The Design Inference Game

03/03/03 | Moi

[general_re]

I thought a new thread was a good idea, and here seems to be a good place to put it, so as not to clutter up "News". The only topic available was "heated discussion", though. ;)

If any clarification about the pictures is needed, just say so, and I will try to at least highlight the part that I am interested in for you. Remember that I'm interested in the objects or structures or artifacts being represented, so don't be thrown off if the illustrations seem abstract.

[cornelis]

with the exception of those hypotheses that rely on the validity or non-validity of the design inference as a premise.

I recognized from the beginning that you were making exceptions with your language of "the useful." We'll see how it plays out.

[general_re]

Okay. I don't know quite what to say, other than to disclaim liability if someone's house should collapse because it turns out that they built it on sand....

[Condorman]

Dude, what's your beef? The claim is that design can be detected without historical knowledge. This is a test of that claim. Or are you already hedging your bets?

I hesitate to speak for general_re, but I suspect he would be happy to give you a turn when he and Diamond are done. But I count 18 pictures left until anyone else gets to play.

[general_re]

Don't worry about it - everybody's in such a hurry to get to the end. Eight more, and then we'll have a right old free-for-all ;)

[Condorman]

Eight? I thought that after the first 10 had been beaten to death Diamond was going to front 10 of his own.

Mebbe that should be another thread entirely...

[general_re]

Oh, that's right - forgot about that. LOL. Maybe we should make that a thread of its own, you're right ;)

[cornelis]

The claim is that design can be detected without historical knowledge

An interesting game. Is it European?

[Dataman]

I merely point out that by that logic, you have no rational basis for believing that the sun will rise tomorrow - after all, just because it has passed the test and risen on all the yesterdays we have experienced, that does not mean that one can generalize and declare that it will rise tomorrow.

This seems an incredible statement from an evolutionist whose entire existence is grounded in the inductive.

[Dataman]

An interesting game. Is it European?

Somewhere between nineteenth century German and postmodern.

The game seems to be a non sequitur in progress: If general_re can find a picture that seems to be designed but is not, then nothing is designed?

[Condorman]

Again, the purpose of this thread:

[T]he claim has been advanced that design can be inferred strictly from the inherent qualities of a thing, without reference to historical or other external information, and I do expect you to hold to that in defending the inferences. That being said, please feel free to investigate the objects pictured further if you so wish, so that you might fully understand the qualities and attributes of the objects in question, although I ask that you note when you have done so. Also, please feel free to solicit advice or assistance from others if you wish - I don't want to debate a committee, though, so I only intend to address information or arguments that you present, even if you have formulated them with help from others. Ask for all the help you like, so long as you're prepared to defend what you post.
1175 posted on 02/28/2003 11:26 PM EST by general_re to Diamond

Try to keep up.

[Phaedrus]

However, you cannot end with universal conclusions without beginning with universal inferences.

A very nice point, cornelis, re the constraints of logical constructs. It is, nonetheless, a stimulating exercise going on here and a pleasure to watch good minds work.

For myself, I cannot escape the belief, really a conclusion, that all of the Universe, all of reality, is a product of design and that we are exploring its modes, means and mechanics. "How?" is a fascinating question. "Why?" is more fascinating.

[cornelis]

It is, nonetheless, a stimulating exercise going on here and a pleasure to watch good minds work.

I agree. Diamond and general_re are very able.

[Diamond]

For myself, I cannot escape the belief, really a conclusion, that all of the Universe, all of reality, is a product of design

Herein lies the difficulty of answering the ice cyrstal problem.

As one of my conditions stipulated, the criterion proposed by Dembski is not useful for determining that something is NOT designed. It is useful, however, for detecting design.

Thus, my answer to the ice crystal picture is this:

Putting aside the context of anthropic principle for purposes of this answer, the object in question lacks the contingency and possibly the independently given pattern necessary to positively infer design. While inorganic crystalline strucures do indeed have a certain level of complexity, they do not meet the standard of contingency required by the criterion, since the formation of ice crystals is reducible to the operation of physical/chemical laws of chemical bonding, temperature, and so on. There might be a specification pattern inherent in the six-pointed star but since the crystal is the result of physical necessity it is not neccessary to ascertain whether or not what looks like a six-pointed star constitutes an independently given pattern in this case.

So, Regis, putting aside anthropic parameters, without which ice cystrals would not be possible, the ice crystal does not exhibit the level of specified complexity that would render a secure design inference. Yes, Regis, that's my final answer to #2. If you feel my answer is not satisfactory for some reason related to the conditions of the test please let me know and I will try to be more specific.

Cordially,

[PatrickHenry]

... the object in question [the ice crystal picture in post #8] lacks the contingency and possibly the independently given pattern necessary to positively infer design.

The tension mounts, the ominous music in the background grows louder ...

(And I, for one, can't figure out what the answer means.)

[CCWoody]

I think I would have perished in the movie theater had I been made to endure that movie. No offense to its fans.

Hey, doc, Diamond is talking like an engineer today.

[Nebullis]

An interesting game. Is it European?

The game is the ID version of science. IDism is an American invention. I think general_re, et al., are trying to head off the abuse of science by well-meaning but seriously misguided creationists.

[Nebullis]

[I]nference from consistency into a credible prediction is one kind thinking, the transfer of that kind of knowledge into other fields of knowledge is something else altogether, requiring--as you say--"the useful." I suspect you have an opinion on the first kind, and I trust we won't be abusive on the second.

IDists abuse of reason:

Human design can be inferred. Therefore, everything that looks designed and is not designed by humans is designed by an Intelligent Designer.

[cornelis]

Bingo.

But let's help out the little guy: Aristotle tells us that someone can be right with the wrong reason.

It is slowly dawning on a few that the same logical errors can be perpetrated by any and every participant in the debate.

[Diamond]

IDists abuse of reason:

Human design can be inferred. Therefore, everything that looks designed and is not designed by humans is designed by an Intelligent Designer

With all due respect, Nebullis, detecting the activity of intelligent agency is an indisputably common form of rational activity. This thread constitutes a test, proposed by general-re on another thread, which I at leat hope will serve as an evaluation of the competing explanatory power of chance, necessity, and design with respect to whatever pictures of the general's choosing he posts. One of my goals in accepting this challenge is to determine more precisely, to use your phrase, what "everything that looks designed" actually means with reference to chance, necessity, or design. The method is my application of the three-fold criterion of contingency, complexity and specificity to whatever pictures the general posts. Although I am particularly unsuited to the task, I have accepted the general's challenge because no one else so far had done so. If you have suggestions for, or challenges to my application of the stated criterion in this experiment I for one certainly welcome your input.

Cordially,

[PatrickHenry]

In addition to the ten images you agreed to classify, how would you like to earn some bonus points by trying this one?

Nature or design?