Even though I’m an Advantage Player, I would never dream of hosting illegal dice games and fleecing people (I swear never, never). But, ahem, for some reason I did take an interest in this product that could roll 6 and 8 at will!
Goodness, that guy could earn a mint in the betting on 6 and 8! 😈
The user can use his key chain and force the dice to certain orientations. As far as I know the dice can behave as if they are fair if the remote control is not in force. For the sake of this discussion, let us suppose the dice will behave fairly when the remote control is not in force.
Suppose for the sake of argument I made this claim: “CSI indicates intelligent agency.”
Suppose further someone objected, “Sal that’s an unprovable, meaningless claim, especially since you can’t define what ‘intelligent agency’ is”.
I would respond by saying, “for the sake of argument, suppose you are right, I can still falsify the claim of CSI for certain events, and therefore falsify the claim of intelligent agency, or at least render the claim moot or irrelevant.”
Indeed, that’s how I can assert in specialized cases, the ID claim can be falsified, or at least rendered moot by falsifying the claim that an artifact or event was CSI to begin with.
To illustrate further, suppose hypothetically someone (let us call him Mr. Unsuspecting) was unfamiliar and naïve to the fine points of high tech devices such as these dice. One could conceivable mesmerize Mr. Unsuspecting into thinking some paranormal intelligence was at play. We let Mr. Unsuspecting play with the dice while having the remote control off, and thus the Mr. Unsuspecting convinces himself the dice are fair. Say further Mr. Unsuspecting hypothesizes: “if the dice roll certain sequences of numbers, a paranormal intelligence was in play”.
We then let the magician running the game and “magically” call out the numbers before the rolls: 6 8 6 8 6 8 ….
When the remote control is running the show, the distribution function is changed as a result of the engineering of the dice and remote control mechanism. The observer thus concluded CSI using the chance hypothesis as compared to the actual outcome: 6 8 6 8 6 8….
The magician then explains what was really going on and that no paranormal intelligence was involved. Hence, the original hypothesis of a paranormal intelligence (by Mr. Unsuspecting) was falsified, and there was no paranormal intelligence as he supposed initially.
It would be fair to say, Mr. Unsuspecting should then formulate an amended CSI hypothesis given that the whole charade was intelligently designed with modern technology, and further the designer of the charade was available to explain it all. Mr. Unsuspecting’s original distribution function (equiprobable outcomes) was wrong, so he inferred CSI for the wrong reasons, and hence his original inference to CSI is faulty not because his conclusion was incorrect (in fact his conclusion of CSI was correct but for the wrong reasons) but his inferential route was wrong. Further his hypothesis of the paranormal designer was totally false, a more accessible human designer was the cause.
The point being, the original hypothesis of CSI, or any claim that an object evidences CSI, can be falsified or amended by a future discovery at least in principle. The whole insistence by Darwinists that IDists get the right distribution before making a claim is misplaced. Claims can be put on the table to be falsified or amended, and there could be many nuances that amend the reality of the situation in light of new discoveries.
IDists can claim Darwinian evolution in the wild in the present day will not increase complexity on average. They can say that increase in complexity in the present day can falsify some of ID’s claims about biology. That claim can be falsified. FWIW, it doesn’t look like it will be falsified, it’s actually being validated, at least at first glance:
The price of cherry picking for addicted gamblers and believers in Darwinism
Suppose we presumed some paranormal or supernatural disembodied intelligence was responsible for homochirality in the first life. If some chemist figures a plausible route to the homochirality, then the CSI hypothesis for the homochirality can be reasonably or at least provisionally falsified, and hence the presumed intelligent agency hypothesis for homochirality of life (even if intelligence is poorly defined to begin with) is also falsified.
Does it bother me CSI of homochirality could be falsified? Yes, in as much as I’d like to know for sure the Designer exists. But I’m not betting on its falsification anytime soon. And formally speaking there could have been a Designer designing the laws of chemistry, so even if the original CSI hypothesis was formulated with the wrong distribution function, there could still be an Intelligent Designer involved….
The essay was meant to capture the many nuances of the Design debate. It’s far more nuanced than I supposed at first. That said, I’d rather wager on the Designer than Darwin, any day…
RDFish for spawning this discussion. Mark Frank and Elizabeth Liddle for their criticisms of other possible distribution functions rather than just a single one presumed. And thanks to all my ID colleagues and supporters.
[Denyse O’Leary requested I post a little extra this week to help alleviate the news desk. I didn’t have any immediate news at this time so I posted this since it seem of current interest]