Reinstating the Explanatory Filter

_{William Dembski

December 10, 2008

Intelligent Design}

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

In an off-hand comment in a thread on this blog I remarked that I was dispensing with the Explanatory Filter in favor of just going with straight-up specified complexity. On further reflection, I think the Explanatory Filter ranks among the most brilliant inventions of all time (right up there with sliced bread). I’m herewith reinstating it — it will appear, without reservation or hesitation, in all my future work on design detection.

P.S. Congrats to Denyse O’Leary, whose Post-Darwinist blog tied for third in the science and technology category from the Canadian Blog Awards.

Comments

Sparc, is that so? Larry Moran at Sandwalk voted for me? As it happens, I didn't vote - I had thought it best to wait out the horde of trolls storming by. But Larry has done so much to attract visitors to my Post-Darwinist blog that - had I realized - I would have voted for him. Noblesse oblige and all that, you know.O'Leary_{December 12, 2008
December
12
Dec
12
12
2008
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

H'mm: First, let me heartily join in the chorus of congratulations to Ms O'Leary on a job well done and finally recognised. Second, I am glad to see Dr Dembski clarifying his earlier remarks that are obviously being pounced on by the PT's of this world. (BTW: I have observed on reading his usage of "Dispense" and the like, that Dr Dembski uses it in the context of not dis-estasblishing or repudiating, but: getting to a more general, simple or intuitively clear result that allows one to not use the former step by step process or approach.) Third some remarks on the EF, from my take: . . . especially for Patrick, on no 19 . . .
1 --> EVERYBODY uses it, and implicitly relies on it. (So, critics need to beware of falling into self-referential incoherence and selective hyperskepticism.) 2 --> For instance, we all take it for granted that posts on this thread originate with agents, not noise. But, strictly noise can mimic any digital signal. So, we MUST use an infernce process that leads us to see tha tper best explanation it is agent not noise and not medchanical necessity. 3 --> Intuitively, we are inferring that since the apparent messages are functionally specific and sufficiently complex [read that, have more than 500 - 1,000 functional bits . . . here at 7 - 8 bits per alphanumeric character on ASCII codes, starting with log-in] to make the odds of random processes getting to such islands of function in the available config spaces, negligibly different from zero. 4 --> but also,there is a logic of categorisation, which is where the filter takes its structure. 5 --> Start with how we identify a natural law at work. Namely, we observe a reliable natural regularity, i.e. low contingency of outcomes under similar circumstances, revealing that mechanical forces of one kind or another are at work, leading to predictable outcomes. Thus, law as the description of the pattern, e.g. F = k.x, F = m.a, KE = 1/2 mv^2, e = m.c^2, F = G. m1.m2/r^2, dN/dt = -lambda.N(t) etc. 6 --> By contrast, we can have high contingency, e.g when we toss a die, its uppermost face on settling under generally similar circumstances varies significantly. 7 --> Such high contingencies, as gaming houses in Las Vegas know all too well, may be [a] undirected (chance) or [b] directed (design). (And indeed, at the tables in Las Vegas, intelligent agents are making advantageous use of the laws of gravity and mechanics to use dice to hopefully generate random outcomes to play a game of chance. Thus, chance, necessity and agency can interact in a situation, but for analysis we can look at key aspects and see which causal factor is the important one for that facet. BTW, too, trick die throwing is now at the level where the rules are that dice are transparent and balanced, and must be tossed so that they hit the table and bounce off a wall studded with tiny square-based pyramids, to sufficiently randomise outcomes.]) 8 --> So, so far we see [c] CONTINGENCY as hi/lo. Where: [d] low points to law-like mechanical necessity, and [e] high points to chance (when undirected) or design (when directed). the issue then is to discern degree of contingency and whether or not high contingency is directed; taking "undirected" as the default in cases where we have no reason to start from the assumption or observation of direction. 9 --> Mix in the idea that if something happens reliably under certain circumstances, it has quite high probability of being observed under those circumstances. So,[f] fig 19's node 1: high probability --> law makes sense. 10 --> As outcomes may vary across a range, the probability for any one outcome being observed under given circumstances is proportionately lower. 11 --> Now, apply chance as the default, and the principle that reasonably random samples from a population tend to reflect its gross structure. (That's why Fisherian Elimination gets suspicious when events from unlikely clusters are seen, esp. if the observed events would fit with a candidate agent's possible purposes.) 12 --> So then [g] if the probability is lower than for the first node, but within a cluster of possible outcomes that a random sample might likely get there, it makes sense to infer that chance is the best candidate explanation. So, node 2 in fig 19 also makes sense: intermediate probability points to chance. 13 --> But also, [h] we have highlighted a circumstance under which chance might not be the best explanation: a purpose-serving outcome of very low probability. 14 --> This is the point of node 3: [i] an outcome from a statistically relatively scarce cluster of possible outcomes that fits a reasonable specification (especially a functional and potentially purposeful one)is best explained by design, not chance. 15 --> And indeed, on massive experience and observation, [j] when we see things that exhibit complex specified information, they are the product of agents when we know the causal story directly. 16 --> That means that [k] CSI or its more easily recognised subset, FSCI [functionally specific, complex information] is an empirically reliable sign of intelligence. 17 --> Once that is seen, [l] we can therefore "dispense with" the step by step process that warrants the claim and use the sign directly. In short, we can then [m] simply use the identified presence of CSI/FSCI in akey aspect of a situation, event or object as a reliable sign of design.
In short, infelicitous wording notwithstanding, BOT the EF and CSI are valid and reliable in the scientific exploration of signs of intelligence. I wonder if my recently updated EF flowchart and discussion here may be of further help as well. G'day all; and . . . Season's Greetings. GEM of TKI. PS: Trib, can you kindly contact me through my email accessible through my handle in the always linked article in the left hand column?kairosfocus_{December 12, 2008
December
12
Dec
12
12
2008
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

#39 Kairos "Have they been designed? There is no design hypothesis which can account for them. Why would anyone want to create caves of this shape and how would they do it?" This would be the final output of EF. I understand that. This is offered as an alternative EF with a different final output. What interests me is the parallel between this first step and the first and second steps in ID version. Why do we need to start with necessity and chance? Why not start with eliminating design and thus concluding necessity and/or chance?Mark Frank_{December 12, 2008
December
12
Dec
12
12
2008
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

#36 Mark Frank
apply it to it to the extraordinary shapes in the Carlsbad caves. Have they been designed? There is no design hypothesis which can account for them. Why would anyone want to create caves of this shape and how would they do it?
This would be the final output of EF.
Was it chance? The chances of such extraordinary shapes forming at random must be much lower than the UPB.
. No, that's not true. Each specific configuration would have a very low prob., but what it's important is the specificity of the configuration.
Therefore, it was necessity. There must be an unknown natural law that creates such shapes.
No, there's a known set of natural laws which are able to yield some form of configuration.kairos_{December 12, 2008
December
12
Dec
12
12
2008
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT}

vjtorley wrote:
Dr. Dembski, Thanks for the paper, which I’ve just been reading. I think you’ve rebutted Monton’s arguments successfully.
vjtorley, I disagree. First, the four "inflatons" that Dembski specifically criticizes do not include the idea of a single, infinite universe. Second, consider Dembski's general justification for rejecting these "inflatons":
Nevertheless, even though the four inflatons considered here each possesses explanatory power, none of them possesses independent evidence for its existence.
As Monton points out, patterns in the cosmic microwave background provide independent evidence for an infinite universe. Dembski writes:
It is logically possible that the laws of physics might have been different, not only in their parameters but also in their basic form. It is logically possible that instead of turning to mathematics I might have become a rock and roll singer.
I don't know, Bill... Some things are impossible in any universe. :-)ribczynski_{December 11, 2008
December
12
Dec
11
11
2008
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT}

Congrats to Denyse O’Leary, whose Post-Darwinist blog tied for third in the science and technology category from the Canadian Blog Awards.
Actually, one of the 31 votes came from Larry of Sandwalk.sparc_{December 11, 2008
December
12
Dec
11
11
2008
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

I want to put an alternative version of the EF for all your consideration. You might for example apply it to it to the extraordinary shapes in the Carlsbad caves. Have they been designed? There is no design hypothesis which can account for them. Why would anyone want to create caves of this shape and how would they do it? Was it chance? The chances of such extraordinary shapes forming at random must be much lower than the UPB. Therefore, it was necessity. There must be an unknown natural law that creates such shapes. Reasonable?Mark Frank_{December 11, 2008
December
12
Dec
11
11
2008
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT}

Dr. Dembski, Thanks for the paper, which I've just been reading. I think you've rebutted Monton's arguments successfully.vjtorley_{December 11, 2008
December
12
Dec
11
11
2008
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT}

vjtorley: Read my article "The Chance of the Gaps" that Monton cites in his piece. Monton remarks about my artice, "Dembski has given a response that’s related to my line of argument above." Actually, it deals with Monton's concerns spot-on. You can also find the same basic argument at the end of chapter 2 of my book NO FREE LUNCH.William Dembski_{December 11, 2008
December
12
Dec
11
11
2008
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT}

Good Call, Bill! *applause*crandaddy_{December 11, 2008
December
12
Dec
11
11
2008
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT}

Dr. Dembski, Just a quick question. Have you read Dr. Bradley Monton's paper, "Design Inferences in an Infinite Universe" at http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00003997/ and have you published a response?vjtorley_{December 11, 2008
December
12
Dec
11
11
2008
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT}

You say, I am so clever. My filter is the best thing since the wheel. Oh, William, sooo humble. I think you’ve been defeated over at Panda’s Thumb recently. Did you catch the article? It was about one of your recent concessions. Which is apparently took you years to admit! The post is called Vindication: http://pandasthumb.org/archive.....ation.html You should respond to it on this blog! (end quote) It's one thing to link to an article that quotes out of context, but coming on here under the guise of "noted scholar???"F2XL_{December 11, 2008
December
12
Dec
11
11
2008
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

Something to consider: The Explanatory Filter (EF)- Who uses it?: The explanatory filter (EF) is a process that can be used to reach an informed inference about an object or event in question. The EF mandates a rigorous investigation be conducted in an attempt to figure out how the object/ structure/ event in question came to be (see Science Asks Three Basic Questions, question 3). So who would use such a process? Mainly anyone and everyone attempting to debunk a design inference. This would also apply to anyone checking/ verifying a design inference. As I said in another opening post, Ghost Hunters use the EF. The EF is just a standard operating procedure used when conducting an investigation in which the cause is in doubt or needs to be verified.Joseph_{December 11, 2008
December
12
Dec
11
11
2008
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

Mapou wrote [22]: 1. Is there a law that requires huge numbers of particles (e.g., electrons) to have the exact same properties (e.g., mass, charge, spin orientations)? Answer: No. 2. Given that the number of possible properties that particles can have is infinite, is it likely that huge numbers of particles would have the exact same properties, if one assumed that the universe is a chance occurrence? Answer: No. Mapou I think that is an interesting perspective on CSI applied at a macro level, a subject I've been preoccupied with the last couple of days. Here is my own take: We could consider the entire biology of planet earth and indisputibly apply the label "biology" to it. So now we know from the design inference that it didn't occur by chance. (But certainly some aspects of it occured by chance didnt' they? I'll get back to that in a minute.) The first comment would most likely be, "Sure it didn't happen by chance, its the result of the mechanism we call random change and natural selection.) OK, then lets apply the label "caused bilogy" to the natural laws and mutations collectively that caused biology on earth. You just said they caused biology so the label must be accurate. So the natural laws and mutations did not happen by chance according to the design inference. Maybe the natural laws existed forever and so we can explain them that way. But the mutations are defined as happening by chance. But does it really violate the design inference to say only part of a string happened by chance? If 1% of a string was nonrandom, and 99% was, you could not say the string was entirely random, so you couldn't apply the label "random" to the entire string. So the design inference just seems to say that if a string has an idetifiable pattern it cannot have happened entirely by chance. 99% by chance? 5% by chance? Fine. But not 100%.JT_{December 11, 2008
December
12
Dec
11
11
2008
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

The flavor is better kept if the loaf is kept intact and only sliced as needed.
Do you have a relative in the knife business? :) Americans slice bread? Only the few and the brave... :)Joseph_{December 11, 2008
December
12
Dec
11
11
2008
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

"So working with the EF or SC end up being interchangeable. In THE DESIGN OF LIFE (published 2007), I simply go with SC. In UNDERSTANDING INTELLIGENT DESIGN (published 2008), I go back to the EF." "R. Martinez: Does this mean you have not read THE DESIGN REVOLUTION? Read Part II and get back to me. For a carefully nuanced exposition of the EF and how chance, necessity, and design relate, see especially ch. 11." Would it be possible to have a definitive position without having to buy a library?Mark Frank_{December 11, 2008
December
12
Dec
11
11
2008
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

@Denyse O'Leary, Congratulations! This is no doubt due to your tireless efforts in the face of constant and virulent attacks. Your enemies (and I'm sure they are as the sand of the sea) must be seething with envy and rage. It's hard for me to refrain from laughing out loud.Mapou_{December 11, 2008
December
12
Dec
11
11
2008
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

What's so great about sliced bread? The flavor is better kept if the loaf is kept intact and only sliced as needed. Olofsson, Professor of psomitologyProf_P.Olofsson_{December 11, 2008
December
12
Dec
11
11
2008
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

You say,
I am so clever. My filter is the best thing since the wheel.
Oh, William, sooo humble. I think you've been defeated over at Panda's Thumb recently. Did you catch the article? It was about one of your recent concessions. Which is apparently took you years to admit! The post is called Vindication: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/12/vindication.html You should respond to it on this blog! NS http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/notedscholar_{December 11, 2008
December
12
Dec
11
11
2008
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

Re Denyse O'Leary's blog, the Post-Darwinist - which some have reported as placing 3rd in the Canadian sci-tech blogger awards - it actually placed 4th. I had not publicized its placement; that was done by others, and I only found out about it while checking my mail. In fact, I had not written a post about this myself because I had not had a chance to verify it, due to unavoidable other business yesterday. When I did check early this morning, I noticed that the Post-D was 4th. Apparently, the news poster who said it was 3rd had experienced a sight error while viewing the list. Here is the listing as of December 11, 2008 2:10 pm EST. I am informed by a friend that most of the people grumbling about "pseudo-science" placed worse than the Post-Darwinist. If so, I wonder if they will try to block the Post-D's entry next year. Shrug.O'Leary_{December 11, 2008
December
12
Dec
11
11
2008
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

I think that, if one were to apply Dr. Dembski's explanatory filter to the universe itself, the latter would be seen as having been designed. Here's my take on it: 1. Is there a law that requires huge numbers of particles (e.g., electrons) to have the exact same properties (e.g., mass, charge, spin orientations)? Answer: No. 2. Given that the number of possible properties that particles can have is infinite, is it likely that huge numbers of particles would have the exact same properties, if one assumed that the universe is a chance occurrence? Answer: No. 3. Are the properties of the particles that comprise the universe specified? Answer: Yes. Corrollary: If the universe was designed, how plausible is it that the same intelligent agency that designed it could have just as easily designed complex lifeforms? Answer: Extremely plausible.Mapou_{December 11, 2008
December
12
Dec
11
11
2008
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

Patrick, You may recall my point in the original thread that the rigorous math and science should come first, and the writing for a general audience should come later. A picture is merely an aid to intuition. It is not a rigorous explanation. If we are indeed talking about a "flow of logic," then the filter can be expressed formally. It is generally more natural to express "flow" with an algorithm than with a set of logical sentences, but something along the lines of what we saw in the appendix of The Design Inference, along with an interpretation (in the sense of semantics), would be fine.Sal Gal_{December 11, 2008
December
12
Dec
11
11
2008
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

Excuse me. May I please have your attention- Ladies and Gentlemen, Let me introduce you to the Pre-Natural Intelligent Designer Thank You. Thank you very much...Joseph_{December 11, 2008
December
12
Dec
11
11
2008
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

Bill, would you still say that the following image adequately represents the EF? I realize the "in practice" usage is explained in text elsewhere but personally I feel that the binary node flowchart does not adequately or at least precisely explain the flow of logic. I think that's the main brunt of criticism and it can be easily be fixed by updating the graphic and publishing it in a new book.Patrick_{December 11, 2008
December
12
Dec
11
11
2008
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

Sal Gal, The elimination is of regularity ALONE and chance ALONE. We know that designing agencies take into account the physical laws. So designs are a combination of agency working within those laws or using those laws as part of the design. Electronics is an example. And as far as CSI, I see it as a verifier of the design inference reached via the EF. To jerry- great point! Signs of intelligence takes many forms.Joseph_{December 11, 2008
December
12
Dec
11
11
2008
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

William Dembski says,
The EF is what philosophers of science call a “rational reconstruction” — it takes pre-theoretic ordinary reasoning and attempts to give it logical precision.
In an appendix of The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities, you described the filter in a formal logical language. Where is the logically precise statement of your current version of the EF? If you no longer proceed by elimination of chance and regularity, then what sense is there in saying that you are filtering?Sal Gal_{December 11, 2008
December
12
Dec
11
11
2008
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

This is great news! The EF in combination with SC make a wonderful collaboration of logical framework in design detection! Thanks for the post BillPaulN_{December 11, 2008
December
12
Dec
11
11
2008
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

I made this comment yesterday on the Olofsson thread. It seems appropriate here. We use the term intelligence loosely in the EF but what it means is non law and non chance. A lot of the so called fossils in the Pre Cambrian are “trace fossils.” These are not body forms or even parts of bodies but evidence that a life form was there. In other words, paths in the sediment made as some worm like creature passed through. So the paleontologist rightly concluded these were due to some life form and not to any chance event or law like process. The intelligence was minimal but instinctively the classification was made. Is this not an example of the EF being used? I thing we would use the EF to conclude that life was present. For example, if the trace was due to a plant or maybe even a single celled organism if such an organism was capable of leaving a trace. I am not trying to make a big deal of this but just thought it was curious given the discussion. Namely, that the EF is a natural process we as human beings use.jerry_{December 11, 2008
December
12
Dec
11
11
2008
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

Dave, I would also add that the EF is only as good as the people (person) using it.Joseph_{December 11, 2008
December
12
Dec
11
11
2008
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

Bill, "it takes pre-theoretic ordinary reasoning and attempts to give it logical precision" I like this; it's what I've also been trying to do for 30 years now, with mixed success!Granville Sewell_{December 11, 2008
December
12
Dec
11
11
2008
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply