Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

When Darwinism infects popular culture, confusion follows as well as nonsense

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
File:Nostradamus prophecies.jpg

Every so often, one reads a sentence that just takes one’s breath away from an otherwise intelligent writer who uses Darwinism to help explain the world: This from Colin Dickey’s “Quack Prophet” (Lapham’s Quarterly):

Whether it’s the Dead Sea Scrolls or Finnegan’s Wake, there’s a long literary history of taking the garbled and the fragmented and looking for lucid meaning beneath. The science writer and professional skeptic Michael Shermer has gone so far as to argue that we’re hard-wired, from an evolutionary perspective, to look for such hidden meanings. “From sensory data flowing in through the senses the brain naturally begins to look for and find patterns, and then infuses those patterns with meaning,” Shermer writes. “We can’t help it. Our brains evolved to connect the dots of our world.” By adjusting the signal-to-noise ratio, Nostradamus introduced enough static into his Prophecies that they could be all things to all readers, poetic Rorschach blots of detail and blur.

Excuse us, but: The Dead Sea Scrolls are a remarkable 1947 find (since augmented) of a group of manuscript fragments and artifacts that everyone knew had lucid meaning, but awaited translation and clarification. You didn’t need to be “hard-wired” to notice any of that. Finnegan’s Wake is a deliberately obscure novel written by Irish novelist James Joyce, pored over by generations of academic dullards – to Joyce’s huge amusement, had he lived to see that entire circus play out. Much of it probably did have some meaning; it was written in English by an already successful novelist. Again, no “hardwiring” required to suppose that, though a certain amount of denseness for spending a lot of time on the problem.

It’s not like seeing patterns in the clouds, which might actually be evidence for Shermer’s thesis if not pressed too far – which it nearly always is.

Conflating the Scrolls and Finnegan’s Wake, spiced up with some Shermerite nonsense about how our brains evolved to … whatever, is an appalling but telling example of cultural Darwinism at work.

Those who don’t believe in meaning corrupt and confound it.

Note: The ostensible subject of the piece is that reliable checkout counter tabloid icon, the “prophet” Nostradamus, who was obscure for an entirely unrelated reason – to avoid falsification. Reminds one of something, no … ?

Comments
yawn
ScottAndrews2
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
GB: Sorry, FAIL. The decision of value on S is justified by objective criteria, namely an independent description that confines acceptable set members E to a narrow zone T in the set of abstractly possible configs, W. W must be at least big enough to swamp the Planck time Quantum state resources of the 10^57 atoms of our solar system across 10^17 s, or if we go up to the 1,000 bit threshold, the observable cosmos; creating a situation where the config space is so large that tit cannot be sufficiently sampled that any isolated,atypical zones are likely to be picked up by sampling based on blind chance and mechanical necessity. For instance, in the cases here, (i) an apparently random coin toss is assumed non specific, but a string of coins with ASCII code in English is specified, and (ii) biofunctional protein sequences from families, where such are known to be deeply isolated in AA sequence space, are again S = 1. If you CANNOT so specify on objective grounds of warrant, the default is S = 0. That means if you take a million coins in a string and toss them so they settle H/T at random, S will be zero. but if the coins are arranged in accordance with the ASCII code for a coherent work in English, we have every right to see this as a specified outcome, and to infer that Chi_500 will be much more than 1, so the outcome is best explained on the only empirically known causal force that can make that outcome reasonably likely on the gamut of our solar system: design. [Just as, would be the reasonable conclusion if you came across a coherent text in English online that required 143,000 or so ASCII characters, or about 25,000 words.] Why is that so hard for you to understand? Or, is that really: accept? And BTW, can you kindly show us, specifically -- i.e. WARRANT your claim, just why the metric derived and explained and applied here, is "meaningless"? Namely: Chi_500 = I*S - 500, bits beyond the solar system threshold (Otherwise, it looks a lot like "meaningless" from you means I disagree with where it points, and cannot warrant my claims, but love to drum out a closed-mindedly dismissive mantra as though empty repetition creates reality. Do I need to quote my old grade school teachers on empty barrels and making noise?) I see as well some turnabout tactic projections on your part. I find it a bit rich for an advocate of a priori imposition of evolutionary materialism, which is now being indoctrinated in schools based on question-begging imposition [cf the four cases here on], to be making a false accusation about design thinkers that we wish to impose a doctrine in science education. But then, turnabout rhetoric is a commonplace these days on the part of evolutionary materialism advocates. FYI, the Discovery Institute CSC, nearest thing to any ID institution, is on public record, easily accessible, that ID is NOT to be taught in schools. Not that you seem to care to be fair or truthful about those you oppose, on track record here and elsewhere. I hardly need to bother to point out that the Creationists, are very aware that ID is quite different from their approach, and often have reservations or objections. But then, having poisoned he Creationist well through some very nasty tactics already, it is oh so rhetorically convenient to say "Creationism in a cheap tuxedo." Then, when it comes to career-busting and the like, all I will say is that this year there were some pretty serious settlements on that, that went against the a priori materialists: Gaskell and Sewell. What is reasonable to be taught in schools is that scientific methods have strengths and limitations, set by the underlying issues in epistemology and logic, which are philosophical matters relevant to science education. This is a bit updated from but not materially different from what that fundy dummy creationist redneck yahoo, Newton, said in Opticks, Query 31, 300 years ago. A root- source discussion for what is usually called the scientific method in schools. if you ignore the issue of degree of warrant, you turn the science classroom into a propaganda exercise, for which there will be a huge bill to pay one of these days. GEM of TKI PS: And if you look at the draft course I have suggested, it defiantly is about INDEPENDENT (what that I is about) and free to access community based education, on the principle that ideologised monopolies in education are inherently dangerous.kairosfocus
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
yawnUpright BiPed
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
ScottAndrews2
I didn’t just say that you missed the point. I explained why, in detail.
No, you didn't. You just regurgitated the same hackneyed, already addressed 100x ID talking points Creationists have been using for years. When you can finally think for yourself and come up with something original, let us know.GinoB
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
Please be so kind as to reference any peer-reviewed science that refutes anything IDists have claimed. Or admit that you are just a confused bloviater. Oh and please present one mathematically rigorous metric that your position uses. That way we can compare and see who is bluffing coward and who has the data.Joseph
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
GinoB:
Where is ID’s POSITIVE evidence that a segment of a genome is specified?
Functionality- just as we have said for many years. Where is your position's positive evidence for anything?Joseph
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
GinoB, I didn't just say that you missed the point. I explained why, in detail. If you disagree, explain why. When you fall back to the IDers do this, that, etc., arguments, it indicates that either you did not read my post, did not understand it, or are unable to refute it. It's foolish of me, but I'm helping you. I'm showing you how to discuss a subject reasonably. Or I am demonstrating to onlookers that you are unable or unwilling to. You decide.ScottAndrews2
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
ScottAndrews2 GinoB,
You seem to deliberately miss the point
Not at all. The point is that IDers decided their Christian God created life, and feel the need to somehow scientifically justify their pre-conceived conclusion. So they spin real scientific research, cherry pick results, ignore the 99% that refutes them, create their own meaningless metrics like dFSCI. This is just so they can get their religious beliefs forced into public science classes.GinoB
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
GinoB, You seem to deliberately miss the point. There are things that have the appearance of design, but for which no external evidence is available, and the origins if which are not immediately known. To determine cases in which design is the best explanation is the purpose of ID. If you have blueprints of an alien spaceship, you don't need ID. It's like using fingerprint matching to catch a criminal when a dozen people saw him do it and someone got it on video. However, given the design inferences you've already rejected, there's no reason to think that you'd accept design if you saw a spaceship and the blueprints. You would reject design and require a natural explanation because you've never observed aliens drawing blueprints or building spaceships. That's what ID is solving for. But it will never be sufficient for you. You apparently think that design is a miraculous phenomenon that must be seen to be believed, while the natural origin of anything at all is a reasonable default explanation. You have no way out of that position. Trapped by your own arbitrary rules, you can never believe that anything was designed, ever, unless you've seen it designed and manufactured yourself. What it boils down to is that you believe only what you see, and cannot permit any inference to reach beyond it. That's a very limited view of the world, but you must at least apply it consistently. If you only apply that limitation only to design, or only to biology, or apply it to everything except for instances of unexplained chemical abiogenesis or evolutionary change, then it becomes merely a capricious bias, not the result of true reason.ScottAndrews2
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
I understand the FSCO/I metric and that as a metric it is both historically and rigorously applicable, but the alien artifact scenario is something I use just to point out the absurd forms of ID denialism. Do we need to know the identity of the designers, their manufacturing techniques, or their mechanisms for application before we reach a finding that a phenomena is best explained by some kind of human-like ID? Of course not. Indeed, why would one be looking for tool & machine markings, or trying to find designers, production techniques or application processes before one even determines that the object is a good candidate for ID? The whole idea that product of non-human ID cannot be determined is, of course, nothing but a denialist ruse. That ID exists and leaves telltale signs is a fact as demonstrated by human ID. To claim that we cannot tell any other kind of ID by only looking at human ID is like saying we cannot tell any non-terrestrial products of erosion by only looking at terrestrial examples. Of course we can - it is inference to best explanation.William J Murray
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
Joseph
I see that you are still confused- YOU need POSITIVE evidence that a volcano is specified.
No, I don't. I can admit that the specification value S is unknown without additional outside evidence, i.e. the blueprint of the construction from the space aliens' shop. That renders KF's calculations meaningless if I have to guess at a value for S like he did. Where is ID's POSITIVE evidence that a segment of a genome is specified? How do you objectively calculate the S value for any object?GinoB
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
GinoB, I see that you are still confused- YOU need POSITIVE evidence that a volcano is specified. Yet your entire p[osition lacks positive evidence so stop talking about science as if it is something you know about.Joseph
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
kairosfocus
GB: You are simply wrong. Discrete state is the standard definition of digital. KF
LOL! If don't understand the difference between two of the most basic terms it's no wonder you can't put together a cohesive argument.GinoB
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
Lots more meaningless verbiage, but still no justification in declaring the volcano to be non-specified. Why should your default value of S=0 apply? Just because it gives the answer you want it to? Another major error, lack of scientific rigor on your part.GinoB
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
Summary, here (with real world biological cases).kairosfocus
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
WJM: Food for thought. This summary on a metric may be useful -- note, there are specific cases where it is immediately applied to biology using the Durston et al work. Gkairosfocus
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
How do you know they are errors? True according to the current theory they are all errors, but how was that determined?Joseph
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT
I'm familiar with error correction. I've coded CRC checks. You have entirely missed the point that living things tolerate and pass on errors. This has to do with reproduction, not with translation. Your graphic on translation has nothing to do with variation and selection or with population genetics. The fact that living things are robust enough to survive copy errors is a key difference from computer systems. It is where the analogy fails.Petrushka
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT
Whenever I challenge anti-ID advocates with this hypothetical line of questioning, they quickly bail on the debate. I designed it to reveal the ridiculous nature of their various ID denialisms, such as "you have to know something about the designers or the manufacturing process" or "there's no way to tell if it's designed". If they set aside their ridiculous denials and agree that we could tell if such artifacts were best explained as product of non-human, but human-like ID, then I ask them what was their valid method for making that determination? It's either by a rigorous, scientific metric, which would mean they have agreed that ID detection is scientifically sound by rigorous method (whether we currently have that method or not), or they agree that intuitive recognition is usually enough to warrant such a finding - which, by that token, should be enough for ID theorists in regards to biological mechanisms. Then, the question is if one's research after such a finding is scientifically valid (of course it is), and if it is the same as if we have no reason to suspect it is naturally occurring (in many respects, it is an entirely different line of investigation). Generally, what we do after we make a finding of ID is try and understand the object's function or purpose - which is what we do with biological features. Interesting that we don't try to find the purpose or function that an avalanche serves, is it not? The history of biology is one of assuming ID and applying the ID heuristic, and then in more recent years trying to hide that fact (as per the attempts to wash design-implicating language from biological research). It's sort of like how atheistic determinists/materialists use the language of free will, and talk and argue and think and act as if they have free will, but then try to deny it; evolutionary biologists cannot help but talk and write and proceed as if there is design in biological features, even while attempting to deny it.William J Murray
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT
F/N 2: Recall, the basic distinction in comms theory between signal and noise depends on objective, recognisable differences, which are in principle quantifiable. Usually thought the obviousness is a baseline for dealing practically, e.g. closing the eye with relatively high frequency noise in an eye diagram display or grass growing on a scope trace etc.kairosfocus
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT
Self-replication is not something added on, it’s the distinguishing characteristic of first life. Everything else you see in an organism is added on. So what do you say about that rabbit? Do you deny that if you follow the ancestors of that rabbit farther and farther into the past, they will eventually no longer be rabbits?dmullenix
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT
F/N: Notice, nothing is said about the pigments being in a paint or in ink, or whether there are things consistent with paint-brush or pen or even marker strokes. The word "on" is suggestive of the application of such strokes. Staining by being next to say rusty bits of metal, is also possible in which case the marks are like natural castings or footprints, but would be IN the stones. The suggestion is that key details that would be easily observable and would be material to identifying nodes in the explanatory filter have been held back.kairosfocus
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT
F/N: Metric,
Chi_500 = I*S - 500, bits beyond the solar system threshold, where I is an applicable information metric related to Hartley's suggested I = - log p
. . . with real world cases that are suggestive onwards. And FYI, GB, a dummy variable like S to fit situations that can be assessed on a scorecard basis as being in this or that mode, are common in modelling. In this case the metric is part of a process captured by the explanatory filter and S captures the cases where the defaults apply. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
02:41 AM
2
02
41
AM
PDT
GB, you are resorting to dismissive selective hyperskepticism. I have pointed out the underlying methodological issues, which you choose to brush aside. That tells me you are not seriously engaging issues on the merits, just looking to make rhetorical talking points. I have already highlighted that on inference to best explanation Pinatubo etc are well explained by the two defaults of the EF, chance and necessity; so the EF is perfectly willing to be wrong in assigning it to that, in order to maximise the likelihood of being correct when it does point to something that is not credibly C + N, but is per reliable sign best explained on inductive empirical evidence based warrant as designed. Which is using the foundational approach of science. G'day. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT
OUCH on typos.kairosfocus
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT
P: Act5ually a live case on teh real-world use of the explanatory filter and how it did its job right. Mars face 1976, a relatively low resolution [800 ft details] photo on low angle light casts a face like pattern, but right from the beginning the inference was this is consistent with our known tendency to spot face-like patterns, and the artefacts cast out by low resolution imagery. Solution: enhance details -- i.e go for a test on complexity and detailed specification, to see if the pattern holds up under closer details. If there was a face like at Giza, then that would credibly be an artifact. As of the Euro 3-D scan recently, this is what the feature looks like, on details resolved to maybe 10 ft. There are hills that under low angle light could cast a suggestive pattern of shadows, bu there is no sculptural face. EF verdict: effect of low res image under low angle light. EF vindicated again, and seen to be actually intuitively used on the ground (it is glorified common sense after all) in a real situation. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
02:25 AM
2
02
25
AM
PDT
Research error correcting codes, which will show you a reason for built in redundancy in info systems. For mechanisms, NASA found the easiest way is to build in parallel mechanisms, similar to the triple repeat, majority vote code.kairosfocus
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT
F/N: You pick the example of a jigsaw puzzle. This has a collection of related, interlocking, well matched parts. Between parts there are no valid parts. Discrete. Well-matched, interlocking, only one config that involves all parts is correct, i.e. irreducibly complex. A 500 piece puzzle has a vast number of possible configs [though on gamut of the solar system, less than 10^102], only one of which is valid. If you were to find such a puzzle in that state, what would best explain it: chance and necessity are logically and physically possible but maximally implausible. In other words the jigsaw puzzle is yet another unintended example of the inference to best explanation for FSCI being design. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT
GB: You are simply wrong. Discrete state is the standard definition of digital. KFkairosfocus
November 4, 2011
November
11
Nov
4
04
2011
02:05 AM
2
02
05
AM
PDT
kairosfocus
GB, that discrete state systems are digital systems is not an analogy.
KF: All digital systems are discrete state systems, but not all discrete systems are digital. A jigsaw puzzle is a discrete system but it certainty isn't digital. Pretty significant error on your part.GinoB
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
1 4 5 6 7 8 12

Leave a Reply