Distinguishing between intelligence and gibberish
by KrauzeSome critics dip more heavily from the BuzzBox than others, but as I was reading this post over at The Panda's Thumb, I got the distinct feeling that I was looking at something that was generated entirely by a computer. Automatic paper generators use a "context-free grammar" to randomly combine words into documents that look meaningful on the surface, but are really just gibberish. Paper generators made the news earlier this year, when an MIT student submitted two randomly generated papers to a technology conference and got one of them accepted, thereby illustrating the woefully inadequate nature of that conference's peer review process. The paper used impressive-sounding words, arranged into nonsensical sentences like these: "We ran a deployment on the NSA's planetary-scale overlay network to disprove the mutually largescale behavior of exhaustive archetypes. First, we halved the effective optical drive space of our mobile telephones to better understand the median latency of our desktop machines."
The author of the Panda post, writing under the handle "PvM", supposedly replies to this post by Mike, as he quotes this question:
If MN determined that the Earth was 6000 years old, that evolution could not occur and all living things were fitted into discrete, discontinuous groups, and a global flood once covered the Earth, does MN then mean we must explain this all "without reference to supernatural beings or events?"
But he never answers the question, and his post seems to be only marginally connected to the issues Mike raises, as illustrated by the paragraph immediately following his quote:
What does reference to the supernatural explain? Everything and thus nothing. And notice that MN has not failed here, so unless Mike wants to argue that if in addition to these findings, science cannot explain these data that somehow "˜supernatural design' becomes more likely then he clearly does not understand the scientific method. Why should our ignorance be seen as evidence for something which we cannot observe?
The rest of the post nowhere gets closer to the topic at hand, being peppered with snappy-yet-vacuous statements such as:
"Hypotheses do not gain strength from the weakness of others, especially when the hypothesis itself lacks much of any explanatory value beyond. Poof…"
"Does Mike accept the counter argument that a supernatural entity has been disproven because the data do not match the written word?"
"And yet, ID proponents on Telic Thoughts still have not realized that IC is an argument from ignorance. ID remains scientifically vacuous because it relies on the gap approach."
So, what's the deal? Did the Pandas write an ID bashing program to boost their number of posts? (Looking over the last week, it appears that "PvM" has managed to write no less than 21 posts!) Or are they trying to recruit writers to their blog by showing how easy it is to be an ID critic? My guess is that it was intended as a test of Dembski's filter, so see if any ID supporters would be able to distinguish the writings of a human intellect from the output of a computer algorithm.
September 3rd, 2005 at 1:25 pm
Pim van Meurs AKA "PvM" has sojourned through ARN and ISCID as well. While at ARN, his output was truly astounding … and mostly incoherent. I've always thought "who is paying these guys to spend tens of hours each week to post so many thousands of times?" But Krauze, you've hit on the obvious answer: we're dealing with automatons! PvM, aagcob, Lizard and so many others are simply programs churning out posts based on input phrases and a few simple rules.
Comment by Stuart Harris — September 3, 2005 @ 1:25 pm
September 3rd, 2005 at 2:00 pm
Krauze, it makes so much sense now!
Many a time I have read what is ostensibly a sentence and think "what did I miss?". I read it again and again and it still doesn't say anything. I slow down and try to digest one portion at a time before tying it to the next but find I can't make the darn word puzzle tell me anything.
Finally I know why.
Thank you.
Comment by Pez — September 3, 2005 @ 2:00 pm
September 3rd, 2005 at 2:44 pm
Noooooooo….
Tell me it ain't so. My buddy, ole Pimmy Boy? Your saying he's not real, just a program. Sniff.
But it all makes sense now. The incoherence, the machine like repetetive ness, the non-sensical conclusions, the red herrings.
Here I thought he was a real person, not a Sock Puppet, and now I discover Pim was all just a hoax.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 3, 2005 @ 2:44 pm
September 3rd, 2005 at 6:22 pm
It is funny to note this has happened countless times when I address questions to supposed IDists. They will not answer basic questions. It is not therefore always 'between intelligence and gibberish;' instead IDists deliver silence and avoid what is not convenient to their worldview(s).
Now, please note that I am not now defending 'sock puppets' or their behaviour(s) on-line. There are many rude, shallow and narrow-minded comments by those who are either hopelessly pro-Darwin, absolutistically pro-evolutionary, or ego-maniacally stuck in a selfish defense of anti-theistic or pro-naturalistic perceptions. IDists should certainly be respected if and when they put forth good research or concrete theories that may be analyzed openly and honestly. Positive communication requires this.
However, to think that IDists are somehow innocently righteous by faith in their theory or that they always display clarity of thought and communication would be a far stretch of anyone's imagination. Just look above in this thread at Sal's condescending, patronizing attitude to discover the reality is something otherwise.
PvM or Pim, most likely a real person and not an automaton, a single person, has done damage to i+d claims by addressing its weaknesses in theory and practise. As a (said) theist who rejects the theology (where present) of i+d theories as heretical and the science of i+d (where present) as an argument of gaps, PvM does good by challenging the theological and scientific vacuity of ID thinking.
For example, on D. O'Leary's 'Design or Chance' list, he has continually provided information and links which counterbalance the one-sidedness of O'Leary's promotional i+d journalism. This is helpful and even necessary in the sense that O'Leary advertises her non-scientific views of i+d for the purpose of selling more books (design or chance being one of the greatest false dichotomies in ID vocabulary). I find the links PvM gives to commentary by theologians especially quite insightful as they more often than not show shortcomings in ID logic and in the IDM's approach to science and/or theology.
I would guess that PvM even accepts telic thoughts to a degree, as does a certain biologist/theologian I know who accepts intelligence and design generally speaking. So why do IDists so dogmatically fight them? Neither of them, however, accept i+d theory in the specific sense(s) promoted by the IDM or by Salvador T, its main cheerleader in the Eastern USA and at certain Universities. But why should they tow such a Pajaro-party line?
Now, if one argues that i+d has nothing to do with theology, they soon find themselves rejecting theology as a contributing discipline or knowledge sphere on topics such as origins of life, life processes and/or even mere change over time. They also then go against the hopes of P. Johnson's initial project, which sought to counter-act naturalism and thus anti-theism in contemporary science or neo-Darwinism. Otoh, if one actually accepts that i+d has something to do with theology (which those agnostics at Telic Thoughts are not likely ready to allow), then they are caught in a conundrum raised by the 'creation science' phenomenon. Theology is deemed as non-scientific and since science is more 'powerful' in contemporary academic discourse, theology is kept out of the picture even when i+d theology is in operation.
Enter certain formidable theologians, some of whom are notable scientists, who have rejected i+d theory (what many call ID) as a mere repatriated form of W. Paley's argument plus information theory. Sometimes ID is called simply, an American thing. The latter is a pejorative context that believes Americans are so distorted, contradicted and disillusioned on the topic of evolution, origins, process theories and neo-Darwinism that an American could not possibly come up with a solution to overcome either evolution or neo-Darwinism. But one need not entertain such thoughts or criticize ID with intelligence or gibberish if that is not what they're called or dedicated to do. The theological argument against ID stands on its own and sometimes in cooperation with the scientific case against ID in a Dembskian, Behean, Meyerian or Wellsian sense. Cordova has no theory but to repeat what others say.
~
If Telic Thoughts is suggesting that IC is really not anti-evolution (e.g. Behe's unevolvability), then they should say so and what they mean by this. If it is only some aspects of evolution they reject, then they should say exactly which aspects they mean, otherwise their position verges on unintelligibility and gibberish. They may even have said so already and I just didn't read it. So please someone link to it and make it easy for those who don't read every thread and every comment made here. Is IC anti-evolution or merely anti-neo-Darwinism or anti-certain mechanisms?
The above questions, if not clearly answered, will help people realize that IDists are spinning as much gibberish as their opponents.
Arago
Comment by g arago — September 3, 2005 @ 6:22 pm
September 3rd, 2005 at 9:17 pm
Arago said: "It is funny to note this has happened countless times when I address questions to supposed IDists. They will not answer basic questions. It is not therefore always "˜between intelligence and gibberish;' instead IDists deliver silence and avoid what is not convenient to their worldview(s)."
It seams to me that answers to your questions are very important to you. So, let me ask you, how many books by ID proponents have you read? If answer is none, why are you waisting our (and yours) time here. If answer is one or two, you got your answers already.
In stead of complaining how no one answers your questions here at Telic, I suggest better option is to go and inform yourself at the source of published ID claims.
Comment by inunison — September 3, 2005 @ 9:17 pm
September 4th, 2005 at 4:22 am
I've read enough published i+d claims to speak as a participant in the discourse. Books on the shelf and sources cited in papers support this. Inunision now will demonstrate his authority, probably over Darwin, Freud, Marx and others in a conspiracy, oops, I mean controversy started by the IDM. M. Behe says one thing and then another, Dembski is philo-math-stat-theolo-psych, iow smihotvorni analytic, non-literary thinker, Johnson is a cult(ural) figure, Meyer won't define 'intelligent selection' and is philosophy of biology, not biology. The list goes on.
Tie your faith in future science to this bunch if you want. I'd rather take more interest in telic thoughts and how applying them can influence on our views of origins, meaning and purpose in human life. But attacking critics whose questions IDists will not or cannot answer is not an acceptable discursive solution. Politically, the IDM may somewhat succeed (otherwise we wouldn't be speaking here anyway), however, scientifically and theologically (THE BRIDGE) the IDM-ID is far from legitimately on the playing field.
Comment by g arago — September 4, 2005 @ 4:22 am
September 4th, 2005 at 8:21 am
g arago:
If Telic Thoughts is suggesting that IC is really not anti-evolution (e.g. Behe's unevolvability), then they should say so and what they mean by this.
Buy a vowel. Behe does NOT say that IC cannot evolve. You said you understood ID and now you post tripe like that?
Tp PvM,
No matter what it all "turtles down" to the supernatural. It can't be avoided. Nature could not have originated vu=ia natural processes because natural processes only exist in nature.
Also IDists do not appeal to the supernatural, we say let the evidence lead and if it leads to the metaphysical than so be it. However it is obvious all explnations have to lead to the metaphysical.
IOW it appears that people like you are avoiding reality by trying to exclude the metaphysical a priori.
Comment by Joe G — September 4, 2005 @ 8:21 am
September 4th, 2005 at 9:41 am
Expressions like "tripe" and "Buy a vowel" aren't consistent with the pleasant and fruitful atmosphere this blog was started to culture. Keep it up, and the Hole will be a bit fuller tomorrow.
Comment by Krauze — September 4, 2005 @ 9:41 am
September 4th, 2005 at 12:19 pm
Krauze, I fully support you on this. We can only learn something if we listen and respect each other.
Comment by inunison — September 4, 2005 @ 12:19 pm
September 4th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
Arago, I have no hope, ever to demonstrate my authority, over such intellectual giants as Darwin, Freud or Marx. Their place in history of science is undisputed and I do respect what they have achieved. But, I think, we are trying to separate ideology from science here, and simply put your questions are teling me that you have not read any basic work by ID theorist.
Comment by inunison — September 4, 2005 @ 12:24 pm
September 4th, 2005 at 12:45 pm
I second what inunison says. Arago, in the spirit of being self-critical and charitable and for the simple sake of the discussion, please keep your generalizations about ID to a minimum wherever you haven't sampled enough of the literature.
It is not by coincidence that a number of us have picked up on this quality in your comments.
Comment by bipod — September 4, 2005 @ 12:45 pm
September 4th, 2005 at 4:19 pm
A note from the moderators
As PvM has a history of using multiple accounts (a.k.a. "sock puppets"), his account has been deleted, and his posts have been moved to the Memory Hole.
Comment by Krauze — September 4, 2005 @ 4:19 pm
September 4th, 2005 at 5:54 pm
O.k. then, I will try. However, natural scientists aren't normally trying to be self-critical; it is not in their 'nature' since the discipline doesn't require it, double hermeneutic aside. As a social scientist, the discipline(s) I represent is something different. Certainly social scientists are reflective and self-critical.
Hello, folks who haven't tuned in, I wrote a masters thesis partly on i+d theories. If you think I haven't read enough i+d literature, obviously there's a mistaken gap in your participation. If I am general where you are specific, please at least allow yourself to be charitable in your non one-sidedness so that claims to objectivity don't dominate this list. I have spoken repeatedly about and supported telic thoughts, but when i+d rhetoric (often tried by natural scientists) is used against what I'm saying, the tide is enough to burst.
If Telic Thoughts is to have a future it must be able to answer questions from likes of PvM. If those questions are uncomfortable then the future is not that bright. If my account is deleted it will show how intolerant you are to honest and open criticism. I support what is happening here, though I wish you folks would say how your ideas are distinct from the IDM's so that I could assess what you're saying separately from the political-social pseudo-cultural phenomenon that is i+d=IDM-style.
Thanks,
G. Arago
Comment by g arago — September 4, 2005 @ 5:54 pm
September 5th, 2005 at 9:11 am
G. arago:
Let me speak for my own views and not necessarily other members of our blog.
PvM was banned not because of his questions, but because of his reputation of behavior. The reputation is earned and comes from many of us watching him over the last several years on the ISCID and ARN forums and the atmosphere he helped to create. He has a history of trying to monopolize the conversations with excessive posting. On the ISCID, whenever someone would post a new message, PvM would be hovering out there and put up a reply within minutes of that posting. This "˜rapid response' technique suggests PvM was more concerned about getting his spin on a message before readers could chew on it. On ARN, he would often post 25-40 times a day, picking fights with everyone. This obsessive, "get the last word" attitude creates a needlessly hostile environment. He also used several screen names on ARN. This eventually got him banned from ARN. Do you think PvM was banned from ARN because his arguments were so intimidating? If so, explain why RBH, Pixie, or Art have not been banned there?
PvM was actually banned from TT near the beginning. After we put up this blog, within minutes the hovering PvM was derailing threads with his own pet peeves. He went away and complained. But we never deleted his account. When he showed back up, you'll notice that he was able to get in 15-or-so lengthy postings within mere hours. That itself tells you where he would go here. TelicThoughts was not set up as another playground for PvM to derail threads and create another climate of animosity with 30+ comments a day (maybe more with the help of socks), many sparking flamewars. If he could get a handle on his behavioral flaws, there would be no problem with keeping him on board (as seen by the fact there are several critics who regularly post here). But we don't have time to excessively moderate the comments section.
Not necessarily. For example, you seem to have this personal vendetta with Salvador, where you are constantly trying to bait him into a fight. Luckily for you, Salvador rarely takes your bait. There could come a time when most of us become annoyed with this vendetta and ban you. It would not be because we are intolerant of your "honest and open criticism," but because TelicThoughts was not designed to give you an arena to express your ego battle. Of course, you haven't been banned, now have you?
The sense of arrogance and entitlement among some ID critics is astonishing. If you have powerful questions and open/honest criticism, simply express them without wiping feces on the wall and throwing food. People who have been banned have been banned because of using multiple accounts, troll-like behavior, and a sense that they are entitled to monopolize all the conversations.
Comment by MikeGene — September 5, 2005 @ 9:11 am
September 5th, 2005 at 9:24 am
G arago:
Since you wrote a masters thesis on "i+d", why do you need us to take you by the hand? Okay, you need to define this "i+d" movement that you have in your head and I'll fill you in on where I disagree and agree.
Comment by MikeGene — September 5, 2005 @ 9:24 am
September 9th, 2005 at 6:18 am
Mike Gene:
I'm only asking you to take me by the hand in showing me your ideas. Surely there's nothing wrong with that. Specifically, I asked 'how your ideas are distinct from the IDM's.' Yes, of course, you can link to IDThink and say it's what you do and how you are unique. Anyway, if you did want to know more (or be reminded) about how I define 'IDM,' you can go here:
http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/14/t/000899.html#000015
http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi/ubb/get_topic/f/12/t/001536.html?
Please do fill me in, Mike Gene, on where you disagree and agree.
As for this supposed vendetta, it is your imagination running wild. I don't like how you reify that word two sentences later as if it were 'true'. Just saying so doesn't make it true. No, I don't have a vendetta against Salvador. However, I do consider his dialogue style, at least on internet discussions, as less than considerate to those who don't share his convictions and worldview. Though this is not always the case, and perhaps I have already called his bluffs too many times. He has not answered the toughest questions I've put to him, even though he does contribute helpful tid bits from his areas of knowledge.
Salvador has baited me many times and thrown ridicule (sometimes mere dismisiveness) at the fields in which I study. Is there nothing wrong with this condescension in open, honest and faithful discussion? Actually, it is quite arrogant and I find it insulting. He has challenged me to debate him on-line several times like a billy goat might. Baaa!
At first, I thought this would a fruitless endeavour, since he and I are in such different fields. Perhaps I'm beginning to come around though. A trio of voices – you, Salvador and I – might provide an interesting blocked-off thread.
Arago (back home from a beautiful city in Eastern Europe)
Comment by g arago — September 9, 2005 @ 6:18 am
September 9th, 2005 at 6:26 am
Please note, the writings posted at ARN were not the final copies. Now, upon glancing over them, I see several grammatical mistakes which were hopefully edited and the chapters polished before submission. We may be struggling (or at least trying), but still never reaching 'perfection' in this life of ours anyway.
Comments other than MG's are of course welcome too, but perhaps another thread would be better suited.
arago
Comment by g arago — September 9, 2005 @ 6:26 am