Darwinian Debating Device #4: “Desperate Distractions”

_{Barry Arrington

October 10, 2014

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Darwinists frequently employ the debating device that I call “Desperate Distractions.” This occurs when the Darwinist has lost the debate beyond any hope, and instead of admitting they have lost, the Darwinist continues to throw mud at the wall to see if anything will stick. Apparently, their determination never to cede a micro-millimeter impels them to continue to post even the most outrageous foolishness rather than be seen as ceding the field. I suppose they believe that as long as they continue to respond nobody will notice they have lost.

Our example of this debating device is drawn from a comment posted by a Darwinist defending Jeffrey Shallit, who ran a string of gibberish through a compression program and then ran the first 12 lines of Hamlet’s soliloquy through the program and concluded that “String #2′s compressed version [i.e., the compressed version of the first 12 lines of Hamlet’s soliloquy] is bigger and therefore more random than string #1 [i.e., gibberish achieved by haphazardly banging at a keyboard].”

Barry Arrington responded:

Sure, the compressed version of Hamlet is bigger than the compressed version of gibberish. And if one insists on defining relative randomness in terms of relative compressibility Hamlet is “more random.” Here’s the problem with that approach. It is glaringly obvious that Hamlet is not in any degree “random” whatsoever as that word is used by English speakers. Therefore, by its very nature it is not subject to a relative randomness analysis except to the extent one observes that it is totally non-random and any string that is even partially random is therefore more random. So what did Shallit accomplish when he insisted that under his esoteric definition of “random” Hamlet is “more random” than gibberish? He made a trivial mathematical point, and in the process made himself look foolish.

There followed a back and forth in the combox, but at the end of the day no one was able successfully to defend Shallit’s calling Hamlet more random than gibberish. That did not stop DiEb from continuing the debate long after the debate was lost, and he posted this gem:

J. Shallit said:

String #2′s compressed version is bigger and therefore more random than string #1: exactly the opposite of what Arrington implied!

That’s quite different from

“[Hamlet’s] compressed version is bigger and therefore more random than [gibberish].”

1. String #1 is not “Hamlet”, just an excerpt of ca. 500 bytes.

2. It’s not about gibberish in general, but about your special version of “gibberish”, represented by string #2.

First, let us fisk DiEb’s comment [DiEb gets the strings confused; I will correct this with brackets]:

1. String #[2] is not “Hamlet”, just an excerpt of ca. 500 bytes.

And the point of this observation is what exactly? Sure, Barry used “Hamlet” for a shorthand reference to the first 12 lines of Hamlet’s soliloquy. So what? DiEb has drawn a distinction that makes no difference.

In other words, in order for DiEb’s comment to have any force it would have to make a difference that String # 2 is merely the first 12 lines of Hamlet’s soliloquy instead of the entire play. He is essentially saying “Oh sure, the entire play of Hamlet may not be “more random’ than a string of gibberish, but the first 12 lines of Hamlet’s soliloquy surely are.” And that statement is just plain foolish.

2. It’s not about gibberish in general, but about your special version of “gibberish”, represented by string #[1].

DiEB again draws a distinction that makes no difference. He is essentially saying “Oh sure, the first 12 lines of Hamlet’s soliloquy might not be “more random” than gibberish in general, but it is certainly more random than the special version of gibberish in string 1.” No, the first 12 lines of Hamlet’s soliloquy is not random at all. It follows that it is never “more random” than any gibberish, whether gibberish in general or the specific example of gibberish in string 1, and to suggest otherwise is, again, just plain foolish.

So what is going on here? DiEb has made a fool of himself. He obviously thought that making a fool of himself served some purpose. What purpose might that be? The purpose is to continue debating long after the debate is lost. It makes no difference that the actual words border on the idiotic. The point is to keep going in a desperate attempt to distract attention away from the fact that the debate has been lost, thus, “desperate distractions.”

Comments

E.Seigner, I don't need to define design. I only need reflect on your usage of the term. Are you saying that your usage is equivocal?Mung_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

Design has been defined. Buy a vowel and a dictionary.Joe_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT}

@Mung Define design, then you just might get an answer too. For a preliminary answer, look at #166.E.Seigner_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

WJM
So, E Seigner holds that the difference between the sandcastle and the mound of sand is likely to ensue from chance, without intention or calculation? A blatant case of someone willing to say something profoundly stupid in service of ideology.
A house falls into disrepair due to neglect and is eventually taken over by desert or forest or whatever is around it. This can happen much faster to a sand castle and with absolutely no trace left after the fact. To call this difference ontologically categorical or substantial is a blatant case of someone willing to say something profoundly stupid in service of ideology.E.Seigner_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

I'm still wondering whether design is actually objectively real [as asserted by E.Seigner] or just a projection [as asserted by E.Seigner]. Can design possibly be both?Mung_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed is a physicalist! How long will it take to get him banned?Mung_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic
Joe already gave the obvious answer – the arrangement of the sand.
And how is this different from my "The material is the same, the shape differs"? How is Joe's answer laudably in harmony with ID theory (or UD policies rather) and mine evasive, vague, Darwinian, etc? How are you even capable of such contradictory assessments? I know: Double standards. Phinehas
ES: What is the “striking and obvious” difference between a dump of sand and a sand castle? Phinehas: The sand castle matches a recognizable, ordered, and complex specification that is highly unlikely to occur by chance, but is routinely produced by intelligent agency. But honestly, most people don’t have to know this.
I explained the difference of the dump of sand and the sand castle in three ways. First, I illustrated my approach by means of the paradox of the heap. Second, I quoted the Thomist argument from design to show where the terminology is coming from. Third, I applied the Aristotelian concept of the artefact. The third point should have been most interesting for you, because this is exactly where the difference of "nature" versus "art" (as in artistic design) comes in, but you got lost there. In turn, how are you explaining? In addition to the formerly undefined "striking and obvious" you add further undefined "recognizable, ordered, and complex specification". I can agree that this is all striking, but none of this is obvious. Nor scientific. To top it all, you even add that "most people don't have to know this". Surely you realize that this only reinforces my questions. It answers none of what I asked. I suppose it's safer to conclude that you are not an answers kind of person. By the way, any claim that I deny the difference between the two images is utterly incongruous with everything what I have said. You will not find a statement where I deny the difference. Instead, I put the difference into perspective. But of course you like to misrepresent. No wonder, because you all need to earn brownie points from Barry who is the headmaster misrepresenter here.E.Seigner_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

E.Seigner:
What is the “striking and obvious” difference between a dump of sand and a sand castle?
The sand castle matches a recognizable, ordered, and complex specification that is highly unlikely to occur by chance, but is routinely produced by intelligent agency. But honestly, most people don't have to know this. They can see the striking and obvious difference immediately upon looking at the two different pictures. Striking and obvious is striking and obvious. It doesn't require explanation. You know it when you see it, because it is striking and obvious. An appeal to definitions cannot avoid what is striking and obvious, because it is striking and obvious. Any attempt to deny what is striking and obvious (via metaphysics or else wise) will fail, because it attempts to deny what is striking and obvious.Phinehas_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

ES
What is the “striking and obvious” difference between a dump of sand and a sand castle?
Joe already gave the obvious answer - the arrangement of the sand. - Mathematical/geometric symmetry. This can be measured for each. - Pattern matching. The sand castle matches references to sophisticated architecture. - Physics. We look for the origin or source of both. The sand dump can be created by a blind, random, unintelligent process. The sand castle cannot be created by a blind, random, unintelligent process.Silver Asiatic_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

E. Seigner said:
I have described the difference between the mound of dirt and the sand castle as incidental difference of shape.
From Merriam Webster:
incidental 1 a : being likely to ensue as a chance or minor consequence 2: occurring merely by chance or without intention or calculation
So, E Seigner holds that the difference between the sandcastle and the mound of sand is likely to ensue from chance, without intention or calculation? A blatant case of someone willing to say something profoundly stupid in service of ideology.William J Murray_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

E Seigner is a legend in her own mind- "At least I have an answer"? Nonsense as all ES has is obfuscation.
What is the “striking and obvious” difference between a dump of sand and a sand castle?
The arrangement of the sand, duh.Joe_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

Phinehas and SA You two didn't even attempt an answer, so quit complaining. At least I have an answer, when you have nothing. For the last time, the questions again: What is the “striking and obvious” difference between a dump of sand and a sand castle? In what scientific sense are you using “striking and obvious”? Is it from information theory, physics, or art criticism?E.Seigner_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT}

ES #110: I have described the difference between the mound of dirt and the sand castle as incidental difference of shape.
There is an incidental difference of shape between one mound of dirt and another. And between one sand castle and another. That explanation says nothing.Silver Asiatic_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

E.Seigner: Actually, you didn't really demonstrate that you understand the paradox of the heap or its implications. Nor did you demonstrate how saying that a particle of sand and a heap of sand both consist of sand addresses the paradox. You also left yourself in the unenviable position of not being able to explain why a particle is not a heap or green is not just another shade of red. Nor have you explained in any meaningful way how the two mounds of dirt differ. Perhaps you have a metaphysics that is logical and consistent. Maybe you can wrap your intellectual arms all the way around it and interlock your fingers. and this gives you great comfort. The problem is that it just doesn't match up very well with reality. Unfortunately, I suspect that you have metaphysiced your way out of ever being able to recognize this problem, since you will likely continue to classify the contrary empirical evidence that reality throws your way as irrelevant, incidental, or illusory. So much the worse for you and your metaphysics.Phinehas_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

Phinehas As a result of your metaphysics, you are unable to describe in any meaningful way the difference between a mound of dirt and a sand castle.
True. Good metaphysics, like Thomism, help us make such a distinction quite easily:
... if we enter a well-ordered house we gather therefrom the intention of him that put it in order, as Tullius says (De Nat. Deorum ii), quoting Aristotle [Cleanthes]. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1103.htm
We see a well-ordered house as evidence of design/intent. We see a sand castle, as evidence of design. We do not see the same in a pile of sand. It's amazing how difficult this concept is for some people.Silver Asiatic_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, abductive inference or retroduction) is a form of logical inference that goes from an observation to a hypothesis that accounts for the observation, ideally seeking to find the simplest and most likely explanation.Silver Asiatic_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Phinehas
I’m not explaining, ...
I can see that. And this is precisely the problem. I have been wasting my time with you. This stops by the end of this comment. Phinehas
Any sane person who looks at those pictures and then hears you call the difference between the two mounds of dirt “irrelevant” or “incidental” will immediately suspect that you are either out of touch with reality or have some agenda behind your response.
I explained my terms by means of the paradox of the heap and the classical argument from design, which any sane person understands. Since you stooped this low, I am not going to define what sane means. You have convincingly demonstrated your inability to make use of definitions and explanations. Phinehas
You are merely assuming the same observer-centric nostrom you are trying to peddle.
And you are assuming and peddling "striking and obvious" without defining or explaining them. Good luck with your agenda.E.Seigner_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

E.Seigner:
Without seeing it in its proper action, how can you tell what its function is? That’s right, you guess it, i.e. project it, as I’ve been saying all along.
You are merely assuming the same observer-centric nostrom you are trying to peddle. Without this assumption, the following are obvious and striking non sequiturs: I have not observed an object's function, therefore it cannot have one. I must guess at an object's function, therefore it must not have one.Phinehas_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

E.Seigner:
I at least have given an answer, complete with metaphysical background to define my terms, whereas you only keep repeating “obvious and striking” without defining the words, and you demand that nobody should deny your description. First define your terms, then we’ll see who is actually explaining anything.
I'm not explaining, I'm demonstrating. You see, the pictures tend to speak for themselves (worth a thousand words, and all that). Mound of Dirt 1 Mound of Dirt 2 Any sane person who looks at those pictures and then hears you call the difference between the two mounds of dirt "irrelevant" or "incidental" will immediately suspect that you are either out of touch with reality or have some agenda behind your response. They will do this because they can plainly see the obvious and striking difference that you seem to want to deny. When you continue to avoid describing the difference in any sort of meaningful way, and instead start hemming and hawing about defining metaphysical terms, they will feel their suspicions are confirmed.Phinehas_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Phinehas
an actual mouse doesn’t need to be caught in order for a mousetrap to have design or (noun–>) function. In order for it to (verb–>) function, perhaps an actual mouse is needed, but it can have (noun–>) function without a mouse.
Without seeing it in its proper action, how can you tell what its function is? That's right, you guess it, i.e. project it, as I've been saying all along. When you tell the thing's function without observing it in action, then - obviously and strikingly - its function is not objective.E.Seigner_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

StephenB
ES: ...but in the classical argument as used in premise #2, quoted in #65, it’s synonymous with plan or project, implying purpose rather than shape or pattern. Pattern (“order or arrangement”) is in premise #1, so this meaning is separated from “design”. StephenB: Please say what you mean in plain English
Ah, the "me no speaka the English" trick. Obviously, I was referring to an earlier post, with complete pointers how to find it and where to look in it.E.Seigner_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

E.Seigner:
It takes someone with the intent to catch the mouse and it presumably also takes an actual mouse to be caught, then the function will be there.
I'm not sure what you mean here, but an actual mouse doesn't need to be caught in order for a mousetrap to have design or (noun-->) function. In order for it to (verb-->) function, perhaps an actual mouse is needed, but it can have (noun-->) function without a mouse. function: noun - the action for which a person or thing is particularly fitted or employed verb - to operate or perform as specified; work properlyPhinehas_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

Phinehas
As a result of your metaphysics, you are unable to describe in any meaningful way the difference between a mound of dirt and a sand castle. (This is why people keep asking you. You may think you’ve answered this question sufficiently, but your answers are coming across as evasive and vague. You appear to be reluctant and uncomfortable answering in any way that is actually descriptive.) Yet, empirically, there remains an obvious and striking difference.
Let's suppose my answer comes across as evasive and vague. How do you think your "obvious and striking" comes across? I at least have given an answer, complete with metaphysical background to define my terms, whereas you only keep repeating "obvious and striking" without defining the words, and you demand that nobody should deny your description. First define your terms, then we'll see who is actually explaining anything.E.Seigner_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

Box @163. Thank you very much.StephenB_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

E. Seigner
Arrangement of parts devoid of function (or devoid of any observer-relative quality)?
A mousetrap has a design and a function. The design is not synonymous with the function.
Ah, so the function also must be there. Then it’s not just the arrangement of parts.
There you go again using pronouns like "it." Pronouns are hard to follow. Design = how the physical parts of the mousetrap are arranged. Concept of design = the mind's understanding of that arrangement (it does not contain physical parts) Function = what the mousetrap does (it catches mice) Purpose = why the mousetrap was built (whom does it serve?) Plan = the strategy for bringing the concept of design to reality of design Project = the task of bringing the concept of design to reality to the reality of design. You can't just throw these words around without thinking about what they mean. To use them interchangeably is to confess that you know nothing about what you are saying. ..
but in the classical argument as used in premise #2, quoted in #65, it’s synonymous with plan or project, implying purpose rather than shape or pattern. Pattern (“order or arrangement”) is in premise #1, so this meaning is separated from “design”.
Please say what you mean in plain English.
The trick is to understand that the function is observer-relative.
The trick is to define observer relative. It could mean many things, such as perceivable by the observer, non-existent without the observer, understandable by the observer, detectable by the observer, etc. Feser (and you) are not defining your critical terms.
It takes someone with the intent to catch the mouse and it presumably also takes an actual mouse to be caught, then the function will be there. So no, it’s not just an arrangement of parts.
There you go again using the word "it" at the very time when you need to be precise. If, by it, you mean the existence of the mousetrap, say existence of the mousetrap; if you mean design, say design; If you mean concept of design, say concept of design; If you mean function, say function; if you mean project, say project; if you mean plan, say plan. You can't just use those terms interchangeably. Don't follow Feser off the cliff. Start thinking for yourself.StephenB_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

E.Seigner:
I have described the difference between the mound of dirt and the sand castle as incidental difference of shape. The material is the same, the shape differs. You have repeatedly asserted that the difference is “obvious and striking”, but you have given no logical (or mathematical or scientific or whatever) proof that your assertion should mean anything beyond what I have described.
The difference is obvious and striking empirically, not logically or mathematically. Look: You appear to be the same place you started. (I imagine that happens a lot when you know you are right without the slightest doubt.) As a result of your metaphysics, you are unable to describe in any meaningful way the difference between a mound of dirt and a sand castle. (This is why people keep asking you. You may think you've answered this question sufficiently, but your answers are coming across as evasive and vague. You appear to be reluctant and uncomfortable answering in any way that is actually descriptive.) Yet, empirically, there remains an obvious and striking difference. To deny this difference, to call it irrelevant, and to try to hand-wave it away merely serve to make you appear out of touch with reality. If this is based on your metaphysics, then you metaphysics is obviously wrong.Phinehas_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

Box
So when you observe a pile of sand and a sand castle and ponder about the difference in shape you conclude that there is “an incidental difference of shape”? What do you mean by that? How does ‘incidental’ explain anything?
These terms imply a certain way causality is construed. Now it's your turn to tell how you explain the difference of the shapes. Box
So, providing we are wary of illusions, we can, according to you, do scientific research on objective arrangement of parts?
Yes. Discernment of objective and subjective factors makes the research scientific.E.Seigner_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

E.Seigner,
ES #166: I have been through this game with Phinehas. Read up. The answer is the same.
You are suggesting that the following quote is an answer to my question, which is: how do you explain the difference in shape between a pile of sand and a sand castle?
ES #110: I have described the difference between the mound of dirt and the sand castle as incidental difference of shape.
So when you observe a pile of sand and a sand castle and ponder about the difference in shape you conclude that there is "an incidental difference of shape"? What do you mean by that? How does 'incidental' explain anything?
Box #165: In which sense is the arrangement of parts is out there?

ES #166: In the objective sense it’s out there, but as the picture I gave should lucidly illustrate, there’s also a necessary subjective aspect to the arrangement. The subjective aspect forces the perception of the square on us, even though it’s illusory and not out there.
So, providing we are wary of illusions, we can, according to you, do scientific research on objective arrangement of parts?Box_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

My answer is NEVER. But, that’s just a personal opinion, no more valid than your personal opinion.
I agree. It's a matter of personal opinion.StephenB_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

StephenB:
OK. That’s fair. Here is an example. E. Seigner has said that Upright Biped is a physicalist. I assume that you have been writing here long enough to know that this is not the case. Indeed, it would be impossible for a believer in non-material information to be a physicalist. I corrected ES on this matter and my corrective was ignored. Indeed, ES continued (and continues) to make the same false assertion. At what point (after how many times) would such disrespectful behavior finally merit a disrespectful response. After the second time?, the third time?, the tenth time? Never?
My answer is NEVER. But, that's just a personal opinion, no more valid than your personal opinion. It's just that I was brought up to respect the rights of others to disagree with me (even when I'm sure I'm right and they are dead wrong) and to keep anger and frustration in check. That's the ideal, not always met, alas.Daniel King_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply