Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Human Evil, Music, Logic, and Himalayan Dung Heaps

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

When I was in college I studied classical piano with Istvan Nadas who was a Hungarian concert pianist and a student of Bela Bartok. Istvan was a miraculous survivor of one of Hitler’s death camps. The stories he told me still haunt me to this day.

The commandant of the death camp liked to play Bach over the loudspeaker system while he had random inmates shot or hung, just for fun and entertainment. Nadas told me about the horror of listening to Bach while he watched his fellow inmates being machine-gunned to death in front of him. Nadas told me, “I knew every note of that music and could play it on the piano, but I also knew that if they discovered I was a concert pianist they would break all my fingers so I could never play the piano again.”

Nadas’s death camp was eventually “liberated” by the Russians. Istvan was one of only 150 survivors from a camp of thousands. He weighed 90 pounds and was suffering from dysentery and other diseases. While the Russians were transporting him on a train to what he knew would be a Russian internment camp he managed to jump out of the train as it slowed in the mountains. Under machine-gun fire he fled into the trees, was helped my local residents, and was eventually smuggled by an African American GI under a tarp in the back of a jeep through Check Point Charlie.

Nadas eventually discovered that every member of his extended family had either been gassed or otherwise tortured and exterminated by the Nazis, or shot by the Russians, with one exception: his mother, whom he eventually tracked down in Italy after the war.

One evening, after a concert at the university while I was studying piano with Nadas, which was conducted by a guest “contemporary composer” — it was just a bunch of random cacophony, very painful to listen to, but sold as legitimate music — I asked Nadas what he thought.

“It is a Himalayan dung heap,” he replied. (Nadas spoke six languages fluently, and had a way with words.) This phrase stuck in my mind, and it’s the perfect description of something so obviously stupid that it represents a pile of crap of Himalayan proportions.

The students and faculty applauded the Himalayan-dung-heap “music” because no one had the courage to point out the obvious, except for Nadas.

This is a perfect metaphor for Darwinism. Very few people in academia have the courage to point out the cacophony and illogic of Darwinian speculation.

It takes the courage of someone like Nadas, who was willing to jump off a train in the mountains under machine-gun fire, to tell the obvious truth.

Comments
F/N: "Definitionitis" is in full blown form, it seems. But, don't we in fact have definitions adequately and reasonably reducible to empirical operations already; indeed long since? Let's clip Mung on Tuckman in 199 [noting that his onward linked at the foot gives . . . examples that look very familiar relative to what we have been using]:
A type A operational definition can be constructed in terms of the operations performed to cause the phenomenon to occur. [Fear - state produced by exposing an individual to an object highest in his or her hierarchy of objects to be avoided. Conflict - state produced by placing two or more individuals in a situation where each has the same goal but only one can obtain it.] A type B operational definition can be constructed in terms of how the particular object or thing operates. [Motor activity - excursions by a student from his or her seat. Motivation - persistent attendance of students in a school (as measured by number of days attended).] A type C operational definition can be constructed in terms of what an object or phenomenon looks like. [Introversion - the tendency or characteristic of an individual to prefer to engage in solitary rather than group activities. Team teaching - utilization of two or more teachers to develop lesson plans and teach in one or more subject matter areas to a fixed group of students.]
1 --> Type A does not seem particularly relevant [save in the trivial sense of describing how complex, specifically functional info -- like a post in this thread -- is say composed by an intelligent agent, typed in as ascii code and transferred to the site that stores the page info thence retransmitted to browsers], but B and C are already clearly and long since repeatedly represented. 2 --> To wit, we first have and/or have access to descriptions of how info operates as a meaningful, specific, rules based configuration of elements that communicates meaning in a comms system: source, encoder, transmission unit, channel and/or storage, receiver unit, decoder, sink, all in the face of noise, interference etc. 3 --> In addition, as I have outlined at 192 above, we have a metric that can be applied to give numerical results on a widely used symbol frequency metric and is itself the application of a well known, well tested and -- despite a lot of ill founded dismissals -- quite successful detection procedure, the explanatory filter. 4 --> As is well known, Mathgrrl et al have challenged the rigour of the definition of CSI, but this has been answered step by step, May 12, months ago now, here. (No cogent response has ever come to my notice, just repetitions of the assertions corrected.) 5 --> Let us note the Type C def'n, which is in effect saying that one can view an ostensive definition or a description of/pointing to examples, as a way to operationally define. So, the type of description plus key examples pattern that we have been repeatedly using is relevant. 6 --> And, it is long since the case that we have a metric that is operational and known to be relevant to biological cases, indeed since April 18 or thereabouts this has been put up for all to see -- and roundly ignored or dismissed by MG et al on grounds that seem to lack any significant merits. 7 --> All of this -- per the UB comment at 200 just above -- fits quite well with the definition apparently composed by Dr Liddle herself on various dictionary etc discussions in exchanges with UB:
Information is a representation of a discrete object/thing embedded in an arrangement of matter or energy, where the object/thing represented is entirely dissociated from the representation
8 --> We can compare this with the definition that has been there in the UD glossary all along, in turn clipped and re-arranged from Wiki by way of inadvertent testimony against interest:
“ . . that which would be communicated by a message if it were sent from a sender to a receiver capable of understanding the message . . . . In terms of data, it can be defined as a collection of facts [i.e. as represented or sensed in some format] from which conclusions may be drawn [and on which decisions and actions may be taken].”
9 --> And with say dictionary definitions accessible online:
1. Facts, data, or instructions in any medium or form. 2. The meaning that a human assigns to data by means of the known conventions used in their representation. [Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. US Department of Defense 2005.] 6. (Electronics & Computer Science / Computer Science) Computing a. the meaning given to data by the way in which it is interpreted b. another word for data [2] [Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003] 2b) the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects . . . d) a quantitative measure of the content of information; specifically: a numerical quantity that measures the uncertainty in the outcome of a specific experiment to be performed. [Merriam-Webster]
10 --> On fair comment, all of this has long been adequately on the table, and easily explains the annoyance being expressed by several commenters, including the recent speculation on willful misdirection or distraction and worse. __________ Frankly, Dr Liddle, I feel quite annoyed at this point, as in I find myself seriously tempred tot hink I am being dragged in an endless loop of going over the same issues long since adequately addressed, and tha this -- whether or not it is your intent -- is serving as a distraction from far more important points of consequence. (Not to mention, in the usual fever swamps it is occasion for drumbeat repetition of the usual already adequately answered twisty talking points.) Can you show me that there is anything of significance on the table today that was not adequately there months ago, and/or that could not have been rapidly and almost trivially been agreed as a reasonable step forward? As someone who first met the crucial understanding of information in the technical sense decades ago, to with I = - log P, used it in my own work, and actually taught it at college level myself in the context of information systems and the classic ISO layercake model and Shannon's model [I prefer to use my own adaptation of that model, emphasising encoders and decoders], I find the tendency to dismiss -- from Schneider on -- it as selectively hyperskeptical. Let me clip, yet again, from my favourite Taub and Schilling, Comms Syss, Ch 5:
Let us consider a communication system in which the allowable messages are m1, m2, . . ., with probabilities of occurrence p1, p2 [generally, detected through statistical studies of messages, e/g E is about 1/8 of typical English text], . . . . Of course p1 + p2 + . . . = 1. Let the transmitter select message mk of probability pk; let us further assume that the receiver has correctly identified the message [My nb: i.e. the a posteriori probability in my online discussion is 1]. Then we shall say, by way of definition of the term information, that the system has communicated an amount of information Ik given by Ik = (def) log2 1/pk (13.2-1) [i.e. Ik = - log2 pk, in bits]
Is there a serious objection to this, if so, what is it, why? (And, kindly note that symbol frequency patterns in typical messages have been used ever since Shannon, to estimate the p values, never mind the pathological cases; we are dealing with real world highly successful praxis here.) If not, know that the H-metric boils down -- as I learned from F R Conner decades ago -- is in effect the average info in the Harley sense just clipped, per symbol. I trust that we may now move forward with something constuctive. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
02:41 AM
2
02
41
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed
Dr Liddle, First, what a funny thing that your resource link pointed to a site dealing with the operationalization of hypotheses in statistical population research, a social science, which has been my professional specialty of many years. Your problem then becomes obvious. Despite my best efforts over the past eight weeks, you still don’t know what information is. Or, perhaps you understand the individual observations, but lack the imagination to put them together and grasp what it all means. In any case, your post certainly shines some light on why you think a method is not a method. It also makes clear why you think it’s circular to demonstrate something in order to confirm its presence. Let’s go to this comment for a clue: It’s like saying: demonstrate the presence of water by demonstrating the presence of water. No Dr Liddle, it’s nothing like that at all. To demonstrate the presence of water is to show a molecule with two hydrogen atoms bonded to a single oxygen atom. The last time I checked, these substances were all very material, each proudly listed on the Periodic Table. Then it all stands to reason; in order to demonstrate water, all one needs is to find a particular physical substance with two hydrogen atoms bonded to a single oxygen atom. That exercise however, has nothing whatsoever to do with finding information. Nowhere in the course of this conversation has anyone suggested that information exists as a material substance – or that it could be treated as one. In fact, quite to the contrary, we have always been very clear that the exact opposite is true. It is not the mere presence of the physical substance known as DNA that causes information to exist in the genome, Dr Liddle. It is not the mere presence of air that causes information to exist in speech. It is not the mere presence of iron oxide that causes information to exist on a recording tape. It is not the mere presence of wood pulp and dye that causes information to exist in a book. I have no idea where you got that idea, but it would be immediately challenged in this conversation, and would be falsified by the physical evidence. Information is an immaterial phenomenon embedded in the arrangement of a material carrier, a physical medium. But the information is not the medium itself, and the medium did not cause it to exist. It requires a mechanism beyond the material medium in order to come into existence. As has already happened over and over, your objections are already answered in the definition you crafted when we walked through the observations. Here is the relevant part: “Information is a representation of a discrete object/thing embedded in an arrangement of matter or energy, where the object/thing represented is entirely dissociated from the representation”
Right. And all that remained was to operationalise that.
If information is a discrete representation, and that representation is embedded in an arrangement of matter, then the existence of information simply cannot be confirmed in the same way as demonstrating the mere presence of any material object, like water. Its existence is not confirmed by the existence of the material, but by the arrangement.
Exactly.
Therefore, in fact, demonstrating the existence of information and the existence of water have nothing whatsoever in common. One is a matter of finding a substance; the other is finding an arrangement within a substance.
Well, I see a lot in common myself, but OK. That’s fine. In my field we mainly detect arrangements, not the-thing-itself.
Nowhere in the description you produced can you come to the conclusion that the presence of matter (a material object) is an indicator of information. Therefore as a logical consequence, to confirm the existence of information requires something more.
Certainly I agree that we are not interested in “the presence of matter” but the presence of an arrangement of matter, or, in the case of my proposal, virtual matter.
So let’s not stop the observation there, because this plays directly into a correction of your other issue – ‘why do I have to demonstrate information’ in order to know it exist, or ‘why is it that a demonstration of information is the only way to confirm its existence? The answer is in the definition already on the table, and is a logical deduction made from the evidence. If you found a material object that you suspected of carrying information in its arrangement, how would you confirm it? Remember, you can’t confirm that information exist in an object by just looking at it.
Well, Dembski claims you can, of course, so did Paley. But I’m on your side here.
The only way to confirm the existence of information is to demonstrate its effect.
Abso-bloomin’-lutely.
This should come as no surprise to someone following this conversation. Any material object that you suspect of having information in its arrangement would by definition have representations of discrete objects/things embedded in that arrangement. The only way to know it does is to demonstrate the effect of those representations, and to do that they’ll have to be demonstrated. That is not circular Dr Liddle; it’s as straight a line of reasoning as it can possibly be. It also happens to be the same method used to establish any other instance of information ever known to exist.
That’s why I liked Meyer’s definition from Webster. The crucial thing is to demonstrate the effects of the arrangement of matter. That’s easy enough to operationalise. Where I struck a difficulty was where you bring in “representations of discrete objects or things”. I’d suggest is simply cutting that part out. If the arrangement of a set of material objects can be demonstrated to “cause specific effects” then I don’t think we need the “representations” part at all, because if the output of something depends on the arrangement of the materials that form the input, then we’ve satisfied the Webster definition. We could, post hoc, say that in that case, the arrangement of materials (a codon, say) “represented” the output, but that would simply be a manner of speaking (a reasonable manner of speaking). Operationally, we would demonstrate that information was present by the simple observation that the arrangement of input material resulted in specific output.
This is why the demonstration is the only viable method, Dr Liddle. It’s mandatory to the exercise. You have to demonstrate that a discrete representation is a discrete representation, and for it to actually be a discrete representation it will require something to create the mapping between itself and that which it is to represent. And as in all other cases of information known to exist, those representations will have a physical protocol to establish that mapping.
Well, I would then need operationalisations of “discrete representation” and “physical protocol” then. But I don’t see that they are necessary. If the output (say an amino acid) maps to an arrangement of nucleotides, then obviously there must be a physical mechanism to do so. But all we need to do to say that information has been created is to demonstrate the mapping, surely? We do not have to say – “oh, and that mapping has to have been created by a physical protocol”. And we certainly do not have to say, surely, that the mapping has to have been created by a non-physical protocol, or a “break in the causal chain”!
Your claim is that both the creation and coordination of those representations and their protocols can arise in a system by chance and law, and that the output of those representations will be the system that created them.
My claim is that chance and law alone can give rise to information. I am more than happy to define, following Webster, “information” as the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produce specific effects. I don’t see that we need the word “representations” or “protocols” in there, in addition, although you might want to use them to describe what my sim actually does (if it succeeds).
If you are asking to push the methods question down to the level of describing the exact operation of keystrokes necessary to cause the required demonstrate in your simulation, then I want you to know that those decisions are entirely your own responsibility. And with these final misunderstandings out of the way, we eagerly await your results.
No, we don’t need specify the exact keystrokes. And if we go with Webster, as I hope we do, that makes things a lot simpler. Here we go, then:
Conceptual hypothesis: That chance and law alone can give rise to information, where “information” is defined conceptually, according to Merriam-Webster, as “the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produce specific effects.” Operational hypothesis: That, starting only with non-self-replicating entities with a physics-and-chemistry plus random kinetics, self-replicating “virtual organisms” can emerge that contain patterns of “virtual matter” whose arrangement determines the fidelity of its self replication (measured in terms of similarity to its “parent” as compared with a randomly substituted pattern).
If you approve that, I am ready to start, I think.Elizabeth Liddle
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
02:35 AM
2
02
35
AM
PDT
Mung:
Elizabeth Liddle:
As I said. One that allows you to measure the variable will of course also allow you to say whether it is present or absent. Shannon’s definition does that – if there are 0 bits in the message, there is no information present, and if there are >0 bits in the message, there is information present.
Upright BiPed has provided a definition according to which you may say that information is present or absent. And yet you have denied that he has given you an operational definition according to which you may say that information is present or absent.
Because he hasn't.
Why did you do that?
Because he hasn't.
Can you please explain to me how, according to Shannon’s measure, there can be 0 bits of information in a message?
In a message in which there is no reduction of uncertainty.
Please describe the message and the measurement and explain how the measurement demonstrates that there is 0 bits of information in the message.
You cannot. You will not. Please stop with the incessant inanity, I beg you.
OK, let's take a channel that is dominated by noise at a frequency of 50 hertz. We listen to this channel. We fail to detect any departure from the 50 Hz tone. We therefore receive 0 bits of information. But, as we all agree, it's a totally irrelevant measure of information because it leaves out meaning. So we can stop talking about it, as you request. Nobody is suggesting we use this measure.
If you cannot, then I think it is entirely reasonable on our part to deny that Shannon information suffices as an operational definition, for it will be the case that you have given no reason to think that Shannon’s measure can identify when there is no information present in a message.
Of course it is entirely reasonable. That is why I am not suggesting it. It measures something that corresponds to no-one's conceptual definition of information. So. We. Won't. Use. It. Right?
It can tell you how much information is in a message, but it cannot tell you whether information is present or absent (it can only say it is present, not that it is absent).
Well, see above. But this is totally irrelevant anyway. As we both agree.
Again, I appeal to anyone else, other than Elizabeth, to take up the cause on her behalf and explain why I am mistaken. p.s. Why is it Elizabeth, that you continue to assert that Shannon provided a definition? What did Shannon give a definition of?
Of something that no-one in their right minds would regard as a conceptual definition of information that corresponds to common English usage, which was Meyer's absolutely correct point. Which is why we will not use it. OK?Elizabeth Liddle
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT
UBP You write:
Despite my best efforts over the past eight weeks, you still don’t know what information is.
That is indeed the problem Upright BiPed. That is what I need you to tell me, in sufficiently unambiguous terms that I can derive a set of measurable variables from it. Until you do that, I cannot proceed. And until you see that, I guess we are stuck. I will try to address your long post in detail later.Elizabeth Liddle
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle, First, what a funny thing that your resource link pointed to a site dealing with the operationalization of hypotheses in statistical population research, a social science, which has been my professional specialty of many years. Your problem then becomes obvious. Despite my best efforts over the past eight weeks, you still don’t know what information is. Or, perhaps you understand the individual observations, but lack the imagination to put them together and grasp what it all means. In any case, your post certainly shines some light on why you think a method is not a method. It also makes clear why you think it’s circular to demonstrate something in order to confirm its presence. Let’s go to this comment for a clue:
It’s like saying: demonstrate the presence of water by demonstrating the presence of water.
No Dr Liddle, it’s nothing like that at all. To demonstrate the presence of water is to show a molecule with two hydrogen atoms bonded to a single oxygen atom. The last time I checked, these substances were all very material, each proudly listed on the Periodic Table. Then it all stands to reason; in order to demonstrate water, all one needs is to find a particular physical substance with two hydrogen atoms bonded to a single oxygen atom. That exercise however, has nothing whatsoever to do with finding information. Nowhere in the course of this conversation has anyone suggested that information exists as a material substance – or that it could be treated as one. In fact, quite to the contrary, we have always been very clear that the exact opposite is true. It is not the mere presence of the physical substance known as DNA that causes information to exist in the genome, Dr Liddle. It is not the mere presence of air that causes information to exist in speech. It is not the mere presence of iron oxide that causes information to exist on a recording tape. It is not the mere presence of wood pulp and dye that causes information to exist in a book. I have no idea where you got that idea, but it would be immediately challenged in this conversation, and would be falsified by the physical evidence. Information is an immaterial phenomenon embedded in the arrangement of a material carrier, a physical medium. But the information is not the medium itself, and the medium did not cause it to exist. It requires a mechanism beyond the material medium in order to come into existence. As has already happened over and over, your objections are already answered in the definition you crafted when we walked through the observations. Here is the relevant part: “Information is a representation of a discrete object/thing embedded in an arrangement of matter or energy, where the object/thing represented is entirely dissociated from the representation” If information is a discrete representation, and that representation is embedded in an arrangement of matter, then the existence of information simply cannot be confirmed in the same way as demonstrating the mere presence of any material object, like water. Its existence is not confirmed by the existence of the material, but by the arrangement. Therefore, in fact, demonstrating the existence of information and the existence of water have nothing whatsoever in common. One is a matter of finding a substance; the other is finding an arrangement within a substance. Nowhere in the description you produced can you come to the conclusion that the presence of matter (a material object) is an indicator of information. Therefore as a logical consequence, to confirm the existence of information requires something more. So let’s not stop the observation there, because this plays directly into a correction of your other issue – ‘why do I have to demonstrate information’ in order to know it exist, or ‘why is it that a demonstration of information is the only way to confirm its existence? The answer is in the definition already on the table, and is a logical deduction made from the evidence. If you found a material object that you suspected of carrying information in its arrangement, how would you confirm it? Remember, you can’t confirm that information exist in an object by just looking at it. The only way to confirm the existence of information is to demonstrate its effect. This should come as no surprise to someone following this conversation. Any material object that you suspect of having information in its arrangement would by definition have representations of discrete objects/things embedded in that arrangement. The only way to know it does is to demonstrate the effect of those representations, and to do that they’ll have to be demonstrated. That is not circular Dr Liddle; it’s as straight a line of reasoning as it can possibly be. It also happens to be the same method used to establish any other instance of information ever known to exist. This is why the demonstration is the only viable method, Dr Liddle. It’s mandatory to the exercise. You have to demonstrate that a discrete representation is a discrete representation, and for it to actually be a discrete representation it will require something to create the mapping between itself and that which it is to represent. And as in all other cases of information known to exist, those representations will have a physical protocol to establish that mapping. Your claim is that both the creation and coordination of those representations and their protocols can arise in a system by chance and law, and that the output of those representations will be the system that created them. If you are asking to push the methods question down to the level of describing the exact operation of keystrokes necessary to cause the required demonstrate in your simulation, then I want you to know that those decisions are entirely your own responsibility. And with these final misunderstandings out of the way, we eagerly await your results.Upright BiPed
July 25, 2011
July
07
Jul
25
25
2011
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT
Down the Rabbit Hole aka Operational Definitions I think this site provides a fair insight into where Elizabeth is coming from: Research Methods Workshops: Operational Definitions Not that I agree with the approach she has taken. But further:
Tuckman (1978) identifies three types of operational definitions. A type A operational definition can be constructed in terms of the operations performed to cause the phenomenon to occur. A type B operational definition can be constructed in terms of how the particular object or thing operates. A type C operational definition can be constructed in terms of what an object or phenomenon looks like. here
Mung
July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
Elizabeth, please see my post at 176 and respond. In particular, please answer how you propose to obtain a measure of 0 bits of information in a message. I am really looking forward to that.Mung
July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
F/N 2: Kindly provide an operational definition of an operational definition, and another one that justifies the claim that only operationally defined entities are workable in scientific contexts. In fact, the concept information is defined in the first instance on known examples, labelled to identify something recognised as a common feature of entities like messages in this thread as opposed to gibberish. The use of symbols is then highlighted and the relative frequency of such in meaningful messages is identified as a means of quantifying on a frequency based probability metric. Taking negative logs simply gives us an additive measure. The whole ICT industry stands on that foundation. And when we look at DNA, we find it is the same class of symbolic, coned, rule-based meaningful entity. Indeed, routinely, we represent DNA strands on the symbols GCAT, for the relevant bases, and for RNA, GCAU. We even have worked out code tables. Against that backdrop, I begin to seriously wonder about your salvos of objections, whether they are simply selectively hyperskeptical. Do you object to the way PCs work and ASCII codes used to send text work? If not,then why do you seem so reluctant to accept that DNA is digital information bearing based on string data structures?kairosfocus
July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
F/N: Ever since 1928, an operational definition of information has been on the table, I = - log p, in a context where messages can be distinguished form noise so that signal to noise ratios can be defined, one that is routinely used in entire disciplines. Please do not go down the road the manufactured character Mathgrrl went.kairosfocus
July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT
Liddle at 191 LOL Finally the problem rears its ugly head. I will return in a short while to give a response to your post. And there won't be an ounce of ambiguity in my response.Upright BiPed
July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
Dr Liddle: Pardon me but I find your objections tha the likes of the above -- which you by now have been seen dozens of times -- are not "operationalised" to be selectively hyperskeptical. For reasons that should be quite evident, from the just above. If you objection is to I, you are objecting to well established approaches used in whole disciplines. If to S, that is to something that we have cases in hand that are operationally identifiable, and are open to reasonable identification of further cases. If it is to the 500 or 1000 bit complexity threshold, it is your challenge to show us practically or on analysis that the inference on FSCI at such levels is undermined by credible counter-examples. Remember, cases well within this limit we hold will be findable by chance. Of course maybe you can show us the equivalent of a path from See Spot run to a tome on mathematics, where one or a few steps are changed each stage and on blind trial and error progress is made, or a way to transform a Hello word into an operating system, or the like. Please, let us move on to something serious. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
PS: And since some still insist on trying to claim that there are no biologically relevant values of Chi_500 or the like, kindly note the values given as examples here, based on I values from Durston et al. And Durston's H calculations and use of observed patterns of distribution are reasonable extensions to well known approaches.kairosfocus
July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
Ah well, It looks like this molehill has been inflated into a mountain yet once again. 1 --> Let's look again at the log-reduced Chi metric:
Chi_500 = I*S - 500, functionally specific bits beyond the solar system threshold
2 --> I is a well known quantity from info theory, usually measured on some version of I = - log p as suggested by hartley, p being a version on a symbol frequency metric interpreted as a probability. 3 --> Or, as Shannon also did in his original paper and as we routinely do, if we know how things are stored we may directly count up bits. (File size so many bits, good enough for govt work.) 4 --> This is well established commonplace praxis, so I will only be challenged by selective hyperskepticism. 5 --> We can lay I to one side as a well understood commonplace type of thing. 6 --> The RHS has a fixed number 500, which is more or less a threshold of complexity, beyond which it is unreasonable that a random walk on the gamut of our solar system would be able to find a sufficiently specific zone, T, as 10^102 PTQS's is 1 in 10^48 of the more than 10^150 states possible for 500 bits. 7 --> That leaves only S to be discussed, as Chi_500 is simply the name for the value beyond the threshold, of [functionally] specific bits. 8 --> It being inferred that if Chi_500 goes positive, no reasonable random walk or comparable process on the gamut of the solar system can sample more than 1 in 10^48 of the configs once we are beyond 500 bits, and so specific, unrepresentative zones T are not credibly going to be found that way. (It is only when you are in the zone T that something like a hill climbing algor based on existing function can then kick in to reward superior function.) 9 --> S, as has been repeatedly noted, is a dummy variable that stands in for, on some method or observation to be justified in the relevant case, identify the information in I as specific, coming from a zone T. 10 --> For instance, we can look at codes that must fulfill certain rules of meaning and take things form a specific vocabulary, etc. Or, we could start with something in T and see if significant perturbation caused function to vanish, etc. (In short we list certain operations and say if you can justify another it would be accepted.) 11 --> from this it is inferred that for I beyond 500 bits and S 1, then Chi_500 will be positive. 12 --> For instance, this post is more than 73 ASCII characters, it comes form English vocab and rules, and if you were to inject random variables into the code, it would vanish into a hash. 13 --> Chi_500 is positive and the inference is that this is a product of design, which is also directly known. 14 --> There are billions of similar test cases, all well affirmed, and there are no credible counter examples. GAs start in islands of function and proceed by hill climbing, for instance. 15 --> So, by analysis and by induction the expression is meaningful, it has procedures that can be used successfully, we know how to extend the methods, and we know its tested success. 16 -> It is also a metric, giving values of specific bits beyond a threshold, associated with design as the best explanation. 17 --> So, why -- apart from selective hyperskepticism -- is there a long drawn out debate as though the above were not well established and easy enough to refute if you could? __________ I think the matter is quite simple at this point: Dr Liddle needs to put up soehting which is inrformational, specific by some reasonable argument, and has been produced credibly by chance and necessity without intelligent direction. Failing such a decisive ounterexample we have every epsistemic right to trust the induction and analysis that has brought us to this point. So, Dr Liddle the ball is in your court. Your credible counter-instance on the gamut of our solar system [our "practical" universe] is __________, as documented by _________ and published in _________ . Failing a clear answer to the just above, we have every right to infer that you are unhappy with the implications of the expression, as opposed to its foundations. For, plainly, the expression implies that cell based life as we observe it is riddled with designed entities. Well, what's new about such a view, the co-founder of modern evolutionary theory thought much the same. (Along with many others.) We are jut putting he line of thought on a more specific, metric based footing. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT
Upright Biped: Can you not see the circularity in your question? You ask me to assent to using "the one and only method of confirming the presence of recorded information that has ever been known to exist". then you say that that method is: "by demonstrating the information". In other words, I am to "demonstrate [confirm the presence of] [recorded] information by demonstrating the presence of information"! So my answer to the reason why I cannot use that method is because it isn't actually a method! It's like saying: demonstrate the presence of water by demonstrating the presence of water! What I need, as I think I have made pretty clear, is an operational definition of information. I have provided two further links to resources to make it clear why this is needed. You simply cannot do emprical science without operationalizing your hypothesis, and you cannot do that without operational definitions of all your variables. I have attempted to do this for your conceptual definition. I can try it again for Meyer's. But first I'd like you to look at the one I did for yours and to tell me whether it is acceptable. Then, by all means, I will attempt to confirm the presence of information - by measuring it to see if I've got it! And by offering the output to you to check, using the exact same criteria!Elizabeth Liddle
July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
Dr Liddle, there is a very straighforward question you continue to avoid answering. I am wondering if it will, or will not, be possible for you to make a constrete statement about the issue raised. I will re-post it here for your convenience, and then perhaps after you address the issue in earnest providing a comprehensive statement that first recognizes the issue raised by the question, and then provides a clear and logically detailed response, then we will be in a much better position to move past this problem. Here is the question yet again: "I am willing to rely on the one and only method of confirming the presence of recorded information that ever been known to exist. That is, by demonstrating the information. The question you must answer is why you think your simulation should be held to any other standard. Specifically, in strong concrete terms, why can we not use the only method anyone has ever used?"Upright BiPed
July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
This resource is even better, as it discusses measurement types for different kinds of variables (categorical/nominal; ordinal; interval; ratio): http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~pzapf/classes/CRJ70000/Formulating%20the%20research%20question.htmElizabeth Liddle
July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT
This is what I am after: http://www.newfoundations.com/EGR/Oper.html Hypothesis 6: Chance and Necessity can create Information.
Specify: a. the variables b. the identity criteria for each variable. c. a measurement procedure for each variable d. what would count as evidence for or against the hypothesis.
Elizabeth Liddle
July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed - sorry I missed this post:
Dr Liddle, what is false is that you need anything else, from anyone else, before you can demonstrate your claim. You want to falsify ID? Then get after it.
No, it isn't false, UPD. In order to falsify a claim, you need an operationalisation of that claim. You have not provided me with an operationalisation. As I said, that doesn't matter, as long as you give me a clear set of conceptual definitions which I can operationalise. As I have said, what you gave me turned out to be problematic. Nonetheless, I have made the attempt. I'd be grateful if you would review that attempt. If it is unsatisfactory, let me know in what respects, and I will try again. Alternatively I will use Meyer's conceptual definition, as that seems relatively easy to operationalise. But I will post the operationalisation here first, to make sure that at least one ID proponent accepts it! Otherwise there isn't a lot of point. No point in demonstrating something nobody questions is true! Hope things are better with you and yours.Elizabeth Liddle
July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
Ah - Upright BiPed: Any comment on my operationalisation?Elizabeth Liddle
July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
In the face of actually having to display the humilty you talk about... babble instead.Upright BiPed
July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
Mung, it would depend entirely on the operation you wish to perform. Sheesh. If the operation is supplying packs of prepared peanut butter sandwiches, then it probably will include the bread thickness, ingredients of the peanut butter, quantity of peanut butter, and possibly the calorific value of the whole thing. And if you are a sharp operator (heh) you might want to make sure the criterion values are as low as possible for the expensive ingredients and as high as possible for the cheap ones. Did you know that British ice cream manufacturers failed to satisfy the EU operational definition for ice cream at one time? They couldn't call it "ice cream" because it didn't have enough (any?) cream. They had to call it something like "frozen dairy dessert" instead. And write "contains non-milk fat" on the label. They tried not to call attention to the fact that their other main product line was sausages. Still, it improved the standard of British Ice cream no end. Try Mackie's if you are ever over here.Elizabeth Liddle
July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
Hi Elizabeth, What is the variable that we want to measure when it comes to creating an operational definition of a peanut butter sandwich? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definitionMung
July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
Dr Liddle, what is false is that you need anything else, from anyone else, before you can demonstrate your claim. You want to falsify ID? Then get after it.Upright BiPed
July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
No, it isn't false Mung. UPD's definition remains to be operationalised, i.e. expressed in a manner in which an objective observer can measure the variables and ascertain whether the criteria given for their presence has been met. This is not a criticism of UPD's definition - a conceptual definition is also essential. And I am happy to do the operationalisation, which can be highly specific with respect to a particular demonstration (as mine was), or more general. But, as I said, as currently stated, it contains a problem. I have attempted to solve that problem, and still await UPD's response to my solution. If it is not acceptable, I suggest we use Meyer's conceptual definition from Webster (quoted above) and I try to operationalise that. Unless UPD has any issues with the Webster definition.Elizabeth Liddle
July 24, 2011
July
07
Jul
24
24
2011
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed:
Isolating the representations, deciphering the protocols, and documenting the effects is the only process that demonstrates the existence of information.
Perhaps it is the case that Elizabeth disagrees that this is in fact "the only process that demonstrates the existence of information." Perhaps she can offer an alternative operational definition. But her assertion that you failed to provide an operational definition is clearly false.Mung
July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
09:25 PM
9
09
25
PM
PDT
#177 I don't really understand a "protocol that included symbols" and I certainly dont think I presented it by that wording. But I wouldn't read too much into it. I think she said it at a time when she was discovering that the existence of information has actual entailemnts which can be observed. The fact is there are representations, protocols, and effects. Each plays a specific and necssary role. Each must exist for the reasons we've discussed. Each is materially observable. Isolating the representations, deciphering the protocols, and documenting the effects is the only process that demonstrates the existence of information. If Dr Liddle's simulation is to be judged by a process that confirms the existence of information, then that is the process we'll be using.Upright BiPed
July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed:
The definition you offered says nothing whatsoever about codons or amino acids. Instead, it describes the dynamic role these physical objects play in the existence of information – any information. That gives you everything you need to properly operationalize it.
BINGO! The definition had already been abstracted. What more is required?Mung
July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed, please comment. Elizabeth Liddle wrote:
Upright Biped said that it [information] had to arise from some kind of protocol that included symbols.
I asserted that the above claim was a lie. That you had never said any such thing. Did you in fact ever say that information had to arise from some kind of protocol that included symbols, as Lizzie claims? Or was it in fact the case that you maintained that symbols and protocols were the means by which to determine whether or not information was present?Mung
July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
As I said. One that allows you to measure the variable will of course also allow you to say whether it is present or absent. Shannon’s definition does that – if there are 0 bits in the message, there is no information present, and if there are >0 bits in the message, there is information present.
Upright BiPed has provided a definition according to which you may say that information is present or absent. And yet you have denied that he has given you an operational definition according to which you may say that information is present or absent. Why did you do that? Can you please explain to me how, according to Shannon's measure, there can be 0 bits of information in a message? Please describe the message and the measurement and explain how the measurement demonstrates that there is 0 bits of information in the message. You cannot. You will not. Please stop with the incessant inanity, I beg you. If you cannot, then I think it is entirely reasonable on our part to deny that Shannon information suffices as an operational definition, for it will be the case that you have given no reason to think that Shannon's measure can identify when there is no information present in a message. It can tell you how much information is in a message, but it cannot tell you whether information is present or absent (it can only say it is present, not that it is absent). Again, I appeal to anyone else, other than Elizabeth, to take up the cause on her behalf and explain why I am mistaken. p.s. Why is it Elizabeth, that you continue to assert that Shannon provided a definition? What did Shannon give a definition of?Mung
July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT
Dr Liddle,
I readily acknowledge the gulf that communication (information? ) barrier that exists between us. We are clearly coming at this issue from very different backgrounds, traditions, methodologies and even lexicons.
We are not experiencing a communication barrier Dr Liddle, that’s a positioning statement coming from a valiant defense. If the observations had gone in your direction, then you’d be on offense. The fact is, we understand the meaning of each other’s words completely, as well as their contexts. What is happening is that you came into this conversation thinking one thing, and found out something entirely different. But, the gulf you mentioned is not between the arguments I’ve made here versus others being made elsewhere, the gulf exists between your (almost complete) misunderstanding of information and what information really is. Incredibly, after this entire conversation, you actually went to another thread and claimed that - by any definition of information - the state of an object certainly contains it. Suddenly, this entire conversation over multiple threads and tens of thousands of words simply vanished into thin air. That is the vast saddening gulf Dr Liddle, both in what you said, and the fact that it was you saying it. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I am not at all clear what you mean by rejecting “the one proven method of finding the very thing she claims to be looking for”.
This statement is literally divorced from reality: - - BIPED: “We are attempting to simulate the rise of information in the genome, and the central question at this point is “how will we know it’s there?” To me, it seems like the shortest path to that answer would be the least subject to error, and in fact, it’s already been proven to be entirely reliable. The question to be answered is “how did we find it in the genome in the first place?”” - - LIDDLE: “no, that isn’t the question to be answered!” - - LIDDLE: “we need an operational definition of information, so that we can both, independently, use that criterion to decide whether or not I have succeeded.” You want independent verification? So do I, Dr Liddle. I want it so badly that I am willing to rely on the one and only method of confirming the presence of recorded information that ever been known to exist. That is, by demonstrating the information. The question you must answer is why you think your simulation should be held to any other standard. Specifically, in strong concrete terms, why can we not use the only method anyone has ever used? - - BIPED: “Nirenberg et al discovered the information in the genome by demonstrating it. They isolated the representations, deciphered the protocols, and documented the effects; the same way that all other recorded information has been discovered.” LIDDLE: “I am not at all clear what you mean by rejecting “the one proven method of finding the very thing she claims to be looking for” This is not sloppiness, or forgetfulness – and it certainly isn’t a misunderstanding. This is the mark of a failed argument. One in which you’ve described yourself as willing to rush in to correct. This view of yourself has now been tested, and it appears to be false. - - - - - - - - - - - -
I’m sorry, UBP, but this is circular…
Dr Liddle, I am concerned that you might not be able to recognize a circular argument. Nirenberg and his colleagues confirmed the presence of information recorded in the genome by the same means that anyone at any other time has ever (in the history of life on earth) documented the presence of recorded information. They did it by isolating the representations, deciphering the protocols, and documenting the effects. To point out that this is what they did, and this how they did it, does not constitute a circular argument. It’s simply the recognition of a historical fact. It’s a historical fact that you first ignore, then acknowledge, then ignore. - - - - - - - - - - - -
What I need to do, however, is to abstract from that specific example (of codons amino acids, etc) a criterion by which any candidate for the category “information” can be so categorised. Clearly not all information is mediated by codons; not all messages are “about” proteins. So we need a general criterion by which we can look at either a process, or an object, and say: this is information transfer/this contains information.
You’ve already done this, but apparently fail to see it. The definition you offered says nothing whatsoever about codons or amino acids. Instead, it describes the dynamic role these physical objects play in the existence of information – any information. That gives you everything you need to properly operationalize it. We’ve spent tens of thousands of words on a granular observation of information, Dr Liddle. And yet we already knew how to detect information. Your request has therefore been thoroughly satisfied Elizabeth, and has grown sour. No one can actually tell you that you already have everything you need. Thus far, your response has been to completely ignore the fact. You prefer instead to repeat what you need, as if anyone questions it. The fact remains that you yourself already developed a valid definition of information from the observations, and on top of that, you already know how information is demonstrated to exist. You now need to deal with this fact, straight up.
Now, unlike Dembski, you have chosen to define information in terms of process, rather than product. I actually think this is sensible – it seems to me that information is only as good as the use that is made of it,
It’s nothing more than a logical demonstration of the evidence. And right now it’s a live demonstration that your claim (that ID hasn’t made a valid case) is not only false, but obviously false. Or should I say – it’s obvious to anyone who thinks you wouldn’t have to demonstrate a falsification of ID if their case was already invalid, even before that demonstration. The demonstration is necessary because their argument is valid, and yet that demonstration is still to be done, by anyone, anywhere.
I hit a snag – the word “protocol”, which I hoped we had already operationalised, seemed to acquire something I had not anticipated – your the “break in the causal chain” or “break in the physical chain”.
I have nothing to do with the fact that the observations are what they are. It is not because of me that protocols in the cell are discrete objects that allow discrete representations to enter and affect the discrete output of a system. Microbiologists made those observations, and I’ve already told you that you are free to describe them in your own terms. You did, and I then accepted those terms. Yet, here you are, still talking about it as if it’s an impediment to you.
… because I assumed that by those phrases you meant some process that could not be attributed to Chance or Necessity.
I do not attribute them to chance, Dr Liddle - you do. That is the point of your simulation.
This is why I pointed out that tRNA is, essentially, a catalyst – it is an inert facilator of a chemical process
Personally I don’t think ‘catalyst’ is the proper term. I think it’s more appropriate to see the ribosome as the catalyst, being facilitated by ribosomal RNA. However, if you would like to view the protocol as a catalyst, then that is fine - as long as this catalyst in your system remains a discrete structure that transfers the representations within the input, to the structure of the output, without becoming a part of either one of them, while keeping them separate. That is the dynamic structure of information as we know it to exist. The word ‘apple’ is not an apple, and the pattern in our neural activity which establishes the relationship (between the fruit and the word) isn’t a part of either one. A bee’s dance is not the same as the direction of food, and the observation of this dance by the other bees, is not the same as flying off in a particular direction. Everywhere you look in the existence and transfer of information you find this repeated evidence of a separation from pure physicality, yet something established and coordinated these relationships. That is the point of your simulation – to show that random contingency and physical law can accomplish the observed result. The system you are trying to simulate, has already accomplished it, and has become a part of the observable evidence.
But UBP – if I don’t have an operational definition of information, then we can’t confirm its presence, and if we can’t confirm its presence, then I can’t support my claim!
Dr Liddle, you have now gone over the top on this. The definition you developed already faithfully describes the dynamic structure required for any and all recorded information to exist. You will confirm the existence of information in your simulation by not contradicting that description, and most importantly, by demonstrating the information just like all other instances of recorded information have been demonstrated to exist.
It’s not that I have any doubt that Nirenberg was finding “information” in the genome, nor about his methods for doing so – figuring out what mapped to what. The problem is defining what constitues a “mapping”.
Nirenberg demonstrated it. That’s how we know its there. With all due respect, if this concept is beyond your ability to comprehend, then I don’t know what else to say. I have no recourse but to repeat the historical fact, which you apparently already understand.
After all, a footprint maps to a foot, a meteor maps to a crater, but we do not necessarily say that what we have, in a footprint, or a meteor creator, is “information”
Dr Liddle, please stop. Let us look at the first lines of your definition of information: “Information is a representation of a discrete object/thing embedded in an arrangement of matter or energy, where the object/thing represented is entirely dissociated from the representation” You perceive a footprint - caused by direct physical contact with a foot – to be an “entirely dissociated representation” of a foot? Come’on. A footprint is nothing more than the state of the ground after being stepped on. A footprint doesn’t become information until it is perceived by some living thing which causes a physical representation within that living thing, leading it to be in-formed by the representation.
So what I am trying to do is define a clear criterion, or set of criteria, tht can be applied to any system, and which will tell us not what the relevant protocols are, but whether they are can be considered part of information transfer system.
Without the protocols Dr Liddle, a discrete representation of something would not be possible. How would one thing represent something else, without something to establish the relationship, which otherwise wouldn’t exist? No representation, no information, no information transfer. This criterion has already been covered in your definition.
… a good way of looking at what I am trying to do here: establish quality control criteria such that you can look at my simulation and say: yes, the protocols here pass the criteria required
Please remember, I am the one here saying you already have all you need to do just that. I described the observations of information; you created a working definition based upon those observations. I affirmed it as being completely satisfactory. And am now asking you to get off of the pot, and demonstrate your mechanism can create the phenomena, because it is the demonstration itself that will confirm your success. Quite frankly, languishing on this objection is beginning to look a lot more like the pursuit of a means to skirt the edges of a definition, than it is the pursuit to demonstrate the rise of information in earnest - as we find it. You do realize don’t you, you are expected to operate in good faith?
No, it is not nonsense.
“It’s nonsense” - Elizabeth Liddle
But it is not operationalised. I have tried to operationalise it above. I am still waiting for your response!
The operation you are referring to is (and has always been) a demonstration of the effect of the recorded information itself. It’s a demonstration whereby discrete objects are represented in an arrangement of matter or energy, yet are entirely dissociated from those representations. The re-association of those representations (to the objects they represent) is established by means of physical protocols which allow the discrete representations to affect the discrete output of a system. And since your claim was about the rise of information from chance and law, then the output of that system will represent (and result in) the system itself. Is this not yet obvious?
What matters is what constitutes a “mapping”. This really does seem to be at the root of the problem between us. Not so much an Apples and Oranges problem as an Apples and Appletrees problem. I do not deny that those mappings exist. What I want to know is what, in your view, makes the mapping between a codon and an amino acid “information”, and the mapping between a foot and a footprint not “information”.
As already established by your definition; one mapping is completely disassociated while the other requires a direct physical interaction. In the instance of the relationship of codon to amino acid (with the codon/anticodon being a representation and the amino acid being the effect) they never directly interact. In the case of a foot and a footprint (the foot being the object and the footprint being the effect) the two must directly interact. There is no representation between them, and therefore no mapping. You as an observer say there is a mapping between them, but that’s only because that (for you) the footprint has become the representation instead of the effect, and its effect is your association of it to the foot that created it.
This seems confused to me. And unnecessarily complicated. It is often said, by ID proponents, that Chance and Necessity cannot generate Information (or, at least, Information of a certain kind, or degree). My counter-claim is that they can.
The observations I’ve made about information was not done to confuse you, Dr Liddle, but to clarify what (by the evidence itself) can be said of information. You came into this conversation with a concept of information that cannot in any way be justified by the evidence. You come from the school of thought where information is contained in all things everywhere. That is factually and demonstrably false. Moreover, it shows an absolute disregard for what information really is – for the evidence itself. What you’ve since found is that if you dissolve away the misunderstandings and assumptions, and rely on that observable evidence, the problems for your thesis are that it faces virtually intractable issues throughout the entire phenomenon. One problem atop another. You’ve claimed that these apparent problems are only illusions claimed to exist by ID proponents who fail to see the validity of your claim. But you still have yet to actually demonstrate the validity of your claim. I, for one, am ready for you to take a stab at it. If this constant definition derby is intended to demonstrate an ability to define something so precisely that no one from either side can ever argue over it, then you know nothing of humanity, and are a fool wasting her time. But you needn’t worry, if your simulation causes the rise of recorded information, then all the observations we’ve made will be there, and your ability to demonstrate them will be there as well.
I’m willing to take on any. It may be that someone here has a conceptual definition of information for which my claim is false.
The one taken directly from the observations is just such a case Dr Liddle. All that remains is for you to acknowledge it, while also acknowledging it has never been falsified – as evidenced by the fact that you are currently trying to do so.
Ah. If by “made their case” you mean “put a case forward”, then I readily retract my claim. Of course I agree that a case has been made, and should have worded that in a more bulletproof manner. I meant it in the sense of “I do not believe you have made your case” rather than “You have not attempted to make a case”. Of course the case has been “made” in the sense that it has been put forward. I do not believe it holds water.
That is insulting to the evidence, Dr Liddle – to me, to the recording of this conversation, and to those who might have followed along. Nowhere in this conversation have you been able to invalidate the observations being made, and at no time has “made their case” referred to an invalid case. If it were invalid, we wouldn’t need your simulation to invalidate it, which would seem rather obvious. If your words were an attempt to quietly retract your claim, then please allow me to read between the lines: Your claim is completely false. And your attempt to cover up that fact in a smoke screen of “I didn’t mean you hadn’t tried” is just plain ole’ unvarnished bullshit.Upright BiPed
July 23, 2011
July
07
Jul
23
23
2011
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 9

Leave a Reply