Reflectorites
Sorry this is late too!
On Fri, 6 Oct 2000 17:13:43 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
[...]
RW>Stephen's long reply
What was "long" about it? It was only 9k!
RW>was in response to a statement that we have not yet
>seen any demonstration of the existence of CSI.
And I answered giving "the genetic code" as an example, quoting Dawkins:
"After Watson and Crick, we know that genes themselves, within
their minute internal structure, are long strings of pure digital
information. What is more, they are truly digital, in the full and
strong sense of computers and compact disks, not in the weak sense
of the nervous system. The genetic code is not a binary code as in
computers, nor an eight-level code as in some telephone systems,
but a quaternary code, with four symbols. The machine code of the
genes is uncannily computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon,
the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged
with those of a computer engineering journal." (Dawkins R., "River
out of Eden," 1996, pp.19-20)
So I am not sure what Richard is getting at here. Is he denying the very
"existence of CSI" (i.e. "complex specified information")? What does
Richard think his post is? Or his VISA card? Or his phone number?:
"It follows that information can be both complex and specified.
Information that is both complex and specified will be called
*complex specified information*, or CSI for short. CSI is what all
the fuss over information has been about in recent years, not just in
biology but in science generally.
It is CSI that for Manfred Eigen constitutes the great mystery of
life's origin, and one he hopes eventually to unravel in terms of
algorithms and natural laws. It is CSI that Michael Behe has
uncovered with his irreducibly complex biochemical machines. It is
CSI that for cosmologists underlies the fine-tuning of the universe
and that the various anthropic principles attempt to understands It
is CSI that David Bohm's quantum potentials are extracting when
they scour the microworld for what Bohm calls "active
information."' It is CSI that enables Maxwell's demon to outsmart a
thermodynamic system tending toward thermal equilibriums It is
CSI that for Roy Frieden unifies the whole of physics. It is CSI on
which David Chalmers hopes to base a comprehensive theory of
human consciousness. It is CSI that within the Kolmogorov-Chaitin
theory of algorithmic information identifies the highly compressible,
nonrandom strings of digits. How CSI gets from an organism's
environment into an organism's genome is one of the long-standing
questions addressed by the Santa Fe Institute.
Nor is CSI confined to science. CSI is indispensable in our
everyday lives. The sixteen-digit number on your VISA card is an
example of CSI. The complexity of this number ensures that a
would-be thief cannot randomly pick a number and have it turn out
to be a valid VISA number. What's more, the specification of this
number ensures that it is your number, and not anyone else's. Even
your phone number constitutes CSI. As with the VISA number, the
complexity ensures that this number won't be dialed randomly (at
least not too often), and the specification ensures that this number
is yours and yours only. All the numbers on our bills, credit slips
and purchase orders represent CSI. CSI makes the world go round.
(Dembski W.A., "Intelligent Design," 1999, pp.159-160. Emphasis
Dembski's)
RW>To quote Dembski:
>
>"Do the calculation. Take the numbers seriously. See if the underlying
>probabilities really are small enough to yield design."
Another reason for the delay of this combined post was that Richard
AFAIK does not give a reference to where this quote came from, so I
could check up the context. I have found it at last:
"The fact is that the design inference does not yield design all that
easily, especially if probabilistic resources are sufficiently generous.
It is simply not the case that unusual and striking coincidences
automatically generate design as the conclusion of a design
inference. There is a calculation to be performed. *Do the
calculation. Take the numbers seriously*." (Dembski W.A., "The
Design Inference," 1998, p.228. Emphasis Dembski's)
RW>So, where's the calculation?
>
>Dembski has never backed up his claims with any calculation.
Again I am not sure what Richard's point is here. What "calculation" does
Richard mean exactly? Dembski has not developed any special method of
"calculation". He has developed a tool to evaluate the *results* of
ordinary probabilistic calculations.
On the very same page of TDI he makes this clear:
"I stress again, *Do the probability calculation!* The design
inference is robust and easily resists counter-examples blithe
Shoemaker-Levy variety. Assuming, for instance, that the Apollo
11 moon landing specifies the crash of Shoemaker-Levy into Jupiter
(a generous concession at that), and that the comet could have
crashed at any time within a period of a year, and that the comet
crashed to the very second precisely 25 years after the moon
landing, a straightforward probability calculation indicates that the
probability of this coincidence is no smaller than 10^-8." (Dembski
W.A., "The Design Inference," 1998, p.228. Emphasis
Dembski's).
Earlier in the book, and in fact also two pages earlier than this page
Dembski refers to an example of such a "calculation", namely Caputo's
vote-rigging fraud, and applies the design inference to it:
"To appreciate what's at stake here, recall the case of Nicholas
Caputo (cf. Section 1.2). Caputo, as the Democratic clerk from
Essex County, New Jersey, selected the Democrats to head the
ballot line forty out of forty-one times in his county. Caputo was
supposed to have obtained his ballot line selections - which unduly
favored his own political party - by chance. Nevertheless, if chance
was responsible, Caputo succeeded in bringing about a specified
event of probability one in fifty billion. An application of the design
inference thus concluded that Caputo's ballot line selections were
not due to chance but to design.". (Dembski W.A., "The Design
Inference", 1998, p.226)
Elsewhere Dembski refers to the "bacterial flagellum" being "a complex
protein machine requiring over forty proteins each necessary for function"
and he states "the CSI of a flagellum far exceeds 500 bits":
"Michael Behe's irreducibly complex biochemical systems are a case
in point. As we saw in section 5.7, irreducibly complex biochemical
systems require numerous components specifically adapted to each
other and each necessary for function. Such systems are both
complex and specified, and therefore exhibit CSI. Consider now an
organism that possesses an irreducibly complex biochemical
system-for definiteness let's say it is a bacterial flagellum (i.e., the
bidirectional outboard motor of a bacterium that propels it through
solution). On a Darwinian view that organism evolved via selection
and inheritance with modification from an organism without a
flagellum. The flagellum is a complex protein machine requiring
over forty proteins each necessary for function. For the Darwinian
mechanism to produce the flagellum, chance modifications have to
generate those various proteins and then selection must preserve
them. But how is selection to accomplish this? Selection is
nonteleological, so it cannot cumulate proteins, holding them in
reserve until with the passing of many generations they're finally
available to form a complete flagellum. The environment contains
no blueprint of he flagellum which selection can extract and then
transmit to an organism to form a flagellum. No, selection can only
build on partial function, gradually improving function that already
exists. But a flagellum without its full complement of protein parts
doesn't function at all. Consequently if selection and inheritance
with modification are going to produce the flagellum, they have to
do it in one generation. But the CSI of a flagellum far exceeds 500
bits. What's more, selection, if operating for only one generation,
merely kills off organisms that lack some feature (in this case the
flagellum). Selection operating for only one generation does not
produce novelty-all the novelty is produced by random modification
acting on inheritance. Whatever CSI the environment may hold,
selection is therefore incapable of transmitting it in a single
generation. Similarly, since selection is nonteleological, it can't
transmit environmental CSI over multiple generations either. It
follows that inheritance with modification has to produce a
flagellum in a single generation. But this is infeasible. This is asking
law and chance to produce over 500 bits of CSI. This would violate
the law of conservation of information." (Dembski W.A.,
"Intelligent Design," 1999, pp.177-178).
Now I am not privy to all of Dembski's writings and so I am not sure if he has
actually done the calculations to arrive at this "500 bits of CSI". But I
would have thought that he wouldn't need to since: 1) it would be a standard
information theory calculation that (for example) Yockey has carried out on
other, less complex molecular systems; and 2) AFAIK no molecular biologist or
information theorist has denied it.
Indeed this "500 bits of CSI" would presumably be common ground even
with *Dawkins*:
"Again, this is characteristic of all animal and plant cells." Each
nucleus, as we shall see in Chapter 5, contains a digitally coded
database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the
Encyclopaedia Britannica put together. And this figure is for each
cell, not all the cells of a body put together." (Dawkins R., "The
Blind Watchmaker," 1991, pp.17-18).
The fact that Richard denies it, is not something that I would have thought
Dembski lies awake at night worrying about! :-)
But just suppose that Dembski had actually done this "calculation"? What
difference would that make to Richard or Wesley? None at all I presume!
RW>Nor has he been
>willing to clarify the method of the Design Inference. His silence on these
>subjects is very telling.
Again I am not sure what Richard's point is here. Dembski's book "the
Design Inference" was AFAIK his Ph.D dissertation at the University of
Chicago. It was published by Cambridge University Press.
Amazon.com quotes two reviewers on the back cover of TDI:
=====================================================
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521623871/qid%3D9720250
55/104-4012171-4962335
THE FOLLOWING TWO ENDORSEMENTS APPEAR ON THE BACK
COVER:
Dembski has written a sparklingly original book. Not since David Hume's
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion has someone taken such a close
look at the design argument, but it is done now in a much broader post-
Darwinian context. Now we proceed with modern characterizations of
probability and complexity, and the results bear fundamentally on notions
of randomness and on strategies for dealing with the explanation of
radically improbable events. We almost forget that design arguments are
implicit in criminal arguments "beyond a reasonable doubt," plagiarism,
phylogenetic inference, cryptography, and a host of other modern
contexts. Dembski's analysis of randomness is the most sophisticated to be
found in the literature, and his discussions are an important contribution to
the theory of explanation, and a timely discussion of a neglected and
unanticipatedly important topic. --William Wimsatt, philosopher of
biology, U. of Chicago
In my view, Dembski has given us a brilliant study of the precise
connections linking chance, probability, and design. A lucidly written
work of striking insight and originality, _The Design Inference_ provides
significant progress concerning notoriously difficult questions. I expect
this to be one of those rare books that genuinely transforms its subject. --
Jon P. Jarrett, philosopher of physics, U. of Ill. at Chicago
====================================================
Although I personally cannot understand fully the mathematical arguments
in the book, and therefore cannot respond to any of Richard's detailed
mathematical questions about it, I would assume that Dembski's Ph.D
supervisors at the University of Chicago and peer reviewers at Cambridge
University Press' were satisfied with Dembski's "method of the Design
Inference" and that any problem of understanding is on Richard's part.
This is a reasonable assumption for me to make because: 1) on the things I can
understand and check on concerning my posts, Richard has consistently
demonstrated a failure to understand even simple arguments that he doesn't
agree with; and 2) Richard's mathematical qualifications of a "BSc in
>Statistics and Operational Research":
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 21:42:04 -0000, Richard Wein wrote:
[...]
>I live in Bristol, England. My educational background is in maths (BSc in
>Statistics and Operational Research from the Universty of Manchester). I've
>worked mostly in software development, but also as a freelance technical
>translator (Russian to English).
[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
while superior to mine, is inferior to Dembski's "Ph.D. in mathematics":
"William A. Dembski holds a Ph.D. in mathematics from the
University of Chicago and a Ph.D. in philosophy from the
University of Illinois at Chicago. He also has earned degrees in
theology and psychology. He is the recipient of two fellowships
from the National Science Foundation .... He has done postdoctoral
work at the University of Chicago, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Princeton University and Northwestern University."
(Dembski W.A., "Intelligent Design," 1999, rear inside cover)
And before FJ/Pim presses his "argument from authority" macro, I would
point out that juries routinely assess the relative qualifications of expert
witnesses and send people to gaol and even execute them on the
strength of same.
RW>Even within the inner circle of the ID movement
>it seems that there are major disagreements over the Design Inference.
There would be nothing wrong if there were, "major disagreements over
the Design Inference" "within the inner circle of the ID movement" but I
must say I am unaware of them. Maybe Richard will enlighten me what
they are?
RW>No doubt Dembski and his supporters will try to brazen it out.
Who are these "Dembski ... supporters" as distinct from others in the ID
movement?
And on what grounds does Richard claim that "Dembski ... will try to
brazen it out"?
RW>But sooner or later their bogus claims ...
What "bogus claims" are those exactly? Richard purports to be asking for
Dembski to support his arguments in TDI, but Richard has already decided
in advance that they are "bogus".
RW>will go the way of the YEC Paluxy River track claims.
Richard's prejudice is clear here, still trying to link ID with YEC.
RW>Those who've supported the Design Inference will be left with egg on
>their faces.
Richard *hopes*!
Mind you, I personally am not afraid of being "left with egg on" my face
over this or *any* ID claim, should it turn out to be wrong.
Because ID claims to be science, I accept that its claims are falsifiable.
RW>My impression has been that Stephen generally steers clear of the subject of
>the Design Inference and CSI.
It is not so much that I steer clear of these subjects but: 1) because of lack
of time due to study commitments I have largely been pinned down to
answering responses to my own posts and AFAIK this the first time anyone
has actually addressed a question to me on "the Design Inference and CSI"
(in the sense of the Dembski calculation) issue; and 2) maths is not my
strong point so I have not butted into other discussions on it.
RW>This is quite sensible, as he has probably not read "The Design Inference."
On what grounds would Richard assume that? I have in fact read it from
cover to cover, but quite frankly most of the maths and symbolic logic was
incomprehensible to me.
If they comprehensible to Richard he has the advantage. But mind you, if
he claims the maths and symbols are comprehensible to him, and he tries to
make an argument based on them, I will be asking Richard to explain them in
layman's terms.
RW>My suggestion to Stephen is that he avoid the
>subjects of the Design Inference and CSI like the plague, if he doesn't want
>to be one of those with egg on his face. ;-)
See above on me not fearing "egg on" my "face". If I am wrong I would
rather *know* I am wrong.
If Richard can show that I (or Dembski) is wrong, I (and I am sure
Dembski), would *thank* Richard.
But I ask myself why would *Richard* be concerned about me having "egg
on" my "face"? If Richard really thought that "the Design Inference and
CSI" was false, he would be encouraging me to use it.
Therefore I assume it is just another example of bluff on Richard's part.
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The fact is that the design inference does not yield design all that easily,
especially if probabilistic resources are sufficiently generous. It is simply
not the case that unusual and striking coincidences automatically generate
design as the conclusion of a design inference. There is a calculation to be
performed. *Do the calculation. Take the numbers seriously*." (Dembski
W.A., "The Design Inference," 1998, p.228. Emphasis Dembski's)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 22 2000 - 18:02:34 EDT