RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (7) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   
  Topic: Comparing Dembski and Mike Gene, Story of two attempts to infer design< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2008,10:11   

Hi Slpage,

For what it is worth, I personally agree that Analogy (#1) is weak.  It shouldn't be equally weighted with the others.

I agree that Discontinuity (#2) is strong.

However, I think Foresight (#4) is as strong, if not stronger.

As an illustration, I take out a deck of cards and shuffle it.  I ask you to cut them.  I look you in the eye as I pick up the cards and prompt you to agree or disagree that they are mixed up.

I then tell you that I can predict the first five cards and tell you what they will be.  Sure enough, the cards are what I predicted.

I suggest the prediction is one of the strongest indicators that the appearence of the five cards was not the product of chance and that design should be inferred.

This example also provides a little credit for analogy.

I will explain later.

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2008,10:40   

However, if there is some force that causes the cards to tend to line up in the way you predicted, and you knew this beforehand, your point is completely worthless.

Like, say, natural selection.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2008,11:09   

You're ducking the question, TP.

What's the objective metric for design?

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2008,17:39   

Hi Doc Bill et all,

Maybe I haven't made myself clear.  I am not trying to convince you that Mike Gene's isn't valueless (i.e. "garbage").  I am just trying to demonstrate Mike Gene's method is less offensive than Dembski's <fill-in-your-choice-of-description>

Got to run, will comment more later.

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2008,17:41   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 07 2008,18:39)
Hi Doc Bill et all,

Maybe I haven't made myself clear.  I am not trying to convince you that Mike Gene's isn't valueless (i.e. "garbage").  I am just trying to demonstrate Mike Gene's method is less offensive than Dembski's <fill-in-your-choice-of-description>

Got to run, will comment more later.

Pointless, misleading, bullshit is bullshit no matter who spews it.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2008,18:28   

All forms of poop stink, though some examples might smell less offensive than others, it's still poop when you bite into it.

Mike Gene and Bill Tard Dembski are promoting pure tard.  No predictions, no testable hypothesis, just baselss claims that pretty much boil down to "suspend your critical thinking and see it from my lense".  Then they go on to claim persecution when you point out how full of shit they are.  That's not how science works.

We have resident creationists here at AtBC who say the same things, they just spare us the fuzzy numbers.

Get back to us when you (or Mike Gene) have a testable theory, one that makes predictions.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2008,20:04   

Hi all,

Even if you aren't interested, I will keep my promise to explain how I think Mike's methodology would have scored my previous example.  Besides, this is supposed to be "The Critic's Resources" which means you should know shit.

As I pointed out the prediction is the major clue to realizing the card trick had more of a telic aspect than not.

One of the things Mike attempts to do is provide a continuum from chance to "design".  Nothing is absolutely totally chance or totally "design".

This is something Dembski does not do.

The significance of this can be shown in the card trick example.  It was possible that the amature magician doing the card trick could have messed up and the cards would not have come out as they did.  There was a chance the trick would have failed.  Dembski presumes design is NOT a "chance hypothesis".  This presumption exposes Dembski's presumption of a perfect design (from a perfect designer).

With Mike's method, the prediction could have been close, but not perfect, causing a minor shift of the score towards the "chance" end, not a total reversal.  It is more realistic to recognise that chance and "design" is a mixture, not an either/or.

However, in the hypothetical the prediction was spot on, causing a +5 for the Foresight catagory.

The Rationality of this is to provide entertainment.  Score it a +3 (not that good of entertainment value).

The Discontinuity was mostly null.  The card pattern didn't develop over time but the pattern looked random.  Score it a 0.

For the Analogy, even though the exact mechanism wasn't known (reversed cut?  Switched decks? Palmed cards?, etc).  The aspects of the situation had an analogous feel of other card tricks.  I had attempted to provide a slightly unusual version, score it a +4.

For a total score of 12/4 = 3.

We are reasonably sure this was "Design".

I have been putting "Design" in quotes for this comment because I agree that is a loaded word.  "Not-by-chance" would be a better term in my opinion.

Either way, it is less useless than Dembski's method, IMO.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11109
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2008,20:48   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 07 2008,20:04)
Hi all,

Even if you aren't interested, I will keep my promise to explain how I think Mike's methodology would have scored my previous example.  Besides, this is supposed to be "The Critic's Resources" which means you should know shit.

As I pointed out the prediction is the major clue to realizing the card trick had more of a telic aspect than not.

One of the things Mike attempts to do is provide a continuum from chance to "design".  Nothing is absolutely totally chance or totally "design".

This is something Dembski does not do.

The significance of this can be shown in the card trick example.  It was possible that the amature magician doing the card trick could have messed up and the cards would not have come out as they did.  There was a chance the trick would have failed.  Dembski presumes design is NOT a "chance hypothesis".  This presumption exposes Dembski's presumption of a perfect design (from a perfect designer).

With Mike's method, the prediction could have been close, but not perfect, causing a minor shift of the score towards the "chance" end, not a total reversal.  It is more realistic to recognise that chance and "design" is a mixture, not an either/or.

However, in the hypothetical the prediction was spot on, causing a +5 for the Foresight catagory.

The Rationality of this is to provide entertainment.  Score it a +3 (not that good of entertainment value).

The Discontinuity was mostly null.  The card pattern didn't develop over time but the pattern looked random.  Score it a 0.

For the Analogy, even though the exact mechanism wasn't known (reversed cut?  Switched decks? Palmed cards?, etc).  The aspects of the situation had an analogous feel of other card tricks.  I had attempted to provide a slightly unusual version, score it a +4.

For a total score of 12/4 = 3.

We are reasonably sure this was "Design".

I have been putting "Design" in quotes for this comment because I agree that is a loaded word.  "Not-by-chance" would be a better term in my opinion.

Either way, it is less useless than Dembski's method, IMO.

*raises hand*

Questions!

What does a a score of 3 mean in terms of statistical confidence of design?

What's to stop different people scoring differently

Each measures equal weight in the reckoning means they are equally important. How do you know that?

Want to buy a bridge?

--------------
"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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2008,21:14   

I'm thinking that the title of this posting topic says it all.  

If you are compared to Dembski, in any way, shape or form, you just might be a Design Proponenetist.

--------------
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

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 07 2008,21:57   

Excuse me, TP.  Two questions.

What is design?

Since you seem to have a corner on the manure market, what do you charge per square yard to mulch my garden?

  
pwe



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2008,06:50   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 07 2008,20:04)
Even if you aren't interested, I will keep my promise to explain how I think Mike's methodology would have scored my previous example.  Besides, this is supposed to be "The Critic's Resources" which means you should know shit.


Sure, we know shit, when we smell it, and guys, aren't we smelling shit right now?

 
Quote
One of the things Mike attempts to do is provide a continuum from chance to "design".  Nothing is absolutely totally chance or totally "design".


I always try to tell my project leader that  ;)


- pwe

  
pwe



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,11:14   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 04 2008,22:07)
The four criteria are…

1. Analogy - How similar is the phenomenon to something known to be designed?

2. Discontinuity - How irreducibly complex is the phenomenon?

3. Rationality - How purposeful (i.e. functional) is the phenomenon?

4. Foresight - How much front loading is involved in the phenomenon?

1. Analogy -- how do you measure "[h]ow similar is the phenomenon to something known to be designed"? Isn't that rather subjective? For the average ID-guy, a bacterial flagellum may be the spitting image of the motore+screw of their toy boat, but for the rest of us, the analogy may be a wee bit less striking.

2. Discontinuity -- gee, I dunno how this could be done, and I'm a genius, so it's as irreducibly complex as can be.

3. Rationality -- purposeful, as judged by who? Humans are notoriously bad at guessings ieach other's purposes, so whakes anyone think we can guess purposes elsewhere?

4. Foresight -- Doesn't Mike Gene know that's undecidable?


- pwe

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,12:04   

TP, I think the issue is regardless of how Mike's approach differs from Dembski's, it's still pure pseudoscience and you're going to have a difficult time finding anyone here get enthusiastic about pseudoscience.

Maybe Mike's version of IDC is less offensive than Dembski's, it's still pseudoscience and therefore offensive to anyone who values good science.

Just sayin'...

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
EoRaptor013



Posts: 45
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2008,23:24   

Quote (Art @ Jan. 06 2008,12:47)
Instead of just "studying" Mt. Rushmore, why not perform a parallel Design Matrix analysis of Rushmore and New Hampshire's Old Man of the Mountain...

You do know the Old Man died? He fell off the mountain and all the king's horses, etc.
Just sayin'.

  
Art



Posts: 69
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2008,07:03   

Quote (EoRaptor013 @ Jan. 15 2008,23:24)
Quote (Art @ Jan. 06 2008,12:47)
Instead of just "studying" Mt. Rushmore, why not perform a parallel Design Matrix analysis of Rushmore and New Hampshire's Old Man of the Mountain...

You do know the Old Man died? He fell off the mountain and all the king's horses, etc.
Just sayin'.

Sounds like planned obsolescence to me.

That settles it - The Old Man was designed.

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,09:38   

FYI, here is a follow up comment I made on Telic Thoughts.  Our discussion got the attention of a lot of old timers from the ID camp.  This gives me the impression that Dembski might be looking in on this one.

Here is the Link for those who are interested.

One of the key points that came up was a discussion of what appears to be Dembski's three or four broad categories for explaining phenomena.

1. Specified, via naturally occurring laws
2. Unspecified, via Chance
3. Specified, via Design
4. Unknown

The paper that is the subject of the thread focuses on infering category number 2 is "less likely than not".

That leaves the other three catagories.

What if the second explaination doesn't apply to any phenomenon? What if true randomness doesn't exist? Only the appearance of randomness, similar to a psuedorandom number generator.

Fifth Monarchy Man spoke like the ethical NOMA rejecting Theist he is and indicated that would be fine by him. Either a designer or a law giver, they all point to God.

On the other side, Valerie wrote…

Quote
A flipped coin and a falling coin are both deterministic events in the sense that their outcomes can be predicted, in theory, with a sufficient knowledge of their initial conditions (and assuming that quantum-mechanical uncertainty does not become a factor).


Which was a very good variation of the point I am making. I noted she talked about quantum-mechanical UNCERTAINTY, not randomness.

I suspect this was a reference to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Which was a general description of quantum weirdness at the beginning of tbe study of quantum physics. However, it appear the uncertainty is not due to hidden local variables as many scientists were presuming back in the 1920s.

It is the lack of our ability to describe quantum effects algorithmically that makes it uncertain. Countless quantum experiments show that non-local measurements effect the outcome. Measure the linear polarization of two out of three entangled photons and you know, with certainty, the circular polarization of the third. However, measuring the circular polarization of the first two, results in the opposite circular polarization of the third. This paradox is real and is not random. So real that we are developing quantum computers based on it.

This non-local quantum interconnectness occurs regardless of how separated the measurements are in either space or time.

Any uncertainty is due to a lack of knowledge, not randomness or "chance".

IMO, there is no such thing as "Chance Hypotheses". Everything is via natural law or interconnected quantum effects.

Who or what is behind the interconnected quantum effects is as metaphysical as discussing who or what created the universe and its laws.

Some people, myself included, consider the exploration of these kinds of questions to be philosophy and not science. When it comes to philosophy, I take a page from Socrates' book and suggest it is the wise man who knows he doesn't know the Truth.

On the other hand, Creationists and people like Fifth Monarchy Man feel they do know the one and only Truth. Which is fine as long as they don't try to hide this agenda. They are entitled to their belief and even entitled to use tax-free charitable donations to do whatever research they feel is appropriate in support of their belief.

Now, one of the questions in this thread is to discuss whether Dembski provided a "sound" analysis that makes a modest scientific suggestion or is the science here just a "cheap tuxedo" disguise in an attempt to promote a belief in a "Designer", aka "Creator", aka God.

When taken as a modest scientific suggestion, Dembski's analysis provides support for something I call the Third Choice. That is that neither randomness nor God should be considered the default explanation. The obvious, experimentally supported, explanation is that interconnected quantum effects is the fundamental organizing force of the universe.

Interconnected quantum effects is the suggestion that is backed up with a positive “warrant”. Simply attacking opposing hypotheses is too easy and doesn’t provide affirmative support. Even more so, when it is done with a hand-waving flourish that it is sufficient to consider only a single hypothesis (the most likely) instead of the entire set of hypotheses AS A SET (not divide and conquer).

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,09:57   

Quote
The obvious, experimentally supported, explanation is that interconnected quantum effects is the fundamental organizing force of the universe.


In practical terms, what does this mean? It sounds like a quantum version of determinism. Is that what you're suggesting?

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4926
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,10:04   

"Thought Provoker" writes:

Quote

Besides, this is supposed to be "The Critic's Resources" which means you should know shit.


Then,

 
Quote

One of the key points that came up was a discussion of what appears to be Dembski's three or four broad categories for explaining phenomena.

1. Specified, via naturally occurring laws
2. Unspecified, via Chance
3. Specified, via Design
4. Unknown


There is no such option as "unknown" in Dembski's GCEA.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 20 2008,10:09

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

    
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,10:23   

Hi Wesley,

I wouldn't disagree with you.

That is why I hedged my description with "three or four".

It appears Dembski does like projecting more certainty than is warranted.  This is normal for people trying to lead a movement. "Hell no, we might not go" just doesn't have the appeal a movement needs.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,10:41   

Hi qetzal,

You wrote...
   
Quote
In practical terms, what does this mean? It sounds like a quantum version of determinism. Is that what you're suggesting?


Yes and no.

Would a Mandelbrot Set be considered deterministic even if its equation was unknowable?

Not "unknown", but "unknowable".

Sir Roger Penrose proposes that quantum effects are non-algorithmic and non-random.  Quantum effects are artifacts of one giant multidimensional wave function in the space-time geometry that is our universe. Think of an unknowable, multidimensional Mandelbrot Set. Here is a Mandelbrot Set claimed to be the size of the known universe.

To back up his proposal, Penrose points to the implications of Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems.  This, along with his background in mathematically modeling Black Holes for a living and figuring out non-algorithmic things like aperiodic tilings that showed up in quasi-crystals, makes for powerful support that if there is anyone qualified to understand this, it would be Penrose.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,11:31   

Ah, TP, you have returned.

Let's get back to basics.

Please provide us with an objective definition of "design" and a metric or metrics with with to measure it.




As for your quantum ramblings you might want to investigate stochastic localized quantum coupling which is quasi-random, but corresponds closely with alpha and beta wave activity in the brain.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,12:45   

Hi Bill


 
Quote
Let's get back to basics.

Please provide us with an objective definition of "design" and a metric or metrics with with to measure it.

As for your quantum ramblings you might want to investigate stochastic localized quantum coupling which is quasi-random, but corresponds closely with alpha and beta wave activity in the brain.


My definition of "design" is probably not the same definition that either Dembski or Mike Gene uses.  I consider the Mandelbrot Set to be not only a design, but a real world example of "design".

I have no proposed "metric or metrics with with to measure it".  However, I happen to be of the opinion that Mike Gene is at least making an honest attempt to provide a metric. Whereas, Dembski's method is more an argument than a metric or definition of "design".

As for my "quantum ramblings" and their relationships with brains and quantum consciousness.  I bumped my "The Magic of Intelligent Design" thread for you.

But I will warn you.  Real Life is still taking a big toll on my time.  I doubt I will be able to get into it heavily again.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2250
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,12:50   

Quote
My definition of "design" is probably not the same definition that either Dembski or Mike Gene uses.  I consider the Mandelbrot Set to be not only a design, but a real world example of "design".

Yes, but what is your definition?

--------------
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)

   
Hermagoras



Posts: 1260
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,13:05   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 20 2008,10:04)
"Thought Provoker" writes:

Quote

Besides, this is supposed to be "The Critic's Resources" which means you should know shit.


Then,

 
Quote

One of the key points that came up was a discussion of what appears to be Dembski's three or four broad categories for explaining phenomena.

1. Specified, via naturally occurring laws
2. Unspecified, via Chance
3. Specified, via Design
4. Unknown


There is no such option as "unknown" in Dembski's GCEA.

Off-topic, perhaps but --

Dembski's list (which yes, does not include "unknown") also does not include evolution, as evolution involves both chance (variation) and necessity (natural selection) repeated many times in a population and over many generations.  Early in NFL he says he's going to deal with that, but I don't think he ever does, or I can't find where he claims to deal with it amid the dreck.  If, in evolution, a biological system arises from the combination of chance and necessity, why does the EF rule out that possibility from the get-go?

--------------
"I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB

http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,13:40   

Hello, TP, glad to see you're busy.  Idle hands are the Devil's plaything, or something like that.

If the Mandelbrot Set meets your definition then so would the Cornish-Pastie Set, or this

f(x) = x + 1

Sorry, TP, but you don't get to pass GO without giving us a definition of design and metrics with which to measure it.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,15:28   

Hi Doc Bill,

Did you expect me to object to anything you said in your last comment?

Maybe you aren't aware that I am an Atheist in the same vein that Richard Dawkins is an Atheist.  Technically, I am agnostic concerning fairies, orbiting tea pots and God.

Yes, I consider a straight line "design".

Yes, I consider everything in nature "design".

Obviously, many ID proponents have the presumption that design must come from a designer, but once they allow the terms to be separated for whatever reason (ethical or not) then everything has detectable "design".

The arrangement of the stars is "design".  The arrangement of ice crystals in a snowflake is "design".  The shape of a simple stone is "design".

In my first toe-to-toe debate with an ID proponent, I asked for a definitive example of something that is not designed.  He was, of course, stumped.  It was obvious he believed everything was designed by God.  Since then it has been obvious to me that most ID proponents have the same issue.  Some are just more tenacious in avoiding the issue.

To me design is something to be discovered like existence.  Think of light.  You might question its state of existence, but once you start understanding things like Maxwell's equations and quantum physics its hard not the appreciate its design.

Note, Mike Gene is one of the few ID proponents offering examples of things he considered undesigned (more accurately "less designed" on a continuum).



P.S.  Here is an online dictionary definition for "design"...
Quote
design

noun
1.  the act of working out the form of something (as by making a sketch or outline or plan); "he contributed to the design of a new instrument"  
2.  an arrangement scheme; "the awkward design of the keyboard made operation difficult"; "it was an excellent design for living"; "a plan for seating guests"  
3.  something intended as a guide for making something else; "a blueprint for a house"; "a pattern for a skirt" 4.  a decorative or artistic work; "the coach had a design on the doors"  
5.  an anticipated outcome that is intended or that guides your planned actions; "his intent was to provide a new translation"; "good intentions are not enough"; "it was created with the conscious aim of answering immediate needs"; "he made no secret of his designs"
6.  a preliminary sketch indicating the plan for something; "the design of a building"  
7.  the creation of something in the mind


I think the second definition is probably closest to what I am talking about.

As for metrics.  Can you provide me a metric for the term "existence"?  Because if it exists, I say it has the property of “design”.

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,19:33   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 20 2008,10:41)
Hi qetzal,

You wrote...
     
Quote
In practical terms, what does this mean? It sounds like a quantum version of determinism. Is that what you're suggesting?


Yes and no.

Would a Mandelbrot Set be considered deterministic even if its equation was unknowable?

Not "unknown", but "unknowable".


Yes.

Quote
Quantum effects are artifacts of one giant multidimensional wave function in the space-time geometry that is our universe.


So you're saying everything is part of a single wave function, so all is predetermined. Yes?

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,20:12   

Hi qetzal,

You asked...
Quote
So you're saying everything is part of a single wave function, so all is predetermined. Yes?


"Predetermined" doesn't make much sense for something that transcends space and time (no before or after).  "Fixed" might be a better term.

The web of interconnected quantum effects are fixed in the space-time geometry that makes up our universe.

And yes, this concept has implications to the subject of "free will".  However, I have gotten used the the idea.  It doesn't make any difference to my actions.  The situation from a personal point of view hasn't changed.  To us, time flows.  To the space-time universe, time is just one of multiple dimensions.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11109
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,20:56   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 07 2008,20:48)
Questions!

What does a a score of 3 mean in terms of statistical confidence of design?

What's to stop different people scoring differently

Each measures equal weight in the reckoning means they are equally important. How do you know that?

Want to buy a bridge?

Again, TP...

--------------
"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

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2008,22:08   

Hi Richardthughes,

As it so happens, I know how Mike Gene would respond to your questions.

Quote
Here’s a skeptical response from someone on another forum who did not read the book

“What does a a score of 3 mean in terms of statistical confidence of design?”

Nothing. The Matrix does not pretend to be a statistical test.

“What's to stop different people scoring differently.”

Nothing at all. Just put your score on the table. And then explain and defend it. Complaints about the Matrix are just that – complaints. Ya either play or come up with all kinds of nervous excuses for not playing.

“Each measures equal weight in the reckoning means they are equally important. How do you know that?”

We don’t. But you have to start somewhere. The Matrix is all part of “the beginning of a journey.” We could indeed try to assign more weight to some criteria than others. Yet remember that I did not invent these criteria. All four criteria have been used by ID proponents in one context or another. And more importantly, all four criteria have been used by anti-design thinkers in one context of another. An assault on the Matrix is an assault on *both* ID and anti-ID arguments from the last 100 years.


I should have asked Mike's permission to do this, but I didn't.  You see, you don't respect him and I suspect the feeling is mutual.

As for what Mike would tell you to do with your bridge, I will leave that up to your imagination.

  
  204 replies since Jan. 04 2008,22:07 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (7) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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