Talk:William A. Dembski/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

Archive

  • /Archive 1
  • /Archive 2 (the present page is getting long, but archive 1 is 65kb and some of the current page is only 3 weeks old, so I'll let it slide a bit. --Blainster 21:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Spelling

From the Wikipedia Manual of Style: "Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader. For example, do not use center in one place and centre in another on the same page. Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country. For example: article on the American Civil War: U.S. usage and spelling." This being an article on a US citizen active largely in the US, the US spelling should be used here.--FeloniousMonk 03:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

reverting Noetica's reverts (etc.)

  1. I sympathise with the dislike of 'analyze' — unlike genuine alternative spellings like 'symathize', it's ugly and etymologically deeply silly, but it's been declared to be U.S. English (I know educated Americans who disagree, but they don't count here, unfortunately).
  2. More importantly, the question of the fallacy. An informal argument, especially, doesn't have to have a premise in the form explicitly of a universal generalisation; the following counts:
  • If someone's a communist then she believes in equality
  • Mary believes in equality
  • Therefore Mary's a communist.
The first premise is a conditional, but the argument is still a classic example of the fallacy.
  1. Besides, his argument is clearly fallacious, however you label it (and whether it's offered by him or by Richard Swinburne; do you have a preferred label? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:28, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm typing this in bed (yes, it has finally happened), so maybe I'm missing something, but why is that not an example of affirming the consequent, as Noetica wrote? The paragraph states that Demski argues, roughly: If there is a god, there is design. There is design. Therefore there is a god. SlimVirgin 09:54, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
I missed Noetica's reference to that (was it one of those long edit summaries?). Yes, I'm happy with that (we could call it modus (tollendo) tollens if we wanted to be pompous; that's how I learnt it, and it was such a relief to discover that there was a plain English name for it). In informal reasoning, the same error can often be assigned to more than one fallacy. If it makes people happy, I'll change the article accordingly. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:07, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't mind. We can name all the fallacies Dembski makes. In fact, we could create a separate article called William Dembski's formal and informal fallacies in Latin, American English, and British English. SlimVirgin
I was writing from memory, but here's what we say D. says: "He decided that, if God were the creator of the universe, then there should be order in the world, not randomness. As order is indeed visible in many aspects of biological organisms, this must be evidence of design, and evidence against the idea that random changes could have produced those organisms." That's not quite "if p then q; q, therefore p" but it is more or less, because we're saying that when he says there is evidence of design, he's implying there's necessarily a designer, and furthermore implying that the designer is God, perhaps as a matter of definition, so it ends up as affirming the consequent. Of course, it's also a tautology, because it reduces to: "If there's a god, there's a god." But as we're discussing logic, I must hasten to sleep before I make an embarrassing error if I haven't made one already. SlimVirgin 10:21, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Mel, and hi SlimVirgin (in bed). I was writing the following while you two were chatting, but I'll post despite its being somewhat overtaken by subsequent talk:
Mel, note first that I did only one revert. Then my question to you is this: why call the version to which you reverted "the last clean version"? Odd! The business with the barbarous spelling is understood, of course. We must accept these things. But why is a reference to undistributed middle "clean", and a reference that is more transparent and at least as circumspectly worded to affirming the consequent something other than "clean"? The argument under discussion is couched as follows (by someone or other):
If God were the creator of the universe, then there should be order in the world, not randomness. As order is indeed visible in many aspects of biological organisms, this must be evidence of design, and evidence against the idea that random changes could have produced those organisms.
Rendered more canonically, stripped of qualifications, accretions, and shifts in surface detail (some of which obscure the form), it surely amounts to this:
P1: If God were the creator of the universe, then there would be order in the world.
P2: There is order in the world.
C: God is the creator of the universe.
This is not an instance of undistributed middle. It is not even a categorical syllogism, of any sort. It is, plainly, an instance of the fallacy of affirming the consequent, which has this general form:
P1: If P then Q
P2: Q
C: P
I acknowledge that connexions can be found between the two kinds of fallacy at issue here; but I await your demonstration that my analysis is incorrect, and I await your detailed working to show that the argument is more informatively characterised as an instance of the fallacy of undistributed middle. The example you give concerning Mary and communism is not a sufficient demonstration, partly because it does not match closely enough the argument at issue.
My "clean" version of that argument does, in all relevant respects, reveal the structure in question, and that structure is affirming the consequent. (And in late news: no, it is NOT an instance of modus tollens! Revise your sentential logic, I suggest!) --Noetica 10:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(Because I'm in a hurry, I've just hit another edit conflict; I hope that this turns out OK.)
I am at the moment (or should be) rushing out of the door in order to try to make my first tutorial of the day, but is it enough to say that I've altered the text (with internal link)? (It may be that I missed something in your change; I thought that you'd merely removed the reference to the fallacy. I reverted only one change, but then saw in the edit history that you'd made two, which makes me wonder if there was some sort of edit conflict.) I'd be happy to discuss the relationship between affirming the consequent and undistributed middle, but when I can sit down and write unhurriedly. I hope we're agreed on the article's wording now, at any event. My apologies for any misunderstanding. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Your apologies are readily accepted, Mel! You edited in haste. In view of all this, I have taken the liberty of reverting to what I had put, which was not done in haste (with "analyzable" retained, of course). See my edit summary for my reason. --Noetica 10:51, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've just had a chance to look again, and it's worse than I'd thought; I have no excuse at all — no edit conflicts, no nothing. I just edited too hastily. Sorry. (I think, personally, that it's more straightforwardly an example of the fallacy than merely analysable as one, but that's not so important I suppose). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:55, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No problem at all, Mel! Such things can easily happen. An interesting article, with interesting discussion Catherine-wheeling its way quaquaversally from it. I'll watch this article; but since enough people have a stake in it already I'll do no editing. Whatever anyone says will not last anyway. Best wishes to you. --Noetica 13:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a long time since the last reply here but let me just say it's incorrect to characterize Dembski's argument as deductive, and thus to apply this fallacy to it. He explicitly argues in chapter 7 of Intelligent Design that this argument is not deductive but abductive, and inference to the best explanation. As such this criticism does not apply, he does nothing like the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Takumi4G63 16:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Templeton Foundation

A recent edit by User:138.130.192.82 ([1]) was accompanied by the edit summary "Reversed Templeton and Discovery Ins. because the former is not pro-ID". But the Foundation's website has this to say on its funding of research into Science and Religion:

http://www.templeton.org/science_and_religion/index.asp

The Foundation especially seeks to stimulate rigorous scholarly/scientific advances that increase understanding of the ultimate aspects of human purpose...

(Emphasis is mine).

On the same page, the Foundation's benefactor, Sir John Marks Templeton, is quoted as follows:

There is here no knockdown argument for design and purpose, but certainly there are strong hints of ultimate realities beyond the cosmos. One of the strongest hints, in our opinion, relates to the new understanding of the creativity of the cosmos, its capacity for so-called self-organization. ... From a theological perspective it is indeed tempting to see this remarkable self-organizing tendency as an expression of the intimate nature of the Creator's activity and identification with our universe.

To say that the Templeton Foundation is not strongly biased in favor of Intelligent Design would be, I suggest, to ignore the following facts:

  1. it is an organisation that promotes teleological explanations of human existence;
  2. it gives pride of place to its benefactor's strong statements in support of ID as a means of linking scientific findings and religious belief.

I'm returning the statement to its former order. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No way — Templeton is a theistic evolutionist, and has given the prizes to many evolutionists (e.g. Arthur Peacocke, Freeman Dyson. Of course he is a theist of some sort that believes that some sort of "god" is behind the universe, but behind the scenes, not by direct design as Dembski and the other IDers believe. Self-organization as you quoted is the antithesis of ID, which states that matter CANNOT organize itself into the complexity of life without intelligent input. The original edit seems reasonable 220.244.224.8 04:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment

The page on William A. Dembski is an obvious violation of the NPOV. Those overseeing this page are obvious secular Darwinians ready to slander Dr. Demski. [Comment by User:204.96.24.109, moved from top of page by Guettarda]

An exaggeration, but I have to admit there were some biased elements in the page, especially the "Darwin in a vise" image. I've removed these. If you have any more issues, list them here and we'll work it out. -- ChrisO

The "Darwin in a vise" stuff is still there.

I've removed the image from the article, and it's listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems as a probable copyright violation. -- ChrisO 21:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chris, Thank you for your comments. They are appreciated. Here are a few comments.

1) "His critics have accused him of dishonesty in his representation of scientific facts and writing" This may be a fact but it is a polemical fact and irrelevant to the profile. If you read any profiles of Darwinist, I doubt it is noted that “some scientists accuse Dr. X of being a blind/atheistic/liar”. That is a factual statement (the charge, not the truth of it) but it is prejudicial. And the link in this case shows how irrelevant -- and predictable -- the comment is. What some claim or charge and what reality is may be two different things, particularly in a hotly disputed area. The point really is irrelevant to the profile so please drop it.

See my comments below under "Comments on Mel Etitis' edit summary". -- ChrisO 21:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2) "his ideas are not accepted as valid by the mainstream scientific community" This again may be a fact but it prejudices the reader. How about putting it in context and saying "his ideas are not accepted as valid by the mainstream Darwinian community " or something to that effect. Really, without that context, the statement while "factual" is prejudicial.

The "mainstream Darwinian community" is the mainstream scientific community. Dembski is not an evolutionary biologist, and even outside the evolutionary biologist community ID is not widely supported. The pro-ID "petition" organized by the Discovery Institute has only 400 names on it, which is a tiny fraction of the total number of practising scientists in the US alone. -- ChrisO 21:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3) The account of the "Baylor University controversy" reads very one-sided and is designed to prejudice the reader. It is almost salacious in its representations. If you want specifics listed I can do that but I would think that any fair editor can go in and remove the salacious comments.

I wrote most of it, though it's been revised since. You can edit the article even without having a Wikipedia account (just hit the "edit this page" tab) so if you can think of a better way of describing it, go for it. -- ChrisO 21:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll give a further list later if you are interested.

Comments on anon's comments
His critics have accused him of dishonesty in his representation of scientific facts and writing - Scientists have to publish in peer-reviewed journal. Since Dembski won't subject his ideas to peer review, it's appropriate to comment on the factual inaccuracies in his work.
his ideas are not accepted as valid by the mainstream scientific community - Dembski claims the guise of science, but he won't publish in scientific journals. He claims to be a scientist, but that claim is not backup up by his actions.
The account of the "Baylor University controversy" reads very one-sided and is designed to prejudice the reader - look at the archives of the Talk page. The account is based on referenced facts. Dembski's apologists may want to put a differnt spin on things, but it is not Wikipedia's role to be a PR agency. Guettarda 17:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm at a loss as to why Dembski's own words and image are PoV — or is the claim that they're not really his? If so, what are the arguments on each side?
I'm not sure what is meant by "salacious" here. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comments on Mel Etitis' comments
"I'm at a loss as to why Dembski's own words and image are PoV". Did you see me make any reference to "Dembski's own words"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.96.24.109 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 18 Jun 2005

The edit to which I was responding involved the deletion of a section that included a quotation from Dembski. (Incidentally, could you sign your comments? If you don't it makes following a discussion very difficult. Use four tildes (~~~~; that inserts your name or IP address, and the date and time.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Guettarda's comments
"Since Dembski won't subject his ideas to peer review, it's appropriate to comment on the factual inaccuracies in his work." (a) While he may not have subjected his ideas to the formal process of peer review, it hasn't kept anyone from reviewing and commenting on his claims. (b) You are mistaking a polemical argument for the issues which are not even debated on this page.
"that claim is not backup up by his actions". Please cite a source for this preposterous claim. Please state the law which he's broken to disqualify him from being a scientist. Don't mistake your assertion for the law
"The account is based on referenced facts." You mean referenced claims and facts. It's one sided and prejudicial. Wikipedia's role is not to be a PR agency. Nor is it to be a slander outlet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.96.24.109 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 18 Jun 2005
  • "While he may not have subjected his ideas to the formal process of peer review, it hasn't kept anyone from reviewing and commenting on his claims. - precisely why it is appropriate to include these comments (of dishonesty).
  • Please cite a source for this preposterous claim (of Dembski not being a scientist). Scientists publish peer-reviewed science. If he refuses to publish, he is not participating in the process of science, so you can't call him a scientist.
  • I should not have said "references facts", I should have said "referenced sources". See the history of the Talk page. It's all been hashed out in the past. Feel free to counter those arguments, and explain why the sources are slanderous. Guettarda 18:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Scientists publish peer-reviewed science." What kind of nonsense is that? Look up "scientist" in wikipedia. Whoever made that stupid remard should resign from editing this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist 66.69.216.76 16:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I attacked the remark, not the person. Scientists working in the corporate world don't publish peer reviewed science. Your remarks are showing a lack of understanding of science and scientists. You therefore seem unqualified to edit an article about a scientist.

I changed "mainstream scientific community" to "many in the scientific community". The mainstream scientific community falsely implies almost all scientists and the fact of the matter is that few scientists have actually sit themselves down and studied Dembski's work which is prerequisite to valid acceptance or denial of it.

I also changed "in opposition to evolution and natural selection"  to "in addition to evolution and natural selection".  Nowhere in Dembski's work is there a hint that he doesn't accept some amount of descent with modification as being accomplished by Darwinian random mutation plus natural selection.  His only claim is that certain aspects of products of evolution carry evidence of design. 66.69.216.76 16:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look, it's an outright lie to say that Dembski's ID work is in opposition to evolution via natural selection. As far as Dembski is concerned design is a mechanism additional to, not a replacement for, random mutation + natural selection. Just ask him if you don't believe me. Shouldn't a scientist at least be able to define is his own position instead of some third party that obviously doesn't know better being allowed to define it for him? 66.69.216.76 16:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Scientists working in industry do publish in the peer-reviewed literature. Some of them are forbidden from doing so by their employers, but I suspect that you are confusing scientists, technicians and engineers. Nonetheless, failure to publish is failure to apply the scientific method.
  • Mainstream science rejects ID. Overwhelmingly. It isn't science. "Many in the scientific community" suggests something less than an overwhelming majority. Thus, it's misleading, twisting the article in order to mislead is not acceptable.
  • Shouldn't a scientist at least be able to define is his own position instead of some third party that obviously doesn't know better being allowed to define it for him? Apart from the fact that Dembski is not a scientist, this article should not be a PR vehicle for him. Dembski engages in a compex deception, and that deception and dishonesty has been widely documented. His reply to this is to shift his position a little (and so, contradict his former position, but he doesn't seem to be bothered by this; see Calvinball). Wikipedia cannot be party to this deception.
  • Calling me stupid is a personal attack. So is "You therefore seem unqualified to edit an article about a scientist". Please desist. Guettarda 17:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have an idea. How about if everyone who has actually published peer reviewed science please so state so we can separate who's really an expert and who isn't here. Here's some of my peer reviewed work. http://.com/5rxfs 66.69.216.76 17:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's a joke, right? A patent? Well, it fits. See bait and switch. Do you even know what science is? Guettarda 17:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ummm... isn't calling that a "joke" a personal attack on me by your definition? Physician, heal thyself. The scientific method does not include peer reviewed publication. Peer reviewed publication is an advancement criteria in academia. Scientists in industry advance by different criteria since profit motive usually precludes unprotected public disclosure. You do acknowledge that science and scientists are at work in private firms where protecting the profits that pay for the science is of utmost concern, right?

Regardless, Dembski's work does not deny natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism. I defy you to actually find a place in any of his work where he says that natural selection plays no role in evolution. If you do I'll gladly stop changing the fallacy you insist belongs in the article. Your bias is showing. Do the right thing and resign from editing this article. 66.69.216.76 18:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  1. Peer review is indeed part of the scientific process, as most recent philosophy of science brings out.
  2. With regard to commerce, I suspect that you're confusing science with technology — but in fact those scientists in commerce do indeed advance as scientists via peer review. As employees of their companies, they may advance in other ways, but that's not relevant here.
  3. Natural selection and unnatural selection are opposed; to claim that Dembski allows for natural selection and is thus not opposed to the modern biological theories to which the phrase refers is at best sophistic. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Using a patent application as evidence of a peer-reviewed publication is strange. Either it's a joke, or it is a deliberate attempt to mislead. I chose the former by way of assuming good faith (well, not good, but better, at least).
  • You have made no attempt to explain why you insist on inserting the word "many". It is misleading and inaccurate. Guettarda 18:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Someone appears to have blocked the IP address [66.69.216.76] from even reading wikipedia. This is denying many innocent users (school children!) access to wikipedia. I will henceforward use an alternate IP address that will only effect myself if blocked. Please remove the block on the other.

It appears the "in addition to" edit was accepted but in case that's temporary here are sources where Dembski explicitely acknowledges that evolution through natural selection is an operative mechanism. His position is that ID is an additional mechanism of change.

The following are documented cases of Dembski acknowledging evolution through natural selection in some cases. Therefore it is not accurate to say his notion ID is in opposition to evolution through natural selection. His position is that ID is a mechanism that works IN ADDITION TO to natural selection.

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm

Dembski: CONFIRMATION: What about positive evidence for intelligent design and Darwinism? From the design theorist's perspective, the positive evidence for Darwinism is confined to small-scale evolutionary changes like insects developing insecticide resistance. This is not to deny large-scale evolutionary changes, but it is to deny that the Darwinian mechanism can account for them. Evidence like that for insecticide resistance confirms the Darwinian selection mechanism for small-scale changes, but hardly warrants the grand extrapolation that Darwinists want. It is a huge leap going from insects developing insecticide resistance via the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection and random variation to the very emergence of insects in the first place by that same mechanism.

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.10.logicalunderpinningsofID.pdf

DEMBSKI: Intelligent design, by contrast, teaches that biological complexity is not exclusively the result of material mechanisms but also requires intelligence, where the intelligence in question is not reducible to such mechanisms. The central issue, therefore, is not the relatedness of all organisms, or what typically is called common descent. Indeed, intelligent design is perfectly compatible with common descent. Rather, the central issue is how biological complexity emerged and whether intelligence played an indespensible (which is not to say exclusive) role in its emergence.

I'll come back to mainstream science in separate discussion if the one about opposition to natural selection is now resolved. 66.61.146.2 19:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

P.S. This is off topic but those weren't patent *applications*. They are *granted* patents that were peer reviewed by experts at the U.S. Patent & Trademark office before going from application to grant. And it isn't strange if you're a computer scientist working for a $40B/year computer company interested in protecting its intellectual property from use by competitors. Academic scientists actually aren't very well respected by scientists outside academia. There's an old saw that goes "if you can do, teach". I mean no disrespect but I do want to point out in no uncertain terms that much science takes place outside academia and much of it doesn't get published. Even in academia a lot of science isn't published due to national security. A friend of mine is a scientist at UT working on advanced weapons systems for the gov't. If you think his work is published you have another think coming.

Great example of the ID method and why it is not science. When you cannot connect to Wikipedia you assume that you have been blocked from reading. When you switch IPs, you can connect. Thus, you have proof that you were blocked from even reading. Just like the IDers - find an explanation, and assume that it is the explanation. The scientific method would tell you to test alternate hypotheses. Of course, the rest of us who can't connect don't assume that the world revolves around us.
So I was right, bait and switch. Or maybe the Chewbacca Defense. Claim a peer reviewed pub - and show a patent. When the deception is pointed out, you take great offense that I called your approved patent a patent application (apologies for your bruised ego). Then you insult academic science, and go on to talk about defense contractors. So, Dembski isn't publishing in peer reviewed journals because of national security concerns. Now I see. We bow before your brilliance.
Chewbacca Defense. Guettarda 20:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I said ****appears**** to have been blocked. That leaves room for doubt. Your bias is showing again when you try to conflate that to an example of why ID is not science. Please do the right thing and resign from editing this article. Your POV is not at all objective.

RE "many in mainstream science" vs. "mainstream science". I would not object to "a majority in mainstream science", "most in mainstream science", etc. Science isn't a democracy and not all scientists reject Dembski's ID out of hand. So while a majority of those polled do reject ID clearly some do not.

Here are two National Academy of Science members chiming in on ID.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/005/377xndpp.asp

Paul McHugh

If Michael J. Behe, the cellular biochemist who wrote Darwin's Black Box, proposes that the complicated molecular mechanisms sustaining the integrity of the cell seem impossible to explain as the result of random variations, the president of the National Academy of Sciences counters by pronouncing, "Modern scientific views of the molecular organization of life are entirely consistent with spontaneous variation and natural selection driving a powerful evolutionary process." That is, he affirms the Darwinian narrative by restating it, not by offering compelling proof that it is true. Lots of views are consistent with the cell's complexity--including the view Behe explores, that an intelligent creator designed the cell to work. But cellular formation needs identified generative mechanisms, not simply a consistent narrative, to explain it--a problem both for those who call on Darwin and those who call on an "intelligent designer."

http://www.idurc.org/interviews/skell0605.htm

Phillip Skell

5. What are your thoughts on intelligent design? Are you moved at all by the evidence and arguments presented by ID theorists? Should it be taught in schools?

ID is a balance for rampant Darwinism. From a science point of view, neither should be taught in a science class. They are both best presented in a non-science class devoted to speculations on pre-history.

6. You recently wrote a letter to the Kansas State Board of Education expressing support for teaching criticism of neo-Darwinism. What drove you to write this letter?

If Darwinism is to be taught, both its criticisms and the alternatives should be linked.

Here is an article discussing results of Gallup polls comparing the results of evolutionary beliefs of scientists and other groups. I fail to see how it can honestly be said that mainstream science as a whole rejects ID when 40% of American scientists say God had a hand in it and 5% say God did it all! My compromise offer of "many in mainstream science" is clearly more honest and unbiased and still probably doesn't tell the whole truth of how big the minority of ID believers among scientists really is.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5319_many_scientists_see_god39s__12_30_1899.asp

Many Scientists See God's Hand in Evolution by Larry Witham

While most US scientists think humans are simply smarter apes, at least 4 in 10 believe a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness, a new survey shows. Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But 40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers include God in the process.

66.69.216.76 20:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hate to point out the obvious, but the world and the "mainstream scientific community does not just consist of scientists in the US. Such a fundamentalist Christian society like America's is bound to produce more people who believe in God's role. Wikipedia is for the world. Look outside your borders and you will find a vastly different picture than your survey shows.61.29.35.190 04:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, a mass of only vaguely related verbiage and obfustication. There is a huge gap between supporting a pseudoscience like ID and for attempting to reconcile your religious beliefs with the facts of evolution. As for citing anything out of the weekly standard - a source with negative creibility? Hundreds of words, no information in support of your idea. Sound familiar? Chewbacca Defense. And you still haven't provided a source for your claim that Dembski doesn't publish for reasons of national security - or is it to protect profit secrets? Or is it that he publishes his research in patent applications?
As for support - assuming that these people really are ID supporters, that amounts to <0.1% of the membership. So - you have three sources - one from an ID site (not exactly a reputable site) the National Review (an extreme right wing political publication which has limited credibility on any issue) and one quote from the NCSE - which you claim says what it does not say.
Obfusticate and bury under a mass of verbiage. You only prove my point. Chewbacca Defense. Guettarda 21:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems I'm the only one here willing to provide ANY cites to back up my claims. ID as Dembski defines it operates IN ADDITION TO evolution via natural selection. I have quoted him. You blithely ignore those quotes. All you do is try to defend by attacking the messenger. My only point about peer review is that it isn't part and parcel of the scientific method and you provided not a single link to back your claim that it is. Better get busy editing the Wiki entry on it if you think there's a fifth step

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Elements_of_a_scientific_method

1. characterization 2. hypothesis 3. prediction 4. experiment

I didn't claim Dembski doesn't publish because of national security or trade secret protection. I said that's why a lot of science doesn't get published in peer reviewed journals. Do the right thing and resign from editing this article. You are so biased you won't even acknowledge a link to the NCSE site.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5319_many_scientists_see_god39s__12_30_1899.asp

[snip]

Many Scientists See God's Hand in Evolution by Larry Witham

While most US scientists think humans are simply smarter apes, at least 4 in 10 believe a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness, a new survey shows. Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But 40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers include God in the process.

[end snip]

Are you willing to argue that "God" is not an intelligent agent? If not then it is reasonable to say that 40% of scientists believe that an intelligent agent had a hand in evolution. The thing about ID is that intelligent agents aren't necessarily "God". So while it's true that ID is rejected by a majority of the scientific community it is also true that a large minority accepts it. The Wiki article on Dembski does not reflect the fact that this large minority exists.

66.69.216.76 22:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dembski's and Behe's positions on ID are virtually identical yet the Wiki entry for Behe does not state he is in opposition to natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism. That's good because Behe does indeed acknowledge that natural selection is an evolutionary mechanism. He, like Dembski, assert that natural selection can't explain everything. In addition, his entry also states that most of the scientific community rejects IC. That's at least technically accurate although it still misleads as it doesn't pay homage to the size of the minority that does not reject it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

Why is there a discrepancy between Behe's page and Dembski's? It appears to me that materialist ideologists here are out gunning for Dembski or maybe they've just overlooked Behe. Do the right thing and resign from editing this article if you can't be objective about it.

66.69.216.76 23:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...let's see - you provide sources that say nothing. This whole argument has been hashed out here in the past - if youi are too lazy too look through the archives and the diffs, that's not my problem. There are cited sources in the article. You are citing Wikipedia as a source - it's not a valid external source for citations in Wikipedia articles. And you are parroting the same old talking points that we have heard over and over. You are repeating these citations that you chose to cite to mean something other than they say. You have shown that 0.1% of NAS members support ID (assuming that (i) your first source is telling the truth - big assumption, and (ii) that your second "NAS member" actually is - something that your source does not say...but you would know that if you hadn't just copied the same old talking points were have all heard ad nauseum.
As for Dembski not publishing for national security reasons - that is your point. Or did you just bring in unrelated material to pad your argument with meaningless verbiage (see Chewbacca Defense, since you have obviously either not read the article...unless you have read it and are trying to use it).
So, in what alternate reality is your patent application (oops, sorry, you approved patent) "peer reviewed science"? And in what alternate reality does the fact that defense contractors not publishin the literature have any bearing on Dembski's failure to publish? Guettarda 23:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On second thought do not feed the troll. Guettarda 23:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I strongly contest the objectivity of the Dembski article. If you wish to have a debate, then please go to the appropriate BB.

Comments on Mel Etitis' edit summary

My thoughts:
1) Saying that "he has been denounced" doesn't answer the key question of who has denounced him. The word "denounced" itself is excessively strong in my view (it carries connotations of criminal behaviour and/or treachery on the part of the person being denounced), hence my preferred alternative: his critics in the mainstream scientific community have accused him...
2) The phrase "has also been denounced some" is simply nonsense. I fixed it, so please don't break it again. :-)
3) Image:Darwin_in_a_vise.jpeg appears to be a copyright violation. It's taken from Dembski's blog but there is absolutely no indication either there or on Wikipedia that he's given permission for it to be redistributed. It's been listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. The caption is also pretty slanted, but as the image is going to be deleted anyway I'm not going to argue about that - no image, no caption. Can I ask people not to try restoring the image?
4) The sentence "As intellectual and legal setbacks for the intelligent design movement mount, Dembski has become increasingly hostile toward his scientific critics" is inherently POV; Dembski would no doubt disagree that ID is encountering setbacks or that he's becoming hostile towards his critics. His comments are a specific reference to the recent Kansas "kangaroo court" where pro-evolution scientists refused to testify, so citing them without explaining the context is also inherently POV. I've rewritten this to make the context clearer.-- ChrisO 21:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With regard to points 1 & 4 above: as I recall, one "denounce" was changed but not another, and it looked like little more than elegant variation; That Dembski would disagree with a characterisation of the status of his theory doesn't make that characterisation PoV. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protection

I've protected this against an anon IP's edits: as he was changing his IP address, there was no point in blocking him for 3RR. However, if any regular editor wants to resume editing, drop me a note on my talk page or e-mail me, or if I'm not around, ask another admin or leave a note on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:18, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dembski's religious affiliation

The article states that Dembski was raised Catholic (assume the Vatican). But there is a category at the bottom indicating Russian Orthodox. Can someone clear this up? (If the Orthodox affiliation is correct, then the Catholic label in isolation is misleading, even though Orthodox traditions also use the term.) --Blainster 21:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not necessarily contradictory - he could have been raised in the Uniate tradition (Orthodox rites but recognising the Pope's authority). -- ChrisO 21:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for a good technical response (your suggestion is one possibility), but the point remains that the article is in need of some clarification of this issue. --Blainster 05:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
This article/interview [2] may shed some light on Dembski's religious affiliation and influence:

"Dembski, who is 44 and has three children, grew up in the Chicago area as a Roman Catholic but said he did not take religion seriously until he was in college, when he and his parents had conversion experiences and began attending evangelical Protestant churches."

Mr Christopher 17:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Responses to criticism

Do we need this? At first I thought that it was OK, but then I saw that the examples are all Web-based — and fit the profile of most exchanges on the Web. If he'd written like this in print, it would have been noteworthy. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The response to Mark Perakh is web-based if by that you mean a blog. However, the response to Erik is a pdf file, available on line, which one would expect to be less strident. I think these are typical of Dembski's strident tone.--CSTAR 14:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Re:You thought it was OK? Excuse me, but that is Demsbski's modus operandi. Regarding "fair play" under a hypothetical "web standard", note Dembski has engaged in other more vicious attacks which I didn't include. For example, the attack on Wein's critique of NFL was painful to read, He began that attack by pointing out Wein had only a bachelor's degree "that's it" he said. --CSTAR 14:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, we're agreed that he's an unpleasant little man with silly ideas that appeal to bigots and a nasty manner when criticised. Is there anywhere where he shows this last quality in print, though? I'm not saying that it's essential, but it would be nice to have. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Concerning IC and SC

The validity of a particular theory should not be argued by you in an objective/encyclopedic article. If you wish to address concerns dealing with the validity of IC/SC, you should mention those sources that contest the validity and the grounds upon which they do so. Furthermore, from the literature that is out there, SC is not utterly dependant upon IC. Both arguments can stand on their own, though, as I said, the argument for ID seems a bit more convincing when both are implemented. Your statement is inaccurate in light of the material that is currently out there concerning both theories.

Again, according to the literature, SC can be used by itself to show that there may be an intelligent designer. It cannot be used to debunk evolution as a whole. It can only contest that evolution was by chance and not intelligence. When SC is added to IC, then evolution can be contested. If that is the point you're making, please make that clear and mention that it is in the current literature. Do not write it as if it is your own opinion, which is the way it was phrased the first time I read it.

(Note: I apologize for posting this entry in Mel Etitis' personal talk page. I am still unfamliar with wikipedia's site.)

You are right up to a point about the independence of IC and SC. However, the claim is usually made that Dembski's estimate of the ordinal complexity of the bacterial flageluum (e.g. Dembski's φ function) relies on IC. Now admittedly it is hard to see whether it makes any difference anyway, since Demsbki's computation is utterly preposterous. He ignores the asymptotic nature of complexity and as far as anybody knows his function φ could be completely trivial, e.g. not based on a real ordinal ranking of complexity but based on the default lexicographical ordering used to resolve ties.--CSTAR 15:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your point and was aware the SC USUALLY is used in conjunction with IC in the manner you described. However, in the general literature it is not ALWAYS. Consequently, to say that SC stands or falls on IC is an inaccurate statement by Mel Etitis.

My main problem with Mel Etitis' original segment is the unqualified and simplistic rendering of the two theories' relationship. I like objectivity, despite how distasteful it may be to the writer. Poor, and in this case, erroneous scholarship is never acceptable.

In this TALK forum, such statements can/should be made and I would have no objection. In fact, I would applaude it. However, in an article that is trying to be objective, Mel Etitis' segment is out of line.

  1. Please sign your posts. Without signatures it makes it very difficult to follow a discussion thread.
  2. Would you be willing to reword your edit in the article taking into account some of what I said above (obviously I don't expect you to put in my comment about his calculation being "preposterous")

--CSTAR 17:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. Please forgive me for the lack of knowledge about discussion in TALK. Good idea. I'll re-edit the segment with your recommendations sometime this week. And, of course, I'll leave your opinions out. ;) BTW, how do you insert the time each comment is written. --NOWEEK 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, my remark about the possible triviality of the φ function is not just a personal opinion. You are technically correct only about the independence of the definition of SC from IC, but not in regards to any purported computation of SC.--CSTAR 19:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  1. You "sign" by adding four tildes (~~~~); that automatically adds your Userr name (linked to your User page) and the date and time. You can alter the appearance of your signature via the preferences page (see top right of the page, third link from the right).
  2. It's not my statement; I reverted the removal of it because the removal of text from a controversial article, without discussion on the Talk page, should always be avoided.
  3. I've reinstated the removed text again until some agreement can be reached. It's clear from CSTAR's comments here that consensus hasn't yet been reached. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Two things: (1) CSTAR: I did not mean your inclusion of φ was your opinion. I meant your comment about the "triviality" of it was your opinion. I was commenting on your own admission that such a statement was an opinion. It was a joke.

(2) Mel Etitis: Thanks for the singing tips. As for the deletion/addition of the segment...well, I'll leave it be. Though a consensus has not been reached, it is clear from the discussion that SC and IC are not compeletely dependent upon each other as seems to be the point of the segment. This would make the segment inaccurate, and thus not worthy of inclusion in an objective article by what is generally understood as good scholarship. Noweek 22:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


It is a simple matter of logic that for any unique charactistic to be genuinely "specifically complex" it would have to be "irreduciably complex" first. When Dembski applies his mathematical arguments to actual biological systems he makes essential use of Behe's claim that irreducibly complex systems can not evolve gradually. Specifically, in his "Complex Specified Information" Dembski states that he applies the phrase "discrete combi-natorial object" to any of the biomolecular systems which have been identified by Michael Behe as being "irreducibly complex."

Ignoring for a moment that Dembski confuses 'improbable' with 'impossible,' to follow Dembski's reasoning he must first show any trait he claims is indeed improbable and thus complex in his reasoning. I suggest a read through Elsberry's and Shallit's analysis of SC for a more in depth understanding of why SC rests on IC: [3] and Fitelson's, Stephens', and Sober's "How Not to Detect Design*" [4]. FeloniousMonk 22:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

FeloniusMonk is obviously not familiar with the "general literature." There are various takes on the relationship between SC and IC. You can argue and you can cite authors that argue SC and IC are utterly dependant upon each other; however, you must not ignore that other authors have come to differing conclusions. You may see these authors as dim wits, but some of them come with prodigious and recognized credentials. Their opinions are seen as worth recognizing even by many who disagree. I'm not saying we must include any and every possible angle. There are always crack-pots in any field. However, when the voice of dissent is significant, even though it's false, it should still be mentioned. This is the method behind writing aritcles like this. SC has been applied without any reference to IC in various articles that I remember reading. I will go look them up when I have time. You may see a connection; however, you are not the sole authority. Even if you are convinced, you cannot ignore the other takes. Thus, both sides, especially on an issue that generates so much debate, must be represented. If you think this is not true, then you are obviously ignorant as to how to write encyclopedic articles. If you want to argue your case, do so in the appropriate forum. This talk forum is fine, but not in the general article. For information's sake, we need to edit the segment with an ACCURATE representation as to what is in the whole of the literature. I don't particularly care about IC or SC being dependant upon each other. If they are, they are. But that's not what everyone is saying. I just can't stand SHODDY scholarship. Noweek 23:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

First of all, no personal attacks in the form ad-hominem arguments. Saying "X" is not familiar with "Y" is a personal attack it adds nothing to the argument. My favorite exmaple is Talk:Bell's theorem, where I was continually attacked by the same kind of argument. See crackpot index.
Re: You may see these authors as dim wits, but some of them come with prodigious and recognized credentials.
Irrelevant; I certainly haven't said he is a dimwit, although one needs to be careful what says about Dembski, because it may end up as an endorsement of his book. (Poor Persi Diaconis will have to live with his being cited — as a famous statistics prof member of the NAS with positions in Cornell, Harvard and Stanford who wrote in a perosnal note to Dembski that he was surprised to find out he wrote as well he did. )
Re:SC has been applied without any reference to IC in various articles that I remember reading. That's your opinion. If someone writes a proof ignoring an assumption, and it's pointed out in the literature that this assumption is needed, it's a well-known error. You don['t get to make the call because you read an account that didn't use it.
I'm glad you hate shoddy scholarship. So do I.
--CSTAR 01:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Sarcasm is an attack as well (i.e. your statements on how Dembski may use personal attacks as endorsements for his books and your closing statement in the last post). It’s passive-aggressive, though still direct. Does that make your statement okay? I apologize for my statement that FeloniusMonk is “unfamiliar with the general literature.” There is no way that I know that. That was a lapse in my judgement. However, I do know that I kept my statements direct without being passive-aggressive.

From the literature I've read, it has been argued that SC can stand alone. It is not the mere exclusion of a necessary assumption. The explanatory filter has been used simply to try to detect intelligence. It is not always used as means to debunk evolution. Even though Dembski might have done it this way, modifications can be made when other scientists run with it. It does not have to be an error. Some theorists have found that SC can stand independently from the IC assumption. I have not kept up with the literature as of late; however, a some years back, I read several articles (plural) indicating such. However, because I don’t have time to rummage through the websites and reread many of the articles to find these particular articles to cite them, I will keep from insisting on the change of the segment. Noweek 01:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The statement about Dembski's endorsements may have been sarcastic although (a) It is true and (b) it was not directed at you. I don't know what you refer to as my closing statement in the last post. I have not used sarcasm anyplace in this page that I can remember, although, admittedly, I did use a lot of it in Talk:Bell's theorem since I had exhausted all rational arguments.--CSTAR 02:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The "closing statement" I was referring to occurs where you say, "I'm glad you hate shoddy scholarship. So do I."

Whoa!, how could that possibly be sarcastic? You seem to have set yourself up to be a guardian of good scholarship by your remark. Well that's possible and fine by me, but why shouldn't I make a similar claim? If anything you could have accused me of making a trite rejoinder, but calling my remark sarcastic is odd.--CSTAR 02:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You can make a similar claim about scholarship. No problem. Also, you may call what your wrote a trite rejoinder, but you can see how I could have taken it as sarcastic? Taken a certain way, it could be seen as quite mocking. If, however, you didn't mean it to be sarcastic, that's cool. Noweek 04:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, Noweek is no stranger to trite rejoinders himself, I see from his recent posts here, but all this, while slightly amusing in a banal sort of way, is getting pretty far afield from the topic which is if SC is dependent on IC. I'll let Dembski's own words suffice to prove it is. In his book No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence, Dembski states on page 115: "Ultimately what enables irreducible complexity to signal design is that it is a special case of specified complexity... Moreover, in virtue of the function, these systems embody independently given patterns that can be identified without recourse to actual living systems. Hence these systems are also specified. Irreducible complexity is thus also a special case of specified complexity." And on 144: "It is CSI that Michael Behe has uncovered with his irreducibly complex biochemical machines (see chapter 5)." Though this evidence puts to rest the claim that Dembski's SC is not built upon Behe's IC, I predict Noweek will choose to ignore or explain away this evidence. That's his choice, but he shouldn't expect others here to follow his example or find it compelling. FeloniousMonk 15:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why we have to continue to be so mean though. I apologized for my initial attack. And I sincerely mean it. Can we not keep this friendly?

What you quoted does not the least bit refute my initial contention. I stated that SC is not dependant upon IC, not the other way around. Notice Dembski's own words, "Irreducible complexity is thus also a special case of specified complexity." Simple logic should clear this up. Because IC is a case of SC (which I fully accept and no where did I indicate otherwise), does not mean that SC is dependant upon IC. IC is simply an example of SC. If SC is a set, IC is an element found in this set. Dependancy is not claimed. If, however, SC is to be used to refute evolution, it will need the help of IC. But as I pointed out before, SC is not always used for that purpose. 68.165.142.106 19:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

As I said. Have you read No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence, or Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology ? If not, you should before making this claim.
Regardless of whether Dembski, nearly half a decade after Behe introduced IC, BTW, claims that IC is a special case of SC instead of acknowledging the actual relationship of IC to SC, the fact remains that SC in its proposed application to biology it is nothing but an addendum to Behe's ideas. Dembski makes essential and explicit use of Behe's claim that irreducibly complex systems can not evolve gradually. It is no exaggeration at all to say that Dembski's work contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion of evolution and intelligent design, much less the refutation of evolution. Dembski is explicit that SC is key to refuting evolution; its only use is for that purpose. There is no other practical or theoretical application for SC/CSI. FeloniousMonk 20:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Dembski is explicit that SC is key to refuting evolution; its only use is for that purpose. - In the book Mere Creation, Dembski gives an example of specified complexity regarding the case of Nicholas Caputo rigging ballots and claiming that his selection methods were random. In The Design Revolution he says:
Specified complexity, as I develop it, incorporates five main ingredients:
  • a probabilistic version of complexity applicable to events
  • conditionally independent patterns
  • probabilistic resources, which come in two forms: replicational and specificational
  • a specificational version of complexity applicable to patterns
  • a universal probability bound
Then he goes on to clarify each of those five bullets. Some of the examples of specified complexity he gives in this chapter include: opening a combination lock, an archer shooting arrows at targets, drawing a royal flush, sequences of coin tosses, and what researchers at SETI are looking for as a sign of intelligence from outer space. Where does he say that SC is only relevant to evolution? David Bergan 21:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I was going to reply with the simple SETI example to refute FeloniusMonk's absolute claim that there is no theoretical or pracitcal application of SC, but DBergan has done a much better job. Noweek 21:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I've read Mere Creation, and Dembski's points are a non sequitur. SETI is not actually using any of Dembski's computations or methods. That Dembski claims that what he specifically proposes is useful is not proof enough. As I said, there is no other practical or theoretical application for SC/CSI yet shown. FeloniousMonk 21:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I've read Mere Creation, and Dembski's points are a non sequitur. - Isn't it convenient that you get to declare things that refute your claim as non sequitur? Since you have the book, show us why the Caputo example isn't an application of SC. David Bergan 21:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
As the one making the claims (that SC is not dependent upon IC, SC is a valuable set of calculations), the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why others should accept your claims, something to you, like Dembski, have failed to do. A theoretical application's value is in it's potential practical applications. That being so, you could start by providing us one instance where SC is being used outside of Dembski and his fellow ID peddlers. FeloniousMonk 22:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
The claim for Caputo's situation being an example of SC is outlined in the book Mere Creation in the chapter that Dembski wrote. You said you have the book, so it isn't worth our time for me to type the chapter out. Yes, I do have the burden of proof, but my case (which is Dembski's case) is right there. Unless you rebut the example, it stands as an application of SC in a non-evolutionary context. David Bergan 01:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Are you serious? Have you actually read this book? Read pg. 94-100. Nowhere does it say that the court actually used SC. What it does say is that Dembski believes SC can distinguish between two possible explanations both involving the actions of a conscious being: either Caputo drew the ballots fairly or he cheated. Dembski only offers Caputo as an example of how SC could be applied, not that it was applied, and so far there's few, if any takers of his pitch. Again, there is no other practical or theoretical application for SC/CSI yet shown. FeloniousMonk 02:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Dembski only offers Caputo as an example of how SC could be applied, not that it was applied - I agree. Thanks for pointing this out. They did not explicitly invoke Dembski's theory (they couldn't, the Caputo incident happened before Dembski wrote his book), but they did invoke it implicitly. The methodology they used was identical to Dembski's design inference based on specified complexity. So if the case happened to come up again tomorrow, they could use it explicitly this time around. The design inference could be applied to all sorts of inorganic examples, all of which are a thousand miles from evolution. You are (implicitly) using it right now when you read this string of letters and assume there is an intelligence on the other side... one whom you have never met, and for all you know could be extra-terrestrial... or supernatural. But you come to that conclusion by ruling out the other two possible means of causation: natural law (impossible) and random letter selection (massively improbable). And making this conclusion based on this string of text has absolutely nothing to do with irreducible complexity.
As for examples of "applications" where SC is explicitly invoked... I can't think of any besides the preceeding paragraph. Have a good night FeloniousMonk. David Bergan 06:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
"The methodology they used was identical to Dembski's design inference based on specified complexity." We only have your's and Dembski's word for that. No one else makes this claim or connection.
"The design inference could be applied to all sorts of inorganic examples, all of which are a thousand miles from evolution." But is it? We have yet to see one example of SC being used in a practical application outside of Dembski's attempts to apply it. And again, considering the utter indifference to SC found in the many communities for which Dembski claims SC has practical applications, no one but fellow ID proponents appear to be buying what Dembski is selling here.
"You are (implicitly) using it right now when you read this string of letters and assume there is an intelligence on the other side..." You're claiming we're implicitly using SC when we read this page? No. We are making a natural and rational assumption. There's nothing being done by the readers of this page that even resembles the hallmarks of SC. No one is applying Specified Complexity in reading these pages. FeloniousMonk 17:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

DBergan has shown clearly how the explanatory filter, which Dembski uses to detect SC, is used everyday, even in the reading of an article. Now, you can disagree that the explanatory filter is able to actually do this. However, you cannot disagree that Dembski does claim that SC does have theoretical and practical implications beyond biology. Of course, you can contest the validity of Dembski's claim. However, if you are going to contest the validity of his claim, in an encyclopedic article you need to represent his original claim intact. You cannot just say that SC's validty is dependant upon IC because you feel it is so. You need to take into account the original author's understanding when proving or disproving his point. Either prove it or disprove it and show how you did it step by step, but don't make a blanket statement because you yourself have come to that conclusion. That's not the best way to faithfully represent any person/place/idea in a factually and historical sensitive article that claims to be objective. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you leave it out.

I took the time to go through some of my past readings on SC. As I stated before, I remember clearly that SC is used outside of the context of biology. Here are Dembski's own words. I do hope this can put this issue to rest.

The third stage of the Explanatory Filter therefore presents us with a binary choice: attribute the thing we are trying to explain to design if it is specified; otherwise, attribute it to chance. In the first case, the thing we are trying to explain not only has small probability, but is also specified. In the other, it has small probability, but is unspecified. It is this category of specified things having small probability that reliably signals design. Unspecified things having small probability, on the other hand, are properly attributed to chance.

The Explanatory Filter faithfully represents our ordinary practice of sorting through things we alternately attribute to law, chance, or design. In particular, the filter describes how copyright and patent offices identify theft of intellectual property

how insurance companies prevent themselves from getting ripped off

how detectives employ circumstantial evidence to incriminate a guilty party

how forensic scientists are able reliably to place individuals at the scene of a crime

how skeptics debunk the claims of parapsychologists

how scientists identify cases of data falsification

how NASA's SETI program seeks to identify the presence of extra- terrestrial life, and

how statisticians and computer scientists distinguish random from non-random strings of digits.

Entire industries would be dead in the water without the Explanatory Filter. Much is riding on it. Using the filter, our courts have sent people to the electric chair. Let us now see why the filter works.

I do not know how to cite on the web using links, so here's the original source in detail. This segment was taken from William Dembski's Article "The Explanatory Filter: A three-part filter for understanding how to separate and identify cause from intelligent design" written in 1996. If someone wants to reformat the citing of the source, please do so. -- Noweek 15:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

What you are talking about is statistical hypothesis testing which is quite old and predates Dembski by about a hundred years. To claim that it's the same thing as Dembski's explanatory filter is simply wrong.--CSTAR 16:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Correct. Noweek's claim that Dembski's explanatory filter is widely used is specious. Noweek is conflating or confusing SC for common statistical analysis; the two are not the same thing. FeloniousMonk 17:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the statistical analysis CSTAR mentioned does predate Dembski. Dembski, however, does say it is an example of what SC is. It is not I who is making this claim. Dembski is. Remember, we are not arguing about whether Dembski is correct or not in the usage of SC. We are focusing on what he has said it is. Let's not stray from the discussion. FeloniusMonk, if you read the previous entry, it is not I who is conflating anything. These are Dembki's words. Please be sure you address the correct source (i.e. me or Dembski) when making your arguments. Noweek 18:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

CSTAR writes: To claim that [statistical hypothesis testing] the same thing as Dembski's explanatory filter is simply wrong. I will use Dembski's own words to refute CSTAR. Dembski writes: The Explanatory Filter faithfully represents our ordinary practice of sorting through things we alternately attribute to law, chance, or design. In particular, the filter describes... I don't how else to take that but as Dembski saying the Explanatory Filter represents the statistical method CSTAR metions. You may disagree with Dembski. That's fine. But, again, for the sake of the article, we're trying to get at Dembski's understanding of those concepts and how they should be applied, no? Noweek 18:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Well what you've just shown is that Dembski makes the claim that SC is a particular case of statistical hypothesis testing (and BTW not the other way around as you said above). So what? It is preposterous to claim that SETI or forensic science are based on SC or even as DBergan seems to be suggesting (I'm not sure he's really serious), that my reading this page is somehow a use of SC. To prove this, go to your local university library and do a mathsci.net search for specified complexity or CSI as Elsberry and Shallit did in 2003 and reported in their paper.--CSTAR 18:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
PS. Here is the quote from Elsberry and Shallit's paper p14 (see the main article for a URL)
A 2002 search of MathSciNet, the on-line version of the review journal Mathematical Reviews, turned up 0 papers using any of the terms “CSI”, “complex specified information”, or “specified complexity” in Dembski’s sense. (The term “CSI” does appear, but as an abbreviation for unrelated concepts such as “contrast source inversion”, “conditional symmetric instability”, “conditional statistical independence”, and “channel state inversion”.)

Otherway around or not, Dembski does correlate SC and STH, which is my point. Again, CSTAR you are straying from the discussion. We are trying to see what Dembski thinks of SC and its application. The example Dbergan used about reading text being an example of SC is one that Dembski uses all the time. (See the 1999 article by Dembski, "Signs of intelligence") Also, to address FeloniusMonk's previous rebuttal of the Caputo example being how SC "could" be used instead of "is" used, read the following words taken from the 1996 article by Dembski I mentioned previously: To see how the filter works in practice, consider the case of Nicholas Caputo (emphasis, mine).

Also, CSTAR's reference to Elsberry and Shallit's paper proves only that the terms SC and CSI are not used. That does not mean the methods used by the authors of the papers they searched are not what Dembski describes as examples of SC. Noweek 19:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

You mean statisticians have been using and continue to use SC without realizing it? I think by now at least one of them would have caught on and pointed to the fact that Dembski's SC is just STH, if indeed it were true. And also as to the point of this discussion: It was not at least originally, about what Dembski thinks of SC. It was whether SC can calculate anything non-trivial without assuming IC. The argument pro that I can glean from the above goes as follows: Since Dembski claims SC is a special case of STH (or vice-versa, or something — nobody seems to know exactly) and STH is used in forensics (viz Caputo) then SC has been used in forensics. Therefore SC has applicability independently of IC. Is that it?--CSTAR 20:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Continuation

Exactly. I'm not saying Dembski is right. I'm just saying that's what he's claiming SC to be. He says that SC (apart from IC) can do more than detect intelligence in biology. The original point of contention was whether SC can stand independently of IC. We've shown that Dembski believes it can be. Yes, we may see it as trivial or simply an example of STH, but what we do see is that there are cases where Dembski's definition of what SC is can possibly be applied elsewhere. That's all I'm saying. Thus, the point that SC is utterly dependant upon IC is false. Maybe when it comes to critiquing evolution it needs IC, but not when it comes to its use in forensics or whatever. Yes, maybe SC is just STH in disguise. The point is, if SC is STH in disguise, then SC as Dembski sees it is being applied outside of biology. Noweek 20:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

But noweek, this argument is clearly flawed. OK we at least agree on what Dembski is claiming and I think we also agree that he can claim whatever he wants without it being true. For example, if he claims "SC is used in forensics" it does not follow that SC is used in forensics. Therefore one cannot prove a fact about what is true about the relation between IC to SC from Dembski's claim about SC. The counterclaim was that Dembski's estimate of SC of Flagellum relies on IC because one needs to assume evolution is like a symmetric random walk (e.g. all displacements equally likely). This is part and parcel of IC.--CSTAR 22:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
PS Here is a quaote from Elsberry and Shallit (p 37) regarding my remarks above:
Specification is just one half of specified complexity; Dembski must also show matching the specification is improbable and thus complex in his framework. To do so, he ignores the causal history and falls back on a uniform probability approach, calculating the probability of the flagellum’s origin using a random assembly model. Biologically his calculations verge on the ridiculous, since no reputable biologist believes the flagellum arose in the manner Dembski suggests. Further, even if an E. coli flagellum appeared according to the chance causal hypothesis Dembski proposes, it would not establish a heritable trait of flagellar construction in the lineage of E. coli, and thus is under no account an evolutionary hypothesis. Dembski justifies his approach by appealing to the flagellum’s “irreducible complexity”, a term coined by fellow intelligent-design advocate Michael Behe. But Dembski ignores the fact that sequential evolutionary routes for the flagellum have indeed been proposed [77]. True, such routes are speculative and not as detailed as one would like. Nevertheless, they seem far more likely than Dembski’s random assembly model.
--CSTAR 02:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

CSTAR, your argument is right on. First, you are right, what Dembski "claims" about SC cannot be used to prove what is or is not true about the relation between IC and SC. Second, you are also right in that since IC takes evolution to be like a symmetric random walk, SC does depend upon the validity of IC. I will concede to your argument.

However, let me explain the thinking behind my arguments. My problem with IC is that the examples Behe and others have used as examples of irreducible complexity are not very convincing. I believe many of these, if not all, could have evolved gradually. So, you can see why I would not want SC in its current formulation to be dependant upon the current examples of IC. However, at this point we deal with another problem. I believe Dembski's mistake with SC and his application of it to IC is that if IC mechanisms are shown to have evolved gradually, even though the probability of them having done so is extremely low, then SC's ability to detect design is suspect (though, possibly at even lower probabilities, it may function). I do, however, believe that there is some merit to IC and SC in general. Here I must expose my own bias. I personally believe (via historical/philosophical/cosmological arguments, not biological) that there is a Creator. I also believe there was a beginning to the universe which was initiated by this Creator. Consequently, it is my belief that there may be, at this point in time, a causal gap where we simply cannot understand how certain things could have been created other than by a detectable intelligence. (This gap does not have to be there, for maybe the Creator created in a gradualist and humanly comprehensible fashion...but if there were to be a gap, the most likely place would be here.) These things, if they exist, would be both irreducible, specified, and complex. However, it is possible that these things do not exist at all and that intelligence detection must incorporate theories beyond the scope of SC and IC.

But as SC and IC are currently debated, SC is therefore still dependant upon IC; however, IC is much more palatable and convincing when better examples are used. Of course, these examples are probably out of our investigative reach, and thus will probably make discussion between people who believe in God and don't believe in God unproductive (unless, other fields of knowledge and understanding are brought into the discussion). So, in conclusion, my mistake is that I did not want SC to be dependant upon the current examples of IC, because I do not believe the current examples of IC ultimately to be examples of IC.

Please do accept my apologies for making our discussion longer than it had to be. It's been years since I talked to anyone about ID. Yes, it's an excuse, but I'm not as sharp on the uptake and the output as I used to be. Nevertheless, for me, it has proven to be a healthy exercise. I do believe I have been made sharper through the experience. As for commenting on this last post...well, let's try not to if we could (it'll lead the discussion far afield). I was not posing an argument at all. I was simply exposing my personal beliefs and biases as to why I pursued this debate. Blessings to all. Noweek 14:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Links

As this is an article about Dembski, not about ID, is the huge section of links appropriate?

You're quite right, it isn't. I've reduced it to only those items which are actually by or about Dembski or his work. -- ChrisO 23:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

That looks slimmer and more to the point, I've changed the headings for the subsections, but I'm not sure about the first; what would be better than "defending"? "Endorsing" doesn't seem right. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


The "pro and con" format for links is a bit constricting. Not all links or information lean one way or another. For instance Demsbki makes his course materials available from his design inference web site and I think they shed some light on the kind of "science" Dembski teaches at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary but what category would those belong in? Pro or con? I think a simpler format for links is in order and a brief description of each would be an appropriate place to designate them as "pro" or "con"

These are all PDF files:

Mr Christopher 18:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon deletion

Anon IP 12.220.209.203 has made, and continues to make unjustified changes to the article. There are many changes, which that user didn't discuss nor provide an edit summary for, as well as being innapropriate. For example, that user seems intent onkeeping Dembski's theologian status under the covers, as it were, as well as deleting the claim that the scientific community (or the vast majority in the scientiic community) consider his work pseudo-science.--CSTAR 14:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Am I the only one...

...who thinks the "Defending Dembski" and "Criticizing Dembski" sections are superfluous? Dante (Δαντε) 05:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

No, you are not the only one. Mr Christopher 18:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

... or who thinks that the paragraph on Princeton Theological Review in the Biography section gets bogged down in unimportant details? Mrand 17:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Misinformation

Wow, I came looking for an information page on William Dembski, instead I came across a very cleverly disguised anti-Intelligent Design page. Honestly, no matter how subtle, it's very obvious to anyone who knows the debate that a large chunk of this information has the slant of discrediting Dembski and ID.

For example: I have to laugh when I saw that someone posted that Dembski's critiques are always polemical, and gave these few internet examples. Hmmm...did this person forget that Dembski wrote an entire book that consisted entirely of responses to objections, The Design Revolution?

And there is just misinformation. Who in the world wrote that Specified Complexity depends for its validity on Irreducible Complexity? That's so completely backwards it's hard to know where to start. SC is about information, IC is about biological machines. Do some research before posting in an encyclopedia!

And the clever bit about ID not being published in any peer-reviewed journals. That's just false. There are many that have been published today. You can find ten here:[5]

And whoever tried to cleverly argue that The Design Inference really doesn't make any kind of relevant argument for Intelligent Design for the sole reason that he doesn't mention any actual examples does not realize that the main premise if ID is that CSI is detectable and it is a mark of design - anyone familiar with the debate knows this is the crucial point of the theory.

How about we try to make this page ACCURATE and INFORMATIVE rather than an anti-Dembski, anti-ID page.


On a different note, about all that business that Dembski affirms the consequent. That's false and I can prove it. Dembski's argument does not take anything like the form you imply: (1)If God, then design. (2)Design. (3)Therefore, God.

If you had read chapter 7 in Intelligent Design, Dembski explicitly argues against the necessity of this kind of logic (deductive) in providing justification. Instead he argues for abductive argumentation, or inference to the best explanation. The kind of logic you attribute to him he explicitly denies. Dembski has a Ph.D in philosophy...you may want to consider that before charging him with making such an elementary fallacy.

His argument is very roughly that given theism, one would expect design, so theism is a good explanation. There is no fallacy there. It is inference to the best explanation.Takumi4G63 16:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply to misinformation

I am going to reply to just one of the comments that Takumi4G63 made above. This user wrote the following:

And the clever bit about ID not being published in any peer-reviewed journals. That's just false. There are many that have been published today. You can find ten here:[6]

I decided to check out one of the so called ten examples. I picked one from a journal that looked respectable. All ten can be found starting at page 28 from the "Expert witness report: The scientific status of intelligent design. by William Dembski" in the quoted link. Each reference is cited with a short summary of how that particular citation supports intelligent design:

The peer reviewed ID article I decided to read was:

W.-E. Loennig & H. Saedler, "Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements" Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.
Dembski's annotation below:
This article examines the role of transposons in the abrupt origin of new species and the possibility of a partly predetermined generation of biodiversity and new species. The authors' approach is non-Darwinian, and they cite favorably the work of Michael Behe and William Dembski. (bold comments are addressed below)

First, this review does not seem to be as described as it is NOT an article about ID at all. It does, however, cite two ID books that have been published (not peer reviewed). The two books cited are:

  • Ref 5. Behe M. _1996. Darwin's Black Box. New York: Free Press.307 pp.
  • Ref 33. Dembski WA. _2002. No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.404 pp.

The review concerns the "longstanding differences between molecular biology and paleontology as to the phylogenetic relationships and times of origin of many different plant and animal groups"

The paleontological view is "the abrupt appearance and stasis (morphological constancy) for the overwhelming majority of life forms in Earth's history" This "phenomenon led in the 1970s to the theory of punctuated equilibrium".

The molecular view (and neo-Darwinian) "continuous evolution".

One section of the review "focuses on possible TE-mediated chromosome rearrangements" and their likelihood of causing an "abrupt appearance of biodiversity and new life forms". Note: This this nothing to do with intelligent design.

The review focuses on a quote from German paleontologist Otto H. Schindewolf:

"According to Darwin's theory, evolution takes place exclusively by way of slow, continuous formation and modification of species: the progressive addition of ever newer differences at the species level results in increasing divergence and leads to the formation of genera, families, and higher taxonomic and phylogenetic units. Our experience, gained from the observation of fossil material, directly contradicts this interpretation. We found that the organizing structure of a family or an order did not arise as the result of continuous modification in a long chain of species, but rather by means of a sudden, discontinuous direct refashioning of the type complex from family to family, from order to order, from class to class. The characters that account for the distinctions among species are completely different from those that distinguish one type from another." Schindewolf OH. _1993. Basic Questions in Paleontology. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.467 pp.

I think it is this paragraph that gets the special creation advocates excited but this has nothing to do with special creation. This is a legitimate biological debate that is considering the RATE of evolution. Not whether evolution happened or not. In the case of this review they are specifically discussing the role that transposable elements may have had in causing massive genomic changes, aka as "genomic shock", that could explain a fast rate of evolution. One think for sure is that, in Dembski's words "The authors' approach is non-Darwinian," is completely false. It is Darwinian, just not neo-darwinian. The theory of evolution is not on trial in this review they are discussing the mechanisms of evolution.

So what is the context is the reference to the Dembski and Behe books? Here is the context for each cite. The following is a direct quote from the review:

"[[[Barbara McClintock|McClintock]]'s "genomic shock"] hypothesis is intrinsically attractive and a promising possibility that warrants further investigation. However, if all the proof that is still lacking to substantiate her view on the origin of species were available, would that also give us the mode of origin of the higher systematic categories and types of life referred to by Schindewolf? To be more specific: If so, to what extent can any of the TE-incited rearrangements contribute to the origin of novel genes and new gene reaction chains as well as the genesis of irreducibly complex structures? All three of these may be especially relevant for the origin of higher systematic categories (3, 4, 5, 33, 69, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 121, 122, 130)."

This quote seems to challenge the conclusions that might be in the Behe book or the Dembski book. The specific challenge comes from the following sentence "TE-incited rearrangements contribute to the origin of novel genes and new gene reaction chains as well as the genesis of irreducibly complex structures". It looks to me as if the authors are implying that there does NOT need to be a designer for irreducibly complex structures to emerge. This is a far cry from how Dembski interprets the citation "they cite favorably the work of Michael Behe and William Dembski."

In short, I have looked at one of the ten peer reviewed ID articles and it is bogus to claim that is supports ID. Even more amazing is that this is regarded as one of the ten BEST examples of intelligent design in a peer reviewed journal by supporters of intelligent design. I have not looked at the other nine since it took me ages to review this. I would not be surprised to find if they too are not real examples of intelligent design being endorsed by science. David D. (Talk) 00:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply to David

Thank you for your research on this issue.

(A) First it is important to realize that the point in dispute is whether ANY work by supporters of ID has been published in peer-reviewed scientific literature. This is claimed in the page on Dembski. Picking one example of the ten and then generalizing the other 9 does not mean that you are justified in believing that all other 9 have absolutely nothing to do with intelligent design. Simply put, Stephen Meyer's article was EXPLICITLY arguing for intelligent design, and it WAS published in a peer-reviewed journal, which created a lot of controversy. Therefore the claim is simply false.

Now I cannot claim that because this is a legitimate example, the other 9 are probably legitimate. Neither can you do the opposite. The article that you picked seemed to me to be spoken of by Dembski as not one that is very explicit in supporting ID. But other out of the ten would probably have more relevance (based on Dembski's comments), and perhaps those would have been better options to research. You may be right in your critique of the article but sorry to say it does not have much relevance to the changes that need to be made to the Dembski page.

  • I was trying not to extrapolate to the other nine, I did explicitely say I had not read them. I will look at Stephen Meyers article, although i don't have time immediately. David D. (Talk) 07:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

(B) The other problem is that the language of the article implies that this lack of publish somehow tinges the credibility of Intelligent Design as a legitimate scientific theory. That bit of opinion should just be outright eliminated. If not, at least it should be noted what ID proponents say in defense of themselves on that point. Something like "ID proponents claim that a minimal amount of publishing in peer-reviewed literature does not imply that ID is an illegitimate science." However I'd be more in favor of just removing this bias of peer-review literature somehow making the theory less credible. It has been the case all through history that the majority of scientists have been wrong...so there's nothing convincing about this lack of acceptance by mainstream science as evidence that it isn't science, or it isn't credible.

(C) There is an entire section devoted to showing that Dembski's Design Inference doesn't really support ID, so it doesn't qualify as a legitimate peer-reviewed article. How is this expositional? It is clearly only written in virtue of keeping Dembski out of the "peer-reviewed author category."

And this section is just incorrect. It claims it does not "support the conjectures of intelligent design," The main premise of ID is that CSI is empirically detectable and it implies design - this is what Dembski argues for. Dembski argues for the main premise of ID, yet this does not "support the conjectures of ID"? That is obviously not true.

Suggestions for change:

(1) It should not be claimed anywhere on the Dembski page that no work of ID proponents has been published in peer-reviewed journals. Stephen Meyer alone proves this assertion false...there is no need to even consider whether the other 9 examples are legitimate.

(2) It should not be claimed that Dembski has not published any peer-reviewed articles on ID. The Design Inference is peer-reviewed and explicity is "in support of the conjectures of intelligent design" - it argues that CSI implies design. Should this section be included, it needs to be accurate.

(3) The language used in the page that implies lack of peer-review tinges the credibility of ID should be changed to be neutral.

Specific examples: "Dembski has published several popular books, and has published no papers on intelligent design within the peer-reviewed scientific literature."

Recommended change: "Dembski has published several books at the intellectual and more popular levels with success."

The "popular" before the comma, and last bit after the comma is clearly meant to imply that his work is not scientifically respectable. This is not expository, it is critical of Dembski. Plus he published Design Inference, which is all about ID and was peer-reviewed.

There are a host of other problems in this article with being critical rather than expository, as well as outright misinformation. But I guess we can focus on this for right now?

HOW do I reply to a message like you did? I have looked at every single link around these pages, and the help page, and I can't find any way to reply to a message. This is the most difficult to use website I have ever used.Takumi4G63 06:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

  • It took me a while to sort it out too. Look to the left of the lines and you will soon work out the nomenclature. Note I changed your title to indent. You could add yet another = and it would indent the title one step more. Other tricks are:
    • For example, this indents.
  • As does this.
Or simply this. It is actually more complex since numbering can also be used with a #. I hope this helps David D. (Talk) 07:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)