Re: Robert Camp:Can Intelligent Design be considered scientific in the same w...

Pim quoted (in part) the following on ID and SETI:

> <quote author="Camp">
> It is my argument that implicit in taking action in this case is the
> assumption that this signal is empirically investigable. That is, it accords with
> certain preconditions, those being that it is real, it is derived from natural
> processes, it abides by the physical laws of the universe, and is accessible
> to current science. The procedure used by SETI is not some unstructured
> surveillance of the radio spectrum. SETI searches for specific kinds of signals
> (narrow band) based on specific assumptions about the intelligence that might
> send them. A statement from the SETI Institute (webpage FAQ) demonstrates
> this:
>
> <quote>
> There is relatively little background static from galaxies, quasars, and
> other cosmic noisemakers in the microwave part of the spectrum. This makes
> faint signals easier to pick out. Additionally, the microwave band contains a
> naturally-produced emission line, a narrow-band “broadcast”, at 1,420 MHz
> due to interstellar hydrogen. Every radio astronomer (including
> extraterrestrial ones) will know about this hydrogen emission. It may serve as a universal “
> marker” on the radio dial. Consequently, it makes sense to use nearby
> frequencies for interstellar “hailing” signals.6
> </quote>
> </quote>
>
> Camp also quotes Cornell astrophysicist Loren Petrich
>
> <quote>Cornell astrophysicist Loren Petrich makes this point clearly,
>
> These reasons are very distinct from Dembski’s Explanatory Filter, which
> focuses on alleged unexplainability as a natural phenomenon; they are an
> attempt to predict what an extraterrestrial broadcaster is likely to do, using
> the fact that they live in the same kind of Universe that we do.7
> </quote>
>

I found this difficult to sift through, and maybe I still missed
the key part of this, but I think this is where your point seems
to be.

I think you know that I am not a fan of ID. However, I did read
through Dembski's "Design Inference" because I was wondering if
there was anything I could use. It seems to have been a lot more
cautious a writing than his later stuff. But in a short summary,
the basic point was, (1) find a correct description of the
probability function and (2) set a lower bound based on some
criteria that _is_ (should be "seems" IMHO) sensible. And it is
that "seems" I inserted that is the main trouble with point (2).
I was not persuaded that his lower bound was objective. As to
point (1), fine, but how do we know for sure what is the correct
probability function?

But as to SETI, I don't really see how this criticism sticks,
as it applies to his thesis on design as purported in the
original book. In fact, although the blurb on the outside
claims application to SETI, little or nothing is mentioned on
the inside. Nevertheless, based on his thesis as laid out, were
I obliged to do SETI, I would be obliged to look for a correct
way to weight the probability function; nothing at all counter
to what is written above.

Now the description above could stick to people who have an
ax to grind, and write probability weights that obscure
a positive hit (were one to occur), or in any way attempt
to skew the data in a way that (unfairly) dismisses such a
hit. That is the real danger of relying on probabilities;
and particularly spokesman with hidden agendas who use them.
But whereas I can easily agree that the "ID movement" derails
somewhere around here, these criticisms are more correctly
directed at the way Dembski et al. have applied these originally
laid out principles; not the principles in of themselves.

Wayne
Received on Thu Jun 1 19:24:31 2006