Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

CNN Xes Cheney — Design or Accident?

William Dembski
November 22, 2005
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

CNN Xes Cheney

Let me humbly suggest that CNN puchase a copy of my book The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press, 1998) to determine whether its explanation for the “X” that flashed over the VPs face during his speech holds up. In particular, what are the odds that this program glitch just happened to kick in right as the VP spoke, no sooner or later, with the “X” marking his face having the appropriate size and thickness and occupying just the right position? See http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5cnc.htm.

Comments
From my perspective the interesting question isn't the politics of the matter but whether a design inference is warranted. Can Dembski's explanatory filter shed any light on this? Is the probablity of this event something that exceeds the Universal Probablitly Bond? Is this an instance of specified complexity? Dembski doesn't say, he just suggests that The Design Inference methodology can help provide an answer to the question. Does it? If so how and why?Eric
November 23, 2005
November
11
Nov
23
23
2005
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
puckSR: "so conservative ID…not good for science" PaV: "So now we know you’re young, naive, arrogant and stupid. If you don’t have anything intelligent to say, then stay off the blog." Again, he makes a decent point (one which you certainly do not have to agree with) and you attack him, rather than attacking the point he is making. Mixing politics and science of any sort is bound to be bad for science. Science is supposed to be objective, politics is hardly so. I could just as well say: "so liberal Darwinism... not good for science" or "so conservative quantum mechanics... not good for science." I think it's quite terrible that you're promoting the corruption of science by political idealogy for material ends (promotion of ID over evolutionary theory). Give it time, the truth will win out...cambion
November 23, 2005
November
11
Nov
23
23
2005
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
puckSR: name a prominent politician who is qualified to make any form of judgement on ID? that is tough now name a politician who supports ID who doesnt support the Christian Right? that is just as tough so conservative ID…not good for science So now we know you're young, naive, arrogant and stupid. If you don't have anything intelligent to say, then stay off the blog.PaV
November 23, 2005
November
11
Nov
23
23
2005
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
"including both Intelligent Design and gay marriage" Replace "Intelligent Design" with "Darwinism" That was bound to confuse. Again, sorry.crandaddy
November 23, 2005
November
11
Nov
23
23
2005
12:21 AM
12
12
21
AM
PDT
I still don't think it helps matters to slap a partisan label on ID. Issues should be considered according to their own merrits, and partisan labels polarize things, affecting a person's biases more than his rational judgement. Seems to me, the less entangled in the web of politics an issue is, the more rationally considered it is by the general public. Issues of faith tend to be the same way. And when you have both politics AND faith in the mix, well, that goes by a number of aliases including both Intelligent Design and gay marriage :) . I realize this post is loaded with relativism and ambiguous doublespeak. Sorry if I confuse anyone. If anybody wants me to clarify any part of this, I will. I just couldn't resist throwing that last bit in :) .crandaddy
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT
name a prominent politician who is qualified to make any form of judgement on ID? that is tough now name a politician who supports ID who doesnt support the Christian Right? that is just as tough so conservative ID...not good for sciencepuckSR
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT
#39, because America is more conservative than liberal. ID can use conservatism's strength as a bootstrap. Name a prominent Democrat who is for ID.anteater
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT
Well said crandaddy, Science != Politics Science != Religioncambion
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT
"If ID gets tightly connected to conservatism, and Darwinism gets tightly connected to liberalism, that would be a great victory." How would that be a great victory? As far as I can see, the only people who would relish such a scenario are the extremist political polemicists who get their kicks out of bashing the other side and whatever they represent for no better reason than that they *are* the other side. Actually, if conservatism is to be considered keeping things the same and liberalism to be allowing greater freedoms, is the teaching of Intelligent Design not a more liberal act than a conservative one? Davidcrandaddy
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT
Hey...in PaV's defense He has to be defensive, otherwise the conspirators would get himpuckSR
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT
PaV writes: "My vote is that we stay on topic (ID), and try to be civil. Trading insults isn’t going to get us very far." This is after throwing the first stone: "You don’t understand how liberalism works–political correctness and hubris–and consequently you don’t see these same ideological behaviors at work in Darwinism. I bet you’re not 21."cambion
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PDT
Having listened to House proceedings last Friday, I’d put the odds at about 403 to 3. That does not eliminate chance; not by a long shot. On the other hand, they don’t call it Clinton News Network for nothing. On the other hand, it’s just an X, not a swastika. A swastika plus insets of Nixon, Auschwitz and a little naked napalmed girl would sew it up for me. By means of those specifications, we eliminate chance through small probabilities. But just an X? On the other hand it was blinking and Cheney was not blinking. Cheney hasn’t blinked since 1979.pmob1
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT
puckSR: You seem naive, and committed to staying naive. You don't want to read a book about media bias, written by someone who worked for CBS for years. Is this blissful ignorance? Leaving that to the one side, this "X" matter was originally reported as happening on 15 second intervals. I saw a clip that CNN ran earlier today. From that clip it looks like the "X" appeared only once. If it appeared only once, then I would say it's likely just a glitch. But, as I say, that's not how it was originally reported, and I don't trust CNN. It's entirely possible they simply showed only the last appearance (there's reasons for me to say that, without getting into the details). So, we'll see. If no one comes forward with "proof" that the "X" appeared more than once, I'll settle for it being a glitch.PaV
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT
If ID gets tightly connected to conservatism, and Darwinism gets tightly connected to liberalism, that would be a great victory.anteater
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT
Hmmm...i now have to tell you how old I am? As long as I am over the age of 21, legally my age is completely personal, and completely unnecessary to the conversation at hand. PaV...can you point me to the study where they compared the "balance" on Fox to the "balance" on other networks. Hasn't FOX news been criticized by numerous watchdog groups for being biased. Books.....I love to read, i really do, but I dont believe that publishing=credibility. Hitler got a book published too, so did David Iriving. Lets stick with facts, and not publishing. The awful file name for the picture....i dont know if you are aware, but frequently organizations do not maintain their own websites...Dembski is a rare exception.... They normally hire a company to maintain and update their site. The webmaster gets to name all of the media that will be linked by the HTML code. In this case there was definately some shenanigans, but it hardly violates journalistic integrity. "Well, first, it’s not made up of conservatives. Greta Van Susteren is not a conservative, nor Alan Colmes, nor, for that matter Bill O’Reilly." Wow...Alan Colmes is a moderate ex-comic....Bill O'Reilly is a registered republican...good thing that they have such strong "liberal" voices at that station Besides it doesnt really matter how many "conservatives" or "liberals" you have on the news...the news is always going to show the interesting "stuff". Right now, conservatives are interesting. Tough...they are going to get picked on Abu Grahib Whoa....that was a horrible rights violation, despite who is responsible, and it caused a great deal of unrest in Iraq. It was a big deal, no matter who was responsible.puckSR
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
geoffrobinson: Then please explain why the lettering, taken directly from Cheney's speech, shows up on the screen.PaV
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
I agree with puck. Now, it is possible to detect design. And this may end up being a prank. But I would go with computer program/cameraman. Both intelligent agents picking the center of the screen for basicly the same reason. The incident may be accident, but the reason behind it is due to design.geoffrobinson
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
From the Drudge Report: At the end of the speech the plan was to do, to have a CNN logo up on the screen and use that as the way of getting back from the speech back to you on camera and one of the many graphics we use here at CNN. MORE A majority of graphics we use on the air, we use as a big x to identify at what point should the tape be cued up. This is the x you see in the control room but it is never meant to be seen on the air..... That is what was being prepared during the speech and due to the technical glitch that happened with the switcher, it accidentally got on the air because of the switch. And it's the sort of thing that just like your computer will glitch and will suddenly lock up and do something weird, our equipment does the same thing on occasions. ot something we can re-create to show you what happened. Which is a really important point. First of all, a switcher is a machine, not a person. Correct. When we were talking about doing the segment and said, let's do it again. You can't make it happen on purpose. That's correct. For all the conspiracy theories out there and we want to have someone who is trying to make a statement about the nature of vice president cheney's speech, it's a computer bug. Ours was in front of millions of people. That is absolutely correct. As it goes. So, we're getting it fixed, i hope? Yes, much like you have to reboot your computer from time to time, we're going to reboot our computer from time to time to make sure it doesn't happen again. END Two points. First, I saw somewhere else--can't find it now--another shot of the VP and the X. Only this time it was WHITE. And the words at the bottom were clearly legible. They were the same words at the bottom of the picture, right next to the CNN letters: "Cheney: Questioning the war is not wrong," or something like that. Well, this puts the lie to what CNN is saying. If they use an "X" to mark where they're going to cue the tape from, then they don't need lettering of any sort. And the lettering is something someONE has to type in AS they're listening to the speech. So their explanation would appear to be a complete fabrication: it wasn't a machine, it was someONE, and it wasn't something they routinely do. Second, they say it's like when you have to "reboot your computer". Are you kidding? And just how long will it take them to "reboot" their computers? And why was the "X" flashing on and off for quite a while? In other words, how many place were they planning to cue up the tape? Can anyone say "Rathergate"? They think we're stupid. [Although some of us ARE young and naive--couldn't resist. ;)]PaV
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT
dodgingcars: The claim of liberal bias isn’t that there just happens to be a natural bias in both reporting and the stories chosen because of the ideology and beliefs of the reporters. No. The claim is that the liberals in the media are making a purposeful attempt to undermine conservatives. It’s not a natural tendency for a big government democrat to pick stories about the poor and their plight, but instead it’s a liberal conspiracy in the media to make conservativism look bad. Does that mean that Fox News isn't biased, that it just prefers some stories to others because it's made up of conservatives? Well, first, it's not made up of conservatives. Greta Van Susteren is not a conservative, nor Alan Colmes, nor, for that matter Bill O'Reilly. Yet, Fox is called "conservative." Why? What's your explanation? CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN are all "balanced." Fox is "right-wing." Yet, when there's a panel discussion of the 'majors', you find 1 conservative and 2 to 3 liberals. On Fox, lots of times you find 1 conservative and 2 liberals. And, of course, that's "right-wing." This is just plain as day stuff. But, of course, if you're a Darwinist, even if something "appears" designed, it really isn't. So why concern yourself with appearances? (JeffK: this isn't an ad hominem, it's an insult again.) P.S. There was a wild extravaganza over religion, now over politics. My vote is that we stay on topic (ID), and try to be civil. Trading insults isn't going to get us very far.PaV
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
Cronkite- man that guy was terrible. He almost singlehandedly caused the US to "lose" the Vietnam war...tho, we only really lost it here at home with the peace hippies, when we were, in fact, winning the battles over in the theater. I work at a TV station and we sometimes do live events...never seen any graphic like this before. We hardly ever use notices like this transition after x amount of frames of black. Then again, it's a public TV station, so it's a bit different. :) I've read numerous comments from people in TV saying that this seems unlikely to be an accident. The tech guys at Fox and Friends this morning were saying that it looks like a deliberate act. I didn't see the footage myself, just a slowed version of 2 of the X shots. Given CNN's past problems with this sort of thing (see michellemalkin.com for her stories on this), it seems possible it was a purposeful act. The TV guys are divided tho, it seems. Drudge is reporting that s well placed source inside CNN said that when the X appeared, a bunch of guys in the control room at CNN Center were laughing about it. If this was unintentional, the average person in TV would have been freaking out wondering where the source for the feed or graphic was...why it was keyed in on screen, etc. Not laughing. That itself seems fishy.Josh Bozeman
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
puckSr: Maybe you would like to explain this: http://www.tabloidcolumn.com/cnn-bush-filename-asshole.html I'm sure it was just a glitch.PaV
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
That is not true dodgingcars. The point of view deeply affects the way a reporter and editors report on events. Look at how Cronkite deeply affected the public perception of the Vietnam War...look at how the economy is very strong, but all we hear about is how tough it is...look at how the reporting on homeless stories has tripled since Bush took office. This is a fact based upon actual number of stories run in the major news media. Look at Abu Ghraib which became a Waterloo when infact it was a poor decision at one prison. I can go on, but your observation is false. I appreciate your tone comment though. DanDan
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
Jeff: Nice counter PaV. I point out your ad hominem and you deflect with an Two Wrongs Make a Right. From one fallacy to another, but it took you over an hour. You’re slipping. Jeff, something is wrong with you if you think calling someone young and naive an ad hominemargument. It's a description, not an argument. And I can think of worse things to be called then young and naive, especially when someone is young and naive. You'll notice that he still hasn't said how old he is. Here's an insult: I'm surprised that you know how to spell fallacy. But that's still not an ad hominem. It's just an insult. And your argument, by the way, is fallacious. puckSR: everything is a conspiracy…you really, really, really think people are smart…you give them too much credit. When are we going to hear about you being abducted by aliens, but that the government covers it up. Instead of being such a wiseguy, why don't you read Bias by Bernard Goldberg. He was in CBS News for 15-20 years. And after that, maybe you'll be ready for his follow-up, Arrogance, from which I know you can learn a lot. dodgingcars: While the ideologies of the reporters, editors, etc. can certainly affect the news reporting, it’s still a giant leap to say that there is intentional liberal bias in the news because there are more liberal in the news media than conservatives. Just read: there's books out there, "Bias," and then "Arrogance." Goldberg's follow-up book is entitled "Arrogance" because with his first book, Goldberg tried to point out the the media elite the bias that had crept into their thinking and reporting. Much to his surprise (he, though not young, was also naive), he ended up getting black-balled from the 'fraternity'. His eyes finally opened. puckSR: It must be intentional..either by one of the people working the video feed, or by the intelligent agent….rare occurrences are impossible above a certain threshold. What happened to the VP has never before been known to happen. The odds of it happening by chance are extremely small. Yet that makes no impression on you puckSR. You just get silly, inebriated by your supposed superiority. That makes you a perfect candidate for believing in Darwinism. By the way, how many months over 21 are you?PaV
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT
jboze3131, I just noticed that there were words underneath the "X". I didn't notice that until you pointed it out. Not sure what they would use it for.dodgingcars
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
Dan, While the ideologies of the reporters, editors, etc. can certainly affect the news reporting, it's still a giant leap to say that there is intentional liberal bias in the news because there are more liberal in the news media than conservatives. The claim of liberal bias isn't that there just happens to be a natural bias in both reporting and the stories chosen because of the ideology and beliefs of the reporters. No. The claim is that the liberals in the media are making a purposeful attempt to undermine conservatives. It's not a natural tendency for a big government democrat to pick stories about the poor and their plight, but instead it's a liberal conspiracy in the media to make conservativism look bad.dodgingcars
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
PuckSR. I guess since you have not seen the liberal bias, it does not exist??? This is more of a reflection on your seriousness as a poster. 83% of reporters at the big 3 networks admit to being democrats. 66% of them say they are more liberal than the democrat party as a whole. This is well known and admitted. You really need to do more research son. DanDan
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
Nice counter PaV. I point out your ad hominem and you deflect with an Two Wrongs Make a Right. From one fallacy to another, but it took you over an hour. You're slipping.JeffK
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
Well it is important The odds that Cheney would be VP, coupled with the odds that he would be born, coupled with the odds that his ancestral line survived from ancient times, coupled with the odds that current 24 hour news would have been successful, coupled with the random nature of a mistake, coupled with very rare timing.....the odds are above the threshold It must be intentional..either by one of the people working the video feed, or by the intelligent agent....rare occurrences are impossible above a certain threshold.puckSR
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
This X was clearly not on purpose and it bugs me that Dembski put this on his blog. I'm convinced that ID is on the right track in so many areas, but these little fumbles aren't helping.theonomo
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
I'm just wondering what this graphic was for. It looks like a graphic, tho it could be an imposed feed that was put up over the regular video itself. It says something about 'transition begins after 5 frames of black,' but I don't know what that means. Why they would have that keyed in to begin with is odd. It doesn't look like video bleeding thru, but a still store of sorts that was keyed in over the video feed of Cheney. Who knows. Some in TV have commented and said it was totally an accident, others have said there's no way it's an accident.jboze3131
November 22, 2005
November
11
Nov
22
22
2005
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply