Re: [asa] Explanatory filter

Steve, I understand what you're saying about the "explanatory filter," and I
don't disagree. But, I think we're looking at this thing differently. You
suggest that the bat video shows that something that seems improbable could
nevertheless actually have happened, and (I think you're saying) evolution
isn't actually so improbable as it may seem. Fair enough. But at the same
time, I suggest that the reaction of skepticism about the video was entirely
reasonable given the relative improbability of a bat standing on end. It is
appropriate to consider the probability of an event occurring when
developing a possible range of inferences from a set of observed facts.

For example, what's the probability that the bloody footprint would match a
kind of rare designer shoe that OJ Simpson happens to own? Quite low, and
so it would be reasonable to infer OJ was at the scene of the murder. Does
that mean OJ definitely was the murderer? No, but it might satisfy a
judicial burden of proof, and all judicial burdens of proof recognize that
human beings can never know the past with absolute
certainty (interestingly, the evidence in the OJ case satisfied the civil
"preponderance of evidence" standard but not the criminal "beyond a
reasonable doubt" standard, but of course you had different juries and lots
of non-objective factors that could influence their determinations).
So, it seems to me that the ID people aren't totally out of school in
suggesting that very improbable events like the random cooption of parts to
make irreducibly complex molecular machines at least permits an inference
that the event didn't happen by chance. If they were to suggest chance is
entirely ruled out, I'd agree that would be out of school, however.
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 9:18 PM, Stephen Matheson <smatheso@calvin.edu>
wrote:

> David--
>
> Not wanting to be counted a "pompous ass", and recognizing both a friend
> and a wise counselor, I say: point taken, and thanks for taking the time.
> Mark surely said it better than I did (though his criticism was nearly as
> stark), and someday we can tackle that topic. My consternation is based on
> my frequent despair at the magnitude of the scandal, and maybe I'm not as
> encouraged as I ought to be by recent statements by various evangelical
> leaders. Don't give up on me, buddy!
>
> Now, any responses to my other comments? The ones that were on the topic
> of "explanatory filter"? I've had my time out, now I want to play again.
> :-)
>
> Steve
>
> >>> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> 05/27/08 10:36 AM >>>
> Steve M. said: Don't be too offended: I count myself as an evangelical.
> But evangelical use of the frontal cortex is startlingly rare. Providing
> counterexamples is no more effective than showing a video of bat standing
> up
> by itself.
>
> I respond: Steve, I think you know I'm with you in lamenting what Mark
> Noll
> called "the scandal of the evangelical mind." But "startlingly rare" is
> not
> an accurate statement without more specification. "Startlingly rare" among
> average parishioners -- maybe -- but then the same thing is true in the
> general population in the U.S., isn't it (have you ever watched Oprah and
> Dr. Phil)? "Startlingly rare" among the populist pundits -- absolutely --
> but then the same thing is true of the punditry in the general population
> (read the New York Post). "Startlingly rare" among thought leaders of the
> movement -- no, definitely not, whether one agrees or disagrees with them
> --
> but then the same thing is true of thought leaders in other social and
> intellectual movements. Most of us actively involved in this discussion on
> this list right now are university professors, business executives,
> theological educators, and the like -- among the most highly educated
> people
> who have ever lived on this planet. IMHO, we have to be careful not to let
> that status turn us into cynics, boasters, and pompous asses. Our
> missional
> service to the church and the world involves contextualization just like
> any
> other mission.
>
> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Stephen Matheson <smatheso@calvin.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > I didn't say impossible. I said improbable. Shall we run the numbers?
> > I'm pretty sure I'd win.
> >
> > Don't be too offended: I count myself as an evangelical. But evangelical
> > use of the frontal cortex is startlingly rare. Providing counterexamples
> is
> > no more effective than showing a video of bat standing up by itself.
> >
> > But let's get to the more important point you raised in the previous
> post.
> > You write: "The issue is what we can infer as *likely* from what we
> > actually know." But then you extend the question into the past with
> regard
> > to common descent, and you seem to imply that we're flying blind when
> > considering probabilities and plausibilities with regard to evolutionary
> > change. I thing you've overstated the case a bit, especially in the
> context
> > of the magic bat, and I would add two comments which might help
> illustrate
> > why I find ID claims in this area to be so disreputable.
> >
> > First, what we actually know is that biological evolution occurs, that it
> > can occur with astonishing rapidity, and that the genetic diversity it
> > surely requires is abundant and ubiquitous. Indeed, measurements of
> > evolutionary rates in various well-known field experiments have concluded
> > that these rates can vastly exceed the rates inferred by examination of
> the
> > fossil record. We *know* that evolutionary change happens. To baseball:
> > not only we do we know that bats *can* stand on end, we know how such an
> > event can come about. Similarly, not only do we know that evolutionary
> > processes *can* generate novelty, we know a fair amount about how such
> > events can come about. This is why I think Randy's pointer to this
> > wonderful little clip is a very cool object lesson.
> >
> > Second, I find both irony and dangerous folly in the quantification of
> > ignorance. Dembski & Behe are banking on calculations that seem to me to
> be
> > wholly based on ignorance. We don't actually know how likely it is that
> a
> > particular mutation will come about. (In fact, the most recent estimates
> of
> > beneficial mutation rates in bacteria indicate that they are 1000X more
> > likely than previously inferred.) We don't actually know (yet) how
> likely a
> > particular developmental transformation really is. The bat on end isn't
> > interesting because it was videotaped; it's interesting because we have a
> > fair idea of how likely the phenomenon is, and we could test it if we
> wanted
> > to. When it comes to particular evolutionary transitions (at whatever
> > level), we don't know which are more likely than others. We don't know
> > which bats have a concave end, which are perfectly balanced, which might
> > even have adhesive and weights added to make their standing as inevitable
> as
> > a kid's toy weeble.*
> >
> > The bat thing is cool, because it helps us see how people's quick
> responses
> > can be so very wrong, even when confidently delivered. I think Dick was
> > probably misled more by his astonishment at a first-pass examination of
> the
> > phenomenon than he was by an (apparent) ignorance of the basics of the
> > broadcasting of baseball. The event was so plainly implausible to him
> that
> > he concocted a story that we know to be wildly implausible, well-nigh
> > impossible. I infer that he was completely certain, on a first
> examination,
> > of the impossibility of the event, and so his story seemed better by
> > comparison. I'll wager that now that he knows a bit more about the event
> > (i.e., that the bat has a concavity in its end, and that the recording
> > itself is unremarkable) he will completely alter his view, perhaps even
> > *see* the video differently, and conclude that there is no human or
> demonic
> > monkey business involved at all. That's the kind of fate I wish for ID
> > apologetics: that people would be ab!
> >
> > le to see that a more careful examination of a scene can reveal aspects
> > previously unnoticed, and overturn hastily-formed judgments that were
> > sometimes planted by unscrupulous apologists.
> >
> > Steve Matheson
> >
> > *A weeble, for those under the age of 30 or so, was a toy doll for very
> > young children that was shaped roughly like a bowling pin and weighted so
> > that it could not fall over. "Weebles wobble, but they don't fall down."
> >
> > >>> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> 05/26/08 10:42 PM >>>
> > Steve said: Personally, I think it's just an improbable event, sort of
> > like
> > an evangelical employing critical thought
> >
> > I respond: Geesh -- I find gratitous comments like this so annoying.
> What
> > "evangelicals" have you been reading? Is NT Wright "evangelical?"
> Anthony
> > Thistleton? Roger Olson? Scot McKnight? Jamie Smith?
> >
> > On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Stephen Matheson <smatheso@calvin.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The batter was Martin Prado of the Atlanta Braves. The improbable
> event
> > > occurred in a game with the Mets in September of 2007. Discussion at
> the
> > > time centered on neither peculiar camera angles nor invisible strings,
> > but
> > > on whether Prado's bat was oddly weighted. Personally, I think it's
> just
> > an
> > > improbable event, sort of like an evangelical employing critical
> thought.
> > > I've ruled out chicanery, at least because that really is Keith
> > Hernandez'
> > > voice.
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mart%C3%ADn_Prado
> > >
> > > Steve Matheson
> > >
> > > >>> "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@comcast.net> 05/25/08 10:13 PM >>>
> > > How would we apply the explanatory filter to this video? Can we
> determine
> > > by probabilities whether it was edited? Or designed?
> > >
> > > http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1775904
> > >
> > > Randy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > David W. Opderbeck
> > Associate Professor of Law
> > Seton Hall University Law School
> > Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.