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.

[general_re]

Wouldn't it be funny if they actually hit the son of a bitch with that first targeted strike? The Thirty-Minute War, we could call it...

[Diamond]

Where's the "shock and awe" part?

I think the Iraqis who got hit last night with those missles and bombs experienced, and are still experiencing, some genuine "shock and awe".

Cordially,

[general_re]

Bah. I was expecting Linebacker III ;)

[Diamond]

What is "Linebacker III"?

Cordially,

[Diamond]

The Thirty-Minute War

I agree wholeheartedly. While I'm trying to be a good Presbyterian and I shouldn't call him a son of a bitch, I hope the son of a bitch is incinerated at some point. (Please forgive the French there.)

Cordially,

[balrog666]

Arc Light time!

[PatrickHenry]

I'm getting impatient for "shock and awe."

[general_re]

What is "Linebacker III"?

The larger, noisier, more destructive sequel to "Linebacker II" ;)

[general_re]

How prescient am I, by the way? As I type this, Fox News and the Washington Post are reporting that there are credible reasons to think that both Saddam and his bastards sons were in that bunker that was hit right at the start.

[Condorman]

The larger, noisier, more destructive sequel to "Linebacker II" ;)

Ah, but was it designed?

[Diamond]

Making a positive abductive inference for #9 is difficult, if not impossible in that the objects pictured could either be the result of physical/chemical necessity, or they could have been caused by an intelligent agency mimicing physical/chemical necessity. At the risk of a false negative, I am unable to reach a positive inference of the design of the objects. So, no design inference.

Cordially,

[general_re]

Hard to say. Much of the Vietnam War appears to have been planned rather haphazardly ;)

[general_re]

Ships passing in the night... ;)

I'm on my way out, so I won't be able to post our final play until this evening, but in the meantime, is there more information that might assist you in a determination for #9? I am, of course, happy to answer questions that would help you to better probe their nature...

[PatrickHenry]

... difficult, if not impossible in that the objects pictured could either be the result of physical/chemical necessity, or they could have been caused by an intelligent agency mimicing physical/chemical necessity ...

Request for clarification:
Are you definitely saying that there are cases -- such as #9 -- where nature could look so much like design that it's impossible to distinguish between the two?

[Diamond]

Yes, but only for the specific reason that an intelligent agency can mimic chance and necessity. I could deliberately take a can of paint and dump it on your neighbor's patio, and the resulting blob of paint might be indistinguishable from one caused by the can of paint accidentally falling off the patio table. Though the blobs might be indistinguishable, one results by chance, the other by design.

Cordially,

[Diamond]

Thanks for the offer of more information, but short of giving me the answer, I'm not sure, given what I think are the properties of the objects, that I can obtain a positive inference of design.

Cordially,

[PatrickHenry]

Me:
Are you definitely saying that there are cases -- such as #9 -- where nature could look so much like design that it's impossible to distinguish between the two?

You:
Yes, but only for the specific reason that an intelligent agency can mimic chance and necessity.

So -- I want to be sure I understand your position -- are you saying that although intelligence can mimic nature, nature can't produce something that looks as if it were designed by intelligence?

[general_re]

While I think this is a worthwhile line of inquiry, and one that might deserve further exploration, I would beg your indulgence just a bit further and call a momentary time-out in this questioning. We have one final match before us, and then I intend to step aside for the free-for-all to begin.

So, if I may, hold that thought for a bit, and then I invite you to jump right back in, feet-first ;)

[general_re]

And now, speaking of which, we finally reach the end of the road, nearly 400 posts later ;)

For your consideration, #10:

You will notice, first off, that the image is actually a clickable hyperlink - because I'm a helpful sort of fellow, clicking on that link will take you to a much larger, more detailed version of that same image, which you may find useful. The caveat, though, is that it's a 535 KB image, which you may find slow to download if you are on a dial-up connection.

[Diamond]

We have one final match before us, and then I intend to step aside for the free-for-all to begin.

The much awaited "shock and awe" campaign:^)

Patrick, your follow-up question is duly noted and per the general's orders I will wait to answer until I analyze the next pic. At some point though I think it will be necessary to clarify the meaning of "nature" as used in your distinction between "nature" and "intelligence".

Cordially,