From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Sun Aug 03 2003 - 10:40:43 EDT
Hi Michael,
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Michael
>Spence
>Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 3:33 AM
>To: asa@calvin.edu
>
>
>Subject: Re: loose ends I hate to sound smug, and I'm not trying to be, but
doesn't "whipping
>up another test" suggest design? When you type something that is
gibberish, haven't you
>designed it? It doesn't mean anything, but haven't you designed it, as in
intentionally
>brought it to be?
There are a couple of points here to comment on, and you bring up a good
point. Of course I have designed the test, and of course I have designed
the meaningful sentences. but what I haven't claimed is that I can tell
which sequences are designed and which aren't. That is what Dembski et al
are really claiming. They assert that they can look at DNA organization,
whose origin is at question, and tell whether or not it is designed. They
claim they have a scientific and mathematical technique for indicating
design. Fine, I am merely offering a test for their methodology. If you did
the same to me, designed such a test, I would be utterly incapbable of
telling which sequences were designed and which one weren't. If faced with
such a test, I would acquiesce and acknowledge that I have no ability to
detect design. They won't either acknowledge their inability nor will they
take the test and prove, experimentally, that they can detect design. If
they can do it with even 95% accuracy, I will become the biggest proponent
of their case. But they aren't interested in proving their point. They are
interested in selling books.
Indeed, Michael,there are in reality fundamental limitations upon our
ability to detect design in an unknown sequence. There are coding systems
which have the ex post facto ability to turn any sequence you present me
with into a fully meaningful English sentence. If you present me with a
sequence, generated by a random number sequence, and I 'decode' your
sequence with one of those systems, it would suddenly appear that the random
number generator produced a semantically meaningful, but coded sentence. I
did that on this list a couple of years ago. Even Dembski et al would not
acknowledge that a random number generator can produce meaningful sentences,
but if I claim that the sequence with an unknown origin is really a code,
then I can decode it into any meaningful sequence I wish.
>Even though I understand what you're saying regarding ID, I don't grasp
>what the test's purpose is, what exactly it really tests, and what it
reveals besides some
>interesting linguistic lessons.
I would suspect that you haven't been a student of information theory. If
that assumption is correct, I would ask you a question, 'How do you know
that what the ID group tells you about it is actually correct?' You may
wish that they be correct, but wishing doesn't make them so.
The ID group specializes in writing books for people who don't really
understand the science of information.
As to the test, when psychics claim to be able to read minds, or hidden
cards, etc, it is standard operating procedure in science to set up tests.
They can be double blind or single blind, to test the ability of the psychic
to accompllish what he claims. What I am trying to do is get one of the ID
folks to submit to standard scientific methods for claims testing.
About a century ago, a guy had a horse, Clever Hans, who could do
mathematics. The guy made lots of money with this horse. People would pay
to give him math problems and Hans would stamp out the correct answer. Lots
of people believed in the smart horse. But what was happening, was that the
trainer knew the answer and was subtly signalling Hans when to stop tapping.
This is what Dembski is doing, except that the trainer and Hans are rolled
up into one. Dembski uses previous knowledge to signal himself that this
sequence is designed. When the trainer is removed, Hans couldn't cipher
worth a spit. Can Dembski's methodology show us anything about sequences
whose origin are unknown to him? I say no. The unwillingness to take the
test clearly shows that they don't really believe their own hype.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Aug 03 2003 - 10:41:09 EDT