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

StephenB
Bad logic. The contradiction is not with your committment; it is in your two incompatible claims: [a] everything is designed —-cannot be reconciled with [b] nothing is designed unless the observer projects it onto the object.
Bad reading comprehension. Nowhere have I stated it the way you state it in [b]. What I have said is design cannot be empirically detected. From this you jumped to "nothing is designed" but this was an unwarranted non-sequitur on your part. StephenB
Bad logic: If the design is “there,” then it is inherent in the thing. Where else do you think “there” would be—in some other thing?—or hanging around the thing waiting for permission to enter?
It takes a separate argument for you to establish that the thing is the same as its design. You have not given any such argument. But if you did, and if design was inherent to things and inseparable from them, then wouldn't this make it logically impossible for you to show me a thing without design? My logic is that the design is analytically separable from the thing. Any design, form, pattern, etc. can be applied to any thing. Each thing has some design or other. There's no thing without some design or other. Things can be re-designed whichever way, but empirically never un-designed. This means that the thing can be mentally separated from its design, one can imagine the thing with some other design, and then one can follow through with the plan, to re-design the thing. However, the thing has some design or other all along. It's never without it. You assume and assert there's bad logic somewhere, without properly identifying where it is and what would be the right logic. Well, I agree there's bad logic somewhere. You are projecting it, and the fact that you don't recognize your own projection only makes it worse. Carry on.E.Seigner_{October 14, 2014
October
10
Oct
14
14
2014
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT}

E. Seigner
And there’s no contradiction with my unqualified commitment.
Bad logic. The contradiction is not with your committment; it is in your two incompatible claims: [a] everything is designed ----cannot be reconciled with [b] nothing is designed unless the observer projects it onto the object.
How are things designed? Someone outside shapes the thing, that’s how. Hence the design is not inherent to the thing, but imposed.
Bad logic. To shape it from the outside is to make it inherent in the thing. That is what it means to say that something is designed. You are confusing the how with the where.
Even before shaping, the thing already has some shape, form, pattern, or design, given by outside circumstances, the surroundings or environment.
You have not yet completed your thought. Try again.
So the design is always there, but never inherent.
Bad logic: If the design is “there,” then it is inherent in the thing. Where else do you think "there" would be—in some other thing?—or hanging around the thing waiting for permission to enter? Or perhaps you would like to revert to your claim that design is in the mind of the observer who projects it onto the thing, in which case it could not have always been there. This is all very entertaining, but not very edifying.
Anyway, it’s not my job to fix ID theory. It’s your job to prove your theory is okay and needs no fixing.
You are not yet prepared to evaluate ID theory, as is clear from your responses.StephenB_{October 14, 2014
October
10
Oct
14
14
2014
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT}

StephenB
In any case, I was not responding to your attempt to wrestle with the definitions of design and function. I was responding to your unqualified claim that everything in the universe was or is designed. (Which, of course, contradicts your claim that nothing is designed unless we project design onto it).
So, you were not actually replying to me. You were just giving air to your own presuppositions regardless if they constitute a sensible answer or not. Thanks for clarifying this, even though I knew it all along. As to my unqualified claim that everything in the universe is designed, it's a metaphysical commitment that makes sense to me (and to every single theologian I have read). What doesn't make sense is how anyone, believer or not, can hold that some things are devoid of design and, furthermore, that the distinction can be quantified. And there's no contradiction with my unqualified commitment. How are things designed? Someone outside shapes the thing, that's how. Hence the design is not inherent to the thing, but imposed. Even before shaping, the thing already has some shape, form, pattern, or design, given by outside circumstances, the surroundings or environment. So the design is always there, but never inherent. Design cannot be called inherent, not logically, and in the technical philosophical sense of "inherent" it is never called that. But you of course don't care about my explicitly laid out metaphysical framework. You don't care to clarify presuppositions at all. In this you are of course in line with Dembski, who claims ID theory has no metaphysical commitments and no implications. "It says nothing about the designer." Unfortunatey this claim itself is only possible due to flawed presuppositions. Anyway, it's not my job to fix ID theory. It's your job to prove your theory is okay and needs no fixing.E.Seigner_{October 13, 2014
October
10
Oct
13
13
2014
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT}

UB
He’s/She’s serious..
Alas, it appears to be so.StephenB_{October 13, 2014
October
10
Oct
13
13
2014
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

OK, try this: I can think of millions of things that have no design. How about the shape my coffee takes on the floor after I spill it?Joe_{October 13, 2014
October
10
Oct
13
13
2014
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

E.Seigner
To point out the most central problem with this answer: It says that spilled coffee makes a “pattern”. “Pattern” happens to be a synonym for “design”. So, spilled coffee actually has “design”. I asked for a thing that didn’t have design.
Imagine this comment coming from someone who claims that "context is everything." It should be obvious from the context, that the word pattern was meant to convey the idea of physical form or shape, which is a design neutral concept. However, I will happily change the word for the sake of further clarity, which is always a friend of truth. So, here we go: You said that everything in the universe is designed. Where is the design or function in the physical shape or form of the aforementioned coffee spill.
Intelligent agent was not directly relevant to my question in the original context. I was debating the definitions of design and function. To replace a term with its synonym in such context is an annoying non-answer.
Yes, this business of replacing a term with a synonym in order to avoid argument is very annoying!!! (Excuse me while I pick myself up from the floor) In any case, I was not responding to your attempt to wrestle with the definitions of design and function. I was responding to your unqualified claim that everything in the universe was or is designed. (Which, of course, contradicts your claim that nothing is designed unless we project design onto it). What you should have said is that all the raw materials for design were themselves designed, but of course you did not say that because the distinction has never occurred to you. In fact, many things are not designed and I can demonstrate that fact with countless examples.
And also intelligent agent is not excluded in case of spilled coffee, because wasn’t it a potentially intelligent agent who spilled it? And what if the pattern of the spilled coffee spells out “Goddidit” or whatever. Seriously, whatever.
An intelligent agent was primarily responsible for the spill (distractions and other things could also play a role), but physical laws (and epistemological chance) were responsible for the resultant physical form taken on by the liquid coffee. We have already covered this ground. If the physical form takes the shape of letters which form the message, "God did it," then we can safely conclude that an intelligent agent intervened after the spill and designed it that way. That is the whole point. We can make the distinction between law/chance and intelligent agency.StephenB_{October 13, 2014
October
10
Oct
13
13
2014
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

He's/She's serious..Upright BiPed_{October 13, 2014
October
10
Oct
13
13
2014
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

StephenB
Onlookers will know that the observable pattern on the floor made by a coffee spill was not designed by an intelligent agent.
To help onlookers out, let's refer to the original context.
ES: When inclined this way, we find function and design everywhere. Can you name a thing that has no design or function? Thought so. StephenB: I can think of millions of things that have no design. How about the pattern my coffee makes on the floor after I spill it?
To point out the most central problem with this answer: It says that spilled coffee makes a "pattern". "Pattern" happens to be a synonym for "design". So, spilled coffee actually has "design". I asked for a thing that didn't have design. Intelligent agent was not directly relevant to my question in the original context. I was debating the definitions of design and function. To replace a term with its synonym in such context is an annoying non-answer. I have been rightly treating it as such. And also intelligent agent is not excluded in case of spilled coffee, because wasn't it a potentially intelligent agent who spilled it? And what if the pattern of the spilled coffee spells out "Goddidit" or whatever. Seriously, whatever.E.Seigner_{October 13, 2014
October
10
Oct
13
13
2014
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

Joe
E Seigner- Cars and roads are designed. Does that mean that mean that in your opinion there cannot be any accidents with cars on roads?
Good question! While you are waiting for an answer that will likely never come, let's try a little ES logic: God made all the material elements found in steel: Therefore, we cannot differentiate between a pile of junk and a Rolls Royce. Wasn’t that fun?StephenB_{October 13, 2014
October
10
Oct
13
13
2014
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

Upright Biped
ES, Reading comprehension … “pattern” P-a-t-t-e-r-n The question, as you already know very well, asked you to indicate the “design or function” in the pattern of spilled coffee on Stephen’s floor -or- at a minimum, do the intellectually honest thing and simply acknowledge that no such design or function exists. Your response, instead, was to further insult those who met your challenge.
UB-- I thank you for stating the obvious in my absence. ES has presented yet another mindless distraction. Onlookers will know that the observable pattern on the floor made by a coffee spill was not designed by an intelligent agent. The point has absolutely nothing to do with the unobservable elements in a coffee bean. So it is with the undesigned pattern made by an explosion in a paint factory and the designed pattern made by an artist with a brush. Any rational person can detect the difference. Again, and as you know, it has absolutely nothing to do with the elements or chemicals in the paint. Only an irrational person, a troll, or a materialist ideologue would deny any of these points or raise such frivolous objections. Since ES disavows any connection with materialism, we are left with the other two options from which to choose.StephenB_{October 13, 2014
October
10
Oct
13
13
2014
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

E Seigner- Cars and roads are designed. Does that mean that mean that in your opinion there cannot be any accidents with cars on roads?Joe_{October 13, 2014
October
10
Oct
13
13
2014
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed #33
Reading comprehension … “pattern” P-a-t-t-e-r-n
I just mentioned on another thread that everyone who has tried to communicate with ES so far has found it impossible. Unfortunately, even spelling the words out doesn't seem to work. I reached a frustration-point and headache a while back and unfortunately stayed with it too long -- just a few thoughts of caution. I wish her well, but life if too short for nonsense like that.Silver Asiatic_{October 13, 2014
October
10
Oct
13
13
2014
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

UB, I suspect it would be wise to dial back on language. KFkairosfocus_{October 13, 2014
October
10
Oct
13
13
2014
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT}

ES, Reading comprehension ... "pattern" P-a-t-t-e-r-n The question, as you already know very well, asked you to indicate the "design or function" in the pattern of spilled coffee on Stephen's floor -or- at a minimum, do the intellectually honest thing and simply acknowledge that no such design or function exists. Your response, instead, was to further insult those who met your challenge.Upright BiPed_{October 13, 2014
October
10
Oct
13
13
2014
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PDT}

Mapou
The difference between ‘random’ and ‘design’ is very simple, IMO. If it is not random, it was either designed or it is the result of design. This is why I believe the whole universe was designed, down to lowly photons and electrons.
I also happen to believe that the whole universe was designed, down to lowly photons and electrons. This is why I don't believe randomness can be detectably distinguished from design. But see, Upright BiPed here believes differently. He thinks spilled coffee serves as a valid example where there's no design, even though coffee, if it's a drink, doesn't grow on trees, i.e. it's not a natural fruit, but a highly processed man-made product, along with the cup where it is usually served. But he thinks his example is so obvious it should be accepted without question. Go figure.E.Seigner_{October 12, 2014
October
10
Oct
12
12
2014
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT}

Daniel King
Who could resist that cordial invitation to civil dialog?
A better question would be this: At what point do disrespectful expressions of intellectual dishonesty cease to merit a respectful response?StephenB_{October 12, 2014
October
10
Oct
12
12
2014
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

ES:
If anything, the discussion should have made it clear to you by now that nothing is simple. The same way as we are unable to agree on what design and random mean, we hardly agree on what function and pattern mean.
The difference between 'random' and 'design' is very simple, IMO. If it is not random, it was either designed or it is the result of design. This is why I believe the whole universe was designed, down to lowly photons and electrons.Mapou_{October 12, 2014
October
10
Oct
12
12
2014
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

Imo, It is not the position of E.Seigner that the pattern of the coffee spilled on the floor has no function, but only that E.Seigner is having difficulty projecting what that function is.Mung_{October 12, 2014
October
10
Oct
12
12
2014
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

Daniel, Given the string of insults to honest dialogue that have been absorbed on ES's behalf, consider it breaking even.Upright BiPed_{October 12, 2014
October
10
Oct
12
12
2014
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

Who could resist that cordial invitation to civil dialog?
E Seigner shat upon that invitation many weeks ago.Joe_{October 12, 2014
October
10
Oct
12
12
2014
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

So basically you are a loudmouth bullshitter who can’t defend your position; who is prone to whining that ID people won’t play pretty with you.
Who could resist that cordial invitation to civil dialog?Daniel King_{October 12, 2014
October
10
Oct
12
12
2014
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

ES: I see. So ... when you challenge someone to give you an example of a thing that doesn't have a "design or function", and they give you a perfectly valid answer, you can then ignore that answer, and lodge an indefensible objection against it -- and if anyone doesn't like it, then you'll just pretend that you had no idea what you meant by the words "design" or "function" when you used them to ask the question in the first place. In sum, your words (and what you meant by them) can be used to attack ID, but your words (and what you meant by them) cannot be used to defend ID. So basically you are a loudmouth bullshitter who can't defend your position; who is prone to whining that ID people won't play pretty with you. Okay. Got it. ... and by the way, of the two of us here, you are the only one who cannot make their case and defend it with the use of explicit terms. I have no problem with that. Of course, you already know that, because you've had to twist and run from virtually everything I've said. I noticed that you didn't spend a lot of time asking me to define my terms.Upright BiPed_{October 12, 2014
October
10
Oct
12
12
2014
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

E Seigner:
Because if it depends on what I or you think ...
What an idiot- you are being asked a question and instead of answering it you prefer the cowardly way out. It is clear that there isn't any function with a spilled cup of coffee and no one cares if ES sez that is a subjective claim. That is because ES is unable to support anything it posts.Joe_{October 12, 2014
October
10
Oct
12
12
2014
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

It is very obvious that E Seigner is just a bloviating arse. It accepts what Shallit does without question but prefers to obfuscate when IDists try to explain concepts. And to op it all off E Seigner has proven it doesn't even have a basic understanding of science.Joe_{October 12, 2014
October
10
Oct
12
12
2014
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed
ES, If you don’t think the pattern has a function or design, why do you resists simply acknowledging so? If you do think it does, then why do you resist naming it?
Because if it depends on what I or you think then ID is a fluffy pseudoscience based on subjective moods, not a rigorously defined reliable scientific method. You sure you want to go there? Well, you already did...E.Seigner_{October 12, 2014
October
10
Oct
12
12
2014
01:21 AM
1
01
21
AM
PDT}

ES, If you don't think the pattern has a function or design, why do you resists simply acknowledging so? If you do think it does, then why do you resist naming it?Upright BiPed_{October 12, 2014
October
10
Oct
12
12
2014
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PDT}

ES, again, this would seem to be a rather simple question -- Stephen spills some coffee on his floor, what is the function or design in the pattern of the spilled coffee?Upright BiPed_{October 12, 2014
October
10
Oct
12
12
2014
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT}

ES,
the discussion should have made it clear to you by now that nothing is simple.
I didn't ask you is something was simple. I asked you what the function is in the pattern of coffee spilled on the Stephen’s floor. What is your answer?Upright BiPed_{October 12, 2014
October
10
Oct
12
12
2014
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT}

@E.Seigner #17 Would you mind quoting the portion of my post you're referring to support the statement that it doesn't make sense to ask what the function is for the pattern of coffee on the floor in order to point out the easily recognizable difference between a pattern (or whatever) with a function and one that has no purpose or function and does not match any specification? I certainly remember saying that it doesn't make sense to ask for a CSI value for an event, object, pattern, etc. that has been determined to be designed because the 'C', 'Complexity', in CSI is a reference to improbability, which is not something we can talk about for designed, intentional events. But I'm not entirely sure what part of my post you're referencing to support what you're saying here.HeKS_{October 12, 2014
October
10
Oct
12
12
2014
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed
It’s a simple question: what is the function of the pattern?
If anything, the discussion should have made it clear to you by now that nothing is simple. The same way as we are unable to agree on what design and random mean, we hardly agree on what function and pattern mean. With such fundamental disagreements, it doesn't even make sense to pose the question. HeKS explains it very well, making it lucidly clear that the question is not at all simple. Yet other ID theorists (not to mention opponents) disagree with the points he makes. So there. Not simple at all.E.Seigner_{October 12, 2014
October
10
Oct
12
12
2014
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply