tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33070142011-07-29T02:28:31.625ZI have decided to move all my blogging to Wordpress as I find it easier to use. My new blog is http://mfinmoderation.wordpress.com/Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.comBlogger351100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-46117139947212485122009-11-19T09:31:00.001Z2009-11-20T07:28:45.153Z

The following is extracted and slightly edited from a discussion on Uncommon Descent. There is the usual chain of comments – this picks up at comment #98. Myself (in response to a comment from Vjtorley) I know I am not going to convince you that compatibilism is true but maybe I might just be able to explain how it works (at least in my version). I found that understanding it required a sort of

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-54852736233559346302009-10-26T07:46:00.003Z2009-10-26T08:09:28.233Z

Following on from my previous post. If you define information as improbability, as Dembski does, there are some consequences that are easily forgotten. If the measure of information is a probability, then information acquires the properties of probability. In particular:The probability of an outcome depends on how you specify it. I throw a dice and it lands in front of me with the six upmost. The

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-89331581130382612282009-10-25T10:28:00.000Z2009-10-25T10:32:10.100Z

I have accepted the challenge from a comment on Uncommon Descent to give an account of how physics can produce information. This is going to be too long to post as a response on the same forum so I am writing it up here. I take this to mean producing information without involving living things. I believe that living things come down to physics, but to satisfy the commentator I am sure I need to

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-7586481186040184592009-04-06T05:57:00.003Z2009-04-06T06:10:35.184Z

Over the weekend Clifton Suspension bridge in Bristol was closed due to a "crack" in one of the suspension rods. My small claim to fame is to be with the "member of the public" who noticed the fault. We were staying with friends in Bristol and the four of us went for a walk over the bridge. Our hostess noticed rather more than a crack in one of the suspension rods - it was completely sheared

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-73885954537478363682009-03-02T10:08:00.001Z2009-03-02T10:08:25.881Z

At the weekend Ben Goldacre wrote an article about the use (or uselessness) of data mining for national security. It is on his blog here. He attacks the idea of data mining for terrorists by considering the number of false positives that would be produced given certain assumptions about the sensitivity and specificity of the test. I am a great fan of Ben's but he is overly fond of using medical

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-529697544273591452009-01-26T09:57:00.003Z2009-01-26T10:16:26.390Z

This post is in response to a discussion on UD about whether DNA is a code and contains information. It is mostly well-worn territory but maybe there is something slightly different and what I have to say is too long for a comment so I put it here.In this comment Jerry wrote:This discussion has appeared several time in the last few weeks and the anti ID people think they have scored points by

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-41818294028870998682009-01-03T16:57:00.003Z2009-01-03T17:29:30.701Z

In a comment on the post the Case for Materialism Oleg laid down this challenge to Kairosfocus:Let me illustrate that with an example. Here is a sequence of 60 bits:1100100100 0011111101 1010101000 1000100001 0110100011 0000100011. Can you tell me whether this information is complex and specified?I think this is great and would like to one step further and invite anyone to submit a sample so that

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com122tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-83375717766088377432008-12-31T14:58:00.007Z2009-01-01T08:54:11.605Z

This post picks up on the previous one on Making the Case for Materialism. Please see Kairofocus's comments, particularly the one which finishesSo, please, start from Welcome to Wales. I will be happy to wait on you; though I find the artificiality of the length constraint here somewhat less than helpful. As this post is focussed on KF I am not going to ask for a specific constraint on the length

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com50tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-45650494618061528462008-12-27T23:12:00.003Z2008-12-27T23:24:46.272Z

From time to time I get sucked into debating with religious types on issues such as free will, ethics and materialism. The same arguments go round in circles and of course no one changes their mind about anything. But I thought it would be nice to have some mutual respect. That's a first step to someone changing their minds. To this end I wrote this short piece in response to a comment by a nice

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com48tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-63382829083541019572008-07-20T15:38:00.001Z2008-07-20T15:38:24.242Z

Since doing a project on violence risk assessment I have always had an amateur interest in crime statistics – nothing remotely approaching a professional interest – just what you can gather by spending 30 minutes on the Internet once a month. You would think that a professional journalist writing for a national daily paper on a regular basis, presumably with some kind of research assistance,

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-72731248276692580432007-10-23T16:02:00.000Z2007-10-23T16:16:39.962Z

I don't think there is anything original here. but I was inspired to jot down my thoughts about ethics during a slack hour and then I thought I might as well make them public.A Naturalistic Account of Ethics and MoralityWe are often disposed to help others even when it is at our own expense. For example we often:have compassion for those who are suffering, and act to prevent suffering even when

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-62745138097268231872007-06-11T15:37:00.000Z2007-06-11T16:04:36.486Z

Denyse O'Leary wrote this rather interesting post on Uncommon Descent, to which I attempted to add comments. Recently I had to change my Uncommon Descent ID (for some reason I could no longer log on with the old one) and briefly had the opportunity to comment without censorship. Indeed my first comment in response to Denyse appeared immediately. However, my second comment did not appear - so

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-1165823417314159452006-12-11T07:32:00.000Z2007-01-01T12:33:56.050Z

Improved versionA few weeks ago Ben Goldacre wrote an interesting article in his Bad Science column in the Guardian about the statistics of predicting violence in mentally disturbed subjects. Like most of his articles he repeated it on his blog hereHis point was that the statistics of testing for medical conditions, e.g. in HIV tests, is also applicable to testing for potentially violent subjects

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-1161516003955686412006-10-22T11:11:00.000Z2006-10-22T11:20:53.090Z

This is a duplicate of a post I am attempting to make as part of a discussion on free will and morality on Uncommon Descent. I put it here as well because quite a lot of work went into it and my comments on UD often don't make the cut.I thought this was an interesting argument from Borne in #30.The standard atheist doctrine is that there are no objective moral values. But upon what objective

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-1155714684175180242006-08-16T07:43:00.000Z2006-08-16T07:51:24.186Z

There has been extensive discussion on Panda's Thumb and Uncommon Descent of Dave Thomas's excellent program which simulates certain aspects of evolution. See:http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/take_the_design.htmlandhttp://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1316Salvador objects that Dave has designed the selection process in his program to solve the problem - and therefor it is

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-1155389592532181342006-08-12T12:13:00.000Z2006-08-12T13:33:14.553Z

William Dembski has posted a note from Terry Mirll on Uncommon Descent in which Terry makes six predictions which would happen if ""materialism is true". The idea presumably being that these predictions are implausible and so this counts as evidence against materialism. It is kind of fun and I did attempt to post on UD about it - but it looks like my post has not made the cut. So I thought I

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-1152607398078901982006-07-11T08:32:00.000Z2006-07-11T08:43:18.190Z

Several people have been kind enough to comment on my essay on this subject on talk.reason (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/likely.cfm).I would like to respond to two or three comments here.1. First, a correction to simple error of fact. Thanks to Rob Igo for pointing this out. On the first page I wrote that the probability of a Royal Flush given a random deal is 1 in 2.5 million. This is the

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-1150447562151228682006-06-16T08:35:00.000Z2006-06-16T08:46:02.153Z

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

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-1150317011205996482006-06-14T19:45:00.000Z2006-06-14T20:30:11.376Z

I have been participating in a discussion on Uncommon Descent about a possible new approach to SETI (where they would look for extraordinarily bright nanosecond laser pulses) and whether it is an example of Dembski's explanatory filter. Unfortunately Dave Scott asked me to leave the blog before I had got to the meat of what I wanted to say so I will continue it here.I am struggling to relate this

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-1148634810435708312006-05-26T09:11:00.000Z2006-05-26T09:13:30.446Z

This was inspired by a short dicussion on Uncommon Dissent.1) Epigenetics (non-genetic inheritance) is fascinating and important, but keep a sense of proportion. Mendelian/DNA based inheritance is understood in great detail, accounts for an enormous amount of what we observe in the way of inheritance, supports detailed predictions, and even allows us to control inheritance to a limited extent.

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-1148382337423705042006-05-23T10:52:00.000Z2006-05-23T12:44:06.353Z

This little essay is the result of a dialogue on the Intelligent Design Blog Uncommon Descent. My responses became too long for this format while still being incomplete so I decided to take my last response and try to round it out into an essay.The essay is in response to this post by Barry Arrington (to be found at http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1137 post number 8):The most

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-1148144456693661612006-05-20T16:39:00.000Z2006-05-26T09:45:48.966Z

One of the most famous examples in the Intelligent Design debate is the SETI example. Apparently in the film Contact the scientists involved in SETI (Search for Extra Terrestial Intelligence) recieve a signal that is a string of prime numbers. Dembski argues that this, if it really happened, would be a clear indication that the signal was designed, because it is so incredibly unlikely that such

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-1147931994020363982006-05-18T05:36:00.000Z2006-05-18T16:37:35.750Z

I started a discussion about the implications of apparently poor design in life on UD. However, this is a banned subject on that blog so I am posting the discussion here and inviting the participants to continue. Below is an edited version of discussion so far - you can see the full dialogue back on UD. 1. > Dr. Walter Fitch[’s] … main argument was that if intelligent design were true,

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-1147811203937152652006-05-16T20:01:00.000Z2006-05-16T20:26:44.010Z

"Mike the Mad Biologist" has raised this interesting question on his blog. He is talking from an American point of view but I don't think it is so very different here. I am supposed to be studying science communication so I guess I ought to have a view. His concern is mainly the level of scientific knowledge among non-scientists - or scientific literacy to use the jargon. I am not sure that

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-1145825513564333472006-04-23T20:29:00.000Z2006-04-23T20:51:54.006Z

Dave Scott on Uncommon Descent has issued the Flagellum Challenge for Darwinian Evolutionists. The challenge is to explain how a Darwinian account of the evolution of the flagellum could be falsified. I quite like this kind of challenge and wrote a response in the form of an analogy - but Dave did not see fit to publish it. Unfortunately I didn't keep a copy but I will paraphrase it here.In a

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-1144851290090998362006-04-12T13:43:00.000Z2006-04-12T14:17:39.990Z

I watched the webcast of this lecture last night. The title was "Why evolution is right and creationism wrong" and I was really looking forward to it as Stephen Jones is an ace communicator as well as being a top scientist. It was certainly popular - apparently over 8000 people queued to see it and the server was overwhelmed initially with people wanting to see the webcast. However, it will be

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-1144561291848754622006-04-09T05:27:00.000Z2006-04-09T05:41:31.870Z

I don't generally intend to post on personal issues but I was so impressed by the behaviour of Mike Gene on the ID blog Telic Thoughts that I had to include this.I have never understood what the fuss was about over Dr. Pianka. Whatever he said, or didn't say, it seemed to have little to do with Intelligent Design. However, the ID community got after him in a big way on the basis of hearsay. Mike

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-1143454711155781642006-03-27T09:42:00.000Z2006-03-27T10:18:31.756Z

One of the commonest reasons for rejecting Intelligent Design as unscientific is that it cannot be falsified. It is compatible with all observations and therefore useless from a scientific point of view. Note that if the intelligent design community were prepared to say anything about the designer, its intentions and how it implements its design then it would be falsifiable (and probably false).

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-1142346563002066942006-03-14T14:26:00.000Z2006-03-14T14:29:23.013Z

Yesterday I was a “lay debater” (not to be confused with “lady baiter”) at this event at Exeter University. It was meant to follow the format of radio 4’s “The Moral Maze” but I fear the lay debaters did not have the skill or preparation of the BBC panel. So our questions were not what as probing as they might be. Nevertheless, it was good fun, I learned a lot, and I think the audience did as

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-1141660188539896252006-03-06T15:30:00.000Z2006-03-06T15:49:49.640Z

I used my MSc in Science Communication as an excuse to watch this programme (I have been overdosing on the tube recently) but it really wasn't a valid excuse. This programme, and its predecessor - Blue Planet, are the TV equivalent to very large, very glossy coffee table books. They are full of the most extraordinary images, and ... well that's about it really. Yes there were truly remarkable

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-1141314519802053862006-03-02T15:36:00.000Z2006-03-13T08:58:14.610Z

I continue to update this item so I have started to put version numbers on it.The intelligent design (ID) movement claims to have a formal method for detecting design by observing the results of the design process (this form of words get tedious so I will use the word “outcome” to indicate one or more events or objects that are the consequence of a designer at work). ID proponents have biology in

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-1141215131373847432006-03-01T12:07:00.000Z2006-03-01T12:12:11.386Z

Paul (http://exilefromgroggs.blogspot.com/) has issued a challenge to ID opponents to come up with a way formalising the detection of design. I can resist this. But the response is rather long so I have put it here.PaulYou are assuming that there is a universal way of detecting if something is designed. I would claim that you can only decide if something is designed given some context. For

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-1140950377985009212006-02-26T10:25:00.000Z2006-02-26T14:30:35.076Z

I have to admit to being a bit of an Intelligent Design (ID) addict. I believe it is utterly wrong and should not be taught as science. I believe that there is overwhelming evidence for neo-Darwinism (ND) and that while there are some phenomena that ND finds it difficult to explain, this no more destructive to ND than an inexplicable orbit for a planet would be destructive to Newton’s laws of

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-1139655480485922482006-02-11T09:17:00.000Z2006-02-11T11:17:53.723Z

Last Sunday (the 5th of February) The Mail on Sunday revived its long-running campaign supporting the position that the MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) combined vaccine potentially causes children to develop autism. This was quickly followed by an article from Melanie Phillips, in The Daily Mail Tuesday 7th with the title MMR : the facade cracks.The gist of the story is that while the vast majority

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3307014.post-1139560014772196752006-02-10T07:42:00.000Z2006-02-10T08:26:54.803Z

Horizon has been getting a reputation for programmes which are heavy on graphics and special effects and light on content. This programme may go some way to reversing the image. It was one of the best that I have seen for a long time.The subject was dark matter and dark energy - the 95% of the universe that is not atoms and which ought to be there but no one has ever observed. The programme

Mark Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.com1