Clear Thinking?
by MikeGeneRobert McHenry is Former Editor in Chief of the Encyclopædia Britannica and the author of How to Know. He recently wrote an anti-ID essay entitled, We Are Living in a Material World…
He begins his essay as follows:
Intelligent Design "theory" — and I insist upon the shudder quotes — is not a theory at all, but a declaration of faith poorly disguised behind a mask of scientific-sounding justification. It has been hoisted into public consciousness and political debate on the shakiest of legs.
While I agree there is no ID theory (I pointed this out years ago), McHenry's characterization of ID has the intellectual depth of a cliché. But there is one thing worth commenting on, as McHenry lets his cat out of the bag.
McHenry writes:
Second, and more important, a commitment to finding naturalistic or, if you must, materialistic, explanations for phenomena is the very essence of the intellectual project that is science. This is not the same as saying that science denies the existence of God, or gods, or supernatural forces of some sort. It is to say that they are not what science is about. Without the discipline of excluding supernatural explanation, which once admitted can be invoked at any time by anyone on any pretext, there could be no true science, and we might well still be contentedly believing that lightning bolts are thrown by Zeus. It is certainly easier to do that than to find out what really happens in a thunderstorm, and in a political regime that mandates theistic sentiments, it is also safer, as Socrates would attest.
Let this sink in: a commitment to finding naturalistic or, if you must, materialistic, explanations for phenomena is the very essence of the intellectual project that is science.
Okay.
Now consider what this means. Let's assume we lived in a reality where it is obvious to all that the evidence clearly indicates the Earth is 6000 years old, that there was once a global flood, and that macroevolution is impossible. Let's further say that we find a big boat on top of a mountain in Turkey. While this massive amount of empirical evidence would seem to corroborate the Genesis account of the Bible, we could not, according to McHenry, argue that the Genesis account was supported by science. Because the Genesis account cites God as the cause for both Creation and the Flood, invoking God as the cause would be akin to invoking Zeus to explain thunderbolts. Instead, science would be obligated to find materialistic explanations for the 6000 year old Earth, the global flood, the origin of animals without evolution, and the existence of a boat on a mountain.
McHenry is saying that even if the Creationists could support their views with massive amounts of evidence, Science cannot make any judgment on the Creation account: "This is not the same as saying that science denies the existence of God, or gods, or supernatural forces of some sort. It is to say that they are not what science is about. "
Or is he? McHenry doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind. First, he defines ID as a declaration of faith and has made it clear that he is yet another critic who hears "God" when someone says ID:
ID partisans have trained themselves not to be too specific about the Designer, either, for they have learned the lesson left by the political failure of their predecessors, the Creation Scientists, namely, that too much frankness in the matter of Who the Intelligent Designer is does not pay. So, carefully avoiding anything that sounds like theology, while all the time the butter remains quite firm in their mouths, they simply aver that there is a Design and that it prima facie evidences Intelligence. "God? Oh, heavens, we're not talking about God. It might just be his next-door neighbor Wilson."
Since "ID = God" in the mind of McHenry, Science, according to McHenry, cannot possibly make any judgments about ID. On one hand, McHenry tells us, "This is not the same as saying that science denies the existence of God, or gods, or supernatural forces of some sort. It is to say that they are not what science is about," yet with his other hand, he tells us, "In sum, the literature of ID has been critically reviewed by competent authorities, as all claims to scientific validity must be, and found meritless." How can Science reach a "meritless" judgment when judging ID is not "what science is about?"
But the contradictory thinking gets worse. After defining ID as religion, and telling us science must ignore religious claims, McHenry suddenly turns around and postures as if the issue is now about "evidence":
"Follow the evidence," advises Mr. Akyol. Fair enough.
Fair enough? The intellectually consistent answer would have been, "The evidence is irrelevant. What is relevant is that ID is about the supernatural and science must seek out materialistic causes."
Finally, McHenry writes:
ID is not merely bad science; it is anti-science, and not just that but anti-clear thinking.
McHenry is thoroughly confused. First, ID cannot be science (because it is religion). Now it is bad science. But wait! It's also "anti-science." Non-science, bad science, and anti-science "“ all in one. What is so amusing is that someone with such muddled thinking can actually preach to others about being "anti-clear thinking." One wonders how McHenry defines "clear-thinking." Is it "“ think like McHenry does?
[HT to Paul Nelson for finding this essay.]
June 5th, 2005 at 1:11 pm
For someone who claims not to be an ID endorser, in your essay you swallow much of the ID philosophy quite uncritically.
Consider the ark you hypothetically place on a mountain in Turkey: Is there any natural explanation for such a thing? Sure. It could have been built in place. It may have been carried there by a tsunami. It may have been washed down from an even higher place. That third possibility would also cover a great flood. So a scientist would set about testing these hypotheses to falsify them if possible, and to find other hypotheses that make better explanations, if possible, and test them.
But at no point does science say "God didn't do it." That hypothesis survives even if a different, more unsupernatural proximate cause is determined.
In contrast, starting with the assumption that God did it only sets God up as a hypothesis to be disproven — in this case a bad hypothesis for testing.
So what positive contribution could be gained from rejecting materialism in this case, as ID advocates almost unanimously desire? There is none.
And, in contrast, what are we to make of the God Hypothesis when there is no boat found on such a mountain? What are we to make of the God Hypothesis when we find there is no evidence at all for such a great flood, and that there are several very good disproofs?
McHenry's not confused to anyone else who isn't confused.
Comment by edarrell — June 5, 2005 @ 1:11 pm
June 5th, 2005 at 10:00 pm
But then your also left with the Nature Hypothesis. If one is only restricted to Nature then even if no possible way can be found for Nature to have done such a thing, we must still consider it Nature? Even if all evidence were to suggest that the Shroud of Turin was Intelligently Designed by some 13th Century forger…we must throw that away and say that Science is only about Natural explainations?
Comment by Irving — June 5, 2005 @ 10:00 pm
June 5th, 2005 at 10:37 pm
Ed:
1. What "ID philosophy" did I swallow?
2. If you answer #1, what did I write that indicates I swallowed something "uncritically?"
[As for the rest, it seems to me you are agreeing that if we found out that the Earth was 6000 years old, that there once was a global flood and an Ark, and that evolution was impossible, science would still be obligated to reject Creationism. Am I right?]
Comment by MikeGene — June 5, 2005 @ 10:37 pm
June 7th, 2005 at 4:14 pm
No — were it not true that a 6,000-year-old Earth has been falsified, were it not true that the idea of a worldwide flood has been falsified, and were it not true that billions of data points support evolution and all attempts to falsify it have failed, then creationism might still be considered good science, if it met the further tests of providing useful insight into occurrences, especially if it offered any ability to predict what would happen in biological experiments.
Science can't prove God. Science (with the possible exception of mathematics) doesn't work on proofs. It works on disproving things to eliminate them as possibilities. When disproofs fail, hypotheses are accepted conditionally.
Were creationism to test out, it would be conditionally accepted.
In fact, it was conditionally accepted, before it was disproven.
Do you guys ever study history?
Comment by edarrell — June 7, 2005 @ 4:14 pm
June 7th, 2005 at 9:05 pm
All attempts to falisfy Evolution have failed, because it cannot be falsified. ..it itself isn't Science. Can you identify an object that cannot be created via Random Mutation & Natural Selection?
It is suggested that ID has provided useful insight into biology in this article: Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force? (pp. 71-96) here
Comment by Irving — June 7, 2005 @ 9:05 pm
June 8th, 2005 at 1:20 am
There are lots of ways that evolution could be falsified. One of the classics Darwin noted was this: Find a living thing that has a feature that benefits another living thing only, and which does not benefit the thing that has it, nor could have ever benefited an ancestor.
Common descent would be hard put to recover were anyone to find a cow in Cambrian deposits.
Evolution can be falsified. Thousands of attempts have been made, none worked.
E. coli that manufactures human insulin probably couldn't be created by natural selection — no one has been able to propose a pathway by which that could occur. Such bacteria exist solely due to human engineering of the bacterium.
What useful insight into biology is made by the old observation that centrioles look like turbines? How is that observation unique to ID, especially since it had been made by several biologists prior to Wells?
Comment by edarrell — June 8, 2005 @ 1:20 am
June 8th, 2005 at 2:12 am
eddarrel:
That it actually works like a turbine, because it is one.
Comment by Guts — June 8, 2005 @ 2:12 am
June 8th, 2005 at 4:37 pm
Ed:
This makes no sense. Creation could be considered good science even though it posits a divine cause?? McHenry says, "a commitment to finding naturalistic or, if you must, materialistic, explanations for phenomena is the very essence of the intellectual project that is science." Are you telling us McHenry is wrong?
Comment by MikeGene — June 8, 2005 @ 4:37 pm
June 8th, 2005 at 6:00 pm
Sorry, such a thing would then be termed by Evolution supporters as an vestigal organ of "as of yet" undetermined usefulness…
Evolution has a specific mechanims–Random Mutation & Natural Selection. Define an object that cannot be created via this mechanism?
Comment by Irving — June 8, 2005 @ 6:00 pm
June 9th, 2005 at 3:00 am
I don't know what Ed thinks, but yes, McHenry is wrong on this point.
What is required of a scientific hypothesis is not that it be naturalistic, but that it be testable. Freudian psychology was naturalistic, but as Popper pointed out, it is not testable, and so is not science. As Popper also pointed out, Marxism was testable, but its proponents retreated from testability in the face of refutation; and consequently Marxism as an intellectual discipline is not science.
As Ed has just pointed out, Creationism was science. In the 19th century, Creationists made a number of emerical claims based on their hypothesis. They were tested, and failed. Modern creationism survives as a purported science by either ignoring or misrepresenting vast amounts of evidence (YEC) or by lopping of all parts of the hypothesis which result in emperically testable predictions (ID)*. Neither is science.
*You may not agree that this is the way ID is practised, though I think it is. However, it is certainly the method that Johnson originally advocated in defending mere creationism.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 9, 2005 @ 3:00 am
June 9th, 2005 at 3:59 pm
Tom:
Very interesting. The idea that McHenry is wrong about insisting on naturalistic causes sounds like something a typical proponent of ID might argue.
It becomes even more interesting when we factor in the schooling issue. It would be against the law to teach a supernatural cause, even if the evidence supported such a cause.
Comment by MikeGene — June 9, 2005 @ 3:59 pm
June 9th, 2005 at 8:04 pm
It is interesting that I've seen no "test" for Random Mutation, Natural Selection; however there is a simple falsification for an ID conjecture. Give a set of attributes hypothisized to constitute a design inference; demontrstrate an object created via natural processes that posses the same attributes. A false positive of the ID model.
Comment by Irving — June 9, 2005 @ 8:04 pm
June 10th, 2005 at 5:50 am
Which means the typical ID proponent would be right about that one thing (even if for the wrong reasons), even though they are probably wrong about everything else. Why is that interesting.
No it does not. It does not because there has yet to be a successfull science based on a supernatural hypothesis, so the issue does not arise. Further, if there ever were such a theory (and none appear on the horizon), then they would almost certainly be legal to teach. All that is required (approximately) is that teaching the theory have a secular purpose. If you wish to teach children the best science (a secular purpose), and the best science has a supernatural component; then you can teach that supernatural component regardless of how it upsets atheists or Christians (don't prejudge what that purported supernatural component is). (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is just my take on the law.)
Comment by tom_kbel — June 10, 2005 @ 5:50 am
June 10th, 2005 at 7:45 am
Irving:
No. It merely shows that you are uninformed. And the existence of uninformed people is so common as to have no interest whatsoever.
If your wish to become informed, here is a place to start on the issue of random mutations:
http://www.mun.ca/biology/scar...
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/~lensk...
and another on the issue of natural selection:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoN...
(Don't forget to check out the study 993 examples of that which you say does not exist.)
This has been done repeatedly. However, ID proponents use conventionalist strategies to avoid the falsification.
http://www.talkreason.org/arti...
Comment by tom_kbel — June 10, 2005 @ 7:45 am
June 11th, 2005 at 11:20 am
tom_kbel,
Sorry, perhaps I mis-spoke as the context of the statement is contained across multiple posts. I've seen no "falisification" test for Random Mutation/Natural Selection. Can you identify an object that cannot be created via that process?
Everyone is uninformed about something. If you have no interest in uninformed people, then I would propose that you have no insterest in anyone…perhaps even yourself. Whether one is uninformed about a particular topic will remain to be seen. Jumping assumptions muddies the conversation.
Comment by Irving — June 11, 2005 @ 11:20 am
June 11th, 2005 at 1:24 pm
Irving:
I apologise if I took your question wrong, but as currently phrased it is based on a misconception. Clearly, for example, a winged horse of the nature of Pegasus could not evolve from current equine stocks by RM & NS (an example given by Dawkins). That answer will not satisfy you, and ought not to satisfy you, for while it shows a technical falsifiability of Darwinism, it does not generate any feasible tests of Darwinism.
What generates feasible tests of Darwinism is (amongst other things) the fact that the predictions of Darwinism have been worked out in great detail in population genetics. Precise (though statistical) formulas correlate heritability of traits, relative benefit of traits, and changes in frequency of alleles in populations. The fit of this Darwinian theory with the world is tested by showing that there are properties of organisms that effect fitness, that they are heritable, and that changes in frequency of alleles do in fact fit the predictions of population genetics. Countless tests of just this sort have been carried out - many of them involving fruitflies.
Further tests come from observations in the wild. When organisms are observed to be rapidly changing in the frequency of a particular trait, Darwinism predicts that trait is under selective pressure, and hence is highly correlated with reproductive success. That can be tested for, and hundreds of tests have been conducted showing the Darwinian prediction to be true. In like manner, when a trait is obviously very costly to maintain, Darwinists again predict a strong correlation between that trait and reproductive success. Again, multiple experiments have been carried out establishing that point. Multiple other examples can be given.
Further, Darwinism makes historical predictions. It predicts that whenever there is a major change in a complex organ, if we have sufficient historical data to trace the path of change; it will be demonstrably a path of increasing fitness. When we are finally able to trace approximate mutational paths as well, they will be small scale mutations (with relative frequency of mutations of particular sizes correlated with the frequency of mutations of that size in history). Darwinism also predicts patterns of adaptive radiations, and other historically testable features. Again, a significant number of examples confirm Darwinism.
Not all these tests are as close to the core of Darwinism. Some involve more auxilliary hypotheses than others (and hence test Darwinism more indirectly). Some, however, are very immediate tests. Given the truth of Mendelian genetics, the failure population genetics would have immediately falsified Darwinism. Had it been discovered that variable traits within populations are not hereditable, or that hereditable traits never affect fitness, Darwinism would have been immediately falsified.
But Darwinism has not been falsified by these, or other tests. It has been developed to predict correlations as diverse as that between lifespan and mating habits; betwen mating habits and size differentials in genders; between ratios of sexual or asexual mating and the presence of disease withing populations. These predictions have been repeatedly, and some times stunningly, confirmed; as for example the prediction on the basis of Darwinism of the climate, habit, and general nature of potential mammalian hive animals (naked mole rats).
I did not say I was uninterested in uninformed people. I said the fact that there are uninformed people is itself uninteresting.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 11, 2005 @ 1:24 pm
June 11th, 2005 at 10:21 pm
tom_kbel,
I appreciate your inputs. If you review the genesis of my comments in this thread with edarrell, you'll see the specific context of this particular avenue of thought. Good & Bad science, and the falsification test. This is not to say such broader discussions are fruitful, for indeed there are countless terabytes of data written pro & con on Evolution/Darwinism all over the web…and I'm not totally new to these topics myself.
So the move from RM/NS to "Darwinism" is slightly adrift. For what actually is "Darwinism?" How do your examples bearout RM/NS as opposed to Descent with Modification? How has Darwinian predictions of Gradualism been borne out? How does Natural selection models deal with problems of population homeostasis? Does Adaptive Mutation experiments fit within RM predicitive timelines?
All lenghty topics, and all discussed at length of course. Which for this particular inquiry (and context) I attempt to restrict to a small subset. Is there a falsification test for RM/NS? If not, is RM/NS then, not Science? If there is, then what is it?
Comment by Irving — June 11, 2005 @ 10:21 pm
June 12th, 2005 at 10:19 am
Darwinism is committed to the following core theses:
1) The Earth is ancient;
2) Life has an ancient history on Earth;
3) All living organisms share a common ancestral pool;
4) A process of Random Mutation and Natural Selection is capable of producing all adaptive complexities present in living organisms;
5) All organisms that have existed came into existance through a process of diversification from their ancestors primarilly through adaptive radiations driven by Random Mutation and Natural Selection; and
6) The history of life is consistent with Random Mutation and Natural Selection operating on organisms in ordinary biological situations being the only source of adaptive complexities within present living organisms.
Each of these theses is falsifiable, and testable. (Of course, they are not falsifiable in isolation, but no thesis is.) They each contribute together with auxilliary hypotheses to developing testable predictions, the testing of which drives a lot of modern biology. They and their joint assertion, have been rigourously tested, and strongly confirmed in ways I have indicated above (and many others).
None of these theses is metaphysical. If you think they are, you have made a mistake about what is meant by "random", or are confused about what is asserted by thesis 6. Thesis 6 is actually just restricting the common assertion that "RM & NS are the only source of adaptive complexites" to an epistemologically defensible claim. If you roll a fair die, and it comes up "6", it is impossible to tell by any scientific test whether it did so as a random result of fully naturalistic process, or due to the direct, miraculous intervention of a supernatural being. But you can tell that the intervention of the supernatural being is not needed to explain the result. Likewise, you cannot tell if a particular mutation a billion years ago (or yesterday) was the result of naturalistic processes, or direct, miraculous intervention of a supernatural being. Therefore, that such a mutation was not the result of a specific miracle cannot be derived from any strictly scientific theory; but that it need not have been a miracle can be. And that is what is asserted by Darwinism.
My examples were carefully chosen to be evidence for Darwinian predictions about RM & NS, and not to be evidence of common ancestry. They were all tests, in various ways of theses 4, 5 and 6; ie, those theses peculiar to Darwinism, rather than tests of theses 1, 2, & 3; ie, theses common to (almost) any evolutionary theory.
Darwinian predictions of gradualism have been borne out in spades. This is sometimes not appreciated because people have caricatured ideas of gradualism. They forget that for Darwin, a single mutation that halved the leg length of sheep was a gradualist mutation; or that an earthquake which raised several hundred miles of South American coast by up to 30 feet (from memory) was a gradual event, and stunning confirmation of Lyall's gradualist theories. It is also often not appreciated because of failur to appreciate the relevant scales of events.
Stability of lineages is predicted by Darwinism in the event of longterm stability of environment. Adaptive mutation is being shown to fit within the Darwinian paradigm (though that is controversial).
You will have to be more specific about what you mean by [the theory of] RM & NS. I have already pointed to tests showing that both of those exist. When that did not satisfy you, I pointed to tests showing that RM & NS had been active in the ways that Darwinists predict, and is capable of generating the outcomes Darwinists require it to generate. I do not know what possible aspect of RM and NS that is not covered by these two answers.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 12, 2005 @ 10:19 am
June 13th, 2005 at 4:44 pm
Thank You,
The answer seems buried within your lengthy response.
"…it is impossible to tell by any scientific test whether it did so as a random result of fully naturalistic process…"
Which has been my observation. That Random Mutation & Natural Selection as a theory has not been falsified because it can't be falsified. You can wrap it up in other elements of a theory, but you can't wave-off the essential element that by itself it is unfalsifiable, and therefore under some interpreations of science, it is not science itself. It is a critical causative element of versions of Darwinism, and I cannot accept the light dismissal of it's un-falsification as merely trivial. If un-falsifiable causative agents can be accepted within larger theories and still be considered Scientific, then tolerance must be allowed for other un-falsifiable causative agents as well.
Comment by Irving — June 13, 2005 @ 4:44 pm
June 13th, 2005 at 5:08 pm
The amusing part of Tom's response is its inconsistency. He admits on one hand that one cannot tell scientifically if the complexity of life is due to a fully naturalistic process or due to intervention of something else ('God', or whatever), but assures us the latter "is not needed to explain the result".
If there are no means to falsify RM/NS as an explanation for life's complexity, that makes it philosophy and not science. The statement that nothing else "is needed" is, in essence, an admission that RM&NS is not true in a scientific sense, but that a naturalistic/materialistic worldview would be preferable over other interpretations.
Comment by Jean — June 13, 2005 @ 5:08 pm
June 13th, 2005 at 11:47 pm
I have the disadvantage that I refuse to caricature a theory in order to protect it from the creative misunderstandings of its detractors.
Thus, Irving writes:
However, Darwinism does not say that mutations are random in the sense required by Irving. On another topic I had already pointed this out:
These claims are statistical claims - claims about the pattern of all mutations rather than about the particular causes of any individual mutation. And as Popper observes, it is only such statistical notions of randomness that can have any meaning in science. Randomness, taken as a metaphysical category related to causes is simply untestable in science; and therefore no part of any truly scientific theory.
The reason why is easy to illustrate. Suppose we had a sequence of 100 digits between 1 and 6; and that we were told that 99 of them were generated by throwing a six sided die; and that one of them was generated by the thrower placing the die deliberately with an unknown number upwards. It is impossible by looking at the sequence to determine which of the numbers was generated by deliberate placement. And if impossible to determine which number was generated by deliberate placement; it is also impossible to determine IF a number was generated by deliberate placement.
In contrast, it is trivially easy for a large enough sequence to determine if most numbers have been generated by random generation, or deliberate placement; or if a given number has been prefferentially placed. To determine this you just test to see if the sequence approaches in the limit, two properties - the frequency of each number in the sequence is equal; and that for any sequence of preceding numbers, the frequency of the next number in the sequence is the same as for all other preceding sequences of the same length. (There are, of course, other random distributions of note, but equivalent statistical tests exist for those distributions.)
Thus, it is clear that by restricting the definition of randomness it uses, Darwinism avoids making unfalsifiable metaphysical claims; but insists on making falsifiable emperical claims.
As I have pointed out before, this is not a fact hidden by Darwinists. Jacques Monod and Richard Dawkins have been quite clear on this point. Dennet has gone so far as to point out that Darwinism does not predict that their were no supernaturally controlled mutations in the past; but only that such are not necessary for the process of evolution. If this has been pointed out by such confirmed atheists as Monod, Dawkins and Dennet, you can be sure it is part of the theory, and not an evasion of the implications of the theory for religious purposes.
This raises the second way in which Darwinism is clearly consistent with (and indifferent to as evidence) Theistic control of the development of life. Howard van Til did, and Pim van Meurs does (as is typical of Christian Darwinists from a Reformed background) believe that God is in absolute providential control of every aspect on the universe; every sparrow's fall, every random mutation, and every quantum fluctuation. But just because Darwinism (as also quantum theory) is making statistical statements rather than metaphysical statements; their belief in providential control and predestination are completely consistent with their belief in the randomness of mutations as postulated by Darwinism. It is true that if you insist that the Darwinian claim is really a metaphysical claim in disguise, then they are inconsistent - but that only shows that Darwinism, the research program shared by atheists and theists and pantheists and (no doubt) animists, does not make that metaphysical assertion.
Thus, Ryan is left insisting that RM & NS can't be falsified only because a claim it does not make cannot be falsified. He is refuting his own misunderstanding - not the theory he purports to criticise.
Jean is no better with her claim that:
In fact, it can be determined whether a sequence of mutations is random in the sense postulated by Darwinism. And in that case, you can also show that equivalent outcomes would have occured, even if the generating sequence were in fact metaphysically random as well as being simply statistically random. When, given a small population size in biological terms (100,000), and a small amount of time in evolutionary terms (100,000 years) every possible beneficial point mutation will occur in the population on average 20 times, you do not need to invoke God to explain the occurence, even if it happens to be true that, on a particular occasion of such a mutation becoming fixed, God did in fact miraculously cause the particular mutation that became fixed. (You may need to invoke God to explain the event religously rather than scientifically; but then you could only know about God's involvement by relgious, not scientific, means in the first place.)
Again, this point is easilly illustrated. Given our sequence of 100 digits between 1 and 6, you will almost certainly come across a sequence of thee 6's in a row. Given that the sequence was generated entirely by throwing a fair die, such a sequence would be expected to occur around five times in 100 throws, and with very high probability, there will be at least one such sequence in our sequence of 100 digits. Therefore, we do not need to invoke deliberate placement of dice to explain such sequences if we come across them in our sequence. The postulate of deliberate placement is not needed to explain the sequence.
Should the person who "threw" the dice tell us that at one point he did deliberately place a sequence of three die with the six uppermost; we would then have good reason to believe that at least one such sequence was deliberately placed. But we still do not need that postulate to explain the sequence of 100 digits we were given. Rather, we need it to explain our conversation. The conclusion that three dice were deliberately placed with six uppermost is then a personal, not a statistical conclusion.
The situation with Darwinism and miracles is directly analogous. Darwinim insists not that no miracles have occured, but that no miracles are needed to explain the scientific data. (Technically, it only insists this about the course of life, not its origin; for Darwinism proper is a theory about life's diversity, not its origin.) Any religious believer (or UFO fan) is quite welcome to believe that the specific occurence of humans on Earth is due to specific miraculous (or technological) interventions; and can still be a Darwinist if they do so. It is only when they insist that such intervention is scientifically detectable; or conversely that it is a scientific fact that the origin of humans specifically (not merely rational bipeds) are inevitable as a matter of scientific fact that they leave the Darwinian fold. Of course, when they insist on that, Darwinist's expect them to provide scientific evidence for their beleif.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 13, 2005 @ 11:47 pm
June 14th, 2005 at 9:01 am
Tom, you are wasting an inordinate amount of breath explaining something that everybody already understands. In another thread, Joy said the following:
wrt stands for "with respect to". What Darwinian theory says is that mutations are random with respect to fitness (and the biological functions that result in differential fitness), but that the rate of survival and reproduction of the resulting organisms (natural selection) is not, and that it is the combination of these two that accounts for the biological phenomenon we see today. Random with respect to fitness means that the mutations are not biased towards any set of fitness-affecting biological functions over another, or over no functions at all, much the same way that the random dice rolls you used as examples are not biased towards the frequency of one number over another. The dice rolls are random with respect to number frequency, and the mutations in Darwinian evolution are random with respect to fitness. I'd wager that all the people you are attempting to explain this stuff too already get this (Joy certainly does).
The question people are trying to ask you is, how would you go about falsifying the claim that the mutations that, combined with natural selection have resulted in the biological features we see today, were statistically random with respect to fitness (and therefore biological function)? You've already laid out how we can tell a set of dice rolls wasn't random with respect to number frequency, so how can we do a similar thing for mutations that have happened in the past?
Added in edit: Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that it can't be falsified that mutations have been random wrt fitness, because I think there may be a way to do it. I'm asking how you would go about doing this.
Also, not really important, but a minor side quibble with what you said in your example:
However, this is technically false, and your next example contradicts it:
In this case, you can't tell which numbers were deliberately placed, you can only narrow it down. If the dice show a significantly imbalanced enough frequency of 6, for instance, you can tell from this that some of the 6s were not random, but you can't tell which ones.
Comment by Deuce — June 14, 2005 @ 9:01 am
June 15th, 2005 at 11:08 pm
Deuce:
Tom, you are wasting an inordinate amount of breath explaining something that everybody already understands. In another thread, Joy said the following:
…
I'd wager that all the people you are attempting to explain this stuff too already get this (Joy certainly does).
Joy may well know this - but then she certainly did not think about it when she wrote:
Had she understood my point, she would also have known I was not being inconsistent. She would also know the claim that mutations are random in the statistical sense is the only claim that Darwinism can scientifically make in that regard; from which it follows that no metaphysical claim about the actual cause of the statistically random mutations can enter into Darwinism - whether that claim is that the mutations were caused by God, or that they are simply the consequences of quantam fluctuations in a fully naturalistic universe. Both of those claims go beyond the scientific content of Darwinism, and therefore are not needed to explain the evolution of life which is so successfully explained by Darwinism.
Nor can Irving have understood the point when he insists that if individual mutations cannot be known by science to have not been caused supernaturally, then it cannot be known that mutations follow the statistical pattern which Darwinism asserts of them. His insistence that Darwinism is unfalsifiable because it does not assert unfalsifiable claims about specific metaphysical ontogeny of particular mutations, but instead asserts a falsifiable claim about the general pattern of mutations, and particularly, the relationship of that pattern to fitness is bizzare. It only makes sense if he does not understand the things I have (according to you) redundantly pointed out.
So, rather than chastising me for redundant verbiage; how about you bring it to Irving and Joy's attention that they are being inconsistent with what they claim to believe eleswhere (according to you), or that what they are saying is inconsistent with what everyone (apparently) understands.
As regards the evidence of the randomness of mutation that I am supposedly being asked for; my very first responce to Irving pointed him the the Luria-Delbruck experiment which showed that mutations in the experiment were random with respect to adaptive advantage; and to a review article by Lenski detailing experiments that had (probably) demonstrated the consistency of "adaptive mutation" with Darwinian mechanisms. These apparently, were not what he was looking for, despite your claim to the contrary. I could also point to the evidence that major transitions in evolution occur with a pattern consistent with their random origin; or detailed phylogenetic comparisons of which show that mutations are random in the sense required by Darwinism. (Essentially, they show that the point mutation rate is approximately the same both inside and outside coding regions of proteins, though selection effects are not the same in those two regions.)
Also, not really important, but a minor side quibble with what you said in your example:
However, this is technically false, and your next example contradicts it:
In this case, you can't tell which numbers were deliberately placed, you can only narrow it down. If the dice show a significantly imbalanced enough frequency of 6, for instance, you can tell from this that some of the 6s were not random, but you can't tell which ones.
It appears that you also have failed to understand my point (although probably you have simply just misread this passage).
My claim was that if you have a sequence of 100 digits, just one of which was deliberately placed, it is impossible to tell by analysing the sequence which digit was deliberately placed (or even if just one digit was deliberately placed). It is, of course, possible to determine (with high reliability) of a given sequence whether it was made by frequent deliberate placements, but only so long as the deliberate placements are not crafted to mimic the effects of random distribution. (I think you have misread "number" as refering to the entire sequence, when in fact, and clearly from context, I used "number" to refer to individual digits.)
Comment by tom_kbel — June 15, 2005 @ 11:08 pm
June 16th, 2005 at 12:40 am
Well, obviously Tom, she must have not said it because of "space constraints" or time constraints, or whatever. And here you've jumped to conclusions about what you thought she meant and such.
Actually, in all seriousness now, if I had to venture a guess, it's that she does know the difference (as demonstrated by the quote I gave) but nevertheless considers it a metaphysical assumption. You can take that up with her if you want. As for the others, take a step back and ponder for a second. Do you honestly think that they all believe Darwinism requires its random mutations to be generated by ultimately random quantum fluctuations or something? If this were the case, a deterministic universe would contradict Darwinism. Do you think anybody here thinks that?
I understood quite well what you meant. It is correct that in that case you can't tell which digit was deliberately placed, or if one was placed. I said as much in my post. However, the following statement is untrue:
Your if/then statement simply isn't correct. It does not hold that if you can't tell which number was generated by deliberate placement, you therefore can't tell IF a number was generated by deliberate placement. There are instances (like your second example), where you can't tell which number (or numbers) was placed, but can tell IF a number (or numbers) was placed.
In your first example, you can't tell which number was placed deliberately, and you can't tell if a number was placed deliberately. However, it's not the case that can't tell if a number was placed because you can't tell which number was placed. In fact, it's the other way around: You can't tell which number was placed because you can't tell if a number was placed.
A word of advice: you may want to think twice before condescendingly announcing to others that they have failed to understand you every time they don't agree with you. Sometimes it will turn out they got something you didn't get, or didn't realize that they got, and then you come off looking doubly ridiculous. If there's something worse than having onlookers see that you don't know something, it's having them see that you're a know-it-all who doesn't know something.
Comment by Deuce — June 16, 2005 @ 12:40 am
June 16th, 2005 at 12:52 am
Nothing inconsistent here. The unnecessary and metaphysically prejudicial "random" qualifier in the origins half of the neodarwinian equation speaks specifically to the origins of genetic variation, not to the statistical unpredictability of specific mutations in any individual organism.
Surely you know enough to understand that when mutations are described as mistakes in replication, ionization, quantum fluctuations/forces, mutagenic chemical exposure, chromosome/gene duplications, failure of repair/destroy programs in the cellular machinery, etc., this description is not about statistical unpredictability in individual organisms. It's about causation.
There is no scientific reason to have an unnecessary qualifier on the origins part of this theory of origins. It's very simple to explain right up front that evolutionary theory is a study of the statistical effects of mutations under the influence of selection - in populations over generational time. Thus the causes of specific mutations in any individual organism are irrelevant to the neodarwinian theory.
Cause is relevant to ID, as it wishes to describe the process of evolution in teleological terms. Cause is relevant to biology itself as well, particularly in medical science, genetics, genomics, biochemistry, etc. And much incoming empirical evidence from biology related to cause does not support the neodarwinian assertion that cause is random.
We can have a fine theory of evolution that does not rely on falsified assertions about the nature of origins. We can have a fine theory of evolution that does not make any unfounded claims drawn from a priori metaphysical commitments. And we can have an important branch of science [biology] producing useful knowledge about life without any of the corruption that metaphysical commitments inevitably impart.
We CAN have such a theory. Neodarwinism isn't it.
Comment by Joy — June 16, 2005 @ 12:52 am
June 16th, 2005 at 5:25 am
Deuce:
Actually, in all seriousness now, if I had to venture a guess, it's that she does know the difference (as demonstrated by the quote I gave) but nevertheless considers it a metaphysical assumption. You can take that up with her if you want. As for the others, take a step back and ponder for a second.
Well, happilly, she has come along and confirmed her misunderstanding by saying:
She appears here to be saying that when Darwinists talk of the randomness of mutations, they are talking about the metaphysically unoriginated state of genetic mutations. Elsewhere she has said:
But that is precisely not what Darwinists are saying. They are not saying that mutations are without cause; and most certainly they are not saying the specific physical causes are biologically irrelevant. They are saying that mutations exhibit a particular statistical property. But because the claim is a statistical claim, it is ipso facto not a metaphysical claim. In fact Joy places herself in the absurd position of arguing that because Darwinism makes no commitment about the ultimate causes of mutations, therefore it is making strong metaphysical commitments.
Do you honestly think that they all believe Darwinism requires its random mutations to be generated by ultimately random quantum fluctuations or something? If this were the case, a deterministic universe would contradict Darwinism. Do you think anybody here thinks that?
I am unsure why you are constructing this strawman. Irving argued that because the claims about whether individual mutations are caused by quantum fluctuations or an act of God are unfalsifiable, therefore Darwinism's claim that mutations are random is unfalsifiable. I needed to illustrate exactly what is claimed by Darwinism to show that that is not the case.
Your if/then statement simply isn't correct. It does not hold that if you can't tell which number was generated by deliberate placement, you therefore can't tell IF a number was generated by deliberate placement. There are instances (like your second example), where you can't tell which number (or numbers) was placed, but can tell IF a number (or numbers) was placed.
Thankyou. Your further comment has enabled me to determine the exact nature of your misunderstanding. Your misunderstanding makes sense, but only because you have isolated my original claim from its context. In context it reads:
In the initial scenario described, we know that exactly one of the digits was not generated randomly, but was placed by an intelligent agent. However, it is impossible to determine by statistical means which digit was placed intentionally by analysing the sequence alone (not whether the placed digit was a "1", or a "2", etc, but in which position the intentionally placed digit lies). What follows logically from this is that, given two sequences of numbers, one of which has an intentionally placed digit, and one of which does not, you cannot determine by statistical means which is the sequence with the intentionally placed digit. Or alternatively, given a single sequence, you cannot tell whether it has a single digit placed intentionally in that sequence, or not, by statistical means alone. But THAT, of course, is what I claimed; and not only is it true, it follows logically from the premise.
A word of advice: you may want to think twice before condescendingly announcing to others that they have failed to understand you every time they don't agree with you. Sometimes it will turn out they got something you didn't get, or didn't realize that they got, and then you come off looking doubly ridiculous. If there's something worse than having onlookers see that you don't know something, it's having them see that you're a know-it-all who doesn't know something.
I would point out that it was you who first took a condescending tone with your talk about an "inordinate amount of breath" explaining what, supposedly, everybody understands. But evidently, not everybody understood it; or at least not everybody understood its implications. And now you condescendingly advice me to not be condescending - prematurely, of course, because you did misunderstand my claim. Not only that, you did so because you ignored the immediate context of my statement; ignored the contrast I drew between determining if A number was placed, or determining if many numbers have been placed; and blithely assuming that I would immediately contradict myself within the space of two paragraphs.
Finally, I am certainly not a "know-it-all". But I know something about evolution, so I am not bamboozled by the sheer nonsense that has been peddled by some of the bloggers on this site.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 16, 2005 @ 5:25 am
June 16th, 2005 at 6:04 am
Joy, perhaps you could explain what you mean by "metaphysical"
I know the common meanings; ie, the metaphysical is that which cannot in principle be subject to emperical testing; or that the metaphysical is the domain of ultimate ontology and causation; or indeed, that the metaphysical is simply the meta theory of physics. On none of these meanings is the claim that mutations are random a metaphysical claim; or even a claim with metaphysical implications. It is after a claim that can be falsified by emperical research; it explicitly does not make any claim about ultimate ontology and causation; nor indeed about the metatheory of physics. It is true, it may be difficult to comport Darwinism with some metaphysical theories such as Berkleyan Idealism, or Metaphysical Solipsism - but only on the same grounds that it is difficult to comport any physical theory with those particular metaphysics. Indeed, it is difficult to comport even such mundane activities as going to the shops with those theories - so, as it turns out, Darwinism makes no more metaphysical commitments than are made by going to the shops. At least, it makes no more commitment on the three definitions of metaphysics above.
That does open the possibility that you have your own, peculiar definition of metaphysics on which your statement make sense. What is it?
Comment by tom_kbel — June 16, 2005 @ 6:04 am
June 16th, 2005 at 6:43 am
Right, Tom, tell us how you really feel.
PS I'm a guy, get it right already, sheesh.
Comment by Jean — June 16, 2005 @ 6:43 am
June 16th, 2005 at 7:52 am
Yeah, Jean. I should just shut up and start believing that viruses would be able to program for identical proteins in completely different genetic codes. Once I've managed to swallow that wopper, I should be ready for the main course, and should be able to persuade myself that ID is science; and not religious at all. Not even slightly.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 16, 2005 @ 7:52 am
June 16th, 2005 at 8:18 am
Yes, that is what you claimed, and I already said (twice) that it's true. However, you also claimed this, which does not hold:
It would have been correct if you had said it this way:
I'm pretty sure that you get this distinction, and I'm not going to argue the point anymore. I'm pretty sure anybody else reading this gets it, even if you don't admit to it. I'm not really interested in proving to you that you're wrong.
Oh really? Show me where he said that. I can see where he claimed that all mutations being random was unfalsifiable, but I can't find where he said anything about quantum fluctuations. I can see where *you* originally brought up quantum fluctuations, but not where Irving did. And if he really said it, just providing the quote where he said it should suffice. No rationalizations about what he really thought needed, please.
Comment by Deuce — June 16, 2005 @ 8:18 am
June 16th, 2005 at 9:12 am
Deuce:
I'm pretty sure that you get this distinction, and I'm not going to argue the point anymore. I'm pretty sure anybody else reading this gets it, even if you don't admit to it. I'm not really interested in proving to you that you're wrong.
Of course you aren't, for you are unable to do so. I, on the other hand:
Assume you have a sequence of digits 2n in length, for some n > 100.
It is known of this sequence that exactly one digit was carefully chosen, and that all other digits were generated randomly.
Now, we are agreed that we cannot determine by statistical means the location of the deliberately placed digit in this sequence.
We divide the first sequence into two sequences, each n digits long.
We now know of these two sequences that one of them is entirely random, and the other consists n-1 randomly generated digits plus one deliberately placed digits; but we cannot tell which is which by purely statistical means.
If we could tell which of the sublists contained the subdigit by purely statistical means, by using different sorting methods (ie, the first n in one list, and the second n in the other; all odd positioned digits in one, and all even in the other; etc) we could determine the intersect of all sublists that contain a non-random digit, and therefore determine which digit was non-random, contrary to hypothesis.
But if we cannot tell which of the sublists contains a single random digit by purely statistical means, then when cannot tell of either sublist that it contains a single non-random digit. And given that, it follows that in general we cannot tell of any list of apparently random digits whether or not it contains a single non-random digit by statistical means.
So, if you cannot determine the location of a single non-random digit in a sequence of otherwise random digits; you cannot determine if a sequence of otherwise random digits contains a single non-random digit. QED
(I can set this up as a formal proof if you wish; but this outline should be enough to convince you.)
Now what was it you wrote:
But don't worry. I do not expect your ID mates to apply to you the standard you wished to apply to me.
Oh really? Show me where he said that. I can see where he claimed that all mutations being random was unfalsifiable, but I can't find where he said anything about quantum fluctuations. I can see where you originally brought up quantum fluctuations, but not where Irving did. And if he really said it, just providing the quote where he said it should suffice. No rationalizations about what he really thought needed, please.
The passage of mine Irving quoted from reads:
Now, my quote clearly refers to the non-scientificly testable nature of the assertion of a given die roll or mutation that it was fully naturalistic (which, by defintion, includes fully naturalistic quantum fluctuations) or theistic in origin. Now, either Irving new this and asserts what I said he asserts; or has misquoted me as saying something I did not say. I do not rule out the later possibility; but as he had already deliberately ignored evidence I had given of the statistical randomness of mutations as not being what he was talking about, that would say little of his understanding of the subject (or his integrity).
Comment by tom_kbel — June 16, 2005 @ 9:12 am
June 16th, 2005 at 10:51 am
Heh, maybe I will argue it a little longer, because you are going so overboard to defend yourself against one little quibble that I can't resist. It lets everyone else see how much you can't stand to accept being wrong on even the most clear-cut point. Take the following premises:
A) You cannot determine the location of a non-random digit in the sequence of digits.
B) You cannot determine if the sequence of digits is entirely random.
Your claim consists of the following:
C) If A, then B
You're still wrong, only now you're more elaborately wrong. The mental experiment that you just recited could be applied, with the same results, to a sequence where you could tell, statistically, that it wasn't random. Say you have a sufficiently long sequence of dice rolls with a large enough predominance of 6s that you can tell that there must be some deliberately placed 6s in there (a situation that falls in line with your second example). You can subject this sequence to the exact same test as above, progressively splitting the sequence into halves. And, as is the case for the single placed 6, once you get down to individual digits, you won't be able to tell whether any individual roll was random or not. You can only tell by looking at them together in an overall pattern as it approaches the limit. So in this case, A is true and B is false. Thus the relation in C is false.
In the single placed digit case, both A and B happen to be true. However, that A is true does not imply that B is true. C is still a false statement. The reverse relation (D: if B then A) is true, but C is not.
And please, by all means, take your little mental experiment and turn it into a formal proof. It will still only be able to establish A (because D is true), but not C (because C is false), and your dogged insistence will provide entertainment value for us all.
Comment by Deuce — June 16, 2005 @ 10:51 am
June 16th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
Actually I was taught in school it was due to stray gamma rays…quantum theory wasn't the big thing then…
I haven't said hardly anything regarding my understanding of the subject. It all just seems to have been assumed.
I haven't ignored evidence, because in my reading, you've already conceeded the point that Random Mutation/Natural Selection is un-falsifiable.
Now then, the falsification test (or object) for Statistically Random/Natural Selection is?
Or is that Statistically Natural Selection as well?
Comment by Irving — June 16, 2005 @ 3:38 pm
June 16th, 2005 at 3:50 pm
Sorry Deuce, no dice.
The proof only works because when you divide the sequence in half, only one subsequence contains a non-random element. If there is more than one non-random element then each subsequence can contain a non-random element; and repeated divisions would not be able to determine the exact location of the random elements (a necessary feature of the proof in order to set up a reductio).
The proof would only work for multiple non-random elements if you could determine not only that they are present, but exactly how many are present by statistical means; which we both know you cannot do. (In other words, the proof only goes through because of the additional information we had that there was one, and only one, non-random element from non-statistical sources.)
The proof can be generalised for more than one non-random element by doing more than one division of the list; ie, if at up to two non-random elements, use a list that is 3n elements long, and divide the list into three sublists; if up to 3 non-random elements, use a list 4n long and divide into 4. However, for any low number n that very quickly becomes unfeasible and the proof fails.
Let me know if this does not convince you, and if not I will develop the formal proof, and if possible the limits on the proof in terms of the number of random elements for a given n. (The later would involve some maths I am not entirely confident with.)
Comment by tom_kbel — June 16, 2005 @ 3:50 pm
June 16th, 2005 at 4:02 pm
Irving, I am sorry if I have assumed to much about your position. My comment was made on the basis of Deuce's claim that the point I had made was redundant, and that everybody knew it. On that basis, my comment was appropriate.
The first responce to you was June 13th at 11: 47, in which I show that although it is impossible to determine if individual events in a sequence are random in a statistical sence, or even if the whole sequence is random in a metaphysical sense, it is possible to determine if a sequence is random in a statistical sense. This is true even if you only use a sample from it.
As to evidence that mutations are random in a statistical sense, the key study is Luria and Delbruck to which I first refered you. I have mentioned other studies as well, and will go into them in more detail. I will also discusss the one recent scientific challenge to the randomness of mutations, "adaptive mutation" on the thread initiated by Joy because a usefull review article has been linked on that thread.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 16, 2005 @ 4:02 pm
June 16th, 2005 at 4:26 pm
For those of you who's eyes have glazed over from all this talk of dice, let me break down the logic of the conversation into slightly more amusing terms. For the most part, replacing "It's an orange" with "You can't tell if any rolls were non-random" and "It's round" with "You can't tell which rolls were non-random" will decode it:
Tom: This fruit is round. This fruit is also an orange. Thus, if the fruit is round, it is an orange.
Me: A minor quibble, Tom. While you are correct that the fruit is round, and that it is an orange, it is not true that if the fruit is round it is an orange. For instance, canteloupes are round, but they are not oranges.
Tom: You seem to have misunderstood me. You see, the fruit is an orange, and it is also round.
Me: I understood you just fine Tom, and maybe you should stop assuming that when people don't agree with you, it's because they don't understand what you're saying. I know that it's round and that it's an orange. I'm saying that it's not an orange because it's round.
Tom: You still seem to have misunderstood my superior intellect, but at least I can now see where your confusion lies. You see, here's a thought experiment to prove my point:
[writes a large paragraph explaining a thought experiment involving dividing up oranges and looking at the curve of each piece to show that they are round]
As you can see, it is an round, and it is an orange. Thus, if it is round, it is an orange. I can write this up formally if you want, but I think this is enough for you to get it.
Me: Tom, you could do that exact same mental experiment in the canteloupe case, and you'd get the same results. Your mental experiment only shows that it's round, not that if it's round, it is therefore an orange.
[writes a long paragraph abstracting "It's an orange", "It is round", and "If it's round, it's an orange" into A, B, and C respectively, to show the problem with the logic]
Now, the opposite is true: If it's an orange, it is also round. But C is false. But by all means, Tom, write up your mental experiment into a formal proof and amuse us all.
Tom: No dice, Deuce. You see, the logic only holds in the case where it's an orange and it's round. If it's an orange and it's round then in that circumstance if it's round it's an orange.
Me: Sigh…
Comment by Deuce — June 16, 2005 @ 4:26 pm
June 16th, 2005 at 9:01 pm
Tom - For the last time, I am not "misunderstanding" the use of the term 'random' in the origins half of the neodarwinian equation. I know what it means, and understand quite clearly that it means 'Darwinian' theory is officially neutral on the issue of teleology [purpose, direction] coming from the organismal end of the equation. Where agency exists and operates, and where ID would situate the primary impetus of evolution to produce ever more complex and conscious/intelligent organismic agents.
I have no desire to waste time arguing with someone whose intent appears to be misrepresentation of my position, and I am a little at a loss to figure out why I am the poster child on this one.
The truth of the matter is that the "unoriginated" ["accidental," as my son's college anthropology text describes it] application of 'random' to describe genetic changes is a metaphysical corruption politically inserted into neodarwinism for the purpose of denying intelligent agency, and fed to the public as a matter of policy. The fact that this is what the public believes the 'random' qualifier in neodarwinism means is a reflection of what they have been taught that the 'random' qualifier means.
You and I both know the truth - for the practical purposes of a statistical theory of evolution relying on environmental selection rather than the origin of traits, it just plain doesn't matter how variation is generated. By properly assigning the 'random' factor, naturalistic biological theory can certainly include purposeful direction in evolution - teleological design.
If neodarwinism is in fact neutral toward the idea of teleological design, why do you think neodarwinism needs protection against the idea of teleological design?
Comment by Joy — June 16, 2005 @ 9:01 pm
June 17th, 2005 at 12:48 am
There are situations where mutations are produced by bacteria at the right time and at the right place. Thats pretty far from random.
Comment by Guts — June 17, 2005 @ 12:48 am
June 17th, 2005 at 12:23 pm
One last thing:
Heh, I thought you might take this route. I alluded to what was wrong with the logic in the orange parody, but I'll spell it out here. It only "works" in the one non-random die scenario, because the one-die scenario falls under the case where you can't determine if the sequence of digits is entirely random (B), and thus you can't determine which die toss is non-random (A), because of relation D (if B then A) which is always true. And if both A and B are true, then C (if A then B) will hold true. This would be a ridiculous point to make in conversation though, because in order for C, B already has to be true. Take the following premises. We will add a new statement, F, which stands for "There is only one non-random die":
1. If F then B
2. If B then if A then B (this is true of course, but also circular and meaningless, because it just proves it's own assumption)
Your "revised" argument is this:
Conclusion: If F then if A then B
This is technically true, but a silly point to make. We already know that B is true if F is true, so having A in there is just redundant and backwards. It's logically similar to saying "If it's an orange then if it's round then it's a citrus". If that's what you meant all along, then you've got a pretty bad case of logical dyslexia. Of course, that's assuming it's even remotely plausible that this is what you meant all along, rather than it being a strained retroactive rationalization.
To anybody who's been reading this, let this be a lesson to us all in what Imneverwrongitis can do to a person. If Tom had just said "Oops, my bad, it's supposed to be the other way around" when I first pointed out the error, it would've been dropped right then, and nobody would've thought less of him for it. Instead, several days later, and he's on record with post after hilarious post of him posturing and bloviating.
Comment by Deuce — June 17, 2005 @ 12:23 pm