Nonsense & its double negatives confusing itself!

From: silk (smbc1@wxs.nl)
Date: Sun Nov 05 2000 - 02:57:19 EST

  • Next message: Huxter4441@aol.com: "Re: Report by Jonathan Wells of tour of Arkansas, K..."

    Silk here: How can an adult who wasn't a comedian
    type this gobbledegook with a straight face?

    From: Ivar Ylvisaker <ylvisaki@erols.com>
    ["Thus, we shall never see a design hypothesis D pitted against a chance
    hypothesis H so that E confirms D better than H just in case P(D|E) is
    greater than P(H|E). This may constitute a "Bayesian design inference," but
    it is not the design inference stemming from the Explanatory Filter."]

    Silk again:
    Granted there are nit wits on this list who revel in exchanging this
    nonsense in their attempt to come across as "intellectual" & I don't suppose
    they & their senses of inadequacy which demand to be filled do any harm so
    let it be, it serves to add comic relief to an otherwise dull list. Some of
    them really dig deep into the barrel of absurdity to nit together some "wit"

    ["Abduction" and an "inference to the best explanation" are
    similar>concepts. Finding a relevant passage using the latter term is
    easier.]
    Oh god does it ever end?!
                                              nice sunday folks.. chao/silk

    Second, Dembski specifically disavows that this is what he means by a design
    inference. He writes a little later in the reference cited above:

    "Thus, we shall never see a design hypothesis D pitted against a chance
    hypothesis H so that E confirms D better than H just in case P(D|E) is
    greater than P(H|E). This may constitute a "Bayesian design inference," but
    it is not the design inference stemming from the Explanatory Filter."

    He seems to waver a bit about this conviction in his "Intelligent Design"
    though the book still contains a description of the filter.See "abduction"
    in the index.

     I haven't got "Intelligent Design". Perhaps you could quote me the
     relevant
    >> passage, if it's not too long.
    > >
    > >"Abduction" and an "inference to the best explanation" are similar
    > >concepts. Finding a relevant passage using the latter term is easier.
    >
    > The term "abduction" is new to me. For anyone else who's interested, I
    found
    > the following relevant pages:



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Nov 05 2000 - 04:34:25 EST