RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2012,05:03   

gpuccio:
Quote
If even Zachriel canít see that there is no circularity in the dFSCI procedure, after I have given him explicit examples of how it is empirically capable of distinguishing designed strings from non designed strings with 100% specificity, then there is really no hope. There must really be something wrong in how these people reason.


This 100% procedure as far as I can tell goes something like this.

Here are three strings.

A) The rock fell on the IDiots head but it was ok because there was no damage.
B) 2348905urwe8o0asfjw80435u8023u45890wr4jfe9-0ui5904wuir09efu093wu845890reu804
C) The cat sat on the mat.

His "procedure" seems to be to ask somebody to determine which, if any, of those strings are non-random.

I shit you not.
Quote
Again: we test dFSCI with a set of long enough strings. Some of them are designed and meaningful, some of them are generated randomly. We know the origin of each string (if it was designed or randomly originated) because we have direct knowledge of how they were produced. Then we take some independent observer, who knows nothing about the origin of the strings, and ask him to infer desing, or not, using the evaluation of dFSCI for those strings. He will recognize the designed strings, with 100% specificity. Thius is the very simple meaning of my #5: an empirical test where dFSCI can easily recognize designed strings from non designed strings. Empirical test, nothing more.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-436413

He then says:
Quote
If even Zachriel canít see that there is no circularity in the dFSCI procedure, after I have given him explicit examples of how it is empirically capable of distinguishing designed strings from non designed strings with 100% specificity, then there is really no hope. There must really be something wrong in how these people reason.

I knew that cognitive bias is strong and powerful in humans, but I really believed that it can be partially controlled in intelligent and goodwilled people. Evidently, that is not always the case.


Just wow.

Hey, Gpuccio, I think my next project will be a "is this string designed or not" website.

Given that you have a 100% perfect method of determining design or not you'll clean up.

But I suspect not. As gpuccio himself says:
Quote

There must really be something wrong in how these people reason.

If their reasoning is so poor then how come you are on the pissant blog bitching about people who actually get published on a regular basis and not just in books?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
  10669 replies since Aug. 31 2011,21:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (356) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]