Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Mathgrrl Lives Down to Expectations

arroba Email

In my last post I asked Mathgrrl the following direct and unambiguous question:

“OK Mathgrrl. I will put it to you: Was Orgel’s concept of specified complexity coherent or meaningful?”

I then made the following prediction as to her response: “My prediction: More dancing, evasion and obfuscation.”

My prediction was confirmed. Mathgrrl placed two comments on the thread to that post and she did not even address the question posed.

Mathgrrl is unwilling to engage in a good faith debate on these pages. Case closed.

Transparency in these issues is always important. paragwinn
Mathgrrl: Perhaps a different approach would help - in particular it might help me, a dyslexic engineer who has adored yet struggled with maths since childhood. Can you give a nice simple example of a metric (analogous to CSI) with the rigorous mathematical definition and a worked example. It would be a great education for me to see a practical example of the type of thing you have been asking for ... DrBot DrBot
MathGrrl, I am sure many people recognize that as I am sure many people see right through you and see your agenda.
I'm not so sure, Joseph, that there are as many people who are so sure of your surety at seeing through quite the number of things and people you seem to see through. Indeed, with but few exceptions hereon, you seem to see through significantly more than most. Doveton
MathGrrl, I am sure many people recognize that as I am sure many people see right through you and see your agenda. Joseph
MathGrrl, There is a reason why posts are being “dedicated” to you, and it ain’t good…
Good point Joseph, but I really wonder for whom is all this attention less good? Doveton
There is a reason why posts are being “dedicated” to you, and it ain’t good…
It's nice to see that at least one of the regulars here recognizes that. MathGrrl
MathGrrl, There is a reason why posts are being "dedicated" to you, and it ain't good... Joseph
[Scarlett O'Hara voice]Why Mr. Arrington, you'll turn my head with all these threads dedicated to little ol' me.[end Scarlett] As I said in the previous thread One might easily get the impression that you are deliberately attempting to distract attention from your unsubstantiated assertion about me: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/progress-mathgirl-concedes-that-specified-complexity-is-a-meaningfull-concept-if-her-friends-are-using-it/comment-page-1/#comment-376898 (links not working for some reason). Again for your convenience, here is my pertinent comment from the previous thread: -- begin copy -- Barry Arrington,
I will not retract an obviously true statement no matter how much you huff.
You made the following claim in reference to me:
QuiteID, she said the concept is meaningless (unless her friends are using it).
That claim is untrue. You cannot produce any support for it. Intellectual honesty requires that you retract it. -- end copy -- (https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/progress-mathgirl-concedes-that-specified-complexity-is-a-meaningfull-concept-if-her-friends-are-using-it/comment-page-1/#comment-377127) I continue to await your response with interest. MathGrrl
Graham, MathGrrl got a coherent response. Her personal issues are not ID's problem. Joseph
I don’t think it applies ONLY to origins.
That's ine- what do you have? IOW what else does CSI apply ad please provi a reference. Thanks. Joseph
This is beginning to get a bit disturbing. You´re ok, Barry? Indium
MathGrrl presented a single question, no one ever responded to that single question, therefore MathGrrl gave up. Mung
Or maybe Mathgrrl has just given up waiting for a coherent response to the original question. Graham
Mathgrrl is unwilling to engage in a good faith debate on these pages. Case closed.
Did this really need it's own blog posting? Are the folks here really that gullible, that they would just take at face value someone who comes here and claims to be open-minded, and seeking the truth, and looking for real comprehension and understanding about ID? Mung
I don't think it applies ONLY to origins. Mung
MathGrrl wants a formal description or definition of complex specified information. I think CSI can be defined as any information that uses prediction or anticipation in its formulation. For example, a complex specified code (e.g., DNA sequences, languages, software programs, etc.) requires (predicts the need for) a decoder. The structure of a crystal or a metal, OTOH, does not need a decoder. I don't think we need a more complex definition of CSI than the above. One man's opinion. Mapou
Are there any IDists out there who do not think that CSI pertains to ORIGINs? IDists who support my claim that CSI pertains to origins: DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92: 1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems. Then there is William Dembski:
The central problem of biology is therefore not simply the origin of information but the origin of complex specified information. page 149 of "No Free Lunch"
Then on that same page he has a section titled The Origin of Complex Specified Information. And then there is Stephen Meyer whose whole premise is based on the origin of biological information. MathGrrl seems to think that I am the only IDists who claims that CSI pertains to origins. However it is obvious that just ain't so. Is there anyone else who agrees with me, Dembski, Meyer, DeWolf et al? Joseph

Leave a Reply