kairosfocus

 (Series)

Emile Borel (1871 – 1956) was a distinguished French Mathematician who — a son of a Minister — came from France’s Protestant minority, and he was a founder of measure theory in mathematics. He was also a significant contributor to modern probability theory,  and so Knobloch observed of his approach, that:

>>Borel published more than fifty papers between 1905 and 1950 on the calculus of probability. They were mainly motivated or influenced by Poincaré, Bertrand, Reichenbach, and Keynes. However, he took for the most part an opposed view because of his realistic attitude toward mathematics. He stressed the important and practical value of probability theory. He emphasized the applications to the different sociological, biological, physical, and mathematical sciences. He preferred to elucidate these applications instead of looking for an axiomatization of probability theory. Its essential peculiarities were for him unpredictability, indeterminism, and discontinuity. Nevertheless, he was interested in a clarification of the probability concept. [Emile Borel as a probabilist, in The probabilist revolution Vol 1 (Cambridge Mass., 1987), 215-233. Cited, Mac Tutor History of Mathematics Archive, Borel Biography.]>>

Among other things, he is credited as the worker who introduced a serious mathematical analysis of the so-called Infinite Monkeys theorem (just a moment).

So, it is unsurprising that Abel, in his recent universal plausibility metric paper, observed  that:

Emile Borel’s limit of cosmic probabilistic resources [c. 1913?] was only 10⁵⁰ [[23] (pg. 28-30)]. Borel based this probability bound in part on the product of the number of observable stars (10⁹) times the number of possible human observations that could be made on those stars (10²⁰).

This of course, is now a bit expanded, since the breakthroughs in astronomy occasioned by the Mt Wilson 100-inch telescope under Hubble in the 1920’s. However,  it does underscore how centrally important the issue of available resources is, to render a given — logically and physically strictly possible but utterly improbable — potential chance- based event reasonably observable.

(Series)

Alfred Russel Wallace is the all but forgotten co-founder of modern evolutionary thought. His major book reveals a bit of why, right from the title and sub-title: The World of Life: a manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose.

In short, Wallace was a design thinker, and in fact he was also a supernaturalist. (A Spiritualist, actually.)

It should be no surprise to see, therefore, that he took on the methodological naturalism that was even then beginning to be informally institutionalised in science.  (In our time, it has now been formally written into redefinitions of science promoted by bodies like the US’s National Academy of Science and their National Science Teachers Association, in the teeth of serious historical, logical and epistemological issues and concerns.)

It is worth pausing for a few moments in this series of posts, to reflect on how Wallace responded to Hume et al, in his An Answer to the Arguments of Hume, Lecky, and Others, Against Miracles.

Clipping from p. 112 on, we may see: Read More ›

It is an open secret that a major motivation for the commonly encountered, too often angry  rejection of  the design inference is a prior commitment to Lewontinian evolutionary materialistic atheism; a common thread that unites a Sagan, a Lewontin, many members of Science institutions and Faculties of Universities, and of course many leading anti-design advocates like those associated with the US-based National Center for Science Education [NCSE], as well as leading “science” [–> atheism] blogs and Internet forums and the like.

Such atheists also often imagine that they have cornered the market on scientific rationality, common-sense and intelligence, to the point where professor Dawkins of the UK has proposed a new name for atheists: “brights.”

By contrast, he and many others of like ilk view those who object to such views as “ignorant, stupid, insane or . . . wicked.” (Perhaps, that is why one of the atheistical objectors to UD feels free to publicly and falsely accuse me of being a demented child abuser and serial rapist. He clearly cannot see how unhinged, unreasonable, irrational, uncouth, vulgar and rage-blinded his outrageous behaviour is.) Read More ›

Food for thought, here. (U/D: News has a poignant case in point, here.) =========== U/D Nov 9: In tracking responses and access elsewhere I see that the folks over at Anti-Evo have been busy with atmosphere poisoning ad hominems (here, especially the new talking point that I am a liar), sadly, amply documenting the main point of this post. I note for record: It should be clear to any responsible person: (i) that there are NO, ZIP, ZILCH responsible Bible believing Christians who support genocide, INCLUDING Dr Craig — that should not even be a question, (ii) the spreading of a false accusation against any significant number of such will lead to the spreading of a much broader false accusation Read More ›

In recent days, UD contributor Dr V J Torley has rightly taken atheism advocate, professor Richard Dawkins to task for cynical manipulation of our moral sensibilities in his public accusations against Christian philosopher-theologian, Dr William Lane Craig. And that, patently to avoid having to account through a public debate for his many acid fulminations against theism and the Christian faith in particular over the years.

(ADDED, Nov 2/3, NB: it may help to cf. a thought-provoking video here. [NB: This video documents that professor Dawkins is on record that he evidently cannot find a basis for moral objection to infanticide, and that he evidently cannot find a moral basis for objecting to Hitler’s genocide. His projection of moral outrage against Craig etc is therefore credibly manipulative rather than genuine. This is consistent with the long since documented inherent amorality of materialism that is further discussed below.] In case it is needed, this clip documents Dr Craig’s actual view on moral issues, obviously including on genocide. Craig directly responds here, from about 8:15 on, explicitly that the genocide accusation “is a misrepresentation of my position” [8:50], c.9:20 on he clarifies: “dispossess [a debauched culture]” as opposed to “genocide,”  though I still think he has not adequately appreciated the evident non-literal war rhetoric context nor does he address the eternal blood feud issue that nearly 1,000 years later Israel faced while in captivity under Persia. Cf comment here below for more. )

Professor Dawkins now seems to have beaten a hasty retreat behind the poisonously polarised cloud stirred up by his knowingly false accusation of support for genocide.

(And if you think that “knowingly false” is inaccurate, you can rest assured that no sane,  sensible, informed person in our civilisation can seriously entertain the notion that Bible-believing Christians and Christian leaders in particular, support genocide. The accusation plainly was rhetorical  “red meat” tossed out to stir up a distractive, atmosphere-poisoning controversy.)

But that leads to some serious issues. Read More ›

In recent exchanges, design objector RH7, has made objections to the concept of cause, regarding it as an outmoded, deterministic and classical (in the bad sense) view.

Since this is now clearly yet another line of objection to design inference on detection of credible causal factors, we need to add a response to this to the cluster of ID Foundations posts here at UD.

A useful way to do so is to highlight an ongoing exchange, here on, in the Universe Portal thread:

JDFL: 20th century physics has called into question determinism. But determinism and causality are not necessarily the same thing. we may not be able to determine or predict an qm outcome but we can identify the set of causal factors. [T]he unity of the set of causal factors is the cause.

KF: JDFL: You are right, once we see the significance of necessary causal factors, we decouple cause from determinism.

RH7: Cites JDFL & responds:

This sets up my own response: Read More ›

On October 16, in response to a comment by frequent UD commenter Dr Liddle to the effect that we have misunderstood Harvard prof Lewontin in the infamous 1997 NYRB article snippet, I did a markup of the snippet highlighting fourteen points of concern:

______________

>> . . . to put a correct view of the universe [1 –> a claim to holding truth, not just an empirically reliable, provisional account] into people’s heads we must first get an incorrect view out [2 –> an open ideological agenda] . . . the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations [3 –> a declaration of cultural war], and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth [ 4 –> this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident [5 –> a self evident claim is that this is true, must be true and its denial is patently absurd. But actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question, confused for real self-evidence] that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [6 –> Science gives reality, reality is naturalistic and material], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [7 –> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim: if you reject naturalistic, materialistic evolutionism, you are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked, by direct implication] . . . .

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world [8 –> redefines science as a material explanation of the observed world], but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [9 –> another major begging of the question . . . by imposition of a priori materialism as a worldview that then goes on to control science as its handmaiden and propaganda arm that claims to be the true prophet of reality, the only begetter of truth] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. [10 –> In short, even if the result is patently absurd on its face, it is locked in, as materialistic “science” is now our criterion of truth!] Moreover, that materialism is absolute [11 –> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [12 –> Hostility to the divine is embedded, from the outset, as per the dismissal of the “supernatural”] The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. [13 –> a slightly more sophisticated form of Dawkins’ ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked, certainly, irrational. This is a declaration of war! Those who believe in God, never mind the record of history, never mind the contributions across the ages, are dismissed as utterly credulous and irrational, dangerous and chaotic] To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen. [14 –> Perhaps the second saddest thing is that some actually believe that these last three sentences that express hostility to God and then back it up with a loaded strawman caricature of theism and theists JUSTIFY what has gone on before. As a first correction, accurate history — as opposed to the commonly promoted rationalist myth of the longstanding war of religion against science — documents (cf. here for a start) that the Judaeo-Christian worldview nurtured and gave crucial impetus to the rise of modern science through its view that God as creator made and sustains an orderly world. Similarly, for miracles — e.g. the resurrection of Jesus — to stand out as signs pointing beyond the ordinary course of the world, there must first be such an ordinary course, one plainly amenable to scientific study. The saddest thing is that many are now so blinded and hostile that, having been corrected, they will STILL think that this justifies the above. But, nothing can excuse the imposition of a priori materialist censorship on science, which distorts its ability to seek the empirically warranted truth about our world.]

[[From: “Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997.] >>

_________________

On Oct 22, Dr Liddle has made a main response, which I now present below, and insert markups in dark red, continuing my enumeration from 15 on: Read More ›

In the current Computer Simulations thread, Dr Liddle has challenged me as follows, that I profoundly misunderstand prof Lewontin’s 1997 NYRB article that crops up so often at UD: . . . as I have said several times, I don’t think it means what you think it means. In fact I’m sure you are misinterpreting it. What Lewontin clearly means (and he says so explicitly) is that the entire scientific method is predicated on the assumption that the universe is predictable. That doesn’t mean it is but that science can only proceed on that assumption. There is no indoctination here – because no doctrine. Science does not teach the doctrine that there is “no Divine Foot”. What it teaches is Read More ›

[UD ID Founds Series, cf. Bartlett on IC]

Ever since Dawkins’ Mt Improbable analogy, a common argument of design objectors has been that such complex designs as we see in life forms can “easily” be achieved incrementally, by steps within plausible reach of chance processes, that are then stamped in by success, i.e. by hill-climbing. Success, measured by reproductive advantage and what used to be called “survival of the fittest.”

[Added, Oct 15, given a distractive strawmannisation problem in the thread of discussion:  NB: The wide context in view, plainly,  is the Dawkins Mt Improbable type hill climbing, which is broader than but related to particular algorithms that bear that label.]

Weasel’s “cumulative selection” algorithm (c. 1986/7) was the classic — and deeply flawed, even outright misleading — illustration of Dawkinsian evolutionary hill-climbing.

To stir fresh thought and break out of the all too common stale and predictable exchanges over such algorithms, let’s put on the table a key remark by Stanley and Lehman, in promoting their particular spin on evolutionary algorithms, Novelty Search:

. . . evolutionary search is usually driven by measuring how close the current candidate solution is to the objective. [ –> Metrics include ratio, interval, ordinal and nominal scales; this being at least ordinal] That measure then determines whether the candidate is rewarded (i.e. whether it will have offspring) or discarded. [ –> i.e. if further moderate variation does not improve, you have now reached the local peak after hill-climbing . . . ] In contrast, novelty search [which they propose] never measures progress at all. Rather, it simply rewards those individuals that are different.

Instead of aiming for the objective, novelty search looks for novelty; surprisingly, sometimes not looking for the goal in this way leads to finding the goal [–> notice, an admission of goal- directedness . . . ] more quickly and consistently. While it may sound strange, in some problems ignoring the goal outperforms looking for it. The reason for this phenomenon is that sometimes the intermediate steps to the goal do not resemble the goal itself. John Stuart Mill termed this source of confusion the “like-causes-like” fallacy. In such situations, rewarding resemblance to the goal does not respect the intermediate steps that lead to the goal, often causing search to fail . . . .

Although it is effective for solving some deceptive problems, novelty search is not just another approach to solving problems. A more general inspiration for novelty search is to create a better abstraction of how natural evolution discovers complexity. An ambitious goal of such research is to find an algorithm that can create an “explosion” of interesting complexity reminiscent of that found in natural evolution.

While we often assume that complexity growth in natural evolution is mostly a consequence of selection pressure from adaptive competition (i.e. the pressure for an organism to be better than its peers), biologists have shown that sometimes selection pressure can in fact inhibit innovation in evolution. Perhaps complexity in nature is not the result of optimizing fitness, but instead a byproduct of evolution’s drive to discover novel ways of life.

While their own spin is not without its particular problems in promoting their own school of thought — there is an unquestioned matter of factness about evolution doing this that is but little warranted by actual observed empirical facts at body-plan origins level, and it is by no means a given that “evolution” will reward mere novelty —  some pretty serious admissions against interest are made.

UPDATE: Cf the update here.

  Functionally specific, complex information and associated information [FSCO/I]  — especially, digitally coded FSCI [dFSCI] — are seen as two of the strongest signs of design as cause. For instance, when you see this post, you do not wonder or debate the odds of different letters being strung by chance [e.g. e in English is typically about 1/8 of the text], you intuitively immediately know that this is best explained as the work of an intelligent, purposeful agent acting towards a goal and based on his knowledge of the language, codes and topic in question. And, analytically, we can substantiate that intuition. That brings us to a significant comment exchange in the current hybridisation as explanation for origin of complete Read More ›

When I was a kid and was bored in Chem classes I would occasionally daydream of a messenger arriving at the classroom door to tell the late, great, Fr Farrell of a scientific breakthrough. Of course, in later years, I always assumed that it would be years before a breakthrough would filter down to High School Chem. But, today, may be a possible day like that. According to a BBC report from CERN (HT, WUWT): Neutrinos sent through the ground from Cern toward the Gran Sasso laboratory 732km away seemed to show up a tiny fraction of a second early. The result – which threatens to upend a century of physics – will be put online for scrutiny by other Read More ›

UD’s resident journalist, Mrs Denise O’Leary, notes on how Mr Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine and Scientific American (etc.) has written on his new book, The Believing Brain: Why Science Is the Only Way Out of Belief-Dependent Realism:

. . . skepticism is a sine qua non of science, the only escape we have from the belief-dependent realism trap created by our believing brains.

While critical awareness — as opposed to selective hyperskepticism — is indeed important for serious thought in science and other areas of life, Mr Shermer hereby reveals an unfortunate ignorance of basic epistemology, the logic of warrant and the way that faith and reason are inextricably intertwined in the roots of our worldviews.

To put it simply, he has a “turtles all the way down” problem:

Read More ›

After a fruitful discussion with StephenB, I have updated my recent post —What was the alleged “Dominionist” theologian, Francis Schaeffer, doing back in the 1950′s – 80′s?  — especially in light of evidence he has brought to bear from Aquinas’ corpus.

Note especially how I have adjusted Sawyer’s summary to highlight the points of correction, and how I have added a diagram that adjusts Schaeffer’s famous Line of Despair Diagram in a way that illustrates, extends and adjusts Schaeffer’s vision of the key worldview shaping trends that have framed our civilisation over the past millennium. Read More ›