Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Uncommonly Dense Thread 3

Pages: (501) < ... 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 46 ... >

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,00:12    Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 18 2009,16:22) Now, I'm a not a logician, but it sounds like (in both these cases) that you're trying to find evidence of the positive case, when the only way to verify the positive case is to test every possible case. I may be off the mark here, but that's why we don't prove positives in science, we can't test every conceivable situation. Ogre, I addressed that point yesterday in this comment: Quote If ravenhood and blackness are well-defined, then the hypothesis "all ravens are black" is either true or false. However (and this is the problem of induction), the only way to establish the hypothesis with certainty is to examine every object in the universe and to observe that none of them are non-black ravens. Because we can't observe every object in the universe, this kind of certainty is impossible for us. We therefore consider some hypotheses to be more likely than others, depending on the evidence we've accumulated so far, but we don't claim absolute certainty for any of them. -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,00:22    batshit77 is a tard...with a blag: Quote If you are interested, here is my blog link http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/ My expectations were met: hideous color scheme, quotes of many colors, the standard Batshit topics such as NDEs, Shroud of Turin, genetic entropy, and Youtube links. Lots of Youtube links. Oh, and it's all one gigantic entry with no comments. Amusingly, he's had the thing since February 2007 but didn't post anything until earlier this evening. You can also choose your reaction at the bottom.  I went for 'funny'. -------------- I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

Missing Shade of Blue Posts: 62 Joined: Dec. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,00:31    The dissertation is nearing completion, thank god. Hopefully just another few months, and I'll be the proud (and probably unemployed) holder of a doctoral degree. I mostly agree with what you're saying here, Keith. The example I gave was merely in response to your claim that it is absurd to think that an instance of a hypothesis does not in general confirm the hypothesis. Under certain auxiliary assumptions, an instance can disconfirm the generalization. As for the rest, I'm with you. It is in fact a straightforward consequence of Bayes' theorem that a yellow banana confirms the hypothesis "All ravens are black" given natural assumptions about sampling. And you're right, I shouldn't have said the sampling procedure has to be completely random. But there are constraints on sampling, and this is partly what I meant by auxiliary assumptions being essential. Here's another example: Suppose my lab assistant is collecting samples for me, and I know she's a bit scientifically dishonest. She will never collect a sample which falsifies the hypothesis. Out of all the samples that don't falsify the hypothesis she picks randomly. Suppose she goes into a room that I know contains a million ravens and two bananas, in order to pick a sample for me. She comes out carrying a yellow banana. Given my auxiliary assumptions about her sampling procedure, I should actually drastically reduce my credence in the hypothesis. She probably would not have brought me a banana unless almost all the ravens in the room were not black. So yeah, while the assumption of random sampling is unnecessarily, some constraint on sampling is necessary in order for any evidence to count as genuinely confirmatory.

Missing Shade of Blue Posts: 62 Joined: Dec. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,00:48    Keith: Quote Any potentially falsifying observation that turns out not to falsify the hypothesis has strengthened it, because there is now one less opportunity for it to be falsified. As far as I can tell, the only necessary background assumptions are these: 1. Valid falsifying observations are possible in principle (though they won't be possible in practice if the hypothesis turns out to be true). 2. Nothing (including our own behavior) is systematically preventing such valid falsifying observations from taking place. These are not the only necessary background assumptions needed for your general claim to be true. Think of Good's example again, except make it slightly less fanciful. Suppose my background theory tells me that if there is any species where all the organisms are black, then for some reason it cannot grow beyond 500 organisms. On the other hand, if some but not all the members of a species are black, it will grow to at least a million organisms. I also know that there are at least 100 million birds in the world, and they are randomly distributed (i.e. species are not geographically localized). I decide to test the hypothesis "All ravens are black." I step out of the house and the first bird I see is a black raven. What does this do to my hypothesis? Plausibly (given some further natural assumptions) it disconfirms my hypothesis. If all ravens were indeed black, then it would be incredibly unlikely that a randomly sampled bird is a raven. On the other hand, if some ravens are black but all of them are not, then it's not that unlikely. Given my background theory, the observation of the black raven, a potentially falsifying observation, neither falsifies nor strengthens my hypothesis. It weakens my hypothesis. And this is the case even though I have not violated either of the two background assumptions you regard as sufficient.

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,00:57    Quote (Missing Shade of Blue @ Oct. 18 2009,22:31) The dissertation is nearing completion, thank god. Hopefully just another few months, and I'll be the proud (and probably unemployed) holder of a doctoral degree. Good luck! Quote I mostly agree with what you're saying here, Keith. The example I gave was merely in response to your claim that it is absurd to think that an instance of a hypothesis does not in general confirm the hypothesis. Under certain auxiliary assumptions, an instance can disconfirm the generalization. If Jaynes was simply claiming that it is not universally true that an instance of a hypothesis strengthens the hypothesis, then I agree and I withdraw my criticism. I had interpreted Raevmo's statement of Jaynes' position as meaning that "it's generally not true that an instance of a hypothesis supports the hypothesis", that is, not true most of the time.  It is that perceived claim that I was disagreeing with when I wrote: Quote Does Jaynes really think that observing one hard diamond after another doesn't strengthen the hypothesis that all diamonds are hard? In our world, such observations do strengthen the hypothesis.  I apologize to Jaynes if I misinterpreted Raevmo's statement. Quote And you're right, I shouldn't have said the sampling procedure has to be completely random. But there are constraints on sampling, and this is partly what I meant by auxiliary assumptions being essential. Here's another example: Suppose my lab assistant is collecting samples for me, and I know she's a bit scientifically dishonest. She will never collect a sample which falsifies the hypothesis. Out of all the samples that don't falsify the hypothesis she picks randomly. Suppose she goes into a room that I know contains a million ravens and two bananas, in order to pick a sample for me. She comes out carrying a yellow banana. Given my auxiliary assumptions about her sampling procedure, I should actually drastically reduce my credence in the hypothesis. She probably would not have brought me a banana unless almost all the ravens in the room were not black. So yeah, while the assumption of random sampling is unnecessarily, some constraint on sampling is necessary in order for any evidence to count as genuinely confirmatory. I agree. That's why I specified the following in my reply to Erasmus above: Quote 2. Nothing (including our own behavior) is systematically preventing such valid falsifying observations from taking place. The case of the dishonest lab assistant clearly violates this stipulation. -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

Missing Shade of Blue Posts: 62 Joined: Dec. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,01:12    Quote I agree. That's why I specified the following in my reply to Erasmus above: 2. Nothing (including our own behavior) is systematically preventing such valid falsifying observations from taking place. The case of the dishonest lab assistant clearly violates this stipulation. Agreed. I made that post before I read your response to Erasmus. But what do you think about the example in my next post?

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,01:14    OK. This is rather weird. The names I struck out are those I cannot place in my recollection with anything. Of the others, I can at least fix a particular topic, book or what-have-you. Some I have even lectured on, or corresponded with. Quote Sergei Chetverikov, Ivan Pavlov, R. A. Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, Sewall Wright, E. B. Ford, Theodosious Dobzhansky, G. Evelyn Hutchinson, George Gaylord Simpson, G. Ledyard Stebbins, Ernst Mayr, William D. Hamilton, Robert L. Trivers, George R. Price, Robert MacArthur, Edward O. Wilson, Lynn Margulis, Robert H. Whitaker, Carl Woese, Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen, Karl von Frisch, Erenhaus Eibl-Eibesfeld, or the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Law, much less Otto Schindewolf, Richard Goldschmidt, or C. H. Waddington. Anyone familiar with the general outlines of evolutionary biology would instantly recognize most or all of these names, and would associate them with various important aspects of evolutionary biology as it has evolved over the past century. Not recognizing them or discussing their contributions to modern evolutionary biology is equivalent to not recognizing or discussing the contributions of Rutherford, Bohr, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Michaelson & Morley, Einstein, Feinman, Gell-Mann, Weinberg, or Guth to modern physics. I don't know if I stack up too well. 68% of biologists and 100% of phycists? Edited by Dr.GH on Oct. 18 2009,23:20 -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,01:29    Quote (Missing Shade of Blue @ Oct. 18 2009,22:48) Keith: Quote Any potentially falsifying observation that turns out not to falsify the hypothesis has strengthened it, because there is now one less opportunity for it to be falsified. As far as I can tell, the only necessary background assumptions are these: 1. Valid falsifying observations are possible in principle (though they won't be possible in practice if the hypothesis turns out to be true). 2. Nothing (including our own behavior) is systematically preventing such valid falsifying observations from taking place. These are not the only necessary background assumptions needed for your general claim to be true. Think of Good's example again, except make it slightly less fanciful. Suppose my background theory tells me that if there is any species where all the organisms are black, then for some reason it cannot grow beyond 500 organisms. On the other hand, if some but not all the members of a species are black, it will grow to at least a million organisms. I also know that there are at least 100 million birds in the world, and they are randomly distributed (i.e. species are not geographically localized). I decide to test the hypothesis "All ravens are black." I step out of the house and the first bird I see is a black raven. What does this do to my hypothesis? Plausibly (given some further natural assumptions) it disconfirms my hypothesis. If all ravens were indeed black, then it would be incredibly unlikely that a randomly sampled bird is a raven. On the other hand, if some ravens are black but all of them are not, then it's not that unlikely. Given my background theory, the observation of the black raven, a potentially falsifying observation, neither falsifies nor strengthens my hypothesis. It weakens my hypothesis. And this is the case even though I have not violated either of the two background assumptions you regard as sufficient. You're right, my two conditions are insufficient to guarantee the statement as it stands. There are really two competing things going on in your example.  The fact that the observation is non-falsifying strengthens the hypothesis, but the fact that the object is a black raven, given your background knowledge about the possible distributions, weakens the hypothesis more than it was strengthened by the non-falsification. So to my two conditions you would have to add a third: 3. You possess no background information whereby certain non-falsifying observations would actually weaken the hypothesis more than they strengthen it. -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

CeilingCat Posts: 2363 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,01:48    Quote (didymos @ Oct. 19 2009,00:22) batshit77 is a tard...with a blag:           Quote If you are interested, here is my blog link http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/ My expectations were met: hideous color scheme, quotes of many colors, the standard Batshit topics such as NDEs, Shroud of Turin, genetic entropy, and Youtube links. Lots of Youtube links. Oh, and it's all one gigantic entry with no comments. Amusingly, he's had the thing since February 2007 but didn't post anything until earlier this evening. You can also choose your reaction at the bottom.  I went for 'funny'. A hideous color scheme, but a readable one.  So many "challenged" bloggers forget such important things as having some kind of contrast, either in brightness or color, between your background and your text. There's no doubt that this is batshit77's blog, though.  I clicked on this ( http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dc8z67wz_3g3vnsmcn ) at the extreme end of the blog and found these deathless words:           Quote Having stated the obvious lets look at what the rock is actually made of. A rock is composed of three basic ingredients; energy, force and truth. Aaahhh!  That's the Hard Tard and 100% pure ba77!  I was going to rate the blog, but "batshit" doesn't seem to be one of the allowable ratings.

Missing Shade of Blue Posts: 62 Joined: Dec. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,01:50    Quote So to my two conditions you would have to add a third: 3. You possess no background information whereby certain non-falsifying observations would actually weaken the hypothesis more than they strengthen it. And with that third condition, you and I (and Jaynes) are in agreement. That's all I was trying to say really, that for instance confirmation to work, the background information (or, as I put it, auxiliary assumptions) need to cooperate. Of course, once you have a condition as broad as 3, I begin to wonder whether you're not approaching triviality. Isn't 3 pretty close to "Observations of this type strengthen your hypothesis unless they don't"? I think the way to go is to abandon Hempelian instance confirmation entirely and just be a straight-up Bayesian. With Bayes' rule you're guaranteed to be updating your beliefs rationally without having to make all sorts of caveats. BTW, to anyone interested in this sort of stuff I highly recommend Jaynes' "Probability Theory: The Logic of Science". Not easy going, but the most subtle and enlightening text on probability/statistics I've ever read. I recommend it especially to Fisherians. Hypothesis testing, like instance confirmation, works well enough for most of the purposes to which it's applied, but conceptually it's a mess.

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,01:59    Quote (Missing Shade of Blue @ Oct. 18 2009,23:50) Of course, once you have a condition as broad as 3, I begin to wonder whether you're not approaching triviality. Isn't 3 pretty close to "Observations of this type strengthen your hypothesis unless they don't"? No, but my response will have to wait until sometime tomorrow. It's past my bedtime. -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,04:41    Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 19 2009,01:14) OK. This is rather weird. The names I struck out are those I cannot place in my recollection with anything. Of the others, I can at least fix a particular topic, book or what-have-you. Some I have even lectured on, or corresponded with.   Quote Sergei Chetverikov, Ivan Pavlov, R. A. Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, Sewall Wright, E. B. Ford, Theodosious Dobzhansky, G. Evelyn Hutchinson, George Gaylord Simpson, G. Ledyard Stebbins, Ernst Mayr, William D. Hamilton, Robert L. Trivers, George R. Price, Robert MacArthur, Edward O. Wilson, Lynn Margulis, Robert H. Whitaker, Carl Woese, Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen, Karl von Frisch, Erenhaus Eibl-Eibesfeld, or the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Law, much less Otto Schindewolf, Richard Goldschmidt, or C. H. Waddington. Anyone familiar with the general outlines of evolutionary biology would instantly recognize most or all of these names, and would associate them with various important aspects of evolutionary biology as it has evolved over the past century. Not recognizing them or discussing their contributions to modern evolutionary biology is equivalent to not recognizing or discussing the contributions of Rutherford, Bohr, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Michaelson & Morley, Einstein, Feinman, Gell-Mann, Weinberg, or Guth to modern physics. I don't know if I stack up too well. 68% of biologists and 100% of phycists? Allen is also a biologist, so he's probably biased towards the physicists who are well known outside the field. A couple of his examples are better known as ecologists rather than evolutionary biologists (e.g. Hutchinson, MacArthur).  And if you haven't heard of Schindewolf, track down JAD and ask him to educate you.  I'm also shocked that you've heard of Price, but not Bill Hamilton or Trivers. -------------- 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)

Raevmo Posts: 235 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,04:57    Fully agree with keiths' analysis. It's a bit ironic that Jaynes didn't fully get it, seeing as he was an early champion of Bayesian thinking. I wonder what the local Bayesian thinks. I'm talking about -- of course -- Bob O'H. -------------- After much reflection I finally realized that the best way to describe the cause of the universe is: the great I AM. --GilDodgen

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,07:21    I was trying to keep out of this stuff: too much hard thinking required. -------------- 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)

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,08:01    In case they get obliviated: Doomsday Smith: Quote From your blog: Quote The greater god (it is beneath god’s dignity to manually create the species), problem of evil (god wouldn’t create this gritty world) and intellectual necessity (naturalism is needed for good science) were a few of the non scientific arguments that were shaping today’s science. Funny, I don’t recall much discussion of those topics in On The Origin Of Species. Perhaps they were covered in A Monograph Of The Cirripedia? Or maybe it was On The Various Contrivances By Which British And Foreign Orchids Are Fertilised By Insects, And On The Effects Of Good Intercrossing? Heinrich: Quote I believe there is a typo in that last title. It clearly should be On The Various Contrivances By Which British And Foreign Orchids Are Fertilised By Insects, And On The Effects Of God Intercrossing. It has been suppressed by Darwinists ever since, as it provides evidence for intelligent design. -------------- I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

KCdgw Posts: 376 Joined: Sep. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,08:35    Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 19 2009,04:41) Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 19 2009,01:14) OK. This is rather weird. The names I struck out are those I cannot place in my recollection with anything. Of the others, I can at least fix a particular topic, book or what-have-you. Some I have even lectured on, or corresponded with.     Quote Sergei Chetverikov, Ivan Pavlov, R. A. Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, Sewall Wright, E. B. Ford, Theodosious Dobzhansky, G. Evelyn Hutchinson, George Gaylord Simpson, G. Ledyard Stebbins, Ernst Mayr, William D. Hamilton, Robert L. Trivers, George R. Price, Robert MacArthur, Edward O. Wilson, Lynn Margulis, Robert H. Whitaker, Carl Woese, Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen, Karl von Frisch, Erenhaus Eibl-Eibesfeld, or the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Law, much less Otto Schindewolf, Richard Goldschmidt, or C. H. Waddington. Anyone familiar with the general outlines of evolutionary biology would instantly recognize most or all of these names, and would associate them with various important aspects of evolutionary biology as it has evolved over the past century. Not recognizing them or discussing their contributions to modern evolutionary biology is equivalent to not recognizing or discussing the contributions of Rutherford, Bohr, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Michaelson & Morley, Einstein, Feinman, Gell-Mann, Weinberg, or Guth to modern physics. I don't know if I stack up too well. 68% of biologists and 100% of phycists? Allen is also a biologist, so he's probably biased towards the physicists who are well known outside the field. A couple of his examples are better known as ecologists rather than evolutionary biologists (e.g. Hutchinson, MacArthur).  And if you haven't heard of Schindewolf, track down JAD and ask him to educate you.  I'm also shocked that you've heard of Price, but not Bill Hamilton or Trivers. Stebbins was one of the architects of the Modern Synthesis, but as a botanist usually gets left out of discussions. -------------- Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it-- Confucius

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,09:55    There once was a homo called Keiths Who had strange posterior beliefs Ravens, Bananas, Crammed up his pyjamas to ascertain whether Hempel's paradox expressed as a hypothesis is a true representation of inductive logic for a finite set of entities working under other a priori assumptions such as the uniformity of nature. -------------- "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

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,10:07    I laughed. * *But I sternly disapprove of such shenanigans. Shame on RichardTaHugs. Shame! -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,10:29    Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 19 2009,02:41)  I'm also shocked that you've heard of Price, but not Bill Hamilton or Trivers. I came across Price in a Game Theory class. His personal life was more interesting to me than his scientific work. I have read Trivers on reciprocal altruism. Opps. Edited by Dr.GH on Oct. 19 2009,08:36 -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,10:39    Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 19 2009,08:07) I laughed. * *But I sternly disapprove of such shenanigans. Shame on RichardTaHugs. Shame! Me too. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,10:43    One of many auxiliary assumptions in science is there will always exist a person or persons motivated to find and produce disconfirming data for any hypothesis. This fits somewhere in the general definition of random sampling. In the population of investigators, sampling bias will be minimized by the random distribution of bias. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,11:24    Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 19 2009,07:55) There once was a homo called Keiths Who had strange posterior beliefs Ravens, Bananas, Crammed up his pyjamas to ascertain whether Hempel's paradox expressed as a hypothesis is a true representation of inductive logic for a finite set of entities working under other a priori assumptions such as the uniformity of nature. I just fell off my chair, RTH.  You owe me a new bum*. * I don't want yours.  There isn't room in here. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,11:26    Tarden Chatterbox is a homo hippy beach bum. Take him. -------------- "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

sparc Posts: 2088 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,11:39    Quote (DiEb @ Oct. 18 2009,22:23) Has anyone listened to this? At 3' 22'', W. Dembski says about his paper  "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success":       Quote We have some powerful results that follow up on this paper. This is a paper called "The Search for the Search", which is coming out... It should be out now, but there is some delay in the journal's publishing [???]. That will really nail things down. (my own transcript) I didn't have the stomach to listen to the whole thing, but I'm quite interested in this new paper. BTW, Dembski says about the first paper:     Quote It shows that Darwinian processes require information. Um, not information as we know it, Jim. You can download Dembski's draft for "The search for the search" here. He describes it as   Quote forthcoming pro-ID peer-reviewed article in the math/eng literature (name of journal will be announced when the article appears in print). -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,12:33    Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 19 2009,07:55) There once was a homo called Keiths Who had strange posterior beliefs Ravens, Bananas, Crammed up his pyjamas to ascertain whether Hempel's paradox expressed as a hypothesis is a true representation of inductive logic for a finite set of entities working under other a priori assumptions such as the uniformity of nature. I absolutely dispute that last line!  Swords or pistols, Hughes? -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

rossum Posts: 289 Joined: Dec. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,12:37    Quote (sparc @ Oct. 19 2009,11:39) Um, not information as we know it, Jim. <mode=Trekkie Nerd>Make that: "It's information Jim, but not as we know it."</mode> rossum -------------- The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

sparc Posts: 2088 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,12:38    I bet within 12 hours someone at UD will post about Lenski's latest. -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

dvunkannon Posts: 1377 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,12:55    Quote (rossum @ Oct. 19 2009,13:37) Quote (sparc @ Oct. 19 2009,11:39) Um, not information as we know it, Jim. <mode=Trekkie Nerd>Make that: "It's information Jim, but not as we know it."</mode> rossum Damn it, Jim! I'm a doctor, not a logician! -------------- I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,12:55    Quote (Raevmo @ Oct. 19 2009,02:57) It's a bit ironic that Jaynes didn't fully get it, seeing as he was an early champion of Bayesian thinking. Indeed. I found Jaynes' book online (the relevant chapter is here), and it's clear that he doesn't get it.  Sorry, Missing Shade, but Jaynes clearly dropped the ball on this one. He writes: Quote An incredible amount has been written about this seemingly innocent argument, which leads to an intolerable conclusion. But the conclusion isn't intolerable -- it's correct, as a Bayesian analysis shows. He continues: Quote But the error in the argument is apparent at once when one examines the equations of probability theory applied to it: the premise, which was not derived from any logical analysis, is not generally true, and he prevents himself from discovering that fact by trying to judge support of an hypothesis without considering any alternatives. Jaynes is correct that the premise ("an instance of a hypothesis supports the hypothesis") is not always true, but he mistakenly dismisses the entire paradox on this basis.  The problem is that in those cases where the premise does hold, the paradox re-emerges. Jaynes fails to recognize this, and he thus fails to notice that a Bayesian analysis resolves the paradox by affirming it, not by invalidating it. -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2009,12:57    Quote (sparc @ Oct. 19 2009,12:38) I bet within 12 hours someone at UD will post about Lenski's latest. That paper is available here: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=QSTQAWO4 Enter "captcha" code and click "free download" of .pdf. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Pages: (501) < ... 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 46 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard