The Importance of Dembski's Pulsar
by BilboIn a paper entitled, "On the Very Possibility of Intelligent Design," published in the book, The Creation Hypothesis, back in 1992, William Dembski offered the following thought experiment:
Imagine we find a pulsar (a spinning neutron star), 3 billion light years away, and we notice that it is sending us signals in Morse Code. Further, we realize that these signals translate into proper English sentences. Further, when we send questions back to it in Morse Code, we don't have to wait 6 billion years for an answer. We get one in 10 minutes. [Demski takes the thought experiment further, but I want to stop here.]
Clearly, the signals are intelligently designed. We do not know how they are designed. We do not know how they are sent to us so speedily. We do not know if the intelligence is supernatural or natural. Yet, we know that the signals are intelligently designed. Even without a known mechanism. Even with no way of knowing if the intelligence is natural or supernatural.
So here at least is one case where it is reasonable to conclude an intelligent cause, even though we don't know the mechanism, and whether the cause is natural or supernatural. And it seems that at least part of the reason we know that the cause is intelligent is the degree of improbability involved. It would just be too improbable to continuously receive complex signals that are encoded answers to specific questions.
I readily grant that the degree of evidence of intelligence in the pulsar example far exceeds the degree of evidence we have for intelligent causes of the universe or of biological systems. However, it seems to be the same type of evidence. Which means that determining whether or not intelligent causes are behind the origin of the universe or living organisms is a case of determining the probability of either happening without intelligence.
So even though we may not know the mechanisms involved, or even the nature of the designer(s), we could — if the improbability of other explanations were great enough — know that ID is true. And even though the degree of improbability may not be known, suspecting or even believing that it is an intelligent cause may still be reasonable.
July 25th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
But who designed the design ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Sorry couldn't help myself.
Comment by thesciphishow — July 25, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Actually we do know how morse-code was designed… but we know an awful lot more than that.
Morse code is just one layer of a very complex protocol stack that includes the roman alphabet and originally the English language. So if these alien communications happened to be communicating in English morse-code then we really would know a great deal about the remote-communicator.
There would be some kind of shared culture that allowed us to share a language, an alphabet, a dictionary of spellings, a knowledge of radio communication and our location in the galaxy.
It's exactly because we know so much about morse-code that such a message would reveal a great deal about it's sender.
By type, I assume you mean the type of evidence that has never been discovered or plainly does not exist right? Heh heh…
Seriously, it's not remotely the same kind of evidence at all. An easily decoded message in a well-known human language which can apparently respond to questions is not at all like a clump of difficult to decode chains of molecules which only hypothetically contain a "message" and have never been known to answer any questions at all, even if you say pretty please.
The analogy simply does not hold.
This is a Turing test. The reason we know the "cosmic sender" is intelligent is not merely the complexity of signals but the fact that they make coherent sense in a protocol which is well known on our planet.
Pulsar signals ARE very complex, and were initially mistaken for exactly this kind of cosmic sender. Complexity alone is not a good sign of intelligence. Being able to answer questions coherently in natural language (according to Turing) is possibly the best evidence for intelligence.
The probability of wringing any sense from Dembski's pulsar argument is about the same as the probability of us receiving English language morse-coded signals from a distant pulsar.
Comment by salimfadhley — July 25, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Bilbo,
We know the pulses are intelligently designed, not because the pattern is improbable, but because its a message in english translated into morse code. The probability of any particular biological structure evolving is irrelevant, because rm+ns guarantees a variety of structures that function will evolve, none of which is a particular goal. Evolution generates functional structures, but no natural process generates messages in english translated into morse code on a pulsar, so Dembski's pulsar gives us no reason to think biological structures are designed.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 25, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
One has to appreciate the circularity of this argument.
Comment by Jean — July 25, 2007 @ 8:13 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Hi Jean,
Its not an argument, its an observed fact.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 25, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
I think the evidence would suggest we politely ask the grad students to quit monkeying with the equipment"”again.
Comment by Zachriel — July 25, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Dembski makes the point that in principle intelligent design can be inferred in the absence of a mechanism. Once the principle is established it becomes a matter of defining particular cases.
In the illustrated instance evidence paralleling intelligent causality is strong enough to obscure another point about mechanisms. Even if one is not linked to an outcome, knowledge of mechanisms related to the phenomenon in question also assists in inferring intelligent design. In the case of pulsars models exist that provide a level of expectation that contrasts with the actual observances.
In the case of a cell we also know of mechanisms connected with their function that provide a level of expectation. Cellular replication, metabolic activity, information storage and maintenance and more give us a general idea of the conditions required to generate and sustain cells and their components. These serve as guidelines when assessing likely causes of the origin of cells. OOL theoreticians believe that initial cells were much simpler constructs than even the simplest modern cells. That however is a testable claim and one with implications for intelligent design. Is there a level of genomic complexity that acts as a minimal starting point for a precursor cell? If so is it possible to generate that level of complexity from prebiotic conditions? Predictions either way can be made that are applicable to experiments testing for minimal genomes.
Comment by Bradford — July 25, 2007 @ 8:54 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Aagcobb:
Biological entities do generate messages though. The fact that they are not in Morse code does not detract from the fact that the messages are symbolic in nature and share features common to intelligently designed encoding systems.
Comment by Bradford — July 25, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Whether the protocol is well known or existing on this planet is less important than the fact that a protocol would be associated with a message. If an encoding convention, by which a message is rendered intelligible, exists at all then intelligence becomes a suspected causal factor.
Comment by Bradford — July 25, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Yes, but to be accurate the observances are a small subset of all the systems whose cause is attributed to rm + ns.
Comment by Bradford — July 25, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
So if these alien communications happened to be communicating in English morse-code then we really would know a great deal about the remote-communicator.
The pattern matches English morse-code, but how do you know it should be interpreted that way? That seems to be the real question. Maybe there is no real message, only random pulses. So when is it reasonable to conclude that intelligence is behind an observation?
Comment by Lurker — July 25, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Hi Bradford,
The analogy still doesn't hold, because biological structures only generate "messages" related to their biological function. An english language message translated into morse code has absolutely nothing to do with the function of a pulsar.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 25, 2007 @ 9:42 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Hi Lurker,
It can't be random pulses, because it is responding to questions in english translated into morse code. That makes it reasonable to conclude that intelligence is behind the observation. OTOH, you can't have a conversation with a bacterial flagellum, or even your spleen.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 25, 2007 @ 9:45 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Analogies vary in approximation to the original. In this case the messages are related to biological function but a critical component of similarity exists, namely, a convention by which the symbols of the respective codes are given meaning.
Comment by Bradford — July 25, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
But you can with another organism.
Comment by Bradford — July 25, 2007 @ 9:54 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Hi Bilbo,
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the importance of hypotheses and mechanistic models.
Dembski's pulsar evidence would be a particularly interesting abnormality that would make it challenging for some general hypotheses (mechanistic models).
One mechanistic model is that an omniscient, omnipotent Intelligent Designer (named "God") controls everything in the universe.
Another mechanistic model is that grad students love "…monkeying with the equipment"”again." (thanks Zachriel).
A Third Choice would be a presumption that consciousness is interconnected with all quantum effects and that the universe is one large wavefunction both in space and time.
In the science game of king-of-the-hill, models are inherently incomplete and, therefore, are known to be incorrect. However, the current "king" model can only be replaced by another mechanistic model, not by a multiple-choice, non-answer.
Even the YEC scientists know that. That is why people like Walt Brown work so hard providing mechanistic details attempting to make all the pieces fit.
I think we have a pretty good idea of why Dembski avoids being drawn into providing "pathetic details" of his personal hypothesis. I find it interesting how many people follow his example.
Personally, I find it more satisfying thinking for myself and presenting my opinions ethically and forthrightly so I can see how than stand up against criticism. I learn a lot that way.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 25, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
This has nothing whatsoever to do with ID. Of course the message was intelligently designed"”which we conclude because we know from experience that it takes intelligence to create a non trivial message in Morse code. Who would argue with that? But we don't know how to make a cell. Therefore it's a totally different scenario. SETI is not an example of ID.
It's even worse: if we someday make a cell, we still cannot conclude that naturally occurring cells are designed"”all we can say is that we created a design by copying the original.
ID "science" allegedly (but in practice, never) detects design in objects for which we have no experience as to how they are constructed. That is far more ambitious than recognizing, as the work of an agent, an English sentence arriving from deep space
Comment by David Heddle — July 25, 2007 @ 10:06 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Hi Bradford,
And your point is?
Comment by Aagcobb — July 25, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
David:
And if we do create cells and find that cells will not function without genomes containing scores of genes are we to nevertheless maintain that an incremental generating process is plausible?
Comment by Bradford — July 25, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
We know little about what actually enables intelligence. Our knowledge is associative and vague. If human brain cells exist…
Comment by Bradford — July 25, 2007 @ 10:42 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Hi TP,
Purposeful Design is a mechanistic model as per your own criteria.
Comment by Pez — July 25, 2007 @ 10:46 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Hi Pez,
You said…
…as you have said before.
However, I have pointed out the words "Purposeful Design" are meaningless to me as far as a mechanistic model. They could apply to Kepler's, Newton's, Einstein's and Penrose's hypotheses. They could also apply to YEC, the Third Choice and Theistic Evolution as well.
Giving an answer that provides vague and/or multiple answers (especially if intentional) is as valueless as giving no answer, IMO.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 25, 2007 @ 11:19 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
It can't be random pulses, because it is responding to questions in english translated into morse code. That makes it reasonable to conclude that intelligence is behind the observation.
It can't be random? Of course it can just as 10,000 random flips of a coin can yield 10,000 heads. It's just that your mind doesn't think it actually is random. You're making the point for the IDist here.
Comment by Lurker — July 25, 2007 @ 11:23 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Hi Lurker,
No, you are just being obtuse. By insisting that its possible for an object making random noise to engage in a conversation, you are merely demonstrating how pathetic ID arguments are.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 25, 2007 @ 11:31 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
By insisting that its possible for an object making random noise to engage in a conversation, you are merely demonstrating how pathetic ID arguments are.
Why? Is it possible for a person to have a 'conversation' with a random number generator by asking it math questions and the RNG responding with the correct answer each time? From a strict probability perspective the answer is a definitive 'Yes', however it's highly improbable and highly coincidental-and that is the ID argument in a nutshell. You are using the same 'pathetic' ID argument of specified complexity.
Comment by Lurker — July 25, 2007 @ 11:45 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Aagcobb, why does random noise generate a genetic blueprint?
Comment by Bradford — July 25, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Hi TP,
You demonstrate otherwise.
You have accepted Dembski's (and Behe's) model and conclusion of purposeful design. You have further wrapped these into "your" model as supportive evidence. Obviously, meeting your previously-demonstrated criteria for models is good enough and whatever other vague anti-Dembski conditions you'd like to apply post-hoc are irrelevant.
Comment by Pez — July 25, 2007 @ 11:48 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Hi All,
Please excuse my obvious slant, but why does anyone think there is such a thing as true randomness?
Isn't it just more likely things are so interconnected and complicated they appear random (chaos' butterfly effect)?
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 25, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Hi Bradford,
What are you talking about, Bradford?
Comment by Aagcobb — July 25, 2007 @ 11:54 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
I'm taking you back to deep time and asking why random noise would generate a genome capable of evolving?
Comment by Bradford — July 25, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Hi Pez,
I have made several earnest attempts to explain why I feel "Purposeful Design" is not a mechanistic model (although I see how it might make for a good rallying cry).
You apparently don't like my answers.
Life goes on.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 26, 2007 @ 12:00 am
July 26th, 2007 at 12:05 am
Hi TP,
Think of Dembski as a forensic ballistics expert.
He has given you the gun and the bullet, demonstrating that the deceased was shot.
Now you are complaining that he can't tell you who the perpetrator was, even though you are using his evidence to validate your search for one.
But that's not his job, and if you want to speculate further than his methods will allow then go ahead.
This has no impact whatsoever on him or his model. It's not up to the firearms expert to match fingerprints or sketch suspects.
Comment by Pez — July 26, 2007 @ 12:05 am
July 26th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Hi Lurker,
You've just changed the scenario from one in which a conversation is being engaged in in english translated into morse code, to one in which a mere number is being generated. When you call someone, on the phone, and you have a conversation with the voice you hear, does anyone calculate the probability that its only phone static randomly generating rational responses? Of course not; you know its another person you are talking to, because in our experience, only people have conversations. There is no process by which a pulsar can engage in a conversation, but there is definitively a process by which biological structures evolve. Knowing that there is an intelligence at the other end of a conversation tells us absolutely nothing about whether an unknown, unhuman intelligence may have designed some biological structure at some point in the past. In order to rationally respond in a conversation, there is an extremely limited number of responses that can be made, so there is a very tight bullseye which has to be hit in order to generate a conversation. In contrast, a living organism is already in the bullseye of functional structures. Its not evolving toward any particular goal, but anything that does evolve has to stay in the bullseye of being not harmful to the organism, so many different functional structures will evolve, regardless of how improbable any individual one is. The IDist argument is like claiming that if you won the lottery it must be because the lottery officials cheated to make sure you won due to the extreme unlikelihood of your ticket winning, when in actuality its merely a function of the fact that eventually enough tickets will be sold that someone has to win.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 26, 2007 @ 12:18 am
July 26th, 2007 at 12:27 am
Aagcobb:
This IDist would designate a cell as the bullseye but would then pose it against a background of a newly formed earth and ask what caused the arrow to hit the bullseye when it was not directed? Why did it hit that tiny cell and not the rest of the earth?
To win a lottery there must be a drawing. What or who drew the ticket out of a prebiotic hat?
Comment by Bradford — July 26, 2007 @ 12:27 am
July 26th, 2007 at 12:28 am
Hi Bradford,
I don't think it would, Bradford, anymore than I think the sun was a random assembly of particles which suddenly generated a process of nuclear fusion. I expect the first crude self-replicators were the end result of a long series of chemical processes.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 26, 2007 @ 12:28 am
July 26th, 2007 at 12:29 am
Bradford, you seem to be arguing against abiogenesis rather than evolution. May I take it that you don't have a problem with mainstream evolutionary theory?
Comment by Aagcobb — July 26, 2007 @ 12:29 am
July 26th, 2007 at 12:34 am
Aagcobb wrote…
That is like claiming there is no process by which the spin states of three entangled photons can have the non-local weirdness they do.
If it happens, then a comprehensive model must take it into account.
IMO, Lurker correctly presented the "specified complexity" definition of the problem.
However, that is only part of the problem. What follows is a compare and contrast of mechanistic models. You don't just get to discard one without another one to take its place.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 26, 2007 @ 12:34 am
July 26th, 2007 at 12:36 am
Aagcobb, I'm always arguing against abiogenesis. As for mainstream evolution my understanding is that would preclude an ID inference and I'm eagerly looking forward to Mike's up and coming fleshing out of his FLE concept. IOW, to me it is an open question.
Comment by Bradford — July 26, 2007 @ 12:36 am
July 26th, 2007 at 1:06 am
Hi TP,
Yes you do. Your question-begging requirements and self-serving definitions are not law and when describing reality a false answer can fail on its own: we are not required to hold to it simply because you don't like the alternative.
Comment by Pez — July 26, 2007 @ 1:06 am
July 26th, 2007 at 2:18 am
Aagcobb
I agree, but that still doesn't answer the question: How do you reason your way toward knowing that a person is on the other end of the phone? You attempt to answer this next.
You are leaving out the other side of the argument. Experience also tells us (mathematical modeling and probability analysis) that the noise you hear may be the product of random noise generation. So how do you know what you're hearing isn't the result of random noise patterns?
Experience plays a part in your decision, but you can't rule out randomness. You can't cite experience as your sole reason for knowing it's not random noise because that is begging the question.
A random noise pattern is one of the possible explanations for what you are hearing, yet you conclude it's not random. How do you come to that conclusion?
Comment by Lurker — July 26, 2007 @ 2:18 am
July 26th, 2007 at 2:43 am
Aagcobb does not have to answer this because Alan Turing already did. The person on the end of a phone or the cosmic sender who can respond in English Language morse-code are both clear turing-test passes.
On the other hand, the genome or the decoded information from a genome is in no way a turing-test candidate. It's just a lump of molecules, or at best information stored in a computer as a result of sequencing those molecules. It cannot answer questions and since it does not pass a turing-test.
It is clearly not the 'same type' of thing as Dembski originally suggests. That is why the conjecture falls.
Comment by salimfadhley — July 26, 2007 @ 2:43 am
July 26th, 2007 at 2:51 am
Here, let's take another thought experiment. The phone rings, and on the other end is someone who speaks English and, incredibly, can carry on a conversation with me. Thus, ID is true!
Or, another one. Let's examine my toaster. It appears to contains all sorts of specified complexity, indeed, to have been designed. Thus, ID is true!
Comment by mtraven — July 26, 2007 @ 2:51 am
July 26th, 2007 at 3:21 am
salimfadhley
Probability doesn't preclude randomness from passing the test either because randomness can produce the same noise patterns in the same sequence.
Comment by Lurker — July 26, 2007 @ 3:21 am
July 26th, 2007 at 3:41 am
"SETI is not an example of ID"
This isn't true. The criticisms leveled at the Pulsar case is reasonable, but the same does not apply to SETI in general.
That is only based on some assumptions about what to look for based on what we do know. Now these assumptions may be bad and so we will miss something, but the same is true of ID. You apply assumptions about what we know designed artifacts look like (be they radio transmissions or nanomachines in the cell) and see if they fit with what is observed or if the hypothesis falls apart.
Comment by thesciphishow — July 26, 2007 @ 3:41 am
July 26th, 2007 at 4:18 am
salimfahdley wrote:
Shit. And here we all were, thinking that Egyptian hieroglyphs were intelligently designed. Thank God 'brights' like salimfahdley know better.
Sort of.
In a kinda thank-God-for-'brights'-full-of-braindead-crap way.
Comment by stunney — July 26, 2007 @ 4:18 am
July 26th, 2007 at 4:37 am
Jason said:
SETI may have captured a great deal of imagination, but the one thing this highly controversial project has not done is found any evidence of extra terrestrial intelligence, indeed for some of the reasons mentioned above we should be very skeptical that it ever will.
Lurker said:
I think we would consider it to be astronomically improbable that system that emits random responses could convincingly pass a Turing test. No artificial system has ever passed a turing test, certainly not a random word generator.
Comment by salimfadhley — July 26, 2007 @ 4:37 am
July 26th, 2007 at 5:49 am
Egyptian Hieroglyphs are most certainly a form of writing that was designed and carved by intelligent human beings. In the case of the heiroglyphs, Dembsi's criteria (quoted from Mike's article above still does not apply):
Dembski's comparison of English morse-code to a biological genome is clearly false because he is comparing something we have very good reason to know is an intentional form of communication with something that he merely suspects is intentionally designed.
This argument would work a lot better if instead of heirglyphs or morse-code, Dembski actually did give us an example of an object whose origins we cannot explain and suspect to be supernatural but is nevertheless known to be designed. If you try replacing the pulsar with that it might make the argument more cogent.
Comment by salimfadhley — July 26, 2007 @ 5:49 am
July 26th, 2007 at 7:16 am
It has always seemed to me that the only way to prove design absolutely is to identify the designer. However, some artifacts are so unnatural yet purposeful or meaningful as to demonstrate design effectively viz., a substantive message from deep space or the discovery of an abandoned spacecraft on Mars. Likewise there would be little dispute, after some time, that a properly vetted SETI message was designed, but it would always be (AFAIK) its unnaturalness plus its meaningfulness that was the basis for the assignment. I suspect we all agree with this, IDers and non IDers.
But with ID we do not have that route"”with ID we cannot compare to nature and declare something unnatural"”we are trying to prove aspects of nature itself are designed. To attempt to solve this problem is where things fall apart"”it is where unnaturalness is replaced with improbability.
That's a completely different ballgame. Everyone agreed hieroglyphs were unnatural and meaningful and therefore designed (even before the Rosetta Stone.) As far as I know, nobody felt the need to calculate the probability that all known examples had been produced by natural forces, and such a calculation would be useless. It would neither add to nor detract from the inference of design.
However, attempts to replace unnaturalness with low probability have not proven successful. They (I am thinking primarily of the EF) are not, as often claimed, simply formalizing the way people infer design. (That is my opinion"”as I said I believe people do not start, as the EF does, with improbability but with unnaturalness.) And, as many have pointed out, the EF is way too simplistic and borders on question begging in that it literally precludes that something that is (a) improbable and (b) purposeful (exhibits CSI) from being the result of (perhaps as yet unknown) natural processes.
Comment by David Heddle — July 26, 2007 @ 7:16 am
July 26th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Hi Lurker,
Well, I guess I could question my sanity, or become an IDist, because up until now I thought only schizophrenics heard voices of people who aren't there, but now I find out IDists think its a real possibility! I guess I'm intellectually lazy, but I have never considered the possibility that the voice on the phone I'm having a conversation with is actually only random noise. What process do you use to come to the conclusion that this response I may be writing to you is not actually simply a random computer glitch?
Comment by Aagcobb — July 26, 2007 @ 8:48 am
July 26th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Much of the the purported arguments for ID require a denial of this notion. ID creationists often claim that one need not know anything at all about the designer in order to infer design from the abundant evidence, because to them is so manifestly obvious.
It's very hard to conceive of some kind of evidence that reveals nothing at all about the designer:
For example an abandoned space-craft would tell us about the kind of technology it's builders had. A deep-space signal would reveal it's region of origin.
Stunney's example (heiroglyphs) is even less appropriate: A written human language. The astonishing thing about heiroglyphs is how much the tell us about the culture and the individuals that produced them.
Every true artifact reveals something about it's makers or users, so if life is an artifact of an intelligent designer why then does it tell us nothing it's the designer's nature? How could the evidence be simultaneously "overwhelming" and yet confirm nothing?
Comment by salimfadhley — July 26, 2007 @ 9:18 am
July 26th, 2007 at 9:28 am
I do not think that mystic voices, phantoms, telepathy, manifestations of the virgin-mary and other paranormal / new-age beliefs are necessarily a part of the ID belief system, however I find some ID proponents un-skeptical acceptance of these phenomena rather telling.
Comment by salimfadhley — July 26, 2007 @ 9:28 am
July 26th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Hi Salim,
I was actually referring to Lurker's argument that we can't just assume the voice on the phone we are having a conversation with is a real person, but we must consider the possibility that what we think is the voice of a person may actually be only random static. I am looking forward to his explanation of what steps he takes to determine if he is really talking to a person on the phone or not, since he thinks my simple assumption that I'm talking to someone begs the question.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 26, 2007 @ 9:39 am
July 26th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Imagine we find a pony, a magical flying pony. That would certainly call into question our current scientific theories!
If we discovered a pulsar transmitting messages in Morse Code transcriptions of English, we would immediately suspect a terrestrial origin, such as an equipment problem. That's because Morse and English both have a terrestrial origin. The contents of the message would probably reveal even more. If it's an advertisement for male enhancement, we would have even more clues about the sender.
Thought-experiments can be fun and revealing, but one needs to be very careful about drawing unwarranted conclusions. Einstein as a child dreamed of racing his sled chasing a beam of light. But to turn that dream into a scientific theory requires making specific and distinguishing empirical predictions.
Comment by Zachriel — July 26, 2007 @ 10:14 am
July 26th, 2007 at 10:24 am
mtraven:
Depends on whether or not the person on the other end who says his name is 'Bob' speaks with a heavy Indian accent, delivers a script and can't understand a word YOU say. In which case it's just a call center zombie.
What I hate most of all is when I answer the phone and get a recording telling me to hold until a human can get around to talking to me about something really, really important. I never hold for robots, zombies or random noise.
Comment by Joy — July 26, 2007 @ 10:24 am
July 26th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Heh… thought experiments often lead to preposterous conclusions, especially the ones that have preposterous premises.
Which is something that the ID folks have not yet done.
Comment by salimfadhley — July 26, 2007 @ 10:54 am
July 26th, 2007 at 10:54 am
I find it fascinating that you have such strong opinions about the non-existence of phenomena that you are completely unfamiliar with the evidence for.
That's rather telling about the quality of your opinions. Normally one examines the evidence before rendering a judgment, but you've managed to skip that rather messy and scary process and have a prepackaged set of opinions ready-to-order.
This is why your beliefs have much in common with those you supposedly disagree with, fundamentalist religionists. And why your opinions on this topic are so worthless.
Comment by mcromer — July 26, 2007 @ 10:54 am
July 26th, 2007 at 11:57 am
David Heddle:
Lurking in the background is the highly subjective view of sufficiency of evidence. One of the reasons I focus on life's origins is because it separates nonsensical proclamations from reality. How much of natural history are we able to document absolutely? When you read recently published papers it is unsurprising to realize that some long thought of concept needs revision due to a new finding. Oh but that is merely a bolt tightening on a well understood machine right? Wrong. Why assume that theoretical musings focus on a physics theory or on evolution? Because the overarching theory is thought to be firmly entrenched? What is firmly entrenched about the origin of life? Gar nichts.
salimfadhley:
The conclusion is not manifestly obvious. Neither is the assumption that encoding conventions evolve. They are assigned. An assertion- yes. But one that is eminently defensible and does not require the a priori identification of a designer.
Comment by Bradford — July 26, 2007 @ 11:57 am
July 26th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Mcromer, have you extensivly studied the Scientology doctrine of L. Ron Hubbard? What about Wilhelm Reich's Orgone theory of universal energy and the accuracy of Horoscopes?
And what about Davide Icke's theories about reptilian overlords who are disguised as humans? And have you fully researched the connection between Sasquaatch sightings and UFO activity? Do vampires exist, and do ghosts of murder-victims haunt their murderers?
Can you prove that there isn't a bible-code or that the Kinghts-Templar did not obtain the Holy Grail and keep it in a secret sanctuary… and just what if all those Holocaust Deniers are right?
Which of the above do you believe in and why? How much do you need to know about any of these theories before we can dismiss them as preposterous rubbish, and the products of human gullibility?
Dispite the absurdity of all of these beliefs there are people who are willing to make great sacrifices for what they consider to be a proven truth backed-up by overwhelming evidence. Are these people all telling the truth or are they sadly deluded and misguided?
To what level of detail must you examine a claim before it seems less fraudulent? For example, if I truly studied the works of Uri Geller, might they appear less fraudulent? What about other famous TV psychics?
I never said your beliefs are worthless, just that they are not scientific.
Comment by salimfadhley — July 26, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
salimfadhley
Astronomically improbable odds, I agree.
I'm looking at this from the scientific perspective, which is the same demand for ID. We know for a fact that non-intelligent systems can be random, and probability says that randomness can generate the noise patterns in the same sequence. Thus randomness can pass a turing test.
The only scientific reason for concluding a person is on the phone is to cite the astronomically improbable odds of it being random noises. But isn't that one of the IDists reasons to reject randomness (as in random mutations) and side with intelligence?
Comment by Lurker — July 26, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Aagcobb
I consider the astronomically improbable odds, my past experiences and the specificity of the message, which are the same tools ID uses. Scientifically speaking, randomness is a real possibility so you tell me how science can be used to settle the matter.
Comment by Lurker — July 26, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Hi Lurker,
No, science is based on observation. The scientific reason for concluding the voice you are conversing with is human is because we have only ever observed humans conversing on phones, and noone except a schizophrenic (or possibly an IDist) has ever conversed with random static. Archeologists don't calculate probabilities when trying to decide if an artifact was designed; they compare it to things they know are designed.
Evolution is not a random process.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 26, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Hi Lurker,
In your response to this post, can you show me the calculations you are about to do to conclude that this is a message from a real person and not a random computer glitch? Thanks!
Comment by Aagcobb — July 26, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
It's a good reason to reject a purely random process, e.g. a noise-generator.
Nobody other than ID creationists would ever characterize Darwinian evolution as a purely random process.
Comment by salimfadhley — July 26, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Lurker,
But as I have already pointed out, the genome is not a message. You have never communicated with a genome and you do not have any past, personal experiences of an intelligent designer designing a genome.
A good method would be a controlled, blind trial.
This is much the same technique that we would use to determine if a new drug is effective at producing a cure: You compare the proposed new therapy with a control therapy (e.g. a placebo).
Comment by salimfadhley — July 26, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Lurker:
The only logical way that I know of is through Bayesian reasoning. Given an event in which we hear an English sentence on the phone, and given two hypotheses - random noise vs. a human on the other end of the line - and assuming that the prior probabilities of these hypotheses are roughly equal, the more likely hypothesis is the one that confers the highest probability on the event. The probability that random noise would result in an English sentence is vanishingly low, while the probability that human would produce an English sentence isn't nearly as low, so the latter is the better of the two hypotheses.
Note that this is in stark contrast to a design inference based on specified complexity, which is eliminative rather than comparative.
Comment by 2ndclass — July 26, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
As I already pointed out to you in a different thread, this statement of yours is based on the misunderstanding that there is a single, "scientific method". Reality is different, with some sciences having ample opportunity to run experiments (data-driven) while other sciences are pretty much data deficient.
Comment by Jean — July 26, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Absolutely irrelevant, of course and typical of you to go off on a tangent. Mcromer's argument seems pretty tough to get around. If you are going to dimiss a particular subject with handwaving then this is no better than the fundamentalist christian who will slap the bible in your face. Both are acting on belief, not evidence. If you're saying you don't have the time to delve into each topic, great. I don't have time to get a degree in every science either, but I don't go around being dismissive and pretending others are loons. Informed criticism is fine, uninformed skepticism is just irrational rationality (to borrow a phrase from Robert Anton Wilson).
Comment by Jean — July 26, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Hi Lurker,
You wrote…
By proposing a detailed scientific hypothesis that presumes there is no such thing as naturally occuring randomness! This hypothesis is an example of that.
An omnipotent and omnipresent Intelligent Designer is another.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 26, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
A question for ID'ists — is any evidence of intelligent design also evidence for Intelligent Design? That is, let's grant that my toaster is intelligently designed, by humans. We grant that both intelligence and design exist. Is this evidence for that life was intelligently designed by some unknown designer? If so, why do we need to listen to pulsars for ID evidence? If not, why is evidence of codes from a pulsar any more evidence in favor of ID than morse code from China?
Comment by mtraven — July 26, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Hi mtraven,
It's not. You missed the point of the thought experiment.
Comment by Pez — July 26, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Not irrelevant, I was demonstrating that a great many beliefs that you or Mcromer regard as preposterous or at best highly unlikely are regarded as proven truth by others.
Why is it that certain topics are generally disbelieved by the scientific consensus (e.g. UFO abduction) whereas other other ideas are universally accepted (e.g. Thermodynamics).
What distinguishes a successful idea in science from one which merely languishes at the fringe of science. There seems to be a clear pattern: Successful ideas in science seem to generate many predictions, are open to experimental validation and reliable confirmation and have some kind of explanatory power.
So the question is, why are these parapsychology ideas so unsuccessful? Is it the result of a conspiracy that ignorantly rejects them out of hand, or is it down to psi advocates inability to communicate their ideas. Or perhaps psi theories are simply incorrect which accounts for the fact that it seems very hard to objectively confirm their existence.
Comment by salimfadhley — July 26, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
You're the one who throws away documented historical facts because they don't fit into your worldview, not me.
I'm not discussing theories. I am discussing facts and observations.
That's why your statements about Scientology et. al. are so inapplicable. You are comparing religious dogmas to the experiences of most human beings, as well as a large body of scientific research.
You dismiss it all without investigation because it does not fit with your materialist beliefs. Fine, but it makes your opinion on this topic ignorant and worthless.
Comment by mcromer — July 26, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
No, instead there's a conspiracy of people making up evidence that contradicts materialism. It's all just delusion, false memory and fraud conspiracy, right? After all, we know materialism is true. . .
Comment by mcromer — July 26, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
All science is based in observational data and the ability to make specific and distinguishing empirical predictions. There are a variety of ways this can be applied in different fields, but ultimately this is the standard by which all science is judged.
Ironically, this thread concerns a pulsar purportedly "sending us signals in Morse Code."
Comment by Zachriel — July 26, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
TP:
I didn't read all of your article because I quickly discovered I'm not smart enough to understand it.
I'm with you on the non-randomness concept. As others have pointed out, evolution is non-random. Can something be non-random and non-purposeful (non teleological)? It seems like a logical absurdity to mix the two. I certainly can't think of anything that fits this description, but perhaps I am wrong. I can assume some observation fits this description (or not) but I have no scientific way to discover if I am correct (or not).
Perhaps this is the unanswerable question dividing the two groups. Science can't give us the answer and so we are left to our philosophical pinning.
Comment by Lurker — July 26, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
It's already been established that I'm too stupid to understand the profundities of the pro-ID movement, so maybe you could explain the point in words of one syllable.
Comment by mtraven — July 26, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
I suggest you brush up on your philosophy of science. Your representation of what makes up science is flawed and incorrect. I suggest you start by reading this, I'm not going to spell things out for you. I got better things to do.
Comment by Jean — July 26, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Hi mtraven,
I don't think monosyllabic communication is necessary.
Here's Bilbo from the OP:
The point is that lacking knowledge of the designer, the designer's nature, or the designer's method does not, in principle, preclude our determining that the phenomenon is the result of design.
Bilbo sums it up, and relates the analogy back to ID (the analogy is not ID):
So no, determining that your toaster is intelligently designed is not evidence that ID is true. And finding a pulsar emitting answers to our questions is not either. It merely demonstrates the obvious point of the OP.
Comment by Pez — July 26, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
So you provide a cite to authority who is not a philosopher of science, but a chemist; an HIV-denier who is not an epidemiologist.
Your cite to authority is invalid, and you also refuse to discuss the specifics.
Science is a complex undertaking. Imagination and intuition are important components of developing the insights necessary for making scientific progress. However, science is ultimately judged by its fit to the data.
Comment by Zachriel — July 26, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Hi Lurker,
Thanks for trying and thanks for the feedback. I will have to work harder at making it more understandable.
Unfortunately, it is a contradiction to suggest people think for themselves while simultaneously asking them to trust my conclusions without understanding the details.
While Dembski's Pulsar thought experiment appeals to a mass audience as a potentially unexplainable phenomenon, quantum mechanics provides examples that are much more unexplainable and aren't just thought experiments. These experimental results are repeatable and recognized by mainstream scientists. There are working inventions based on these unexplained phenomena.
You also wrote…
Are you familar with Chaos Theory's fractals? Take a look at this Mandelbrot Set.
This is based on a very simple formula using one variable (albeit a complex variable)
z = z^2 + c
Now imagine a more complicated formula with four complex variables, one of which is time.
Here a long video claiming to show the Mandelbrot Set the size of our universe.
Something to think about.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 26, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
I should have added HIV deniers to my list of crack-pot theories which are unencumbered by consensus.
The funniest argument so far: MCromer's appeal to originality; because surely it's much braver and better to make up your own theories than to merely accept other people's "pre-packaged" ideas.
Sal
Comment by salimfadhley — July 26, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Planetary orbits. Weather. Ocean currents. Galaxies. The rings of Saturn. An apple falling from a tree.
Comment by Zachriel — July 26, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
TP:
Thanks for the fractals. They were very cool, and beautiful and thought provoking. It reminded me of this article: Does Mathematical Beauty Pose Problems for Naturalism?
Before anyone scoffs at the title, give it a read. It's not a compelling argument, but one that makes you go "Hmmm". If you're short for time, scroll down and start reading about where he says:
As far as I can tell, and Steiner shares this opinion, any form of Naturalism is defacto non-anthropocentric in that it would disallow a privileged status for humans in the scope of the universe. If, as Steiner argues, the success of mathematics can be shown to put humans in such a position, then naturalism has problems.
Further down he says:
Now suppose that, not only did the number 10 have special significance, but time and time again human aesthetic criteria played a significant role in understanding the universe. Such occurrences, when looked at from a meta-level, would surely make one wonder why such privilege seems to fall on the human species. Yet this situation is precisely analogous to what mathematicians and scientists actually do when they rely on human notions of beauty and symmetry in the development of their theories.
And as I kept reading, I was compelled to say "Hmmm".
Comment by Lurker — July 26, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Wow! Took most of my hour just reading all these comments. Let me respond to a few of them:
David Heddle said that unnaturalness was part of the criteria we use to determine if something is intelligently designed. By "unnaturalness" I assume he means something that Nature cannot produce without the aid of Intelligence. Since the origin of life and the cause of much of its evolution is what is under dispute, I refuse to grant that life in "natural" in the sense that it can come about without the aid of intelligence.
Salim said that assuming that life was intelligently designed would tell us nothing about the designer(s). I disagree. It would tell us a lot about the designer(s). They know a lot about biochemistry, molecular biology, cell biology, chemistry, physics, and nanotechnology. They also purposefully assemble parts, just like we do.
Zach raised the hypothetical situation of a magical pony, and concluded that it would only show that our science had been wrong. Likewise, a pulsar that sends signals faster than the speed of light. I agree. And we would long doubt that it was a pulsar. Let's assume that eventually we are forced to that conclusion. Now take the thought experiment seriously.
Language generation is something we associate with intelligent minds. Likewise the purposeful assembling of parts. Granted that language is more tightly associated that the assembling of parts. However, I think there is a strong enough association of the latter with intelligence to make ID a reasonable suspicion, if not a belief.
Comment by Bilbo — July 26, 2007 @ 7:21 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Zachriel
These work as fine examples if you assume the laws that govern them are the product of non-teleological causes, but that's what I'm asking–are they? Same question can be applied to laws that govern evolution. If non-telic causes can produce all of this, then I'm quite impressed with their creative abilities as they far surpass mankind's abilities.
Comment by Lurker — July 26, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Good points Bilbo.
Comment by Bradford — July 26, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Bilbo's comment led me to take a second look at this:
Evidently David and I disagree that highly specified nucleotide sequences characteristic of functional genomes are natural with respect to their arising from a prebiotic starting point. The sequencing itself is the evidence that something unnatural is involved.
Comment by Bradford — July 26, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
David Heddle wrote:
I think this begs the question. Compared to everything else in the universe that we've looked at, life on Earth does appear to be 'unnatural'. At least, we have no reason to suppose that it's natural if by 'natural' we mean just what's given by cosmology+physics+chemistry. For one thing, there's nothing 'natural' about the Big Bang, the value of the cosmological constant, the number of dimensions, the inhomogeneities that led to the formations of stars, the relative abundance of carbon atoms, or the genetic code, or language. I said more about this here.
I don't think it's a given that human life isn't 'unnatural', for reasons I suggest here. We're unique in a number of ways. Morality, mathematical reasoning, and aesthetics are three pretty 'unnatural' things relative to everything else in the universe that we've looked at.
salimfahdley wrote:
Hieroglyphs can't answer questions, any more than a bunch of rocks on a hillside on Mars that spell out the phrase WELCOME TO MARS can answer questions. So they don't pass the Turing test, but both are indicative of intelligence. And even without other evidence about their designers, we don't doubt that the earliest paleolithic cave paintings were designed.
Hence neither being able to pass a Turing test, nor there being much other evidence about a designer's nature is required for a reasonable ID inference.
Comment by stunney — July 26, 2007 @ 8:00 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Bilbo wrote…
Here is an interesting study titled Referential specificity in the alarm calls of the black-tailed prairie dog
"In this study, we show that black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus)have a referential system of communication, i.e., their alarm calls have specificity for different characteristics of humans. In a series of experiments, we tested the ability of black-tailed prairie dogs to encode information into their alarm calls about the color of clothes and general shape of humans who were potential predators. We also assessed the information encoded into the alarm calls elicited after a human fed the prairie dogs, and after a human shot a weapon within the colony. The results show that black-tailed prairie dogs have a referential communication system similar to that described for Gunnison's prairie dogs, with qualitatively and quantitatively different alarm calls for different predator characteristics."
Who needs pulsars when we have prarie dogs?
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 26, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Now you are blatently misrepresenting me. That's the final straw.
I'm through discussing anything with you, you are unserious, unacquainted with the facts, and uninterested in changing that.
I disagree with Raevmo and mtraven frequently, but they are serious individuals who don't believe they already know everything. You on the other hand are simply here to troll.
Comment by mcromer — July 26, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
July 26th, 2007 at 9:26 pm