RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: Elsberry & Shallit on Dembski, Discussion of the criticism< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 64
Joined: Dec. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2004,16:42   


This has not been done. I have no knowledge of a specific example that corresponds to what you are talking about, and I certainly am not convinced by mysterious private email exchanges that I am not privy to. What you describe sounds like an example of what Jeff Shallit and I referred to as the "Sloppy Chance Elimination Argument" in our paper.

It's a longstanding criticism of mine that Dembski has not made available the calculations that his public claims imply have already been accomplished (as in his 1998 "Science and Design" article in "First Things", which strongly implied that his EF/DI and GCEA had been applied to the systems labeled as IC by Michael Behe).

This latest missive of yours simply confirms that my analysis on this point has been spot-on.

Fair enough.  I'll suggest to Bill we at least do some of these for human examples, and maybe you will be convinced CSI at least does exist in human affairs.

You actually solved a major problem for establishing detachable, non-postidictive specifications with your SAI.  That was gift!

An example closely analogous to SAI is the problem of "convergent evolution" which Sternberg calls "neo-Darwinian" epicycles.

The weakness of arguing as protein sequences as evidencing CSI I think needs review as I believe Art makes a very good case which the IDists need to address.  Same with the flagellum.


I have no recollection of saying that Dembski confuses SAI with anything else. That would hardly be sporting, since "SAI" as a term was introduced in that paper. Perhaps a specific citation of the purported faulty language would be appropriate?

It is not my intent to ever misrepresent you, that is why I am here asking for clarifications and your own words.

You in fact wrote:

An alternate view is that if specified complexity detects anything at all, it detects the output of simple computational processes. This is consonant with Dembski's claim. It is CSI that within the Chaitin-Kolmogorov-Solomonoff theory of algorithmic information identifies the highly compressible, nonrandom strings of digits.

Are not compressible strings, strings which evidence SAI??  If not, I'll amend my assertion, no problem.  I'm for fair play.

  51 replies since Nov. 12 2003,08:26 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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