Category: Probability
What is Randomness? Part 1, with David Nguyen
| June 11, 2018 | Posted by News under Probability, science education |
Contextual Bias David Nguyen is with Think Tank Learning. See also: Asking, what is more prone to error: Science or scientists?
Does eternally inflating cosmology cause probabilities to fail?
| March 27, 2018 | Posted by News under Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Physics, Probability |
From John D. Norton: (2018) Eternal Inflation: When Probabilities Fail. [Preprint] In eternally inflating cosmology, infinitely many pocket universes are seeded. Attempts to show that universes like our observable universe are probable amongst them have failed, since no unique probability measure is recoverable. This lack of definite probabilities is taken to reveal a complete predictive […]
Answering DiEb: Just what is “search” in a sense relevant to ID?
For some time now, objector DiEb has been raising the question, what do we mean by speaking of “search” in the context of evolutionary search. At 311 in the parody thread, she [IIRC] remarks: >>Search is a central term in the work of Dr. Dr. William Dembski jr, Dr. Winston Ewert, and Dr. Robert Marks […]
Confusing Probability: The “Every-Sequence-Is-Equally-Improbable” Argument
| June 4, 2017 | Posted by Eric Anderson under Complex Specified Information, Design inference, Information, Intelligent Design, Mathematics, Probability |
Note to Readers: The past few days on this thread there has been tremendous activity and much discussion about the concept of probability. I had intended to post this OP months ago, but found it still in my drafts folder yesterday mostly, but not quite fully, complete. In the interest of highlighting a couple of the issues […]
Evolution posits origins in Europe? Scant evidence for mutations
| May 22, 2017 | Posted by DLH under Evolutionary biology, Intelligent Design, Probability |
“two fossils of an ape-like creature which had human-like teeth have been found in Bulgaria and Greece, dating to 7.2 million years ago.” vs “combined base changes can be counted on the fingers.”
Design Disquisitions: Jeffrey Koperski on Two Bad and Two Good Ways to Attack ID (Part 2): Two ‘Good’ Ways
| March 20, 2017 | Posted by Joshua G under Biology, Convergent evolution, Darwinism, ID, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, Natural selection, Naturalism, Peer review, Philosophy, Probability, Science, theistic evolution |
Part two of my series looking at Jeffrey Koperski’s paper ‘Two Bad Ways to Attack Intelligent Design and Two Good Ones’ is now up on my blog. This one is quite in depth, but a couple of interesting issues come up along the way. I examine the concept of soft and hard anomalies in scientific […]
Biostatistician Makes “Own Goal” in Argument Against Dembski
| February 23, 2016 | Posted by johnnyb under Complex Specified Information, Informatics, Intelligent Design, Probability |
Recently a criticism was leveled against Dembski’s 2005 paper Specification: the pattern that signifies intelligence. As is often the case, if you read the criticism carefully, you will realize that, even though he says Dembski is wrong, it turns out that the more exacting answer would favor Dembski’s conclusion more strongly, not less.
Following up Bostrom’s argument from simulation of universes . . .
That is, why inferring design on functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information, e.g.: and equally: . . . makes good sense. Now, overnight, UD’s Newsdesk posted on a Space dot com article, Is Our Universe a Fake? The article features “Philosopher Nick Bostrom, director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University.” I […]
“Naturalism or Christian Theism: Where Does the Evidence Point?” TreeSearch Founder Blake Giunta Debates Justin Schieber
| November 4, 2014 | Posted by Jonathan M under Naturalism, Probability, Religion, Science |
I want to draw readers’ attention to a great debate that recently took place at the University of Texas at Dallas, between Blake Giunta, the founder of a recently-developed online apologetics resource called “TreeSearch“, and Justin Schieber, the host of the Reasonable Doubts radio show and podcast. Blake posted a postmortem review of the debate at his […]
A bottom-line issues exchange between MF and Paul Giem (et al) over prior probabilities . . . and the old “I see NO evidence” trick
| October 9, 2014 | Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Probability, Science, Mathematics, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology, Selective Hyperskepticism |
In the How is ID Different thread, we can see a very significant exchange well worth headlining as it lays out what is at stake: MF, 28: . . . Why is my prior for a Christian God effectively zero? Because I see zero evidence for it. What is the probability of something existing for […]
For the Easter Weekend, 2014 . . .
| April 19, 2014 | Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Probability, Religion, Science, Mathematics, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society, Video |
Here. (HT: VJT, also, Charles Babbage.) Video: embedded by Embedded Videovimeo Direkt
Kolmogorov: Helping make probability a scientific concept
| February 21, 2014 | Posted by News under Culture, Intelligent Design, News, Probability |
But then he tried applying it to literature, where it flopped in all probability. Something about the design.
