The philosophical Turkey: The difference between verification and
richardal...@googlemail.com
illustrates very neatly the difference between falsification and
verification. Does anyone know the source?
A turkey lived in a pen with lots of other turkeys. Every morning the
farmer brought food and water, and checked the turkey's health. Being
of a scientific turn of mind, the turkey formulated an
hypothesis.
"Turkeys are special creatures" it proposed "and the reason why the
farmer exists is to care for us."
Every morning the farmer brought the turkeys food and water, and
checked their health.
Every morning the turkey's hypothesis was verified.
After a hundred days of this, the turkey said "I think that my
hypothesis is now so well-verified that we can take it as fact."
The next day was Christmas Eve, and the farmer came with an axe. The
turkey's hypothesis was falsified completely, utterly and absolutely.
Verification is easy. We build hypotheses on evidence, so they are
verified right from the start.
Falsification is hard, and once a theory is falsified, it's rejected.
That's why pseudo-scientists look for verification, and real
scientists look for falsification.
RF
*Hemidactylus*
outright rejection. There are probably aspects of the theory in
question that are still valuable. Or perhaps the falsification
occurred under previously untested conditions where the theory falls
flat, but still applies in other conditions.
Popper backpedalled from some previous assertions about evolution by
natural selection. He eventually realized genetic drift was an
alternative to natural selection. So there are situations when natural
selection is not only falsifiable, but falsified, in very small and
isolated populations where allelic frequencies shift due to sampling
errors and as Popper holds things like mutation and recombination are
of upmost importance. But selection obtains in other situations. The
overall theory of evolution is expanded to encompass selection AND
drift.
But I'm not sure that Popper's hardcore falsificationism is the be all
of scientific demarcation.
The death of the turkey added more complexity to their explanatory
myths. It could be that one turkey a year or so will be pulled from
the population to serve as dinner, but maybe the farmer also shows
prize turkeys and a turkey is born that exhibits prized traits that
gets it into the running for best in show. This will be a special
turkey and removed not to be killed and eaten but to be shown and
bred. This instance would verify a special status in certain
circumstances. If the turkey population transmits an oral history they
will via verification and falsification develop an more accurate
reflection of reality. Some will be eaten where some will be shown and
bred. And further instances of turkeys being killed for food would
verify the previous realization developed via falsification of
previous assumptioms for the group that turkeys will die for food.
John Wilkins
Don't remember the source, but it sounds a bit like Russell.
Then there is the one of Russell's about the prisoner who was told by
the judge at sentencing "You shall be executed when you do not expect it
at dawn sometimes in the next seven days."
The prisoner, who had a class in logic, reasoned thus: "If it is six
days from now, I will expect to be executed at dawn the next day, and
thus I will not be. But if it is five days from now, I shall expect to
be executed the next day, because I would be expecting to die the
following day, and would not be then, and so I cannot be executed the
sixth day. By mathematical induction, I cannot be executed any day.
Hence I shall not be executed."
He was quite surprised when they came to get him for execution, a couple
of days later.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
TomS
<1i8z1q7.1v84y2j1yuc3drN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
There is a Wikipedia article on this puzzle: "Unexpected hanging paradox"
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Geoff
> A turkey lived in a pen with lots of other turkeys. Every morning the
> farmer brought food and water, and checked the turkey's health. Being
> of a scientific turn of mind, the turkey formulated an
> hypothesis.
> "Turkeys are special creatures" it proposed "and the reason why the
> farmer exists is to care for us."
>
> Every morning the farmer brought the turkeys food and water, and
> checked their health.
> Every morning the turkey's hypothesis was verified.
> After a hundred days of this, the turkey said "I think that my
> hypothesis is now so well-verified that we can take it as fact."
>
> The next day was Christmas Eve, and the farmer came with an axe. The
> turkey's hypothesis was falsified completely, utterly and absolutely.
How so? A turkey in captivity never has to search for food or water and
never has to worry, but for one moment, about predators. The turkey is
protected against disease and treated for infection. The turkey always has
shelter.
OTOH, I would like to propose another hypothesis: the farmer is an American
with rather poor grasp of seasonal culinary offerings. Turkeys are for
Thanksgiving. The winter solstice is reserved for roast beast and Yorkshire
pudding. Even little Cindy Lou Whoo knew this.
Dwib
> That's why pseudo-scientists look for verification, and real
> scientists look for falsification.
Hey! What's wrong with getting verification AND falsification?
I mean you, you test the theory.... Like if the Turkey "made a run
for it" (ie, perturbated the situation), Mr. Turkey would have new
evidence to look at.
Dwib
Kermit
I propose a modified hypothesis: The turkeys *are special, [and
because their purpose is to feed the farmer or his customers] the
farmer cares for them. The part in brackets have to be added to the
model to make it fit the new facts, as well as the old. The
"customers" part might even be added at a later, second stage.
There's also the possibility that the falsification is misunderstood
or anomalous in some significant way. The farmer may have gone insane,
for instance, and will soon be punished by the Big Turkey in the Sky.
Or the turkeys may be unable to think of an hypothesis that makes
sense *and explains all the data. I can think of a couple of physics
theories that are sometimes called incomplete but are not discarded
because they still explain some classes of data quite well.
This is very different from alleged theories which fit very few of the
known data (and explain none better than the mainstream theory),
cannot be falsified in principle, are supported more by lawyers and
dentists than scientists, and the handful of scientists who *do
support it do no research in the field.
Kermit
swedish...@googlemail.com
This might sound like a really dumb question (apologies in advance)
but in what way could the turkey have gone about falsifying his
theory? It seems like he was dependent on an outside force (the
farmer), over which he had no control, to provide the evidence one way
or another. Or did he just have to wait and see?
Again. sorry if I'm missing something obvious. I claim little
knowledge of the philosophy of science.
David Iain Greig
> I can't remember where I heard this little tale of woe, but it
> illustrates very neatly the difference between falsification and
> verification. Does anyone know the source?
>
>
> A turkey lived in a pen with lots of other turkeys.
ARGIC ARGIC ARGIC MUTLU ZUMABOT
kibo beableplex
--D. 'xenu'
Robert Carnegie
It reads like Aesop's fables but he probably didn't draw the
conclusion about logic. I looked through one set of translations at
http://www.mythfolklore.net/aesopica/index.htm
and didn't find that one (the holiday might not be Christmas Eve, the
livestock might not be a turkey, the husbandman might be a butcher).
It isn't anything like James Thurber's "Very proper gander", either,
and I don't recall it as a bible parable. Uncle Remus maybe? Anyway,
there is an extremely long tradition of animal fables.
(E.g., "The man, the woman, the fruit tree, and the snake."
The moral: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We're_All_Going_To_Die )
Seanpit
doesn't mean that that original hypothesis wasn't the best and most
scientifically reasonable conclusion given the limited data that was
originally available. In short, just because a scientific hypothesis
or theory is ultimately falsified doesn't mean that it wasn't really
scientific. All scientific hypotheses should be open to potential
falsification or at least practical if not absolute falsification.
Some hypotheses, such as the one presented here by Forrest, are open
to absolute falsification as stated. However, not all scientific
hypotheses can be absolutely falsified. They can only be falsified in
degree - i.e., to a practical level of statistical "significance".
For example, most hypotheses regarding medical treatment cannot be
absolutely falsified. Some can only be falsified in degree - i.e., to
a p-value that is greater than the pre-determined level of
significance.
Of course, the lack of the complete falsifiability does not mean that
medical science and other such hypotheses and theories (like chaos
theory and other theories that involve the use of concepts like
randomness) aren't really true sciences. They are - despite Richard's
claims to the contrary.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
Sean, you're wasting time!
You evidently think that all the scientist who have criticised your
pontifications are both ignorant and incompetent, so why waste your
words of wisdom on this forum.
So write them up as a paper, and submit it to a journal whose editors
*are* capable of understanding your argument. After all, you've been
posting much the same bunkum (sorry: scientifically important
argument) for five years. Surely you can write up *something*?
Why not prove all your critics wrong?
Of course, I know perfectly well that you won't, because you know
perfectly well that your arguments have no substance, and that any
competent scientist would laugh them out of court.
Let's all have a good laugh as you bluster and evade once again. What
sort of impression do you think that this gives, do you think?
RF
J. J. Lodder
The distinction works nicely only for toy theories,
like yours, and only naive Popperians, like you,
believe it is, or can be, that simple, in real science,
Jan
richardal...@googlemail.com
Well, the editors of the journals in which I publish my research think
that I do real science.
Of course it's not as clear-cut as this in the real world. However, in
"real science" we try to formulate hypotheses in such a way that they
can be clearly falsified.
What distinguishes junk science is that they don't look for potential
falsification, only verification.
RF
2-bit
ahahaha... Yeah, "real scientists" like the folks in the cult of SETI
have a neat trick: they try to falsify a negative which is, when you
think about it, the same as verifiying a positive. So instead of
verifying that the hypothesis aliens exist, they try to falsify the
hypothesis that aliens do not exist. ahahaha... They call it the
"scientific method". It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Rebel Science News:
http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/
J. J. Lodder
Correctly of course.
Since he had convinced himself that an unexpected hanging,
hence any hanging, was impossible,
any actual hanging must have been quite unexpected,
as promised,
Jan
--
"Here we go, round again...."
Seanpit
>
> Of course, I know perfectly well that you won't, because you know
> perfectly well that your arguments have no substance, and that any
> competent scientist would laugh them out of court.
What would be laughed at of court, even by mainstream scientists, is
your notion that all real scientific theories are absolutely
falsifiable. That notion shows a very basic misunderstanding of the
uses and range of scientific investigation.
> Let's all have a good laugh as you bluster and evade once again. What
> sort of impression do you think that this gives, do you think?
Let see you explain how medical science isn't really science . . .
because the majority of medical hypotheses and theories are not
absolutely falsifiable you know. The same thing is true of physics,
chemistry, anthropology . . . even mathematics.
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> perfectly well that your arguments have no substance, and that any
> competent scientist would laugh them out of court.
What would be laughed at of court, even by mainstream scientists, is
your notion that all real scientific theories are absolutely
falsifiable. That notion shows a very basic misunderstanding of the
uses and range of scientific investigation.
> Let's all have a good laugh as you bluster and evade once again. What
> sort of impression do you think that this gives, do you think?
Let see you explain how medical science isn't really science . . .
AC
First of all, mathematics isn't science.
Second of all, why should anyone accept your made-up "absoluate
falsifiable"?
What is with you guys and your private linguistic inventions? I guess you
know you've lost the debate, but you hope that cheap silly rhetorical ploys
can hide that fact.
--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com
fnor
Free Lunch
Seanpit <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in
<d1c84026-d730-4983...@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>On Dec 12, 11:43 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>> Of course, I know perfectly well that you won't, because you know
>> perfectly well that your arguments have no substance, and that any
>> competent scientist would laugh them out of court.
>
>What would be laughed at of court, even by mainstream scientists, is
>your notion that all real scientific theories are absolutely
>falsifiable. That notion shows a very basic misunderstanding of the
>uses and range of scientific investigation.
Apparently you do not grasp the meaning of falsifiable. Which scientific
theories are not?
>> Let's all have a good laugh as you bluster and evade once again. What
>> sort of impression do you think that this gives, do you think?
>
>Let see you explain how medical science isn't really science . . .
>because the majority of medical hypotheses and theories are not
>absolutely falsifiable you know. The same thing is true of physics,
>chemistry, anthropology . . . even mathematics.
Medicine is poorly managed because it seldom has proper double-blind
studies. I have no idea how you would do a double-blind study on the
efficacy of surgery for lower-back pain.
Seanpit
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:18:20 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
> <d1c84026-d730-4983-88cf-44285a845...@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >On Dec 12, 11:43 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> >> Of course, I know perfectly well that you won't, because you know
> >> perfectly well that your arguments have no substance, and that any
> >> competent scientist would laugh them out of court.
>
> >What would be laughed at of court, even by mainstream scientists, is
> >your notion that all real scientific theories are absolutely
> >falsifiable. That notion shows a very basic misunderstanding of the
> >uses and range of scientific investigation.
>
> Apparently you do not grasp the meaning of falsifiable. Which scientific
> theories are not?
Apparently you do not grasp the meaning of the term absolutely
falsifiable. Many very useful scientific hypotheses and theories are
not absolutely falsifiable.
> >> Let's all have a good laugh as you bluster and evade once again. What
> >> sort of impression do you think that this gives, do you think?
>
> >Let see you explain how medical science isn't really science . . .
> >because the majority of medical hypotheses and theories are not
> >absolutely falsifiable you know. The same thing is true of physics,
> >chemistry, anthropology . . . even mathematics.
>
> Medicine is poorly managed because it seldom has proper double-blind
> studies. I have no idea how you would do a double-blind study on the
> efficacy of surgery for lower-back pain.
Double-blinded studies do not usually have the power to *absolutely*
falsify the null hypothesis. They have the power to make the null
hypothesis unlikely, but not to falsify it to 100% certainty. Richard
suggests that all true scientific hypotheses must have the potential
to be absolutely falsified. In reality, most scientific hypotheses
cannot be absolutely falsified, but only falsified by a certain degree
of pre-determined statistical "significance". That is why concepts
like p-values come into play in many forms of scientific
investigation.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Free Lunch
Seanpit <seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in
<cb7641b9-be4d-4a05...@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>On Dec 12, 3:43 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:18:20 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
>> Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote in
>> <d1c84026-d730-4983-88cf-44285a845...@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >On Dec 12, 11:43 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>
>> >> Of course, I know perfectly well that you won't, because you know
>> >> perfectly well that your arguments have no substance, and that any
>> >> competent scientist would laugh them out of court.
>>
>> >What would be laughed at of court, even by mainstream scientists, is
>> >your notion that all real scientific theories are absolutely
>> >falsifiable. That notion shows a very basic misunderstanding of the
>> >uses and range of scientific investigation.
>>
>> Apparently you do not grasp the meaning of falsifiable. Which scientific
>> theories are not?
>
>Apparently you do not grasp the meaning of the term absolutely
>falsifiable. Many very useful scientific hypotheses and theories are
>not absolutely falsifiable.
I asked you to name examples. You ducked. As for adding 'absolute' that
is like complaining that science doesn't 'prove' things. The critique is
meaningless because science does not claim to prove things, though it's
generally fairly good at disproving them.
>> >> Let's all have a good laugh as you bluster and evade once again. What
>> >> sort of impression do you think that this gives, do you think?
>>
>> >Let see you explain how medical science isn't really science . . .
>> >because the majority of medical hypotheses and theories are not
>> >absolutely falsifiable you know. The same thing is true of physics,
>> >chemistry, anthropology . . . even mathematics.
>>
>> Medicine is poorly managed because it seldom has proper double-blind
>> studies. I have no idea how you would do a double-blind study on the
>> efficacy of surgery for lower-back pain.
>
>Double-blinded studies do not usually have the power to *absolutely*
>falsify the null hypothesis.
Again, so what?
>They have the power to make the null
>hypothesis unlikely, but not to falsify it to 100% certainty. Richard
>suggests that all true scientific hypotheses must have the potential
>to be absolutely falsified. In reality, most scientific hypotheses
>cannot be absolutely falsified, but only falsified by a certain degree
>of pre-determined statistical "significance". That is why concepts
>like p-values come into play in many forms of scientific
>investigation.
Many different claims have been shown to be false because the evidence
shows they are false. Few scientists see any point in further piling on
evidence to further show that a false claim is false. Adding absolutism
to your argument shows nothing but a grasp at any straw -- an attempt to
take a very practical, pragmatic approach to learning, and turn it into
some idealized perfection that, not so incidentally, destroys it.
Seanpit
>
> > Let see you explain how medical science isn't really science . . .
> > because the majority of medical hypotheses and theories are not
> > absolutely falsifiable you know. The same thing is true of physics,
> > chemistry, anthropology . . . even mathematics.
>
> First of all, mathematics isn't science.
Tell that to Gregory Chaitin, one of the main founders of information
theory. It is Chaitin who said:
"In the same way that it is impossible to predict the exact moment at
which an individual atom undergoes radioactive decay, mathematics is
powerless to answer particular questions," Chaitin states.
"Nevertheless, physicists can still make reliable predictions about
averages over large ensembles of atoms. Mathematicians may in some
cases be limited to a similar approach."
"That makes mathematics much more of an experimental science than many
mathematicians would like to admit."
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060304/mathtrek.asp
"I think it should be obvious where I'm leading. I believe that
elementary number theory and the rest of mathematics should be pursued
more in the spirit of experimental science, and that you should be
willing to adopt new principles."
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/unm.html
"In the final analysis, he shows us that mathematics is as much art as
logic, as much experimental science as pure reasoning. And by the end,
he has helped us to see and appreciate the art--and the sheer beauty--
in the science of math."
http://www.randomhouse.com/pantheon/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780375423130
> Second of all, why should anyone accept your made-up "absoluate
> falsifiable"?
I didn't make it up - Richard did. Richard actually argues that
unless a hypothesis or theory has the potential to be absolutely
falsified, 100%, that it isn't a valid scientific position.
> What is with you guys and your private linguistic inventions? I guess you
> know you've lost the debate, but you hope that cheap silly rhetorical ploys
> can hide that fact.
Again, I didn't come up with this concept. Richard did.
> Aaron Clausen
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> Many different claims have been shown to be false because the evidence
> shows they are false. Few scientists see any point in further piling on
> evidence to further show that a false claim is false. Adding absolutism
> to your argument shows nothing but a grasp at any straw -- an attempt to
> take a very practical, pragmatic approach to learning, and turn it into
> some idealized perfection that, not so incidentally, destroys it.
Exactly! Now, try explaining that concept to Richard.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
hersheyh
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 3:19 pm, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Let see you explain how medical science isn't really science . . .
> > > because the majority of medical hypotheses and theories are not
> > > absolutely falsifiable you know. The same thing is true of physics,
> > > chemistry, anthropology . . . even mathematics.
>
> > First of all, mathematics isn't science.
>
> Tell that to Gregory Chaitin, one of the main founders of information
> theory. It is Chaitin who said:
Regardless of what anyone else says, the way you manipulate numbers
certainly has very little to do with science. Here is your supposed
calculation of what is claimed (by you) to represent "average gap
size", the number you base most of your so-called "scientific
argument" on. Turns out it is nothing but a GIGO ratio that has been
extrapolated by a GIGO assumption to produce a number that, itself is
GIGO. Three calculations in one paragraph and every one of them has
no relationship to what you claim for it.
*****below is a repeat of a post on another thread*****
******Here is Sean's description of the calculation of "average gap
size"******
> "Well, first we have to calculate the likely gap size. Using an
> average between the calculations of Yockey and Sauer, the ratio of
> potential beneficial vs. non-beneficial for 100aa systems is about
> 1e-40. This creates a ratio for a 1,000aa system of about
> 1e-40^(1000/100) = 1e-400. So, the average gap size between
> potentially beneficial sequences at this level would be about 308
> residue differences - i.e., 20^308 = 1e400."
*******
I have often accused Sean of numerology, or essentially of pulling
numbers out of his arse and claiming that they represent things that
they, in fact, do not represent. Take a look at the above calculation
which is the mathematical basis of just about all his sequence
arguments. You might think, unless you *actually* do some thinking,
that Sean is performing some hard-nosed mathematical analysis here
rather than merely manipulating numbers and assigning "scientific-
sounding" names to them. Thus, unless you actually look at what the
numbers mean, you might be fooled into thinking that Sean actually is
calculating "likely gap size" or "average gap size" by doing the above
mathematical manipulations of numbers, which are assumed to be based
on hard evidence, and that he is accurately telling us what the
numbers mean. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I
think that the first person Sean 'fooled' by his mathematical
manipulations was Sean himself. He was fooled because he did not
actually think about what he was doing and let the fact that the
numbers he got seemed to "prove his point" cloud his thinking to the
point that he actually does think that the ratio he calculated was
"potential beneficial vs. non-beneficial", that there is his
exponential relationship between length and the above ratio, and that
he has calculated the "average gap size". Sean probably does think
that his numerology is a "mathematical proof" of the impossibility of
evolution.
Let me summarize the problems I see with the above calculation:
1) The calculations of Yockey and Sauer do NOT give us the ratio of
"potential beneficial vs. non-benecial" sequences for 100aa systems.
They give us an estimate of the number of sequences that have
cytochrome c function and related sequence divided by the total number
of sequences at 100 aa level. Mathematically, if we call the
estimated number of sequences that have cytochrome c function C, and T
is the totality of sequence space for 100 aa long peptides, then the
equation that Sean is claiming represents as "potential beneficial vs.
non-beneficial" ratio is actually C/T. T can be mathematically
estimated as 20^le, where le is the length of the sequence, since
there are 20 possible amino acids at each position. Converting to
base 10, this would be 10^le^log20. Log 20 is about 1.3. So the
ratio, R(100), of what Sean calls "potential beneficial vs. non-
beneficial" sequences is really the equation:
R(le) = C/10^le^1.3 = 10^40 when le = 100.
Moreover, this relationship (the ratio of sequences with cytochrome c
function and sequence to all possible 100 aa long sequences) has ONLY
been determined (well, estimated) for the case where le = 100.
2) Problems with calling the numerator "potential beneficial
sequences". It should, in fact, be obvious to anyone that C, the
number of sequences that have cytochrome c-like function and sequence,
is NOT all possible "potential beneficial sequences". I think even
Sean sees that.
But is it even *possible* to calculate the number of "potential
beneficial sequences"? The answer is 'sort of', but only in a squishy
soft way that allows one to say that "potential beneficial sequences"
are a heck of a lot more frequent than cytochrome c-like sequences.
First we have the problem that "beneficial" is not an inherent feature
of a sequence, but a conditional one. Even the cytochrome c sequence
is not 'beneficial' in every situation or organism (think anaerobes).
And "potential" is important, since we cannot assume that a sequence
is useless until or unless we have a context to put it in.
But, if you understand how proteins actually work to produce
'function' in organisms, we can think about this problem in a more
reasoned way than Sean has (i.e., by not assuming that the number of
cytochrome c-like sequences is a good stand-in for all "potential
beneficial sequences"). Proteins 'function' by providing surfaces
with affinity for biologically relevant structures or parts of
biologically relevant structures. Enzymes work because proteins bind
the substrates and products of the reaction less well than the
stressed intermediate. [Which is also why compounds related to
substrates or products but with equal or higher affinity for the
protein surface can be toxins or antibiotics.] Proteins also form
multimers and complex structures because of the affinity of small
patches of aa's on each protein for each other. Which biological
structure an amino acid sequence has affinity for determines its
'function'. Moreover, because most biologically relevant structures
are small, the number of aa's involved in any particular binding
feature is also small. That is, the 'function' of proteins is a
consequence of the binding of epitopes by a small number of aa's.
That, of course, is the reason we can say, for example, that the
sequence of FliG involved in binding to FliF is a particular small
stretch of aa's within FliG, not the entire protein. That is, most
functional proteins have more than one functional surface and, often,
these surfaces can be modified without affecting the binding
properties of other parts of the protein. That is, a functional
protein can typically be thought of as a conglomerate of smaller
sequences that each has a binding surface. Change in one aa often
does not radically change the affinities of other parts of the protein
(or even the one it is involved in).
Now, if we recognize that the 'function' of any stretch of aa's in a
protein is binding an epitope that has the potential to be
biologically relevant, we can ask if there are proteins in which there
is a reason to have a stretch of aa's that bind radically different,
but biologically relevant, epitopes. The obvious place to look is the
immunoglobins (but self-sterility alleles might be a good second).
[Actually, because the stretch of aa's in the variable region is long
and we can only detect binding that binds quite tightly, recognizing a
binding requires an even tighter affinity between protein surface and
epitope and typically requires a larger than average epitope.] There
is a stretch of aa's in immunoglobins that vary by mutation and or
other chance mechanisms. The question then is, what fraction of these
randomly generated variable sequences within the immunoglobin molecule
produce completely functionless immunoglobins that cannot bind any
biologically relevant structure? Actually, that cannot be answered,
per se, since most of the *actual* randomly generated immunoglobins
will be functionally useless in any individual's lifetime because the
individual will not come in contact with the epitope recognized by
that variant. But we *can* ask if there are any biologically relevant
epitopes of sufficient size (other than those for self, which actually
do form, but, in general are eliminated) that the immunoglobin system
*cannot* recognize. The answer appears to be "Not many." Antibody
binding even occurs to structures that have never been produced in
nature.
Would that be possible if Sean's calculation of the ratio of
"beneficial to non-beneficial sequences" were a good estimate? No way
in hell. A ratio of one "potentially beneficial" sequence to 10^40
"non-beneficial sequences" at the 100 aa level (which is a little
longer than the two variable regions, H and L, together) would mean
that to generate a single *potentially beneficial* immunoglobin that
binds a potential biologically relevant epitope, you would have to
produce 10^40 different mutations in 10^40 different cells. That,
however, is significantly more than the number of cells in your body
(which is about 10^14). In fact, that is most likely more than the
number of cells in all the humans that ever existed. And that,
according to Sean, is what would be needed to generate a *single*
potentially beneficial sequence by random mutation of the variable
region sequence of immunoglobins.
In fact, once you understand the basis behind protein 'function', it
may well be that the ratio of "*potential* beneficial" to "total
sequence space" would be close to one. Each new protein sequence
resulting from the change of a single aa would still have a structure
that would typically (in the parts that weren't changed) still bind to
particular biologically useful structures. And we know for a fact
that in some cases loss of binding a particular substrate *is* what
causes a change to be *actually* 'beneficial'. The number of *actual*
beneficial sequences, however, is clearly much smaller than the number
of *potentially* beneficial sequences, but the benefit of a sequence
is highly dependent on *actual* conditions. Again, 'beneficial' is a
conditional state involving the interaction of sequence and
environment, not an inherent state dependent solely on sequence.
Something clearly does not compute here. Of course, once you
recognize that Sean's ratio does not mean what he claims it means,
"the ratio of potentially beneficial vrs non-beneficial sequences",
you can recognize a major flaw in his argument. The number he uses in
the numerator is irrelevant to the claim that he is making for that
number.
In short, the numerator value, as an estimate of the number of
"potentially beneficial sequences", is actually a number (an estimate
of the number of sequences 100 aa long that have cytochrome c activity
and sequence similarity) that doesn't have any clear relationship to
the claim. Ergo, GIGO.
2) Problems with the denominator.
Although the denominator that Sean is using is *actually* the number
of sequences of length le in total sequence space and Sean claims it
is the number of non-beneficial sequences of that length, the
difference between the two numbers is irrelevant numerically so long
as you assume (as Sean clearly does) that the number of "potentially
beneficial" sequences is a very small fraction of total sequence
space. That is total sequence space is approximately the same as
total sequence space - "potentially beneficial sequences", but only if
"the number of cytochrome c-like sequences" is a good estimate of
"potentially beneficial sequences". The problem with claiming that
the denominator is the number of non-beneficial sequences rather than
total sequence space for sequences of that size is more a matter of
principle than anything else. If you are going to present a number
that you are going to use in a mathematical claim, you should define
it accurately. If you want to say that "total sequence space" is a
reasonable estimate of "number of non-cytochrome c-like sequences"
because subtraction of that value is insignificantly different, do so.
3) Problems with the extension of the equation to larger sequence
sizes.
Even if you *accurately* describe what Sean's equation *really*
measures: Namely, the ratio of cytochrome c-like sequences divided by
total sequence space or the mathematically similar ratio of cytochrome
c-like sequences per non-cytochrome c-like sequences, this ratio ONLY
holds for the length of 100 aa's. That is because that is the only
data point we have been given.
Sean, however, *claims* (apparently out of thin air) that this ratio
decreases exponentially with increases in total length. More
importantly, he *claims* that the exponential decrease in the ratio
exactly matches the increase in total sequence space. That is, for
every ten-fold increase in total sequence space, the ratio of number
of cytochrome-like sequences per total sequence space (or non-
cytochrome c-like sequences) decreases ten-fold. Essentially, this
amounts to a claim that C, the number of cytochrome c-like sequences
that Sean claims represents ALL "potentially beneficial sequences"
doesn't change at ALL with an increase in protein length!
When asked about this, Sean merely claims that this particular
exponential relationship between the ratio of "potentially beneficial
vrs. non-beneficial sequences [sic]" is "obvious" and anyone who
questions it is brain-dead or a liar. Well, it may be "obvious" to
him. But it sure ain't obvious to me. Especially since no data at
all are presented that demonstrates that this particular exponential
relationship *is* the relationship. Rather than, say, even a
relationship in which the number of cytochrome c-like sequences
increases in lockstep with the increase in length, producing a
constant *ratio* of "potentially beneficial to non-beneficial"
sequences as size increases.
So, basically, in asserting a specific exponential relationship for
which Sean has presented no evidence whatsoever, he generates numbers
that, to say the least, are of questionable validity. Ergo, GIGO.
4) What does his "average gap size" *really* mean?
Let us *assume*, purely for the sake of argument only, that Sean's
numbers actually measure what he claims and assume also, purely for
the sake of argument, that Sean is correct in his "exponential*
increase. I think that I have demonstrated that this is hardly likely
to be true, but let's go deeper into the land of unreality and
mathematical mumbo-jumbo. Let's assume that what Sean has generated
is indeed a ratio not too far from the actual values of "beneficial to
non-beneficial sequences". That means that the reciprocal of that
ratio tells you how many non-beneficial sequences exist per single
beneficial sequence. Sean then takes the twentieth root of this
number and claims, ta-da, that the result is the "average gap size"
between beneficial sequences. But is it, really? I think not. What
Sean has is a new population size (the number of sequences of a given
size that do not have beneficial function per sequence that does).
This population size is, of course, smaller than the total sequence
space for a protein of length le. So what the 20th root of that
population size *really* means is that, *if we had a total sequence
space of that size* and were to reverse the calculation of total
sequence space, 20^le, we could find out how many le for a sequence
would produce a total sequence space of that size. Sean *claims* that
this number (the number of aa's needed to produce a total sequence
space of the size determined by the number of non-functional sequences
per functional ones) is "average gap size". Am I missing something?
I see no reason at all to think that such a number represents "average
gap size". Ergo, GIGO.
So to summarize, Sean has calculated a number he calls "average gap
size" by calling a ratio something it isn't, that makes unlikely
assertions about the relationship of this ratio to changes in length,
and then comes up with a number that doesn't seem to be "average gap
size" at all. IOW, a GIGO ratio with an assumed GIGO relationship
with increasing length which is used to produce a GIGO number.
<sarcasm on>This, of course, represents the very best of creation
science. That is because the numbers produced are the ones that a
creationist wants. It doesn't matter how these numbers are derived
nor what they mean. <sarcasm off>
Ritsjoena
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:16:54 -0800 (PST),
>
>
>
> Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 12, 11:43 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> >> Of course, I know perfectly well that you won't, because you know
> >> perfectly well that your arguments have no substance, and that any
> >> competent scientist would laugh them out of court.
>
> > What would be laughed at of court, even by mainstream scientists, is
> > your notion that all real scientific theories are absolutely
> > falsifiable. That notion shows a very basic misunderstanding of the
> > uses and range of scientific investigation.
>
> >> Let's all have a good laugh as you bluster and evade once again. What
> >> sort of impression do you think that this gives, do you think?
>
> > Let see you explain how medical science isn't really science . . .
> > because the majority of medical hypotheses and theories are not
> > absolutely falsifiable you know. The same thing is true of physics,
> > chemistry, anthropology . . . even mathematics.
>
> First of all, mathematics isn't science.
>
I think this confusion comes from how the word science is sometimes
used. Sometimes the word science is used only for the natural
sciences. But in other cases it is used as a general term for all
kinds of sciences: natural, social, historical etc. In the sense of
natural sciences you are right, but in the general sense you are wrong
and mathematics is as much science as physics, biology etc.
> Second of all, why should anyone accept your made-up "absoluate
> falsifiable"?
>
> What is with you guys and your private linguistic inventions? I guess you
> know you've lost the debate, but you hope that cheap silly rhetorical ploys
> can hide that fact.
>
> --
> Aaron Clausen mightymartia...@gmail.com
>
> fnor
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Seanpit
<seanpi...@naturalselection.0catch.com>:
Where did Richard claim otherwise?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Seanpit
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:18:12 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Seanpit
>
> >On Dec 12, 4:09 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> >> Many different claims have been shown to be false because the evidence
> >> shows they are false. Few scientists see any point in further piling on
> >> evidence to further show that a false claim is false. Adding absolutism
> >> to your argument shows nothing but a grasp at any straw -- an attempt to
> >> take a very practical, pragmatic approach to learning, and turn it into
> >> some idealized perfection that, not so incidentally, destroys it.
>
> >Exactly! Now, try explaining that concept to Richard.
>
> Where did Richard claim otherwise?
My Question:
"The same thing is true if Arnold Schwarzenegger happened to win the
California Lottery 5 times in a row. Can the hypothesis of random
chance be completely falsified?"
Richard's response:
"It can't be falsified at all. That's why it isn't a valid
hypothesis. . . You need to propose a potential observation or
measurement which could *NOT* be explained by 'luck'."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5dec4357a4652e72
Also, in the first post of this thread Richard wrote:
"The turkey's hypothesis was falsified completely, utterly and
absolutely."
You see, according to Richard, *all* valid scientific hypotheses much
be subject to the potential of "absolute" falsification. He doesn't
seem to understand that many if not most scientific hypotheses and
theories that suggest a non-random cause for a particular phenomenon
could be wrong. Random chance could actually have been responsible.
It is just after a certain point of testing, the odds of random chance
truly being responsible are considered so remote as to be
statistically insignificant. This is where p-values and the like come
into play when evaluating the null vs. the alternate hypothesis. This
is why the hypothesis of deliberate design for the same person winning
the California Lottery 5 times in a row would be a valid scientific
hypothesis - even though it may not be absolutely falsifiable. It
carries with it a high degree of predictive value.
That is what science is all about - predictive value, not absolute
perfection of the prediction. If predictions could be made with
absolute perfection, science wouldn't be needed. Yet, Richard's
argument suggests that because random causes cannot be ruled out in to
an absolute degree, that no hypothesis of non-random origin can be
scientific - because a random origin could always be the true
answer. Richard extends this same thinking to hypotheses concerning
deliberate vs. non-deliberate production or manufacture. He argues:
"What observation or measurement could show that the object could not
have been made by an unknown "non-deliberate" process?"
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e9e9c3118c46a9ac?hl=en&&q=kenneth+miller
He suggests here that because an unknown non-deliberate cause or
origin for a given phenomenon cannot be ruled out to any absolute
degree that a hypothesis suggesting this possibility to be so remote
as to be insignificant is not a valid scientific hypothesis. Yet,
this conclusion forms the basis of several sciences, to include
anthropology, forensic science, and SETI. Scientists have to have at
least some idea as to the potential and limits of what non-deliberate
natural processes are likely able to achieve before they can be
clearly distinguished this potentiality from certain activities of
intelligent and deliberately acting agents as they produce true
"artifacts". I mean really, if natural non-deliberate processes are
likely able to produce the same or a similar phenomenon as what could
have been produced by deliberate intelligent action, how can one tell
artifact from non-artifact? I suggest that it can be done by knowing,
to at least some useful if not perfect degree, the limitations of one
potentiality vs. the other that one can reasonably predict a non-
random vs. a random origin for a given phenomenon with better than
even odds of being right.
The same thing is true of Richard's oft-repeated claims that detecting
signs of manufacture is needed to detect artifacts. The same problem
applies, however. One can't detect signs of deliberate manufacture or
the use of deliberately handled "tools" if non-deliberate processes of
nature are capable of producing the same or similar effects. Again,
one is left with having to hypothesize concerning the limits of the
ability of something that can never be known to an absolute degree.
But, that's the nature of science. It isn't about perfection.
> Bob C.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
this particular topic in another thread - to include all of your
points. If you still want to continue this topic, start a new thread
where the topic you want to discuss is actually on topic.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 11:43 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Of course, I know perfectly well that you won't, because you know
> > perfectly well that your arguments have no substance, and that any
> > competent scientist would laugh them out of court.
>
> What would be laughed at of court, even by mainstream scientists, is
> your notion that all real scientific theories are absolutely
> falsifiable. That notion shows a very basic misunderstanding of the
> uses and range of scientific investigation.
Let's put back the part of my post you snipped without marking, shall
we?
You evidently think that all the scientist who have criticised your
pontifications are both ignorant and incompetent, so why waste your
words of wisdom on this forum.
So write them up as a paper, and submit it to a journal whose editors
*are* capable of understanding your argument. After all, you've been
posting much the same bunkum (sorry: scientifically important
argument) for five years. Surely you can write up *something*?
Why not prove all your critics wrong?
>
> > Let's all have a good laugh as you bluster and evade once again. What
> > sort of impression do you think that this gives, do you think?
>
> Let see you explain how medical science isn't really science . . .
> because the majority of medical hypotheses and theories are not
> absolutely falsifiable you know. The same thing is true of physics,
> chemistry, anthropology . . . even mathematics.
>
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
So you think that we're all wrong and you are right.
Fine, Sean.
You are quite obviously not going to persuade anyone here. After all,
as you have recently posted, you've been posting the same stuff for
five years.
So put your convictions to the test. Write up you "theory" in the form
of a paper which you can submit to an academic journal, so that it can
be reviewed by people who *do* have the ability to judge whether or
not your arguments have any substance.
Of course, I'm very confident that you won't because I don't think
that you post here for any reason other than to feed your ego on the
adulation of the ignorant and gullible. I think that you actually know
that your "theories" are utterly vacuous, which is why you don't even
try to write them up in any sort of coherent form which would allow
you submit them for publication.
Or are your "theories" so abstruse that *nobody* is capable of judging
them? Surely you're mind is not of such enormous capacity that you
stand isolated on a pinnacle of intellect above the every other
scientist in the world?
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
Where did I write that?
My word Sean: What does it tell us about the validity of your
arguments when you have this apparently compulsive need to
misrepresent everything your critics write?
> He doesn't
> seem to understand that many if not most scientific hypotheses and
> theories that suggest a non-random cause for a particular phenomenon
> could be wrong.
How on earth do you extract that from what I wrote?
You still have not explained how one can falsify "luck".
> Random chance could actually have been responsible.
Quite so.
This is why one cannot falsify "luck".
> It is just after a certain point of testing, the odds of random chance
> truly being responsible are considered so remote as to be
> statistically insignificant.
But what if it *is* just "luck"?
How can one falsify "luck"?
> This is where p-values and the like come
> into play when evaluating the null vs. the alternate hypothesis.
p-values are a measure of the statistical support for a particular
hypothesis of distribution.
They are not a measure of "luck".
> This
> is why the hypothesis of deliberate design for the same person winning
> the California Lottery 5 times in a row would be a valid scientific
> hypothesis - even though it may not be absolutely falsifiable.
So how do you falsify "luck"?
> It
> carries with it a high degree of predictive value.
>
> That is what science is all about - predictive value, not absolute
> perfection of the prediction.
Who on earth ever said that it was?
> If predictions could be made with
> absolute perfection, science wouldn't be needed. Yet, Richard's
> argument suggests that because random causes cannot be ruled out in to
> an absolute degree, that no hypothesis of non-random origin can be
> scientific - because a random origin could always be the true
> answer.
Actually, I've never made that argument.
That is not the same as saying that an "hypothesis of random chance"
can be falsified.
One can apply statistical tools to a dataset of numbers and determine
the likelihood of an event occurring,
One can test hypotheses of distribution of data against the dataset,
and determine how well the data fit to the hypothetical model.
What one cannot do is test the assertion that an event happened by
"random chance".
One can show where it falls within the statistical range of
probabilities, but all that can do is to tell us the probability that
the event occurred, which is something completely different.
To test the "hypothesis" of "random chance" you need to think of a
potential *falsifier* of "random chance", not of the statistical
probability of an event occurring.
> Richard extends this same thinking to hypotheses concerning
> deliberate vs. non-deliberate production or manufacture. He argues:
>
> "What observation or measurement could show that the object could not
> have been made by an unknown "non-deliberate" process?"
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e9e9c3118c46a9ac?hl=e...
>
> He suggests here that because an unknown non-deliberate cause or
> origin for a given phenomenon cannot be ruled out to any absolute
> degree that a hypothesis suggesting this possibility to be so remote
> as to be insignificant is not a valid scientific hypothesis. Yet,
> this conclusion forms the basis of several sciences, to include
> anthropology, forensic science, and SETI.
It quite specifically does *not* include SETI, Sean!
> Scientists have to have at
> least some idea as to the potential and limits of what non-deliberate
> natural processes are likely able to achieve before they can be
> clearly distinguished this potentiality from certain activities of
> intelligent and deliberately acting agents as they produce true
> "artifacts". I mean really, if natural non-deliberate processes are
> likely able to produce the same or a similar phenomenon as what could
> have been produced by deliberate intelligent action, how can one tell
> artifact from non-artifact? I suggest that it can be done by knowing,
> to at least some useful if not perfect degree, the limitations of one
> potentiality vs. the other that one can reasonably predict a non-
> random vs. a random origin for a given phenomenon with better than
> even odds of being right.
Blah, blah, blah, Sean.
You are right and everyone else in the world is wrong.
It's about time you presented this paradigm-breaking scientific
insight to the waiting world.
What someone with confidence in their convictions would do at this
stage is to write it all up in the form of a paper to be submitted for
publication in an academic journal. After all, it's clear that after
five years of posting you're not going to persuade anyone here that
you're right, so why not present you "theory" to those who you think
capable of understanding it.
>
> The same thing is true of Richard's oft-repeated claims that detecting
> signs of manufacture is needed to detect artifacts. The same problem
> applies, however. One can't detect signs of deliberate manufacture or
> the use of deliberately handled "tools" if non-deliberate processes of
> nature are capable of producing the same or similar effects.
It's a bloody good clue though, and better than guesswork.
Science isn't about absolutes, Sean.
> Again,
> one is left with having to hypothesize concerning the limits of the
> ability of something that can never be known to an absolute degree.
> But, that's the nature of science. It isn't about perfection.
It is about evidence though, and the interpretation of that evidence.
It's not about making sweeping assertions about the results of
statistical tests which are pragmatically impossible to carry out and
then lying that you have carried out such tests, Sean.
Now run away from the challenge of putting your convictions on the
line by writing them up formally as an academic paper.
RF
>
> > Bob C.
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
except to suggest that those who disagree with your unpublished ideas
publish theirs. If that is all you have, that's certainly not very
helpful in a forum like this.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
I and others have presented counter-arguments over and over again.
You simply refuse to accept them, or ignore them.
Fine, that's your choice.
What is perfectly clear is that nobody here is persuaded by what you
write that you are anything other than a mathematically incompetent
bullshitter, so I wonder why you persist in posting the same drivel
over and over again.
Evidently you think that the posters on this forum are to stupid and
ignorant to understand your arguments. Fine. So why not present them
to people who you think *do* have the knowledge and intelligence to
understand them.
What someone with confidence in their convictions would do at this
stage is to write it all up in the form of a paper to be submitted for
publication in an academic journal. After all, it's clear that after
five years of posting you're not going to persuade anyone here that
you're right, so why not present you "theory" to those who you think
capable of understanding it.
I think you post here because your ego is boosted by the uncritical
support you get from other creationists, and that you know that you
can rely on the fact that they are ignorant and gullible, and
therefore unable to see what a load of drivel you are posting.
You could prove me and your other critics wrong by writing up your
"theory" and submitting it to an academic journal. So why not do that?
It would make us all look stupid and ignorant, and make you look
intelligent and educated. You'd give a big boost to your cause.
Of course, I know and you know that you won't, because we all know
that you have nothing of any substance to offer.
So go ahead and evade, squirm or do anything you want. It's no skin
off my nose. All it does is to expose you as a hollow man.
RF
Seanpit
< snip >
> > It is just after a certain point of testing, the odds of random chance
> > truly being responsible are considered so remote as to be
> > statistically insignificant.
>
> But what if it *is* just "luck"?
> How can one falsify "luck"?
The hypothesis of luck or random chance cannot be absolutely falsified
- but it can be falsified to a statistical degree of "significance".
That is how scientists are able to reject the null hypothesis of luck
or a chance event being responsible for a particular phenomenon even
though this rejection cannot be achieved to absolute certainty.
> > This is where p-values and the like come
> > into play when evaluating the null vs. the alternate hypothesis.
>
> p-values are a measure of the statistical support for a particular
> hypothesis of distribution. They are not a measure of "luck".
P- and p-rep values, and the like, most certainly are a measure of how
likely the "luck" or "random" hypothesis is as an explanation for a
given phenomenon.
> > This
> > is why the hypothesis of deliberate design for the same person winning
> > the California Lottery 5 times in a row would be a valid scientific
> > hypothesis - even though it may not be absolutely falsifiable.
>
> So how do you falsify "luck"?
To a statistical degree of significance - that's how. The null
hypothesis cannot be completely falsified. It can only be falsified
to a less-than-perfect degree of confidence.
< snip >
> > If predictions could be made with
> > absolute perfection, science wouldn't be needed. Yet, Richard's
> > argument suggests that because random causes cannot be ruled out in to
> > an absolute degree, that no hypothesis of non-random origin can be
> > scientific - because a random origin could always be the true
> > answer.
>
> Actually, I've never made that argument.
>
> That is not the same as saying that an "hypothesis of random chance"
> can be falsified.
>
> One can apply statistical tools to a dataset of numbers and determine
> the likelihood of an event occurring,
>
> One can test hypotheses of distribution of data against the dataset,
> and determine how well the data fit to the hypothetical model.
>
> What one cannot do is test the assertion that an event happened by
> "random chance".
>
> One can show where it falls within the statistical range of
> probabilities, but all that can do is to tell us the probability that
> the event occurred, which is something completely different.
>
> To test the "hypothesis" of "random chance" you need to think of a
> potential *falsifier* of "random chance", not of the statistical
> probability of an event occurring.
There is no absolute falsifier of random chance. Ruling out
randomness completely cannot be done. Random chance could always have
been responsible for a given data set or phenomenon in question. That
possibility cannot be completely eliminated. But, this does not mean
that the hypothesis of random chance cannot be tested in a scientific
manner. That is in fact what the concept of the null vs. the
alternate hypothesis is all about. Testing the null hypothesis is the
testing of the hypothesis of random chance. Rejecting the null
hypothesis is a rejection of the proposal that random chance was in
fact responsible for the phenomenon in question.
> > Richard extends this same thinking to hypotheses concerning
> > deliberate vs. non-deliberate production or manufacture. He argues:
>
> > "What observation or measurement could show that the object could not
> > have been made by an unknown "non-deliberate" process?"
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e9e9c3118c46a9ac?hl=e...
>
> > He suggests here that because an unknown non-deliberate cause or
> > origin for a given phenomenon cannot be ruled out to any absolute
> > degree that a hypothesis suggesting this possibility to be so remote
> > as to be insignificant is not a valid scientific hypothesis. Yet,
> > this conclusion forms the basis of several sciences, to include
> > anthropology, forensic science, and SETI.
>
> It quite specifically does *not* include SETI, Sean!
If it includes anthropology and forensic science, which it does, it
most certainly includes SETI as well.
> > Scientists have to have at
> > least some idea as to the potential and limits of what non-deliberate
> > natural processes are likely able to achieve before they can be
> > clearly distinguished this potentiality from certain activities of
> > intelligent and deliberately acting agents as they produce true
> > "artifacts". I mean really, if natural non-deliberate processes are
> > likely able to produce the same or a similar phenomenon as what could
> > have been produced by deliberate intelligent action, how can one tell
> > artifact from non-artifact? I suggest that it can be done by knowing,
> > to at least some useful if not perfect degree, the limitations of one
> > potentiality vs. the other that one can reasonably predict a non-
> > random vs. a random origin for a given phenomenon with better than
> > even odds of being right.
>
> Blah, blah, blah, Sean.
>
> You are right and everyone else in the world is wrong.
Not everyone else. But you certainly are one of those that do indeed
seem to be more than a bit confused on this particular issue.
> It's about time you presented this paradigm-breaking scientific
> insight to the waiting world.
>
> What someone with confidence in their convictions would do at this
> stage is to write it all up in the form of a paper to be submitted for
> publication in an academic journal. After all, it's clear that after
> five years of posting you're not going to persuade anyone here that
> you're right, so why not present you "theory" to those who you think
> capable of understanding it.
Non-argument noted.
> > The same thing is true of Richard's oft-repeated claims that detecting
> > signs of manufacture is needed to detect artifacts. The same problem
> > applies, however. One can't detect signs of deliberate manufacture or
> > the use of deliberately handled "tools" if non-deliberate processes of
> > nature are capable of producing the same or similar effects.
>
> It's a bloody good clue though, and better than guesswork.
> Science isn't about absolutes, Sean.
That's my whole point. Science isn't about absolutes. So, when you
suggest the need for absolutes before a hypothesis of non-deliberate
origin can be adequately rejected, you remove the basis of your own
recognition of tools and tool marks as being most likely artifactual
or "manufactured" in nature. You simply cannot make this assumption
until you have at least some idea as to what you think the likely
limits of non-deliberate natural process are when it comes to making
similar markings or to what you call "tool marks". Real tool marks
cannot be recognized as real tool marks used with deliberate intent
until one has at least some idea that no known natural process even
comes close. One then induces from the known to make assumptions or
predictions about that which is not known - to include as yet unknown
non-deliberate forces of nature.
That's the way science works. It is an induction process based on the
little that is known to make predictions about the nature of the
unknown.
> > Again,
> > one is left with having to hypothesize concerning the limits of the
> > ability of something that can never be known to an absolute degree.
> > But, that's the nature of science. It isn't about perfection.
>
> It is about evidence though, and the interpretation of that evidence.
That's right. It is about having limited data or evidence and
extrapolating from this limited amount of information to that which is
yet unknown. That is what science does. It isn't about perfection,
either in demonstration or in falsification. It is about degrees of
certainty and predictive power - both in demonstration and
falsification. As with demonstration, falsification often can only be
achieved to a useful *degree* of "significance".
> It's not about making sweeping assertions about the results of
> statistical tests which are pragmatically impossible to carry out and
> then lying that you have carried out such tests, Sean.
You just don't have a conscious understanding that you do in fact do
scientific tests all the time - even if you don't actually write down
all the numbers and observations for your tests. That is why you know
that highly intricate geometric crop circles and highly symmetrical
polished granite cubes, and the like, are clearly artifacts - - even
if you found them on an alien planet. You've already done very real
scientific investigation with these materials to a sufficient degree
that you know, even if subconsciously, that non-deliberate natural
processes don't come remotely close to producing this degree of
symmetry with these particular materials.
> Now run away from the challenge of putting your convictions on the
> line by writing them up formally as an academic paper.
These particular ideas are already mainstream. There is no need to
write them up. You are the one out on a limb here.
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
Evasion noted.
If the posters on this forum are so ignorant and stupid that they
reject your "theory", who do you think *is* capable of understanding
your theory?
Why not present it to them?
>
> > > The same thing is true of Richard's oft-repeated claims that detecting
> > > signs of manufacture is needed to detect artifacts. The same problem
> > > applies, however. One can't detect signs of deliberate manufacture or
> > > the use of deliberately handled "tools" if non-deliberate processes of
> > > nature are capable of producing the same or similar effects.
>
> > It's a bloody good clue though, and better than guesswork.
> > Science isn't about absolutes, Sean.
>
> That's my whole point.
No it isn't, Sean. Your assertion is that evidence is of less
significance than handwaving about unspecifed "deliberate" or "non-
deliberate" forces based on the pretence that you are able to carry
out a statistical analysis of the shape of objects just by looking at
them.
Bollocks, Sean.
I know when I do a statistical test because I record a dataset of
numbers and analyse them using statistical tools.
That's a statistical test.
Looking at something and thinking "hmm., that looks as if it is an
artifact" is *NOT* a statistical test.
It's called "guesswork"
> That is why you know
> that highly intricate geometric crop circles and highly symmetrical
> polished granite cubes, and the like, are clearly artifacts - - even
> if you found them on an alien planet. You've already done very real
> scientific investigation with these materials to a sufficient degree
> that you know, even if subconsciously, that non-deliberate natural
> processes don't come remotely close to producing this degree of
> symmetry with these particular materials.
Sean, you haven't done any scientific investigation. You've looked at
some bits of granite and thought that the ones which are naturally
occurring don't look like the ones you buy in a shop labeled "Made in
China". That isn't science, it's guesswork. It's not carrying out a
statistical test. It's not applying any sort of methodology. It's just
bullshitting.
>
> > Now run away from the challenge of putting your convictions on the
> > line by writing them up formally as an academic paper.
>
> These particular ideas are already mainstream. There is no need to
> write them up. You are the one out on a limb here.
So which scientific journal has published a paper in which some has
applied statistical tests to a set of objects to determine if they are
the product of "deliberate" or "non-deliberate" forces?
Of course there's no such paper!
More bullshit, Sean.
RF
>
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> On Dec 13, 4:12 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>
> 0catch.com> wrote:
> > It is duly noted that you do not even attempt a counter argument
> > except to suggest that those who disagree with your unpublished ideas
> > publish theirs. If that is all you have, that's certainly not very
> > helpful in a forum like this.
>
> > Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
>
> I and others have presented counter-arguments over and over again.
> You simply refuse to accept them, or ignore them.
Like some of your following counter arguments?
"So when we knew how the crop circles were made, we could form
conclusions about how they were made."
"How can one falsify luck?"
"It can't be falsified at all. That's why it isn't a valid
hypothesis." [Regarding the hypothesis of random chance being
essentially falsified if Arnold Schwarzenegger were to ever win the
California Lottery 5 times in a row.]
These are all real winners!
> Fine, that's your choice.
It sure is . . .
> What is perfectly clear is that nobody here is persuaded by what you
> write that you are anything other than a mathematically incompetent
> bullshitter, so I wonder why you persist in posting the same drivel
> over and over again.
I'm not here to convince you or anyone else. I'm here for my own
benefit to see if you guys actually have anything that makes sense to
me. I really don't care if I make sense to you or not.
Oh, and by the way, I have been published a fair number of times. It
is just that if someone you disagree with hasn't been published on the
particular *topic* under discussion, you think you can suggest that
responding with a reasonable counter isn't really needed. The thing
is, you haven't published on this particular topic either.
< snip more of the same >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
< snip >
> > These particular ideas are already mainstream. There is no need to
> > write them up. You are the one out on a limb here.
>
> So which scientific journal has published a paper in which some has
> applied statistical tests to a set of objects to determine if they are
> the product of "deliberate" or "non-deliberate" forces?
>
> Of course there's no such paper!
Do just a little reading in journals dealing with forensic science or
your own field of interest, anthropology. SETI scientists have also
published various criteria for determining deliberate vs. non-
deliberate phenomena. All of these fields of science have to do with
determining certain likely limits to non-deliberate processes of
nature.
> More bullshit, Sean.
I don't see anyone coming to your side on this one . . . even in this
forum. Now that should tell you something.
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 8:31 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > On Dec 13, 4:12 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>
> > 0catch.com> wrote:
> > > It is duly noted that you do not even attempt a counter argument
> > > except to suggest that those who disagree with your unpublished ideas
> > > publish theirs. If that is all you have, that's certainly not very
> > > helpful in a forum like this.
>
> > > Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
>
> > I and others have presented counter-arguments over and over again.
> > You simply refuse to accept them, or ignore them.
>
> Like some of your following counter arguments?
>
> "So when we knew how the crop circles were made, we could form
> conclusions about how they were made."
Which part of this don't you understand?
> "How can one falsify luck?"
>
> "It can't be falsified at all. That's why it isn't a valid
> hypothesis." [Regarding the hypothesis of random chance being
> essentially falsified if Arnold Schwarzenegger were to ever win the
> California Lottery 5 times in a row.]
>
> These are all real winners!
So what observation or measurement can falsify the assertion "it's
just luck"?
You can say that something is extremely unlikely. You can say that the
probablity of it's happening by chance is virtually zero. But if
someone tells you that it was "pure luck", you can't falsify it.
You can test other hypotheses: that the dice are loaded, that the
ballot is rigged, but that's not the same thing as falsifying "luck".
You need a lesson in remedial science, Sean.
>
> > Fine, that's your choice.
>
> It sure is . . .
>
> > What is perfectly clear is that nobody here is persuaded by what you
> > write that you are anything other than a mathematically incompetent
> > bullshitter, so I wonder why you persist in posting the same drivel
> > over and over again.
>
> I'm not here to convince you or anyone else. I'm here for my own
> benefit to see if you guys actually have anything that makes sense to
> me. I really don't care if I make sense to you or not.
>
As in your view we are all so stupid and ignorant that we can't
understand you "theories", what on earth is the point of posting here?
By your own admission you've been posting here for five years, and as
you seem not to have changed your "theory" at all, it seems rather
silly to carry on posting.
So who do you think *does* have the intellectual capacity to
understand your "theories"
> Oh, and by the way, I have been published a fair number of times. It
> is just that if someone you disagree with hasn't been published on the
> particular *topic* under discussion, you think you can suggest that
> responding with a reasonable counter isn't really needed. The thing
> is, you haven't published on this particular topic either.
It's not my "theories" which are being questioned!
I'm quite happy to post about the phylogenetic implications of the
results of my statistical analysis of inter-central variation in
plesiosaur vertebral columns, but I rather doubt that anyone here has
the slightest interest in the subject.
I'm also prepared (in fact, I want very much) to publish my research
findings in a suitable scientific journal, to listen to the views of
other workers in the field, and to subject my conclusions to the
rigorous scrutiny of critics.
It's called "science", Sean.
Posting on this forum is not science.
RF
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> That's why pseudo-scientists look for verification, and real
> scientists look for falsification.
I don't know if you are using those words correctly.
For example: Your turkey had a hypothesis about the
reason the farmer was there. Purpose is something
that arises from a mind. Inferring purpose means you
are inferring the character of the mind involved. It's
probably completely unreasonable to do this from
a few very limited observations, especially with such
limited context.
Scientific theories can indeed be falsified. But they
can still have a valid range. The phrase I use for this
is "valid for a purpose." For example: If you can tolerate
an inaccuracy of 1 meter, then a map of a region less
than (I'm recalling the value from memory, so I may
not be totally accurate) less then 5 km across is
perfectly adequate based on assume the area is flat.
(Flat in the sense of equal altitude surfaces being flat,
not of the terrain being perfectly smooth.) So a "flat
Earth" theory is good enough for typical city street
maps, but hopelessy useless for such things as a
trans-Atlantic flight.
Scientists look for falsification. But they also look for
validation. Both are useful. And, dare I use the phrase,
both are valid.
Verification as your turkey used it seems to mean
"so far so good." On the other hand, that's all science
really ever gets. We've got theories we know are wrong
(but have some validity range) and theories we have
not *yet* proven wrong.
This is good. It means that we will never need less
people to work in science, as we are unlikely ever
to finish. It's job security.
Socks
Garamond Lethe
> On Dec 13, 9:27 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
>> > These particular ideas are already mainstream. There is no need to
>> > write them up. You are the one out on a limb here.
>>
>> So which scientific journal has published a paper in which some has
>> applied statistical tests to a set of objects to determine if they are
>> the product of "deliberate" or "non-deliberate" forces?
>>
>> Of course there's no such paper!
>
> Do just a little reading in journals dealing with forensic science or
> your own field of interest, anthropology. SETI scientists have also
> published various criteria for determining deliberate vs. non-
> deliberate phenomena. All of these fields of science have to do with
> determining certain likely limits to non-deliberate processes of nature.
Cite?
>
>> More bullshit, Sean.
>
> I don't see anyone coming to your side on this one . . . even in this
> forum. Now that should tell you something.
A poster like someoneN manages to be wrong in many different ways, and
it's very stimulating to try to come with just one more refutation. You
make the same mistake over and over again, it's been pointed out to you,
you don't get it, and I can't see where I'm going to learn anything by
trying to put it a different way.
But I will second Richard's suggestion that you submit this for
publication. You've learned all you're going to learn here.
The fact that you don't have any interest in trying should tell you
richardal...@googlemail.com
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 9:27 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> > > These particular ideas are already mainstream. There is no need to
> > > write them up. You are the one out on a limb here.
>
> > So which scientific journal has published a paper in which some has
> > applied statistical tests to a set of objects to determine if they are
> > the product of "deliberate" or "non-deliberate" forces?
>
> > Of course there's no such paper!
>
> Do just a little reading in journals dealing with forensic science or
> your own field of interest, anthropology.
I don't know of any paper published in this field which attempts
distinguish between "deliberate" and "non-deliberate" processes in the
creation of any object. I know of several papers which test specific
hypotheses of manufacture.
Evidently you think there are such papers.
How about a citation?
> SETI scientists have also
> published various criteria for determining deliberate vs. non-
> deliberate phenomena.
They have?
Where?
SETI has set it's search parameters to look for signals which have
characteristics of those made by known processes, and which therefore
makes them good candidates for extraterrestrial civilisations.
I'm not aware of any publication which attempts to distinguish between
"deliberate" and "non-deliberate" phenomena.
How about a few citations?
> All of these fields of science have to do with
> determining certain likely limits to non-deliberate processes of
> nature.
They do?
Where has this been published?
Surely you don't expect anyone just to take your word for it?
>
> > More bullshit, Sean.
>
> I don't see anyone coming to your side on this one . . . even in this
> forum. Now that should tell you something.
How about this one:
"A poster like someoneN manages to be wrong in many different ways,
and
it's very stimulating to try to come with just one more refutation.
You
make the same mistake over and over again, it's been pointed out to
you,
you don't get it, and I can't see where I'm going to learn anything by
trying to put it a different way.
But I will second Richard's suggestion that you submit this for
publication. You've learned all you're going to learn here.
The fact that you don't have any interest in trying should tell you
something. "
Seems that I have more support than you do.
Not that science is a popularity contest, of course.
By the way, who *do* you think has the intellectual capacity to
understand your *theory*?
RF
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
True.
However, all hypotheses start with evidence, and are an attempt to
explain that evidence. This means that verification is intrinsic: we
couldn't form an hypothesis *without* verification. Verification comes
naturally: in daily life, if we have a theory, we look for evidence
which *supports* that theory.
It is much harder to look for evidence which would prove us wrong, and
in this sense looking for falsification of our theories is
intellectually more demanding. One of the most impressive
characteristics of Darwin's "Origin" is the amount of space he devotes
to exploring ways in which his theory could be *falsified*.
>
> Verification as your turkey used it seems to mean
> "so far so good." On the other hand, that's all science
> really ever gets.
Well no. When it's head was chopped off, that was that.
> We've got theories we know are wrong
> (but have some validity range) and theories we have
> not *yet* proven wrong.
..but no theories which are proven *right*.
>
> This is good. It means that we will never need less
> people to work in science, as we are unlikely ever
> to finish. It's job security.
> Socks
Provided the funding keeps coming...
RF
Seanpit
>
> > SETI scientists have also
> > published various criteria for determining deliberate vs. non-
> > deliberate phenomena.
>
> They have?
> Where?
>
> SETI has set it's search parameters to look for signals which have
> characteristics of those made by known processes, and which therefore
> makes them good candidates for extraterrestrial civilisations.
I've explained this to you dozens of times before. It is not enough
to search for signals which have characteristics of those made by
known processes if the particular known process can actually be
closely approximated by a non-deliberate natural process. That is why
SETI scientists do not simply look for what can or has been produced
by a known process. Known processes are known that can and have
produced very natural-looking signals. So, simply looking for a known
process is not enough to detect the difference of an artifactual
signal from a natural signal. That differentiation requires that SETI
look for something that is uniquely different from what non-deliberate
processes of nature also produce.
That is why SETI is looking for a narrow-band signal or a signal that
contains the first million digits of pi repeated over and over again.
Why? Because such signals are known to be within the manufacturing
capabilities of humans? Would this be enough to tell artifact from
non-artifact? No. Because, if a natural process was known that could
also produce narrow-band signals or signals carrying the first million
digits of pi repeated over and over again, such features would no
longer be clearly artifactual.
For some specific references regarding SETI scientists efforts to
distinguish natural from artifactual signals:
"SETI Institute signal detection expert Kent Cullers, whose clear
thinking routinely enlightens both novice and savant, describes the
merits of narrow-band radio signals by comparing them to their audio
counterparts.
"Imagine the roar of the ocean or the rustling of leaves in a
high wind," he says. "For these natural events, the sound is produced
simultaneously from many unsynchronized sources. If we plot the
frequencies present in such natural events and compare them to
artificial sounds, such as a tuning fork or an auto horn, a startling
difference appears. *Natural* signals have a rather broad frequency
spectrum, but the artificial ones usually don't." [Emphasis Added]
http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_shostak_artificial_030130.html
Notice the effort in this case of Cullers to look for a signal that
was distinctly different from what known non-deliberate natural
processes produce. He clearly notes the difference between what non-
deliberate natural processes produce with regard to a certain
characteristic vs. artifactual processes.
Here's another related reference:
"We listed at the outset several of the hallmarks of
artificiality, which we can expect to be exhibited an electromagnetic
emission of intelligent origin. The common denominator of all these
characteristics, in fact of all human (and we anticipate, alien)
existence, is that they are anti-entropic. Any emission which appears
(at least at the outset) to defy entropy is a likely candidate for an
intelligently generated artifact. In that regard, periodicity is a
necessary, though not a sufficient, condition for artificiality
(remembering once again the pulsar)."
http://www.setileague.org/articles/proof.htm
> I'm not aware of any publication which attempts to distinguish between
> "deliberate" and "non-deliberate" phenomena.
Then you haven't really looking into the subject very far.
< snip >
See also:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/meaningfulinformation.html#SETI
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
hersheyh
0catch.com> wrote:
> This post of yours is off topic in this thread Howard. I've answered
> this particular topic in another thread - to include all of your
> points. If you still want to continue this topic, start a new thread
> where the topic you want to discuss is actually on topic.
See the one titled "Average gap size and GIGO"
>
> SeanPitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Where (thread name please) is this response where you have claimed to
have already "answered" (note the past tense you used) each of the
specific mathematical points I have made here, Sean? At least two of
my criticisms are actually new, so claiming that you have answered
them in some vague old posts won't suffice. The criticisms of your
numerology are quite precise, so I am either right or wrong on each of
them. *You* have to be right on all of them.
Either your ratio *as presented in your appendix* actually does
represent "potential beneficial vs non-beneficial sequences" or it
doesn't. Even if you have problems with my estimate and argument,
that doesn't make yours correct. And, from what you have posted, even
you seem to recognize that the ratio you presented is not "correct"
and is off by *at least* a factor of 10^5 by some after-the-fact
handwaving numerology which, needless to say, was not presented in the
appendix where you presented your calculation.
What are the odds that every ratio or calculation and every mistake
you make in presenting them maximizes the size of the "gap" by chance
alone? Why. that would make odds of Schwartzenneger winning the
California lottery five times in a row seem absolutely due to chance
alone.
Either your mathematical exponential extrapolation (for every 10-fold
increase in total sequence space there is a 10-fold decrease in the
ratio of "potential beneficial vs non-beneficial sequences" ratio) is
correct and supported by evidence (and this specific numerical
exponential ratio implies that there is no increase in the *number* of
"potential beneficial" sequences as total aa length increases) or I am
somehow wrong about all of these points.
And either the 20th root of the number of non-beneficial sequences per
single beneficial sequence is the "average gap size" or it is merely
the 20th root of a smaller population and tells us only how long a
randomly assembled amino acid would have to be to produce this smaller
total sequence space.
I am perfectly open to the possibility that I am wrong. I don't claim
to be a math genius. But the math is not that hard and the errors are
more ones of foisting names on numbers that do not represent what the
numbers actually mean and assumed relationships that are as unlikely
as they are unevidenced. If your calculation is to be meaningful,
you do have to present an absolutely, brutally honest description of
what all the terms mean and what calculations involve "assumptions"
and whether those assumptions are supported by evidence.
It is now close to 3:00 EST, more than five hours after this 9:30
post. And this is the only response (or rather the evasion of a
response) I have seen that specifically deals with my post on the
thread labelled "Average gap size and GIGO", which was posted a couple
of days ago.
Seanpit
>
> > First of all, mathematics isn't science.
>
> I think this confusion comes from how the word science is sometimes
> used. Sometimes the word science is used only for the natural
> sciences. But in other cases it is used as a general term for all
> kinds of sciences: natural, social, historical etc. In the sense of
> natural sciences you are right, but in the general sense you are wrong
> and mathematics is as much science as physics, biology etc.
Exactly. But good luck getting the crowd in here to understand that
concept . . .
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 10:40 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > > SETI scientists have also
> > > published various criteria for determining deliberate vs. non-
> > > deliberate phenomena.
>
> > They have?
> > Where?
>
> > SETI has set it's search parameters to look for signals which have
> > characteristics of those made by known processes, and which therefore
> > makes them good candidates for extraterrestrial civilisations.
>
> I've explained this to you dozens of times before. It is not enough
> to search for signals which have characteristics of those made by
> known processes if the particular known process can actually be
> closely approximated by a non-deliberate natural process. That is why
> SETI scientists do not simply look for what can or has been produced
> by a known process. Known processes are known that can and have
> produced very natural-looking signals.
Which is why SETI scientists are not looking for such signals!
> So, simply looking for a known
> process is not enough to detect the difference of an artifactual
> signal from a natural signal. That differentiation requires that SETI
> look for something that is uniquely different from what non-deliberate
> processes of nature also produce.
That's not what SETI scientists say.
They say (and I quote from their web site)
"The main feature distinguishing signals produced by a transmitter
from those produced by natural processes is their spectral width, i.e.
how much room on the radio dial do they take up? Any signal less than
about 300 Hz wide must be, as far as we know, artificially produced."
http://www.seti.org/about-us/faq.php#anchor321907
Saying that they are looking for signals from a transmitter is rather
a strong hint they are looking for signal made by *known* processes,
wouldn't you? Note also the use of the phrase "as far as we know" in
the last sentence. So even if they find a strong candidate signal,
they are not ruling out the possibility that it is natural.
>
> That is why SETI is looking for a narrow-band signal or a signal that
> contains the first million digits of pi repeated over and over again.
They are?
Their web site makes no mention of this.
What do you know that the SETI institute doesn't?
> Why? Because such signals are known to be within the manufacturing
> capabilities of humans? Would this be enough to tell artifact from
> non-artifact? No. Because, if a natural process was known that could
> also produce narrow-band signals or signals carrying the first million
> digits of pi repeated over and over again, such features would no
> longer be clearly artifactual.
It's a pity for you that SETI is not looking for such a signal then,
isn't it?
>
> For some specific references regarding SETI scientists efforts to
> distinguish natural from artifactual signals:
>
> "SETI Institute signal detection expert Kent Cullers, whose clear
> thinking routinely enlightens both novice and savant, describes the
> merits of narrow-band radio signals by comparing them to their audio
> counterparts.
> "Imagine the roar of the ocean or the rustling of leaves in a
> high wind," he says. "For these natural events, the sound is produced
> simultaneously from many unsynchronized sources. If we plot the
> frequencies present in such natural events and compare them to
> artificial sounds, such as a tuning fork or an auto horn, a startling
> difference appears. *Natural* signals have a rather broad frequency
> spectrum, but the artificial ones usually don't." [Emphasis Added]
>
> http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_shostak_artificial_030130.html
>
So they are looking for *candidate* signals with characteristics of
those produced by *known* manufacturing processes. In fact, they are
looking specifically for a signal with characteristics of those
produced by man-made transmitters. That's what their web site say,
anyway.
> Notice the effort in this case of Cullers to look for a signal that
> was distinctly different from what known non-deliberate natural
> processes produce. He clearly notes the difference between what non-
> deliberate natural processes produce with regard to a certain
> characteristic vs. artifactual processes.
>
> Here's another related reference:
>
> "We listed at the outset several of the hallmarks of
> artificiality, which we can expect to be exhibited an electromagnetic
> emission of intelligent origin. The common denominator of all these
> characteristics, in fact of all human (and we anticipate, alien)
> existence, is that they are anti-entropic. Any emission which appears
> (at least at the outset) to defy entropy is a likely candidate for an
> intelligently generated artifact. In that regard, periodicity is a
> necessary, though not a sufficient, condition for artificiality
> (remembering once again the pulsar)."
>
> http://www.setileague.org/articles/proof.htm
>
So they have identified characteristics of signals produced by humans
*by known processes*, and are looking for *candidate* signals with
those characteristics. They are *not* looking for signals produced by
*unknown* processes based on some general characteristic of
"deliberate" processes.
> > I'm not aware of any publication which attempts to distinguish between
> > "deliberate" and "non-deliberate" phenomena.
>
> Then you haven't really looking into the subject very far.
Well, you seem to be claiming that you have.
So how about a citation?
Surely you don't just expect others to take your word for it?
I'll take your evasion as just more evidence that you are making
unfounded assertions.
>
> < snip >
>
So who *do* you think is capable of understanding your "theory", Sean?
It's very obvious that you are not persuading anyone here, which
rather supports my hypothesis that you post here to strut your ego in
front of an ignorant and gullible creationist audience.
Of course, you could falsify my hypothesis by writing up your "theory"
as an academic paper and submitting it for publication in an academic
journal.
All you are doing is providing me with verification.
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
Oh dear, Sean.
You must be so lonely standing on the pinnacle of your unique
intellect in this crowd of ignoramuses and idiots. I wonder how you
can endure it.
Just as a matter of idle curiosity, who *do* you think is capable of
matching your incredible intellectual ability? I wonder why you don't
present your paradigm-shifting theory in a more receptive forum, such
as the pages of an academic journal. After all, you have wasted five
years of your precious time and not made any converts to your side, so
why not try somewhere else, and in doing so prove that your critics
are wrong?
Of course, I have an hypothesis that you know perfectly well that your
"theories" don't stand up to any sort of scrutiny, and that you post
here to play to an audience of creationists who you know are too
ignorant and gullible to question your assertions.
So far you have provided me with a lot of verification. Why not
falsify my hypothesis by presenting your ideas to people *you* think
can understand them?
RF
Seanpit
>
> > I've explained this to you dozens of times before. It is not enough
> > to search for signals which have characteristics of those made by
> > known processes if the particular known process can actually be
> > closely approximated by a non-deliberate natural process. That is why
> > SETI scientists do not simply look for what can or has been produced
> > by a known process. Known processes are known that can and have
> > produced very natural-looking signals.
>
> Which is why SETI scientists are not looking for such signals!
Yes, because they are known to be naturally produced. They are
therefore looking for signals that are thought to be well beyond the
range of natural production.
> > So, simply looking for a known
> > process is not enough to detect the difference of an artifactual
> > signal from a natural signal. That differentiation requires that SETI
> > look for something that is uniquely different from what non-deliberate
> > processes of nature also produce.
>
> That's not what SETI scientists say.
>
> They say (and I quote from their web site)
> "The main feature distinguishing signals produced by a transmitter
> from those produced by natural processes is their spectral width, i.e.
> how much room on the radio dial do they take up? Any signal less than
> about 300 Hz wide must be, as far as we know, artificially produced."
>
> http://www.seti.org/about-us/faq.php#anchor321907
You just listed a quote were SETI scientists are in fact trying to
distinguish between natural and artifactual signals by finding a type
of signal that is produced by one and not the other. Can wide
spectral widths be produced by deliberate manufacture? Sure. We know
this for a fact. Can narrow spectral widths be produced by deliberate
manufacture? Yep. We know this for a fact too. Can wide spectral
widths be produced by natural processes? Uh huh - We also know this
for a fact. So, what is left Richard - to tell the difference between
the two? Obviously, the fact that we do not yet know of any natural
process that produces a narrow spectral width is the only option
left.
That is how SETI scientists "distinguish" between the two
possibilities of natural and artifactual production. This is what the
above paragraph means when it uses the word "distinguish" - i.e., they
are finding features that are unique to artifactual production in that
they are not found as the product of natural non-deliberate
generation. I'm still at a loss to understand why, exactly, you
cannot seem to grasp this concept.
> Saying that they are looking for signals from a transmitter is rather
> a strong hint they are looking for signal made by *known* processes,
> wouldn't you?
Not without knowing that non-deliberate processes do not come remotely
close to producing the same type of signal. Without this information
regarding the limits of non-deliberate processes acting on the medium
in question, you could not make this conclusion. If you had
absolutely no prior experience with nature as it interacted with
radiowaves, you'd have no idea if a narrow band signal was or was not
a likely artifact. How do you not get that?
> Note also the use of the phrase "as far as we know" in
> the last sentence. So even if they find a strong candidate signal,
> they are not ruling out the possibility that it is natural.
That is because it is *impossible* to completely rule out non-
artifactual origin - even for your favorite "tool marks". This is
what I've been trying to get across to you all along. It is
IMPOSSIBLE to completely rule out a natural non-deliberate origin for
any such phenomenon. This does not mean that such a possibility
cannot be known to be highly unlikely to a useful degree of confidence
or "significance".
< snip rest >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
>
> > Like some of your following counter arguments?
>
> > "So when we knew how the crop circles were made, we could form
> > conclusions about how they were made."
>
> Which part of this don't you understand?
You honestly don't get it do you? - I know it when I know it
arguments? Come on . . .
> > "How can one falsify luck?"
>
> > "It can't be falsified at all. That's why it isn't a valid
> > hypothesis." [Regarding the hypothesis of random chance being
> > essentially falsified if Arnold Schwarzenegger were to ever win the
> > California Lottery 5 times in a row.]
>
> > These are all real winners!
>
> So what observation or measurement can falsify the assertion "it's
> just luck"?
As I've explained to you several times, the null hypothesis of random
chance or "luck" can be rejected or falsified as being most likely
false after testing demonstrates statistics favoring the alternate
hypothesis to a pre-determined degree of "significance" - a degree
that never reaches perfection.
In other words, science can reject or essentially falsify the null
hypothesis without absolutely falsifying it.
> You can say that something is extremely unlikely. You can say that the
> probablity of it's happening by chance is virtually zero. But if
> someone tells you that it was "pure luck", you can't falsify it.
You can reject this suggested hypothesis of "luck" or "random chance"
as being essentially falsified. That is why you can say with
confidence that your friend is a cheater if he draws 4 aces 10 times
in a row. He may suggest to you all day long that it was "just
luck". Are you going to believe him? Of course not. But why not?
Because, you have accepted a certain threshold for accepting this null
hypothesis that is well above the odds for such a streak of "luck".
The same thing happens in medical science, anthropology, forensics,
and yes, SETI.
< snip >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
> You can test other hypotheses: that the dice are loaded, that the
> ballot is rigged, but that's not the same thing as falsifying "luck".
You don't need to test the dice or the cards or know how your friend
actually cheated to know with a very high degree of confidence that he
did in fact cheat when he drew 4 aces 10 times in a row. This
hypothesis has already been tested by previous experience to know that
when such a situation occurs the odds overwhelming favor the alternate
hypothesis of non-luck (i.e., non-random bias).
> You need a lesson in remedial science, Sean.
Please present any reference to back up your notions on this issue.
< snip >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Ferrous Patella
37f261...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> You must be so lonely standing on the pinnacle of your unique
> intellect in this crowd of ignoramuses and idiots. I wonder how you
> can endure it.
>
> Just as a matter of idle curiosity, who *do* you think is capable of
> matching your incredible intellectual ability?
GEORGE HAMMOND!
Seanpit
threads as well as directly in the post you mention and again as a
seperate thread. Why this need then to present this in threads that
have nothing to do with the topic you are trying to counter?:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a0daa30f67b0f0be
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
>
> > Scientists look for falsification. But they also look for
> > validation. Both are useful. And, dare I use the phrase,
> > both are valid.
>
> True.
> However, all hypotheses start with evidence, and are an attempt to
> explain that evidence. This means that verification is intrinsic: we
> couldn't form an hypothesis *without* verification. Verification comes
> naturally: in daily life, if we have a theory, we look for evidence
> which *supports* that theory.
Verification happens when the prediction of the hypothesis comes
true. That means the hypothesis must be formed first - before it can
be verified or supported by successful predictions. Therefore it is
incorrect to say that a hypothesis cannot be formed without
verification. Rather, verification cannot be achieved without the
hypothesis being there first.
> It is much harder to look for evidence which would prove us wrong, and
> in this sense looking for falsification of our theories is
> intellectually more demanding.
It is only hard on the ego. Without the personal ego, there is
nothing intrinsically harder about looking for and finding contrary
vs. supporting evidence for a hypothesis. Either the prediction of
the hypothesis does or does not come true. If it does, that it
supporting evidence. If it does not, that it contrary or falsifying
evidence.
> One of the most impressive
> characteristics of Darwin's "Origin" is the amount of space he devotes
> to exploring ways in which his theory could be *falsified*.
Yes, which is why you are working so hard against the concept of
increasing gaps between what Darwin describes as "insensible
gradations" between beneficial steppingstones in the evolution of high-
level biosystems. The lack of such insensible gradations would
certainly falsify one of the main pillars of Darwinism - i.e., the
proposed mechanism of random mutation and function-based selection.
Seanpit
>
> Oh dear, Sean.
>
> You must be so lonely standing on the pinnacle of your unique
> intellect in this crowd of ignoramuses and idiots. I wonder how you
> can endure it.
Probably the same way you'd endure being in a crowd of "scientific
creationists" and being asked if you had ever been published on the
various topics of the ToE in creation science journals . . . ; )
< snip >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Rodjk #613
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 10:40 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > > SETI scientists have also
> > > published various criteria for determining deliberate vs. non-
> > > deliberate phenomena.
>
> > They have?
> > Where?
>
> > SETI has set it's search parameters to look for signals which have
> > characteristics of those made by known processes, and which therefore
> > makes them good candidates for extraterrestrial civilisations.
>
> I've explained this to you dozens of times before.
And it has been explained to you dozens of times that you are wrong.
>It is not enough
> to search for signals which have characteristics of those made by
> known processes if the particular known process can actually be
> closely approximated by a non-deliberate natural process. That is why
> SETI scientists do not simply look for what can or has been produced
> by a known process. Known processes are known that can and have
> produced very natural-looking signals. So, simply looking for a known
> process is not enough to detect the difference of an artifactual
> signal from a natural signal. That differentiation requires that SETI
> look for something that is uniquely different from what non-deliberate
> processes of nature also produce.
Gibberish. But that is most of what you write.
>
> That is why SETI is looking for a narrow-band signal or a signal that
> contains the first million digits of pi repeated over and over again.
> Why? Because such signals are known to be within the manufacturing
> capabilities of humans? Would this be enough to tell artifact from
> non-artifact? No. Because, if a natural process was known that could
> also produce narrow-band signals or signals carrying the first million
> digits of pi repeated over and over again, such features would no
> longer be clearly artifactual.
SETI is trying to pinpoint locations in space for more investigation.
Do you think one 'hit' will convince anyone?
No, they are looking for certain types of signals that may indicate an
extraterrestrial signal and then will study the region further.
>
> For some specific references regarding SETI scientists efforts to
> distinguish natural from artifactual signals:
>
> "SETI Institute signal detection expert Kent Cullers, whose clear
> thinking routinely enlightens both novice and savant, describes the
> merits of narrow-band radio signals by comparing them to their audio
> counterparts.
> "Imagine the roar of the ocean or the rustling of leaves in a
> high wind," he says. "For these natural events, the sound is produced
> simultaneously from many unsynchronized sources. If we plot the
> frequencies present in such natural events and compare them to
> artificial sounds, such as a tuning fork or an auto horn, a startling
> difference appears. *Natural* signals have a rather broad frequency
> spectrum, but the artificial ones usually don't." [Emphasis Added]
>
> http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_shostak_artificial_030130.html
So what does this have to do with anything? They don't want to find
noise, they are looking for a signal.
>
> Notice the effort in this case of Cullers to look for a signal that
> was distinctly different from what known non-deliberate natural
> processes produce. He clearly notes the difference between what non-
> deliberate natural processes produce with regard to a certain
> characteristic vs. artifactual processes.
So?
> Here's another related reference:
>
> "We listed at the outset several of the hallmarks of
> artificiality, which we can expect to be exhibited an electromagnetic
> emission of intelligent origin. The common denominator of all these
> characteristics, in fact of all human (and we anticipate, alien)
> existence, is that they are anti-entropic. Any emission which appears
> (at least at the outset) to defy entropy is a likely candidate for an
> intelligently generated artifact. In that regard, periodicity is a
> necessary, though not a sufficient, condition for artificiality
> (remembering once again the pulsar)."
>
> http://www.setileague.org/articles/proof.htm
>
> > I'm not aware of any publication which attempts to distinguish between
> > "deliberate" and "non-deliberate" phenomena.
>
> Then you haven't really looking into the subject very far.
>
> < snip >
>
> See also:
>
> http://www.detectingdesign.com/meaningfulinformation.html#SETI
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Your website is nonsense.
Rodjk #613
Rupert Morrish
> On Dec 13, 10:40 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>> SETI scientists have also
>>> published various criteria for determining deliberate vs. non-
>>> deliberate phenomena.
>> They have?
>> Where?
>>
>> SETI has set it's search parameters to look for signals which have
>> characteristics of those made by known processes, and which therefore
>> makes them good candidates for extraterrestrial civilisations.
>
> I've explained this to you dozens of times before.
Yes, you have, and you have been wrong every time.
> It is not enough
> to search for signals which have characteristics of those made by
> known processes if the particular known process can actually be
> closely approximated by a non-deliberate natural process. That is why
> SETI scientists do not simply look for what can or has been produced
> by a known process. Known processes are known that can and have
> produced very natural-looking signals. So, simply looking for a known
> process is not enough to detect the difference of an artifactual
> signal from a natural signal. That differentiation requires that SETI
> look for something that is uniquely different from what non-deliberate
> processes of nature also produce.
>
> That is why SETI is looking for a narrow-band signal
Fair enough, so far.
> or a signal that
> contains the first million digits of pi repeated over and over again.
Where do you get this from? Which SETI projects are looking for such
signals?
> Why? Because such signals are known to be within the manufacturing
> capabilities of humans? Would this be enough to tell artifact from
> non-artifact? No. Because, if a natural process was known that could
> also produce narrow-band signals or signals carrying the first million
> digits of pi repeated over and over again, such features would no
> longer be clearly artifactual.
Well, duh. There are two considerations here. SETI is considering
signals that (a) are not generated by any known natural process, and (b)
can be generated by known artificial means. (a) reduces false positives.
(b) increases your chances of finding a signal in the first place.
SETI could *find* a signal that is not known to be generated by any
known process, natural or artificial. That would be interesting. But the
hypothesis of the signal being an artifact would be *weaker* for such a
signal than for the sort of signals SETI is seeking.
>
> For some specific references regarding SETI scientists efforts to
> distinguish natural from artifactual signals:
>
> "SETI Institute signal detection expert Kent Cullers, whose clear
> thinking routinely enlightens both novice and savant, describes the
> merits of narrow-band radio signals by comparing them to their audio
> counterparts.
> "Imagine the roar of the ocean or the rustling of leaves in a
> high wind," he says. "For these natural events, the sound is produced
> simultaneously from many unsynchronized sources. If we plot the
> frequencies present in such natural events and compare them to
> artificial sounds, such as a tuning fork or an auto horn, a startling
> difference appears. *Natural* signals have a rather broad frequency
> spectrum, but the artificial ones usually don't." [Emphasis Added]
There are natural narrow-band signals, too, such as the hydrogen line at
1.42GHz. Obviously the known ones are excluded. SETI researchers know
full well that a candidate signal may in fact be an unknown natural
phenomenon, as was the case with the discovery of pulsars (which you
quote below).
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Seanpit
>On Dec 12, 6:27 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:18:12 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Seanpit
>> <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com>:
>> >On Dec 12, 4:09 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >> Many different claims have been shown to be false because the evidence
>> >> shows they are false. Few scientists see any point in further piling on
>> >> evidence to further show that a false claim is false. Adding absolutism
>> >> to your argument shows nothing but a grasp at any straw -- an attempt to
>> >> take a very practical, pragmatic approach to learning, and turn it into
>> >> some idealized perfection that, not so incidentally, destroys it.
>> >Exactly! Now, try explaining that concept to Richard.
>> Where did Richard claim otherwise?
>My Question:
>"The same thing is true if Arnold Schwarzenegger happened to win the
>California Lottery 5 times in a row. Can the hypothesis of random
>chance be completely falsified?"
>
>Richard's response:
>"It can't be falsified at all. That's why it isn't a valid
>hypothesis. . . You need to propose a potential observation or
>measurement which could *NOT* be explained by 'luck'."
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5dec4357a4652e72
I see you asking whether a particular hypothesis can be
completely falsified, and I see Richard answering that no,
it can't, since it can't be falsified at all. Seems *you're*
the one insisting on "complete" falsification, not Richard.
>Also, in the first post of this thread Richard wrote:
>
>"The turkey's hypothesis was falsified completely, utterly and
>absolutely."
Quite possibly. However, noting that something (complete
falsification of a particular hypothesis) has happened is
*not* the same as stating that it must always happen. You
seem confused.
>You see, according to Richard, *all* valid scientific hypotheses much
>be subject to the potential of "absolute" falsification.
On the evidence you supplied he doesn't make this claim.
*You* seem to, however.
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Rupert Morrish
> On Dec 13, 12:49 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>> I've explained this to you dozens of times before. It is not enough
>>> to search for signals which have characteristics of those made by
>>> known processes if the particular known process can actually be
>>> closely approximated by a non-deliberate natural process. That is why
>>> SETI scientists do not simply look for what can or has been produced
>>> by a known process. Known processes are known that can and have
>>> produced very natural-looking signals.
>> Which is why SETI scientists are not looking for such signals!
>
> Yes, because they are known to be naturally produced. They are
> therefore looking for signals that are thought to be well beyond the
> range of natural production.
Not true. The hydrogen line at 1.42GHz is exactly the sort of
narrow-band signal that SETI is looking for, and they are searching for
signals in the same frequency range (1GHz - 3GHz).
Everyone gets the concept, but you seem to be ignoring the other half of
the grid - SETI are explicitly not searching for any signals that cannot
be made by humans.
Known natural cause / Known artificial cause: Not searching
Known natural cause / Unknown artificial cause: Not searching
Unknown natural cause / Known artificial cause: SEARCHING
Unknown natural cause / Unknown artificial cause: Not searching
>
>> Saying that they are looking for signals from a transmitter is rather
>> a strong hint they are looking for signal made by *known* processes,
>> wouldn't you?
>
> Not without knowing that non-deliberate processes do not come remotely
> close to producing the same type of signal. Without this information
> regarding the limits of non-deliberate processes acting on the medium
> in question, you could not make this conclusion. If you had
> absolutely no prior experience with nature as it interacted with
> radiowaves, you'd have no idea if a narrow band signal was or was not
> a likely artifact. How do you not get that?
>
>> Note also the use of the phrase "as far as we know" in
>> the last sentence. So even if they find a strong candidate signal,
>> they are not ruling out the possibility that it is natural.
>
> That is because it is *impossible* to completely rule out non-
> artifactual origin - even for your favorite "tool marks". This is
> what I've been trying to get across to you all along. It is
> IMPOSSIBLE to completely rule out a natural non-deliberate origin for
> any such phenomenon. This does not mean that such a possibility
> cannot be known to be highly unlikely to a useful degree of confidence
> or "significance".
If we think it's an artifact, we can test hypotheses of how it was
created. If there's no tool marks, it doesn't mean it's not an artifact,
but it does mean that we don't know how it was made, and we should be
less confident that it is an artifact.
>
> < snip rest >
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com
>
richardal...@googlemail.com
I don't think that the ICR is a reputable scientific journal, nor that
the editors of ICR have the background on knowledge to assess my
research. I submit my papers to journals such as th PYGS, the PGS,
Palaeontology,. Historical Biology and so on because those are journal
which publish work in my field and can draw on the expertise needed to
evaluate it.
So who *do* you think has the intellectual capacity to evaluate your
"theory", Sean? It seems a perfectly reasonable question.
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 9:53 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Like some of your following counter arguments?
>
> > > "So when we knew how the crop circles were made, we could form
> > > conclusions about how they were made."
>
> > Which part of this don't you understand?
>
> You honestly don't get it do you? - I know it when I know it
> arguments? Come on . . .
No, it's the argument that if we observe something being made we know
that the object we see was made and *how* it was made. That gives us
evidence which we can then use to determine how *other* similar
objects were made. I'm sorry if my first post was not clear, but I
clarified it in a subsequent post.
>
> > > "How can one falsify luck?"
>
> > > "It can't be falsified at all. That's why it isn't a valid
> > > hypothesis." [Regarding the hypothesis of random chance being
> > > essentially falsified if Arnold Schwarzenegger were to ever win the
> > > California Lottery 5 times in a row.]
>
> > > These are all real winners!
>
> > So what observation or measurement can falsify the assertion "it's
> > just luck"?
>
> As I've explained to you several times, the null hypothesis of random
> chance or "luck" can be rejected or falsified as being most likely
> false after testing demonstrates statistics favoring the alternate
> hypothesis to a pre-determined degree of "significance" - a degree
> that never reaches perfection.
What nonsense!
The *meaning* of luck is that something which *is* statistically
unlikely happens. When a gambler is on a winning streak, he thinks
that luck is on his side, and making statistically improbable events
happen. If he loses, he thinks his luck has run out. If he wins, his
"hypothesis" that he is lucky is verified.
> In other words, science can reject or essentially falsify the null
> hypothesis without absolutely falsifying it.
You are not addressing the question, Sean.
> > You can say that something is extremely unlikely. You can say that the
> > probablity of it's happening by chance is virtually zero. But if
> > someone tells you that it was "pure luck", you can't falsify it.
>
> You can reject this suggested hypothesis of "luck" or "random chance"
> as being essentially falsified.
"luck" is not the same a "random chance".
You're misrepresenting the argument again.
(What is "random chance" by the way and how does it differ from "non-
random chance"?)
> That is why you can say with
> confidence that your friend is a cheater if he draws 4 aces 10 times
> in a row. He may suggest to you all day long that it was "just
> luck". Are you going to believe him? Of course not. But why not?
Because it is very unlikely.
> Because, you have accepted a certain threshold for accepting this null
> hypothesis that is well above the odds for such a streak of "luck".
> The same thing happens in medical science, anthropology, forensics,
> and yes, SETI.
So what I'd do is test his dice to see if they are loaded. That
wouldn't be falsifying "luck", it would be testing the hypothesis that
the dice are loaded. If I could find no reason for his streak of luck,
I'd conclude that it is a very unlikely statistical anomaly. He'd say
it was "luck", and there is no way in which I could disprove that.
>
> < snip >
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
>
> > You can test other hypotheses: that the dice are loaded, that the
> > ballot is rigged, but that's not the same thing as falsifying "luck".
>
> You don't need to test the dice or the cards or know how your friend
> actually cheated to know with a very high degree of confidence that he
> did in fact cheat when he drew 4 aces 10 times in a row.
Why?
> This
> hypothesis has already been tested by previous experience to know that
> when such a situation occurs the odds overwhelming favor the alternate
> hypothesis of non-luck (i.e., non-random bias).
>
> > You need a lesson in remedial science, Sean.
>
> Please present any reference to back up your notions on this issue.
The evidence of your posts is enough.
RF
>
> < snip >
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
No, they are looking for signals of a type which they know to be
artificially produced.
They are not ruling out the possibility that such a signal can be
produced by natural processes, which is why they use the phrase "as
far as we know".
> Can wide
> spectral widths be produced by deliberate manufacture? Sure. We know
> this for a fact. Can narrow spectral widths be produced by deliberate
> manufacture? Yep. We know this for a fact too. Can wide spectral
> widths be produced by natural processes? Uh huh - We also know this
> for a fact. So, what is left Richard - to tell the difference between
> the two? Obviously, the fact that we do not yet know of any natural
> process that produces a narrow spectral width is the only option
> left.
>
> That is how SETI scientists "distinguish" between the two
> possibilities of natural and artifactual production. This is what the
> above paragraph means when it uses the word "distinguish" - i.e., they
> are finding features that are unique to artifactual production in that
> they are not found as the product of natural non-deliberate
> generation. I'm still at a loss to understand why, exactly, you
> cannot seem to grasp this concept.
SETI scientist are looking for signals of a sort which they think are
the best *candidates* for artificial origin by looking for signals
with characteristics of a *known* artificial process - i.e. a
"transmitter". They are not trying to distinguish between "natural"
and "artifactual".
>
> > Saying that they are looking for signals from a transmitter is rather
> > a strong hint they are looking for signal made by *known* processes,
> > wouldn't you?
>
> Not without knowing that non-deliberate processes do not come remotely
> close to producing the same type of signal.
Well, you'd better inform SETI then. They think that they are looking
for signals with characteristics of those which are known to be
artificial. Evidently you know more about what they are doing than
they do themselves.
> Without this information
> regarding the limits of non-deliberate processes acting on the medium
> in question, you could not make this conclusion. If you had
> absolutely no prior experience with nature as it interacted with
> radiowaves, you'd have no idea if a narrow band signal was or was not
> a likely artifact. How do you not get that?
Which is why SETI is looking for a *candidate* signal whose
characteristic match those of signals which we *know* to be
artificial.
>
> > Note also the use of the phrase "as far as we know" in
> > the last sentence. So even if they find a strong candidate signal,
> > they are not ruling out the possibility that it is natural.
>
> That is because it is *impossible* to completely rule out non-
> artifactual origin - even for your favorite "tool marks". This is
> what I've been trying to get across to you all along. It is
> IMPOSSIBLE to completely rule out a natural non-deliberate origin for
> any such phenomenon. This does not mean that such a possibility
> cannot be known to be highly unlikely to a useful degree of confidence
> or "significance".
>
> < snip rest >
No, let's put the rest back in again so that we can watch you squirm.
> I'm not aware of any publication which attempts to distinguish
between
> > "deliberate" and "non-deliberate" phenomena.
> Then you haven't really looking into the subject very far.
Well, you seem to be claiming that you have.
So how about a citation?
Surely you don't just expect others to take your word for it?
I'll take your evasion as just more evidence that you are making
unfounded assertions.
So who *do* you think is capable of understanding your "theory", Sean?
It's very obvious that you are not persuading anyone here, which
rather supports my hypothesis that you post here to strut your ego in
front of an ignorant and gullible creationist audience.
Of course, you could falsify my hypothesis by writing up your "theory"
as an academic paper and submitting it for publication in an academic
journal.
All you are doing is providing me with verification.
RF
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
>
> I don't think that the ICR is a reputable scientific journal, nor that
> the editors of ICR have the background on knowledge to assess my
> research. I submit my papers to journals such as th PYGS, the PGS,
> Palaeontology,. Historical Biology and so on because those are journal
> which publish work in my field and can draw on the expertise needed to
> evaluate it.
>
> So who *do* you think has the intellectual capacity to evaluate your
> "theory", Sean? It seems a perfectly reasonable question.
It isn't a matter of intellectual capacity as much as it is a matter
of a very strong bias when it comes to this particular issue; bias so
strong and blinding that it leads to religious-type dogma for most on
both sides of this issue.
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
hersheyh
So which fundamentalist Bible-thumping [oxymoron alert]
"intellectual" do you think lacks the very strong bias on this
particular issue? Is he named Billy Bob Joe, perchance? With a
degree from Southeastern Middle Alabama School of Theology and
Quantuum Mechanics?
Seanpit
> On Dec 13, 10:22 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>
> 0catch.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 13, 9:53 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > Like some of your following counter arguments?
>
> > > > "So when we knew how the crop circles were made, we could form
> > > > conclusions about how they were made."
>
> > > Which part of this don't you understand?
>
> > You honestly don't get it do you? - I know it when I know it
> > arguments? Come on . . .
>
> No, it's the argument that if we observe something being made we know
> that the object we see was made and *how* it was made.
We also know, most of the time anyway, that the object we see being
made could also be made in many different ways.
> That gives us
> evidence which we can then use to determine how *other* similar
> objects were made.
Not quite right. It tells you how other similar objects could have
been made. It doesn't tell you how they were actually made. Very
similar objects can be made in many different ways. Knowing this
really isn't helpful in determining how, exactly, a particular object
or phenomenon was actually made.
> I'm sorry if my first post was not clear, but I
> clarified it in a subsequent post.
Your clarification basically suggests the same thing - that the
hypothesis of artifact only requires research into how the object in
question could have been manufactured. A river rock could have been
manufactured, deliberately, in many different ways. So, demonstrating
how one could manufacture something very similar, even
indistinguishable, from a river rock is obviously not enough to
suggest how it was actually made. Since there are many different ways
to manufacture rocks that look very "similar" to river rocks, to
include both deliberate and non-deliberate natural processes, how is
your "method" going to tell the difference?
I know, you look for tool markings and other such things. This
argument has the very same problem. The tool markings you think are
tool marks because they match other markings you know were made by
tools could also have been made by non-deliberate natural processes as
well. You simply have no idea if this might or might not be likely
unless you have at least some experience with the material in question
as it relates to various non-deliberate natural processes.
Then, of course, you argue, "How can you falsify the hypothesis of non-
deliberate processes". Well, if you cannot falsify such a hypothesis,
even in degrees, where is your basis for suggesting that your tool
marks were the result of deliberate manufacture vs. non-deliberate
natural formation?
You see, falsification can be done in degrees until you reach a
certain pre-determined level of "significance" that is useful without
being perfect. Again, a valid scientific hypothesis or theory does
not require that it be subject to absolute falsification - only a
"significant" level of falsification is usually required.
> > > So what observation or measurement can falsify the assertion "it's
> > > just luck"?
>
> > As I've explained to you several times, the null hypothesis of random
> > chance or "luck" can be rejected or falsified as being most likely
> > false after testing demonstrates statistics favoring the alternate
> > hypothesis to a pre-determined degree of "significance" - a degree
> > that never reaches perfection.
>
> What nonsense!
> The *meaning* of luck is that something which *is* statistically
> unlikely happens. When a gambler is on a winning streak, he thinks
> that luck is on his side, and making statistically improbable events
> happen. If he loses, he thinks his luck has run out. If he wins, his
> "hypothesis" that he is lucky is verified.
That idea, although common, is fallacious. Rather, a gambler who
rolls something like double sixes 20 times in a row would be much
wiser to suspect that the dice were loaded rather than continue to
believe that the dice were simply "lucky". The hypothesis of "luck"
or "randomness" can be tested scientifically. In fact, the concept of
luck or randomness is often the main part of scientific hypotheses and
theories. The reason why the hypothesis of luck or randomness can be
scientific is because it is open to potential falsification - even if
only in degrees of certainty or statistical significance.
> > In other words, science can reject or essentially falsify the null
> > hypothesis without absolutely falsifying it.
>
> You are not addressing the question, Sean.
>
> > > You can say that something is extremely unlikely. You can say that the
> > > probablity of it's happening by chance is virtually zero. But if
> > > someone tells you that it was "pure luck", you can't falsify it.
>
> > You can reject this suggested hypothesis of "luck" or "random chance"
> > as being essentially falsified.
>
> "luck" is not the same a "random chance".
If you roll double sixes 100 times in a row in Las Vegas, I dare say
that the casino owners were you are playing will not turn to each
other and say, "Man is that guy lucky!". You see what I mean?
Rather, the owners will turn and say, "Man is that guy cheating! Let's
send some of our big guys over there to 'talk' to him . . ."
So, you see, luck is the same thing as random chance in usual usage
unless you want to anthropomorphize the term "luck". If that is in
fact what you are trying to do with the term, you are basically
equating "luck" to deliberate design. There would be no difference
between these two concepts given your unique usages of words here. If
double sixes are rolled 20 times in a row or 100 or 1 million times is
a row, do most people use the term "luck" to describe such a streak?
Not most people I know because the term luck, for most people anyway,
denotes a feature of non-deliberate random chance at play. If you win
the lottery, it is assumed that you were just "lucky", not that the
lottery was actually biased or non-random in any way. However, if you
draw 4 aces in poker in every hand you play for the night, most of
your friends are not going to go away from the table saying, "Man was
Richard lucky tonight!"
> You're misrepresenting the argument again.
Hardly . . .
> (What is "random chance" by the way and how does it differ from "non-
> random chance"?)
I never used the phrase "non-random chance". There is randomness and
non-randomness. The term chance is equivalent to randomness. So,
using the phrase random chance is rather redundant and using the
phrases non-random chance is contradictory.
> > That is why you can say with
> > confidence that your friend is a cheater if he draws 4 aces 10 times
> > in a row. He may suggest to you all day long that it was "just
> > luck". Are you going to believe him? Of course not. But why not?
>
> Because it is very unlikely.
By your own definition of "luck" you can't make that call - - After
all, it was just "luck" - right? How then can you say that "luck" is
an "unlikely" answer in this case? Upon what do you base this
conclusion? Hmmmmm?
I suggest to you that the same basis you used to make this conclusion
is the very same basis used to suggest that non-deliberate natural
processes are "unlikely" to produce certain types of phenomena - like
highly symmetrical polished granite cubes or intricate geometrically
symmetrical crop circles.
> > Because, you have accepted a certain threshold for accepting this null
> > hypothesis that is well above the odds for such a streak of "luck".
> > The same thing happens in medical science, anthropology, forensics,
> > and yes, SETI.
>
> So what I'd do is test his dice to see if they are loaded. That
> wouldn't be falsifying "luck", it would be testing the hypothesis that
> the dice are loaded. If I could find no reason for his streak of luck,
> I'd conclude that it is a very unlikely statistical anomaly. He'd say
> it was "luck", and there is no way in which I could disprove that.
I'm sorry, but very few would make this conclusion. Someone with this
idea of yours is an easy mark. There are so many ways to make loaded
dice where it would be very difficult to tell how it was done. Yet,
without knowing how cheaters are actually cheating, Las Vegas owners
and statisticians are indeed able to pick cheaters out of the crowd
simply by looking at the statistics or pattern of their play. They
might not know how they are cheating, but they do in fact know, with a
very high degree of predictive value, that certain players are in fact
cheaters and not just "lucky". These players will be asked to leave,
or worse, and will be bared from returning - even without the casinos
knowing how they cheated.
I don't believe you for a minute that you'd accept the hypothesis of
luck given certain "streaks" of anomalies - even if you didn't know
how it was done exactly. If someone rolls double sixes on the craps
table 100 times in a row, even if you analyze the dice every which way
and can't find how they were loaded, you'd still conclude that they
were loaded. You might not be able to prove it physically, but you
could convince the vast majority of people, to include scientists,
based on the statistics alone.
In fact, that is what science does. It allows the acceptance of
certain hypotheses, like dice being loaded, before knowing how they
were loaded, to a certain degree of predictability that may in fact
reach very high levels of confidence or statistical "significance".
> > You don't need to test the dice or the cards or know how your friend
> > actually cheated to know with a very high degree of confidence that he
> > did in fact cheat when he drew 4 aces 10 times in a row.
>
> Why?
If you have to ask this question, don't get into poker ; )
> > This
> > hypothesis has already been tested by previous experience to know that
> > when such a situation occurs the odds overwhelming favor the alternate
> > hypothesis of non-luck (i.e., non-random bias).
>
> > > You need a lesson in remedial science, Sean.
>
> > Please present any reference to back up your notions on this issue.
>
> The evidence of your posts is enough.
I think so.
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
hersheyh
Speaking of bias, are you aware of the written "litmus test" that the
ICR requires both of its members and of those who publish in its
journals? And, on the other side, people who believe in creation
(including Michael Behe) certainly have published at least
respectable, if not earth-shaking, science in reputable journals.
>
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
>
> >> Where did Richard claim otherwise?
> >My Question:
> >"The same thing is true if Arnold Schwarzenegger happened to win the
> >California Lottery 5 times in a row. Can the hypothesis of random
> >chance be completely falsified?"
>
> >Richard's response:
> >"It can't be falsified at all. That's why it isn't a valid
> >hypothesis. . . You need to propose a potential observation or
> >measurement which could *NOT* be explained by 'luck'."
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5dec4357a4652e72
>
> I see you asking whether a particular hypothesis can be
> completely falsified, and I see Richard answering that no,
> it can't, since it can't be falsified at all. Seems *you're*
> the one insisting on "complete" falsification, not Richard.
I asked a question that can be falsified to a statistical degree of
"significance". So, when Richard argues that the hypothesis cannot be
falsified at all, he, and evidently you, don't seem to understand that
the hypothesis of randomness can indeed be subject to falsification -
just not absolute falsification.
> >Also, in the first post of this thread Richard wrote:
>
> >"The turkey's hypothesis was falsified completely, utterly and
> >absolutely."
>
> Quite possibly. However, noting that something (complete
> falsification of a particular hypothesis) has happened is
> *not* the same as stating that it must always happen. You
> seem confused.
This is exactly what Richard is saying. Ask him. He is in fact
suggesting that if a hypothesis cannot be subject to complete
falsification, 100%, that it isn't a valid scientific hyopothesis.
> >You see, according to Richard, *all* valid scientific hypotheses much
> >be subject to the potential of "absolute" falsification.
>
> On the evidence you supplied he doesn't make this claim.
Ask him for an example of a valid scientific hypothesis that is not
subject to completely, absolute, 100%, falsification. Ask him if he
believes in the concept of partial falsification.
> *You* seem to, however.
Your reading comprehesion needs just a wee bit of improvement in that
case.
> Bob C.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> Seanpit wrote:
> > On Dec 13, 12:49 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >>> I've explained this to you dozens of times before. It is not enough
> >>> to search for signals which have characteristics of those made by
> >>> known processes if the particular known process can actually be
> >>> closely approximated by a non-deliberate natural process. That is why
> >>> SETI scientists do not simply look for what can or has been produced
> >>> by a known process. Known processes are known that can and have
> >>> produced very natural-looking signals.
> >>
> >> Which is why SETI scientists are not looking for such signals!
>
> > Yes, because they are known to be naturally produced. They are
> > therefore looking for signals that are thought to be well beyond the
> > range of natural production.
>
> Not true. The hydrogen line at 1.42GHz is exactly the sort of
> narrow-band signal that SETI is looking for, and they are searching for
> signals in the same frequency range (1GHz - 3GHz).
Hmmmmm . . . why then do you think SETI hasn't presented the narrow
band 1.42GHz signal as an artifact? Any suggestions? Hint: Because
it is known to have a natural non-deliberate cause. That's why. That
means that they are in fact looking for signals that are thought to be
well beyond the range of natural production.
> Everyone gets the concept, but you seem to be ignoring the other half of
> the grid - SETI are explicitly not searching for any signals that cannot
> be made by humans.
I never said otherwise. It is quite hard to imagine a signal that
couldn't be made by humans (given limited power supplies that we have
available of course).
> Known natural cause / Known artificial cause: Not searching
> Known natural cause / Unknown artificial cause: Not searching
> Unknown natural cause / Known artificial cause: SEARCHING
> Unknown natural cause / Unknown artificial cause: Not searching
Again, finding a radio signal with an unknown natural cause would most
likely be within the range of what we humans could actually produce
(again, given that the signal was within our limited power supply
capabilities). So, finding a signal pattern, like something that
matches a particular mathematical formula, like pi, e, the Fibonacci
series, or various forms of complex signal symmetry, would be very
good evidence of artifact.
> If we think it's an artifact, we can test hypotheses of how it was
> created. If there's no tool marks, it doesn't mean it's not an artifact,
> but it does mean that we don't know how it was made, and we should be
> less confident that it is an artifact.
Tool marks can also be tricky. How are the tool marks themselves
made? You might know how they could be made, but that, by itself,
doesn't given you any clue if they are or are not artifactual
markings. The same thing is true for the object or phenomenon in
question. It is often very easy to determine how it could be made.
Yet, this is not enough. You also have to have at least some idea as
to how it could not be made.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
>
> > > They say (and I quote from their web site)
> > > "The main feature distinguishing signals produced by a transmitter
> > > from those produced by natural processes is their spectral width, i.e.
> > > how much room on the radio dial do they take up? Any signal less than
> > > about 300 Hz wide must be, as far as we know, artificially produced."
>
> > >http://www.seti.org/about-us/faq.php#anchor321907
>
> > You just listed a quote were SETI scientists are in fact trying to
> > distinguish between natural and artifactual signals by finding a type
> > of signal that is produced by one and not the other.
>
> No, they are looking for signals of a type which they know to be
> artificially produced.
That's not all Richard. The signals they are looking for are also
thought to be beyond the realm of non-artifactual production. That's
why they use the word "distinguish".
> They are not ruling out the possibility that such a signal can be
> produced by natural processes, which is why they use the phrase "as
> far as we know".
Yes. As far as they know they have in fact ruled out natural
production. It can't be ruled out completely, but it can be ruled out
to a useful degree of confidence of "significance". If it could not
be ruled out to any degree, you could not have any remote basis for
suggesting that, "Any signal less than about 300 Hz wide must be
artificially produced."
> > Can wide
> > spectral widths be produced by deliberate manufacture? Sure. We know
> > this for a fact. Can narrow spectral widths be produced by deliberate
> > manufacture? Yep. We know this for a fact too. Can wide spectral
> > widths be produced by natural processes? Uh huh - We also know this
> > for a fact. So, what is left Richard - to tell the difference between
> > the two? Obviously, the fact that we do not yet know of any natural
> > process that produces a narrow spectral width is the only option
> > left.
>
> > That is how SETI scientists "distinguish" between the two
> > possibilities of natural and artifactual production. This is what the
> > above paragraph means when it uses the word "distinguish" - i.e., they
> > are finding features that are unique to artifactual production in that
> > they are not found as the product of natural non-deliberate
> > generation. I'm still at a loss to understand why, exactly, you
> > cannot seem to grasp this concept.
>
> SETI scientist are looking for signals of a sort which they think are
> the best *candidates* for artificial origin by looking for signals
> with characteristics of a *known* artificial process - i.e. a
> "transmitter". They are not trying to distinguish between "natural"
> and "artifactual".
Did you not see the word "distinguish" in your own quote? In your own
quote the authors said that they are "distinguishing signals produced
by a transmitter from those produced by natural processes." In other
words, you have to know something about the potential and limits of
natural processes BEFORE you can have any idea about artifact or non-
artifact. You simply cannot determine artifact by knowing how similar
objects can be produced. That's NOT enough information to determine
artifact. Not even close!
> > > Saying that they are looking for signals from a transmitter is rather
> > > a strong hint they are looking for signal made by *known* processes,
> > > wouldn't you?
>
> > Not without knowing that non-deliberate processes do not come remotely
> > close to producing the same type of signal.
>
> Well, you'd better inform SETI then. They think that they are looking
> for signals with characteristics of those which are known to be
> artificial. Evidently you know more about what they are doing than
> they do themselves.
I know more about what they are looking for and why than you know -
that's for sure.
> > Without this information
> > regarding the limits of non-deliberate processes acting on the medium
> > in question, you could not make this conclusion. If you had
> > absolutely no prior experience with nature as it interacted with
> > radiowaves, you'd have no idea if a narrow band signal was or was not
> > a likely artifact. How do you not get that?
>
> Which is why SETI is looking for a *candidate* signal whose
> characteristic match those of signals which we *know* to be
> artificial.
That's not enough Richard. It is not enough to know that a signal has
similar features to signals that are known to be artifactual. A
particular signal that is known to be artifactually produce can look
for all the world like white noise. But, since it is known to be an
artifact, it must mean, according to your logic, that all signals that
look like white noise are also most likely artifactual. Why then
aren't SETI scientists looking for white noise signals? Hmmmmm?
Think about it . . .
< snip >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
Why not answer the question?
I'm quite happy for you to carry on evading it for as long as you
want, but it seems a perfectly reasonable one.
If you think that *nobody* is capable of understanding you, don't you
think that this is just a tiny inkling of what might by a vast stretch
of the imagination be some hint of a clue that you may be wrong?
RF
>
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
>
> > It is not enough
> > to search for signals which have characteristics of those made by
> > known processes if the particular known process can actually be
> > closely approximated by a non-deliberate natural process. That is why
> > SETI scientists do not simply look for what can or has been produced
> > by a known process. Known processes are known that can and have
> > produced very natural-looking signals. So, simply looking for a known
> > process is not enough to detect the difference of an artifactual
> > signal from a natural signal. That differentiation requires that SETI
> > look for something that is uniquely different from what non-deliberate
> > processes of nature also produce.
>
> > That is why SETI is looking for a narrow-band signal
>
> Fair enough, so far.
>
> > or a signal that
> > contains the first million digits of pi repeated over and over again.
>
> Where do you get this from? Which SETI projects are looking for such
> signals?
Seth Shostak, a senior astronomer at the SETI Institute:
"Perhaps the extraterrestrials will preface their message with a
string of prime numbers, or maybe the first fifty terms of the ever-
popular Fibonacci series. Well, there's no doubt that such tags would
convey intelligence."
http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_shostak_artificial_030130.html
> > Why? Because such signals are known to be within the manufacturing
> > capabilities of humans? Would this be enough to tell artifact from
> > non-artifact? No. Because, if a natural process was known that could
> > also produce narrow-band signals or signals carrying the first million
> > digits of pi repeated over and over again, such features would no
> > longer be clearly artifactual.
>
> Well, duh.
This "well, duh" is not so obvious to Richard - not at all. That's
what so amazing about this thread. He thinks that the only think a
scientists need to do to adequately propose the hypothesis of artifact
is to demonstrate how it could be manufactured - to show something
very similar that is known to have been manufactured. What should be
a "duh" concept for Richard is that this suggested demonstration
simply isn't enough to adequately detect artifacts.
> There are two considerations here. SETI is considering
> signals that (a) are not generated by any known natural process, and (b)
> can be generated by known artificial means. (a) reduces false positives.
> (b) increases your chances of finding a signal in the first place.
Yep - Now, try explaining the need for part A to Richard. Also, try
explaining the concept that although part A cannot be completely
excluded as a possibility, 100%, it can be excluded to at least a
useful degree of confidence.
< snip >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
>
> > It isn't a matter of intellectual capacity as much as it is a matter
> > of a very strong bias when it comes to this particular issue; bias so
> > strong and blinding that it leads to religious-type dogma for most on
> > both sides of this issue.
>
> "intellectual" do you think lacks the very strong bias on this
> particular issue? Is he named Billy Bob Joe, perchance? With a
> degree from Southeastern Middle Alabama School of Theology and
> Quantuum Mechanics?
Did you miss the part where I said that those on both sides of this
particular issue have the same problems with bias?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
>
> > It isn't a matter of intellectual capacity as much as it is a matter
> > of a very strong bias when it comes to this particular issue; bias so
> > strong and blinding that it leads to religious-type dogma for most on
> > both sides of this issue.
>
> Speaking of bias, are you aware of the written "litmus test" that the
> ICR requires both of its members and of those who publish in its
> journals? And, on the other side, people who believe in creation
> (including Michael Behe) certainly have published at least
> respectable, if not earth-shaking, science in reputable journals.
I have also published a number of papers in very good science
journals. However, which papers have been accepted by Behe or any
other IDist to be published in mainstream science journals? Your so
called "reputable journals" also have their "litmus test" - it just
isn't published is all. But, if anything even hints and attempting to
question or undermine the basic idea of Darwinian-style evolution, it
won't be published in mainsteam journals regardless of the arguments
made or evidence presented.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 12:37 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 13, 10:22 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>
> > 0catch.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 13, 9:53 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > Like some of your following counter arguments?
>
> > > > > "So when we knew how the crop circles were made, we could form
> > > > > conclusions about how they were made."
>
> > > > Which part of this don't you understand?
>
> > > You honestly don't get it do you? - I know it when I know it
> > > arguments? Come on . . .
>
> > No, it's the argument that if we observe something being made we know
> > that the object we see was made and *how* it was made.
>
> We also know, most of the time anyway, that the object we see being
> made could also be made in many different ways.
So what?
Are you saying that because science doesn't offer absolutes, no
evidence is of any value?
>
> > That gives us
> > evidence which we can then use to determine how *other* similar
> > objects were made.
>
> Not quite right. It tells you how other similar objects could have
> been made.
It's called "evidence".
Scientists seem to think that it is important, but evidently you
don't.
> It doesn't tell you how they were actually made.
I didn't say that it did. You really do need to learn to read for
comprehension.
> Very
> similar objects can be made in many different ways.
Quite so, which is why we look for evidence to narrow the field.
> Knowing this
> really isn't helpful in determining how, exactly, a particular object
> or phenomenon was actually made.
So because the evidence can't show with 100% certainty exactly how an
object was made, all evidence is worthless?
What a weird parallel universe you inhabit, Sean.
>
> > I'm sorry if my first post was not clear, but I
> > clarified it in a subsequent post.
>
> Your clarification basically suggests the same thing - that the
> hypothesis of artifact only requires research into how the object in
> question could have been manufactured.
Well, that's what the scientists who work in such fields think.
> A river rock could have been
> manufactured, deliberately, in many different ways.
So what?
> So, demonstrating
> how one could manufacture something very similar, even
> indistinguishable, from a river rock is obviously not enough to
> suggest how it was actually made.
So you are once again suggesting that because we can't establish with
100% certainty how something was made, no evidence is of any value.
> Since there are many different ways
> to manufacture rocks that look very "similar" to river rocks, to
> include both deliberate and non-deliberate natural processes, how is
> your "method" going to tell the difference?
By looking for clues left by the different methods. If there is no way
of distinguishing them, we can't tell. In those circumstances we
conclude that we don't know.
>
> I know, you look for tool markings and other such things. This
> argument has the very same problem. The tool markings you think are
> tool marks because they match other markings you know were made by
> tools could also have been made by non-deliberate natural processes as
> well.
This is an extraordinarily silly argument, even by your standards,
Sean.
Are you seriously telling me that because some unknown natural process
*might* produce marks identical to those left by a known manufacturing
process, we cannot form the conclusion that an object bearing those
marks was made by that known process?
> You simply have no idea if this might or might not be likely
> unless you have at least some experience with the material in question
> as it relates to various non-deliberate natural processes.
...and this coming from someone who thinks that he can carry out
statistical analyses of the shape of granite objects simply by looking
at them.
In science, Sean, we follow the evidence. If the evidence shows that
an object was manufactured by a particular process we form the
conclusion that this is how it was made. If at a later date someone
produces evidence that it was made by a specific natural process, we
revise our conclusions accordingly. If there is no evidence that this
object was not made by the process which we know about there is no
reason to change our conclusions.
>
> Then, of course, you argue, "How can you falsify the hypothesis of non-
> deliberate processes". Well, if you cannot falsify such a hypothesis,
> even in degrees, where is your basis for suggesting that your tool
> marks were the result of deliberate manufacture vs. non-deliberate
> natural formation?
I'm not testing that "hypothesis". I'm looking for clues which might
tell me how an object was made. If I can find evidence for how it was
made, I can decide if I think that it was made by "deliberate" or "non-
deliberate" processes, though neither I nor any other scientist would
use those rather silly terms.
>
> You see, falsification can be done in degrees until you reach a
> certain pre-determined level of "significance" that is useful without
> being perfect. Again, a valid scientific hypothesis or theory does
> not require that it be subject to absolute falsification - only a
> "significant" level of falsification is usually required.
More blather, Sean.
>
> > > > So what observation or measurement can falsify the assertion "it's
> > > > just luck"?
>
> > > As I've explained to you several times, the null hypothesis of random
> > > chance or "luck" can be rejected or falsified as being most likely
> > > false after testing demonstrates statistics favoring the alternate
> > > hypothesis to a pre-determined degree of "significance" - a degree
> > > that never reaches perfection.
>
> > What nonsense!
> > The *meaning* of luck is that something which *is* statistically
> > unlikely happens. When a gambler is on a winning streak, he thinks
> > that luck is on his side, and making statistically improbable events
> > happen. If he loses, he thinks his luck has run out. If he wins, his
> > "hypothesis" that he is lucky is verified.
>
> That idea, although common, is fallacious.
Are you telling me that gamblers *don't* believe in luck?
Which freaking planet do you live on?
> Rather, a gambler who
> rolls something like double sixes 20 times in a row would be much
> wiser to suspect that the dice were loaded rather than continue to
> believe that the dice were simply "lucky". The hypothesis of "luck"
> or "randomness" can be tested scientifically.
"Luck" and "randomness" are not synonyms!
> In fact, the concept of
> luck or randomness is often the main part of scientific hypotheses and
> theories.
No scientific theory includes the idea of "luck"!
>The reason why the hypothesis of luck or randomness can be
> scientific is because it is open to potential falsification - even if
> only in degrees of certainty or statistical significance.
Randomness and luck are *NOT* synonymous!
>
> > > In other words, science can reject or essentially falsify the null
> > > hypothesis without absolutely falsifying it.
>
> > You are not addressing the question, Sean.
>
> > > > You can say that something is extremely unlikely. You can say that the
> > > > probablity of it's happening by chance is virtually zero. But if
> > > > someone tells you that it was "pure luck", you can't falsify it.
>
> > > You can reject this suggested hypothesis of "luck" or "random chance"
> > > as being essentially falsified.
>
> > "luck" is not the same a "random chance".
>
> If you roll double sixes 100 times in a row in Las Vegas, I dare say
> that the casino owners were you are playing will not turn to each
> other and say, "Man is that guy lucky!".
No, they will be looking for loaded dice, because unlike the punters,
casino owners do NOT believe in luck. They believe in statistics.
However, if they cannot prove that the dice are rigged, they will be
forced to pay up even if they think that they are being conned.
> You see what I mean?
> Rather, the owners will turn and say, "Man is that guy cheating! Let's
> send some of our big guys over there to 'talk' to him . . ."
>
> So, you see, luck is the same thing as random chance in usual usage
What complete and utter bullshit, Sean. Of course it isn't! Gamblers
don't blow on their dice and pray to Lady "random chance". They hope
that they are going to get lucky and beat the odds.
> unless you want to anthropomorphize the term "luck". If that is in
> fact what you are trying to do with the term, you are basically
> equating "luck" to deliberate design.
Which planet do you live on, Sean? This is ridiculous even by your
standards.
> There would be no difference
> between these two concepts given your unique usages of words here. If
> double sixes are rolled 20 times in a row or 100 or 1 million times is
> a row, do most people use the term "luck" to describe such a streak?
> Not most people I know because the term luck, for most people anyway,
> denotes a feature of non-deliberate random chance at play. If you win
> the lottery, it is assumed that you were just "lucky", not that the
> lottery was actually biased or non-random in any way. However, if you
> draw 4 aces in poker in every hand you play for the night, most of
> your friends are not going to go away from the table saying, "Man was
> Richard lucky tonight!"
>
> > You're misrepresenting the argument again.
>
> Hardly . . .
>
> > (What is "random chance" by the way and how does it differ from "non-
> > random chance"?)
>
> I never used the phrase "non-random chance".
If you need to qualify the word "chance" by the word "random" it
implies that there is chance which is *not* random.
I'm merely picking on you for using sloppy language.
> There is randomness and
> non-randomness. The term chance is equivalent to randomness. So,
> using the phrase random chance is rather redundant and using the
> phrases non-random chance is contradictory.
So why use it? Do you think that you can make nonsensical arguments
meaningful by throwing in a handful of irrelevant qualifiers?
>
> > > That is why you can say with
> > > confidence that your friend is a cheater if he draws 4 aces 10 times
> > > in a row. He may suggest to you all day long that it was "just
> > > luck". Are you going to believe him? Of course not. But why not?
>
> > Because it is very unlikely.
>
> By your own definition of "luck" you can't make that call - - After
> all, it was just "luck" - right?
I'm not the one who is asserting that one can test the hypothesis of
"luck", Sean.
You are.
> How then can you say that "luck" is
> an "unlikely" answer in this case?
Because I understand statistics.
People who believe in luck think that they can "beat the odds".
That's why casino owners get rich, and gamblers lose their money.
> Upon what do you base this
> conclusion? Hmmmmm?
>
> I suggest to you that the same basis you used to make this conclusion
> is the very same basis used to suggest that non-deliberate natural
> processes are "unlikely" to produce certain types of phenomena - like
> highly symmetrical polished granite cubes or intricate geometrically
> symmetrical crop circles.
Blah, blah, blah,. Sean.
>
> > > Because, you have accepted a certain threshold for accepting this null
> > > hypothesis that is well above the odds for such a streak of "luck".
> > > The same thing happens in medical science, anthropology, forensics,
> > > and yes, SETI.
>
> > So what I'd do is test his dice to see if they are loaded. That
> > wouldn't be falsifying "luck", it would be testing the hypothesis that
> > the dice are loaded. If I could find no reason for his streak of luck,
> > I'd conclude that it is a very unlikely statistical anomaly. He'd say
> > it was "luck", and there is no way in which I could disprove that.
>
> I'm sorry, but very few would make this conclusion.
Well bully for you if you think that.
> Someone with this
> idea of yours is an easy mark. There are so many ways to make loaded
> dice where it would be very difficult to tell how it was done. Yet,
> without knowing how cheaters are actually cheating, Las Vegas owners
> and statisticians are indeed able to pick cheaters out of the crowd
> simply by looking at the statistics or pattern of their play.
But unless they can demonstrate that they were cheating, they can't
take their money away from them.
> They
> might not know how they are cheating, but they do in fact know, with a
> very high degree of predictive value, that certain players are in fact
> cheaters and not just "lucky". These players will be asked to leave,
> or worse, and will be bared from returning - even without the casinos
> knowing how they cheated.
>
> I don't believe you for a minute that you'd accept the hypothesis of
> luck given certain "streaks" of anomalies - even if you didn't know
> how it was done exactly.
I'm saying that there *can( be no hypothesis of "luck", Sean! "Luck"
can't be falsified.
> If someone rolls double sixes on the craps
> table 100 times in a row, even if you analyze the dice every which way
> and can't find how they were loaded, you'd still conclude that they
> were loaded. You might not be able to prove it physically, but you
> could convince the vast majority of people, to include scientists,
> based on the statistics alone.
That is not testing any hypothesis of "luck". It's pretty elementary
statistics.
> In fact, that is what science does. It allows the acceptance of
> certain hypotheses, like dice being loaded, before knowing how they
> were loaded, to a certain degree of predictability that may in fact
> reach very high levels of confidence or statistical "significance".
What science does is form hypotheses from the evidence which are
tested by the acquisition of further evidence. What good scientists do
is to try to formulate those hypotheses in such a way that they can be
clearly falsified.
It's about time you learned some science, Sean.
RF
>
> > > You don't need to test the dice or the cards or know how your friend
> > > actually cheated to know with a very high degree of confidence that he
> > > did in fact cheat when he drew 4 aces 10 times in a row.
>
> > Why?
>
> If you have to ask this question, don't get into poker ; )
>
> > > This
> > > hypothesis has already been tested by previous experience to know that
> > > when such a situation occurs the odds overwhelming favor the alternate
> > > hypothesis of non-luck (i.e., non-random bias).
>
> > > > You need a
>
> ...
>
> read more >>
richardal...@googlemail.com
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 10:49 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Scientists look for falsification. But they also look for
> > > validation. Both are useful. And, dare I use the phrase,
> > > both are valid.
>
> > True.
> > However, all hypotheses start with evidence, and are an attempt to
> > explain that evidence. This means that verification is intrinsic: we
> > couldn't form an hypothesis *without* verification. Verification comes
> > naturally: in daily life, if we have a theory, we look for evidence
> > which *supports* that theory.
>
> Verification happens when the prediction of the hypothesis comes
> true. That means the hypothesis must be formed first - before it can
> be verified or supported by successful predictions.
More nonsense, Sean.
Science *starts* with the evidence.
It builds hypotheses *from* that evidence.
You can't form an hypothesis out of nothing.
> Therefore it is
> incorrect to say that a hypothesis cannot be formed without
> verification. Rather, verification cannot be achieved without the
> hypothesis being there first.
How do you form an hypothesis without there being anything it is
trying to explain?
>
> > It is much harder to look for evidence which would prove us wrong, and
> > in this sense looking for falsification of our theories is
> > intellectually more demanding.
>
> It is only hard on the ego. Without the personal ego, there is
> nothing intrinsically harder about looking for and finding contrary
> vs. supporting evidence for a hypothesis.
Yes there is, because hypotheses start with evidence, and therefore
verification.
> Either the prediction of
> the hypothesis does or does not come true. If it does, that it
> supporting evidence. If it does not, that it contrary or falsifying
> evidence.
>
> > One of the most impressive
> > characteristics of Darwin's "Origin" is the amount of space he devotes
> > to exploring ways in which his theory could be *falsified*.
>
> Yes, which is why you are working so hard against the concept of
> increasing gaps between what Darwin describes as "insensible
> gradations" between beneficial steppingstones in the evolution of high-
> level biosystems.
Only according to your unsupported assertions, Sean.
You know, the ones you know are such a load of bullshit that you won't
write them up as a paper.
> The lack of such insensible gradations would
> certainly falsify one of the main pillars of Darwinism - i.e., the
> proposed mechanism of random mutation and function-based selection.
Just as well that all the evidence we have uncovered supports the
theory of evolution in small incremental steps then, isn't it?
RF
>
> < snip rest >
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> On Dec 13, 10:42 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>
>
>
>
>
> 0catch.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 13, 10:49 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > Scientists look for falsification. But they also look for
> > > > validation. Both are useful. And, dare I use the phrase,
> > > > both are valid.
>
> > > True.
> > > However, all hypotheses start with evidence, and are an attempt to
> > > explain that evidence. This means that verification is intrinsic: we
> > > couldn't form an hypothesis *without* verification. Verification comes
> > > naturally: in daily life, if we have a theory, we look for evidence
> > > which *supports* that theory.
>
> > Verification happens when the prediction of the hypothesis comes
> > true. That means the hypothesis must be formed first - before it can
> > be verified or supported by successful predictions.
>
> More nonsense, Sean.
> Science *starts* with the evidence.
Science starts with observations.
> It builds hypotheses *from* that evidence.
It builds hypothesis to explain the observations in such a way that
the future can be predicted with better success.
> You can't form an hypothesis out of nothing.
You can form a hypothesis before it is verified however.
> > Therefore it is
> > incorrect to say that a hypothesis cannot be formed without
> > verification. Rather, verification cannot be achieved without the
> > hypothesis being there first.
>
> How do you form an hypothesis without there being anything it is
> trying to explain?
Hypotheses are formed from observations. They are then subject to
*potential* verification to see if the hypothesis successfully
predicts the future. If it does, that helps to verify or support the
hypothesis. If the prediction fails, that helps to falsify the
hypothesis.
> > > It is much harder to look for evidence which would prove us wrong, and
> > > in this sense looking for falsification of our theories is
> > > intellectually more demanding.
>
> > It is only hard on the ego. Without the personal ego, there is
> > nothing intrinsically harder about looking for and finding contrary
> > vs. supporting evidence for a hypothesis.
>
> Yes there is, because hypotheses start with evidence, and therefore
> verification.
Nope. A hypothesis starts with an observation. A hypothesis cannot be
verified before it makes any predictions about the future. It is the
prediction that is either verified or falsified. Predictions cannot
be made for the past - only the future. That is why both verification
and/or falsification are future events.
> > Either the prediction of
> > the hypothesis does or does not come true. If it does, that it
> > supporting evidence. If it does not, that it contrary or falsifying
> > evidence.
>
> > > One of the most impressive
> > > characteristics of Darwin's "Origin" is the amount of space he devotes
> > > to exploring ways in which his theory could be *falsified*.
>
> > Yes, which is why you are working so hard against the concept of
> > increasing gaps between what Darwin describes as "insensible
> > gradations" between beneficial steppingstones in the evolution of high-
> > level biosystems.
>
> Only according to your unsupported assertions, Sean.
> You know, the ones you know are such a load of bullshit that you won't
> write them up as a paper.
>
> > The lack of such insensible gradations would
> > certainly falsify one of the main pillars of Darwinism - i.e., the
> > proposed mechanism of random mutation and function-based selection.
>
> Just as well that all the evidence we have uncovered supports the
> theory of evolution in small incremental steps then, isn't it?
Where is this evidence? Please do cite the paper with the relevant
quote that shows such small incrimental steps between any system of
1000aa or greater and any other. Good luck!
The fact is, there simply is no such published evidence. That's the
problem with your proposed mechanism.
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
wf3h
0catch.com> wrote:
> Where is this evidence? Please do cite the paper with the relevant
> quote that shows such small incrimental steps between any system of
> 1000aa or greater and any other. Good luck!
>
> The fact is, there simply is no such published evidence. That's the
> problem with your proposed mechanism.
>
nor, of course, is there published evidence for the existence of god,
or that god has ever lifted a finger to do anything in the world
if evolution is wrong, it's wrong.
but 'god did it' is demonstrably wrong. and yet that's what seanpit
believes.
he's a living oxymoron.
wf3h
0catch.com> wrote:
>>
> I have also published a number of papers in very good science
> journals. However, which papers have been accepted by Behe or any
> other IDist to be published in mainstream science journals? Your so
> called "reputable journals" also have their "litmus test" - it just
> isn't published is all. But, if anything even hints and attempting to
> question or undermine the basic idea of Darwinian-style evolution, it
> won't be published in mainsteam journals regardless of the arguments
> made or evidence presented.
>
i graduated from lehigh in 1986. behe joined that year as an assoc.
prof. he's since been promoted to full professor, so it's obvious he's
not being discriminated against. the fact he cant get his voodoo
papers published in science journals says nothing about the journals.
richardal...@googlemail.com
That's what's called "evidence", Sean.
> They are then subject to
> *potential* verification to see if the hypothesis successfully
> predicts the future. If it does, that helps to verify or support the
> hypothesis. If the prediction fails, that helps to falsify the
> hypothesis.
>
> > > > It is much harder to look for evidence which would prove us wrong, and
> > > > in this sense looking for falsification of our theories is
> > > > intellectually more demanding.
>
> > > It is only hard on the ego. Without the personal ego, there is
> > > nothing intrinsically harder about looking for and finding contrary
> > > vs. supporting evidence for a hypothesis.
>
> > Yes there is, because hypotheses start with evidence, and therefore
> > verification.
>
> Nope. A hypothesis starts with an observation.
It's what's called "evidence", Sean.
You have not demonstrated that there is any need for evolution to make
such steps.
> The fact is, there simply is no such published evidence.
That's because there is no need for evolution to make such steps in
the way you insist it must.
> That's the
> problem with your proposed mechanism.
No Sean, it's *your* proposed mechanism.
RF
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Bob Casanova
>On Dec 13, 3:49 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>> >> Where did Richard claim otherwise?
>> >My Question:
>> >"The same thing is true if Arnold Schwarzenegger happened to win the
>> >California Lottery 5 times in a row. Can the hypothesis of random
>> >chance be completely falsified?"
>>
>> >Richard's response:
>> >"It can't be falsified at all. That's why it isn't a valid
>> >hypothesis. . . You need to propose a potential observation or
>> >measurement which could *NOT* be explained by 'luck'."
>>
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5dec4357a4652e72
>>
>> I see you asking whether a particular hypothesis can be
>> completely falsified, and I see Richard answering that no,
>> it can't, since it can't be falsified at all. Seems *you're*
>> the one insisting on "complete" falsification, not Richard.
>
>I asked a question that can be falsified to a statistical degree of
>"significance". So, when Richard argues that the hypothesis cannot be
>falsified at all, he, and evidently you, don't seem to understand that
>the hypothesis of randomness can indeed be subject to falsification -
>just not absolute falsification.
That doesn't seem to be what you reported he said.
>> >Also, in the first post of this thread Richard wrote:
>>
>> >"The turkey's hypothesis was falsified completely, utterly and
>> >absolutely."
>>
>> Quite possibly. However, noting that something (complete
>> falsification of a particular hypothesis) has happened is
>> *not* the same as stating that it must always happen. You
>> seem confused.
>
>This is exactly what Richard is saying. Ask him. He is in fact
>suggesting that if a hypothesis cannot be subject to complete
>falsification, 100%, that it isn't a valid scientific hyopothesis.
This also doesn't seem to be what you reported he said.
>> >You see, according to Richard, *all* valid scientific hypotheses much
>> >be subject to the potential of "absolute" falsification.
>>
>> On the evidence you supplied he doesn't make this claim.
>
>Ask him for an example of a valid scientific hypothesis that is not
>subject to completely, absolute, 100%, falsification. Ask him if he
>believes in the concept of partial falsification.
I'm only addressing what you posted. If your post
mischaracterized what he said it's your problem if it's
misunderstood.
>> *You* seem to, however.
>
>Your reading comprehesion needs just a wee bit of improvement in that
>case.
Not from what you wrote, it doesn't.
J. J. Lodder
> On Dec 12, 8:04 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > I can't remember where I heard this little tale of woe, but it
> > > illustrates very neatly the difference between falsification and
> > > verification. Does anyone know the source?
> >
> > > A turkey lived in a pen with lots of other turkeys. Every morning the
> > > farmer brought food and water, and checked the turkey's health. Being
> > > of a scientific turn of mind, the turkey formulated an
> > > hypothesis.
> > > "Turkeys are special creatures" it proposed "and the reason why the
> > > farmer exists is to care for us."
> >
> > > Every morning the farmer brought the turkeys food and water, and
> > > checked their health.
> > > Every morning the turkey's hypothesis was verified.
> > > After a hundred days of this, the turkey said "I think that my
> > > hypothesis is now so well-verified that we can take it as fact."
> >
> > > The next day was Christmas Eve, and the farmer came with an axe. The
> > > turkey's hypothesis was falsified completely, utterly and absolutely.
> >
> > > Verification is easy. We build hypotheses on evidence, so they are
> > > verified right from the start.
> > > Falsification is hard, and once a theory is falsified, it's rejected.
> >
> > > That's why pseudo-scientists look for verification, and real
> > > scientists look for falsification.
> >
> > The distinction works nicely only for toy theories,
> > like yours, and only naive Popperians, like you,
> > believe it is, or can be, that simple, in real science,
> >
> > Jan
>
> Well, the editors of the journals in which I publish my research think
> that I do real science.
Only because you haven't told them about your 100-day toy theory.
> Of course it's not as clear-cut as this in the real world. However, in
> "real science" we try to formulate hypotheses in such a way that they
> can be clearly falsified.
Try we may, but it is not always possible.
See for example my
Message-ID: <1ee2at1.1l2...@de-ster.demon.nl>
for a counter-example.
> What distinguishes junk science is that they don't look for potential
> falsification, only verification.
Some junk-scientists do inded look only for verifications,
while ignoring al counter-arguments.
That does not imply that Popper's prescription
makes sense for real science.
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:04:32 +0100, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
> ahahaha... Yeah, "real scientists" like the folks in the cult of SETI
> have a neat trick: they try to falsify a negative which is, when you
> think about it, the same as verifiying a positive. So instead of
> verifying that the hypothesis aliens exist, they try to falsify the
> hypothesis that aliens do not exist. ahahaha... They call it the
> "scientific method". It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
That's the way it goes.
Just existence of something can only be verified,
not falsified.
That doesn't make a prediction that something
(like a top quark for example) must exist unscientific,
even when further conditions on the supposed existence
cannot be supplied.
Jan
Seanpit
>
> > > How do you form an hypothesis without there being anything it is
> > > trying to explain?
>
> > Hypotheses are formed from observations.
>
> That's what's called "evidence", Sean.
That's what's called raw data. The raw data is nothing until it is
interpreted. The interpretation is the hypothesis. When the
hypothesis is first formed, it is as yet untested and therefore
unverified. It does not start out "verified" as you suggest because
none of its predictions have yet been tested to see if they come true.
How can you verify something before it is actually tested?
> > > Yes there is, because hypotheses start with evidence, and therefore
> > > verification.
>
> > Nope. A hypothesis starts with an observation.
>
> It's what's called "evidence", Sean.
Verification concerns the hypothesis that is presented to explain the
data of the observations. The hypothesis cannot be verified without
first being tested.
> > A hypothesis cannot be
> > verified before it makes any predictions about the future. It is the
> > prediction that is either verified or falsified. Predictions cannot
> > be made for the past - only the future. That is why both verification
> > and/or falsification are future events.
Exactly . . . Can you answer how a hypothesis can be verified before
its predictions have even been tested?
> > > Just as well that all the evidence we have uncovered supports the
> > > theory of evolution in small incremental steps then, isn't it?
>
> > Where is this evidence? Please do cite the paper with the relevant
> > quote that shows such small incremental steps between any system of
> > 1000aa or greater and any other. Good luck!
>
> You have not demonstrated that there is any need for evolution to make
> such steps.
You just said that you have uncovered evidence that supports the idea
that everything evolved via small incremental steps. Upon what do you
base this assertion? Where is this evidence? Where have these small
gaps been demonstrated between the supposed evolutionary
steppingstones for complex systems? If you actually have such
evidence, perhaps you could actually cite a paragraph or two from a
real publication? I've been waiting for this evidence to be presented
for years now. Where is it?
> > The fact is, there simply is no such published evidence.
>
> That's because there is no need for evolution to make such steps in
> the way you insist it must.
There is no need to cross huge gaps IF the gaps are indeed as small as
you suggest. That's certainly true; a valid counter argument indeed -
if the gaps are actually small. You say you have direct genetic
evidence for small gaps. Where is this evidence?
> > That's the
> > problem with your proposed mechanism.
>
> No Sean, it's *your* proposed mechanism.
The mechanism here is random mutation and function-based selection.
That's the mechanism. This is no strawman version of your mechanism.
This is the real thing. If the gaps between potentially beneficial
steppingstones at higher levels of functional complexity are too big,
your mechanism will not work this side of trillions upon trillions of
years of time. If the gaps are small, like you say, then the
mechanism will work just fine - like it does at very low levels of
functional complexity (i.e., less than 1,000 fairly specified
residues).
So, the only real question is, are the gaps big or small? You say you
have direct genetic evidence for the gaps being small at high levels.
Where is this evidence Richard? Please do present the reference with
a relevant quotation.
> RF
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 06:41:56 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Seanpit
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 13, 3:49 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> >> >> Where did Richard claim otherwise?
> >> >My Question:
> >> >"The same thing is true if Arnold Schwarzenegger happened to win the
> >> >California Lottery 5 times in a row. Can the hypothesis of random
> >> >chance be completely falsified?"
>
> >> >Richard's response:
> >> >"It can't be falsified at all. That's why it isn't a valid
> >> >hypothesis. . . You need to propose a potential observation or
> >> >measurement which could *NOT* be explained by 'luck'."
>
> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/5dec4357a4652e72
>
> >> I see you asking whether a particular hypothesis can be
> >> completely falsified, and I see Richard answering that no,
> >> it can't, since it can't be falsified at all. Seems *you're*
> >> the one insisting on "complete" falsification, not Richard.
>
> >I asked a question that can be falsified to a statistical degree of
> >"significance". So, when Richard argues that the hypothesis cannot be
> >falsified at all, he, and evidently you, don't seem to understand that
> >the hypothesis of randomness can indeed be subject to falsification -
> >just not absolute falsification.
>
> That doesn't seem to be what you reported he said.
I gave you a direct quote. What else do you want? You also have an
entire thread here of him saying just this very thing . . . Read it
if you think I'm off base or if you think the quotations I provided
don't really represent Richard's true position.
> >> >Also, in the first post of this thread Richard wrote:
>
> >> >"The turkey's hypothesis was falsified completely, utterly and
> >> >absolutely."
>
> >> Quite possibly. However, noting that something (complete
> >> falsification of a particular hypothesis) has happened is
> >> *not* the same as stating that it must always happen. You
> >> seem confused.
>
> >This is exactly what Richard is saying. Ask him. He is in fact
> >suggesting that if a hypothesis cannot be subject to complete
> >falsification, 100%, that it isn't a valid scientific hyopothesis.
>
> This also doesn't seem to be what you reported he said.
I reported direct quotes. If you don't believe it, read this thread
or ask him yourself.
> >> >You see, according to Richard, *all* valid scientific hypotheses much
> >> >be subject to the potential of "absolute" falsification.
>
> >> On the evidence you supplied he doesn't make this claim.
>
> >Ask him for an example of a valid scientific hypothesis that is not
> >subject to completely, absolute, 100%, falsification. Ask him if he
> >believes in the concept of partial falsification.
>
> I'm only addressing what you posted. If your post
> mischaracterized what he said it's your problem if it's
> misunderstood.
I didn't mischaracterize Richard's position or what he said. If you
really think I did, ask Richard yourself or read through his posts in
this thread.
> >> *You* seem to, however.
>
> >Your reading comprehesion needs just a wee bit of improvement in that
> >case.
>
> Not from what you wrote, it doesn't.
Yes, it does.
> --
Seanpit
Just like the fact that evolutionists can't get their ideas published
in creationists publications if creationism were mainstream. The
bias, you see, isn't against the person, but against anything that
even hints at undermining the basis pillars of Darwinian-style
evolution. It doesn't matter how prominent a scientist you are or
used to be, if you start thinking that the basic idea of Darwinism
might be wrong for reasons X, Y or Z, you won't get either X, Y, or Z
published - not even if you are a nobel prize winner.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
hersheyh
And, of course, you couldn't get your sloppy numerological reasons why
*you* think Darwinism is wrong published for perfectly valid reasons:
namely that your argument is based on nothing but GIGO numerology
accomplished by an incompetent amateur misleading others (and probably
himself) about what numbers mean, performing manipulations of those
numbers that show he doesn't understand even simple mathematical
concepts and for which he has no empirical justification, and, when he
gets a number he likes from these manipulations, misleading people by
saying it represents something it doesn't. Such research *rarely*
wins nobel prizes.
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
hersheyh
>
> The mechanism here is random mutation and function-based selection.
> That's the mechanism. This is no strawman version of your mechanism.
> This is the real thing. If
Not "if", Sean. The word you want is "When". "If" implies that we
have no evidence.
> the gaps between potentially beneficial
> steppingstones at higher levels of functional complexity are too big,
> your mechanism will not work this side of trillions upon trillions of
> years of time. If
Not "if", Sean. The word you want is "When". "If" implies that we
have no evidence.
> the gaps are small, like you say, then the
> mechanism will work just fine - like it does at very low levels of
> functional complexity (i.e., less than 1,000 fairly specified
> residues).
The "when" of the corrected wording above is independent of whatever
you mean by "level of functional complexity" *unless* you mean, by
that term "cases where I am arbitrarily assuming small/large gaps".
"If" the definition of "level of functional complexity" is the same as
"minimum actual gap size", then the statement you have would be
correct.
> So, the only real question is, are the gaps big or small? You say you
> have direct genetic evidence for the gaps being small at high levels.
What would prevent the "minimum actual gap distance" from being small
at any level? Unless the definition of "level of complexity" *means*
'cases where the minimum actual gap distance is small/large'.
> Where is this evidence Richard? Please do present the reference with
> a relevant quotation.
Examples of the evolution of larger structures to produce either
modified or novel functionalities compared to the functionalities of
the starting system have been given. In each case you have dismissed
that particular example of evolution by waving your hand and saying
that it 'doesn't count' because it involved only a 'minor'
modification of the previous system (antibiotic resistance, formation
of a new linkage between a non-functional FliG and FliF, etc.). Which
can only lead us to conclude that "level of complexity" is your "code"
for "size of the minimum actual gap distance" and you, therefore,
would not accept any example that would happen by the mechanisms that
evolution actually uses, which only happens *when* (not *if*) the
minimum gap distance is small.
>
> > RF
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 9:07 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > How do you form an hypothesis without there being anything it is
> > > > trying to explain?
>
> > > Hypotheses are formed from observations.
>
> > That's what's called "evidence", Sean.
>
> That's what's called raw data.
It's called "evidence"!
> The raw data is nothing until it is
> interpreted.
That's called "formulating an hypothesis"
> The interpretation is the hypothesis.
Yes, an interpretation of the evidence.
> When the
> hypothesis is first formed, it is as yet untested and therefore
> unverified.
It is supported by the evidence on which it is based.
> It does not start out "verified" as you suggest because
> none of its predictions have yet been tested to see if they come true.
> How can you verify something before it is actually tested?
Because it is based on evidence which verifies it. How on earth can
you build an hypothesis which does *not* support the evidence on
which it is built?
>
> > > > Yes there is, because hypotheses start with evidence, and therefore
> > > > verification.
>
> > > Nope. A hypothesis starts with an observation.
>
> > It's what's called "evidence", Sean.
>
> Verification concerns the hypothesis that is presented to explain the
> data of the observations.
It's also the data - i.e. the evidence - which supports the
hypothesis.,
> The hypothesis cannot be verified without
> first being tested.
As it is built on the evidence, of course it can! The evidence
supports the hypothesis. That's what's called "verification".
>
> > > A hypothesis cannot be
> > > verified before it makes any predictions about the future. It is the
> > > prediction that is either verified or falsified. Predictions cannot
> > > be made for the past - only the future. That is why both verification
> > > and/or falsification are future events.
>
> Exactly . . . Can you answer how a hypothesis can be verified before
> its predictions have even been tested?
Because the evidence supports it. That's called "verification".
>
> > > > Just as well that all the evidence we have uncovered supports the
> > > > theory of evolution in small incremental steps then, isn't it?
>
> > > Where is this evidence? Please do cite the paper with the relevant
> > > quote that shows such small incremental steps between any system of
> > > 1000aa or greater and any other. Good luck!
>
> > You have not demonstrated that there is any need for evolution to make
> > such steps.
>
> You just said that you have uncovered evidence that supports the idea
> that everything evolved via small incremental steps.
Yes, and I've posted links to several papers which support that
conclusion from the thousands of similar papers out there. You don't
offer an alternative explanation for the evidence which can be tested
using the tools of science, so I presume that you have no such
alternative.
Why should I waste my time posting more links?
> Upon what do you
> base this assertion? Where is this evidence? Where have these small
> gaps been demonstrated between the supposed evolutionary
> steppingstones for complex systems? If you actually have such
> evidence, perhaps you could actually cite a paragraph or two from a
> real publication? I've been waiting for this evidence to be presented
> for years now. Where is it?
This is quite frankly a lie, Sean. I and others have posted links to
papers which do just that, and you have offered no alternative
interpretation for the evidence. Producing meaningless word salad such
as "common design" is not an explanation.
>
> > > The fact is, there simply is no such published evidence.
>
> > That's because there is no need for evolution to make such steps in
> > the way you insist it must.
>
> There is no need to cross huge gaps IF the gaps are indeed as small as
> you suggest.
Well, that's what the evidence shows.
> That's certainly true; a valid counter argument indeed -
> if the gaps are actually small. You say you have direct genetic
> evidence for small gaps. Where is this evidence?
I and others have posted several links to papers presenting this
evidence. You just dismiss it out of hand or ignore it, then come back
later hoping that this has been forgotten and lie that no such
evidence has been presented.
Do you think that any reputable scientist would do that?
>
> > > That's the
> > > problem with your proposed mechanism.
>
> > No Sean, it's *your* proposed mechanism.
>
> The mechanism here is random mutation and function-based selection.
> That's the mechanism. This is no strawman version of your mechanism.
Yes it is, because you insist on an adaptive landscape of isolated
islands of function, which is not the adaptive landscape of
evolutionary biology. You have even admitted that you adaptive
landscape is not that of evolutionary biologists.
So why are you now pretending that your model is the same as that of
evolutionary biologists? You have already conceded that it isn't.
Do you think that we're all as stupid and gullible as the creationists
you are trying to impress?
> This is the real thing. If the gaps between potentially beneficial
> steppingstones at higher levels of functional complexity are too big,
> your mechanism will not work this side of trillions upon trillions of
> years of time. If the gaps are small, like you say, then the
> mechanism will work just fine - like it does at very low levels of
> functional complexity (i.e., less than 1,000 fairly specified
> residues).
Oh, stop bullshiting Sean.
We've heard it all before, and no matter how many times you repeat it,
it's still bullshit.
You've invented and adaptive landscape of isolated islands of function
which is not supported by any evidence. You have already conceded that
this is not the adaptive landscape of evolutionary biologists, so
don't pretend that it is the same. It's simply not true.
Your model doesn't work, and that's why you invented it.
>
> So, the only real question is, are the gaps big or small? You say you
> have direct genetic evidence for the gaps being small at high levels.
> Where is this evidence Richard? Please do present the reference with
> a relevant quotation.
>
> > RF
No Sean. I've done it before, and all you do is ignore the evidence
and then come back later with the lie that you have not been offered
any evidence.
If you had any confidence that your pathetic "theory" had any value,
you would not be wasting your time posting it here so that the
scientists can rip it to shreds and expose your dishonesty. All you
are doing it strutting your ego to an audience of creationists who you
know are too ignorant and gullible to see through the sham.
I've challenged you to write your "theories" up as a paper, and evade
and use facile excuses.
I've asked you if there is anyone who you *do* think is capable of
understanding your "theories". You ignore the question. You don't even
have enough courage of your convictions to present them to the DI,
probably because you know that they are so weak, ignorant and
incoherent that not even the DI will accept them.
So you post your rubbish on your web site and pretend that it makes
you a scientist offering something of scientific value.
You're pathetic, Sean.
RF
wf3h
>>
> And, of course, you couldn't get your sloppy numerological reasons why
> *you* think Darwinism is wrong
that's a great characterization...mebbe we should send him a copy of
the kabbalah and let him dig into it...
>
>
wf3h
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 8:53 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > i graduated from lehigh in 1986. behe joined that year as an assoc.
> > prof. he's since been promoted to full professor, so it's obvious he's
> > not being discriminated against. the fact he cant get his voodoo
> > papers published in science journals says nothing about the journals.
>
> Just like the fact that evolutionists can't get their ideas published
res ipsa loquitur. in 1200, creationism would have been 'science'
because religion was used to explain the world. think about your own
profession....medicine. the first anatomists couldn't get published
because autopsies were considered a violation of the sacred human
body.
scientists dont use religion anymore because it's useless. people like
you, however, INSIST that religion MUST be used because, after all,
it's religion.
The
> bias, you see, isn't against the person, but against anything that
> even hints at undermining the basis pillars of Darwinian-style
> evolution.
that's simply wrong. there are a number of mechanisms of evolution and
you know it...genetic drift, etc. if what you say was true, those
other mechanisms would never have seen the light of day. thus...you're
WRONG.
your castigation of 'darwinian style' evolution is meaningless.
It doesn't matter how prominent a scientist you are or
> used to be, if you start thinking that the basic idea of Darwinism
> might be wrong for reasons X, Y or Z, you won't get either X, Y, or Z
> published - not even if you are a nobel prize winner.
proof?
why...none. none at all. in fact we have counter examples...the
meteorite hypothesis of dinosaur extinction. i'm old enough to
remember when luria...a nobel prize winner...was thought wacko for
suggesting it.
but, guess what, sean? rather than using religion and complaining that
jesus was being excluded from science, he marshalled his evidence and
won the day.
that's what science is. it's not a conspiracy. and no one proves that
better than behe. if what you say was true, he'd be at a community
college in the bible belt rather than a full professor at a nationally
ranked university.
creationism breeds paranoia. you just proved it. grow up.
>
Seanpit
>
> No Sean. I've done it before, and all you do is ignore the evidence
> and then come back later with the lie that you have not been offered
> any evidence.
If you've done it before, it should be no problem to list the link to
where you've presented any paper demonstrating small gaps between any
higher level system. You've done no such thing. All the papers you've
presented before have made assumptions of small gaps. None of them
have actually demonstrated small gaps between any higher-level
system. None of them has actually quantified the gap distances
between higher level systems at all. Not one of your references did
this. To claim otherwise, at this point, is a bold-face deliberate
mischaracterization of the actual evidence. Nothing else.
< snip rest >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 12:46 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > They say (and I quote from their web site)
> > > > "The main feature distinguishing signals produced by a transmitter
> > > > from those produced by natural processes is their spectral width, i.e.
> > > > how much room on the radio dial do they take up? Any signal less than
> > > > about 300 Hz wide must be, as far as we know, artificially produced."
>
> > > >http://www.seti.org/about-us/faq.php#anchor321907
>
> > > You just listed a quote were SETI scientists are in fact trying to
> > > distinguish between natural and artifactual signals by finding a type
> > > of signal that is produced by one and not the other.
>
> > No, they are looking for signals of a type which they know to be
> > artificially produced.
>
> That's not all Richard. The signals they are looking for are also
> thought to be beyond the realm of non-artifactual production. That's
> why they use the word "distinguish".
They use the word "distinguishing" in the sentence "The main feature
distinguishing signals produced by a transmitter from those produced
by natural processes is their spectral width, i.e. how much room on
the radio dial do they take up?"
They are specifically looking for signals of a particular type because
they have characteristics of those made by a known process.
That's not what they are doing. They are looking for signals with
characteristics of a *KNOWN* artificial process. They are not ruling
out a priori the possibility that a natural process could produce such
a signal on the basis of generalisations about the characteristics of
*ALL* artificial or natural processes.
> You simply cannot determine artifact by knowing how similar
> objects can be produced. That's NOT enough information to determine
> artifact. Not even close!
Pure, unmitigated bullshit, Sean.
If you think that any scientist has ever concluded that any object is
an artifact without proposing an hypothesis of how it was made, post a
link.
You snipped this challenge from my post the last time I made it, but
this is exactly the sort of dishonest evasion I have come to expect
from you.
>
> > > > Saying that they are looking for signals from a transmitter is rather
> > > > a strong hint they are looking for signal made by *known* processes,
> > > > wouldn't you?
>
> > > Not without knowing that non-deliberate processes do not come remotely
> > > close to producing the same type of signal.
>
> > Well, you'd better inform SETI then. They think that they are looking
> > for signals with characteristics of those which are known to be
> > artificial. Evidently you know more about what they are doing than
> > they do themselves.
>
> I know more about what they are looking for and why than you know -
> that's for sure.
Bullshit, Sean.
This is what SETI themselves say:
"The main feature distinguishing signals produced by a transmitter
from those produced by natural processes is their spectral width, i.e.
how much room on the radio dial do they take up? Any signal less than
about 300 Hz wide must be, as far as we know, artificially produced.
Such narrow-band signals are what all SETI experiments look for. Other
tell-tale characteristics include a signal that is completely
polarized or the existence of coded information on the signal"
>
> > > Without this information
> > > regarding the limits of non-deliberate processes acting on the medium
> > > in question, you could not make this conclusion. If you had
> > > absolutely no prior experience with nature as it interacted with
> > > radiowaves, you'd have no idea if a narrow band signal was or was not
> > > a likely artifact. How do you not get that?
>
> > Which is why SETI is looking for a *candidate* signal whose
> > characteristic match those of signals which we *know* to be
> > artificial.
>
> That's not enough Richard.
That's what SETI are doing. You'd better tell them they've got it all
wrong.
> It is not enough to know that a signal has
> similar features to signals that are known to be artifactual. A
> particular signal that is known to be artifactually produce can look
> for all the world like white noise.
They are not looking for white noise.
> But, since it is known to be an
> artifact, it must mean, according to your logic, that all signals that
> look like white noise are also most likely artifactual.
That's not my logic, Sean. It's another example of your dishonest
misrepresentation of what I am arguing.
> Why then
> aren't SETI scientists looking for white noise signals? Hmmmmm?
> Think about it . . .
Because we know that white noise can be produced by natural as well as
as artificial processes.
That's why they are looking for a specific kind of signal which they
*know* is produced by artificial processes, and which no *known*
natural process can mimic.
>
> < snip >
Oh dear, Sean: You snipped that awkward question again.
Don't you think that your evasion is becoming so blatant that even the
creationists will notice it? I have contempt for their intellectual
capacity, but surely *you* don't think that they are so stupid that
they won't notice that this is the second time you've evaded it?
Let's put the rest back in again so that we can watch you squirm a bit
more.
> > I'm not aware of any publication which attempts to distinguish between
> > "deliberate" and "non-deliberate" phenomena.
> Then you haven't really looking into the subject very far.
Well, you seem to be claiming that you have.
So how about a citation?
Surely you don't just expect others to take your word for it?
I'll take your evasion as just more evidence that you are making
unfounded assertions.
So who *do* you think is capable of understanding your "theory", Sean?
It's very obvious that you are not persuading anyone here, which
rather supports my hypothesis that you post here to strut your ego in
front of an ignorant and gullible creationist audience.
Of course, you could falsify my hypothesis by writing up your "theory"
as an academic paper and submitting it for publication in an academic
journal.
All you are doing is providing me with verification.
RF
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
first been taken from a fully formed flagellar system and show that it
could be linked up with any other system to form a united novel system
with flagellar motility function with just one or two mutational
steps.
Your only examples (FliG/FliF) start with subparts that were
originally part of a fully formed flagellum. That's nonsense Howard.
That explains how parts that were originally engineered for a
particular function can perform the same function with a few minor
modifications. That says nothing about the likelihood of such parts
existing as parts of other non-flagellar systems in such a way that
they could be easily linked together with one or two slight
modifications to produces a flagellar motility system.
For further reading on why Howard's example is very unlikely to have
done the job see:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
0catch.com> wrote:
> Present an actual system that exists or has existed without having
> first been taken from a fully formed flagellar system and show that it
> could be linked up with any other system to form a united novel system
> with flagellar motility function with just one or two mutational
> steps.
Then show where this is wrong:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
I know that you won't because you never do. You testiculate* and
insist that everyone else is wrong and you are right, but if asked to
put your stupid "theory" to the test by writing it up and submitting
it to an academic journal, you bluster and evade, snip the relevant
parts from the post you are responding to and run away.
Keep this up and even the creationists who you have managed to fool so
far might start to realise that you are just a big girl's blouse, all
mouth an no trousers.
Go for it, Sean. Try for a first: be so blatantly dishonest that even
the *creationists* realise what you are doing!
<snipped>
RF
*testiculate - "wave hands and talk bollocks"
Seanpit
> On Dec 15, 5:23 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>
> 0catch.com> wrote:
> > Present an actual system that exists or has existed without having
> > first been taken from a fully formed flagellar system and show that it
> > could be linked up with any other system to form a united novel system
> > with flagellar motility function with just one or two mutational
> > steps.
>
> Then show where this is wrong:http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
This is in direct response to Matzke's essay on the flagellum:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html
By the way, nowhere in Matzke's essay does he detail the actual number
of residue changes needed to get from one one of his proposed steps to
the next. He just doesn't mention or get into this anywhere in his
entire essay. He simply asserts that the needed changes are few, but
does provide any actual molecular detail in this regard nor any
statistical analysis or predictions about how many random mutations
would likely be needed to cross between any of his suggested
steppingstones.
> I know that you won't because you never do.
I've responded directly to Matzke several times in this forum and my
response to his essay has been on my website for almost two years.
>You testiculate* and
> insist that everyone else is wrong and you are right, but if asked to
> put your stupid "theory" to the test by writing it up and submitting
> it to an academic journal, you bluster and evade, snip the relevant
> parts from the post you are responding to and run away.
I've responded in detail to every one of your arguments at some point.
You just continually post the very same comments over and over again
as if I never responded.
> Keep this up and even the creationists who you have managed to fool so
> far might start to realise that you are just a big girl's blouse, all
> mouth an no trousers.
>
> Go for it, Sean. Try for a first: be so blatantly dishonest that even
> the *creationists* realise what you are doing!
>
> RF
>
> *testiculate - "wave hands and talk bollocks"
Where are your own arguments beyond assertions from authority alone?
Talk about smoke and mirrors and endless bluster! You present
references without any relevant quotes all the time. You are a
reference miner, which is worse than a quote miner. Your references
do not come remotely close to supporting what you assert. If you
think otherwise, please do present a relevant quote along with your
reference next time that at least appears to support your assertions.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
< snip >
> > It is not enough to know that a signal has
> > similar features to signals that are known to be artifactual. A
> > particular signal that is known to be artifactually produce can look
> > for all the world like white noise.
>
> They are not looking for white noise.
That's right . . . but why not?
> > But, since it is known to be an
> > artifact, it must mean, according to your logic, that all signals that
> > look like white noise are also most likely artifactual.
>
> That's not my logic, Sean. It's another example of your dishonest
> misrepresentation of what I am arguing.
You've been saying all along that all one needs to look for to detect
artifact is evidence of manufacture. You've specifically told me I
was wrong when I suggested that one needs to also have at least some
idea as to the limits of non-deliberate natural processes. What else
am I supposed to conclude about the implications of your argument?
> > Why then
> > aren't SETI scientists looking for white noise signals? Hmmmmm?
> > Think about it . . .
>
> Because we know that white noise can be produced by natural as well as
> as artificial processes.
Ah ha! That's my whole point!
> That's why they are looking for a specific kind of signal which they
> *know* is produced by artificial processes, and which no *known*
> natural process can mimic.
Exactly . . . They have to have at least some idea as to the limits
of known natural processes. They then use these known limits as a
basis to induce that no unknown natural processes are likely to
produce a mimic either. This assumption cannot be proven to any
absolute degree. That is why the hypothesis of artifact or deliberate
manufacture cannot be supported to any sort of absolute degree. An
unknown natural cause could always have been responsible. This
possibility cannot be completely falsified. But, it can be falsified
to a useful *degree* of confidence.
I'm not quite sure what you are arguing against at this point?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Seanpit
Yes, so you claim. So "It can't be falsified at all" is
equivalent, to you, to "It can't be 100% falsified"? Sorry,
but actually it isn't. It's not even close. *You're* the one
claiming that falsification of your lottery scenario is
possible, and he's claiming it isn't; "we need 100%
falsification" was your interpretation of the implication of
his claim, not the claim itself, and doesn't really enter
into your dispute. If you believe that you're correct
regarding the possibility of falsification provide evidence,
but don't set up strawmen such as your fabricated "100%"
claim.
Nope; sorry. Learn to read.
richardal...@googlemail.com
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 10:27 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 5:23 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>
> > 0catch.com> wrote:
> > > Present an actual system that exists or has existed without having
> > > first been taken from a fully formed flagellar system and show that it
> > > could be linked up with any other system to form a united novel system
> > > with flagellar motility function with just one or two mutational
> > > steps.
>
> > Then show where this is wrong:http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
>
> This is in direct response to Matzke's essay on the flagellum:
>
> http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html
>
> By the way, nowhere in Matzke's essay does he detail the actual number
> of residue changes needed to get from one one of his proposed steps to
> the next.
He does, however, go into great detail about the mutations required.
> He just doesn't mention or get into this anywhere in his
> entire essay. He simply asserts that the needed changes are few, but
> does provide any actual molecular detail in this regard
This is an outright falsehood.
> nor any
> statistical analysis or predictions about how many random mutations
> would likely be needed to cross between any of his suggested
> steppingstones.
He details the mutations requires and the sites at which they are most
likely to have occured, and presents evidence to support his
conclusions.
>
> > I know that you won't because you never do.
>
> I've responded directly to Matzke several times in this forum and my
> response to his essay has been on my website for almost two years.
And your response does not address any the evidence. It merely insist
that unless we interpret evolutionary processes within your
deliberately non-working model of evolution - i.e. one of an adaptive
landscape of isolated islands of function - it must be wrong.
>
> >You testiculate* and
> > insist that everyone else is wrong and you are right, but if asked to
> > put your stupid "theory" to the test by writing it up and submitting
> > it to an academic journal, you bluster and evade, snip the relevant
> > parts from the post you are responding to and run away.
>
> I've responded in detail to every one of your arguments at some point.
Nol you haven't, Sean. You're lying again. You snip most of my posts
when the going gets tough, and then pretend that you have addressed
the points i have raised.
> You just continually post the very same comments over and over again
> as if I never responded.
You don't.
For example, you have not told us who you think *is* capable of
judging the validity of your "theory" in spite of the fact that I have
asked the question several times.
> > Keep this up and even the creationists who you have managed to fool so
> > far might start to realise that you are just a big girl's blouse, all
> > mouth an no trousers.
>
> > Go for it, Sean. Try for a first: be so blatantly dishonest that even
> > the *creationists* realise what you are doing!
>
> > RF
>
> > *testiculate - "wave hands and talk bollocks"
>
> Where are your own arguments beyond assertions from authority alone?
Another falsehood, Sean.
I have never made *any* argument from authority.
> Talk about smoke and mirrors and endless bluster! You present
> references without any relevant quotes all the time.
If I am providing the references, why should I need to present
"relevant quote"?
Are you incapable of reading for comprehension?
> You are a
> reference miner, which is worse than a quote miner.
Well, it seems that all scientists are "reference miners" in that
case. All the scientific papers I have ever read have a list of
references at the end.
> Your references
> do not come remotely close to supporting what you assert.
Oh, please! This from someone who produces references which he doesn't
understand, and claims that they support a model which flatly
contradicts the conclusions of the authors and which does not present
data at a scale of resolution at which such support could be seen!
> If you
> think otherwise, please do present a relevant quote along with your
> reference next time that at least appears to support your assertions.
Why should I need to present "relevant quotes"?
Quotations can easily be used out of context to give the impression
that the authors hold different views and have formed conclusions
other than those they have. That's what creationists do all the time.
Scientific papers rarely contain direct quotes.
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 7:59 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > No Sean. I've done it before, and all you do is ignore the evidence
> > and then come back later with the lie that you have not been offered
> > any evidence.
>
> If you've done it before, it should be no problem to list the link to
> where you've presented any paper demonstrating small gaps between any
> higher level system.
I've done so in the paper which presented evidence for the evolution
of "milk" secretion in cockroaches.
> You've done no such thing.
What about the paper on "milk" secretion in cockroaches? And the other
references I provided presenting evidence for the evolution of novel
functions?
> All the papers you've
> presented before have made assumptions of small gaps.
The papers make the assumption that evolution occurs in the way we
observe in nature and can replicate in the laboratory.
Why should anyone assume that it is constrained by a model invented by
Sean Pitman which is not supported by evidence and exists only so that
Sean Pitman can pretend that evolution can't happen?
> None of them
> have actually demonstrated small gaps between any higher-level
> system. None of them has actually quantified the gap distances
> between higher level systems at all.
Why should they? This is a requirement of your deliberately flawed
model of evolution.
> Not one of your references did
> this. To claim otherwise, at this point, is a bold-face deliberate
> mischaracterization of the actual evidence. Nothing else.
The mischaracterisation of the evidence which is going on here is your
insistence on an evolutionary landscape of isolated islands of
function. You have no evidence whatsoever to support your assertion
that this is a realistic model.
Why are you pretending that your model is the same as that of
evolutionary biologists? You have already conceded that it isn't.
Do you think that we're all as stupid and gullible as the creationists
you are trying to impress?
richardal...@googlemail.com
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 9:22 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> > > It is not enough to know that a signal has
> > > similar features to signals that are known to be artifactual. A
> > > particular signal that is known to be artifactually produce can look
> > > for all the world like white noise.
>
> > They are not looking for white noise.
>
> That's right . . . but why not?
Because known natural processes can produce white noise.
>
> > > But, since it is known to be an
> > > artifact, it must mean, according to your logic, that all signals that
> > > look like white noise are also most likely artifactual.
>
> > That's not my logic, Sean. It's another example of your dishonest
> > misrepresentation of what I am arguing.
>
> You've been saying all along that all one needs to look for to detect
> artifact is evidence of manufacture.
I'm telling you that this is how scientist form conclusions that an
object is an artifact.
You insist that I'm wrong, but cannot produce any scientific paper
from any discipline to support this assertion.
It seems that I'm correct, doesn't it?
> You've specifically told me I
> was wrong when I suggested that one needs to also have at least some
> idea as to the limits of non-deliberate natural processes. What else
> am I supposed to conclude about the implications of your argument?
That scientists work from the evidence.
>
> > > Why then
> > > aren't SETI scientists looking for white noise signals? Hmmmmm?
> > > Think about it . . .
>
> > Because we know that white noise can be produced by natural as well as
> > as artificial processes.
>
> Ah ha! That's my whole point!
No, it's not your "point". Your "point" seems to be that because
unknown natural processes *might* produce the same clues as those made
by known artificial processes, there's no point in looking for any
clues as to how anything was made.
>
> > That's why they are looking for a specific kind of signal which they
> > *know* is produced by artificial processes, and which no *known*
> > natural process can mimic.
>
> Exactly . . . They have to have at least some idea as to the limits
> of known natural processes.
No, they are looking for signal which no *known* natural process can
mimic. They are not setting limits on what natural processes can do.
> They then use these known limits as a
> basis to induce that no unknown natural processes are likely to
> produce a mimic either.
Sean, they don't. They work on the assumption that a signal produced
by a *known* artficial process, and which has characteristics not
known in signals produced by any *known* natural process is a good
candidate for a signal made by an extraterrestrial civilisation.
They don't attempt to set limits on what unknown natural processes can
do.
They don't leap to the conclusion of extraterrestrial intelligence if
such a signal is detected.
> This assumption cannot be proven to any
> absolute degree. That is why the hypothesis of artifact or deliberate
> manufacture cannot be supported to any sort of absolute degree. An
> unknown natural cause could always have been responsible. This
> possibility cannot be completely falsified. But, it can be falsified
> to a useful *degree* of confidence.
>
> I'm not quite sure what you are arguing against at this point?
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Evidently you are incapable of reading for comprehension, Sean.
RF
Seanpit
< snip >
> > > That's why they are looking for a specific kind of signal which they
> > > *know* is produced by artificial processes, and which no *known*
> > > natural process can mimic.
>
> > Exactly . . . They have to have at least some idea as to the limits
> > of known natural processes.
>
> No, they are looking for signal which no *known* natural process can
> mimic. They are not setting limits on what natural processes can do.
Do you not see this sentence as self-contradictory? You just said
that scientists are looking for a signal which no known natural
process can mimic. Then you go on to say that these scientists are
setting no limits on what natural processes can do? How on Earth can
they conclude the activity of deliberate manufacture unless they are
in fact setting limits on what they think all natural processes are
capable of achieving with regard to mimicry of your "tool marks" or
whatever?
Your suggestion here that scientists determine limits of the known
without really suggesting any limits of the unknown doesn't make any
sense to me. That's what science is all about. Making predictions
regarding the nature of the unknown based on that which is known. If
they didn't believe that the known said anything worthwhile about the
potential of the unknown, what would be the point in determining the
limits of the known? Hmmmmm?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 07:03:58 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Seanpit
Where did I make this claim? I'm not the one who said, "It can't be
falsified at all". Richard made that mistaken claim - not me. It can
be falsified, but only in degrees that always fall short of 100%
perfection.
> Sorry,
> but actually it isn't. It's not even close. *You're* the one
> claiming that falsification of your lottery scenario is
> possible, and he's claiming it isn't; "we need 100%
> falsification" was your interpretation of the implication of
> his claim, not the claim itself, and doesn't really enter
> into your dispute. If you believe that you're correct
> regarding the possibility of falsification provide evidence,
> but don't set up strawmen such as your fabricated "100%"
> claim.
The evidence is statistical evidence. The hypothesis of drawing the
winning CA Lottery ticket 10 times in a row by sheer chance is
essentially falsified, statistically, to a very high degree of
"significance". While this degree is never perfect, this degree of
falsification is very useful. It is in fact this type of
falsification, in degrees, that is commonly used in science -
especially medical sciences, anthropology, forensics, and the like.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com