Guest Post: Design Detection

_{Barry Arrington

December 10, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

Paul Giem provides the following guest post today:

The following three pictures were made to represent trays with 560 coins with either white (heads) or black (tails) showing. At least one of them was created by shaking coins and then spreading them out on a table (actually multiple shakes of 20 or so coins) and copying the pattern of heads and tails produced. Which one or ones are they, and why? Were the ones, if any, that were not done by this process designed, and if so by whom, and using what method?

Comments

MF: With high reliability the presence of organised blocs and lines following arcs or straight patterns will clue an experienced observer that 3 is designed, as such extended straightness and curves in a context of high contingency are not typical of natural processes. And, here, the pattern is sustained across 506 bits of info in 2-state pixels. KFkairosfocus_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

Box, 34: Very well said -- the moment of Gestalt. KFkairosfocus_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

F/N: I should add a comment on an odd property of writing pi in binary or decimal, place value notation. As, there is no credible correlation between the number system's conventions and the ratio of circumference to diameter of a circle, there will be a tendency that arbitrary blocs of pi will show apparent randomness similar to random number tables -- and BTW the audio of digits of pi sounds much like white noise. Though of course this has not been strictly proved and it is not wise to use something that can be decoded like that. The pattern is similar to the old statistician's trick of using line codes as poor man's random number tables due to lack of correlation. KFkairosfocus_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT}

wd400 But I said, "chemical evidence," not "biological" evidence.PaV_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
02:35 AM
2
02
35
AM
PDT}

Paul Giem: How do we know that number 3 is designed?
In all 3 pictures a bird's-eye view is offered. We are hovering above the coins. Intelligent agent's have a bird's-eye view - contrary to blind processes who have no view whatsoever. How do we know that a designer with bird's-eye view (overview) manipulated the coins? We, as intelligent agents, know this when we see (top-down) the same thing that the designer intended. It is at this very moment - that the designer's view and ours blend - that we immediately infer design.Box_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT}

Paul #31
I don’t know what kind of being you would be writing about. Certainly humans would have to have a very unusual upbringing to know nothing about human language and writing. If there are any intelligent (enough) non-humans around, they are all too familiar with human language and writing. I rather suspect that a Korean or Chinese person with no knowledge of English writing, or even an illiterate person, could pick out number 3 as designed, even if s/he could not read it.

But this is missing the point.
Agreed. It is a hypothetical example whether such people actually exist is not relevant.
Your comments might point to someone with a defect in design detection, just like a person who is color-blind might not be able to tell the difference between design and non-design (see ciphertext at #2).
I am talking about a defect in background knowledge. If they had the background knowledge then they would be able to detect is was designed.
It doesn’t get to the heart of the real question: How do we know that number 3 is designed? Because, of course, it is a correct inference. Finding ways we could be wrong is not as important as knowing why we are right, if we want to learn something and not simply carp.
Identifying the additional knowledge required to make the inference is surely relevant to understanding why it is correct? To put it positively I would suggest the inference is correct because: 1) We know that pattern 3 is of interest to humans. 2) We know that humans have the ability to arrange the coins In my example I did the thought experiment of someone who did not have knowledge of 1.Mark Frank_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
01:18 AM
1
01
18
AM
PDT}

Compared to the others #3 is designed because contains 11 linear orthogonal geometric shapes inscribed into rectangles of equal size (5x7 pixels) perfectly evenly spaced and aligned in two parallel rows. Also illiterates and aliens would detect design because any intelligent being grasps geometry.niwrad_{December 11, 2014
December
12
Dec
11
11
2014
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank (#14), You stated that "No one is denying the ability to detect if something is designed." Welcome also to the dark side ;) . (If we are not brights, we must be the dark side. ;) ) I think Mung (19) is more accurate as to how ID deniers :) , at least those who speak up on this site, usually act. You raise an interesting question.
could someone or something that knew nothing about human language and writing detect that 3 was designed[?]
I don't know what kind of being you would be writing about. Certainly humans would have to have a very unusual upbringing to know nothing about human language and writing. If there are any intelligent (enough) non-humans around, they are all too familiar with human language and writing. I rather suspect that a Korean or Chinese person with no knowledge of English writing, or even an illiterate person, could pick out number 3 as designed, even if s/he could not read it. But this is missing the point. Your comments might point to someone with a defect in design detection, just like a person who is color-blind might not be able to tell the difference between design and non-design (see ciphertext at #2). It doesn't get to the heart of the real question: How do we know that number 3 is designed? Because, of course, it is a correct inference. Finding ways we could be wrong is not as important as knowing why we are right, if we want to learn something and not simply carp. Tim (#22), Try converting binary pi to heads and tails and comparing it to number 1 and number 2. I think you will be surprised. rvb8 (#24), Welcome also to the dark side ;) . You see no point in the post. Consider the fact that when Barry Arrington made a very similar post his detractors seemed to argue that semi-random banging on a keyboard was less random than the Hamlet soliloquy. It seems that there was a need to go over the material once again just to nail down the point that sometimes we can detect design, and it is obvious. If you concede that, you can stay for the discussion of how we detect design when we do, then later, once we know (partly) how to detect design, we can discuss if life exhibits evidence of design. Mung (#19), you say,
Also, I’d wager that the Smithsonian has more than a few devices we are pretty certain were designed but have no knowledge of the context in which they were created. So that objection fails and you present us with a false dichotomy.
You are correct. In fact, there are some objects which, if they were found in any context that could reasonably be examined (the surface of the Sun doesn't count), would be morally certainly designed. Examples would be 747's, or any man-made airplane, or computer for that matter. If we found one on Pluto, we would know that someone intelligent had to have been there. The question is, how do we know? PaV (#26), You are right that that is the next step. Many ID deniers are afraid of that step, because they know what is coming next, and they don't want to follow this thought to its logical conclusion. That is why they played dumb when Barry A offered his two strings of letters, spaces, and punctuation. But right now we want to solidify our gains. So far, everyone who has commented, ID proponent or opponent, has recognized the fact that number 3 is designed. Soon they will recognize that one of the others is also unquestionably designed. The shaking coins (or flipping coins, or any reasonably random process) hypothesis is simply untenable. When we can nail down why, we can apply that insight into detecting design in life. If we try to accomplish too much here, the underlying point being made will be muddied. gpuccio (#28, 29), Well said. I don't know about Me_Think (#23) (he may be making a valid point about layers of design), but rvb8 (#24) is trying to belittle the point while conceding it. He may be right that it is rather pedestrian, but since it has been disputed, I think it is still worth making. [#30--see my reply to PaV]Paul Giem_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT}

wd400: OK, don't be fastidious! Let's try a more detailed definition: "Mutations which happen in the genome are the result of biological events which are in no way connected to the functions we observe in the functional genome, and they can be best described by probabilistic distributions". Obviously, that definition has nothing to do with NS or with anything that happens after the mutations take place.gpuccio_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PDT}

Me_Think and rvb8: You are just joking, aren't you? Just to understand.gpuccio_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
10:51 PM
10
10
51
PM
PDT}

Mark: "No one is denying the ability to detect if something is designed. The dispute is how and when can you detect design, and in particular do you have to know something about the context in which it was created to detect if it was designed or can you tell simply from some intrinsic property of the object itself (as Dembksi would argue). A relevant question would be – could someone or something that knew nothing about human language and writing detect that 3 was designed." Is that an argument? Whoever said that design detection has no false negatives? "to know something about the context in which it was created" is a very generic and ambiguous statement. Obviously we have to know "something" about the context: we have to know the object, the system where it is supposed to have originated, the time span of its origin. And we have to be able to recognize the functional specification. Nobody has ever said anything different. But that has nothing to do with knowing anything about the designer or how the designer implemented the design, or why he did it, and so on, which are the usual arguments used by your side. All those things, while useful and interesting, in no way are necessary to make a design inference.gpuccio_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT}

I don't not know what you meant by "completely random", but if you mean the normal lay meaning, then pretty much every molecular biology observation ever is evidence against that.wd400_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT}

wd400: Actually, it’s an example of well-defined and tractable chance hypothesi (“spreading coins randomly”) If proponents of CSI-like measures could produce the same they’d have something. But we can: "nucleotide bases combine in a completely random fashion." Do you have chemical evidence to disprove this thesis?PaV_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington wrote:
Paul Giem provides the following guest post today: The following three pictures were made to represent trays with 560 coins with either white (heads) or black (tails) showing.
That's a useful illustration. The main question now seems to be: What does intelligence at work in DNA, RNA and protein coding look like and why is it that way? IDeas?Gary S. Gaulin_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

All three are clearly designed as they use perfect little 5mm circles of clear black and white shadings. The possibility that nature could produce these perfect little black and white circles is... wait a minute, maybe not. The third has words. What is the point of this post? It should have been produced by 'News'.rvb8_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

All three are biased. By putting in a tray,the coins have been restricted to certain angular momentum vector . This leads to dynamical Bias (Dynamical Bias in the Coin Toss :Persi Diaconis, Susan Holmes, and Richard Montgomery). By putting in a tray the dynamical bias is more than in flipping a coin. Bias of random shaking too comes into play. Were the batches of 20 coins shaken with same force? Not only do we have dynamical bias, we also have force of shaking bias! Hence this experiment is not valid.Me_Think_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

Well, I scrolled down the PI page and never found "DUE to CHANCE" hm. . . scroll longer? Get Dawkins to do it? No, he is satisfied that the "design is just appearance" which he hopes to mean "will just appear", no need to scroll, it is down there somewhere. Ok, just kidding.Tim_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

If you select an arbitrary point on number 3, atleast 5 pixels from any of the edges, and use 5 pixels (assume these are "pixels") radius from that point and draw a circle, then compare it to 1 or 2 with the same point, you will find that we cannot determine anything with small sample size, hence the need for a threshold (ie: this is a relatively good sample size to determine design). However, what Darwinists would say perhaps is that 1, 2 and 3 is no different because we know in advance what English is, and perhaps 1 and 2 is also an "alien" language we do not know of. Or perhaps the Darwinists will say that 3 doesn't differ because while 1 and 2 may not "look" pretty and "organized", they still perform some kind of "function" that has a "selective advantage", ie: better than nothing.computerist_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

Mark frank says, A relevant question would be – could someone or something that knew nothing about human language and writing detect that 3 was designed. I say, I think there is a way to move forward on this. we can if we choose to remove the sequence completely from it's context and code the string of coins one row at a time top to bottom HHHTTTHTTTH... or even bottom to top HTTTHHTHHH...... Either way I bet we are left with a structure that is obviously different than the two random sequences. At that point we might look for any known algorithmic process that could conceivably produce the pattern. We might even try and develop our own algorithm and see if it could produce a pattern close enough the the real one to fool an observer. If we could not produce any thing like it algorithmically we could tentatively assume design. The more length/complexity in the string the more confident we would be in our inference. peacefifthmonarchyman_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

Mark, we get people in here all the time who assert that design is not detectable. E.Seigner comes to mind as a recent example. Note also that all of a sudden who designed #3 doesn't seem to be an issue. Hidden and mysterious powers of the putative designer seem to be irrelevant all of a sudden. The motive? Also not relevant. Their religion? Not relevant. Do they have a Wedge document? Not relevant. Are they a secret admirer of the Discovery Institute? Not relevant. MF:
A relevant question would be – could someone or something that knew nothing about human language and writing detect that 3 was designed.
I'm sorry, but I don't find that a relevant question at all. We're talking about humans after all and whether design is detectable by humans. Since that question hasn't even been answered yet why go off on some wild-goose chase about how non-humans might detect design? MF:
The dispute is how and when can you detect design, and in particular do you have to know something about the context in which it was created to detect if it was designed or can you tell simply from some intrinsic property of the object itself (as Dembksi would argue).
I think that misrepresents Dembski. Has he dropped specification? Also, I'd wager that the Smithsonian has more than a few devices we are pretty certain were designed but have no knowledge of the context in which they were created. So that objection fails and you present us with a false dichotomy. Then there's Richard Dawkins for whom the appearance of design in living things is overwhelming. But why? Is there anything scientific at all about this, and if not, how can there be a scientific answer to the question of the appearance of design? I apologize for any snarkiness ;)Mung_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

Mark at 16 "A relevant question would be – could someone or something that knew nothing about human language and writing detect that 3 was designed." I agree. This needs to be shown. By the way, aren't you glad that Dempski and others are trying to answer this fascinating scientific question? Wouldn't it be great if some people stopped putting road-blocks in their way by calling it pseudoscience and religion? Or do you think that Paul's example above is an appeal to the scripture?Collin_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

The situation is high contingency so necessity does not seem a credible explanation for 1, 2 or 3. 1 & 2 look randomish per "typical" expectations, but I notice 2 has a long run of W's which truly random processes may put up but if there is a non-random mimic is less likely, so I suspect 2 is best candidate to be truly random; for both, absent spotting a specific separately described pattern I would go with the high contingency default, chance. 3 is definitely designed, on observed FSCO/I. Of course, the design explanatory filter is designed to be reliable on ruling designed at the price of being less reliable on ruling chance in the face of high contingency.kairosfocus_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

Paul I don't see the point of your OP. No one is denying the ability to detect if something is designed. The dispute is how and when can you detect design, and in particular do you have to know something about the context in which it was created to detect if it was designed or can you tell simply from some intrinsic property of the object itself (as Dembksi would argue). A relevant question would be - could someone or something that knew nothing about human language and writing detect that 3 was designed.Mark Frank_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

#8 is the best one. :-) Coins don't tell lies.Silver Asiatic_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

All, If you go to http://www.befria.nu/elias/pi/binpi.html , does that change your answer? Silver Asiatic (#1), So far we got only one comment [now 2?] from an intelligent design denier :) that I recognize (wd400 at #8 [and now RodW at #13]), and that comment agreed with the obvious conclusion and sought to make a distinction between this kind of probability argument and the probability arguments regarding life. It looks like we have an acceptance of the principle of design detection, and the dispute is about details. There is some hope. What do you all think about the following arguments? 1. All three have heads/tails ratios statistically close to 0.5, and so must be random. 2. A non-random pattern can be misinterpreted as random; therefore a random pattern can be misinterpreted as non-random and the method fails. 3. There was no prior hypothesis by you design detectors; therefore your detection is invalid. 4. Any pattern is equally valid (see niwrad #4), so they are all likely to be random. 5. We can't detect design unless we know how the design was made. 6. We can't detect design unless we know who the designer was. 7. Number 3 can't be designed because it has an imperfection (see liljenborg #3, gpuccio #5). 8. Number 3 can't be designed because if it is not designed, it is not designed, and if it is designed, it says it is due to chance and it is therefore not designed. 9. It's a good thing that there are 560 bits in each design, because only half that amount of bits could not reasonably indicate design. To wd400 [and RodW]: Welcome to the dark side ;) .Paul Giem_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

I'm pretty sure the first 2 are random but the 3rd was designed. Am I correct? One could use this technique to show that proteins are designed if there was no way, other than random assembly, of generating proteins. But of course there is.RodW_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

I am no good at design detection when it comes to such binary arrays, so I cannot tell which of the first two, if either, are designed, but the third one was designed. It was designed by humans. The method was placing coins to spell English words in an array with object/field contrast based on a color to coin-side definition. I determined this by making some assumptions following "spreading them out on a table" part of the narrative. Either of the first two could be anything from a random pile, to a code, to a game (very poorly played on a non-standard board) of Go.Tim_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

and copying the pattern of heads and tails produced ... Were the ones, if any, that were not done by this process designed, and if so by whom, and using what method?
Ahh a trick question! They were all designed by the copyist.Silver Asiatic_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

From the OP:
At least one of them was created by shaking coins and then spreading them out on a table (actually multiple shakes of 20 or so coins) and copying the pattern of heads and tails produced.
Are you saying one of them is composed of a repeating pattern, or just that one of them was produced by representing actual coin tosses?Mung_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

Actually, it's an example of well-defined and tractable chance hypothesi ("spreading coins randomly") If proponents of CSI-like measures could produce the same they'd have something.wd400_{December 10, 2014
December
12
Dec
10
10
2014
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply