the various terms AND do the calculations. Dr Dembski and his supporters are the ones making the claim: that it is possible to detect CSFI, therefore it is up to them to prove it.
Modern Evolutionary theory is not 'unproven' because it hasn't defined an H that's suitable for calculating P(T|H). And no serious academic is saying that. In fact, almost no one is saying that. Only Joe seems to think that H is meaningful in some way (even KF has dropped the P(T|H) in his reworking of Dr Dembski's formulation) and that the Biological community is under any kind of obligation to provide or define it.
There are thousands of Biological researchers working on and publishing results in evolution theory EVERY DAY. You can stand on the sidelines and bitch and piss and moan that the game isn't being played by your rules or that it's rigged against you. But you don't get to rewrite the rules just because your side can't score. Or even get into the game. Go play your own game or learn the rules, train, practice and get better.
At 9:43 AM, Joe G said…
Richie, Way to ignore everything I said and prattle on like a willfully ignorant asshole.
At 9:44 AM, Joe G said…
Jerad- Same goes for you. You just ignore what was posted and prattle on like a fucking coward.
At 9:46 AM, Joe G said…
There are thousands of Biological researchers working on and publishing results in evolution theory EVERY DAY.
And nothing that supports evolutionism! Obviously you are just a gullible wanker.
At 9:56 AM, Joe G said…
1- There isn't any experimental data that demonstrates blind watchmaker processes can produce a bacterial flagellum- any bacterial flagellum
2- There isn't even a way to model such a thing
3- There aren't any predictions that are borne from the claim
4- All of that means it is an untestable claim
5- And that means the ONLY thing evos have are probabilities that blind watchmaker processes could do it
6- Evos don't even have those so like the cowards they are they try to blame ID and IDists.
At 11:19 AM, Rich Hughes said…
If you're making a probabilistic argument its incumbent on your to provide the probabilities or do the math, Chubs.
At 12:20 PM, Joe G said…
LoL! Richie is too stupid to understand the argument. Either that or too much of a coward to actually respond to it.
Let's see- Richie's position is the one making untestable claims.They are making the claims so it is incumbent on them to provide some way of testing them. They have failed to do so. And that means all they have are probabilities and that also means it is incumbent on them to provide them.
Also Richie fails to understand by even allowing them probabilities is beyond what they deserve.
At 12:26 PM, Unknown said…
Let's see- Richie's position is the one making untestable claims.They are making the claims so it is incumbent on them to provide some way of testing them. They have failed to do so. And that means all they have are probabilities and that also means it is incumbent on them to provide them.
My version:
Let's see- JOE's position is the one making untestable claims.They are making the claims so it is incumbent on them to provide some way of testing them. They have failed to do so. And that means all they have are probabilities and that also means it is incumbent on them to provide them.
That's better. And the truth really. ID proponents have to prove their alternate hypothesis.
Even IF evolutionary theory was found wanting that still doesn't give you ID. That's how vacuous the ID position is.
At 12:30 PM, Joe G said…
LoL! We make testable claims you ignorant asswipe. I have posted exactly how we test them. OTOH you still have nothing,
And nice to see you are ignorant of science as science mandates that necessity and chance explanations be eliminated before attempting a design inference. That means ID is mandated by science to demonstrate the materialistic alternatives are found wanting.
You are just an ignorant imp, Jerad.
At 1:09 PM, Unknown said…
And nice to see you are ignorant of science as science mandates that necessity and chance explanations be eliminated before attempting a design inference. That means ID is mandated by science to demonstrate the materialistic alternatives are found wanting.
Science does NOT mandate that. ID proponents think that's how science is done.
You've never been a scientist. You don't know. You think you know 'cause you read some books by some scientists. But that's not the same thing.
I'm not going to paste and respond to your abusive statements anymore. It doesn't stop you and you get a reaction. I figure that, like when I deal with 10-year olds, it's best to ignore the naughty behaviour and praise the good behaviour when possible. Especially since I can't send you to the naughty corner.
At 1:19 PM, Joe G said…
Science does NOT mandate that.
Sir Isaac Newton disagrees with you:
Four Rules of Scientific Reasoning from Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton
You've never been a scientist.
Yes, I have.
But yes, do run away as you must be getting sick of having your ignorance exposed.
At 1:22 PM, Joe G said…
Parsimony, Jerad, look it up and stop being so fucking ignorant.
At 1:33 PM, Unknown said…
Parsimony:
1 a : the quality of being careful with money or resources:: thrift
b : the quality or state of being stingy
2 : economy in the use of means to an end; especially : economy of explanation in conformity with Occam's razor
Right, let's try a bit harder to get a definition more in line with the way the term is used in science.
The scientific principle that things are usually connected or behave in the simplest or most economical way, especially with reference to alternative evolutionary pathways. Compare with Occam's razor.
Which means explanations which require no special pleading or forces or causes are to be preferred. Which is why ID is always bottom of the explanatory pile UNLESS you're talking about a known class of designers which you have evidence of being around at the time and capable of the job. (Which ID does not have, at all.)
My point was, I didn't put it as well as I could, is that there is no MANDATE to accept design even if we have exhausted all known natural, non-design causes. If we have no knowledge of a designer then we can just say: we don't know.
If you were a scientist can you provide a link to some scientific work you did with your name attached?
At 1:48 PM, Unknown said…
From https://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2008/06/15/the-principle-of-parsimony-in-science/
"In short the principle of parsimony is one of simplicity – we should not go looking for more complex explanations when a simple one will do. What that really means in practice is we should go with the weight of the evidence available to us. This will probably seem very obvious, but in practice it is essential that we have a philosophically justified method of choosing between explanations of our data. After all when there is good evidence to support one idea and only slightly less good evidence to support another – can you really chose between them? Well, yes. You *MUST* take number 1. Philosophically, if you can choose a slightly less good answer then why stop there? Why not take any old explanation you like? As a scientist I have no problem with someone saying ‘you know, I don’t *like* that explanation, I think the other is more likely’, provided they do not accept it. Make your reservations known! Hey, if you are right and later on the evidence supports it, you look brilliant, but do not work under the assumption that your hunch is right, or more importantly that the other is wrong. That is the point of science, and of parsimony."
At 1:49 PM, Unknown said…
Oc′cam's ra′zor
n. the principle in philosophy and science that assumptions introduced to explain a thing must not be multiplied beyond necessity, and hence the simplest of several hypotheses is always the best in accounting for unexplained facts.
Also called law of parsimony.
At 2:41 PM, Joe G said…
Thank you for proving what I said is correct.
Which means explanations which require no special pleading or forces or causes are to be preferred.
And yours requires all of that. However it still requires the least number of agencies.
My point was, I didn't put it as well as I could, is that there is no MANDATE to accept design even if we have exhausted all known natural, non-design causes
No one has said nor implied otherwise. However we have also made a positive case. Don't blame me because you are too ignorant to grasp it.
If we have no knowledge of a designer then we can just say:
That is incorrect. You are so fucking ignorant that you believe your own bullshit. The evidence for an intelligent designer is the intelligent design. If we knew who the designer was then we wouldn't need science to determine if intelligent design was present or not. It would be a given.
We do NOT have to have knowledge of an intelligent designer in order to first determine and then study intelligent designs. You are obviously ignorant about science.
At 3:18 PM, Unknown said…
That is incorrect. You are so fucking ignorant that you believe your own bullshit. The evidence for an intelligent designer is the intelligent design. If we knew who the designer was then we wouldn't need science to determine if intelligent design was present or not. It would be a given.
We do NOT have to have knowledge of an intelligent designer in order to first determine and then study intelligent designs. You are obviously ignorant about science.
And when most of the scientists on the planet do not accept that you have detected design and you have no other evidence for a designer then . . .
What do you do if you're only evidence is dodgy or disputed? Drop back and punt or think, perhaps, maybe, that you might be wrong??
At 10:04 PM, bpragmatic said…
Hughes:
"If you're making a probabilistic argument its incumbent on your to provide the probabilities or do the math, Chubs."
Huh? You are delusional.
At 4:00 AM, Rich Hughes said…
Joe still doesn't understand 'proof'.
At 8:57 AM, Joe G said…
Richie still doesn't understand anything. Richie is still so cowardly that he cannot actually even attempt to make a case.
At 9:00 AM, Joe G said…
And when most of the scientists on the planet do not accept that you have detected design and you have no other evidence for a designer then . . .
LoL! Your bluffing is meaningless. Your alleged majority of scientists don't have anything to support thew claims of their position so why should anyone listen to them?
What do you do if you're only evidence is dodgy or disputed?
What do you do when the only people who think the evidence for ID is dodgy and dispute it are losers and cowards who can't support the claims of their position?
At 9:31 AM, Joe G said…
And when most of the scientists on the planet do not accept that you have detected design...
We have told them how to refute the design inference so let them have at it or they can shut up and stop whining
At 10:43 AM, Unknown said…
LoL! Your bluffing is meaningless. Your alleged majority of scientists don't have anything to support thew claims of their position so why should anyone listen to them?
You don't have to. But it doesn't mean anyone has to take you seriously either. Especially when you can do any research or publish any results.
What do you do when the only people who think the evidence for ID is dodgy and dispute it are losers and cowards who can't support the claims of their position?
I guess they'll just all have to get back to work doing research and publishing papers.
We have told them how to refute the design inference so let them have at it or they can shut up and stop whining
Since they don't think you found design there's nothing to refute.
At 10:58 AM, Joe G said…
But it doesn't mean anyone has to take you seriously either.
We have the evidence and the methodology. Yours has nothing but untestable assumptions.
Especially when you can do any research or publish any results.
The peer-reviewed published results support ID. All of the peer-reviewed papers on ATP synthase support ID.
I guess they'll just all have to get back to work doing research and publishing papers.
Their papers won't have anything to do with unguided evolution.
Since they don't think you found design there's nothing to refute.
We have found design, told them about it and they all choked.
At 11:12 AM, Unknown said…
We have the evidence and the methodology. Yours has nothing but untestable assumptions.
When you get some decent research and publications let me know.
The peer-reviewed published results support ID. All of the peer-reviewed papers on ATP synthase support ID.
Too bad the authors of those papers think you're wrong about that.
Their papers won't have anything to do with unguided evolution.
YAWN . . looks for the TV guide . . .
We have found design, told them about it and they all choked.
Well, maybe if you did something with the design you say you've found people would take notice. You spend all your time on blogs telling people they're liars and wankers.
At 11:16 AM, Joe G said…
When you get some decent research and publications let me know.
And when YOU get some decent research and publications let me know.
Too bad the authors of those papers think you're wrong about that.
Do they? They definitely cannot model unguided evolution producing an ATP synthase. They can't even produce a testable hypothesis for the claim.
Well, maybe if you did something with the design you say you've found people would take notice.
It is being studied. Why you think your ignorance means something is beyond me.
At 11:49 PM, William Spearshake said…
Let me see if I can summarize.
1) Dembski proposes a formula to prove the existence of ID.
2) This equation includes a variable that is impossible to quantify.
3) Joe then claims that unless evolutionists can quantify this unquantifiable variable, ID must be the best explanation.
I hope that Joe is better at repairing toasters than he is an Intelligent Reasoning.
At 5:51 AM, Joe G said…
1) Dembski proposes a formula to prove the existence of ID.
WRONG
Dembski proposes a formula to determine the origin of whatever is being investigated
2) This equation includes a variable that is impossible to quantify.
And that variable is Dembski's opponents' positions
3) Joe then claims that unless evolutionists can quantify this unquantifiable variable, ID must be the best explanation.
For the reasons provided, moron.
Post a Comment
<< Home