The Face That Could Have Been
by MikeGeneHey, it looks like a Face:
Suspicions are aroused. We need a higher resolution analysis:
Ah, now that looks like any ol' mountain. No Face.
But what if the higher resolution analysis had shown this?
Would the orginal suspicion be strengthened?
March 4th, 2008 at 1:20 am
Then intelligent design would be the best inference.
Comment by Bradford — March 4, 2008 @ 1:20 am
March 4th, 2008 at 4:03 am
Bradford:
Why? Did you calculate CSI?
Comment by Raevmo — March 4, 2008 @ 4:03 am
March 4th, 2008 at 8:52 am
What if we found a Mars Bar on Mars. Do you think some human, or at least someone with knowledge of humans might have left it there?
Comment by Zachriel — March 4, 2008 @ 8:52 am
March 4th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Sure. Two different cameras, seeing the same phenomenon. I believe the first one could be simply called intuitively true while the second pass (say with different equipment) confirms the original suspicion. No?
Zachriel:
I believe it's a well established fact that Martians prefer Snickers.
What other option is there? Secret military space missions. Somehow hitched a ride on a comet/asteroid, fell out of the space shuttle or something.
PS,
Certain conspiracy theorists argue that the cat-box image (2nd image in MG's post) has been poorly rendered to give the appearance that the Cydonian face is just an eroded mesa. Not that I believe such things but it may make the discussion more interesting. Maybe we've finally found a job for Dembski's filter!
Just sayin'
Comment by Rob R. — March 4, 2008 @ 9:35 am
March 4th, 2008 at 11:31 am
In other words, we would use standard issue hypothesis testing. Martians prefer Snickers, so it's probably just typical Earthling litter, like those old junky robot explorers they leave lying around, or those golf balls Lunarians are always complaining about.
Comment by Zachriel — March 4, 2008 @ 11:31 am
March 4th, 2008 at 11:36 am
I think people are missing an important point here. Yes, the first image did look like something that might have been designed, but regardless the scientists who discovered this feature did NOT conclude that design was the answer. They concluded:
Even though the appearance of design is "obvious" in the first picture scientists correctly concluded that a non-teleologic explanation made more sense given the overall evidence. They have since been proven correct once again.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 4, 2008 @ 11:36 am
March 4th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I used common sense. Something that is increasingly rare among ID critics.
Comment by Bradford — March 4, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
March 4th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Todd, you're missing the point. It's a what-if question, after all!
Mike is trying to get us to think about whether it is conceptually, hypothetically possible to have an increasing suspicion of intelligent intervention in some feature of nature.
Comment by TomG — March 4, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
March 4th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
What if higher resolution analysis had shown this?
Comment by chunkdz — March 4, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
March 4th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I know this is somewhat off-topic, but these 'face' pictures are great.
Here's the face in 3d animation courtesy of the Mars Express:
http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Mars_...
Pictures:
http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Mars_...
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM9W...
Of course - back on-topic (I think) - the new word out of Harvard is that Mars is/was too acidic to support life for the last four billion years or so. So, there's that.
Comment by Rob R. — March 4, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
March 4th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
chunkdz:
OMG! It's Obama!
Comment by Raevmo — March 4, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
March 4th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
TomG, I understand the point Mike made in the DM: if the appearance of design holds at higher resolution then the design inference is more likely to be correct. My counter point is that even apparently high levels of design inference like this often turn out to be mistaken and traditionally science has done a good job of recognizing those mistakes.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 4, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
March 4th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Could you provide these examples that you are refering to? Where the inference would appear as clear in the example that Mike gave.
Comment by Doug — March 4, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
March 4th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Zachriel:
Yes, and I think we could infer that the Mars Bar had been intelligently designed by someone.
Comment by Bilbo — March 4, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
March 4th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Todd, you haven't answered Mike's original question. Oops. Yes, you did, in your second post. Sorry, I missed it.
Comment by Bilbo — March 4, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
March 4th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Yes, and you did it without using the advanced mathematics of Dembski's Inference. Rather, you compared it to objects you are familiar with and found a reasonable match.
Comment by Zachriel — March 4, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
March 4th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Zachriel:
Yes, all that, plus an intuitive sense that it would be too improbable for a Mars Bar to come into existence by non-intelligent means. How improbable does it have to be to be too improbable? Dembski suggests less than 1 in 10<150>.
Comment by Bilbo — March 4, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
March 4th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
But you didn't use any math. You already know that Mars Bars are manufactured. All you did was put the object into a known category.
Comment by Zachriel — March 4, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
March 4th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
You really want examples of telic explanations that science has proven wrong? How about:
* Lightning is caused by Zeus' anger
* Rough seas are caused by Poseidon's anger
* Disease is caused by demonic possession
* The world sits on the back of a giant turtle which carries it through the sky
* Scorpius constantly chases Orion through the sky
* God created Eve from Adam's rib
* The Sun revolves around the Earth
* Everything Erich Von Daiiniken ever wrote
This list extends to the vast majority of telic explanations for natural phenomenon ever proposed. But certainly the origin of life must be the exception to this trend. So where is the list of telic predictions that have been proven correct?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 4, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
March 4th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
That was a telic explanation? Might it have been an explanation based off of the best available evidence? Why label this 'telic' if the evidence actually appeared to support it?
Judging from the rest of your examples I see that you don't take my request very seriously.
You provided a list of non examples and then blanket that with "the list extends to….". I see what I'm dealing with here.
How about more viable predictions.
Such as, life bears the appearance of contrivances. Naturalism lead us to assume the cell was a simple arrangment of second order reactions in a homogenous environment. Finds to support this certainly would have undercut what Paley was trying to advance. But what do we actually observe at the cellular level?
Or how about the evidence that supports a universe that came into existence at a particular moment in time - no longer allowing the universe's existence as being a brute fact. Or that the parameters of the universe do not appear to be random, slight variations to those values result in a universe where life isn't possible.
Or how about the fact that if we don't assume a rational universe there is no reason to assume that our minds can actually probe and discover 'hidden' realities to the cosmos. You, yourself, are also working off of telic premises. That your beliefs and thoughts are indeed valid and not simply determined by your physical make up - products of evolutionary struggle not intended on yielding 'truth' but merely functional in a particular setting.
Comment by Doug — March 4, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
March 4th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
nevermind
Comment by olegt — March 4, 2008 @ 9:42 pm
March 4th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
You're right Doug. Todd was engaging in the usual bombast we expect from critics. I'll give you a serious example that was brought to my attention by a critical scientist within the last few months. There are ground patterns evident in Peru which appear randomly ordered when viewed on the ground. There is a name for them which I do not recall. In any case when viewed from the air, at a distince consistent with the height of flying aircraft, one can see a pattern making it appear as if the design was intentional. In this case a non-telic initial conclusion was seen in telic terms with a change in the view allowing for a better perspective.
Comment by Bradford — March 4, 2008 @ 9:56 pm
March 4th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Earth as center of the universe was a prediction of a telic theory. Since mankind was obviously God's greatest creation it made since to assume he placed us at the center of his creation.
Its true, I was being snarky and making fun of the question. Any post in which I include a ";)" you can assume shouldn't be taken too seriously. But it is true that historically telic explanations have come first and seem to flow naturally from human instinct.
As to your "more viable predictions," they all seem more like explanations to me. Were any of those "predictions" even made in advance of the discoveries in question? Did these predictions guide research such that exploration of the prediction in any way lead to the discovery? These are just after the fact explanations created to justify an ad hoc position. Mike even mentions in the DM that ID theories need time to build a positive track record before you can truly expect them to be taken seriously.
Those are the Nasca Lines. Von Daiiniken (the guy I made fun of above) used those as part of his proof that aliens were responsible for human evolution and early technology. He claimed they were alien landing sites. I'm not aware of any genuine claim that anyone ever believed these lines were naturally formed though. I'd like to see any source other than Von Daiiniken make such a claim.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 4, 2008 @ 10:40 pm
March 4th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Todd Berkebile's examples appear to be perfectly acceptable examples of phenomena once attributed to telic causes that now have non-telic scientific explanations. (That doesn't mean that Zeus doesn't strike down the wicked with lightning on occasion. Just that there is no evidence of such.)
That's not an entailed consequence of Philosophical Naturalism.
The universe remains a "brute fact" regardless of its configuration or history.
That's called puddle logic.
Some people think that the universe is essentially irrational, and still go on to discover 'hidden' realties to the cosmos.
Comment by Zachriel — March 4, 2008 @ 10:40 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 12:10 am
I'd say so. Does anyone disagree?
Comment by MikeGene — March 5, 2008 @ 12:10 am
March 5th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Todd's examples and your enthusiasm for them are just more of the irrelevant BS that critics pose as dialog. What is relevant, but conspicuously absent, are real issues: what would cause codons to form in a pattern consistent with an interpretive code and what would bring about genetic codes and mechanisms enabling translation of messages embedded in nucleic acids? Assessing whether such events are telic or non-telic in nature is a pursuit best not left to ideologues who have already decided that science and naturalism are effectively the same. Noone cares about Zeus except those trying to be too clever.
Comment by Bradford — March 5, 2008 @ 12:41 am
March 5th, 2008 at 1:11 am
Wrong. That's not how it was viewed from a theological position. Our location was a demerit. The 'heavens' were further out from the earth. You're viewing the model incorrectly.
Paley was arguing for the appearance of contrivances. It wasn't know at the time the level of cellular complexity. Entailed in Darwin's theory was that life at its most fundamental level would be simple - allowing the abiotic to biotic gap bridgeable. It wasn't an explanation that cells would be like balloons filled with molasses since at the time scientists didn't truly know the structure of the cellular enviroment.
And the weight of the naturalistic predictions can be noted when internal cellular structures, illuminated with simple light microscopes, were written off as being the result of fixing.
Comment by Doug — March 5, 2008 @ 1:11 am
March 5th, 2008 at 1:13 am
I still think the poor historical track record of Telic explanations is a valid point though. Even if I have no clue as to what might have caused the origin of life (which I don't, by the way) and even if it seems like an insurmountable knowledge gap none of that is reason to think this time the Telic explanation will be the right one. To say the origin of life must be Telic is classic God-of-the-Gaps logic. I personally don't know what natural process would use codons. I don't know what designer would use them either. I do think that a gradual iterative process could create complex specific information though, but I'm not sure I personally could model an "information neutral" process to demonstrate that so feel free to call it an opinion. I think all of our ponderings about the origin of life are little more than speculation at this point so this opinon is as good as any other.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 5, 2008 @ 1:13 am
March 5th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Sure, now it's not. Because scientific advance has not supported the contention that life is simple at its most fundamental level.
Philosophically for you, I can see why this would be the case. Based off of the available scientific evidence (metaphysical musings aside) you are wrong.
Change a value, Zach. Let's see what it looks like.
Those "some people" are you. In your attempts to shoehorn reality into your philosophical worldview, despite the glaring inconsistencies of your position and the incoherence that should, to any reasonable person, level the worldview from the beginning.
If someone, you, thinks that the universe is inherently irrational they (you) are wasting their time.
There would be no reason to assume that underlying order could be discovered, there would be no reason to trust their own cognitive faculties (the product of an irrational universe having rational insight into the substructure of that universe?), there would be no reason. Because there would be no standard of good judgement in such a chaotic universe.
But still, what reasons do you have for believing that your thoughts and beliefs are anything more than mental behaviors that confered some selective advantage. Why do you hold your thoughts and beliefs to be true, while viewing mine to be incorrect? I have a reason to hold you to such a standard, because my worldview allows that standard to exist. Yours doesn't, it gives you no ground whatsoever to argue for the validity of your thoughts/beliefs in contrast to mine. Because your thoughts/beliefs, in your worldview, come ultimately from the same source as mine. And that source isn't concerned about beliefs or thoughts being true, or closer to the 'truth' than others.
Comment by Doug — March 5, 2008 @ 1:32 am
March 5th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Then it was never an entailed consequence of the hypothesis.
You introduced the term "brute fact". Notice my use of scare-quotes. It has a specific meaning in philosophy. The discovery of the Big Bang does not change the application of this term.
This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' "” Douglas Adams
The puddle may use its most precise instruments to verify the staggeringly exact fit. We know, from our perspective, that the puddle's perfect fit is due to gravity and the liquid nature of water. But the puddle, from its perspective, sees only the perfection of the fit. Must be design.
Why would you presume that I think the universe is irrational? In any case, there are many ways to understand the cosmos. Science is only one such tool. Artists can be quite insightful at understanding human nature and often work from a perspective of irrational and chaotic imagination. And even within science, there are scientists who believe in a universe chock full of miracles (e.g. Christians) who still produce good scientific work.
Comment by Zachriel — March 5, 2008 @ 10:31 am
March 5th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Hi, MikeGene. I'm curious.
- what would your score for the face be? Here we have an actual object where it is (arguably)unknown whether it is a natural artifact or a designed one. What's the 'face' look like in the matrix?
One day we'll have a rover or, God willing[!] an astronaut up there.
Astronaut1: "Hey wow, it is a face. Just eroded all to hell; must be really old. Wonder who made it"
Astronaut2: "Don't know, but someone sure did"
Astronuat1: "IDiot."
Astronaut2: "Wow, yeah. Remember all that hub-bub when that ID guy used his method to show it was designed? Looks like he nailed it"
Astronaut1: "Right, MikeGene, I remember that blog. Wasn't Rob R. there?"
Astronaut2: "Yeah. He's great."
Astronaut1: "Yeah."
[fast-forward a couple years]
Speaker at podium: ladies and gentlemen this years recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize… MikeGene!"
[applause]
MikeGene: "Ladies and gentlemen before I begin I'd like to thank, the man whom without him none of this would have been possible, a true intellectual giant, my hero…. your hero… Rob R.!"
[thunderous applause]
MikeGene: "Rob come on up here, the check an trophy* are yours. Had you not goaded me into putting my predictions on pixels for the world to see, I'd be nothing. Nothing without you, Rob. Nothing. Come on up here!"
{Rob Rises}
[The crowd goes freakin' nuts]
*You get a trophy too, right?
Either that or can someone explain why something like the 'face' isn't a good candidate for testing/checking design detectors (Mike/Demski/whomever's.) Mt. Rushmore is always brought up (although to my knowledge no score/numbers have been calculated) but, because we all know its causal history, there's no way to perform a blind test. The 'face' seems like the perfect candidate. Why is this topic bringing about a discussion on the philosophy of science versus, instead, the application of it, especially when we have an example to work with. What am I missing?
Comment by Rob R. — March 5, 2008 @ 11:28 am
March 5th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Mike,
This example illustrates the problem with a theory of ID that purports to rely on quantitative methods, but that actually leans exclusively on subjective criteria for "designedness".
The face on Mars seems to be an obvious case for validating the concept of (for example) Dembski's specification: after the first picture there should be a definitive measure of how "specified" the face is. Similarly, one would hope to see a rigorous explanation for how much "complexity" is in the image. These values would lead you, perhaps, to a conclusion of design, modulo the error bars on the estimate.
What should be the effect of the higher resolution photo? Ideally, there'd be a modification of the original estimate. In Bayesian terms, the prior probability of design would be modified by a likelihood given by the new photo.
If you had judged the face "designed" on the basis of the Viking photo, how would you rationalize a judgment of "not designed" on the basis of the MSSS photo? Clearly, you'd have to accept that there had been a false positive. Can anyone come up with a method for determining, a priori, the false discovery rate of a judgment of design, before the high resolution image is taken? I haven't seen any evidence that this can be done.
Of course, this is why no ID proponent has EVER done anything other than say "looks designed" or "doesn't look designed". There's never any rigorous quantification of the certainty of the conclusion. And, in fact, it's doubtful that there could be: the "complexity" of the structure seen in the first photo depends on understanding Martian geology at a much finer scale than the photo's resolution allows. Even given the second of the two high-res photos: how would one EVER calculate the probability of such a structure arising by non-telic processes? It can't be done, and all that results is hand-waving and analogies.
I realize that your take on ID is materially different from Dembski's. But so far, in all pro-ID camps, all I can see is subjective judgment that is made to look "mathy" or "sciency" after the fact.
ID needs to confront its inability to objectively and quantitatively evaluate such a simple example as the face on Mars. Otherwise it should give up its scientific pretensions.
Comment by matt_b — March 5, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Zachriel:
Actually, I assume that Mars Bars are the result of intelligent design. I've never seen one made. But I've been told that they are artificially made, and since I've never seen them produced non-artificially, nor been told that they are produced non-artificially, nor am I able to think of a plausible way that they could be produced non-artificially, I conclude that they were intelligently designed by someone. Now if I'm the first astronaut on Mars, and I find a Mars Bar, my mind will be in for a real jolt, wondering how it got there. I'll probably believe that it is a result of intelligent design, because it resembles the Mars Bars I've seen on Earth, and because I still can't think of a plausible way that they could have been produced non-artificially. That means that I have an intuitive sense that producing it by non-intelligent means seems too improbable.
So, even though I haven't used any math, that doesn't mean that I haven't used a mathematical category — probability — to help make my judgment.
Comment by Bilbo — March 5, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Likewise, when I look at Mike's third picture of a face on Mars, I am likely to infer that it was the result of intelligent design, for the same reasons: As Zachriel said, I "compared it to objects" I am "familiar with and found a reasonable match." And since I don't know of a plausible way for the face to have come about by non-intelligent means, which means that it seems intuitively too improbable to come about by non-intelligent means, I infer that it was probably intelligently designed.
So, Yes, Mike, the third picture strengthens my suspicion of a teleological cause.
Comment by Bilbo — March 5, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
March 5th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
By the way, the same reasoning that would make me suspect the third face on Mars was intelligently designed, and the Mars Bar on Mars was intelligently designed would also make me think the collapse of building #7 at the WTC was intelligently designed: I compared it to objects I am familiar with — controlled demolitions of buildings; can't think of a plausible alternative; and infer that the collapse of building #7 was probably the result of a controlled demolition.
Sorry, didn't mean to get political….yes I did.
And Dutch controlled demolition expert, Danny Jowenko, thinks so, too:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9T3...
Comment by Bilbo — March 5, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Hi matt,
Hopefully I can get to your points this weekend. In the meantime, they don't answer my question.
Hi Rob,
I'll try to get to your questions also.
Comment by MikeGene — March 6, 2008 @ 12:33 am
March 6th, 2008 at 2:35 am
Mike,
Well, of course there are extreme cases where design should be inferred. The "bulldozer on Jupiter" trope is an obvious example. A "Mars" bar on Mars is another.
Even those of us who think the ID program is fruitless would have to agree that, yep, the third photo sure looks like evidence of design (assuming that NASA hadn't doctored the photo for its own nefarious reason, of course). But neither I nor anyone else seems ever to be able to give an objective reason why we might conclude design. Except in cases where we can follow the process of design and construction, there's no criterion for designedness that is not ad hoc. As always, it devolves to intuition and subjective hunch, derived from prior probabilities that strongly depend on your world-view. (Richard Hoagland, for example, applied his paranoid delusional viewpoint to estimate that the probability of Cydonia being an artifact was unity. I don't know how the new pictures have changed his outlook.)
So here's another scenario: imagine that after the Viking mission, we earthlings lost all of our capacity for space travel. The first image is all we'll ever get from Cydonia. What is the probability that the face is a designed object?
I don't think that's a argumentative question. For the difficult cases especially, there needs to be an explicit criterion for making the decision. Your "face that might have been" is pretty much the same as the bulldozer on Jupiter.
Comment by matt_b — March 6, 2008 @ 2:35 am
March 6th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Hi matt,
Neither do I. In fact, I think you are making many good points here. I wish I had the time to reply, but I have to get the kids ready for school. Like I said, I hope to reply this weekend.
BTW, do you know what the second sentence in The Design Matrix says?
Comment by MikeGene — March 6, 2008 @ 8:02 am
March 6th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Hey Matt:
Why not? Is it because you believe the interaction of matter and Natural Law are too complex for us calculate ever?
I agree that Dembski's filter is of little use in such cases until we better understand the physics but I can't see why you would say it can't be done. Don't you have confidence in science?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 6, 2008 @ 8:21 am
March 6th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Matt:
Sure there is. Acts resulting from creative inteligence are marked, not by contravention of natural forces, but rather by their redirrection. The "Mars photo" has unmistakable parallels to the Mt. Rushmore photos. If years from now earth no longer sustained life due to some astronomical catastrophe and intelligent beings visted the Dakota site they would recognize design, not because they knew who constructed the sculptures, but because they are aware of erosion and other natural processes. It is their knowledge of such things (as opposed to reasoning based on lack of knowledge) that enables a correct inference of design.
Comment by Bradford — March 6, 2008 @ 10:09 am
March 6th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Or in other words, only by analogy to things we know can we ever recognize design. I would argue that our instinctive design analogy is really only valid at the scale of objects we spend our whole life interacting with. The things we learn about macro-machines might create a terminology we can apply to nano-machines and they might even channel the same natural forces resulting in high level functional similarities, but they are so completely different that the analogy breaks down. To me this means we cannot recognize design in the origin of life because despite all the vauge similarities Mike points out in the DM we simply have no compelling analogy. Unless we can find a method better than analogy then its all just speculation.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 6, 2008 @ 10:59 am
March 6th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Bradford: It is their knowledge of such things (as opposed to reasoning based on lack of knowledge) that enables a correct inference of design.
Molecular biologists use analogous reasoning all the time to make inferences about concepts like common descent. We do not observe most of that which we theorize occurred. It is imputed based molecular patterns and analogies to processes.
Comment by Bradford — March 6, 2008 @ 11:14 am
March 6th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
The problem remains: there's a lot of argument by intuition and analogy. If you think this is an adequate end-state for the ID program, that's fine. Just don't confuse what you're doing with science.
Comment by matt_b — March 6, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
No, you haven't used probability, you've used your own intuition and personal judgment. First of all, probability is all but useless for examining past events, it a "what could happen" enterprise. The closely-related concpet that is used to examine past events is statistics. Secondly, if you don't even bother to generate a number, you're not using probability, period.
Comment by One Brow — March 6, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Matt, define what science is.
When you say, what you just said…. to what are you refering?
Comment by Doug — March 6, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Period.
LOL. And then he includes the period.
"PERIODperiod"
Comment by Doug — March 6, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Just so long as you understand the implications of genomic sequence analogies to an evolutionary process and the standard you are applying.
Comment by Bradford — March 6, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Bradford,
You seem to be conflating homology with analogy. Biologists don't use the term "genomic sequence analogies" because it is so vague as to be meaningless. A provisional assumption of sequence homology, on the other hand, has a precise meaning that can lead to profoundly useful insights. There are many classes of quantitative models I can apply for understanding sequence changes under assumptions of homology. These allow me to make quantitative predictions which can be (and are) tested in the laboratory. In some cases the results validate the original assumption. In others, the assumption of homology can be shown to probably be wrong. There are no such models for assumptions of analogy.
Statements about homology are rarely made (any more) on the basis of intuition and subjective judgment. There are objective, quantitative criteria for assigning a homology relationship between, for example, protein sequences. The conclusions may certainly be wrong in some cases, but anyone can follow the steps to see how that wrong conclusion was arrived at. This is the essence of the scientific method, and it differs profoundly from the process whereby an object is, by intuition and analogy, judged as being designed.
Comment by matt_b — March 6, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Fifth Monarchy Man wrote;
At another forum I once asked Dembski to ascertain how we'd determine if the existence of complete solar eclipses (that is, the condition whereby the sun and moon appear to have nearly identical angular diameters) was designed.
His answer was to consider uniform distributions of possible diameters of circles projected onto the inside of the celestial sphere.
That's certainly one way to do the calculation. But it ignores an astronomical number of parameters that we're aware of that would be expected to affect the problem.
For example:
Why pick a uniform distribution?
What are the bounds of the distribution you pick?
Why model the system as circles against a sphere when we know that we're looking at spherical objects in space?
Should we include what we know about the distribution of stellar diameters?
How do we calculate the distribution of satellite diameters, given that the earth has an unusually large satellite?
Should we include in our model the estimated probabilities from our best models for the formation of the moon?
How do we account for the particularity of the time at which we make the observation?
And so on.
This problem is actually one of the simpler ones in design detection. And yet, at every step there are many judgments that have to be made about the models and their parameters. (And in fact, despite the problem's relative simplicity, the calculation has still never to my knowledge been done.) In an exercise like this, it's virtually guaranteed that some decisions will lead to high probabilities of design, and others to low probability. Those people who are looking to validate a design inference are highly motivated to stop at the model that allows them to infer design. Given that there is an infinite number of models, there will probably always be one that allows your probability to exceed Dembski's (contrived and artificial) Universal Probability Bound–or any other threshold, for that matter.
(Notice also, that it is the most simplistic and uninsightful models–the "tornadoes in a junkyard" models–that often best allow an inference of design. So you don't even have to look very far to get validation for your initial conclusion. In fact, you're better off not trying for a realistic model once you've gotten a probability of design that you consider high enough.)
So what's the point? You want to validate your intuition, and you can pick a model that does that for you. Even astrology can do that.
Comment by matt_b — March 6, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Homology is comprehended within a framework that assumes an evolutionary process. BTW, if I cite transposon insertions at the same locci of different species and argue for or against a specified evolutionary relationship based on this, how do you plausibly maintain that an analogy to descent with modification is not needed to make the point?
Comment by Bradford — March 6, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Homology is comprehended within a framework that assumes an evolutionary process.
Yes, I know. That's actually part of the definition of homology.
BTW, if I cite transposon insertions at the same locci of different species and argue for or against a specified evolutionary relationship based on this, how do you plausibly maintain that an analogy to descent with modification is not needed to make the point?
Sorry, I don't understand this question.
I'd like to point out that none of your objections to what you perceive as being problems for modern molecular biology addresses the core point raised above, namely, that "design detection" relies entirely on intuition and subjective judgment.
This argument: "not evolution, therefore design" is not a very good defense of ID. Besides being logically invalid, it reinforces the impression that ID as a scientific approach has no positive evidence in its favor.
Comment by matt_b — March 6, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
One Brow:
Sure I'm using probability. As I said previously, we have an intuitive sense of probability. For example, how probable is it that you generated that paragraph by randomly typing letters on your keyboard? Even though it's a past event, and even though I can't generate a number, I intuitively know that the probability is very, very low. And that's part of why I infer that you intelligently designed that paragraph.
Comment by Bilbo — March 6, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Mike Gene (to Matt b):
Ahem, allow me to quote the second sentence of the The Design Matrix: "The vast majority of scientists do not view Intelligent Design as science and I happen to agree with them."
I'm guessing that Matt hasn't obtained or read The Design Matrix, yet.
Comment by Bilbo — March 6, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Matt b:
Why?
Comment by Bilbo — March 6, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Matt b:
Given that we often see images here on Earth that look like faces at first glance, and then upon closer inspection turn out not to be, I would say the probability is low.
Comment by Bilbo — March 6, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Bilbo:
OK, quickly: what's the smallest number of people it takes to have a probability of at least 50% that at least two of them have the same birth date?
(assumptions: no leap years, uniform distribution of birth dates)
Comment by Raevmo — March 6, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I argue common descent for two species by citing a retroviral insertion in a common ancestor and point to the location which would be common to both. I then proceed to explain to the doubter that the likelihood that the same but independent events would take place twice is too improbable to be credible. Then it is explained that a single insertion would explain the circumstance if events that followed were like an evolutionary process. The insertion occurred prior to divergence etc. A process is cited in detail to explain a phenomenon. Why is this not possible for a directed event?
I never claimed there were problems for molecular biology. That's your distortion. There is nothing subjective in pointing out that a minimally functional genome operates according to a code assigning a symbolic significance to individual codons. I'll gladly go into the problems with an alternative paradigm that seeks to explain the origin of cells. All I'm saying now is that competing views are good for biology unless of course one feels threatened by side implications.
Comment by Bradford — March 6, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Bradford,
Re-wording my point to avoid the distortion:
None of your [examples] address the core point raised above, namely, that "design detection" relies entirely on intuition and subjective judgment.
Further, if all ID is doing is "pointing out that a minimally functional genome operates according to a code assigning a symbolic significance to individual codons" then I guess the point of the exercise is lost on me. (Unless you're implicitly claiming that a "code" and "symbolic significance" necessitate an intelligence. In which case you've merely shifted the vocabulary to once again justify your intuition, post hoc, about a designer.)
But why don't you address Mike's original post? What can you use, other than your intuition and subjective judgment (or "common sense", which is really just another name for intuition), to conclude design from the Viking image? Or from the third image (assuming it was real?)
Bilbo,
As Raevmo is maybe already suggesting, people's intuitions about probability are notoriously bad. That's why statistics is a necessary part of most scientific disciplines.
Comment by matt_b — March 6, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Why not instead use our knowledge about erosion and natural forces capable of forming landscapes. Then we could use your intuition and subjectivity and conclude that Mt Rushmore type sculptures found anywhere in the universe were naturally formed.
Comment by Bradford — March 6, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Why not instead use our knowledge about erosion and natural forces capable of forming landscapes. Then we could use your intuition and subjectivity and conclude that Mt Rushmore type scupltures found anywhere in the universe were naturally formed.
Great! How did you apply your knowledge of erosion and natural forces to conclude "design" in Mike's photo? Or did you just skip the probability models and the calculations and rely on "common sense"
If the latter, then this is precisely my point: intuition and subjective hunches are the only tools that anyone ever uses to infer design from a given pattern. All of the calculations that are talked about are simply after-the-fact justifications for a conclusion that's already been decided.
Comment by matt_b — March 6, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
matt_b:
Yes indeed. I teach statistics to first-year biology students, and whenever I ask the question I posed above (how many people to get the same birth date), the vast majority hugely overestimate the required number (which is 23 by the way). Even though they have all the information necessary to calculate the exact probabilities. In the case of the OOL, much relevant information is missing, yet people here confidently claim, based on their intuition, that the probability of life emerging naturally is negligibly small. Go figure.
Comment by Raevmo — March 6, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Do you bother to read these blog entries Matt? Mike's final remarks were:
We have only photos before us and the question would the original suspicion be strengthened? I gather by your statements your answer would be negative. Don't bother telling us about data we do not have. The question is based on the data we have and Mike has succeeded in showing the natural bias of critics.
Comment by Bradford — March 6, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Bradford:
And the correct answer is yes, but you went further than that. You claimed that ID is the best inference. And maybe you are right. Yet you refuse (or are incapable) to substantiate that claim other than saying it's "common sense". Science has shown over and over again that common sense often fails, so your reasoning (if we can call it that) is not very convincing.
Comment by Raevmo — March 6, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Bradford,
Please read my comment responding to Mike in which I said:
Well, of course there are extreme cases where design should be inferred. The "bulldozer on Jupiter" trope is an obvious example. A "Mars" bar on Mars is another.
Even those of us who think the ID program is fruitless would have to agree that, yep, the third photo sure looks like evidence of design (assuming that NASA hadn't doctored the photo for its own nefarious reason, of course). But neither I nor anyone else seems ever to be able to give an objective reason why we might conclude design.
You don't have to "gather by [my] statements [my] answer would be negative". You could instead have read what I had written in that comment and seen that I had conceded the opposite. (In fact, you were the one who brought up "our knowledge about erosion and natural forces", and I was simply responding to your statement.)
Now: should I continue to believe that your initial inference of design was based entirely upon your intuition (or "common sense"), or would you like to enlighten us about how you actually came to the conclusion of design?
Comment by matt_b — March 6, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
By the way, I'd like to answer the charges of "bias" and "lack of common sense" that Bradford has made in this thread.
I'll freely admit to having a bias against decision-making processes that are not transparent and that do not show their work. I'm also biased against claims that are based on undefined analytical approaches such as intuition or (so-called) common sense. Like divine revelation, these ways of reaching a conclusion are subjective and local, and there can be no basis for criticizing them. Either you can jump to the same conclusion as the speaker or you lack "common sense". End of story.
Yes, I'm biased against conclusions of design for this simple reason: no one has ever presented an objective, rigorous and/or quantitative method for inferring design. It all comes down to assertions of "common sense". In this regard, design is more like aesthetics than it is like science. Well, I'm a scientist, and (unlike statements about beauty) arguments of design actually touch on areas that I'm familiar with. So when I hear a subjective claim made solely on the basis of "common sense", yep, I pretty much discount it.
Although I haven't followed his recent lines of thinking, I suspect that Mike Gene understands this problem, and has moved beyond it. It would be nice if other ID advocates could do the same, instead of getting defensive when they're challenged to explain their positions.
Comment by matt_b — March 6, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Anywhere in the universe where symbolic inscriptions are found or for that matter ingraved images intelligent life will be the presumption of the astronouts unless of course Matt or a Matt like thinker is aboard. In that case the crew will be told to assume a natural cause because that is more objective.:mrgreen:
I'm biased against the village idiot approach to life which assumes everything must not be intelligently designed unless you know the designer. But that approach is easy as it requires no analytical thinking anyway.
Comment by Bradford — March 6, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Matt, what is the quantitative means of determining whether or not chemical reactions produce a cell?
Comment by Bradford — March 6, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Matt:
I appreciate your input here. You make a lot of good points
I think I agree with you here at least as far as initial design inference goes but lets suppose you and I looked at picture number one and came to different conclusions as to whether the face was designed. How would you convince me that my conclusion was in error?
Would it even be possible to convince a open-minded observer that he was wrong empirically or do we have to rely forever on our own subjective hunches for every artifact of unknown origin?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — March 6, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Seriously fmm, you have to freeze your brain cells to pretend that all inferences of intelligence must be the product of subjective hunches. If they are then everything is the product of subjective hunches. That is much closer to the truth.
Comment by Bradford — March 6, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
I've posted here a day and already I'm tired of responding to Bradford's thinly veiled insults and willful misreading of what I've written. (For instance, must I repeat AGAIN that I agree that the second face on Mars picture would cause me to accept design, even as I acknowledge that my only basis for so concluding is intuition? And do I have to put up with my argument being labeled the "village idiot" approach?) If he's not going to bother addressing any of my actual points, I don't think there's anything to be gained by continued discussion.
I hope to continue chatting with others of you though.
Comment by matt_b — March 6, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Good for you Matt. You think the second face on Mars is designed but you think this belief is not based on rational processes or sense that your conclusion is not deducible or evident because that is what intuition means. You've avoided answering my questions so I'll repeat: do you believe that life is the product of chemical reactions leading to cells and if so how is this not intuitive?
You gave your bias and I said I was biased against the "village idiot approach to life which assumes everything must not be intelligently designed unless you know the designer." Was that really your argument- unless we know the designer, imputing intelligent design is impossible?
Comment by Bradford — March 6, 2008 @ 10:09 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Intelligence is a property to assign something, its an affirmation. To say something doesn't need to be intelligent while acknowledging it might be is not an affirmation. In order to assign the property "intelligent" requires some evidence, likewise assigning the property "not intelligent" would require some evidence, but simply stating that intelligence does not appear to be required is actually neutral on the intelligence issue. A naturalist would claim that intelligence is not require to create life from non-life, but they would not claim that intelligence is incapable of creating life from non-life. So I see the ID camp assigning a property, "intelligent," whereas I see the naturalist basically being neutral on the issue. Only the ID camp is making an affirmation in that regard so only the ID camp has to justify that affirmation. This isn't the "village idiot" approach, to claim so is to be derogatory. It's simply a reductionist approach that only assigns new properties when required. To me assuming intelligence is kind of like assuming everything is Pink unless it can be proven otherwise. What color are invisible unicorns? Why pink, of course!
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 6, 2008 @ 11:02 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Hi matt,
I'll squeeze this one in…
Agreed.
Again, I agree.
Indeed. I'll score the photos later, but here I would argue that we have two choices. Either develop a method that is unlikely to deliver false positives or factor in the risk for false positives by making it clear the inference is both tentative and shaky. I happen to favor the latter approach, as it can fit into an investigation. Perhaps through the process of investigation some solution to the false positive problem can be developed.
Good question and it's surely not clear to me that this could be done.
I would add that this is not particular to ID proponents, but instead is rather universal. Arguments against ID do indeed boil down to it "doesn't look designed." Personally, I don't think the criticism of "looks like" and "doesn't look like" arguments are all that devastating.
I'm not convinced that "all that results is hand-waving and analogies." Consider the actual high resolution picture that was taken. I did not embrace the non-telic explanation because it came with calculations and measurements. It's nothing more than this: what looked like a Face now looks like a mountain. Did someone reach the conclusion differently?
I'd acknowledge that my approach is ultimately subjective, but I'm not trying to make it look sciencey. I don't think this is the great problem that many others seem to think it is.
Here I would again argue that there is no reason to single out ID, as no one, including science, seems to have the ability to objectively and quantitatively evaluate such a simple example as the face on Mars
I have made it clear for years and years that I do not think ID is science. I also do not think that all non-science inquiry is pure junk.
Comment by MikeGene — March 6, 2008 @ 11:11 pm
March 6th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Todd:
Except the "ID camp" does not assign intelligence. We want it left on the table as an option. I and most other IDists agree with critics about scientific matters more than 99% of the time. I do have a serious issue however with mainstream's view of life's origins. I do not wish to assign anything to OOL. Only allow for testing of matters like downward causation (as opposed to reductionism) and other matters- information and related theories that could impact biology.
Comment by Bradford — March 6, 2008 @ 11:58 pm
March 7th, 2008 at 11:09 am
It doesn't? Hum. Science has never removed "intelligence" from the table as an option. If this is all ID advocates want then they can all go home today secure in their victory. But because intelligence is an additional property that would need to be justified and science is reductionist by nature then intelligence will never be treated as a default option. It seems to me that ID advocates want this one property elevated over other properties such that it's possibility is considered without evidence requiring it. Should science also consider the possibility that evolution is "pink?" I might just start my "evolution is pink" campaign, its time the biological dogma accept that the process of evolution is pink! Assigning the property "pink" is obviously absurd but it seems no different than arbitrarily assigning the property intelligent.
I don't think there is a "mainstream" explanation for the OOL other than "God did it." Science has only vague theories and speculation and philosophy has only Theology. I'm sure many people mistakenly believe that evolution somehow explains OOL, but everyone here knows that isn't true. Yet I'm also sure that many more people simply believe "God did it." So if anything the "God did it" explanation is the mainstream view.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 7, 2008 @ 11:09 am
March 7th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Well, I did wnat to make sure that was clear. why do you find that amusing?
Comment by One Brow — March 7, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
March 7th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
That's an intuitive of reasonableness, not probability. My suspicion is that you know it is unreasonable to think the paragraph happened randomly, and you are looking for a way to make your intuition seem firmly grounded. Probability can't get you there. In addition to the fact that probability is a numbers-driven field, it is also true that highly unlikely things happen every day. Every thime you thoroughly suffle a canasta deck (with different backs), you are creating an outcome (a specific order of the card in the deck) whose likelihood was less than 1 out of 10^166.
Comment by One Brow — March 7, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
March 7th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Todd Berkebile,
Actually science has more than vague theories and speculation. It has the all important underlying "nature-did-it" working assumption.
And Theology, as you noted, has the underlying "God-did-it" assumption.
And you neglected the obvious broad brush characterization of ID as having the "intelligence-did-it" assumption.
At any rate, critical thinking demands that if you simply want to criticize with a broad brush, just be sure to use that broad brush on all sides of the argument or someone might mistake you as prejudiced or biased.
Comment by chunkdz — March 7, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
March 7th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Mike,
I find myself in overall agreement with you.
I guess what it comes down to is what one assumes for a prior probability. I saw the Viking picture of Cydonia and concluded "pareidolia" because I strongly believed that the conditions on Mars make intelligent civilizations highly unlikely (as I had read from experts in Martian geohistory). If there's no likely designer, then design is less likely.
Note, however, that the judgment "there's no likely designer" came from a fairly thorough examination of the circumstances on Mars, and was not simply an axiom. The people who have been involved in unmanned planetary exploration have YEARNED for there to be evidence of life, or even of civilizations. The evidence has convinced them that, on Mars at least, this is unlikely.
Therefore, given the well-supported assumption that there is no life on Mars, the prior probability that the face was an artifact is very low. This means that a lot of convincing data is required for a posterior judgment of "designed". The resolution of the Viking photo did not meet those requirements. (And, while I doubt the image analysts went through the exercise, I think it's likely that for them this was an easy, extreme case.)
Now, a true-believing Project Enterprise aquarian like Richard Hoagland would see things differently. Since his strong prior is that there are civilizations on Mars, he'd need very little in the way of confirmatory evidence to assign a judgment of "designed". And since he has other beliefs about the validity of NASA's released observations, he can easily discount the results, no matter what they are.
Regardless of who's doing the estimation, the priors likely outweigh the data by a large factor, and both groups get the answer they started with, regardless of the data. Neither group is actually doing