News

Lizzie asked me a question, so I will respond

Spread the love

Dr. Liddle recently used my name specifically in a question here:

Chance and 500 coins: a challenge

Barry? Sal? William?

I would always like to stay on good terms with Dr. Liddle. She has shown great hospitality. The reason I don’t visit her website is the acrimony many of the participants have toward me. My absence there has nothing to do with her treatment of me, and in fact, one reason I was ever there in the first place was she was one of the few critics of ID that actually focused on what I said versus assailing me personally.

So, apologies in advance Dr. Liddle if I don’t respond to every question you field. It has nothing to do with you but lots to do with hatred obviously direct toward me by some of the people at your website.

I’ve enjoyed discussion about music and musical instruments.

Dr. Liddle asked I respond to this:

My problem with the IDists’ 500 coins question (if you saw 500 coins lying heads up, would you reject the hypothesis that they were fair coins, and had been fairly tossed?) is not that there is anything wrong with concluding that they were not. Indeed, faced with just 50 coins lying heads up, I’d reject that hypothesis with a great deal of confidence.

It’s the inference from that answer of mine is that if, as a “Darwinist” I am prepared to accept that a pattern can be indicative of something other than “chance” (exemplified by a fairly tossed fair coin) then I must logically also sign on to the idea that an Intelligent Agent (as the alternative to “Chance”) must inferrable from such a pattern.

This, I suggest, is profoundly fallacious.

First of all, it assumes that “Chance” is the “null hypothesis” here

No, I’m afraid it’s not. That is your representation of the ID procedure. That is not the way I’ve ever stated it, nor has any other ID proponent to my knowledge. There is no null (default) hypothesis in the Explantory Filter (EF).

You can reject a hypothesis after examination without ever making it the null hypothesis at the beginning of your inquiry. Just as I have done in my analysis of a system of 500 fair coins heads. In the 10 years I’ve defended ID, I’ve never assumed “chance” is the null hypothesis. The general assumption starting out is the system could be the result of:

1. chance
2. law
3. something not-chance and not-law

That is the EF. If anything, the null hypothesis is “anything is possible” which would be kind of useless null hypothesis. I’ve suggested “not chance” as a null, but that’s not exactly right either.

Further, the EF is not purely a statistical test, but a PHYSICAL test. That is, if we see the coins are two-headed, then we can reject #1 and #3 as causes. Most null hypothesis tests I see in literature are purely statistical as far as I know.

You are trying to frame the EF as purely statistical null hypothesis test, it’s not. It is not, or shall I say, it’s not the way I infer design.

Also, “it is useful to separate design from theories of intelligence and intelligent agency”. That means we can talk about design this in minimal terms of statistics without invoking ID. We can simply talk about systems of objects in terms of whether the configuration is the result of expected physical behaviors due to chance and law. The reasons I’ve adopted using the Law of Large numbers is it is a natural way of expressing physical behaviors in terms of expected or predicted outcomes. The original versions of CSI only implicitly capture this, and in order to appeal to intuitions I’ve framed elementary examples in terms of the Law of Large Numbers and expectation.

Finally, if something passes the EF, given Bill’s advice, it doesn’t necessarily logically imply that a conscious intelligence did it. That is a separate argument (obviously ID proponents will argue for intelligence on circumstantial grounds).

An intelligently designed machine may have created the system (like a coin sorting machine). ID proponents have defined design as “negation of chance and law”.

The principal advantage of characterizing design as the complement of regularity and chance is that it avoids committing itself to a doctrine of intelligent agency…Nevertheless, it is useful to separate design from theories of intelligence and intelligent agency.

Why would Bill do this? This simple definition of design is good enough to form a critique of OOL and evolutionary theories. I did not have to commit to a doctrine of intelligent agency, for example, to critique OOL using coin analogies:

Relevance of coin analogies to homochirality and symbolic organization

I hope you’ll forgive me for not responding to your questions more frequently, and I hope you’ll understand if I miss some of your future querries.

I hope you have a Merry Christmas Dr. Liddle and I hope you’ll spend some time with good music. I think when I visit my Mom for Christmas, I should perform lots of piano.

30 Replies to “Lizzie asked me a question, so I will respond

  1. 1

    It’s the inference from that answer of mine is that if, as a “Darwinist” I am prepared to accept that a pattern can be indicative of something other than “chance” (exemplified by a fairly tossed fair coin) then I must logically also sign on to the idea that an Intelligent Agent (as the alternative to “Chance”) must inferrable from such a pattern.

    No you don’t have to sign up to design, Lizzie. At least not right away. It could also be necessity.

    And if anyone thinks there is some other category of causation other than chance, necessity, and design, we would be most interested to hear what that is.

    Another alternative is to say “Well, we just don’t know.” or “We can’t know.”

    At first blush such an approach sounds very nice and objective, but in fact it is a form of hyperskepticism. We use the design inference all the time, every day. And no-one has the slightest problem with it until it comes to things like origin of life, or the development of life on Earth, or similar things where a design inference makes some people uncomfortable . . .

    When we drill down for most people, the design inference isn’t the least bit strange or problematic. Until we apply it to areas that make them uncomfortable . . .

  2. 2

    Sal:

    Finally, if something passes the EF, given Bill’s advice, it doesn’t necessarily logically imply that a conscious intelligence did it. . .

    A intelligently designed machine may have created the system (like a coin sorting machine).

    Isn’t it the case, though, Sal, that ultimately the design comes back to an intelligence (whether you want to call it a mind or a consciousness or otherwise)?

    In other words, the “design” of sorted coins produced by a coin sorting machine is just a derivative of the design that produced the coin sorting machine. Ultimately, in every single instance in which we can track the source of the design or the information, it always goes back to an intelligent being, to a mind.

  3. 3
    scordova says:

    Isn’t it the case, though, Sal, that ultimately the design comes back to an intelligence (whether you want to call it a mind or a consciousness or otherwise)?

    Yes, but I don’t spend time arguing that. The other side would like us to spend more time arguing that, and Bill was wise to foresee that.

    The other side would like an opportunity demand, “tells us about the designer etc.”

    I choose not to give the other side that opportunity.

    Bill was wise to see we could seriously damage anti-ID claims simply by arguing against chance and law mechanisms.

    Among ID proponents, I’m happy to share my opinions about intelligent agency when talking about things we mutually agree are designed. In questions of OOL or biological evolution, I don’t see the need to invoke a designer, it suffices to point out which mechanisms can’t work.

  4. 4
    scordova says:

    Masters of stealth intent on concealing their actions may successfully evade the explanatory filter. But masters of self-promotion intent on making sure their But masters of self-promotion intent on making sure their intellectual property gets properly attributed find in the explanatory filter a ready friend.

    This is a very important fact. The EF will reject some if not many designs. A design (like say the Champernowne sequence) will evade the method I used to reject chance.

    An intelligence can even deliberately choose to make a random looking pattern.

    By Lizzie saying “chance is the null hypothesis” as representing the ID procedure, it thus becomes rather easy to knock down this straw man caricature of the EF. All you have to do is put in something like the Champernowne sequence…

    The methods Bill suggested in Design Inference are more general than the method I suggested with the Law of Large numbers. My method only works for specialized cases, it won’t work quite as easily without some adaptation to detecting things like the Champernowne sequence. The benefit however is that the use of LLN brings forceful clarity to the design inference for those select cases amenable to such a method of chance rejection.

  5. 5
    Upright BiPed says:

    I would always like to stay on good terms with Dr. Liddle. She has shown great hospitality. The reason I don’t visit her website is the acrimony many of the participants have toward me. My absence there has nothing to do with her treatment of me, and in fact, one reason I was ever there in the first place was she was one of the few critics of ID that actually focused on what I said versus assailing me personally.

    Sal, you do realize (don’t you) that Dr Liddle constantly advertises a set of moderation policies against people “assailing you personally”, which she quite selectively enforces – to the complete joy of those doing the assailing?

    It would be ironic if this towering figure of “hospitality” simply had you suckered into believing that she really gave one iota of concern about your ability to speak on her website without being berated by her clan of bigots and stoolies (obviously she could enforce her policies if she wanted to), but I fear the situation is even worse than that.

    The only observations that are reduced enough in intensity to label them as merely “ironic” are those instances when TSZers come here to suggest that UD should adopt her kind of policies. Using your praise of her as an example of suspected response, perhaps they would expect us to enforce them as well.

    – – – – – – – – – –

    As for Dr Liddle’s position, she is not facing the specter of a mere set of coins, she is facing a well-described information translation apparatus that MUST have a set of local (context-specific) relationships embedded within it in order for it to function at the physical level – plus the content of original information after that apparatus is in place. She know this fully well, and she knows fully well that there is no unambiguous evidence for a unguided source of the system. Of course, she is certainly welcome to cling to the thin thread of imaginative future prospects, but she is not welcome as a sceintist to throw empiricism under the bus and publically deny that no valid evidence for design exists at all – which is tantamount to her lying through her teeth. Is anyone offended? How can I make such a harsh claim? Because anyone who actually knows as well as Dr Liddle what is physically required to get translation off the ground knows that there is substantial universal experience (all material evidence) pointing directly to design. Her response? To host a website for intellectual thugs and stoolies to berate anyone who isn’t as willing as she is to throw empiricicm under the bus. How ironic is it that the public must remind Dr Liddle of her professional responsibilities. Perhaps she should argue that they needn’t waste their time.

  6. 6
    scordova says:

    UB,

    Actually I thought Lizzie kept everyone there well behaved compared to the way the same people treated me at other websites.

    I was grateful for the opportunity to get free peer review of some of the teaching materials I’m developing.

    Though most of my exchanges with critics are a waste of time, the rounds at TSZ were actually quite fruitful.

    I do not view the protracted internet discussions as persuading anyone.

    Making good teaching materials for students that want to learn ID is what is important for me. These materials when delivered in person can have more influence than any debate I have on the net.

    Some of the essays I’ve developed at UD are reflective of my teaching philosophy with the goal of being

    clear
    succinct
    accurate
    unassailable
    moderately interesting
    hopefully memorable in some way

    The net has been a means of testing the effectiveness of ways of communicating ideas and converting some of the very difficult and challenging ID literature into something more accessible.

    What I present today is much better than a few years ago thanks to the internet.

  7. 7
    scordova says:

    Btw,

    It is because of TSZ that Mark Frank was able to influence my writing style. He advocated succinctness. From that moment on, I tried to follow his advice.

    It resulted in some of those most difficult writing I’ve ever done, but I’m glad now I followed his advice.

    Sal

  8. 8
    Upright BiPed says:

    I’m glad your satisfied Sal. Actually, your satisfaction with Dr Liddle was not in question. I’m more concerned with authority figures being honest with the public.

  9. 9

    Sal:

    Among ID proponents, I’m happy to share my opinions about intelligent agency when talking about things we mutually agree are designed. In questions of OOL or biological evolution, I don’t see the need to invoke a designer, it suffices to point out which mechanisms can’t work.

    I sure hope you didn’t mean what you wrote. Or that I misunderstood it.

    The whole point of intelligent design is to see if there are areas in which we can identify design. And one of the most obvious areas of design is OOL.

    I would certainly hope you aren’t tiptoeing around saying (so as to be polite and not give anyone an opportunity to ask followup questions about a designer), “Well, gee. I wouldn’t want to say life was designed you know. Don’t want to get into that discussion. But hey 500 heads in a row, sure I’ll talk about design in that instance.”

    It is true that pointing out the fact that chance and necessity can’t work to produce OOL is an important part of the task, and is a perfectly legitimate exercise. But to then avoid talking about design is a task half done.

    Personally I don’t give a hoot if materialists start whining about who the designer was, whether they believe in this or that god, or otherwise. To an objective observer it just makes them look illogical, and rightly so.

    So let’s not beat around the bushes. Let’s be willing to infer design and forcefully state it, particularly in obvious cases like OOL, and let the second order questions (who is the designer?, who designed the designer?, why was the designer so mean?, why is there suffering?, yada, yada) fall where they may.

  10. 10
    scordova says:

    I sure hope you didn’t mean what you wrote. Or that I misunderstood it.

    I was echoing this passage by Bill:

    The principal advantage of characterizing design as the complement of regularity and chance is that it avoids committing itself to a doctrine of intelligent agency…Nevertheless, it is useful to separate design from theories of intelligence and intelligent agency.

  11. 11
    kairosfocus says:

    SC:

    Pardon, but I differ.

    I will explain in brief.

    There is a null absolute, lawlike necessity, rejected on finding high contingency. Second, there is a relative default, chance based process as the presumed explanation of high contingency, rejected on FSCO/I for needle in haystack search grounds.

    As a result, the inference to design when made is much more robust than the inference to lawlike necessity . . . remember in principle chance can mimic necessity, as can design.

    With high contingency, design can mimic chance, so there is a willingness to assign not sufficiently complex items to chance by default, so that when we do infer design for cases of interest, we are highly confident (all but absolutely certain) on needle in cosmic scale haystack reasons, that chance is not responsible.

    Of course, the inference is not at all meant to capture any and all instances of design, just those that show especially functionally specific complex organisation and associated information.

  12. 12
    scordova says:

    I’m sorry KF, I didn’t understand what you said. Can you state exactly what I said that you disagree with. A quote is preferred.

    I asserted:

    There is no null (default) hypothesis in the Explantory Filter (EF).

    Is that what you are disagreeing with?

  13. 13
    scordova says:

    From Wiki:

    In statistical inference of observed data of a scientific experiment, the null hypothesis refers to a general or default position: that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena,[1] or that a potential medical treatment has no effect.[2] Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis – and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena or that a potential treatment has a measurable effect – is a central task in the modern practice of science, and gives a precise sense in which a claim is capable of being proven false.

  14. 14
    Upright BiPed says:

    Mike Elzinga: You think you know all about science from reading popularizations? You want scientists to explain things to you even as you refuse to learn basic high school science and vocabulary?

    For the first time in something like 50 years I would like to see an ID/creationist do a simple high school level chemistry/physics calculation, get a scientific concept correct, and use scientific words properly in a sentence.

    All any of you are able to do is keep the “arguments” going over the meanings of the meanings of the meanings of the meanings of meanings … You never display any awareness of science at even the high school level; and most of you can’t get middle school scientific concepts straight.

    NOT ONE ID/creationist in a half century has been able to do something as simple as to scale up the charge-to-mass ratios of protons and electrons to kilogram-sized masses separated by a meter, calculate the energies of interaction in units of joules and megatons of TNT, and then justify the ID/creationist use of tornados in junkyards as an argument against evolution.

    Not one, coldcoffee; NOT ONE. Not you, not Blas, not anyone over at UD. Not Henry Morris, not Duane Gish, not Dembski, not Abel, not Sanford, not Sewell; not ANY ID/creationist. Sewell (PhD in applied math) can’t even get units straight when plugging things into an equation. Do you know what units are?

    Just once we would like to see a glimmer of an ID/creationist comprehending enough basic science to justify using marbles, Scrabble letters, coin flips, junkyard parts, battle ship parts, and ideal gases of other inert objects as stand-ins for the properties and behaviors of atoms and molecules.

    Can YOU do that simple high school physics/chemistry calculation? Will you word-game it; or simply avoid it?

    Hey Dr Liddle,

    This incomprehensibly miserable p.o.s. does this to everyone who walks through the door at TSZ, and you stand there having a tea and conversing with him while he does it.

    Being an abusive fraud suits you, Dr Liddle. Perfectly.

  15. 15
    kairosfocus says:

    SC:

    Indeed, that is my concern.

    And, we are not making a strictly statistical test (though such may be used in the process).

    The sense I have understood for “default” is close to that of electronics and comp sci:

    (Electronics & Computer Science / Computer Science (also)) Computing
    a. the preset selection of an option offered by a system, which will always be followed except when explicitly altered
    b. (as modifier) default setting [Collins Eng Dict]

    First, we look for a lawlike regularity tracing to mechanical necessity. Then, on observing high contingency on initial circumstances that are closely similar, chance is accepted unless we are beyond the FSCO/I threshold at which chance becomes implausible.

    This, per aspect of a situation, object, phenomenon or process.

    KF

  16. 16
    kairosfocus says:

    UB:

    Re ME:

    Mike Elzinga: You think you know all about science from reading popularizations? You want scientists to explain things to you even as you refuse to learn basic high school science and vocabulary?

    For the first time in something like 50 years I would like to see an ID/creationist do a simple high school level chemistry/physics calculation, get a scientific concept correct, and use scientific words properly in a sentence.

    This is a slanderous falsehood on his part, and it bespeaks his basic problem.

    He knows or should know that so simple a case as 500 or 1,000 coins in a row to be tossed at random and come up all H or all T, or alternating H and T, or expressing the opening 72 characters of this post in ASCII code suffice to make the point. One does not need to make a more sophisticated calculation than that. (And I am sure he knows the old physicist’s joke about the two drunks searching under the streetlight, as it illuminates where the contacts were lost over there in the deep darkness.)

    And this is directly relevant to homochirality in proteins, and to the storage of complex coded information in R/DNA.

    That said, no need to blow a gasket over the obnoxious behaviour at TSZ as a front for the Darwinist fever swamps and the enabling behaviour that provides a genteel front for it.

    Let us simply highlight what we are dealing with and call enabling what it is.

    Outright criminal thuggishness such as a recent attempt to paint targets on the backs of my uninvolved family are another matter and call forth a different level of response.

    And folks, that is the real level of some we are dealing with.

    Not every grin is an expression of genuine friendly intent.

    KF

  17. 17
    scordova says:

    KF,

    Here are the statements so far

    Lizzie: chance is the null hypothesis for ID

    Sal: there is no null hypothesis for ID

    KF: ??????

    If you can state your position in once clear sentence, I’m sure the readers would be appreciative.

    Is there a null hypothesis for ID? If so, what is it?

    Or you could agree or disagree with Lizzie’s characterization:

    it [the inference of ID proponents] assumes that “Chance” is the “null hypothesis” here

    I don’t agree with Lizzie. I don’t agree this is how ID makes its inference.

  18. 18
    Upright BiPed says:

    I’m not “blowing a gasket” KF, I’m calling out the hypocracy of an authority figure who lies to the public (it’s something we use to do in this country).

    Dr Liddle keeps a beaten dog on her porch while she deludes herself that she cares so much for open inquiry. Elzinga’s not the problem, other than the fact that he’s completely irrational and afraid of his own boogiemen. He does a meltdown (the exact same meltdown) about once a week – (“Get those Creationist!”, “50 years I tell ya!”, “not a middle-school class among em!”) while Liddle sells herself as a beacon of fairness.

    Even-minded citizens and professionals use to find that shit revolting. I suppose we can all be buried proper, with our gaskets intact.

  19. 19
    scordova says:

    Not one, coldcoffee; NOT ONE. Not you, not Blas, not anyone over at UD. Not Henry Morris, not Duane Gish, not Dembski, not Abel, not Sanford, not Sewell; not ANY ID/creationist

    Dr. Mike forgot to mention

    This Guy from Australia 🙂

  20. 20

    Isn’t the “null hypothesis” in ID that natural forces/interactions can produce, through whatever non-teleological mechanisms/physical tendencies are known/available/involved, the effect/phenomena in question?

    Colloquially known as “the chance” hypothesis (pertinent materials acting in accordance with natural law according to tendency, limitations and plausible distributions of chance outcomes).

  21. 21
    phoodoo says:

    I am very glad I came across this resource, there is some very impressive commenting here. I have posted about this over at TSZ.

    It just occurs to me that D. Lizzle, in her long posts is sort of pulling a fast one with her word use. A test of tossing coins is just that, a test of randomness, that is the whole hypothesis. Its not a test of the materials of the coins, or what is the effectiveness of a drug on coin tossing. There are only two possible outcomes, the coin toss is random or its not, that’s it. She wants to say that the null hypothesis is “Is this a fair coin toss.”

    Yea, ok, so? Is that different from saying is this a random coin toss? Is this a chance coin toss? Is this Not a chance coin toss? They are all the same exact hypothesis, and as such of course the null is either chance or not chance. It just depends if you want to state your hypothesis in the negative or the affirmative. Its the same dam thing!

  22. 22
    scordova says:

    This is picture of Chewbacca, he is Wookie living on Endor

    let

    e = proton charge
    -e = electron charge
    C = coulombs
    N = Newtons
    m = meters
    kg = kilograms
    k = Couloub’s constant = 8.99 x 10^9 N m^2/C^2
    Q = charge of scaled up proton mass (presumably a sphere)
    q = charge of scaled up electron mass (presumably a sphere)
    r = distance between charges = 1 m
    U = potential energy
    J = joules
    kT = kilotons TNT
    MT = megatons TNT

    For electrons:
    q =
    1 kg * [ (-e)/(9.11*10^-31 kg)) ] *
    [1 C / (6.24*10^18 * e ) ] = -1.76 x 10^11 C

    For protons
    Q = 1 kg [ e/(1.67×10^-27 kg) ] *
    (1 C / (6.24*10^18 * e ) = 9.58 x 10^07 C

    spherical symmetry of spheres allows use of the shell theorem

    U = k Q q / r = 8.99 x 10^9 N m^2/C^2 * -1.76 x 10^11 C * 9.58 x 10^07 C / 1 m

    = -1.52 x 10^29 N m *
    ( J / (n M) ) = -1.52 x 10^29 J

    The negative sign indicates the hyopthetical loss of potential energy
    when the two bodies travelled an infinite distance where U(infinity) = 0,

    Thus,

    -1.52 x 10^29 J * [ kT / (4.18×10^9 J) ] = -3.62 *10^19 kT

    = -3.62 *10^19 kT * [ MT / (1000 kT) ]

    = -3.62 * 10^16 MT

    For the spheres to be able to have such large amount of charges focused in two spheres (each sphere containing like charges) in one locality a meter apart, some mighty hand like that of the Lord, the Almighty, the Intelligent Designer, would have to assemble the spheres and hold the spheres together and then bring them to 1 meter apart without allowing them to explode due to the repulsion of like charges in each sphere.

    And once the mighty hand of the Lord unbinds the containment of the charges in each sphere, something far greater than a tornado will play out as more potential energy is released with a multi-megaton explosion, and the heat would incinerate everything, and nothing will evolve, and even if it did, it could only be by the hand of God.

    And if wookies are on the planet Endor, you must acquit.

  23. 23
    scordova says:

    most of you can’t get middle school scientific concepts straight.

    That could be true, but at least some of us know a 2-headed coin can’t ever flip tails and thus chance is precluded in the outcome of 2-headed coin flip, and that’s more than what certain nationally prominent evolutionary biologist who frequents UD was capable of understanding. 🙂

  24. 24

    KF @ 11. Very well put.

    Sal, the issue is that the explanatory filter is not intended to find every instance of design (as you know and have stated). Why is that? Well, because we are willing to give up the possibility of inferring design in some cases in order to approach near certainty when we do infer design. (In other words, we give up a bunch of false negatives in order to avoid a single false positive.)

    Again, I know you know all that, so I’m preaching to the choir. But in the context of the present discussion, the practical upshot of this is that we are willing — again, not because the particular system in question warrants it philosophically, but because of the need for methodological accuracy — to assume that if there is a decent possibility something is the result of necessity or chance, then we are not justified in inferring design.

    This is simply another way of saying that in terms of the explanatory filter, necessity and chance are the “null” or the “default” options.

    Whether we want to get into an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin discussion about the use of null hypotheses in statistical analysis, statistical significance testing and so on, is a separate discussion. But, yes, there is a default position in the explanatory filter, and it is not design. That is precisely why the explanatory filter is a useful way to approach the design question — we let necessity and chance take their best shot, and only infer design when it approaches certainty.

  25. 25

    phoodoo:

    It just occurs to me that D. Lizzle, in her long posts is sort of pulling a fast one with her word use.

    And that, my friend, is a very large part of the difficulty with the debate. ID is a very simple concept — accessible to any middle schooler, with a little explanation. Furthermore, the inference to design is used pervasively on a daily basis throughout the world. And no-one has the slightest problem with it.

    That is until it gets applied to things like the origin of life, or the origin of information in biology. Then people start obfuscating with terminology, making demands that they would never make in a different context, complaining about this or that definition. All, it seems, because the implication of a design inference in that particular context makes some people quite uncomfortable . . .

  26. 26
    Ho-De-Ho says:

    Whatho all.

    Eric Anderson, I must say that your final paragraph @25 is something I too have noted from some. There can always be an argument if one wishes to argue.

    This link I believe tries to parody the multiple lines of argument that can be used in defending evolution.

    http://tinyurl.com/p4b4qgu

    Not wishing to tar all who subscribe to a materialist outlook with the same brush, of course. As you know, I have the greatest respect for the opinions and viewpoints of my fellow men/women. It just struck me as rather novel.

  27. 27
    phoodoo says:

    Eric A.,

    Yes, I am not sure how she is going to talk her way out of saying that “Is it a fair coin toss.” is different from saying “Is it a chance coin toss.” in this context. The null thus being chance.

    But I am sure she will try.

  28. 28
    scordova says:

    phoodoo,

    I don’t believe we’ve met before.

    Welcome to Uncommon Descent.

    Hope to see you some more after Christmas.

    Sal

  29. 29
    phoodoo says:

    Sal,

    Thanks. There looks to be some really solid contributors here. I am particularly impressed that you can have well reasoned science debates without having to get distracted by biblical passages.

    I am in a part of the world where Christmas is just a fun diversion from work and everyone is Santa for a day.

    Happy Holidays

  30. 30
    scordova says:

    Hey Dr Liddle,

    This incomprehensibly miserable p.o.s. does this to everyone who walks through the door at TSZ, and you stand there having a tea and conversing with him while he does it.

    Being an abusive fraud suits you, Dr Liddle. Perfectly.

    For about a year I couldn’t figure out what Dr. Mike was trying to get at. Then I realized he was bit confused himself. His argument actually would strengthen the tornado illustration, not weaken it. He began lumping creationists with all those who dare to use the Sakur-Tetrode approximation for ideal monoatomic gases. 😯 In otherwords, he’s rather eccentric and persnickety about ideas in physics not even related to creationism (like the insistence entropy is only about energy, contrary to lots of mainstream literature to the contrary).

    I got a hint something was up when he went ballistic after I made an innocuous reference to ideal monoatomic gases in a discussion far removed from ID. Go into the comment section to see my explanation here:

    Christmas gift to Dr. Mike

    Hey Dr Liddle,

    This incomprehensibly miserable p.o.s.

    An otherwise fine citizen in Dr. Jeckell becomes Mr. Hyde once they go into defend-Darwin-at-all-costs mode.

    Again, I refer readers to Christmas gift to Dr. Mike as a response to Mike Elzinga.

Leave a Reply