Explore more infographics like this one on the web’s largest information design community – Visually.
And, let us discuss. END
Comments
POLICY ANOUNCEMENT: If a thread I own deteriorates into polarisation based on the red herrings led away to strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems and set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere or similar tactics in the teeth of editorial warnings from me as owner, I will terminate the thread of discussion on a three strikes and out principle. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 4, 2013
October
10
Oct
4
04
2013
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT
Jerad
Did or did not Dr Liddle host first a blog thread that associated me invidiously with Nazism (for no good cause) and did or did she not subsequently try to justify same?
Did or did she not similarly host a blog thread that propagated a conspiracy narrative about design theory and theorists that ended up declaring us to be in effect right wing totalitarian theocratic [i.e., decoding = "nazi" (a misnomer based on a common misunderstanding of fascist ideology as right wing, and a common smear that Hitler was a Christian]) "enemies of humanity"?
Did or did she not refuse to address uncivility and defamation in same, pleading the false claim that such is free expression.
I am, repeat, not blocking her from making expressions of her opinions or hosting same.
I am simply saying that after weeks and months of trying to get her to set this right, I am not going to entertain her in the equivalent of my living room as though nothing has happened, with a track record like that. The implicit principle, that if I can get away with it it is okay, it is "freedom" is monstrous and destructive. It also pivots on confusing licence for liberty.
This, as a final wake up call after repeated pleas and correction have been ignored.
Your insistence on equating this to "censorship" -- prior restraint on publication by official or institutional source capable of silencing opinion leading to suppression of freedom of thought and expression -- is an outrageous exaggeration and stretching intended to further polarise and alienate as well as besmirch.
Let me provide you with a legal dictionary definition FYI; one that was always a simple Google search away and thus well within your responsibility to provide FAIR comment in light of due diligence as a reasonably intelligent and educated person:
Censorship
The suppression or proscription of speech or writing that is deemed obscene, indecent, or unduly controversial . . . . [West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008]
Notice, first of all censorship is an act of power from those with capacity to actually suppress information, it applies to those able to suppress communication in a community or institutional context, i.e. if one has no power to effectively suppress dissemination of a view, one cannot censor, no more than can one fly by flapping one's arms. One may refuse to entertain or promote or enable promotion of a view, but one is not censoring it if one has not got the power to see to it that it is severely hampered from spreading when fairly expressed.
Secondly, obscenity not being relevant, censorship is about suppression on disagreement, not an action in defence of civility in the teeth of defamation. Defamation is not protected speech. And that holds whether or not someone actually believes the defamatory claims to be true. Once it is reasonably accessible that demeaning or credibly harmful claims are not well warranted, a reasonable person has a duty of care to fairness to deem them false and not to be spread. Otherwise s/he is a party to slander.
Third, if there is reasonable opportunity for fair comment [such as with the equivalent to a traditional letters to the editor system], and ideas are not blocked for merely being controversial, one is not censoring.
Defamation, repeat, is not protected speech. (Cf 100 above again.)
Finally, the now all too common talking point of irresponsibly accusing of censorship used against defence of civility in discussion -- remember, I am acting in response to insistent defamatory incivility! -- is itself an irresponsible and unwarranted false accusation. (How I wish that we could have an actual discussion on merits, instead of one in an atmosphere tainted by the sort of tactics I am objecting to. Thoise tactics on your side, Jerad, are so widespread and so across the board on issues that it is quite evident that there is a pattern of abuse of institutional power and influence to demean and marginalise those who beg to differ with the evolutionary materialist secular humanist cultural agenda.)
False and irresponsible accusations of nazism, treasonous conspiracies to impose totalitarianism and declarations that classes of targetted people are "enemies of humanity" have no proper part in a civil discussion of serious issues. Period. Mutual basic respect being a condition of civil discussion.
Let me put it this way, if you are irritated by silly insults, how would you respond to being falsely deemed an enemy of humanity and a member of a fraudulent conspiracy to subvert science in a context in which these were taken as a matter of course?
Those who make and those who enable irresponsible and damaging false accusations show themselves to be rude, bigoted, disrespectful and inciting of hate. Uncivil, in short.
And if left to itself such incivility will dominate discussion, undermining the fabric of civility that is a requisite of civilisation itself. Where, our civilisation is already in enough trouble, and civility is indeed being undermined on all hands. So much so that I am more and more inclined to the view that in publication on the web, a reversion to the old fashioned "letters to the editor" approach, where responses from the public under rights of reply and fair comment are subject to editing and legal vetting as regards potential defamation, before publication, is justified.
Would you consider that "censorship"?
If you do so, you would be wrong, utterly and ridiculously wrong. Especially when we are in an era where you can easily go elsewhere and express your opinions to those willing to listen.
(And BTW, in an earlier thread where I suggested that if Popular Science had done this reversion to the traditional letters to the editor approach, it would have been justified, I was attacked from your side. That is revealing.)
Such is the context in which I have acted at length after weeks and months, and will now further act as this thread no longer serves any useful purpose other than to be a vehicle of irresponsible, and outrageously false accusations based on a well known toxic pattern of talking points. Coming from your side.
Your side has had ample opportunity here, and continues to have opportunity elsewhere. That opportunity has been abused and this is now insistent.
I am doing in effect the equivalent of saying that one insisting on trollish behaviour is not welcome. That the trollish behaviour is in the main done elsewhere and is done by hosting and enabling, is immaterial to its defamatory substance.
This, in a context where I have heard nothing from you and your side in the circle around UD that seeks to at minimum protest an ACTUAL live case of censorship at Ball State University.
In short, your agenda here is clearly to accuse and demean by improperly extending a loaded and irresponsible accusation. Which is defamatory.
In future kindly do better than this.
Good day madam
GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 4, 2013
October
10
Oct
4
04
2013
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT
Did you or did you not completely erase two of Dr Liddle’s posts and replace her words with some of yours? What do you call that?
Ooops, I hadn't noticed that you've overwritten THREE of Dr Liddle's posts.Jerad
October 4, 2013
October
10
Oct
4
04
2013
12:03 AM
12
12
03
AM
PDT
Similarly unresponsive. Defamation is not free speech, especially the sort of hate speech we are describing. Until that is dealt with, there is no basis for civil discussion. Business as usual defamation as usual, pretence that such is free expression as usual are over. KF
Censorship continues.
I suggest you re-read 100 above to begin to understand that there is no right to say anything you please anywhere you please, especially if you belong to favoured groups. There is such a line as that of making damaging, false assertions that a prudent person would have known were without adequate grounds and were harmful and demeaning. No one has a right to cross that line. Similarly, violation of privacy is a serious matter — and I say that as someone whose family has been subjected to outing attempts connected to implied threats. Remember, there is evidence on the table that on gross ill-founded conspiracy narratives, people are being deemed “enemies of humanity,” and there are attempts to pretend this is mere free speech. Not on the bloody, awful history of that accusation. A sobering line has been crossed and enabling behaviour is not good enough. KF.
So, since you have appointed yourself the arbitrator of where the line is you grant yourself the right to censor people on UD.
Maybe you shouldn't participate in online forums, you're not very good at handling antagonism.
And if your family was threatened then why didn't you use the laws of your country and prosecute the miscreants?
false accusation of censorship IS defamatory, calculated to improperly damage reputation
Did you or did you not completely erase two of Dr Liddle's posts and replace her words with some of yours? What do you call that?
I trust the matter is clear.
Very clear. Not only are you afraid of confronting your problem directly at the source but when you don't get your way you resort to stifling dissenting comments.Jerad
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT
F/N: BTW, false accusation of censorship IS defamatory, calculated to improperly damage reputation. Let me remind you Jerad of what I pointed out at 96 which you are recklessly ignoring in a rush to do harm, because of the notion that you and others have a right to defame under the excuse that such is free expression:
kindly observe that I am not forbidding or blocking EL from saying anything. The BSU president just did that on the taxpayer’s dollar to a professor who dared to speak about the limits of science, I have done no such thing. Just, that — after she has ignored or brushed aside multiple pleas to do better and has sought on more than one occasion to add insult to injury — she is not going to do so in threads I own, unless she is willing to make amends for hosting false, malicious and hateful declarations (some targetting me others the general design theory movement) and pretending that they are protected as free speech. And you had better believe that I will continue to document the exposure of the false accusations
I trust the matter is clear.
Strike two.
KFkairosfocus
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
Jerad, foolish, drunken or angry insults are not defamation, though they should be restrained. (Already, this is turnabout false immoral equivalency accusation.) Constructing grotesque conspiracy narratives -- evidently taken at face value without a peep of protest by TSZ's denizens as has been archived -- culminating in incitement by labelling us as enemies of humanity is. And, the issue is serious long before it reaches the court room over censorship, career busting, discrimination or God forbid some looney taking the incitement as a license to commit violence; have you forgotten the madman who went to the FRC with Chick fil A sandwiches and a gun, intent on mass murder? I suggest you re-read 100 above to begin to understand that there is no right to say anything you please anywhere you please, especially if you belong to favoured groups. There is such a line as that of making damaging, false assertions that a prudent person would have known were without adequate grounds and were harmful and demeaning. No one has a right to cross that line. Similarly, violation of privacy is a serious matter -- and I say that as someone whose family has been subjected to outing attempts connected to implied threats. Remember, there is evidence on the table that on gross ill-founded conspiracy narratives, people are being deemed "enemies of humanity," and there are attempts to pretend this is mere free speech. Not on the bloody, awful history of that accusation. A sobering line has been crossed and enabling behaviour is not good enough. KF.kairosfocus
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT
Similarly unresponsive. Defamation is not free speech, especially the sort of hate speech we are describing. Until that is dealt with, there is no basis for civil discussion. Business as usual defamation as usual, pretence that such is free expression as usual are over. KFElizabeth B Liddle
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
Fair enough, KF.
I disagree. Not fair. Not even close.Jerad
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
Jerad: Slander is not free speech. It is defamation. Hosting slander is not an exercise in free speech, it is enabling of defamation. And, until there is a reasonable addressing of the resort to defamation, I am not going to pretend that all is sweetness and light. And no, I have no intention to get into a wrestling match in a fever swamp with its denizens. Defamation is not free speech, and in this case defamation goes as far as to improperly state that people are enemies of humanity — bigotry and false accusation laced hate speech in the context of a grotesque conspiracy narrative — taken as if it were fact without a peep of protest. I will not pretend that it is business as usual while that is on the table. (And do you see why I have pointed out to you your own implied support, J?) KF
On this forum I have been accused of being brain dead, an ideologue, a victim and lots of other accolades. None of which are true and most of which are detrimental to my reputation. And did you protest? Did you correct the characterisations? Not very much if at all.
Not only are you casting aspersions on someone on UD because of perceived slights (by you) by others on another site entirely but you are actually censoring postings by the person you are blaming who did not say the things you find objectionable.
So, who is stifling free speech? Who is trying to control the discussion? Who is refusing to engage their critics in an open and free dialogue?
You clearly are unfamiliar with information theory or the practice of working with informational entities. DNA is a string data structure that has carrying capacity 2 bits per monomer or base. That is each position holds one of four states. It is complex and specified in relevant cases, and that specificity can be seen from the deep isolation of islands of function in the AA sequence space. On evidence — reviewed in DD BTW, we are looking at 1 in 10^60 – 70 or so of the space. And if it turns out that there is some redundancy int eh code used — not the physics and chemistry which allows free sequencing — that redundancy would reduce info capacity somewhat. The effective reduction is not great, if it were DNA would not work well as an info store. Dembski’s metric can be used directly,as the WAC’s illustrate on a case that was originally raised as a challenge. By making a log reduction and a reasonable threshold level, we can see that for our solar system, number of functionally specific bits less 500 bits is a good heuristic model for a threshold of enough complexity that blind chance and necessity is not a reasonable explanation. All the dismissive talking points in the world are unable to explain away the sampling challenge where the 10^57 atoms of our solar system, working for its lifespan would not be able to sample more than about one straw to a haystack 1,000 light years across,as thick as our galaxy at its central bulge. That sampling challenge overwhelms any notion that blind processes can get
I'll happily compete in a mathematical challenge with you any day. Your bluff and bluster don't intimidate me. ?he truth is: the mathematical and the biological communities don't support your interpretation and no matter how much you play the Expelled Syndrome card it still doesn't make you right.
F/N for Jerad: If I’m not mistaken, Joe was temporally banned here at UD at an earlier date, as was BA77.
I have no idea. Strangely, the UD management is reluctant to divulge its machinations. Especially when it comes to policing its sympathisers.
It is true that Joe has been very absent from UD and from his own blog for a couple of weeks. I hope that is not an indication that he has fallen on some bad times. I wish him no ill.
Jerad, as a further note, kindly observe that I am not forbidding or blocking EL from saying anything. The BSU president just did that on the taxpayer’s dollar to a professor who dared to speak about the limits of science, I have done no such thing. Just, that — after she has ignored or brushed aside multiple pleas to do better and has sought on more than one occasion to add insult to injury — she is not going to do so in threads I own, unless she is willing to make amends for hosting false, malicious and hateful declarations (some targetting me others the general design theory movement) and pretending that they are protected as free speech. And you had better believe that I will continue to document the exposure of the false accusations, e.g. here.. KF
Oh gosh no. You just completely wiped out one of Dr Liddle's comments and replaced it with one of yours.
That's censorship. As exorcised by you.
Document your own behaviour sometime. Your false accusations. Your insinuations. Your misplaced blame.
Two blogs have recently been found to have published defamation of me, the nature of which was described as “extremely serious” by a Court of Law. The above demonstrates why I feel I was perfectly justified in seeking the removal of the defamatory material, one by Court Order, one by private request. John Stuart Mill, the UN Charter, Milton, Common Law, to point to a few, have agreed for centuries that defining Freedom of Speech to be all speech that is not Defamation is just in all mediums. Defamatory speech being restricted or punished by law, offline or online, poses no threat to anyone. >>
Have you really gone through the legal channels you elucidate? And what did the court say?
AGAIN, I have been defamed and made the object of derision many times at UD. My motives and my intelligence has been called into question many times. I do not find it necessary to take the commenters of UD to court for that. I think I can deal with the criticism myself.Jerad
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
Unresponsive to reasonable criteria for renewal of civil discussion. KFElizabeth B Liddle
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
F/N: I think we should ponder the following, from a blog in NZ, even in cases where legal sanctions are not forcibly applied under penalty:
_____________
>> . . . defamatory speech is insidious, causes harm, hurts; intuitively it just feels wrong to say that one is morally justified in spreading harmful falsehoods about a person and is not required to account for the wrongs done, because of their right to free speech.
After discussions with Matt about this I have decided that I prefer the following argument:
1] Freedom of Expression exists to allow people to freely express their opinions and impart information without fear of legal penalty.
2] Defamation is expression imparted to another that lowers the standing of a person in the eyes of their peers and is not true and is not honest opinion which is genuinely held [--> that is one knows or SHOULD know and do better].(I am ignoring the third defence, privilege).
3] A person who expresses defamation is not engaging in Freedom of Expression as where there is no truth or honest opinion then a person is neither attempting to inform another or attempting to express their opinion.
4] The basis for this is that to attempt to inform someone is to attempt to increase that person’s repertoire of true beliefs’ and to impart an opinion is to express what one honestly believes to be the case.
5] Therefore, the freedom that the right to Freedom of Expression protects is all speech that is true or honestly held to be true by the speaker.
That is much better.
Defamatory speech is not free speech therefore legal sanctions against it are entirely appropriate in both legal and moral senses.
Context:
Two blogs have recently been found to have published defamation of me, the nature of which was described as “extremely serious” by a Court of Law. The above demonstrates why I feel I was perfectly justified in seeking the removal of the defamatory material, one by Court Order, one by private request. John Stuart Mill, the UN Charter, Milton, Common Law, to point to a few, have agreed for centuries that defining Freedom of Speech to be all speech that is not Defamation is just in all mediums. Defamatory speech being restricted or punished by law, offline or online, poses no threat to anyone. >>
____________
When one hosts or promotes or enables falsehood that is damaging, sowing enmity -- by way of incitement -- and demeaning through false and blatantly ill founded conspiracy narratives and accusations such as I have exposed here, one is involved in that which has no moral justification and which one cannot responsibly or honestly express.
KFkairosfocus
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
* Dennis Jones, another agnostic..equate65
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
F/N to kairo's TSZ link in regards to "Wedge Document" See >
http://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2013/04/28/the-wedge-document/equate65
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
To add to kairo's statement on the BSU matter, see Lee Bowman's (agnostic) arguments with Dr. Hurd here: >
http://chronicle.com/article/Ball-State-U-Bars-Teaching-of/140777/ {keep hitting "Load More Comments" to end of last page }equate65
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
Jerad, as a further note, kindly observe that I am not forbidding or blocking EL from saying anything. The BSU president just did that on the taxpayer's dollar to a professor who dared to speak about the limits of science, I have done no such thing. Just, that -- after she has ignored or brushed aside multiple pleas to do better and has sought on more than one occasion to add insult to injury -- she is not going to do so in threads I own, unless she is willing to make amends for hosting false, malicious and hateful declarations (some targetting me others the general design theory movement) and pretending that they are protected as free speech. And you had better believe that I will continue to document the exposure of the false accusations, e.g. here.. KFkairosfocus
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
F/N for Jerad: If I'm not mistaken, Joe was temporally banned here at UD at an earlier date, as was BA77.equate65
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
Jerad: Slander is not free speech. It is defamation. Hosting slander is not an exercise in free speech, it is enabling of defamation. And, until there is a reasonable addressing of the resort to defamation, I am not going to pretend that all is sweetness and light. And no, I have no intention to get into a wrestling match in a fever swamp with its denizens. Defamation is not free speech, and in this case defamation goes as far as to improperly state that people are enemies of humanity -- bigotry and false accusation laced hate speech in the context of a grotesque conspiracy narrative -- taken as if it were fact without a peep of protest. I will not pretend that it is business as usual while that is on the table. (And do you see why I have pointed out to you your own implied support, J?) KF
PS: You clearly are unfamiliar with information theory or the practice of working with informational entities. DNA is a string data structure that has carrying capacity 2 bits per monomer or base. That is each position holds one of four states. It is complex and specified in relevant cases, and that specificity can be seen from the deep isolation of islands of function in the AA sequence space. On evidence -- reviewed in DD BTW, we are looking at 1 in 10^60 - 70 or so of the space. And if it turns out that there is some redundancy int eh code used -- not the physics and chemistry which allows free sequencing -- that redundancy would reduce info capacity somewhat. The effective reduction is not great, if it were DNA would not work well as an info store. Dembski's metric can be used directly,as the WAC's illustrate on a case that was originally raised as a challenge. By making a log reduction and a reasonable threshold level, we can see that for our solar system, number of functionally specific bits less 500 bits is a good heuristic model for a threshold of enough complexity that blind chance and necessity is not a reasonable explanation. All the dismissive talking points in the world are unable to explain away the sampling challenge where the 10^57 atoms of our solar system, working for its lifespan would not be able to sample more than about one straw to a haystack 1,000 light years across,as thick as our galaxy at its central bulge. That sampling challenge overwhelms any notion that blind processes can get FSCO/I.kairosfocus
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
Repost: "Thanks Kairo for addressing the rest, I may have more to post from this critic, as *they're *too cowardly to log on here themselves"
(forum needs edit on format)equate65
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
* too cowardly toequate65
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
Thanks Kairo for addressing the rest, I may have more to post from this critic, as there're to cowardly to log on here themselves.equate65
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
You may find some of what happens on Dr Liddle’s own forum to be objectionable but to censor her posts on UD is a cowardly move. In my opinion. Especially since you’ve been given full right to post and rebut at TSZ. Her behaviour at UD has been civil and measured. If you’re going to judge her based on what other people have written on another site then will you do the same for ALL UD contributors? I can think of some pretty awful things Joe has written on his blog but you never sought to limit his use of UD based on that.
Would have to agree with Jerad on this one...equate65
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
That’s it: for cause of insistent enabling of slander I am saying the equivalent of please leave my living room until you show yourself civil. Please do not allow slanderers and their enablers to get away with it. KF
Well, it's not your sitting room though. It's an online blog/forum which the owners have, rightfully, decided to open up to everyone . . . except those who have been banned of course.
You may find some of what happens on Dr Liddle's own forum to be objectionable but to censor her posts on UD is a cowardly move. In my opinion. Especially since you've been given full right to post and rebut at TSZ. Her behaviour at UD has been civil and measured. If you're going to judge her based on what other people have written on another site then will you do the same for ALL UD contributors? I can think of some pretty awful things Joe has written on his blog but you never sought to limit his use of UD based on that.Jerad
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
KF: The formula Dembski gives in Specification: the pattern that signifies intelligence includes a parameter representing the probability of the observed pattern under the “relevant chance hypothesis”, including, specifically, Darwinian and other material processes.
Therefore you have to estimate the probability of the pattern under Darwinian and other material processes before you can infer intelligence.
Therefore it is circular.
I concur. And I haven't seen anyone attempt to calculate this. If I'm wrong I'd love to have an example pointed out.Jerad
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
KF - that's not really a response to the argument, but more a roundabout way of trying to ignore it.djockovic
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
EL - you miss the point. If Darwinian Evolution makes testable predictions that can distinguish it from ID, the we have the exact same number of testable predictions that can distinguish ID from darwinian evolution - there being no way to distinguish A from B that is not also a way to distinguish B from A. And if the testable predictions don't distinguish between A and B, then B can claim them as B-predictions every bit as much as A can claim them as A-predictions. Thus, as things stand, both theories are either in exactly the same boat or in no boat at all. They are not, and cannot be, as you need them to be, in different boats - unless you have some way of distinguishing that you're not telling us about and are adamant does not (yet) exist.djockovic
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
DJ: The first level of induction on observation is to causal process across observed causes. That is the scientific inference on tested, reliable signs. The onward inference from design as credible cause to designer as properly habitually associated therewith, is a distinct step. One in which inductive evidence of designs leads to this being grounds to argue cogently that design is evidence of designer, on common sense and experience. Design is empirical fact, and its characteristics are testable. Let us not be distracted by secondary ideologically loaded debates. KFkairosfocus
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
That's it: for cause of insistent enabling of slander I am saying the equivalent of please leave my living room until you show yourself civil. Please do not allow slanderers and their enablers to get away with it. KFElizabeth B Liddle
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
F/N: EL continues the silly that's circular argument. She evidently refuses to recognise that how one measures something is separate from how it exists and how one knows it exists. Indeed, she manages to again instantiate what she would dismiss. As to Dembski's math metric model, the point is that he addresses a standard abstract definition of information content as can be seen from extracting logs. Once we have identifiable info content in a system, by a reasonable means the matter is adequately addressed. As has been pointed out to her but ignored as usual for inconvenient facts and logic, any real world relevant inputs into the information content of DNA etc are reflected in the statistical patterns in DNA, i.e. if functional DNA in a reasonable cross section from the domains of life materially varies from a flat random balance of 25% each GCAT, that is captured in a reasonable sample, and leads to a net reduction in carrying capacity, however not by much, we know the chaining chemistry does not block any following any and that tRNA uses a standard CCA coupler to load AAs based on the codon. EL evidently refuses to admit that information metrics routinely work on information measured through state contingency and statistics, and is operating on the if one can get away with it it must be okay crude pragmatic principle. Game over. KFkairosfocus
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
EL,
You're up next.
I have had enough.
You either withdraw your enabling behaviour and make ameneds -- recall it includes enabling invidiously associating me with Nazis, or else withdraw from any thread I own at UD.
This is to make it plain that I take seriously your misbehaviour.
You have been operat5ing on the if I can get away with it principle.
That stops now.
GEM of TKIkairosfocus
October 3, 2013
October
10
Oct
3
03
2013
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus - here's a very short and sweat argument for ID that, imo, moves it from an abductive argument to something more like a proof, and also has the advantage of using premises which are more strongly accepted the more strongly one is likely to be a critic of ID or any kind of what might be called "supernaturalism".
The universe passes the Turing test - or rather, it passes the design engineer version of it. Thus, the universe (or whatever produces the stuff we see) just is intelligent, and just is a designer. There being no more to these things (especially from the perspective of objectors to ID) than being able to produce such-and-such outcomes.
Thoughts?djockovic
