Joined: Jan. 2007
|Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 01 2007,21:43)|
In any case, Dembski is constantly pointing something out - namely that no algorithm can violate NFLT (I think there are restrictions on the kinds of algos this applies to, but nevermind). And Dembski is correct - nothing violates NFLT as far as we know. Dembski takes this to mean that all search algorithms are therefore overall useless, and any time any search algorithm does any better than random chance some clever programmer somewhere input special (CSI, IC, whatever) information into their code.
Dembski in one sense believes NFL is more powerful than it really is, and in another sense completely fails to comprehend its reach. When we talk about NFL, we usually do so in the context of computer algorithm design, but NFL actually applies to any effective method. That includes any procedure that a putative intelligent agent may come up with.
That is a very cool point of NFL I had totally missed. So NFLT tells us that there isn't any way to do anything in general!
Again, the disconnect is the fact that IDers want to say "there's no way to do anything in general", and everyone else is saying "but we don't care about 'in general'; we care about the problems we care about".
IDers are focussed on discussing the fact that *algorithms* are crappy. Everyone else is amazed that the *search spaces* we care about are so nice.