Reflectorites
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:23:41 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
First, Richard/FJ(Pim) cut out an important qualifier, which I will
repost:
========================================================================
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 06:03:15 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>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": ...
>while superior to mine, is inferior to Dembski's "Ph.D. in mathematics":
>....
========================================================================
[...]
>>SJ>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>It's reasonable to say "I'm not qualified to argue on this matter so I won't
>discuss it but will defer to such-and-such an authority."
It is interesting how Richard always wants to *silence* his opponents
rather than "discuss" things with them!
RW>But it seems that
>Stephen wants to have his cake and eat it, arguing in support of the design
>inference
Here Richard changes my point from "The Design Inference" (Dembski's book)
to "the design inference" (the whole ID argument)!
Even then my point was only in respect of "the mathematical arguments in the
book" (i.e. Dembski's, "The Design Inference").
RW>and then attempting to cast doubt on his opponents' arguments with
>an appeal to authority.
There is no "appeal to authority". I am saying that if I cannot evaluate
Dembski's and Richard's "mathematical arguments" then if a choice between
Richard's BSc and Dembski's Ph.D' in mathematics, then it is reasonable for
me to to assume that Richard is wrong, and Dembski right.
RW>If Stephen wishes to avoid this charge, he should
>clarify what area he feels competent to argue over and what area he doesn't.
I have already said: "the mathematical arguments in the book"!
RW>For example, he might say: "I understand the method of the design inference,
>and so am competent to judge whether a given calculation fits the method,
>but I'm not competent to judge whether the design inference is a valid
>method." If that was his position, then he should steer clear of the latter
>area, and not make appeals to authority regarding the former.
See above. I have already made the point that I do not feel competent on
strictly mathematical arguments.
RW>Of course, there's not much point in making an appeal to authority unless
>the source you're appealing to really has some authority. Those of us who've
>seen how IDers, regardless of their qualifications, are blinded to reason by
>their dogma will laugh at the idea of Dembski being any sort of authority.
Dembski has several earned Ph.D's from leading universities. It seems to
me that it is *Richard* and his crowd who are the one's "blinded to reason
by their" materialistic "dogma".
RW>Before Stephen accuses me of an ad hominem argument, let me point that, if
>you appeal to an authority, you're making a pro homine argument (I've just
>coined that term!), and it's perfectly valid for me to introduce ad hominem
>arguments against that authority.
I do not regard that as "an ad hominem argument".
RW>Let me also make a point I've made before. If valid, Dembski's work on
>specification would be a groundbreaking advance in statistical theory
>(regardless of its relevance to design). Yet I've seen no positive reaction
>to it from anyone with an advanced degree in statistics. I'm sure that if
>there had been any such reaction, Dembski's supporters would be shouting it
>from the rooftops. There hasn't been much negative reaction from
>statisticians either, which suggests that Dembski is not even attempting to
>convince the statistical community, but is aiming his arguments only at
>non-statisticians. I wonder why!
The fact that *Richard* has "seen no positive reaction to it from anyone
with an advanced degree in statistics" is not conclusive evidence that there
has not been.
Besides, these things take time to permeate (the book only came out in
1998). Also it may be the controversial nature of ID that is hindering
statistician's recognition of Dembski.
RW>The question of how Dembski's nonsense got published in the series of books
>"Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory" is an
>interesting one. I would very much like to know whether it went through a
>peer review process, and, if so, who the reviewers were. Anyone have any
>info on this?
I understand it did.
RW>In general, of course, it's rather unwise of IDers to make appeals to
>authority, as the vast majority of scientific authorities are against them.
I wasn't making an appeal to authority. I was simply saying that if I
personally could not evaluate a mathematical argument and had to choose
between Dembski's (with his multiple Ph.Ds, including one in Mathematics)
and Richard's (with his BSc) I would choose Dembski's.
RW>For example, IDers' absurd claims that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is some
>sort of a problem for evolution is rejected by almost all physicists that
>have bothered to comment on it.
What evidence has Richard that "IDers" make "claims that the 2nd law of
thermodynamics is some sort of a problem for evolution". Or that "almost
all physicists" have "rejected" these "IDers' ... claims"?
Johnson in Darwin on Trial said:
"This premise may seem to contradict the famous Second Law of
Thermodynamics, which says that ordered energy inevitably
collapses into disorder or maximum "entropy." There is reason to
believe, however, that in a local system (the earth) which takes in
energy from outside (the sun), the second law permits some kinds
of spontaneous self-organization to occur. For example, ordered
structures like snowflakes and crystals are common. " (Johnson
P.E., "Darwin on Trial," 1993, p.109)
Having said that, my claim *is* that "the 2nd law of thermodynamics is
some sort of a problem for evolution", in the sense of the *origin of life*:
"In existing living systems, the coupling of the energy flow to the
organizing "work" occurs through the metabolic motor of DNA,
enzymes, etc. This is analogous to an automobile converting the
chemical energy in gasoline into mechanical torque on the wheels.
We can give a thermodynamic account of how life's metabolic
motor works. The origin of the metabolic motor (DNA, enzymes,
etc.) itself, however, is more difficult to explain thermodynamically,
since a mechanism of coupling the energy flow to the organizing
work is unknown for prebiological systems." (Thaxton C.B.,
Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of Life's Origin," 1992,
p.127).
RW>I wish Stephen would defer to authority on that one!
Why does Richard "wish" that?
But actually I have some "authority" on my side "on that one":
"We have repeatedly emphasized the fundamental problems posed
for the biologist by the fact of life's complex organization. We have
seen that organization requires work for its maintenance and that
the universal quest for food is in part to provide the energy needed
for this work. But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient
to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs
work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work
needed is *particular* work; it must follow specifications; it requires
information on how to proceed ... In showing that the organization of
living matter is controlled by information in the chromosomes, genetics
provides only the beginnings of a full explanation. We need to know
not only where the information is and how it is decoded by the organism,
but *how it got there*." (Simpson G.G. & Beck W.S., "Life: An
Introduction to Biology," 1965, p.466. Emphasis in original).
In case Richard does not know, George Gaylord Simpson was one of the
co-founders of the Neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis, and he said that this
is among the "fundamental *problems*" "posed for the biologist".
[...]
RW>"Do the calculation. Take the numbers seriously. See if the underlying
>probabilities really are small enough to yield design."
> -- W. A. Dembski, who has never presented any calculation to back up his
>claim to have detected Intelligent Design in life.
As I have pointed out, this is a misleading statement by Richard. But, to
be fair, he may not yet have had time to correct it.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all energy systems run
down like a clock and never rewind themselves. But life not only 'runs up,'
converting low energy sea-water, sunlight and air into high-energy
chemicals, it keeps multiplying itself into more and better clocks that keep
'running up' faster and faster. Why, for example, should a group of simple,
stable compounds of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen struggle for
billions of years to organize themselves into a professor of chemistry?
What's the motive? If we leave a chemistry professor out on a rock in the
sun long enough the forces of nature will convert him into simple
compounds of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, calcium,
phosphorus, and small amounts of other minerals. It's a one-way reaction.
No matter what kind of chemistry professor we use and no matter what
process we use we can't turn these compounds back into a chemistry
professor. Chemistry professors are unstable mixtures of predominantly
unstable compounds which, in the exclusive presence of the sun's heat,
decay irreversibly into simpler organic and inorganic compounds. That's a
scientific fact. The question is: Then why does nature reverse this process?
What on earth causes the inorganic compounds to go the other way? It isn't
the sun's energy. We just saw what the sun's energy did. It has to be
something else. What is it?" (Pirsig, Robert M., "Lila: An Inquiry Into
Morals," Bantam: London, 1991, pp.144-145)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 29 2000 - 17:35:35 EST