How is it that when cognitive psychologists and computational intelligence engineers detect user intent, they are doing science, but when ID theorists detect design in biological systems, they aren’t? There’s a double standard here. ID might fail as a science — methods of design detection might be defective or fail to yield a positive result, but to say that their application does not even constitute science, as Judge John E. Jones III ruled in Kitzmiller v. Dover, is on its face ludicrous. Consider the following letter from a colleague:
Bill,
I wondered if science did any studies on “intent detection” so I searched Google. The focus has always been on the phrase “design detection” so it never occured to me that science might be doing research under an alias like this. Here’s one article I came across.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/08/030815074654.htm
Sandia Team Develops Cognitive Machines — Machines Accurately Infer User Intent, Remember Experiences And Allow Users To Call Upon Simulated Experts
“Over the past five years a team led by Sandia cognitive psychologist Chris Forsythe has been developing cognitive machines that accurately infer user intent, remember experiences with users and allow users to call upon simulated experts to help them analyze situations and make decisions.”
Question 1: Does the computer really infer intent or is the program written in such a way as to cause the computer to infer intent where there is none?
Question 2: If code can be written to infer intent then why can’t code be written to infer design since design and intent are inseperably linked?
Question 3: How is this science different than the “non-science” of design detection? I don’t see any difference.
Regards,
[snip]