Sherlock Holmes embarasses Bill Rogers and Bill pleads atheist ignorance to overcome Dembski's ID theory
T Pagano
wrote:
snip
>
>On 7 Mei, 07:48, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:38:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
snip
>
>> In any event Dembski's ID theory is not merely "about" modes of
>> causation. It provides a methodology for determining the mode of
>> causation for a particular object or event.
>
>So in your view, his methodology is what, exactly? From your
>description below, his methodology would seem to be that once you
>exclude the possibility that "purely naturalistic processes" could
>have produced X, you conclude that X was intelligently designed.
Again the parrot can repeat, but does he really "get" this?
It is simple application of logic and set theory. If the set of all
the possible modes-of-causation in our material world for all events
or objects contains
(1) law
(2) chance
(3) combination of law/chance
(4) intelligent design
and we eliminate (1) - (3) for a particular event or object then (4)
is the only possibility left. It doesn't get any easier than that.
As Sherlock Holmes pointed out, �When you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.�
This is only attainable when the possibilities are both finitely
manageable and known----which "is" the case here.
Dembski has shown that when the observable characteristic of
"specified complexity" is found (1) - (3) are (effectively) impossible
given the finite probablistic resources available to the
universe----which leaves ID as the Truth.
> Now,
>being a bear of little brain (or a nimrod, or a nincompoop, as you so
>eloquently phrase it), it seems to me that that methodology requires a
>complete understanding of all "purely naturalistic processes." If you
>do not know all there is to know about all the laws of nature, how
>could you possibly determine that something could not have been
>produced by "purely naturalistic processes." One might be tempted to
>say that a methodology which cannot be used until we completely
>understand all natural laws is, how shall we say, lacking in
>usefullikeness.
This is both wishful pleading and an appeal to ignorance-----not
empirical Science. Is Rogers really an empiricist? Apparently not
when his position is in flames and fastly approaching terra firma.
In effect Rogers admits that all of our background knowledge about
purely naturalistic processes shows that Dembski is correct about
"specified complexity." But Rogers pleads that there "could be" other
natual laws or naturalistic processes that "might" explain the
emergence of "specified complexity." Is Rogers an "empiricist" or is
he spinnin' them yarns at the pickle barrel, again?
This is like the atheist Big Bangers trying to explain the red shift
by first hypothesizing an unobservable rapid expansion of space which
can in turn only be explained by hypothesizing that 95 percent of the
universe is made up of some occult dark matter----which no one has
seen, touched, or smelled. Did Bill really say he was an empiricist?
Compared to Dembski the atheist rabble are little more than
astrologers.
>
>> > It's a rather slender, modest theory. That's OK.
>> >I'd just like to know, according to your view, exactly how slender it
>> >is.
>.
>> The atheist parrot contradicts himself. If Bill characterizes its
>> slenderness as "OK" then why would he also be concerned about
>> quantifying its slenderness?
>
>Nothing wrong with a "slender" theory, but there is something wrong
>with an utterly content-free theory.
Apparently not so content-free that----above----Rogers was forced to
introduce unknown and occult laws of nature and occult naturalistic
processes to overcome Dembski's simple set theory and logic.
'Ol Sherlock would be turnin' over in his grave.
snip for later
Regards,
T Pagano
If the history of science were actually taught in 6th - Undergraduate
level students would be disheartened to learn how much scientists
really cook the books to save their world views.
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Fri, 7 May 2010 22:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill <broger...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>So in your view, his methodology is what, exactly? From your
>>description below, his methodology would seem to be that once you
>>exclude the possibility that "purely naturalistic processes" could
>>have produced X, you conclude that X was intelligently designed.
>
>Again the parrot can repeat, but does he really "get" this?
>
>It is simple application of logic and set theory. If the set of all
>the possible modes-of-causation in our material world for all events
>or objects contains
>(1) law
>(2) chance
>(3) combination of law/chance
>(4) intelligent design
>
>and we eliminate (1) - (3) for a particular event or object then (4)
>is the only possibility left. It doesn't get any easier than that.
well no. there's always the unknown. to a scientist, living with the
unknown is part of the job
to a creationist, it's a license to make stuff up and say 'god did
it'...then wait for the next day's discovery to wash that excuse away.
>
>Dembski has shown that when the observable characteristic of
>"specified complexity" is found (1) - (3) are (effectively) impossible
>given the finite probablistic resources available to the
>universe----which leaves ID as the Truth.
ID is not a truth. it can't be. it has no definition of intelligence
OR design. it's an oxymoron.
>
>In effect Rogers admits that all of our background knowledge about
>purely naturalistic processes shows that Dembski is correct about
>"specified complexity." But Rogers pleads that there "could be" other
>natual laws or naturalistic processes that "might" explain the
>emergence of "specified complexity." Is Rogers an "empiricist" or is
>he spinnin' them yarns at the pickle barrel, again?
pagano here seems to be denying the very history of science. he seems
to be saying that, in its entire history, science has never discovered
anything.
neat trick!
of course, it's creationism that has, for 2000 years, failed to tell
us ANYTHING about nature. but pagano keeps telling us that TOMORROW
we'll find something magic about the universe. in 2000 years we never
have
but TOMORROW we will!
>
>This is like the atheist Big Bangers trying to explain the red shift
funny...creationists didn't know about the red shift, what causes it
or how it works. they didnt know about the wavelength of light, etc.
but now they're experts on the causes of the red shift.
>by first hypothesizing an unobservable rapid expansion of space
um...we can observe a red shift. and the red shift leads to either
superluminal velocities...forbidden by relativity...or to expansion of
space...which IS permitted by relativity
but creationism has no understanding of space, relativity, red shifts
or anything else. it's demons all the way down
which
>can in turn only be explained by hypothesizing that 95 percent of the
>universe is made up of some occult dark matter----which no one has
>seen, touched, or smelled.
pagano here is left gasping like a fish out of water to explain what
creationism never discovered:
the work of fritz zwicky in the 30's and 40's, and the contemporary
astronomer vera c. rubin show the presence of large amounts of dark
matter in the universe
but creationists don't know anything about matter at all. to them it's
all supernatural magic, even though THAT idea cant even explain why a
rock falls from a cliff
>
>Apparently not so content-free that----above----Rogers was forced to
>introduce unknown and occult laws of nature and occult naturalistic
>processes to overcome Dembski's simple set theory and logic.
occult? pagano routinely invokes the supernatural. then has the gall
to call someone else an 'occultist'!!
>
>'Ol Sherlock would be turnin' over in his grave.
>
>
>snip for later
>
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
>
>
>If the history of science were actually taught in 6th - Undergraduate
>level students would be disheartened to learn how much scientists
>really cook the books to save their world views.
says the believer in supernaturalism which, for 2000 years
explained nothing
Godevodevo
> On Fri, 7 May 2010 22:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
> >On 7 Mei, 07:48, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:38:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
> >> In any event Dembski's ID theory is not merely "about" modes of
> >> causation for a particular object or event.
>
> >So in your view, his methodology is what, exactly? From your
> >description below, his methodology would seem to be that once you
> >exclude the possibility that "purely naturalistic processes" could
> >have produced X, you conclude that X was intelligently designed.
>
> Again the parrot can repeat, but does he really "get" this?
>
> the possible modes-of-causation in our material world for all events
> or objects contains
> (1) law
> (2) chance
> (3) combination of law/chance
> (4) intelligent design
>
> and we eliminate (1) - (3) for a particular event or object then (4)
>
Unfortunatly for you and Dembski, you cannot eliminate 1-3 becaue we
do not have a complete understanding of EVERY natural process. Until
we do, there is no way for you to perform experiments or observations
which can eliminate 1-3. I believe that is the point Bill was
making. The fact that you cannot read for comprehension means it is
you who can parrot but appearently not understand.
> As Sherlock Holmes pointed out, �When you have eliminated the
> impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.�
> This is only attainable when the possibilities are both finitely
> manageable and known----which "is" the case here.
>
> Dembski has shown that when the observable characteristic of
> "specified complexity" is found (1) - (3) are (effectively) impossible
> given the finite probablistic resources available to the
> universe----which leaves ID as the Truth.
>
> > Now,
> >being a bear of little brain (or a nimrod, or a nincompoop, as you so
> >eloquently phrase it), it seems to me that that methodology requires a
> >complete understanding of all "purely naturalistic processes." If you
> >do not know all there is to know about all the laws of nature, how
> >could you possibly determine that something could not have been
> >produced by "purely naturalistic processes." One might be tempted to
> >say that a methodology which cannot be used until we completely
> >understand all natural laws is, how shall we say, lacking in
> >usefullikeness.
>
> This is both wishful pleading and an appeal to ignorance-----not
> empirical Science. �Is Rogers really an empiricist? �Apparently not
> when his position is in flames and fastly approaching terra firma.
>
> In effect Rogers admits that all of our background knowledge about
> purely naturalistic processes shows that Dembski is correct about
> "specified complexity." �But Rogers pleads that there "could be" other
> natual laws or naturalistic processes that "might" explain the
> emergence of "specified complexity." �Is Rogers an "empiricist" or is
> he spinnin' them yarns at the pickle barrel, again?
Again, you are utterly wrong. All Rogers is saying is that until ALL
natural processes are known you cannot even begin to prove ID. Do you
actually believe that science is done? That we have discovered all
possible natural processes? If we had that much knowledge, we would
have cures for cancer and viral infections. Get an education before
you start trying to educate others. The blind cannot lead the blind.
>
> This is like the atheist Big Bangers trying to explain the red shift
> by first hypothesizing an unobservable rapid expansion of space which
> can in turn only be explained by hypothesizing that 95 percent of the
> universe is made up of some occult dark matter----which no one has
> seen, touched, or smelled. �Did Bill really say he was an empiricist?
> Compared to Dembski the atheist rabble are little more than
> astrologers.
These things have only been shown mathematically because we cannot go
back in time and observe the event. As for not seeing dark matter, it
doesn't mean it cannot exsist. I can't see viruses or bacteria
either, but I can observe the effects they cause. Same principle
here. At least they have mathematics to back them up. What do you
have? A thinly veiled attempt to turn creationism into science. How
sad.
>
>
>
> >> > It's a rather slender, modest theory. That's OK.
> >> >I'd just like to know, according to your view, exactly how slender it
> >> >is.
> >.
> >> The atheist parrot contradicts himself. �If Bill characterizes its
> >> slenderness as "OK" �then why would he also be concerned about
> >> quantifying its slenderness?
>
> >Nothing wrong with a "slender" theory, but there is something wrong
> >with an utterly content-free theory.
>
> Apparently not so content-free that----above----Rogers was forced to
> introduce unknown and occult laws of nature and occult naturalistic
> processes to overcome Dembski's simple set theory and logic.
No he did not. He gave you the science involved. You simply have no
grasp of logic and should probably not be trying to assess it in
others.
>
> 'Ol Sherlock would be turnin' over in his grave.
>
Yes, from your utter lack of logic and your pathetic attempts to twist
logic to suit your personal beliefs.
Kimberly
raven1
wrote:
>On Fri, 7 May 2010 22:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill <broger...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>snip
>
>>
>>On 7 Mei, 07:48, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:38:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>
>snip
>
>>
>>> In any event Dembski's ID theory is not merely "about" modes of
>>> causation. It provides a methodology for determining the mode of
>>> causation for a particular object or event.
>>
>>So in your view, his methodology is what, exactly? From your
>>description below, his methodology would seem to be that once you
>>exclude the possibility that "purely naturalistic processes" could
>>have produced X, you conclude that X was intelligently designed.
>
>Again the parrot can repeat, but does he really "get" this?
>
>It is simple application of logic and set theory. If the set of all
>the possible modes-of-causation in our material world for all events
>or objects contains
>(1) law
>(2) chance
>(3) combination of law/chance
>(4) intelligent design
>
>and we eliminate (1) - (3) for a particular event or object
How?
John Harshman
> On Fri, 7 May 2010 22:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill <broger...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>> On 7 Mei, 07:48, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:38:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>>> In any event Dembski's ID theory is not merely "about" modes of
>>> causation. It provides a methodology for determining the mode of
>>> causation for a particular object or event.
>> So in your view, his methodology is what, exactly? From your
>> description below, his methodology would seem to be that once you
>> exclude the possibility that "purely naturalistic processes" could
>> have produced X, you conclude that X was intelligently designed.
>
> Again the parrot can repeat, but does he really "get" this?
>
> It is simple application of logic and set theory. If the set of all
> the possible modes-of-causation in our material world for all events
> or objects contains
> (1) law
> (2) chance
> (3) combination of law/chance
> (4) intelligent design
Hey, thanks for introducing (3). I don't recall that Dembski managed
that trick.
> and we eliminate (1) - (3) for a particular event or object then (4)
> is the only possibility left. It doesn't get any easier than that.
If. How would you go about eliminating 1-3?
> As Sherlock Holmes pointed out, �When you have eliminated the
> impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.�
> This is only attainable when the possibilities are both finitely
> manageable and known----which "is" the case here.
Holmes is a fictional character. Oddly enough, he too was unaware that
the earth revolves around the sun.
> Dembski has shown that when the observable characteristic of
> "specified complexity" is found (1) - (3) are (effectively) impossible
> given the finite probablistic resources available to the
> universe----which leaves ID as the Truth.
How do you find specified complexity, exactly? Is it a quantitative
measure or something that's either present or absent?
Tony, what's your explanation for cosmololgical red shifts?
>>>> It's a rather slender, modest theory. That's OK.
>>>> I'd just like to know, according to your view, exactly how slender it
>>>> is.
>> .
>>> The atheist parrot contradicts himself. If Bill characterizes its
>>> slenderness as "OK" then why would he also be concerned about
>>> quantifying its slenderness?
>> Nothing wrong with a "slender" theory, but there is something wrong
>> with an utterly content-free theory.
>
> Apparently not so content-free that----above----Rogers was forced to
> introduce unknown and occult laws of nature and occult naturalistic
> processes to overcome Dembski's simple set theory and logic.
>
> 'Ol Sherlock would be turnin' over in his grave.
Fictional, ignorant of science, and a cocaine addict. Fitting company
for you, Tony.
> If the history of science were actually taught in 6th - Undergraduate
> level students would be disheartened to learn how much scientists
> really cook the books to save their world views.
If the history of science were actually taught, maybe you would know
something about it.
9fingers
> On Fri, 7 May 2010 22:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
> >On 7 Mei, 07:48, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:38:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
> >> In any event Dembski's ID theory is not merely "about" modes of
> >> causation for a particular object or event.
>
> >So in your view, his methodology is what, exactly? From your
> >description below, his methodology would seem to be that once you
> >exclude the possibility that "purely naturalistic processes" could
> >have produced X, you conclude that X was intelligently designed.
>
> Again the parrot can repeat, but does he really "get" this?
>
> the possible modes-of-causation in our material world for all events
> or objects contains
> (1) law
> (2) chance
> (3) combination of law/chance
> (4) intelligent design
>
> and we eliminate (1) - (3) for a particular event or object then (4)
>
> As Sherlock Holmes pointed out, �When you have eliminated the
> impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.�
> This is only attainable when the possibilities are both finitely
> manageable and known----which "is" the case here.
>
> Dembski has shown that when the observable characteristic of
> "specified complexity" is found (1) - (3) are (effectively) impossible
> given the finite probablistic resources available to the
> universe----which leaves ID as the Truth.
>
> > Now,
> >being a bear of little brain (or a nimrod, or a nincompoop, as you so
> >eloquently phrase it), it seems to me that that methodology requires a
> >complete understanding of all "purely naturalistic processes." If you
> >do not know all there is to know about all the laws of nature, how
> >could you possibly determine that something could not have been
> >produced by "purely naturalistic processes." One might be tempted to
> >say that a methodology which cannot be used until we completely
> >understand all natural laws is, how shall we say, lacking in
> >usefullikeness.
>
> This is both wishful pleading and an appeal to ignorance-----not
> when his position is in flames and fastly approaching terra firma.
>
> In effect Rogers admits that all of our background knowledge about
> purely naturalistic processes shows that Dembski is correct about
> natual laws or naturalistic processes that "might" explain the
> he spinnin' them yarns at the pickle barrel, again?
>
> This is like the atheist Big Bangers trying to explain the red shift
> by first hypothesizing an unobservable rapid expansion of space which
> can in turn only be explained by hypothesizing that 95 percent of the
> universe is made up of some occult dark matter----which no one has
> Compared to Dembski the atheist rabble are little more than
> astrologers.
>
>
>
> >> > It's a rather slender, modest theory. That's OK.
> >> >I'd just like to know, according to your view, exactly how slender it
> >> >is.
> >.
> >> slenderness as "OK" �then why would he also be concerned about
> >> quantifying its slenderness?
>
> >Nothing wrong with a "slender" theory, but there is something wrong
> >with an utterly content-free theory.
>
> Apparently not so content-free that----above----Rogers was forced to
> introduce unknown and occult laws of nature and occult naturalistic
> processes to overcome Dembski's simple set theory and logic.
>
> 'Ol Sherlock would be turnin' over in his grave.
>
> snip for later
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
> If the history of science were actually taught in 6th - Undergraduate
> level students would be disheartened to learn how much scientists
> really cook the books to save their world views.
The Sherlock Holmes quote is taken out completely out of context. He
was discussing his method of solving crimes, not formulating
scientific theories.
Glenn
Care to explain the difference?
aganunitsi
> > The Sherlock Holmes quote is taken out completely out of context. He
> > was discussing his method of solving crimes, not formulating
> > scientific theories.
>
> Care to explain the difference?
Well doesn't that speak volumes - not understanding the difference
between solving a crime and formulating a scientific theory.
Crime implies intent, action with a purpose. Otherwise it wasn't a
crime, it was an accident. A detective works under the assumption that
there was a criminal - you could call it an intelligent designer. The
ability to determine motive narrows the possibilities.
A scientific theory is similar in that it seeks to determine the cause
of an effect, but no intent is assumed. Inventing a motive typically
adds nothing, and assuming a motive can actually make an ass out of
you. Like assuming that because a system of proteins works incredibly
well as a locomotive system, the sequence of systems leading up to it
had "locomotive system" as a motive.
John Harshman
> On May 8, 12:00 pm, 9fingers <gd9fing...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 8, 12:34 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, 7 May 2010 22:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> snip
>>>> On 7 Mei, 07:48, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:38:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>> snip
>>>>> In any event Dembski's ID theory is not merely "about" modes of
>>>>> causation for a particular object or event.
>>>> So in your view, his methodology is what, exactly? From your
>>>> description below, his methodology would seem to be that once you
>>>> exclude the possibility that "purely naturalistic processes" could
>>>> have produced X, you conclude that X was intelligently designed.
>>> Again the parrot can repeat, but does he really "get" this?
>>> the possible modes-of-causation in our material world for all events
>>> or objects contains
>>> (1) law
>>> (2) chance
>>> (3) combination of law/chance
>>> (4) intelligent design
>>> and we eliminate (1) - (3) for a particular event or object then (4)
>>> As Sherlock Holmes pointed out, �When you have eliminated the
>>> impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.�
>>> This is only attainable when the possibilities are both finitely
>>> manageable and known----which "is" the case here.
>>> Dembski has shown that when the observable characteristic of
>>> "specified complexity" is found (1) - (3) are (effectively) impossible
>>> given the finite probablistic resources available to the
>>> universe----which leaves ID as the Truth.
>>>> Now,
>>>> being a bear of little brain (or a nimrod, or a nincompoop, as you so
>>>> eloquently phrase it), it seems to me that that methodology requires a
>>>> complete understanding of all "purely naturalistic processes." If you
>>>> do not know all there is to know about all the laws of nature, how
>>>> could you possibly determine that something could not have been
>>>> produced by "purely naturalistic processes." One might be tempted to
>>>> say that a methodology which cannot be used until we completely
>>>> understand all natural laws is, how shall we say, lacking in
>>>> usefullikeness.
>>> This is both wishful pleading and an appeal to ignorance-----not
>>> when his position is in flames and fastly approaching terra firma.
>>> In effect Rogers admits that all of our background knowledge about
>>> purely naturalistic processes shows that Dembski is correct about
>>> natual laws or naturalistic processes that "might" explain the
>>> he spinnin' them yarns at the pickle barrel, again?
>>> This is like the atheist Big Bangers trying to explain the red shift
>>> by first hypothesizing an unobservable rapid expansion of space which
>>> can in turn only be explained by hypothesizing that 95 percent of the
>>> universe is made up of some occult dark matter----which no one has
>>> Compared to Dembski the atheist rabble are little more than
>>> astrologers.
>>>>>> It's a rather slender, modest theory. That's OK.
>>>>>> I'd just like to know, according to your view, exactly how slender it
>>>>>> is.
>>>> .
>>>>> slenderness as "OK" then why would he also be concerned about
>>>>> quantifying its slenderness?
>>>> Nothing wrong with a "slender" theory, but there is something wrong
>>>> with an utterly content-free theory.
>>> Apparently not so content-free that----above----Rogers was forced to
>>> introduce unknown and occult laws of nature and occult naturalistic
>>> processes to overcome Dembski's simple set theory and logic.
>>> 'Ol Sherlock would be turnin' over in his grave.
>>> snip for later
>>> Regards,
>>> T Pagano
>>> If the history of science were actually taught in 6th - Undergraduate
>>> level students would be disheartened to learn how much scientists
>>> really cook the books to save their world views.
>> The Sherlock Holmes quote is taken out completely out of context. He
>> was discussing his method of solving crimes, not formulating
>> scientific theories.
>
> Care to explain the difference?
>
solving crimes or scientific problems.
Glenn
> Glenn wrote:
> > On May 8, 12:00 pm, 9fingers <gd9fing...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 8, 12:34 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> >>> On Fri, 7 May 2010 22:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> snip
> >>>> On 7 Mei, 07:48, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:38:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>> snip
> >>>>> In any event Dembski's ID theory is not merely "about" modes of
> >>>>> causation for a particular object or event.
> >>>> So in your view, his methodology is what, exactly? From your
> >>>> description below, his methodology would seem to be that once you
> >>>> exclude the possibility that "purely naturalistic processes" could
> >>>> have produced X, you conclude that X was intelligently designed.
> >>> Again the parrot can repeat, but does he really "get" this?
> >>> the possible modes-of-causation in our material world for all events
> >>> or objects contains
> >>> (1) law
> >>> (2) chance
> >>> (3) combination of law/chance
> >>> (4) intelligent design
> >>> and we eliminate (1) - (3) for a particular event or object then (4)
> >>> As Sherlock Holmes pointed out, �When you have eliminated the
> >>> impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.�
> >>> This is only attainable when the possibilities are both finitely
> >>> manageable and known----which "is" the case here.
> >>> Dembski has shown that when the observable characteristic of
> >>> "specified complexity" is found (1) - (3) are (effectively) impossible
> >>> given the finite probablistic resources available to the
> >>> universe----which leaves ID as the Truth.
> >>>> Now,
> >>>> being a bear of little brain (or a nimrod, or a nincompoop, as you so
> >>>> eloquently phrase it), it seems to me that that methodology requires a
> >>>> complete understanding of all "purely naturalistic processes." If you
> >>>> do not know all there is to know about all the laws of nature, how
> >>>> could you possibly determine that something could not have been
> >>>> produced by "purely naturalistic processes." One might be tempted to
> >>>> say that a methodology which cannot be used until we completely
> >>>> understand all natural laws is, how shall we say, lacking in
> >>>> usefullikeness.
> >>> This is both wishful pleading and an appeal to ignorance-----not
> >>> when his position is in flames and fastly approaching terra firma.
> >>> In effect Rogers admits that all of our background knowledge about
> >>> purely naturalistic processes shows that Dembski is correct about
> >>> natual laws or naturalistic processes that "might" explain the
> >>> he spinnin' them yarns at the pickle barrel, again?
> >>> This is like the atheist Big Bangers trying to explain the red shift
> >>> by first hypothesizing an unobservable rapid expansion of space which
> >>> can in turn only be explained by hypothesizing that 95 percent of the
> >>> universe is made up of some occult dark matter----which no one has
> >>> Compared to Dembski the atheist rabble are little more than
> >>> astrologers.
> >>>>>> It's a rather slender, modest theory. That's OK.
> >>>>>> I'd just like to know, according to your view, exactly how slender it
> >>>>>> is.
> >>>> .
> >>>>> slenderness as "OK" �then why would he also be concerned about
> >>>>> quantifying its slenderness?
> >>>> Nothing wrong with a "slender" theory, but there is something wrong
> >>>> with an utterly content-free theory.
> >>> Apparently not so content-free that----above----Rogers was forced to
> >>> introduce unknown and occult laws of nature and occult naturalistic
> >>> processes to overcome Dembski's simple set theory and logic.
> >>> 'Ol Sherlock would be turnin' over in his grave.
> >>> snip for later
> >>> Regards,
> >>> T Pagano
> >>> If the history of science were actually taught in 6th - Undergraduate
> >>> level students would be disheartened to learn how much scientists
> >>> really cook the books to save their world views.
> >> The Sherlock Holmes quote is taken out completely out of context. He
> >> was discussing his method of solving crimes, not formulating
> >> scientific theories.
>
> > Care to explain the difference?
>
> Don't see one myself. Holmes' method only works in fiction, whether for
> solving crimes or scientific problems.
You apparently don't, but I see the process of elimination used quite
frequently in science.
Kleuskes & Moos
Yes. But the quote depends on a finite and, most important, fully
known and understood set of alternatives, which is rather unlikely,
since it requires exclusion of any possible alternatives you haven't
yet thought of. That's why this reasoning is rather rare in science.
John Harshman
> On May 8, 6:02 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Glenn wrote:
>>> On May 8, 12:00 pm, 9fingers <gd9fing...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On May 8, 12:34 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 7 May 2010 22:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> snip
>>>>>> On 7 Mei, 07:48, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:38:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> snip
>>>>>>> In any event Dembski's ID theory is not merely "about" modes of
>>>>>>> causation for a particular object or event.
>>>>>> So in your view, his methodology is what, exactly? From your
>>>>>> description below, his methodology would seem to be that once you
>>>>>> exclude the possibility that "purely naturalistic processes" could
>>>>>> have produced X, you conclude that X was intelligently designed.
>>>>> Again the parrot can repeat, but does he really "get" this?
>>>>> the possible modes-of-causation in our material world for all events
>>>>> or objects contains
>>>>> (1) law
>>>>> (2) chance
>>>>> (3) combination of law/chance
>>>>> (4) intelligent design
>>>>> and we eliminate (1) - (3) for a particular event or object then (4)
>>>>> As Sherlock Holmes pointed out, �When you have eliminated the
>>>>> impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.�
>>>>> This is only attainable when the possibilities are both finitely
>>>>> manageable and known----which "is" the case here.
>>>>> Dembski has shown that when the observable characteristic of
>>>>> "specified complexity" is found (1) - (3) are (effectively) impossible
>>>>> given the finite probablistic resources available to the
>>>>> universe----which leaves ID as the Truth.
>>>>>> Now,
>>>>>> being a bear of little brain (or a nimrod, or a nincompoop, as you so
>>>>>> eloquently phrase it), it seems to me that that methodology requires a
>>>>>> complete understanding of all "purely naturalistic processes." If you
>>>>>> do not know all there is to know about all the laws of nature, how
>>>>>> could you possibly determine that something could not have been
>>>>>> produced by "purely naturalistic processes." One might be tempted to
>>>>>> say that a methodology which cannot be used until we completely
>>>>>> understand all natural laws is, how shall we say, lacking in
>>>>>> usefullikeness.
>>>>> This is both wishful pleading and an appeal to ignorance-----not
>>>>> when his position is in flames and fastly approaching terra firma.
>>>>> In effect Rogers admits that all of our background knowledge about
>>>>> purely naturalistic processes shows that Dembski is correct about
>>>>> natual laws or naturalistic processes that "might" explain the
>>>>> he spinnin' them yarns at the pickle barrel, again?
>>>>> This is like the atheist Big Bangers trying to explain the red shift
>>>>> by first hypothesizing an unobservable rapid expansion of space which
>>>>> can in turn only be explained by hypothesizing that 95 percent of the
>>>>> universe is made up of some occult dark matter----which no one has
>>>>> Compared to Dembski the atheist rabble are little more than
>>>>> astrologers.
>>>>>>>> It's a rather slender, modest theory. That's OK.
>>>>>>>> I'd just like to know, according to your view, exactly how slender it
>>>>>>>> is.
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>> slenderness as "OK" then why would he also be concerned about
>>>>>>> quantifying its slenderness?
>>>>>> Nothing wrong with a "slender" theory, but there is something wrong
>>>>>> with an utterly content-free theory.
>>>>> Apparently not so content-free that----above----Rogers was forced to
>>>>> introduce unknown and occult laws of nature and occult naturalistic
>>>>> processes to overcome Dembski's simple set theory and logic.
>>>>> 'Ol Sherlock would be turnin' over in his grave.
>>>>> snip for later
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> T Pagano
>>>>> If the history of science were actually taught in 6th - Undergraduate
>>>>> level students would be disheartened to learn how much scientists
>>>>> really cook the books to save their world views.
>>>> The Sherlock Holmes quote is taken out completely out of context. He
>>>> was discussing his method of solving crimes, not formulating
>>>> scientific theories.
>>> Care to explain the difference?
>> Don't see one myself. Holmes' method only works in fiction, whether for
>> solving crimes or scientific problems.
>
> You apparently don't, but I see the process of elimination used quite
> frequently in science.
>
Burkhard
It works well as a method if there is a limited and known number of
alternatives. Even then it remains a_ method_ or heuristic device to
develop the theory, and possibly argue over whether it should be
accepted or not (meta-level) What you won't find is in the theory
itself a quantification over possible eliminations, and especially not
a quantification over an domain of unknown, and unknown many,
possible eliminations/explanations .
Glenn
> Glenn wrote:
> > On May 8, 6:02 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Glenn wrote:
> >>> On May 8, 12:00 pm, 9fingers <gd9fing...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On May 8, 12:34 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 7 May 2010 22:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>> snip
> >>>>>> On 7 Mei, 07:48, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:38:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>> snip
> >>>>>>> In any event Dembski's ID theory is not merely "about" modes of
> >>>>>>> causation for a particular object or event.
> >>>>>> So in your view, his methodology is what, exactly? From your
> >>>>>> description below, his methodology would seem to be that once you
> >>>>>> exclude the possibility that "purely naturalistic processes" could
> >>>>>> have produced X, you conclude that X was intelligently designed.
> >>>>> Again the parrot can repeat, but does he really "get" this?
> >>>>> the possible modes-of-causation in our material world for all events
> >>>>> or objects contains
> >>>>> (1) law
> >>>>> (2) chance
> >>>>> (3) combination of law/chance
> >>>>> (4) intelligent design
> >>>>> and we eliminate (1) - (3) for a particular event or object then (4)
> >>>>> As Sherlock Holmes pointed out, �When you have eliminated the
> >>>>> impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.�
> >>>>> This is only attainable when the possibilities are both finitely
> >>>>> manageable and known----which "is" the case here.
> >>>>> Dembski has shown that when the observable characteristic of
> >>>>> "specified complexity" is found (1) - (3) are (effectively) impossible
> >>>>> given the finite probablistic resources available to the
> >>>>> universe----which leaves ID as the Truth.
> >>>>>> Now,
> >>>>>> being a bear of little brain (or a nimrod, or a nincompoop, as you so
> >>>>>> eloquently phrase it), it seems to me that that methodology requires a
> >>>>>> complete understanding of all "purely naturalistic processes." If you
> >>>>>> do not know all there is to know about all the laws of nature, how
> >>>>>> could you possibly determine that something could not have been
> >>>>>> produced by "purely naturalistic processes." One might be tempted to
> >>>>>> say that a methodology which cannot be used until we completely
> >>>>>> understand all natural laws is, how shall we say, lacking in
> >>>>>> usefullikeness.
> >>>>> This is both wishful pleading and an appeal to ignorance-----not
> >>>>> when his position is in flames and fastly approaching terra firma.
> >>>>> In effect Rogers admits that all of our background knowledge about
> >>>>> purely naturalistic processes shows that Dembski is correct about
> >>>>> natual laws or naturalistic processes that "might" explain the
> >>>>> he spinnin' them yarns at the pickle barrel, again?
> >>>>> This is like the atheist Big Bangers trying to explain the red shift
> >>>>> by first hypothesizing an unobservable rapid expansion of space which
> >>>>> can in turn only be explained by hypothesizing that 95 percent of the
> >>>>> universe is made up of some occult dark matter----which no one has
> >>>>> Compared to Dembski the atheist rabble are little more than
> >>>>> astrologers.
> >>>>>>>> It's a rather slender, modest theory. That's OK.
> >>>>>>>> I'd just like to know, according to your view, exactly how slender it
> >>>>>>>> is.
> >>>>>> .
> >>>>>>> slenderness as "OK" �then why would he also be concerned about
> >>>>>>> quantifying its slenderness?
> >>>>>> Nothing wrong with a "slender" theory, but there is something wrong
> >>>>>> with an utterly content-free theory.
> >>>>> Apparently not so content-free that----above----Rogers was forced to
> >>>>> introduce unknown and occult laws of nature and occult naturalistic
> >>>>> processes to overcome Dembski's simple set theory and logic.
> >>>>> 'Ol Sherlock would be turnin' over in his grave.
> >>>>> snip for later
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> T Pagano
> >>>>> If the history of science were actually taught in 6th - Undergraduate
> >>>>> level students would be disheartened to learn how much scientists
> >>>>> really cook the books to save their world views.
> >>>> The Sherlock Holmes quote is taken out completely out of context. He
> >>>> was discussing his method of solving crimes, not formulating
> >>>> scientific theories.
> >>> Care to explain the difference?
> >> Don't see one myself. Holmes' method only works in fiction, whether for
> >> solving crimes or scientific problems.
>
> > You apparently don't, but I see the process of elimination used quite
> > frequently in science.
>
> Give an example and we'll see if I agree.
"The type of detective work described by Sherlock Holmes has been used
by astronomers for a long time to deepen our understanding of the
universe. Ever since the phenomenal success of Isaac Newton in
explaining the motion of the planets with his theory of gravity and
laws of motion in 1687, unseen matter has been invoked to explain
puzzling observations of cosmic bodies."
http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_astro/dark_matter/index2.html
Glenn
Science does in a very real sense "require" exclusion of anything not
yet thought of. Science does depend on a finite and understood set of
alternatives. Try again.
raven1
wrote:
>On May 9, 5:28�am, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> On May 9, 4:18�am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 8, 6:02�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > Glenn wrote:
>> > > > On May 8, 12:00 pm, 9fingers <gd9fing...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >> On May 8, 12:34 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > >>> On Fri, 7 May 2010 22:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
>> > > >>> wrote:
>> > > >>> snip
>> > > >>>> On 7 Mei, 07:48, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> > > >>>>> On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:38:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
>> > > >>>>> wrote:
>> > > >>> snip
>> > > >>>>> In any event Dembski's ID theory is not merely "about" modes of
>> > > >>>>> causation. �It provides a methodology for determining the mode of
>> > > >>>>> causation for a particular object or event.
>> > > >>>> So in your view, his methodology is what, exactly? From your
>> > > >>>> description below, his methodology would seem to be that once you
>> > > >>>> exclude the possibility that "purely naturalistic processes" could
>> > > >>>> have produced X, you conclude that X was intelligently designed.
>> > > >>> Again the parrot can repeat, but does he really "get" this?
>> > > >>> It is simple application of logic and set theory. �If the set of all
>> > > >>> the possible modes-of-causation in our material world for all events
>> > > >>> or objects contains
>> > > >>> (1) law
>> > > >>> (2) chance
>> > > >>> (3) combination of law/chance
>> > > >>> (4) intelligent design
>> > > >>> and we eliminate (1) - (3) for a particular event or object then (4)
>> > > >>> is the only possibility left. �It doesn't get any easier than that.
>> > > >>> As Sherlock Holmes pointed out, �When you have eliminated the
>> > > >>> impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.�
>> > > >>> This is only attainable when the possibilities are both finitely
>> > > >>> manageable and known----which "is" the case here.
>> > > >>> Dembski has shown that when the observable characteristic of
>> > > >>> "specified complexity" is found (1) - (3) are (effectively) impossible
>> > > >>> given the finite probablistic resources available to the
>> > > >>> universe----which leaves ID as the Truth.
>> > > >>>> Now,
>> > > >>>> being a bear of little brain (or a nimrod, or a nincompoop, as you so
>> > > >>>> eloquently phrase it), it seems to me that that methodology requires a
>> > > >>>> complete understanding of all "purely naturalistic processes." If you
>> > > >>>> do not know all there is to know about all the laws of nature, how
>> > > >>>> could you possibly determine that something could not have been
>> > > >>>> produced by "purely naturalistic processes." One might be tempted to
>> > > >>>> say that a methodology which cannot be used until we completely
>> > > >>>> understand all natural laws is, how shall we say, lacking in
>> > > >>>> usefullikeness.
>> > > >>> This is both wishful pleading and an appeal to ignorance-----not
>> > > >>> empirical Science. �Is Rogers really an empiricist? �Apparently not
>> > > >>> when his position is in flames and fastly approaching terra firma.
>> > > >>> In effect Rogers admits that all of our background knowledge about
>> > > >>> purely naturalistic processes shows that Dembski is correct about
>> > > >>> "specified complexity." �But Rogers pleads that there "could be" other
>> > > >>> natual laws or naturalistic processes that "might" explain the
>> > > >>> emergence of "specified complexity." �Is Rogers an "empiricist" or is
>> > > >>> he spinnin' them yarns at the pickle barrel, again?
>> > > >>> This is like the atheist Big Bangers trying to explain the red shift
>> > > >>> by first hypothesizing an unobservable rapid expansion of space which
>> > > >>> can in turn only be explained by hypothesizing that 95 percent of the
>> > > >>> universe is made up of some occult dark matter----which no one has
>> > > >>> seen, touched, or smelled. �Did Bill really say he was an empiricist?
>> > > >>> Compared to Dembski the atheist rabble are little more than
>> > > >>> astrologers.
>> > > >>>>>> It's a rather slender, modest theory. That's OK.
>> > > >>>>>> I'd just like to know, according to your view, exactly how slender it
>> > > >>>>>> is.
>> > > >>>> .
>> > > >>>>> The atheist parrot contradicts himself. �If Bill characterizes its
>> > > >>>>> slenderness as "OK" �then why would he also be concerned about
We could never acquire any new scientific knowledge if that were the
case. Try again yourself.
>Try again.
John Harshman
> On May 9, 5:45 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Glenn wrote:
>>> On May 8, 6:02 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> Glenn wrote:
>>>>> On May 8, 12:00 pm, 9fingers <gd9fing...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On May 8, 12:34 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 7 May 2010 22:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>> On 7 Mei, 07:48, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:38:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>>> In any event Dembski's ID theory is not merely "about" modes of
>>>>>>>>> causation for a particular object or event.
>>>>>>>> So in your view, his methodology is what, exactly? From your
>>>>>>>> description below, his methodology would seem to be that once you
>>>>>>>> exclude the possibility that "purely naturalistic processes" could
>>>>>>>> have produced X, you conclude that X was intelligently designed.
>>>>>>> Again the parrot can repeat, but does he really "get" this?
>>>>>>> the possible modes-of-causation in our material world for all events
>>>>>>> or objects contains
>>>>>>> (1) law
>>>>>>> (2) chance
>>>>>>> (3) combination of law/chance
>>>>>>> (4) intelligent design
>>>>>>> and we eliminate (1) - (3) for a particular event or object then (4)
>>>>>>> As Sherlock Holmes pointed out, �When you have eliminated the
>>>>>>> impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.�
>>>>>>> This is only attainable when the possibilities are both finitely
>>>>>>> manageable and known----which "is" the case here.
>>>>>>> Dembski has shown that when the observable characteristic of
>>>>>>> "specified complexity" is found (1) - (3) are (effectively) impossible
>>>>>>> given the finite probablistic resources available to the
>>>>>>> universe----which leaves ID as the Truth.
>>>>>>>> Now,
>>>>>>>> being a bear of little brain (or a nimrod, or a nincompoop, as you so
>>>>>>>> eloquently phrase it), it seems to me that that methodology requires a
>>>>>>>> complete understanding of all "purely naturalistic processes." If you
>>>>>>>> do not know all there is to know about all the laws of nature, how
>>>>>>>> could you possibly determine that something could not have been
>>>>>>>> produced by "purely naturalistic processes." One might be tempted to
>>>>>>>> say that a methodology which cannot be used until we completely
>>>>>>>> understand all natural laws is, how shall we say, lacking in
>>>>>>>> usefullikeness.
>>>>>>> This is both wishful pleading and an appeal to ignorance-----not
>>>>>>> when his position is in flames and fastly approaching terra firma.
>>>>>>> In effect Rogers admits that all of our background knowledge about
>>>>>>> purely naturalistic processes shows that Dembski is correct about
>>>>>>> natual laws or naturalistic processes that "might" explain the
>>>>>>> he spinnin' them yarns at the pickle barrel, again?
>>>>>>> This is like the atheist Big Bangers trying to explain the red shift
>>>>>>> by first hypothesizing an unobservable rapid expansion of space which
>>>>>>> can in turn only be explained by hypothesizing that 95 percent of the
>>>>>>> universe is made up of some occult dark matter----which no one has
>>>>>>> Compared to Dembski the atheist rabble are little more than
>>>>>>> astrologers.
>>>>>>>>>> It's a rather slender, modest theory. That's OK.
>>>>>>>>>> I'd just like to know, according to your view, exactly how slender it
>>>>>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>> slenderness as "OK" then why would he also be concerned about
quote fits science. I would like an actual example of someone
eliminating the impossible and accepting whatever remains, however
unlikely, as the truth. In my belief science operates by testing one
hypothesis against another and provisionally accepting whichever one,
among those advanced so far, best fits the data. That's not the Holmes
method.
Glenn
> Glenn wrote:
> > On May 9, 5:45 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Glenn wrote:
> >>> On May 8, 6:02 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> Glenn wrote:
> >>>>> On May 8, 12:00 pm, 9fingers <gd9fing...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On May 8, 12:34 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 7 May 2010 22:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> snip
> >>>>>>>> On 7 Mei, 07:48, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:38:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> snip
> >>>>>>>>> In any event Dembski's ID theory is not merely "about" modes of
> >>>>>>>>> causation for a particular object or event.
> >>>>>>>> So in your view, his methodology is what, exactly? From your
> >>>>>>>> description below, his methodology would seem to be that once you
> >>>>>>>> exclude the possibility that "purely naturalistic processes" could
> >>>>>>>> have produced X, you conclude that X was intelligently designed.
> >>>>>>> Again the parrot can repeat, but does he really "get" this?
> >>>>>>> the possible modes-of-causation in our material world for all events
> >>>>>>> or objects contains
> >>>>>>> (1) law
> >>>>>>> (2) chance
> >>>>>>> (3) combination of law/chance
> >>>>>>> (4) intelligent design
> >>>>>>> and we eliminate (1) - (3) for a particular event or object then (4)
> >>>>>>> As Sherlock Holmes pointed out, �When you have eliminated the
> >>>>>>> impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.�
> >>>>>>> This is only attainable when the possibilities are both finitely
> >>>>>>> manageable and known----which "is" the case here.
> >>>>>>> Dembski has shown that when the observable characteristic of
> >>>>>>> "specified complexity" is found (1) - (3) are (effectively) impossible
> >>>>>>> given the finite probablistic resources available to the
> >>>>>>> universe----which leaves ID as the Truth.
> >>>>>>>> Now,
> >>>>>>>> being a bear of little brain (or a nimrod, or a nincompoop, as you so
> >>>>>>>> eloquently phrase it), it seems to me that that methodology requires a
> >>>>>>>> complete understanding of all "purely naturalistic processes." If you
> >>>>>>>> do not know all there is to know about all the laws of nature, how
> >>>>>>>> could you possibly determine that something could not have been
> >>>>>>>> produced by "purely naturalistic processes." One might be tempted to
> >>>>>>>> say that a methodology which cannot be used until we completely
> >>>>>>>> understand all natural laws is, how shall we say, lacking in
> >>>>>>>> usefullikeness.
> >>>>>>> This is both wishful pleading and an appeal to ignorance-----not
> >>>>>>> when his position is in flames and fastly approaching terra firma.
> >>>>>>> In effect Rogers admits that all of our background knowledge about
> >>>>>>> purely naturalistic processes shows that Dembski is correct about
> >>>>>>> natual laws or naturalistic processes that "might" explain the
> >>>>>>> he spinnin' them yarns at the pickle barrel, again?
> >>>>>>> This is like the atheist Big Bangers trying to explain the red shift
> >>>>>>> by first hypothesizing an unobservable rapid expansion of space which
> >>>>>>> can in turn only be explained by hypothesizing that 95 percent of the
> >>>>>>> universe is made up of some occult dark matter----which no one has
> >>>>>>> Compared to Dembski the atheist rabble are little more than
> >>>>>>> astrologers.
> >>>>>>>>>> It's a rather slender, modest theory. That's OK.
> >>>>>>>>>> I'd just like to know, according to your view, exactly how slender it
> >>>>>>>>>> is.
> >>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>> slenderness as "OK" �then why would he also be concerned about
You've interpreted the quote as to make it sound absurd, but the
result is to make your interpretation absurd.
Glenn
> On Sun, 9 May 2010 08:32:20 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 9, 5:28�am, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >> On May 9, 4:18�am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On May 8, 6:02�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > Glenn wrote:
> >> > > > On May 8, 12:00 pm, 9fingers <gd9fing...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >> On May 8, 12:34 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > >>> On Fri, 7 May 2010 22:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
> >> > > >>> wrote:
> >> > > >>> snip
> >> > > >>>> On 7 Mei, 07:48, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> > > >>>>> On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:38:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
> >> > > >>>>> wrote:
> >> > > >>> snip
> >> > > >>>>> In any event Dembski's ID theory is not merely "about" modes of
> >> > > >>>>> causation for a particular object or event.
> >> > > >>>> So in your view, his methodology is what, exactly? From your
> >> > > >>>> description below, his methodology would seem to be that once you
> >> > > >>>> exclude the possibility that "purely naturalistic processes" could
> >> > > >>>> have produced X, you conclude that X was intelligently designed.
> >> > > >>> Again the parrot can repeat, but does he really "get" this?
> >> > > >>> the possible modes-of-causation in our material world for all events
> >> > > >>> or objects contains
> >> > > >>> (1) law
> >> > > >>> (2) chance
> >> > > >>> (3) combination of law/chance
> >> > > >>> (4) intelligent design
> >> > > >>> and we eliminate (1) - (3) for a particular event or object then (4)
> >> > > >>> As Sherlock Holmes pointed out, �When you have eliminated the
> >> > > >>> impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.�
> >> > > >>> This is only attainable when the possibilities are both finitely
> >> > > >>> manageable and known----which "is" the case here.
> >> > > >>> Dembski has shown that when the observable characteristic of
> >> > > >>> "specified complexity" is found (1) - (3) are (effectively) impossible
> >> > > >>> given the finite probablistic resources available to the
> >> > > >>> universe----which leaves ID as the Truth.
> >> > > >>>> Now,
> >> > > >>>> being a bear of little brain (or a nimrod, or a nincompoop, as you so
> >> > > >>>> eloquently phrase it), it seems to me that that methodology requires a
> >> > > >>>> complete understanding of all "purely naturalistic processes." If you
> >> > > >>>> do not know all there is to know about all the laws of nature, how
> >> > > >>>> could you possibly determine that something could not have been
> >> > > >>>> produced by "purely naturalistic processes." One might be tempted to
> >> > > >>>> say that a methodology which cannot be used until we completely
> >> > > >>>> understand all natural laws is, how shall we say, lacking in
> >> > > >>>> usefullikeness.
> >> > > >>> This is both wishful pleading and an appeal to ignorance-----not
> >> > > >>> when his position is in flames and fastly approaching terra firma.
> >> > > >>> In effect Rogers admits that all of our background knowledge about
> >> > > >>> purely naturalistic processes shows that Dembski is correct about
> >> > > >>> natual laws or naturalistic processes that "might" explain the
> >> > > >>> he spinnin' them yarns at the pickle barrel, again?
> >> > > >>> This is like the atheist Big Bangers trying to explain the red shift
> >> > > >>> by first hypothesizing an unobservable rapid expansion of space which
> >> > > >>> can in turn only be explained by hypothesizing that 95 percent of the
> >> > > >>> universe is made up of some occult dark matter----which no one has
> >> > > >>> Compared to Dembski the atheist rabble are little more than
> >> > > >>> astrologers.
> >> > > >>>>>> It's a rather slender, modest theory. That's OK.
> >> > > >>>>>> I'd just like to know, according to your view, exactly how slender it
> >> > > >>>>>> is.
> >> > > >>>> .
> >> > > >>>>> slenderness as "OK" �then why would he also be concerned about
That's idiotic.
raven1
wrote:
>On May 9, 10:37�am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 May 2010 08:32:20 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 9, 5:28�am, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> >> On May 9, 4:18�am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On May 8, 6:02�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > Glenn wrote:
>> >> > > > On May 8, 12:00 pm, 9fingers <gd9fing...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > >> On May 8, 12:34 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > >>> On Fri, 7 May 2010 22:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
>> >> > > >>> wrote:
>> >> > > >>> snip
>> >> > > >>>> On 7 Mei, 07:48, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> >> > > >>>>> On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:38:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
>> >> > > >>>>> wrote:
>> >> > > >>> snip
>> >> > > >>>>> In any event Dembski's ID theory is not merely "about" modes of
>> >> > > >>>>> causation. �It provides a methodology for determining the mode of
>> >> > > >>>>> causation for a particular object or event.
>> >> > > >>>> So in your view, his methodology is what, exactly? From your
>> >> > > >>>> description below, his methodology would seem to be that once you
>> >> > > >>>> exclude the possibility that "purely naturalistic processes" could
>> >> > > >>>> have produced X, you conclude that X was intelligently designed.
>> >> > > >>> Again the parrot can repeat, but does he really "get" this?
>> >> > > >>> It is simple application of logic and set theory. �If the set of all
>> >> > > >>> the possible modes-of-causation in our material world for all events
>> >> > > >>> or objects contains
>> >> > > >>> (1) law
>> >> > > >>> (2) chance
>> >> > > >>> (3) combination of law/chance
>> >> > > >>> (4) intelligent design
>> >> > > >>> and we eliminate (1) - (3) for a particular event or object then (4)
>> >> > > >>> is the only possibility left. �It doesn't get any easier than that.
>> >> > > >>> As Sherlock Holmes pointed out, �When you have eliminated the
>> >> > > >>> impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.�
>> >> > > >>> This is only attainable when the possibilities are both finitely
>> >> > > >>> manageable and known----which "is" the case here.
>> >> > > >>> Dembski has shown that when the observable characteristic of
>> >> > > >>> "specified complexity" is found (1) - (3) are (effectively) impossible
>> >> > > >>> given the finite probablistic resources available to the
>> >> > > >>> universe----which leaves ID as the Truth.
>> >> > > >>>> Now,
>> >> > > >>>> being a bear of little brain (or a nimrod, or a nincompoop, as you so
>> >> > > >>>> eloquently phrase it), it seems to me that that methodology requires a
>> >> > > >>>> complete understanding of all "purely naturalistic processes." If you
>> >> > > >>>> do not know all there is to know about all the laws of nature, how
>> >> > > >>>> could you possibly determine that something could not have been
>> >> > > >>>> produced by "purely naturalistic processes." One might be tempted to
>> >> > > >>>> say that a methodology which cannot be used until we completely
>> >> > > >>>> understand all natural laws is, how shall we say, lacking in
>> >> > > >>>> usefullikeness.
>> >> > > >>> This is both wishful pleading and an appeal to ignorance-----not
>> >> > > >>> empirical Science. �Is Rogers really an empiricist? �Apparently not
>> >> > > >>> when his position is in flames and fastly approaching terra firma.
>> >> > > >>> In effect Rogers admits that all of our background knowledge about
>> >> > > >>> purely naturalistic processes shows that Dembski is correct about
>> >> > > >>> "specified complexity." �But Rogers pleads that there "could be" other
>> >> > > >>> natual laws or naturalistic processes that "might" explain the
>> >> > > >>> emergence of "specified complexity." �Is Rogers an "empiricist" or is
>> >> > > >>> he spinnin' them yarns at the pickle barrel, again?
>> >> > > >>> This is like the atheist Big Bangers trying to explain the red shift
>> >> > > >>> by first hypothesizing an unobservable rapid expansion of space which
>> >> > > >>> can in turn only be explained by hypothesizing that 95 percent of the
>> >> > > >>> universe is made up of some occult dark matter----which no one has
>> >> > > >>> seen, touched, or smelled. �Did Bill really say he was an empiricist?
>> >> > > >>> Compared to Dembski the atheist rabble are little more than
>> >> > > >>> astrologers.
>> >> > > >>>>>> It's a rather slender, modest theory. That's OK.
>> >> > > >>>>>> I'd just like to know, according to your view, exactly how slender it
>> >> > > >>>>>> is.
>> >> > > >>>> .
>> >> > > >>>>> The atheist parrot contradicts himself. �If Bill characterizes its
>> >> > > >>>>> slenderness as "OK" �then why would he also be concerned about
No, it's reality. Are you seriously suggesting that we never encounter
a phenomenon that we don't have a ready explanation for, and are
forced to come up with a new idea? *That's* idiotic.
Glenn
> On Sun, 9 May 2010 11:00:05 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 9, 10:37�am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 9 May 2010 08:32:20 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> On May 9, 4:18�am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > On May 8, 6:02�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > Glenn wrote:
> >> >> > > > On May 8, 12:00 pm, 9fingers <gd9fing...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > > >> On May 8, 12:34 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > >>> On Fri, 7 May 2010 22:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
> >> >> > > >>> wrote:
> >> >> > > >>> snip
> >> >> > > >>>> On 7 Mei, 07:48, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> >> > > >>>>> On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:38:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
> >> >> > > >>>>> wrote:
> >> >> > > >>> snip
> >> >> > > >>>>> In any event Dembski's ID theory is not merely "about" modes of
> >> >> > > >>>>> causation for a particular object or event.
> >> >> > > >>>> So in your view, his methodology is what, exactly? From your
> >> >> > > >>>> description below, his methodology would seem to be that once you
> >> >> > > >>>> exclude the possibility that "purely naturalistic processes" could
> >> >> > > >>>> have produced X, you conclude that X was intelligently designed.
> >> >> > > >>> Again the parrot can repeat, but does he really "get" this?
> >> >> > > >>> the possible modes-of-causation in our material world for all events
> >> >> > > >>> or objects contains
> >> >> > > >>> (1) law
> >> >> > > >>> (2) chance
> >> >> > > >>> (3) combination of law/chance
> >> >> > > >>> (4) intelligent design
> >> >> > > >>> and we eliminate (1) - (3) for a particular event or object then (4)
> >> >> > > >>> As Sherlock Holmes pointed out, �When you have eliminated the
> >> >> > > >>> impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.�
> >> >> > > >>> This is only attainable when the possibilities are both finitely
> >> >> > > >>> manageable and known----which "is" the case here.
> >> >> > > >>> Dembski has shown that when the observable characteristic of
> >> >> > > >>> "specified complexity" is found (1) - (3) are (effectively) impossible
> >> >> > > >>> given the finite probablistic resources available to the
> >> >> > > >>> universe----which leaves ID as the Truth.
> >> >> > > >>>> Now,
> >> >> > > >>>> being a bear of little brain (or a nimrod, or a nincompoop, as you so
> >> >> > > >>>> eloquently phrase it), it seems to me that that methodology requires a
> >> >> > > >>>> complete understanding of all "purely naturalistic processes." If you
> >> >> > > >>>> do not know all there is to know about all the laws of nature, how
> >> >> > > >>>> could you possibly determine that something could not have been
> >> >> > > >>>> produced by "purely naturalistic processes." One might be tempted to
> >> >> > > >>>> say that a methodology which cannot be used until we completely
> >> >> > > >>>> understand all natural laws is, how shall we say, lacking in
> >> >> > > >>>> usefullikeness.
> >> >> > > >>> This is both wishful pleading and an appeal to ignorance-----not
> >> >> > > >>> when his position is in flames and fastly approaching terra firma.
> >> >> > > >>> In effect Rogers admits that all of our background knowledge about
> >> >> > > >>> purely naturalistic processes shows that Dembski is correct about
> >> >> > > >>> natual laws or naturalistic processes that "might" explain the
> >> >> > > >>> he spinnin' them yarns at the pickle barrel, again?
> >> >> > > >>> This is like the atheist Big Bangers trying to explain the red shift
> >> >> > > >>> by first hypothesizing an unobservable rapid expansion of space which
> >> >> > > >>> can in turn only be explained by hypothesizing that 95 percent of the
> >> >> > > >>> universe is made up of some occult dark matter----which no one has
> >> >> > > >>> Compared to Dembski the atheist rabble are little more than
> >> >> > > >>> astrologers.
> >> >> > > >>>>>> It's a rather slender, modest theory. That's OK.
> >> >> > > >>>>>> I'd just like to know, according to your view, exactly how slender it
> >> >> > > >>>>>> is.
> >> >> > > >>>> .
> >> >> > > >>>>> slenderness as "OK" �then why would he also be concerned about
I agree your suggestion is idiotic.
Friar Broccoli
.
One fundamental problems with your (and Tony's) argument here is that
many of the insights/models built into fields like quantum physics and
relativity, for example, seem absurd/impossible: the unchanging speed
of light in all reference frames, bending of space, virtual particles
constantly popping in and out of existence etc. Using Holmes' method
all these and many other conclusions would have been eliminated as
impossible, even though they were the best fit with the observations.
Science does not ask: Is theory X impossible/absurd, it asks Does
theory X best fit the data, and if it does, then it is possible/likely.
Glenn
>
> > You've interpreted the quote as to make it sound absurd, but the
> > result is to make your interpretation absurd.
>
> One fundamental problems with your (and Tony's) argument here is that
> many of the insights/models built into fields like quantum physics and
> of light in all reference frames, bending of space, virtual particles
> all these and many other conclusions would have been eliminated as
> impossible, even though they were the best fit with the observations.
>
> Science does not ask: Is theory X impossible/absurd, it asks Does
> theory X best fit the data, and if it does, then it is possible/likely.
You've created a strawman, Holmes said that whatever is left, however
"absurd", must be "the truth". The "impossible" was what did not fit
the data.
raven1
wrote:
>> >> >Science does in a very real sense "require" exclusion of anything not
>> >> >yet thought of. Science does depend on a finite and understood set of
>> >> >alternatives.
>>
>> >> We could never acquire any new scientific knowledge if that were the
>> >> case.
>>
>> >That's idiotic.
>>
>> No, it's reality. Are you seriously suggesting that we never encounter
>> a phenomenon that we don't have a ready explanation for, and are
>> forced to come up with a new idea? *That's* idiotic.
>
>I agree your suggestion is idiotic.
Please feel free to point out where it is in error. You appear to be
arguing that science requires the exclusion of any new ideas. Am I
incorrect? If so, please clarify what you're actually saying.
Friar Broccoli
> On May 9, 12:07 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 9, 2:04 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
[snipping]
>>>>> "The type of detective work described by Sherlock Holmes has been used
>>>>> by astronomers for a long time to deepen our understanding of the
>>>>> universe. Ever since the phenomenal success of Isaac Newton in
>>>>> explaining the motion of the planets with his theory of gravity and
>>>>> laws of motion in 1687, unseen matter has been invoked to explain
>>>>> puzzling observations of cosmic bodies."
>
>>>>>http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_astro/dark_matter/index2.html
>
>>>> Sorry, but that's just an example of someone claiming that the Holmes
>>>> quote fits science. I would like an actual example of someone
>>>> eliminating the impossible and accepting whatever remains, however
>>>> unlikely, as the truth. In my belief science operates by testing one
>>>> hypothesis against another and provisionally accepting whichever one,
>>>> among those advanced so far, best fits the data. That's not the Holmes
>>>> method.
>
>> .
>
>>> You've interpreted the quote as to make it sound absurd, but the
>>> result is to make your interpretation absurd.
>
>> One fundamental problems with your (and Tony's) argument here is that
>> many of the insights/models built into fields like quantum physics and
>> relativity, for example, seem absurd/impossible: the unchanging speed
>> of light in all reference frames, bending of space, virtual particles
>> constantly popping in and out of existence etc. Using Holmes' method
>> all these and many other conclusions would have been eliminated as
>> impossible, even though they were the best fit with the observations.
>
>> Science does not ask: Is theory X impossible/absurd, it asks Does
>> theory X best fit the data, and if it does, then it is possible/likely.
.
> You've created a strawman, Holmes said that whatever is left, however
> "absurd", must be "the truth". The "impossible" was what did not fit
> the data.
I believe you have missed my intended point. Holmes begins with a
number of possibilities or more generally a set or universe of
possible solutions, and then eliminates elements until he reaches the
only possible solution from the list of possibilities. Remember his
method was *deduction*.
In science the data have frequently eliminated ALL of what were
thought to be the available possibilities. At that point the data
forces the scientist to consider options that were simply not on the
table. Science is based on induction. Theory arises from the data,
not preconceived notions.
This indeed was how the theory of evolution arose. The fossil record
eliminated the possibility of instantaneous creation at one fixed time
in the past and the close relationships between groups of species
eliminated the possibility of separately created kinds. (And other
evidence rendered other hypothesis impossible.)
But the solution was not on the list of suspects. It arose (among
other things) from the observations by breeders who worked with
available variation in domestic animal populations, Selection from
variation by the environment in turn gave rise to the idea of
speciation as organisms adapted to new environments leading to the
tree of descent, which explained the grouping and subgrouping of
species as well as the layered changes seen in the fossil record.
Evolution could not have arisen from Holmes' method because it would
have been limited to the existing available options, like the
impossible ones suggested by the traditional reading of the Bible.
Glenn
one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to
suit facts."
"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without
clay."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes
You've gone from one fallacy to another. Nothing in the quote prevents
induction from being employed, and his method did include inductive
reasoning.
Glenn
> On Sun, 9 May 2010 11:32:51 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
If you can't tell the difference between "not yet thought of" and "any
new ideas" I can't help you. If you can you can help yourself.
Friar Broccoli
.
> You've gone from one fallacy to another. Nothing in the quote prevents
> induction from being employed, and his method did include inductive
> reasoning.
.
> http://static.scribd.com/docs/8vd1bpo4taki2.pdf
This refers to "eliminative induction" and it is quite clear from the
context that they are talking about exclusion from a domain of
foreseeable choices, not the development of completely new and counter-
intuitive models forced on us by data.
In addition, you've already given your game away here in your
discussion with raven1:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/871a22ba109a1e68
Where you say:
"Science does in a very real sense "require" exclusion of anything not
yet thought of. Science does depend on a finite and understood set of
alternatives."
Even if you manage to twist Holmes' method to match the scientific
method, that is not what you are asserting. You are requiring
selection from pre-existing available alternatives, which would
prevent science from advancing.
Glenn
No, from the domain of known choices. That would include any new
ideas.
>
> In addition, you've already given your game away here in your
> discussion with raven1:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/871a22ba109a1e68
>
> Where you say:
> "Science does in a very real sense "require" exclusion of anything not
> yet thought of. Science does depend on a finite and understood set of
> alternatives."
>
> Even if you manage to twist Holmes' method to match the scientific
> method, that is not what you are asserting. �You are requiring
> selection from pre-existing available alternatives, which would
> prevent science from advancing.
Not at all, nor did Holmes. You can't advance with what you don't
know. I'm surprised to see that is what you apparently think is
possible.
Glenn
Glenn
> Science is based on induction. �Theory arises from the data,
> not preconceived notions.
>
Really?
John Harshman
> On May 9, 10:55 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Glenn wrote:
>>> On May 9, 5:45 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> Glenn wrote:
>>>>> On May 8, 6:02 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Glenn wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:00 pm, 9fingers <gd9fing...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:34 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 7 May 2010 22:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>>>> On 7 Mei, 07:48, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:38:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>>>>> In any event Dembski's ID theory is not merely "about" modes of
>>>>>>>>>>> causation for a particular object or event.
>>>>>>>>>> So in your view, his methodology is what, exactly? From your
>>>>>>>>>> description below, his methodology would seem to be that once you
>>>>>>>>>> exclude the possibility that "purely naturalistic processes" could
>>>>>>>>>> have produced X, you conclude that X was intelligently designed.
>>>>>>>>> Again the parrot can repeat, but does he really "get" this?
>>>>>>>>> the possible modes-of-causation in our material world for all events
>>>>>>>>> or objects contains
>>>>>>>>> (1) law
>>>>>>>>> (2) chance
>>>>>>>>> (3) combination of law/chance
>>>>>>>>> (4) intelligent design
>>>>>>>>> and we eliminate (1) - (3) for a particular event or object then (4)
>>>>>>>>> As Sherlock Holmes pointed out, �When you have eliminated the
>>>>>>>>> impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.�
>>>>>>>>> This is only attainable when the possibilities are both finitely
>>>>>>>>> manageable and known----which "is" the case here.
>>>>>>>>> Dembski has shown that when the observable characteristic of
>>>>>>>>> "specified complexity" is found (1) - (3) are (effectively) impossible
>>>>>>>>> given the finite probablistic resources available to the
>>>>>>>>> universe----which leaves ID as the Truth.
>>>>>>>>>> Now,
>>>>>>>>>> being a bear of little brain (or a nimrod, or a nincompoop, as you so
>>>>>>>>>> eloquently phrase it), it seems to me that that methodology requires a
>>>>>>>>>> complete understanding of all "purely naturalistic processes." If you
>>>>>>>>>> do not know all there is to know about all the laws of nature, how
>>>>>>>>>> could you possibly determine that something could not have been
>>>>>>>>>> produced by "purely naturalistic processes." One might be tempted to
>>>>>>>>>> say that a methodology which cannot be used until we completely
>>>>>>>>>> understand all natural laws is, how shall we say, lacking in
>>>>>>>>>> usefullikeness.
>>>>>>>>> This is both wishful pleading and an appeal to ignorance-----not
>>>>>>>>> when his position is in flames and fastly approaching terra firma.
>>>>>>>>> In effect Rogers admits that all of our background knowledge about
>>>>>>>>> purely naturalistic processes shows that Dembski is correct about
>>>>>>>>> natual laws or naturalistic processes that "might" explain the
>>>>>>>>> he spinnin' them yarns at the pickle barrel, again?
>>>>>>>>> This is like the atheist Big Bangers trying to explain the red shift
>>>>>>>>> by first hypothesizing an unobservable rapid expansion of space which
>>>>>>>>> can in turn only be explained by hypothesizing that 95 percent of the
>>>>>>>>> universe is made up of some occult dark matter----which no one has
>>>>>>>>> Compared to Dembski the atheist rabble are little more than
>>>>>>>>> astrologers.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a rather slender, modest theory. That's OK.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd just like to know, according to your view, exactly how slender it
>>>>>>>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>> slenderness as "OK" then why would he also be concerned about
and somebody claiming that there's an example of something happening? If
dark matter is an example, please explain it to me. What was the
impossible that was eliminated? How is it that dark matter was "what
remains"? I'm not clever enough to get it.
Klaus Hellnick
Bill
<snip old stuff>
Wow, not just one bowling ball, but a veritable Malthusian
multiplication of threads. I'm impressed. Most of the points are in
this thread, too, so I'll just answer here.
> >So in your view, his methodology is what, exactly? From your
> >description below, his methodology would seem to be that once you
> >exclude the possibility that "purely naturalistic processes" could
> >have produced X, you conclude that X was intelligently designed.
>
> Again the parrot can repeat, but does he really "get" this?
>
> It is simple application of logic and set theory. �If the set of all
> the possible modes-of-causation in our material world for all events
> or objects contains
> (1) law
> (2) chance
> (3) combination of law/chance
> (4) intelligent design
>
> and we eliminate (1) - (3) for a particular event or object then (4)
> is the only possibility left. �It doesn't get any easier than that.
>
> As Sherlock Holmes pointed out, �When you have eliminated the
> impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.�
> This is only attainable when the possibilities are both finitely
> manageable and known----which "is" the case here.
Don't take this the wrong way. You have no idea how science works.
That's not suprising if you get your understanding of the scientific
method from Bacon and Popper - their abstract view of the scientific
method is only very distantly related to what scientists actually do.
It's even less surprising if you get your idea of the scientific
method from science fiction movies and mystery novels. The best way to
get an idea of how science works is to do it yourself for many years.
You won't learn it from a textbook, because textbooks rarely cover the
process of finding things out. If you had to read one book to learn
how science actually works, I'd suggest Feynman's Lectures on Physics
(3 vols). Not that he talks much about philosophy of science, but he
shows again and again how to approach a phenomenon that you want to
explain, beginning with over-simplified models and gradually adding
details until you have a model that makes really accurate predictions.
The math is a bit dense, but if you've had calculus and have some
discipline you can manage.
Now, what's wrong with Sherlock Holmes? In real life, outside of
novels, his "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever
remains, however improbable, must be the truth," does not work. (In
addition to not working, it's bad from your point of view because it
would make the lack of "probabilistic resources" for evolution
irrelevant). It does not work because you can never be sure that you
have thought of all the alternative possibilities. When you get to
what you think is the last, "however improbable" alternative there
comes a point at which the improbability of that "last alternative" is
greater than the improbability of your having overlooked other
alternatives.
>
> Dembski has shown that when the observable characteristic of
> "specified complexity" is found (1) - (3) are (effectively) impossible
> given the finite probablistic resources available to the
> universe----which leaves ID as the Truth.
Don't you see how this violates your own Sherlock Holmes "however
improbable, it must be the truth" argument.
>
> > Now,
> >being a bear of little brain (or a nimrod, or a nincompoop, as you so
> >eloquently phrase it), it seems to me that that methodology requires a
> >complete understanding of all "purely naturalistic processes." If you
> >do not know all there is to know about all the laws of nature, how
> >could you possibly determine that something could not have been
> >produced by "purely naturalistic processes." One might be tempted to
> >say that a methodology which cannot be used until we completely
> >understand all natural laws is, how shall we say, lacking in
> >usefullikeness.
.
>
> This is both wishful pleading and an appeal to ignorance-----not
> empirical Science. �Is Rogers really an empiricist? �Apparently not
> when his position is in flames and fastly approaching terra firma.
>
> In effect Rogers admits that all of our background knowledge about
> purely naturalistic processes shows that Dembski is correct about
> "specified complexity." �But Rogers pleads that there "could be" other
> natual laws or naturalistic processes that "might" explain the
> emergence of "specified complexity." �Is Rogers an "empiricist" or is
> he spinnin' them yarns at the pickle barrel, again?
Slow down there, Tony. You've missed the point. I do not at all
concede that Dembski is right. I think it is clear that "specified
complexity" can develop based on law and chance. The evidence for the
theory of evolution is so dense and interlocking and comes from so
many independent sources that I've no doubt that it is entirely
adequate to explain the origin of biological complexity. My argument,
however, is that even if we had no idea whatsoever how SC could have
emerged from law and chance, that would not allow us to conclude that
there's an intelligent designer somewhere.
You've again and again made the poor analogy betwee ID and SETI. I
agree that if we received an EM transmission encoding the first 100
primes, I'd be pretty inclined to think that a technological
civilization had beamed it our way. But there two reasons for that.
First, I cannot think of how such a signal could be produced non-
technologically (this is the reason you acknowledge). Second I can
easily imagine that a technological civilization would recognize the
universality of mathematics and would attempt to use a signal like
that to communicate with other technological civilizations.
But ID tries to work in another realm. Instead of explaining a
transmission of the first 100 primes, you are trying to account for,
say, an earthworm (certainly a marvel of complexity). Let's concede
(but only for the sake of argument) that you cannot think of how this
earthworm possibly can have arisen. Can you conclude it was
intelligently designed? In the case of the prime number transmission,
we know of a technological civilization, our own; we know that its
members use math and send EM transmissions - it's not unreasonable to
hypothesize that there's another such civilization out there send us
those primes. But when it comes to earthworms, we've never, ever seen
an intelligent designer build a living thing out of inorganic
components; we have no idea why, if there were such a thing, why it
would want to make an earthworm and leave it lying around here.
So in the case of the hypothesized SETI signal, we have two pieces (1)
we can't think of a non-technological explanation and (2) we can
understand how and why another technological might make such a signal
and send it our way, and we have an example of a technological
civilization doing just that sort of thing.
In the case of the earthworm we (1) don't know in arbitrarily fine
detail how it evolved but (2) we have never seen an intelligent
designer make an earthworm, and we have no idea how or why it,
whatever it is, would do such a thing. So the safest conclusion is
that we don't know yet. Although, in fact, we have a pretty good idea.
>
> This is like the atheist Big Bangers trying to explain the red shift
> by first hypothesizing an unobservable rapid expansion of space which
> can in turn only be explained by hypothesizing that 95 percent of the
> universe is made up of some occult dark matter----which no one has
> seen, touched, or smelled. �Did Bill really say he was an empiricist?
> Compared to Dembski the atheist rabble are little more than
> astrologers.
Actually, the cosmologists spend all of their time trying to design
experiments to test these counterintuitive hypotheses. What they don't
do is throw up their hands and say, we don't know how it happened, God
must have done it.
>
<snip old stuff>
> >Nothing wrong with a "slender" theory, but there is something wrong
> >with an utterly content-free theory.
.
>
> Apparently not so content-free that----above----Rogers was forced to
> introduce unknown and occult laws of nature and occult naturalistic
> processes to overcome Dembski's simple set theory and logic.
Do you think that all the laws of nature are known? One of the things
scientists are perfectly comfortable is with knowing that they do not
know everything yet. General relativity and quantum mechanics are
incompatible (for now, anyway), we do not know whether space is
quantized at small scales (your buddy Hume thought so, but we do not
know), we have no clear idea about why time runs forward (if you push
the question hard enough), there are many things about the details of
biology we have no idea about. It's hardly "special pleading" to
acknowledge that we haven't figured out all the laws of nature yet.
Dembski's set theory:
The set of stuff we've figured out = the set of stuff caused by law or
chance.
The set of stuff we haven't figured out yet = the set of intelligently
designed stuff.
>
> 'Ol Sherlock would be turnin' over in his grave.
He's a fictional character; he has no grave.
>
> snip for later
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
> If the history of science were actually taught in 6th - Undergraduate
> level students would be disheartened to learn how much scientists
> really cook the books to save their world views.
Tony, there's one thing I like about your version of ID. It's honest.
You do not hide behind the, "We're not saying it's God, it could have
been super advanced aliens" schtick that most of the political ID
crowd uses. You know, of course, that if it were super advanced aliens
that had designed life on earth, we'd be stuck with an infinite
regress of little green men, unless we were willing to admit that life
had evolved somewhere else. You, at least, have the bluntness to admit
that the unspecified intelligent designer is supernatural.
Friar Broccoli
You need to account for where these new ideas come from. In science
they come from testing, hypothesizing and retesting and when that
procedure is finished there is nothing left to eliminate.
>> In addition, you've already given your game away here in your
>> discussion with raven1:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/871a22ba109a1e68
>
>> Where you say:
>> "Science does in a very real sense "require" exclusion of anything not
>> yet thought of. Science does depend on a finite and understood set of
>> alternatives."
>
>> Even if you manage to twist Holmes' method to match the scientific
>> method, that is not what you are asserting. You are requiring
>> selection from pre-existing available alternatives, which would
>> prevent science from advancing.
.
> Not at all, nor did Holmes. You can't advance with what you don't
> know. I'm surprised to see that is what you apparently think is
> possible.
It is possible because elimination of all known existing alternatives
forces scientists to develop new possibilities which, usually means
looking at the data very very hard and seeing what new patterns the
data suggests. So new knowledge usually comes from recognizing the
patterns in nature. I gave evolution as a practical example here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/509bce05e39ffdcf
in the part of the message you cut.
Concerning the comment by Harshman here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/adeeac9b5d250015
You cut his preceding sentence:
"I would like an actual example of someone eliminating the impossible
and accepting whatever remains, however unlikely, as the truth"
thus the sentence you quoted:
"In my belief science operates by testing one hypothesis against
another and provisionally accepting whichever one, among those
advanced so far, best fits the data. That's not the Holmes method."
appears to refer to the fact the science acts by constantly testing
and retesting the data against the possible explanations, rather than
reasoning from a set of facts to a final official conclusion. The
reason this distinction is important is that in the real world one may
feel certain that one has seen all the possible alternatives and can
eliminate the false ones, but in practice nobody ever sees all the
alternatives, and testing almost always shows you got it wrong the
first, the second, and the xth time. That is, the real world does not
and cannot contain any Sherlock Holmes'. Not in the lab, not in the
police station.
This however is not my argument. I am concerned with (as I should
have made explicit) the leading edge of science - the development of
major new concepts like relativity, quantum physics, evolution and the
like, which simply cannot be modeled from Holmes' method.
Concerning your message here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/998995459af6b72d
which links to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetico-deductive_method
Once you have already extracted a new model from the data you go back
and apply a formal analytic procedure from the newly known
alternatives. Proposing and implementing falsification tests is of
course, essential for exposing weaknesses in a new model, and
suggesting new lines of investigation, but even if this procedure
causes the new theory to be completely rebuilt, as it often will,
that rebuilding is almost entirely driven by induction - from the
developed evidence, not deduction from pre-existing knowledge.
Glenn
> Glenn wrote:
> > On May 9, 10:55 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Glenn wrote:
> >>> On May 9, 5:45 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> Glenn wrote:
> >>>>> On May 8, 6:02 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>>> On May 8, 12:00 pm, 9fingers <gd9fing...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:34 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 7 May 2010 22:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> snip
> >>>>>>>>>> On 7 Mei, 07:48, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:38:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> snip
> >>>>>>>>>>> In any event Dembski's ID theory is not merely "about" modes of
> >>>>>>>>>>> causation for a particular object or event.
> >>>>>>>>>> So in your view, his methodology is what, exactly? From your
> >>>>>>>>>> description below, his methodology would seem to be that once you
> >>>>>>>>>> exclude the possibility that "purely naturalistic processes" could
> >>>>>>>>>> have produced X, you conclude that X was intelligently designed.
> >>>>>>>>> Again the parrot can repeat, but does he really "get" this?
> >>>>>>>>> the possible modes-of-causation in our material world for all events
> >>>>>>>>> or objects contains
> >>>>>>>>> (1) law
> >>>>>>>>> (2) chance
> >>>>>>>>> (3) combination of law/chance
> >>>>>>>>> (4) intelligent design
> >>>>>>>>> and we eliminate (1) - (3) for a particular event or object then (4)
> >>>>>>>>> As Sherlock Holmes pointed out, �When you have eliminated the
> >>>>>>>>> impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.�
> >>>>>>>>> This is only attainable when the possibilities are both finitely
> >>>>>>>>> manageable and known----which "is" the case here.
> >>>>>>>>> Dembski has shown that when the observable characteristic of
> >>>>>>>>> "specified complexity" is found (1) - (3) are (effectively) impossible
> >>>>>>>>> given the finite probablistic resources available to the
> >>>>>>>>> universe----which leaves ID as the Truth.
> >>>>>>>>>> Now,
> >>>>>>>>>> being a bear of little brain (or a nimrod, or a nincompoop, as you so
> >>>>>>>>>> eloquently phrase it), it seems to me that that methodology requires a
> >>>>>>>>>> complete understanding of all "purely naturalistic processes." If you
> >>>>>>>>>> do not know all there is to know about all the laws of nature, how
> >>>>>>>>>> could you possibly determine that something could not have been
> >>>>>>>>>> produced by "purely naturalistic processes." One might be tempted to
> >>>>>>>>>> say that a methodology which cannot be used until we completely
> >>>>>>>>>> understand all natural laws is, how shall we say, lacking in
> >>>>>>>>>> usefullikeness.
> >>>>>>>>> This is both wishful pleading and an appeal to ignorance-----not
> >>>>>>>>> when his position is in flames and fastly approaching terra firma.
> >>>>>>>>> In effect Rogers admits that all of our background knowledge about
> >>>>>>>>> purely naturalistic processes shows that Dembski is correct about
> >>>>>>>>> natual laws or naturalistic processes that "might" explain the
> >>>>>>>>> he spinnin' them yarns at the pickle barrel, again?
> >>>>>>>>> This is like the atheist Big Bangers trying to explain the red shift
> >>>>>>>>> by first hypothesizing an unobservable rapid expansion of space which
> >>>>>>>>> can in turn only be explained by hypothesizing that 95 percent of the
> >>>>>>>>> universe is made up of some occult dark matter----which no one has
> >>>>>>>>> Compared to Dembski the atheist rabble are little more than
> >>>>>>>>> astrologers.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's a rather slender, modest theory. That's OK.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'd just like to know, according to your view, exactly how slender it
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is.
> >>>>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>>>> slenderness as "OK" �then why would he also be concerned about
Sure you are, and I expect you know why dark matter is proposed. Get
the focus off of "impossible", or put it in proper context.
John Harshman
> On May 9, 5:13 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Glenn wrote:
>>> On May 9, 10:55 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> Glenn wrote:
>>>>> On May 9, 5:45 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Glenn wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 8, 6:02 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Glenn wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:00 pm, 9fingers <gd9fing...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:34 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 7 May 2010 22:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7 Mei, 07:48, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:38:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any event Dembski's ID theory is not merely "about" modes of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> causation for a particular object or event.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So in your view, his methodology is what, exactly? From your
>>>>>>>>>>>> description below, his methodology would seem to be that once you
>>>>>>>>>>>> exclude the possibility that "purely naturalistic processes" could
>>>>>>>>>>>> have produced X, you conclude that X was intelligently designed.
>>>>>>>>>>> Again the parrot can repeat, but does he really "get" this?
>>>>>>>>>>> the possible modes-of-causation in our material world for all events
>>>>>>>>>>> or objects contains
>>>>>>>>>>> (1) law
>>>>>>>>>>> (2) chance
>>>>>>>>>>> (3) combination of law/chance
>>>>>>>>>>> (4) intelligent design
>>>>>>>>>>> and we eliminate (1) - (3) for a particular event or object then (4)
>>>>>>>>>>> As Sherlock Holmes pointed out, �When you have eliminated the
>>>>>>>>>>> impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.�
>>>>>>>>>>> This is only attainable when the possibilities are both finitely
>>>>>>>>>>> manageable and known----which "is" the case here.
>>>>>>>>>>> Dembski has shown that when the observable characteristic of
>>>>>>>>>>> "specified complexity" is found (1) - (3) are (effectively) impossible
>>>>>>>>>>> given the finite probablistic resources available to the
>>>>>>>>>>> universe----which leaves ID as the Truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now,
>>>>>>>>>>>> being a bear of little brain (or a nimrod, or a nincompoop, as you so
>>>>>>>>>>>> eloquently phrase it), it seems to me that that methodology requires a
>>>>>>>>>>>> complete understanding of all "purely naturalistic processes." If you
>>>>>>>>>>>> do not know all there is to know about all the laws of nature, how
>>>>>>>>>>>> could you possibly determine that something could not have been
>>>>>>>>>>>> produced by "purely naturalistic processes." One might be tempted to
>>>>>>>>>>>> say that a methodology which cannot be used until we completely
>>>>>>>>>>>> understand all natural laws is, how shall we say, lacking in
>>>>>>>>>>>> usefullikeness.
>>>>>>>>>>> This is both wishful pleading and an appeal to ignorance-----not
>>>>>>>>>>> when his position is in flames and fastly approaching terra firma.
>>>>>>>>>>> In effect Rogers admits that all of our background knowledge about
>>>>>>>>>>> purely naturalistic processes shows that Dembski is correct about
>>>>>>>>>>> natual laws or naturalistic processes that "might" explain the
>>>>>>>>>>> he spinnin' them yarns at the pickle barrel, again?
>>>>>>>>>>> This is like the atheist Big Bangers trying to explain the red shift
>>>>>>>>>>> by first hypothesizing an unobservable rapid expansion of space which
>>>>>>>>>>> can in turn only be explained by hypothesizing that 95 percent of the
>>>>>>>>>>> universe is made up of some occult dark matter----which no one has
>>>>>>>>>>> Compared to Dembski the atheist rabble are little more than
>>>>>>>>>>> astrologers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a rather slender, modest theory. That's OK.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd just like to know, according to your view, exactly how slender it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>> slenderness as "OK" then why would he also be concerned about
Glenn
This is nuts. You can not at any given time advance what you don't
know. Science does progress by small steps, building on theories and
creating new theories as more is revealed. But science doesn't just
sit around forever looking at data and imagining things that are not
available to imagine at any given time.
>
> Concerning the comment by Harshman here:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/adeeac9b5d250015
>
> You cut his preceding sentence:
> "I would like an actual example of someone eliminating the impossible
> and accepting whatever remains, however unlikely, as the truth"
> thus the sentence you quoted:
> "In my belief science operates by testing one hypothesis against
> another and provisionally accepting whichever one, among those
> advanced so far, best fits the data. That's not the Holmes method."
>
> appears to refer to the fact the science acts by constantly testing
> and retesting the data against the possible explanations, rather than
> reasoning from a set of facts to a final official conclusion. �The
> reason this distinction is important is that in the real world one may
> feel certain that one has seen all the possible alternatives and can
> eliminate the false ones, but in practice nobody ever sees all the
> alternatives, and testing almost always shows you got it wrong the
> first, the second, and the xth time. �That is, the real world does not
> and cannot contain any Sherlock Holmes'. �Not in the lab, not in the
> police station.
John's statement stands by itself, and conflicts with what you said
"This refers to "eliminative induction" and it is quite clear from the
context that they are talking about exclusion from a domain of
foreseeable choices, not the development of completely new and counter-
intuitive models forced on us by data."
Apparently you didn't want to address John's statement in context to
what you said, instead going on about what you think John meant. I
agree that no one ever sees all the alternatives, but I find it quite
weird that you interpret Holmes' character as believing we or he
could.
>
> This however is not my argument. �I am concerned with (as I should
> have made explicit) the leading edge of science - the development of
> major new concepts like relativity, quantum physics, evolution and the
> like, which simply cannot be modeled from Holmes' method.
Well I'm not convinced that is true, nor have you provided an argument
for that.
>
> Concerning your message here:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/998995459af6b72d
> which links to:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetico-deductive_method
>
> Once you have already extracted a new model from the data you go back
> and apply a formal analytic procedure from the newly known
> alternatives. � Proposing and implementing falsification tests is of
> course, essential for exposing weaknesses in a new model, and
> suggesting new lines of investigation, but even if this procedure
> causes the new theory to be completely rebuilt, as it often will,
> that rebuilding is almost entirely driven by induction - from the
> developed evidence, not deduction from pre-existing knowledge.
More weirdness. You claimed science is based on induction. It is not,
although, like Holmes' methods, an important tool if used correctly.
Is this your way of conceding the point?
Glenn
> Glenn wrote:
> > On May 9, 5:13 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Glenn wrote:
> >>> On May 9, 10:55 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> Glenn wrote:
> >>>>> On May 9, 5:45 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>>> On May 8, 6:02 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:00 pm, 9fingers <gd9fing...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:34 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 7 May 2010 22:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> snip
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7 Mei, 07:48, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:38:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> snip
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In any event Dembski's ID theory is not merely "about" modes of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> causation for a particular object or event.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So in your view, his methodology is what, exactly? From your
> >>>>>>>>>>>> description below, his methodology would seem to be that once you
> >>>>>>>>>>>> exclude the possibility that "purely naturalistic processes" could
> >>>>>>>>>>>> have produced X, you conclude that X was intelligently designed.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Again the parrot can repeat, but does he really "get" this?
> >>>>>>>>>>> the possible modes-of-causation in our material world for all events
> >>>>>>>>>>> or objects contains
> >>>>>>>>>>> (1) law
> >>>>>>>>>>> (2) chance
> >>>>>>>>>>> (3) combination of law/chance
> >>>>>>>>>>> (4) intelligent design
> >>>>>>>>>>> and we eliminate (1) - (3) for a particular event or object then (4)
> >>>>>>>>>>> As Sherlock Holmes pointed out, �When you have eliminated the
> >>>>>>>>>>> impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.�
> >>>>>>>>>>> This is only attainable when the possibilities are both finitely
> >>>>>>>>>>> manageable and known----which "is" the case here.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dembski has shown that when the observable characteristic of
> >>>>>>>>>>> "specified complexity" is found (1) - (3) are (effectively) impossible
> >>>>>>>>>>> given the finite probablistic resources available to the
> >>>>>>>>>>> universe----which leaves ID as the Truth.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Now,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> being a bear of little brain (or a nimrod, or a nincompoop, as you so
> >>>>>>>>>>>> eloquently phrase it), it seems to me that that methodology requires a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> complete understanding of all "purely naturalistic processes." If you
> >>>>>>>>>>>> do not know all there is to know about all the laws of nature, how
> >>>>>>>>>>>> could you possibly determine that something could not have been
> >>>>>>>>>>>> produced by "purely naturalistic processes." One might be tempted to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> say that a methodology which cannot be used until we completely
> >>>>>>>>>>>> understand all natural laws is, how shall we say, lacking in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> usefullikeness.
> >>>>>>>>>>> This is both wishful pleading and an appeal to ignorance-----not
> >>>>>>>>>>> when his position is in flames and fastly approaching terra firma.
> >>>>>>>>>>> In effect Rogers admits that all of our background knowledge about
> >>>>>>>>>>> purely naturalistic processes shows that Dembski is correct about
> >>>>>>>>>>> natual laws or naturalistic processes that "might" explain the
> >>>>>>>>>>> he spinnin' them yarns at the pickle barrel, again?
> >>>>>>>>>>> This is like the atheist Big Bangers trying to explain the red shift
> >>>>>>>>>>> by first hypothesizing an unobservable rapid expansion of space which
> >>>>>>>>>>> can in turn only be explained by hypothesizing that 95 percent of the
> >>>>>>>>>>> universe is made up of some occult dark matter----which no one has
> >>>>>>>>>>> Compared to Dembski the atheist rabble are little more than
> >>>>>>>>>>> astrologers.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a rather slender, modest theory. That's OK.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd just like to know, according to your view, exactly how slender it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> slenderness as "OK" �then why would he also be concerned about
What do you mean by explain "myself"? How about you? Are you really
ignorant of why dark matter is proposed?
"Its existence was hypothesized to account for discrepancies between
measurements of the mass of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the
entire universe..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
What is "impossible" is the apparent mass not being sufficient to
explain the behavior of objects in the universe.
Glenn
>
> It does not work because you can never be sure that you
> have thought of all the alternative possibilities.
This is the ever recurring argument in a nutshell, no matter how many
words it takes to get there.
I believe it comes from an inordinate focus on the words "impossible"
and "truth", as a result of an irrational fear that somehow an ID
concept could prevail. But it is so silly, on a level with the
"infinite regress" rant. Science can never be sure of knowing all
possibilities.
raven1
wrote:
>On May 9, 1:15�pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
If you can clarify the difference between "anything not yet (ie:
previously) thought of" and "new ideas", I'd like to hear what you
think the distinction might be.
John Harshman
> On May 9, 7:28 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Glenn wrote:
>>> On May 9, 5:13 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> Glenn wrote:
>>>>> On May 9, 10:55 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Glenn wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 9, 5:45 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Glenn wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 6:02 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Glenn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:00 pm, 9fingers <gd9fing...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:34 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 7 May 2010 22:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7 Mei, 07:48, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:38:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any event Dembski's ID theory is not merely "about" modes of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causation for a particular object or event.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in your view, his methodology is what, exactly? From your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description below, his methodology would seem to be that once you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclude the possibility that "purely naturalistic processes" could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have produced X, you conclude that X was intelligently designed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again the parrot can repeat, but does he really "get" this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the possible modes-of-causation in our material world for all events
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or objects contains
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) law
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) chance
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) combination of law/chance
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (4) intelligent design
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and we eliminate (1) - (3) for a particular event or object then (4)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As Sherlock Holmes pointed out, �When you have eliminated the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.�
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is only attainable when the possibilities are both finitely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> manageable and known----which "is" the case here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dembski has shown that when the observable characteristic of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "specified complexity" is found (1) - (3) are (effectively) impossible
>>>>>>>>>>>>> given the finite probablistic resources available to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe----which leaves ID as the Truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being a bear of little brain (or a nimrod, or a nincompoop, as you so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eloquently phrase it), it seems to me that that methodology requires a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete understanding of all "purely naturalistic processes." If you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not know all there is to know about all the laws of nature, how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could you possibly determine that something could not have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produced by "purely naturalistic processes." One might be tempted to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that a methodology which cannot be used until we completely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand all natural laws is, how shall we say, lacking in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usefullikeness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is both wishful pleading and an appeal to ignorance-----not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> when his position is in flames and fastly approaching terra firma.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In effect Rogers admits that all of our background knowledge about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> purely naturalistic processes shows that Dembski is correct about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> natual laws or naturalistic processes that "might" explain the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> he spinnin' them yarns at the pickle barrel, again?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is like the atheist Big Bangers trying to explain the red shift
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by first hypothesizing an unobservable rapid expansion of space which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can in turn only be explained by hypothesizing that 95 percent of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe is made up of some occult dark matter----which no one has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Compared to Dembski the atheist rabble are little more than
>>>>>>>>>>>>> astrologers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a rather slender, modest theory. That's OK.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd just like to know, according to your view, exactly how slender it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slenderness as "OK" then why would he also be concerned about
I'm trying to make your claims concrete by getting you to explain a
specific example. That's why I ask for you to explain just how dark
matter is an example of Holmes' method. What was the impossible? What
remained?
> "Its existence was hypothesized to account for discrepancies between
> measurements of the mass of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the
> entire universe..."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
> What is "impossible" is the apparent mass not being sufficient to
> explain the behavior of objects in the universe.
That doesn't seem like the impossible to me. It seems like the raw data
in need of explanation.
Glenn
> On Sun, 9 May 2010 14:46:27 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
Perhaps it isn't clear. I said that science in a way requires
exclusion of ideas not yet thought of. Seems pretty straightforward
and simple to me; were it not so science couldn't go anywhere till
*all* ideas had been thought of. That science advances as a result of
new ideas from time to time is not mutually incompatible. "Any new
idea" is not "ideas not yet thought of". You have an "idea", but you
don't know you have all of them; if you had to know them all then the
one idea you have is useless.
Glenn
> Glenn wrote:
> > On May 9, 7:28 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Glenn wrote:
> >>> On May 9, 5:13 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> Glenn wrote:
> >>>>> On May 9, 10:55 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>>> On May 9, 5:45 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On May 8, 6:02 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:00 pm, 9fingers <gd9fing...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:34 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 7 May 2010 22:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> snip
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7 Mei, 07:48, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:38:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> snip
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any event Dembski's ID theory is not merely "about" modes of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causation for a particular object or event.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in your view, his methodology is what, exactly? From your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> description below, his methodology would seem to be that once you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclude the possibility that "purely naturalistic processes" could
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have produced X, you conclude that X was intelligently designed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Again the parrot can repeat, but does he really "get" this?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the possible modes-of-causation in our material world for all events
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> or objects contains
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) law
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) chance
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) combination of law/chance
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (4) intelligent design
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and we eliminate (1) - (3) for a particular event or object then (4)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As Sherlock Holmes pointed out, �When you have eliminated the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.�
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is only attainable when the possibilities are both finitely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> manageable and known----which "is" the case here.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dembski has shown that when the observable characteristic of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "specified complexity" is found (1) - (3) are (effectively) impossible
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> given the finite probablistic resources available to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> universe----which leaves ID as the Truth.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> being a bear of little brain (or a nimrod, or a nincompoop, as you so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> eloquently phrase it), it seems to me that that methodology requires a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete understanding of all "purely naturalistic processes." If you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not know all there is to know about all the laws of nature, how
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> could you possibly determine that something could not have been
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> produced by "purely naturalistic processes." One might be tempted to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that a methodology which cannot be used until we completely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand all natural laws is, how shall we say, lacking in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> usefullikeness.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is both wishful pleading and an appeal to ignorance-----not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> when his position is in flames and fastly approaching terra firma.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In effect Rogers admits that all of our background knowledge about
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> purely naturalistic processes shows that Dembski is correct about
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> natual laws or naturalistic processes that "might" explain the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> he spinnin' them yarns at the pickle barrel, again?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is like the atheist Big Bangers trying to explain the red shift
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> by first hypothesizing an unobservable rapid expansion of space which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> can in turn only be explained by hypothesizing that 95 percent of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> universe is made up of some occult dark matter----which no one has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Compared to Dembski the atheist rabble are little more than
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> astrologers.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a rather slender, modest theory. That's OK.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd just like to know, according to your view, exactly how slender it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slenderness as "OK" �then why would he also be concerned about
Yes, and impossible to explain without what "remained", dark matter. I
fail to see your problem, unless you're just trolling.
John Harshman
> On May 9, 8:02 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Glenn wrote:
>>> On May 9, 7:28 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> Glenn wrote:
>>>>> On May 9, 5:13 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Glenn wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 9, 10:55 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Glenn wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On May 9, 5:45 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Glenn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 6:02 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Glenn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:00 pm, 9fingers <gd9fing...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:34 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 7 May 2010 22:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7 Mei, 07:48, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:38:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any event Dembski's ID theory is not merely "about" modes of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causation for a particular object or event.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in your view, his methodology is what, exactly? From your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description below, his methodology would seem to be that once you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclude the possibility that "purely naturalistic processes" could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have produced X, you conclude that X was intelligently designed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again the parrot can repeat, but does he really "get" this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the possible modes-of-causation in our material world for all events
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or objects contains
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) law
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) chance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) combination of law/chance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (4) intelligent design
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and we eliminate (1) - (3) for a particular event or object then (4)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As Sherlock Holmes pointed out, �When you have eliminated the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.�
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is only attainable when the possibilities are both finitely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manageable and known----which "is" the case here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dembski has shown that when the observable characteristic of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "specified complexity" is found (1) - (3) are (effectively) impossible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given the finite probablistic resources available to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe----which leaves ID as the Truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being a bear of little brain (or a nimrod, or a nincompoop, as you so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eloquently phrase it), it seems to me that that methodology requires a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete understanding of all "purely naturalistic processes." If you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not know all there is to know about all the laws of nature, how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could you possibly determine that something could not have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produced by "purely naturalistic processes." One might be tempted to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that a methodology which cannot be used until we completely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand all natural laws is, how shall we say, lacking in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usefullikeness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is both wishful pleading and an appeal to ignorance-----not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when his position is in flames and fastly approaching terra firma.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In effect Rogers admits that all of our background knowledge about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purely naturalistic processes shows that Dembski is correct about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> natual laws or naturalistic processes that "might" explain the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he spinnin' them yarns at the pickle barrel, again?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is like the atheist Big Bangers trying to explain the red shift
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by first hypothesizing an unobservable rapid expansion of space which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can in turn only be explained by hypothesizing that 95 percent of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe is made up of some occult dark matter----which no one has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Compared to Dembski the atheist rabble are little more than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> astrologers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a rather slender, modest theory. That's OK.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd just like to know, according to your view, exactly how slender it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slenderness as "OK" then why would he also be concerned about
They didn't eliminate all other possibilities; it's just that
postulating dark matter explains the data better than anything else that
anyone has thought of. That's not what Holmes was talking about, which
works only in a fictional universe that's set up just for the
character's hypotheses.
Glenn
> Glenn wrote:
> > On May 9, 8:02 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Glenn wrote:
> >>> On May 9, 7:28 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> Glenn wrote:
> >>>>> On May 9, 5:13 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>>> On May 9, 10:55 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On May 9, 5:45 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 6:02 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:00 pm, 9fingers <gd9fing...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:34 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 7 May 2010 22:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> snip
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7 Mei, 07:48, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:38:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> snip
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any event Dembski's ID theory is not merely "about" modes of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causation for a particular object or event.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in your view, his methodology is what, exactly? From your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description below, his methodology would seem to be that once you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclude the possibility that "purely naturalistic processes" could
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have produced X, you conclude that X was intelligently designed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again the parrot can repeat, but does he really "get" this?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the possible modes-of-causation in our material world for all events
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or objects contains
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) law
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) chance
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) combination of law/chance
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (4) intelligent design
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and we eliminate (1) - (3) for a particular event or object then (4)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As Sherlock Holmes pointed out, �When you have eliminated the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.�
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is only attainable when the possibilities are both finitely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manageable and known----which "is" the case here.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dembski has shown that when the observable characteristic of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "specified complexity" is found (1) - (3) are (effectively) impossible
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given the finite probablistic resources available to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe----which leaves ID as the Truth.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being a bear of little brain (or a nimrod, or a nincompoop, as you so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eloquently phrase it), it seems to me that that methodology requires a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete understanding of all "purely naturalistic processes." If you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not know all there is to know about all the laws of nature, how
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could you possibly determine that something could not have been
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produced by "purely naturalistic processes." One might be tempted to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that a methodology which cannot be used until we completely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand all natural laws is, how shall we say, lacking in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usefullikeness.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is both wishful pleading and an appeal to ignorance-----not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when his position is in flames and fastly approaching terra firma.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In effect Rogers admits that all of our background knowledge about
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purely naturalistic processes shows that Dembski is correct about
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> natual laws or naturalistic processes that "might" explain the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he spinnin' them yarns at the pickle barrel, again?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is like the atheist Big Bangers trying to explain the red shift
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by first hypothesizing an unobservable rapid expansion of space which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can in turn only be explained by hypothesizing that 95 percent of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe is made up of some occult dark matter----which no one has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Compared to Dembski the atheist rabble are little more than
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> astrologers.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a rather slender, modest theory. That's OK.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd just like to know, according to your view, exactly how slender it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slenderness as "OK" �then why would he also be concerned about
Glenn
> Glenn wrote:
> > On May 9, 8:02 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Glenn wrote:
> >>> On May 9, 7:28 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> Glenn wrote:
> >>>>> On May 9, 5:13 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>>> On May 9, 10:55 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On May 9, 5:45 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 6:02 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Glenn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:00 pm, 9fingers <gd9fing...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:34 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 7 May 2010 22:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> snip
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7 Mei, 07:48, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:38:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> snip
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any event Dembski's ID theory is not merely "about" modes of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causation for a particular object or event.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in your view, his methodology is what, exactly? From your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description below, his methodology would seem to be that once you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclude the possibility that "purely naturalistic processes" could
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have produced X, you conclude that X was intelligently designed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again the parrot can repeat, but does he really "get" this?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the possible modes-of-causation in our material world for all events
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or objects contains
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) law
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) chance
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) combination of law/chance
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (4) intelligent design
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and we eliminate (1) - (3) for a particular event or object then (4)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As Sherlock Holmes pointed out, �When you have eliminated the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.�
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is only attainable when the possibilities are both finitely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manageable and known----which "is" the case here.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dembski has shown that when the observable characteristic of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "specified complexity" is found (1) - (3) are (effectively) impossible
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given the finite probablistic resources available to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe----which leaves ID as the Truth.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being a bear of little brain (or a nimrod, or a nincompoop, as you so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eloquently phrase it), it seems to me that that methodology requires a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete understanding of all "purely naturalistic processes." If you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not know all there is to know about all the laws of nature, how
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could you possibly determine that something could not have been
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produced by "purely naturalistic processes." One might be tempted to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that a methodology which cannot be used until we completely
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand all natural laws is, how shall we say, lacking in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usefullikeness.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is both wishful pleading and an appeal to ignorance-----not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when his position is in flames and fastly approaching terra firma.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In effect Rogers admits that all of our background knowledge about
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purely naturalistic processes shows that Dembski is correct about
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> natual laws or naturalistic processes that "might" explain the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he spinnin' them yarns at the pickle barrel, again?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is like the atheist Big Bangers trying to explain the red shift
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by first hypothesizing an unobservable rapid expansion of space which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can in turn only be explained by hypothesizing that 95 percent of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe is made up of some occult dark matter----which no one has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Compared to Dembski the atheist rabble are little more than
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> astrologers.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a rather slender, modest theory. That's OK.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd just like to know, according to your view, exactly how slender it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slenderness as "OK" �then why would he also be concerned about
That's precisely Holmes' method. You just seem incapable of putting
his words in context because of some hang-up on individual words. If
there are other possibilities as you imply, they are part of what
Holmes describes as "what remains".
"The process� starts upon the supposition that when you have
eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however
improbable, must be the truth. It may be that several explanations
remain, in which case one tries test after test until one or other of
them has a convincing amount of support."
John Harshman
> On May 10, 6:10 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Glenn wrote:
>>> On May 9, 8:02 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> Glenn wrote:
>>>>> On May 9, 7:28 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Glenn wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 9, 5:13 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Glenn wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On May 9, 10:55 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Glenn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On May 9, 5:45 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Glenn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 6:02 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Glenn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:00 pm, 9fingers <gd9fing...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 8, 12:34 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 7 May 2010 22:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7 Mei, 07:48, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:38:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In any event Dembski's ID theory is not merely "about" modes of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causation for a particular object or event.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in your view, his methodology is what, exactly? From your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description below, his methodology would seem to be that once you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exclude the possibility that "purely naturalistic processes" could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have produced X, you conclude that X was intelligently designed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again the parrot can repeat, but does he really "get" this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the possible modes-of-causation in our material world for all events
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or objects contains
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) law
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) chance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) combination of law/chance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (4) intelligent design
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and we eliminate (1) - (3) for a particular event or object then (4)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As Sherlock Holmes pointed out, �When you have eliminated the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.�
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is only attainable when the possibilities are both finitely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manageable and known----which "is" the case here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dembski has shown that when the observable characteristic of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "specified complexity" is found (1) - (3) are (effectively) impossible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given the finite probablistic resources available to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe----which leaves ID as the Truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being a bear of little brain (or a nimrod, or a nincompoop, as you so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eloquently phrase it), it seems to me that that methodology requires a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete understanding of all "purely naturalistic processes." If you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not know all there is to know about all the laws of nature, how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could you possibly determine that something could not have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produced by "purely naturalistic processes." One might be tempted to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that a methodology which cannot be used until we completely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand all natural laws is, how shall we say, lacking in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usefullikeness.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is both wishful pleading and an appeal to ignorance-----not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when his position is in flames and fastly approaching terra firma.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In effect Rogers admits that all of our background knowledge about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purely naturalistic processes shows that Dembski is correct about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> natual laws or naturalistic processes that "might" explain the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he spinnin' them yarns at the pickle barrel, again?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is like the atheist Big Bangers trying to explain the red shift
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by first hypothesizing an unobservable rapid expansion of space which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can in turn only be explained by hypothesizing that 95 percent of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe is made up of some occult dark matter----which no one has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Compared to Dembski the atheist rabble are little more than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> astrologers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a rather slender, modest theory. That's OK.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd just like to know, according to your view, exactly how slender it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slenderness as "OK" then why would he also be concerned about
I agree that if it were possible to eliminate all but one potential
cause, we would have to accept that cause as the truth. But in the real
world, as opposed to Conan Doyle's nicely set up artificial world, that
doesn't happen.
> "The process� starts upon the supposition that when you have
> eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however
> improbable, must be the truth. It may be that several explanations
> remain, in which case one tries test after test until one or other of
> them has a convincing amount of support."
In that case, elimination of the impossible is not an important part of
the process. We can eliminate the theory that the moon was produced in
Wisconsin after having observed that it is indeed not made of cheese.
But that doesn't get us any closer to figuring out the moon's origin.
> http://tinyurl.com/24su3mn
>
Holmes' reasoning in that case holds up only in Conan Doyle's specially
prepared universe. Science just isn't primarily deductive.
Kleuskes & Moos
<snip>
> > > Yes, and impossible to explain without what "remained", dark matter. I
> > > fail to see your problem, unless you're just trolling.
>
> > Why is dark matter "what remains"? Really, that's not how science works.
> > They didn't eliminate all other possibilities; it's just that
> > postulating dark matter explains the data better than anything else that
> > anyone has thought of. That's not what Holmes was talking about, which
> > works only in a fictional universe that's set up just for the
> > character's hypotheses.
>
> That's precisely Holmes' method. You just seem incapable of putting
> his words in context because of some hang-up on individual words.
Nope. Calling it "dark matter": is (basically) no more than slapping a
label on
a phenomenon, which, so far, has defied explanation. Something seems
to behave like a large mass, but we can't detect any electromagnetic
radiation... Let's call it Dark Matter...
Quite unlike the method of Holmes.
> If there are other possibilities as you imply, they are part of what
> Holmes describes as "what remains".
A kind of "No True Scottsman" in reverse. And just as credible...
> "The process� starts upon the supposition that when you have
> eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however
> improbable, must be the truth. It may be that several explanations
> remain, in which case one tries test after test until one or other of
> them has a convincing amount of support."
So?
"I reject that entirely. The impossible often has a kind of integrity
to it the which the merely improbable lacks. [...] The first idea
merely supposes there's something we don't know about, and God knows
there anough of that. The second, however, runs contrary to something
fndamental and human, which we do know about. We should therefore be
very suspicious of it and all its spaecious rationality". Dirk Gently
in "The long dark teatime of the soul".
Glenn
> >> Why is dark matter "what remains"? Really, that's not how science works.
> >> They didn't eliminate all other possibilities; it's just that
> >> postulating dark matter explains the data better than anything else that
> >> anyone has thought of. That's not what Holmes was talking about, which
> >> works only in a fictional universe that's set up just for the
> >> character's hypotheses.
>
> > That's precisely Holmes' method. You just seem incapable of putting
> > his words in context because of some hang-up on individual words. If
> > there are other possibilities as you imply, they are part of what
> > Holmes describes as "what remains".
>
> I agree that if it were possible to eliminate all but one potential
> cause, we would have to accept that cause as the truth. But in the real
> world, as opposed to Conan Doyle's nicely set up artificial world, that
> doesn't happen.
Holy crap John, that does happen in reality for any meaningful
definition of "potential".
>
> > "The process� starts upon the supposition that when you have
> > eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however
> > improbable, must be the truth. It may be that several explanations
> > remain, in which case one tries test after test until one or other of
> > them has a convincing amount of support."
>
> In that case, elimination of the impossible is not an important part of
> the process. We can eliminate the theory that the moon was produced in
> Wisconsin after having observed that it is indeed not made of cheese.
> But that doesn't get us any closer to figuring out the moon's origin.
>
That depends on the level of knowledge as well as the subject. Your
absurd example does little to support the claim that elimination is
not an important part of the process. Any and all new ideas are
potential "impossibilities", the process eliminating some and holding
others as "whatever remains" as the process advances. No principle
exists in nature or science that precludes a single cause as all that
remains. People do go to prison, and the moon is not made in
Wisconsin.
>
> Holmes' reasoning in that case holds up only in Conan Doyle's specially
> prepared universe. Science just isn't primarily deductive.
What percentage of Holme's reasoning was deductive?
John Harshman
Perhaps you could explain how dark matter is an example, since you
introduced it.
>> Holmes' reasoning in that case holds up only in Conan Doyle's specially
>> prepared universe. Science just isn't primarily deductive.
>
> What percentage of Holme's reasoning was deductive?
Holmes never existed and never reasoned. A great deal of what was
claimed to be his reasoning was presented as deductive. Why?
Burkhard
Sorry, I have to disagree, Doyle uses this expression, but what Holmes
really is doing is abduction, or inference to the best explanation,
not deduction. see Sebeok, T. (1981) "You Know My Method." In Sebeok,
T. "The Play of Musement." Indiana. Bloomington, IA. and if you doubt
that one, I have to cite some of mine :o)
John Harshman
particular in the quote we're talking about here ("Once you have
eliminated the impossible...").
Glenn
Already have.
>
> >> Holmes' reasoning in that case holds up only in Conan Doyle's specially
> >> prepared universe. Science just isn't primarily deductive.
>
> > What percentage of Holme's reasoning was deductive?
>
> Holmes never existed and never reasoned.
But you just directly referred to Holmes' reasoning.
> A great deal of what was
> claimed to be his reasoning was presented as deductive. Why?
Being scientific and all, surely when you make a claim you'd want to
put some meaning into it.
Quantify "a great deal".
johnetho...@yahoo.com
Translation: I can't explain what I'm talking about because it's total
BS.
Glenn
No, you just place peculiar emphasis on particular words. Holmes
generalizes what is done in science in the one quote.
Read "ruled out the possibility" in this article:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/12/life-on-mars-still-a-possibility-.html
"As Sherlock Holmes said, eliminate all other factors and the one that
remains must be the truth. The list of possible sources of methane gas
is getting smaller and excitingly, extraterrestrial life still remains
an option. Ultimately the final test may have to be on Mars."
*********
"Impossible" equates to "rule out the possibility". Approximately 270K
hits:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22rule+out+the+possibility%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=800&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22rules%20out%20the%20possibility%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22ruled+out+the+possibility%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=800&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
RAM
"a great deal" = more than half the time
Burkhard
Is that a clear case for deduction? One reconstruction runs like this:
start with lots of disorganised data (the "trifles" Holmes mentions
fondly in The Boscombe Valley Mystery or The Man with the Twisted Lip)
From this, hypothesise abductively possible explanations. Eliminate
those that are inconsistent with prior knowledge (hence, impossible) .
Stick with the one that remains (in the stories typically one,
sometimes two, never more) .
OK, you could make the testing stage more elaborate, and indeed
deductive - For each generated explanation, ask what else would be
true of the explanation holds. Check and eliminate the refuted ones -
modus tollens type falsification, resulting in the hypothetical-
deductive model. Holmes does this to, but not too often. In most
cases, the available trifle already constrain the generated
explanatory hypothesis to one. Frequently, when Holmes says
"impossible", he really means: unsuitable to explain ._all_ the
evidence/trifles.
Glenn
"I never guess. It is a shocking habit � destructive to the logical
faculty"
Burkhard
But actions speak louder than words. Guessing is what he does almost
all the time - just methodologically guided guesses which are later
tested. Take the Scandal in Bohemia. From the damages ot Watson's
shoes, he abduces that Watson must have a lazy serving girl. But it is
of course also possible that the serving girl is shortsighted, that
Watson bought the shoes second hand and damaged, that the serving
girl is ill and Watson had to do it himself etc etc
He admits as much on the Hound of Baskerville:
"We balance probabilities and choose the most likely. It is the
scientific use of the imagination"
aganunitsi
improbable. Falsifying an unfalsifiable assertion of creationism is
impossible by any means. Therefore, I deduce that this thread is most
likely going nowhere.
Glenn
> tested. Take the Scandal in Bohemia. From the damages ot Watson's
> shoes, he abduces that Watson must have a lazy serving girl. But it is
> of course also possible that the serving girl is shortsighted, that
> girl is ill and Watson had to do it himself etc etc
Why would you think that Holmes would not have considered those
possibilites, were they not eliminated - even if we are not privy to
that information? Elementary. He knew Watson, knew the shoes, knew he
had a serving girl, knew that Watson would not have scraped his shoes
himself...even a blind serving girl would not have scored the shoes
were she not lazy. No guess about being wet, scraping expensive shoes
would have required a real reason, mud.
>
> He admits as much on the Hound of Baskerville:
> "We balance probabilities and choose the most likely. It is the
> scientific use of the imagination"
Not the same as guessing, but what comes after.
John Harshman
described as actually working, only with Conan Doyle's. Though in fact
mostly in science we don't eliminate the impossible, we merely choose
the least unlikely. I haven't made any rigorous study of Holmes'
methods, but it seems to me he accepts a hypothesis that explains some
evidence, and perhaps the most likely one, though not always
overwhelmingly more likely than other explanations. But thanks to Conan
Doyle, he always turns out to be right.
Anyway, the single-sentence description doesn't seem to me to be a
useful way to do science, which is the original point under contention.
Glenn
Reference?
John Harshman
> On May 10, 12:58 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 10, 2:40 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
47:116-132.
You could try searching Google Books; when I searched The Complete
Sherlock Holms, vol. 1, I found 21 uses of "deduce", 11 more of
"deduced", and a further 21 of "deduction". Almost all referring to
Holmes. I'm not sure what other terms you might want to compare usage of.
And of course there's Dorlock Holmes, as played by D. Duck in the film
"Deduce, You Say", whose favorite pastime is deducting.
Glenn
So if it says it's a deduct it is a deduct?
John Harshman
I said.
raven1
wrote:
Not at all. Thanks for clarifying.
>I said that science in a way requires
>exclusion of ideas not yet thought of. Seems pretty straightforward
>and simple to me; were it not so science couldn't go anywhere till
>*all* ideas had been thought of.
Seems pretty incoherent. How do you figure?
>That science advances as a result of
>new ideas from time to time is not mutually incompatible. "Any new
>idea" is not "ideas not yet thought of".
Again, you're welcome to explain the distinction.
>You have an "idea", but you
>don't know you have all of them;
So what?
> if you had to know them all then the
>one idea you have is useless.
Who is claiming that you have to know all ideas to come up with a new
idea?
Glenn
> On Sun, 9 May 2010 20:19:14 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com>
Dude, at any given point in time there could be an infinite number of
ideas not yet thought of.
>
> >That science advances as a result of
> >new ideas from time to time is not mutually incompatible. "Any new
> >idea" is not "ideas not yet thought of".
>
> Again, you're welcome to explain the distinction.
Like I said, if you didn't understand you likely will never, or can't.
>
> >You have an "idea", but you
> >don't know you have all of them;
>
> So what?
So what? Does science require that you know all the ideas?
>
> > if you had to know them all then the
> >one idea you have is useless.
>
> Who is claiming that you have to know all ideas to come up with a new
> idea?
Beats me, maybe Mickey Mouse.
Glenn
Good logic there, John. Off work?
Bill
>
> So what? Does science require that you know all the ideas?
>
Of course not. In science you compare different ideas and see which
one makes better predictions. The only time you need to know "all the
ideas" is when you want to use the Holmes (as described by Pagano)
approach of eliminating all possibilities but one. Since science does
not work that way, of course you do not need to know all the ideas to
do science.
RAM
I find his logic inductively correct. Have you read all the Holmes
series? The "Harsh" ones observation tallies with my reading of the
Holmes' series. Deduction and its various stems are employed a great
deal to describe the Holmes' logic.
Glenn
You need to take this regurgitated baby talk to Tony then, since
Holmes never advocated that "all things must be known". I don't know
Tony's argument but suspect this is your interpretation of the quote,
and for some reason you have chosen not to interpret it as "all known
things". The word "all" is simply not part of the quote, nor is "but
one".
You apparently have no idea of why the question you responded to was
raised, and if you had you ignored it and regurgitated the same
argument that that caused it to be raised. Moos said way up in the
thread
"But the quote depends on a finite and, most important, fully known
and understood set of alternatives, which is rather unlikely, since it
requires exclusion of any possible alternatives you haven't yet
thought of. "
which is downright bullshit, but I chose to reply by saying that
science does in a way require exclusion of any possible alternatives
that haven't yet been thought of. And the bozos complain, some think
it means I don't understand science, others just argue without knowing
the context. Ergo the question above, to which you agreed was false.
If science does not require all ideas to be known, in a real sense
science must allow the exclusion of any not yet known.
Bill
Science is perfectly comfortable with the idea that all ideas are not
known yet. It "allows the exclusion of any not yet known" because it
obviously cannot test the predictions made by theories not yet thought
of. To admit one cannot think of other possibilities at the moment is
not equivalent to denying that there are other possibilities.
Science does not use the same eliminative deduction that works fine in
math, logic, and Sherlock Holmes novels.
Glenn
Well you got that right.
>
> Science does not use the same eliminative deduction that works fine in
> math, logic, and Sherlock Holmes novels.
"rule out the possibility". Approximately 270K hits:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22rule+out+the+possibility...
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22rules%20out%20the%20poss...
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22ruled+out+the+possibilit...
Bill
Ah, argument by number of Google hits - one of the weaker versions of
the argument from authority.
>
> http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22rule+out+the+possibility...http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22rules%20out%20the%20poss...http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22ruled+out+the+possibilit...- Sembunyikan teks kutipan -
>
> - Perlihatkan teks kutipan -
Glenn
dozen posts. Of course that may be some kind of record.
Bill
Yes, I'm a cashew. If you'd asked up front I'd have been happy to let
you know.
John Harshman
Burkhard
Ruling out "a" possibility is unproblematic. Building your theory on
the claim you have ruled out _all_, is what is t issue here - the
possibility, in empirical sciences, to have what in math would be a
non-constructive proof.
Glenn
>
> Ruling out "a" possibility is unproblematic. Building your theory on
> the claim you have ruled out _all_, is what is t issue here - the
> possibility, in empirical sciences, to have what in math would be a
> non-constructive proof.
No individual can "require" ruling out all unknown possibilities. It's
obvious to me that Holmes' "all" means "all known or imagined at the
time", but "all" by itself is quite adequate. That is not the real
issue here, since a theory could be formulated by means of that
philosophy, be predictive and useful and subject to falsification.The
real issue appears to be the concept itself of "ruling out
possibilities" or "process of elimination" being "not what is done" or
"not scientific". But that isn't even the real issue, but the
association of that with ID. And so the process is irrationally
attacked.
Burkhard
How exactly would that work? It is a non-constructive proof, so there
is no evidence for X _apart_ from non-A, non-B, non-C. So the only way
to falsify the claim is to show, in the specific instance, A, B, or C
- in which case it would not have been within the remit of ID in the
first place, so ID is not falsified.
Glenn
> On May 11, 5:19�ｿｽpm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 10, 11:50�ｿｽpm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On 11 May, 04:23, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > On 11 Mei, 09:56, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> is no evidence for X _apart_ from non-A, non-B, non-C. So the only way
> to falsify the claim is to show, in the specific instance, A, B, or C
> - in which case it would not have been within the remit of ID in the
> first place, so ID is not falsified.
>
John Stockwell
> On May 9, 5:53 pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It does not work because you can never be sure that you
> > have thought of all the alternative possibilities.
>
> This is the ever recurring argument in a nutshell, no matter how many
> words it takes to get there.
> I believe it comes from an inordinate focus on the words "impossible"
> and "truth", as a result of an irrational fear that somehow an ID
> concept could prevail. But it is so silly, on a level with the
> "infinite regress" rant. Science can never be sure of knowing all
> possibilities.
No. There real problem is that ID does not tell you how stuff came
to be. It is an "identification scheme", it does not tell you the
process by which a given object came into existence. ID is
no different than casting horoscopes or reading tea leaves.
-John
Glenn
stuff came to be, but that is not cause to go off the deep end and
argue against the process of elimination or of ruling out
possibilities, or to imply as in the infinite regression argument that
science must first explain ultimate causes. But then I'm arguing with
a guy who would say it is impossible to determine ID in a mountain
carving of four distinctive human faces unless one had detailed
knowledge of its manufacture. I was around five when I first saw the
monument. Needless to say, it was obvious to me that it was
artificial, and doubtful I had any knowledge or understanding of the
method of construction.
Were they carvings of four different animals I would have came to the
same conclusion. They don't look a little like the presidents; were
they cartoon caricatures the inference would not have been different.
We recognize patterns and relationships. Were it not so there would be
no science.
Burkhard
is to rule out A, B and C. This is the _only_ evidence for your
claim. Now if we discover that after all, A was true, or that there
was a new cause, say D, what exactly does this falsify?
Glenn
> On 11 May, 17:56, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > On May 11, 5:19�pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 10, 11:50�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 11 May, 04:23, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > On 11 Mei, 09:56, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > is no evidence for X _apart_ from non-A, non-B, non-C. So the only way
> > > to falsify the claim is to show, in the specific instance, A, B, or C
> > > - in which case it would not have been within the remit of ID in the
> > > first place, so ID is not falsified.
>
> > The process I referred to is the process of elimination.
>
> And how does this help? I build in the elimination �The "elimination"
> is to rule out A, B and C. This is the _only_ evidence for your
> claim. �Now if we discover that after all, A was true, or that there
> was a new cause, say D, what exactly does this falsify?
Elimination is not "the only evidence" in science, and is not my
claim. No matter how you cut it, it is always possible "now if we
discover something new" our understanding would change. All theory is
provisional. What's your real beef?
Burkhard
It is the only evidence IC claims is necessary to make a design
inference
> No matter how you cut it, it is always possible "now if we
> discover something new" our understanding would change. All theory is
> provisional. What's your real beef?
My "beef" is the status of something that claims to be a theory (IC)
which confuses something that can be a useful heuristic device, or
sometimes a meta-criterion to evaluate theories (elimination) with a
statement _of_ that theory. Heuristic devices can be helpful or
unhelpful, but they can't be falsified, and don't have predictive
value.
aganunitsi
Your hypothesis that Mount Rushmore was intelligently designed is
sound. But that is all it amounts to in the scientific method - a
sound hypothesis.
To proceed through the entirety of the scientific method, to arrive at
a scientifically sound conclusion, requires testing of your
hypothesis.
If further testing showed that there was no evidence that a human
being, or any other intelligent designer, had anything to do with the
construction of Mount Rushmore, you would have to conclude that the
highly unlikely had occurred - that Mount Rushmore was carved by
purely natural phenomenon. There is nothing to physically prevent this
from occurring, it is simply highly improbable.
Back to that Sherlock Holmes quote...
Kleuskes & Moos
<snip>
> Yes, the real problem for you is that you believe ID must tell you how
> stuff came to be,
If ID is not required to tell us how stuff came to be, what's the
bloody point?
<snip rest>
hersheyh
Don't need *detailed* knowledge of its manufacture. Only sufficient
knowledge to ascribe it (but not the late lamented 'old man of the
mountain' in NH) to a *specific* intelligent agent rather than natural
forces. Assuming that you are talking about Mt. Rushmore, it isn't
difficult to find such evidence. OTOH, if one were unfamiliar with
humans and their capacities and art forms as related to living
objects, you might need more evidence. If, for example, you found an
intricate sea shell on the beach, would you also assume that *it* was
carved by a human? Or an intelligent agent?
Glenn
> On 11 May, 17:56, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > On May 11, 5:19�pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 10, 11:50�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 11 May, 04:23, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > > On 11 Mei, 09:56, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > is no evidence for X _apart_ from non-A, non-B, non-C. So the only way
> > > to falsify the claim is to show, in the specific instance, A, B, or C
> > > - in which case it would not have been within the remit of ID in the
> > > first place, so ID is not falsified.
>
> > The process I referred to is the process of elimination.
>
> And how does this help? I build in the elimination �The "elimination"
> is to rule out A, B and C. This is the _only_ evidence for your
> claim. �Now if we discover that after all, A was true, or that there
> was a new cause, say D, what exactly does this falsify?
What if we discover that mutation is not random, what exactly would
this falsify? Theory is provisional. You can only be stuck on Holmes'
what's left "must be", but "whats left" must explain the facts
regardless of how it is characterized. The "impossible" are the ideas
which are rejected. What is left is "not impossible", but are only the
remaining ideas that are tested and selected or rejected.
Burkhard
Quite a lot, I would have thought. Much of our current theories of
genetics, and all those theories that depend on it would require
reformulation, including many specific claims in evolutionary
biology.
Theory is provisional.
Fine, yes
> You can only be stuck on Holmes'
> what's left "must be", but "whats left" must explain the facts
> regardless of how it is characterized.
Well, yes, that is part of his claim.
>The "impossible" are the ideas
> which are rejected. What is left is "not impossible", but are only the
> remaining ideas that are tested and selected or rejected.
If they can be tested and selected/rejected, then we have direct, not
just eliminative, evidence for them. Nobody objects to that as far as
I can see.
Glenn
Ridiculous. We reasonably conclude that the specific agent is human
since human's are the only known agents capable of creating the
monument. Nothing there that theoretically prohibits hypothesizing non-
human intelligent agents. An unknown agent capable of drilling a round
hole in a rock does not have to be specifically identified, only that
intelligence is capable of creating what nature does or can not do.
>Assuming that you are talking about Mt. Rushmore, it isn't
> difficult to find such evidence. �
That's irrelevant.
>OTOH, if one were unfamiliar with
> humans and their capacities and art forms as related to living
> objects, you might need more evidence.
Yes, by drawing on knowledge of natural processes.
>�If, for example, you found an
> intricate sea shell on the beach, would you also assume that *it* was
> carved by a human? �Or an intelligent agent?
Neither. If it had a carving of Mt Rushmore I'd say human intelligent
agent.
Glenn
What then is the status of evolutionary theory according to your
logic? How does one arrive at what is "impossible" and "what's left"
unless one has some evidence or reason?
>
> Theory is provisional.
> Fine, yes
>
> > You can only be stuck on Holmes'
> > what's left "must be", but "whats left" must explain the facts
> > regardless of how it is characterized.
>
> Well, yes, that is part of his claim.
And true enough. "Must explain the facts" didn't shoot over your head,
did it? Did Holmes not explain the facts? Does the quote exclude
explaining the facts?
>
> >The "impossible" are the ideas
> > which are rejected. What is left is "not impossible", but are only the
> > remaining ideas that are tested and selected or rejected.
>
> If they can be tested and selected/rejected, then we have direct, not
> just eliminative, evidence for them. Nobody objects to that as far as
> I can see.
As far as I can see, everything is eliminative, some selected, some
rejected, of the "impossible" as well as "what's left", all the way
down, or up as you wish.
JohnN
Notice that Tony doesn't have an answer to any of the replies to his
post.
JohnN