Eviction and specification
So I have finally been evicted from an Internet discussion. I knew I was bound to get evicted from Uncommon Descent at some stage - although I had no idea what the reason would be. You have to be extremely respectful and cautious to remain on that blog if you are an ID opponent. I am impressed by those who manage to hang in there, such as Chris Hyland.
Anyone who is interested in the Design Inference should read ttp://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdf. Dembski makes it quite clear that it supersedes all previous explanations of the design inference. Look for the following issues:
* Faulty explanation of classical hypothesis testing. In fact all hypothesis testing requires a clearly defined alternative hypothesis. Without that it is impossible, for example, to justify the difference between one-tailed and two-tailed testing or confidence intervals.
* Sudden leaps from simplicity defined in terms of complexity theory in well-defined spaces such as bit strings to simplicity defined in terms of number of concepts to simplicity defined in terms of number of words. (And then you get the problem that you can make up a single word for any outcome)
* Subtle change from specification as "all events simpler than the observed outcome" to "all events simpler and less probable than the observed outcome". This seems to be just slipped in without explanation or comment.
* Total lack of justification for definition of specification.
There are a host of other problems - but these will do for a start.
Anyone who is interested in the Design Inference should read ttp://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdf. Dembski makes it quite clear that it supersedes all previous explanations of the design inference. Look for the following issues:
* Faulty explanation of classical hypothesis testing. In fact all hypothesis testing requires a clearly defined alternative hypothesis. Without that it is impossible, for example, to justify the difference between one-tailed and two-tailed testing or confidence intervals.
* Sudden leaps from simplicity defined in terms of complexity theory in well-defined spaces such as bit strings to simplicity defined in terms of number of concepts to simplicity defined in terms of number of words. (And then you get the problem that you can make up a single word for any outcome)
* Subtle change from specification as "all events simpler than the observed outcome" to "all events simpler and less probable than the observed outcome". This seems to be just slipped in without explanation or comment.
* Total lack of justification for definition of specification.
There are a host of other problems - but these will do for a start.
posted by Mark Frank at 8:35 am
10 Comments:
Mark,
I too got a kick out of Dembski's specification paper and his flawed eliminative approach. For one thing, he never attempts to eliminate more than one null hypothesis, even though he occasionally admits that all non-design hypotheses must be eliminated (never mind that this is an epistemologically impossible task).
Also, he sometimes inadvertently admits that his testing is actually comparative. For example, he says that placing a critical region in the middle of a normal distribution is "useful for uncovering data falsification." Obviously, nobody would put a critical region in the area of highest probability unless they had an alternate hypothesis of data falsification in mind.
For more anti-Bayesian illogic, see this paper, where he says that if we find a complex specified pattern, then "it’s more plausible that some end-directed agent or process produced the outcome by purposefully conforming it to the pattern than that it simply by chance ended up conforming to the pattern." Here the comparison is explicit, but later he says that we shouldn't try to compare them because design "transcends all probabilities." Whatever.
I also had to laugh at a blatant contradiction in the Specification paper. In the beginning, he states, "This method properly applies to circumstantial evidence, not to smoking-gun evidence. Indeed, such methods are redundant in the case of a smoking gun where a designer is caught red-handed." But later he says that even if we catch someone red-handed making an arrowhead, we don't know if they're actually designing or just randomly chipping away, so we still have to use Dembski's design detection method.
I commented on this paper at the ARN boards here, here, here, and here. And that's hardly scratching the surface.
Secondclass thanks. Just for fun I wrote an essay on that paper but then I looked around and found half the world have beaten me to it so I never quite finished it. Your comments are very sharp.
I had never thought of posting on ARN. It seems like a good option as I like to post comments where they will be criticised.
Hi Mark
Thanks for your contribution to my blog. You join quite a big club as a bannee from UD. You would receive tea and sympathy here should you wish to drop by.
The moderation at ARN seems quite relaxed. The problem is that the ID proponents there are a motley crew of cranks and reality deniers for the most part.
Mike Turner (mturner), for example, is an utter waste of space, and Warren Bergerson (Life Engineer)is famous for never supporting any claim he makes. Scott Page has a take on them which might amuse you.
Why not run your essay by Wesley Elsberry at PT. He might feature it as a thread there.
Alan thanks.
I already submitted the essay to Talk.Reason. They hosted one of mine before so they might be interested.
Cheers
Congratulations, Mark!
You may now append BBWAD or BBDSS to your handle (Banned By William A Dembski or Dave Scott Springer) as appropriate. It's a title to be proud of. I'm thinking of selling T-Shirts.
lou_fcd
I will wear my badge with pride - but it seems to be quite an easy badge to obtain.
Mark
It occurs to me you might want to link to the comments where DaveScot bans you, or, in his view, puts you on the moderation queue. Admittedly, It was a cursory look, but I didn't spot it.
Alan
Good point. Here is the link:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1210
The key dialogue is in Dave's responses to post #9 and #10 and a final comment from in #14.
Looking back at this I note how very astute and relevant secondclass's comments are. He deserves a lot of credit.
Post a Comment
<< Home