Telic Thoughts

| 24 Comments

On Telic Thoughts Krauze objects to critics pointing out the existence of false positives as being problematic to ID by showing that false positives exist in science. Telic Thoughts features several well known ARN players, including Krauze and Mike Gene.

Krauze Wrote:

ID critics often point to cases where design was mistakenly inferred, claiming that present design inferences are also likely to be wrong. Those raising this objection forget that all human conclusions are fallible, and that an explanation shouldn’t be ignored, just because it has been wrongly applied before. As another example of this, let’s look at a case where unintelligent processes were wrongly infered.

As I pointed out in the comments, Krauze misses the point. And while he tries to argue that he is not interested in the explanatory filter, he does not realize that this is the form of ID to which critics are objecting.

Krauze Wrote:

Let me just remind everybody that the original post made no mention of Dembski’s design filter. IOW, stop leading the discussion off topic. If you want to discuss Dembski, start a thread somewhere else (I hear the ARN Board is beautiful this time of year) and post a link to it here. I’d hate to start deleting posts.

In short, a good and relevant discussion was started but quickly cut short by the moderator who started deleting responses. Krauze’s claim that he did not mention Dembski specifically, ignores that mainstream ID is based on the explanatory filter approach.

Lacking the opportunity to respond to Guts ill-informed comments, I will first present my response to Guts followed by an overview of why the explanatory filter, which is based on an eliminative argument, is useless if it cannot avoid false positives and thus cannot even eliminate “we don’t know”. Ironically, Guts had the guts to argue that ‘we don’t know’ is not an explanation. But then again neither is intelligent design.

PvM Wrote:

That Dembski admits that false positives exist is self evident.

Guts: Where does he say it? Why havn’t you quoted him yet

I have. Incomplete knowledge. Countless examples. Guts shows his confusion when stating

PvM Wrote:

Do you want an example for a false positive? Lightning used to be seen as an act of God(s) until science explained it… Countless examples exist that render an eliminative approach quite useless.

Guts: Thats not a false positive wrt Dembski’s method, a false positive refers to using Dembski’s methodology to determine whether something is designed, and finding out it actually evolved.

No, no, no. You seem to believe that the EF is limited to evolutionary processes alone. The EF can be applied in many instances and it has been shown how the EF has been wrong in many cases in history. As far as applying the EF in biology is concerned, since there are no real examples, it is hard to establish its success but I am arguing that irregardless, Dembski’s argument that the EF is reliable because it avoids false positives which would otherwise render it useless is shown false by his own admission that false positives can exist in the form of incomplete knowledge. Since ID presents no way to establish how to differentiate between incomplete knowledge and an correct ID inference, we can at most accept “we don’t know’. Guts argues that it isn’t an explanation but then neither is ID.


Now back to the argument

Problem with this argument is that general science does not rely on eliminative approaches. Thus ID is unique in the sense that it does not provide positive evidence for design but rather depends on an eliminative argument, or set theoretic complement of chance and regularity. In such cases, as Dembski points out correctly, false positives would render the approach useless. When thus ID critics have shown that such false positives exist, and when Dembski admits that false positives exist, the conclusion should be obvious: The explanatory filter, the foundation of ID, is useless This posting on PT explores in some more depth the evolution of the ID argument and its ultimate demise. Similarly, while initially denying that algorithmic processes can increase CSI (complex specified information), Dembski now accepts this but wonders, where did the original CSI come from. How ID can resolve this issue is not addressed either.

Krauze responded that he does not adhere to Dembski’s explanatory filter nor that he uses the eliminative approach.

I responded

Then you are addressing the wrong issues since ID critics do address the eliminative approach chosen by ID proponents. If you believe another, better way exists to detecting intelligent design, then please do share this with us. ID has too long been hindered by its reliance on eliminative approaches that it has reintroduced the concept of gap arguments with little or no hope to make ID scientifically relevant. It’s good to see that ID proponents are dropping Dembski’s EF and with it most of ID’s arguments.

I await your positive theory of ID with much anticipation.

When I pointed out where Dembski accepts that false positives exist, Guts objected

Guts Wrote:

Guts: Umm, PvM, Dembski in that quote doesn’t say that any false positive actually exists. Why would you think so? In fact, Dembski does not think that any false positive currently exists. Just that there is a risk, as with all fallible scientific inferences.

That is sufficient to render the ID explanatory filter useless. Dembski asserts that the explanatory filter has no false positives, that is an extensive claim and easily shown to be overly optimistic. That ID has failed to present any scientifically relevant examples of the use of the explanatory filter to infer design in non trivial cases shows not only the methodological complexities of eliminating all known (and unknown causes) but also the vacuity of ID as a scientific endeavor.

Remember what Dembski stated On the other hand, if things end up in the net that are not designed, the criterion will be useless. but he also argued that I argue that the explanatory filter is a reliable criterion for detecting design. Alternatively, I argue that the Explanatory Filter successfully avoids false positives. Thus whenever the Explanatory Filter attributes design, it does so correctly.

These statements combined with the admission that false positives are possible make the EF useless. For example, assume that ID had presented a clear case of an EF applied to infer design, how would we know that it had not forgotten a particular hypothesis?

This is a major shortcoming of ID, not just that ID is scientifically vacuous but also built on a theoretically flawed foundation.

A poster named Pete responded that I “ignored this sentence ‘But these are the risks of empirical inquiry, which of its nature is fallible.’”

Missing the point that empirical research is NOT based on eliminative approaches but presents positive explanations. Dembski’s original claim was that the EF would not allow for false positives since such would make the EF useless. This is because the EF is an eliminative approach, if there is a chance for false positives, then one cannot eliminate ‘we don’t know’ as a competing hypothesis. In other words, if an eliminative filter cannot eliminate false positives, the it cannot exclude ignorance as an explanation. SInce ID does not present any positive hypothesis or explanation of its own, the EF is doomed. That false positives are a problem for science is clearly true but science can at least compete with ‘we don’t know’ by proposing testable positive explanations.

I am not the only one who has come to this conclusion

Ryan Nichols is the author of Scientific content, testability, and the vacuity of Intelligent Design theory The American Catholic philosophical quarterly , 2003 , vol. 77 , no 4 , pp. 591 - 611,

Ryan Nichols Wrote:

In my argument against Intelligent Design Theory I will not contend that it is not falsifiable or that it implies contradictions. I’ll argue that Intelligent Design Theory doesn’t imply anything at all, i.e. it has no content. By ‘content’ I refer to a body of determinate principles and propositions entailed by those principles. By ‘principle’ I refer to a proposition of central importance to the theory at issue. By ‘determinate principle’ I refer to a proposition of central importance to the theory at issue in which the extensions of its terms are clearly defined. I’ll evaluate the work of William Dembski because he specifies his methodology in detail, thinks Intelligent Design Theory is contentful and thinks Intelligent Design Theory (hereafter ‘IDT’) grounds an empirical research program. Later in the paper I assess a recent trend in which IDT is allegedly found a better home as a metascientific hypothesis, which serves as a paradigm that catalyzes research. I’ll conclude that, whether IDT is construed as a scientific or metascientific hypothesis, IDT lacks content.

Quite an interesting discussion which shows how unfamiliar ID proponents are with the explanatory filter and Dembski’s claims. In addition, it is good to hear that Krauze, and others, are abandoning or rejecting Dembski’s (and mainstream ID’s) approaches of using eliminative arguments. Of course, until they present their theory or even hypothesis of design, not similarly flawed, we can only await with much eagerness their work.

Note also that teleology in nature is not really the issue since I accept Ayala and Ruse’s observations that natural processes involved in evolution are inherently telic/teleological. It’s in other words not design in nature but the nature of the designer which is the issue.

24 Comments

*you’re gonna hate me*

“As far as applying the EF in biology is concerned, since there are no real examples, it is hard to establish its success but I am arguing that irregardless, Dembski’s argument that the EF is reliable because it avoids false positives which would otherwise render it useless is shown false by his own admission that false positives can exist in the form of incomplete knowledge.

irregardless is not a word.

*ducks*

Not being a native English speaker I am not hating you, on the contrary, I appreciate corrections. I found the history of irregardless quite interesting

*peeks from around corner*

*whew*

yeah, sorry. it’s just a pet peeve of mine.

back to the substance.

cheers

Funny enough, the moderators of the website decided to not only delete my posting but also delete my account. Sad to see how ID responds to criticisms.

Flank is the pit bull snarling into the the entrance of the ID peddlers’ cave. Pim is the poison gas that seeps into the cave and puts its inhabitants to sleep – permanently.

I’d hate to be inside that friggin cave.

PvM Wrote:

Funny enough, the moderators of the website decided to not only delete my posting but also delete my account. Sad to see how ID responds to criticisms.

It is ironic that a group that claims that a censoring bias against their “theory” would resort to such tactics. The IDists claim that some sort of religious following of Darwin keeps any criticism of evolution from being heard. Of course, this is false. However, criticize THEIR “theory”…

What was in the posting that was deleted? (There are still several of yours in the thread.)

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1, column 61, byte 61 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

One thought about media coverage of the event that I’ve found troubling so far.

The New York Times, as I recall, has some science writers on its staff, e.g., Nicolas Wade and/or Gina Kolata.

Why doesn’t Mr. Wade weigh in on some of the bizarre claims? Why doesn’t Mr. Wade write an article where he simply says “Several ID supporters made false claims that the earth was 10,000 years old. The earth is far older than that, and scientists proved this beyond any doubt before these misguided creationists were born.”

The mainstream media’s inability to state the facts plainly is the clearest sign of its now institutionalized laziness.

Wake up Nicolas Wade. Do your frigging job.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 9, column 2, byte 581 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

PvM,

Excellent post! For months I had an intuition that ID”T” was content free, and you explained it quite well.

The fact that some of your critical posts have been deleted from Telic Thoughts shows once again that IDists are not interested in the search for truth, but Truth Revealed and subsequently shared (read: force fed) to the unwary and intellectually unequipped elementary/secondary school children.

Is our children learning yet?

The part that was deleted, several times, included my response to Guts (Guts Says: May 6th, 2005 at 8:32 pm ) I posted before and after Krauze’s comment that he would delete postings, but they quickly disappeared.

If someone deletes my posts, I stop posting.

This new ID apologetics blog seems to have little to offer. The post on artifacts makes several basic errors. I suggest they read my chapter in Matt Young, Tanner Edis (Editors), Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism, 2004 Rutgers University Press

Discussing Intelligent Design concepts while ignoring the explanatory filter, is like trying to discuss the Christian beliefs while ignoring the Gospels (to use an analogy that most ID proponents will grasp).

If the explanatory filter doesn’t work, then ID is pretty useless as an anlytical tool. You can’t discuss one meaningfully without the other.

Maybe Krause could articulate a cocept of ID that does not rely on the explanatory filter. Maybe Krause is willing to provide a list of real world objects that have passed the explanatory filter along with the probability calculations for each step. I don’t think he can do either one.

If the explanatory filter doesn’t work, then ID is pretty useless as an anlytical tool

Ah, but that’s pretty much irrelevant for its intended use - as a political tool.

Ah, but that’s pretty much irrelevant for its intended use - as a political tool.

Quite right. It doesn’t matter one bit to the ID folks whether they can actually demonstrate ID isn’t useless…all that matters is they make an assertion that is accessable to John and Jane Q. Public who rely on the say-so of experts to tell them what is and isn’t so. The ID-ers certainly look and sound like experts to the untrained eye and ear…so I guess if they say the uselessness of EF isn’t a problem then voila! … any apparent problem evaporates!

PvM Wrote:

Missing the point that empirical research is NOT based on eliminative approaches but presents positive explanations.

Isn’t this claim a tad bit controversial depending on how one views the scientific enterprise, i.e., whether one is a deductivist (Popper) or not?

It is a simple point of logic that any observation is consistent with (indeed, follows from) an arbitrarily large number of mutually exclusive hypothetical explanations. Thus, theories are tested through elimination of rivals, and not through positive verification.

Michael raises a good point, namely that theories are ‘proven’ through elimination and the withstanding of attempts to falsify. But the problem is that beyond elimination, ID does not offer ANY explanation. Which is why it is scientifically vacuous.

Michael Finlay:

That is not how science works. Every accepted theory is accepted with a sense of “so far so good”. We look for new evidence and if we find some in accordance with our current theory we say “so far so good”. In other words we can find some positive evidence in support of our theory.

ID proposes to work solely in a negative fashion, by claiming that it must be right if all rival theories fail. Unfortunately for ID, it is not a theory in the sense that evolution is. Rather it is more the unifying charactistic of an infinite number of theories that claim that the changes in life forms over time were guided by intelligence. If ID specified the nature/identity of this intelligence (e.g. the God of literalist Christians) then it would be a theory in the same sense as evolution. But in that case it too would be subject to the EF, and it is not the intention of ID to allow creationism of any kind, let alone the version of literalist Christians, to be exposed to falsification.

MICHAEL FINLEY: Isn’t this claim a tad bit controversial depending on how one views the scientific enterprise, i.e., whether one is a deductivist (Popper) or not?

It is a simple point of logic that any observation is consistent with (indeed, follows from) an arbitrarily large number of mutually exclusive hypothetical explanations. Thus, theories are tested through elimination of rivals, and not through positive verification.

But most scientists do not, in fact, view science as purely Popperian…many consider modern science as a largely Bayesian mode of inference where each viable remaining alternative is weighted according to it’s prior track record of having passed risky tests.

JRQ,

I only meant to suggest that PvM’s claim (or at least a possible interpretation of it) was controversial, i.e., that legitimate disagreement between philosophers of science exists on the issue.

That said, there is nothing inherently problematic about negative modes of inference or inquiry. If a conclusion can be reached negatively, it is no less valid than positively derived conclusions.

Dembski, as I understand him, attempts to divide all possible explanations into the broad categories ‘intelligent’ and ‘unintelligent’, and then run a probability argument for the premise ‘not unintelligent’. The overall argument form, then, is a destructive dilemma: I or U, not U, therefore, I.

Michael is right, Demsbki’s argument is nothing more than the set theoretic complement of chance and regularity, which makes it a gap argument. What I am arguing is that such an approach does not allow us to exclude our ignorance as a better explanation than ‘intelligently designed’ since anytime a particular ignorance leads us to underestimate the probability of unintelligent design, we automatically end up chosen ‘designed’. This privileged position of design is not easily defensible as Shallit and Elsberry for instance have shown. Especially in areas where positive evidence will remain inaccessible.

The stone tools and Stonehenge examples in Krauze’ blog used for inferring design are not very good analogs for ID. In both cases you can make further predictions. If these objects were created by humans, then they should be associated with artefacts also pointing to human activity. In both cases this is true and it should make us feel comfortable with the notion that they are “designed” objects. It would be problematic if we failed to find these associated artefacts. A bird’s nest for example, would fail this test. This is what compels us to assign manufacture of very primitive stone tools to ancient humans even though they do not look particularly designed and even though no one now alive saw it happen.

So in these cases there are further predictions that can be made by assuming design took place. This is in contrast to the assignment of design to stuctures like flagellae by Demski and others. What they need are some predictions from their inferred biological design.

I am waiting.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 6, column 2, byte 275 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on May 6, 2005 8:26 PM.

The dog ate my homework was the previous entry in this blog.

Ayn Rand Institute: The Bait and Switch of “Intelligent Design” is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter