Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread

Good math, bad math, crap NFL

Posted: Aug. 12 2007,20:50

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 12 2007,20:30)

Uh oh, I predict a quote mine:

�

Quote

Here's the question I received:

Is the NFL theorem itself bad math?
If the theorem itself is sound, what's wrong with how it's being applied? Is it a breadth issue or a depth issue?
The theorems themselves are actually good math. They're valid given their premises; they're even deep and interesting theorems in their way. The problem isn't the theorem: it's the way that the theorem is abused to apply it to evolution. But what I found interesting is the idea of characterizing the problem as breadth or depth.

Salvador:

�

Quote

Here's the question I received:

Is the NFL theorem itself bad math?
If the theorem itself is sound, what's wrong with how it's being applied? Is it a breadth issue or a depth issue?
The theorems themselves are actually good math. They're valid ... they're even deep and interesting theorems ...

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Henry J

Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Aug. 12 2007,20:55

Re "What if the probabilities, once known, say "design"? Well, then, the Oklo reactors must really be designed."

Ah, but did they meet all the safety regulations?

Henry

stevestory

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Good math, bad math, crap NFL

Posted: Aug. 12 2007,21:11

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 12 2007,21:30)

good find, rich.

I liked this comment

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmat....-531799

Quote

Interesting post Mark.

Olle H�ggstr�m(http://www.math.chalmers.se/~olleh/) has published a paper called "Intelligent design and the NFL theorems", part of the intro reads:

After giving the necessary background on the mathematics of optimization theory and the NFL theorems in Sections 'A few mathematical preliminaries' and 'Optimization and the NFL theorems,' I will outline Dembski's use of the latter in Section 'Dembski's application to evolution.' Then, in Sections 'A probabilistic interpretation of NFL' and 'Dembski's error,' I will demonstrate the main error in his argument and the irrelevance of NFL to evolutionary biology.

If you are interested in Olle's paper, I'd be happy to email it to you.

Posted by: Chris Harrison | August 12, 2007 04:24 PM

I'm sure interested in that paper.

stevestory

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Aug. 12 2007,21:21

We all puzzle over the idiot vs liar question. Here's MCC on it:

Quote

Any mathematician would easily understand that the breadth of the theorem completely invalidates his claims about evolution? Therefore, he's not just really bad at math, he's lying and intentionally fooling people without some sort of mathematical education. I know that's nothing new, just thought it needed to be pointed out again.

Good article, Mark.

Posted by: Steve P. | August 12, 2007 04:39 PM

Quote

Steve:

I tend to go back and forth between whether Dembski is a liar, or a raging incompetent. I look at the NFL stuff, and wonder how someone who could write that could be so clueless that they would not know that the anti-ev argument was nonsense.

But then I look at some of the other stuff he's written - like his specified complexity stuff - and it's so dumb, with such egregious and pointless errors that do nothing to support his arguments - and I'm forced to question his competence. I know he's dishonest enough to lie when it helps his argument. But when his errors do nothing to help his argument, but they make him look stupid, then I'm forced to think maybe he's stupid. In which case, I want to know who wrote the math in NFL?

Posted by: Mark C. Chu-Carroll | August 12, 2007 05:31 PM

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: Aug. 12 2007,21:46

1999 response to Dembski

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Aug. 12 2007,23:01

Habitual Tard BarryA gets in on the act:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....er-pope

Barry, never knowing you're right is quite liberating, and also intellectually honest. It means you're not stuck forever with dogma that might not be true.

Best bit.

Quote

While I find Popper�s ideas compelling and often cite them myself, it seems to me that there is nothing axiomatic, fundamental or self-evident about them

So we can never know Popper is right when he says we can never know we're right. Goodness, Barry, you must be one top drawer lawyer. Can I hire you to represent people I don't like?

*I did dun a editation to make the quotey bit*

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

stevestory

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Aug. 12 2007,23:22

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 13 2007,00:01)

Goodness, Barry, you must be one top drawer lawyer. Can I hire you to represent people I don't like?

LOL

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: Aug. 12 2007,23:52

Paul Nelson, PSS, and Darwin doll picture thread

Featuring Bill Dembski opining,

Quote

Charles Darwin � the Chicago Cubs of famous scientists, always promising to win the big one (i.e., explain biological complexity), but always choking at crunch time. For the record, I�m a Chicago north-sider.

Jealousy is a green-eyed monster. The fact that any one of the various subjects Darwin contributed to continue to have far more scientific significance than anything Dembski can even hope for must be galling. Darwin's contributions to geology alone (the correct hypothesis of coral atoll formation, for one) would make him a notable figure among 19th century scientists. And all Dembski can do about evolutionary science is snipe, like the pathetic quote above shows. Sad.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Aug. 12 2007,23:54

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 12 2007,23:52)

Paul Nelson, PSS, and Darwin doll picture thread

Featuring Bill Dembski opining,

Quote

Charles Darwin � the Chicago Cubs of famous scientists, always promising to win the big one (i.e., explain biological complexity), but always choking at crunch time. For the record, I�m a Chicago north-sider.

Jealousy is a green-eyed monster. The fact that any one of the various subjects Darwin contributed to continue to have far more scientific significance than anything Dembski can even hope for must be galling. Darwin's contributions to geology alone (the correct hypothesis of coral atoll formation, for one) would make him a notable figure among 19th century scientists. And all Dembski can do about evolutionary science is snipe, like the pathetic quote above shows. Sad.

I think the picture was lifted from a link Reed provided here. Hey, UDers, why not join in some of the threads where we talk science?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,01:23

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 13 2007,07:54)

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 12 2007,23:52)

Paul Nelson, PSS, and Darwin doll picture thread

Featuring Bill Dembski opining,

� �

Quote

Charles Darwin � the Chicago Cubs of famous scientists, always promising to win the big one (i.e., explain biological complexity), but always choking at crunch time. For the record, I�m a Chicago north-sider.

Jealousy is a green-eyed monster. The fact that any one of the various subjects Darwin contributed to continue to have far more scientific significance than anything Dembski can even hope for must be galling. Darwin's contributions to geology alone (the correct hypothesis of coral atoll formation, for one) would make him a notable figure among 19th century scientists. And all Dembski can do about evolutionary science is snipe, like the pathetic quote above shows. Sad.

I think the picture was lifted from a link Reed provided here. Hey, UDers, why not join in some of the threads where we talk science?

;)

That's nice Bill. Paul prostituting himself in your day care center for disenfranchised conservative bac. flagellators

So, measured by the company you keep, that should qualify you for an automatic 3rd doctorate...right?

Hon. Dr. of credit card carrying bleating blog sycophants.

Has a nice ring (ring) don't you think.

Money, it's a gas...

So why has Paul been given his own martyrs poster on UD complete with *giggle* a Darwin doll?

Where's the Kalashnikov, bandana and the religious slogans? Wedge to the Infidels! And Praise the Gospel of St. John.

Is Paul planning a suicide mission?

Like writing another book?

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,01:42

Looks like creobots might be trying to edit this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,05:27

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 13 2007,09:42)

Looks like creobots might be trying to edit this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

You mean change the source of the Law from Rome to Jerusalem and thus lore?

Awww, how sweet, don'tcha lurve fundamentalism?

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,06:28

More from the Darwin doll thread - skaner74 projects a bit

Quote

There�s something very unnerving and dare I say it, very evil, about seeing a cute little doll in the image of a man whose unproven theory has been used as justification for some of the worst abominations ever seen by mankind.

I guess he prefers to look at crucifixes...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
� � � � � � � � � � � � - Pattiann Rogers

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,08:21

Over at ISCID (last comment on this thread at present) JAD joins in the Popper-mania. I'd quote it all here, but if I just link to it, I can also warn you all to take swallow your coffee and take a deep breath before exposing yourself to this ranting.

Enjoy!

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
� � � � � � � � � � � � - Pattiann Rogers

Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,09:14

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 13 2007,16:21)

Over at ISCID (last comment on this thread at present) �JAD joins in the Popper-mania. I'd quote it all here, but if I just link to it, I can also warn you all to take swallow your coffee and take a deep breath before exposing yourself to this ranting.

Enjoy!

I see nosivaD still has everything sdrawkcab dna nwodedispu.

JAD loads for goose and blasts sparrows.

Quote

Just as ontogeny terminates with death of the individual so will phylogeny terminate, as it nearly always has, with the extinction of the species. To assume otherwise is to deny the transparent testimony of the fossil record. There are only a handful of species alive today that were present just a few million years ago. Ontogeny remains the ideal model for phylogeny and to ignore its implications is without foundation and intellectually unacceptable.

Yawn Just as ~~ontogeny~~ history terminates with death of the individual so will ~~phylogeny~~ history terminate, as it nearly always has, with the extinction of the species.

Blah blah blah....

~~Ontogeny~~ History remains the ideal model for ~~phylogeny~~ history and to ignore its implications is without foundation and intellectually unacceptable.

JAD doesn't do non sequitur I see.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

Bob O'H

Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,11:36

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 13 2007,01:42)

Looks like creobots might be trying to edit this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

I went there, and then by mistake clicked on the "Conspiracy Theory" link. The article has one of those "The neutrality of this article is disputed" banners. I bet it is!

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,12:22

Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 13 2007,19:36)

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 13 2007,01:42)

Looks like creobots might be trying to edit this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

I went there, and then by mistake clicked on the "Conspiracy Theory" link. �The article has one of those "The neutrality of this article is disputed" banners. �I bet it is!

Bob

OH HA HA VERY DROLL. IT'S AN EVIL ATHEIST CONSPIRACY THAT YOU SAY IT IS A CONSPIRACY. HOMO!!! -d.t.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

J-Dog

Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,12:47

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 12 2007,23:52)

Featuring Bill Dembski opining,

Quote

Charles Darwin � the Chicago Cubs of famous scientists, always promising to win the big one (i.e., explain biological complexity), but always choking at crunch time. For the record, I�m a Chicago north-sider.

Wow! Talk about projection! Dembski just blasted himself - he must be filled with self-loathing and self-hatred.

For those of you that may not be baseball fans, THE CUBS PLAY ON THE NORTHSIDE!

So, here is what he actually said: Dembski - the Chicago Cubs of IDiots - always promising to win the big one (i.e., explain biological complexity), but always choking at crunch time. For the record, I�m a Chicago north-sider

Bill - For the record - You just admitted you are a total loser. Which we knew, but thanks for making it official.

this tard may not be reproduced or rebroadcast without the express written consent of major-league ass-hats and IDiots.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

J-Dog

Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,12:57

And in other dog-bites-man news, ID_FOR_THE KIDZ_BLOG Overwhelming Evidence is NOT getting overwhelmed with posts, as the "newest" post is now almost 5 days old.

Is it time to call the Guiness Book Of World Records yet?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Occam's Toothbrush

Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,14:11

Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 13 2007,12:57)

And in other dog-bites-man news, ID_FOR_THE KIDZ_BLOG Overwhelming Evidence is NOT getting overwhelmed with posts, as the "newest" post is now almost 5 days old.

Is it time to call the Guiness Book Of World Records yet?

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

hooligans

Posts: 114
Joined: Jan. 2007

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,15:20

Sometimes, I am a bit slow, but this bit from Davetard struck me as unusual.

Quote

Consider the hypothesis that black holes exist in nature. It can never be falsified.

Haven't black holes been observed? Am I crazy, or am I missing something here? Is Davetard just stupid or did I read his post wrong.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,15:24

Davetard just stupid

--------------
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 Gauger�s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Kristine

Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,15:25

Quote (hooligans @ Aug. 13 2007,14:20)

Sometimes, I am a bit slow, but this bit from Davetard struck me as unusual.

Quote

Consider the hypothesis that black holes exist in nature. It can never be falsified.

Haven't black holes been observed? Am I crazy, or am I missing something here? Is Davetard just stupid or did I read his post wrong.

You're thinking of the wrong black holes.

Or he is.

(No, I'm not going to explain.)

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,15:33

You can't observe them, only their effects, if you get my drift.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Kristine

Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,15:36

Shaner74 huffily pulls up his Sox: � �

Quote

There�s something very unnerving and dare I say it, very evil, about seeing a cute little doll in the image of a man whose unproven theory has been used as justification for some of the worst abominations ever seen by mankind. I wish C.S. Lewis was still alive for the ID vs. faith in Materialism debate. I�d love to hear what he�d have to say.

Shaner, shame. The world is filled with love today and no cute doll is safe!

As for C.S. (an unfortunate combination of consonants, I think), he was never really atheist, he [HAHAH, David Heddle, my friend, sorry if you're reading this, but zingo!] described himself as "very angry with God for not existing". And that's what's gotten into little Shaner here. No C.S. Lewis dolls, no siree.

wMAD:

Quote

Charles Darwin � the Chicago Cubs of famous scientists, always promising to win the big one (i.e., explain biological complexity), but always choking at crunch time. For the record, I�m a Chicago north-sider.

*Yawn* Which record would that be? Your record of virtual redactions? Bat a .404 record, do you?

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,15:46

OK, brace yourselves... Springer is right about that particular statement.

Any existential proposition is unfalsifiable. You need to make a universal proposition before you can talk about falsifiability as a possible property.

You have to be able to test for something that should be true if the proposition of interest is true for falsifiability to hold.

Of course, there is evidence for the existence of black holes: Link. But the form in which the proposition was stated was not a falsifiable one. There are a variety of falsifiable statements possible concerning black holes; mere existence doesn't happen to be one of them.

Added: The usual confusion over "falsifiability" is that it is a technical term that does not *just* mean, "We can find out that this is wrong." Certainly, some existential statements have been disproved, and we can be sure that more will be disproved in the future. But we have no guarantee that anything less than turning the universe inside out and going through its pockets will suffice to demonstrate that any arbitrary existential statement is, in fact, false. "Falsifiability" is about being able to reject a proposition based on the consequences that have to follow if that proposition is true. If we find that the consequence in question is actually false, then we can be as certain as we are in our observation that the consequence did not occur that the proposition that entailed it is false.

Added: Consider Einstein's relativity. Here was a radical revision of physics. It had the consequence that the path of photons is affected by gravity. Eddington used that entailed consequence to devise a test: a star "near" the sun during an eclipse would be slightly displaced from its expected location, because light should bend slightly as it passes close to the sun. In 1919, Eddington led an expedition to take observations during the total eclipse that year. He found that, yes, the position of a nearby star did appear to have been shifted. In this case, we have a falsifiable proposition that passed a falsifying test.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Aug. 13 2007,16:13

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

heddle

Posts: 126
Joined: Nov. 2005

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,16:05

Kristine,

Quote

As for C.S. (an unfortunate combination of consonants, I think), he was never really atheist, he [HAHAH, David Heddle, my friend, sorry if you're reading this, but zingo!] described himself as "very angry with God for not existing". And that's what's gotten into little Shaner here. No C.S. Lewis dolls, no siree.

I�m missing the boat, I guess. Because I think you are referring to my concurring with Douglas Wilson, in his debate with Christopher Hitchens (a strange pairing for a debate), in which Wilson made the point that atheists deny God exists and they hate him. That�s rather consistent with what the C.S. Lewis Wikipedia article states (the accuracy of which, I certainly can�t defend)

Quote

Though an atheist at the time, Lewis later described his young self (in Surprised by Joy) as being paradoxically "very angry with God for not existing".

I think you might be arguing, correct me if I am wrong, that since he was angry with God he therefore was not an atheist. But I would say that all atheists have strong emotions (call it hatred) toward God.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

IanBrown_101

Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Aug. 13 2007,16:17

Quote (heddle @ Aug. 13 2007,16:05)

Kristine,

Quote

As for C.S. (an unfortunate combination of consonants, I think), he was never really atheist, he [HAHAH, David Heddle, my friend, sorry if you're reading this, but zingo!] described himself as "very angry with God for not existing". And that's what's gotten into little Shaner here. No C.S. Lewis dolls, no siree.

I�m missing the boat, I guess. Because I think you are referring to my concurring with Douglas Wilson, in his debate with Christopher Hitchens (a strange pairing for a debate), in which Wilson made the point that atheists deny God exists and they hate him. That�s rather consistent with what the C.S. Lewis Wikipedia article states (the accuracy of which, I certainly can�t defend)

Quote

Though an atheist at the time, Lewis later described his young self (in Surprised by Joy) as being paradoxically "very angry with God for not existing".

I think you might be arguing, correct me if I am wrong, that since he was angry with God he therefore was not an atheist. But I would say that all atheists have strong emotions (call it hatred) toward God.

Why would you say that?

Personally, I don't hate god. Why would I? I don't hate Zeus, or Ra, or Mars (not the planet) I just don't think they exist.

Are you mad at Santa?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

C.J.O'Brien

Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005