We cannot live by scepticism alone

_{Mario Lopez

March 5, 2009

Science}

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

Scientists have been too dogmatic about scientific truth and sociologists have fostered too much scepticism — social scientists must now elect to put science back at the core of society, says Harry Collins.

Comments

R0b, I wasn't talking about Darwinists in general. I was being more specific. AtomAtom_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

Khan If most mutations are neutral why does it take billions of trillions of tries for the malaria parasite to find the three sequence changes that confer resistance to chloroquine? I'm open to other explanations but the only one that fits is that most mutations in the malaria parasite are deleterious. This would manifest itself as being easy to find useful single base substitutions but greater than one base would be multiplicative in number of tries required. If most mutations were neutral the number of tries required would be additive instead of multiplicative. Comparing theory to reality we find that the parasite does quickly become resistant when a single base change is required but takes a multiplicative number when more than one base change is required. How do YOU explain that?DaveScot_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

Perhaps the greater flaw in Weasal is that it starts from an initial state of gibberish. Evolution doesn't work that way. It begins from a highly optimized state and transitions to a different but similarly highly optimized state in response to dimunitions of the original optimization caused by changes in the environment. We have a wonderful case study in real life, in real time, of how this works. Behe examines it in "The Edge of Evolution" where the malaria parasite begins in a highly optimized state which is diminished by the introduction of anti-malarial drugs. If evolution worked the way Weasal works these drugs would be overcome in such very short order that they would be utterly useless from the very start. After all, chloroquine resistance only requires three amino acid substitutions to become functional. The parasite only has to go from "Methinks it is like a weasel" to "Methinks it is like a beagle". It takes the parasite some 10^20 tries to get there. So there is clearly a huge disconnect from the Weasel program and how the diversification of life actually happens.DaveScot_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

Atom:
The median number of searches required is 98, not the actual number, which can differ from the median. The math does not say “Dawkins’ algorithm should find the target in 98 queries”; it says that the median number of searches is 98.
Yes, I should have said that it should find the target within 98 queries half the time. If anyone thought that I meant that it should always find the target in exactly 98 queries, I apologize. The fact remains that it never finds the target in that few queries. I doubt that anyone could find a population size and mutation rate that requires fewer than several thousand queries on average.
Anyway, whether or not Dawkins’ search freezes correct letters (as in partitioned search) is still just an order of magnitude smaller side detail. Sure, you want to “correct Dembski and Marks.” Whatever.
Marks and Dembski have been presenting Dawkins' Weasel as an example of what they call a partitioned search. If you think that this isn't worth correcting, then so be it.
It has been shown that there is a case to be made that at least one version of Weasel used latching; even if it didn’t, it appeared to, so an honest mistake could have been made.
I have no doubt that it was originally an honest mistake. But Dembski was informed of the mistake years ago, and he continues to perpetuate it, even into technical literature.
But I guess when your victories are so few and far between, you’ll chase down any small victory you can salvage.
Yep, we're pretty desperate that way. Anything to put a damper on the highly successful ID movement. But you're right that the Weasel issue is a tempest in a teapot. Nobody in science cares about the 20-year-old trivial illustration. It's the ID and creationist camps that keep bringing it up, and as long as they do, we'll keep trying to help them get their facts straight.R0b_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

DaveScot:
According to wikipedia Dawkins’ algorithm found the target in 46 generations. Given that number can change by luck of the draw it’s not unreasonable on the face of it to give an average of 96 generations.
You're talking generations, not queries. A query is a fitness evaluation. If a 46-generation run entails only 96 queries, then the population size must be around 2. But there's no way that a population of 2 will find the target in 46 generations.
More to the point however is it’s not even to a realistic simulation of how evolution by mutation and selection really works.
That would be more to the point if Weasel was intended to be a realistic simulation of something in the real world. But that was not the point of Dawkins' toy illustration, nor is it the point that's being disputed in this thread.R0b_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

Dave,
In the real world random mutations are largely deleterious.
sounds like you've been reading too much Behe and not enough Futuyma. In the real world most mutations are neutral.Khan_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

R0b wrote:
According to their math, both in their paper and here, Dawkins’ algorithm should find the target in 98 queries. ... Unfortunately for Marks and Dembski, Dawkins’ algorithm does not find the target in 98 queries. Not even close.
The median number of searches required is 98, not the actual number, which can differ from the median. The math does not say "Dawkins’ algorithm should find the target in 98 queries"; it says that the median number of searches is 98. Anyway, whether or not Dawkins' search freezes correct letters (as in partitioned search) is still just an order of magnitude smaller side detail. Sure, you want to "correct Dembski and Marks." Whatever. It has been shown that there is a case to be made that at least one version of Weasel used latching; even if it didn't, it appeared to, so an honest mistake could have been made. But I guess when your victories are so few and far between, you'll chase down any small victory you can salvage. Good luck with your argument. Atom PS I'll alert you guys when I code the non-latching version, so the point will quickly shrink to moot.Atom_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

Rob According to wikipedia Dawkins' algorithm found the target in 46 generations. Given that number can change by luck of the draw it's not unreasonable on the face of it to give an average of 96 generations. More to the point however is it's not even to a realistic simulation of how evolution by mutation and selection really works. In the real world random mutations are largely deleterious. To add a bit of realism to the algorithm when a mutation occurs that doesn't move the string closer to the goal one of the correct letters should be randomized as a penalty. Obviously the target would then never be reached even in trillions of generations as the penalties would quite reliably overwhelm the successes.DaveScot_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

OK I found the link to Dawkins:
Partitioned search [12] is a “divide and conquer” procedure best introduced by example.
[12] Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, W. W. Norton, (1996). So now it is off to the library to get the book...Joseph_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

I have a question about the Marks/ Dembski paper: Where in the paper do they say that the Dawkins "weasel" program is a partitioned search? I know they talk about a partioned search and they use the same saying as Dawkins' but they don't seem to say that Dawkins' program used a partitioned search- not that I have read but I am going back to read the paper again.Joseph_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

And as far as access to the source code goes, there is no need. The program can be recreated by any reasonably competent programmer using the following simple rules
There is a need for the ORIGINAL source code. It is the ORIGINAL source code that is in question. That means any duplicate, if it is not an EXACT copy, will NOT suffice. ID can lead us to the internal programming of living organisms. That is the programming of life.
That’s not very helpful.
Perhaps not to YOU. However for those who are interested in the reality behind our existence it is very helpful.
Can it?
Yes it can. Ya see only through ID would anyone even think to look for such programming.
When will it then?
Probably within a decade of gaining full acceptance.
What’s the hold up?
People like you. So how about it? I offered $100,000 for the relevant data that demonstrates such structures can be obtained via cumulative selection. And all you did was choke on it. Go figure… I find it amazing that you can still type while you are choking...Joseph_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

Stephen Morris:
By any reasonable standard, GLF should have paid up the $100,000 days ago, and his gymnastics over the past few days as he tries to wriggle out of this have been increasingly excruciating to watch.
If the the question of whether kairosfocus is right or wrong is a "reasonable standard", then GLF should not pay, since kairosfocus is wrong. If there's any ambiguity over what's in dispute here, let's turn to Marks and Dembski's account, which kairosfocus insists is accurate. As they spell out in section II-E of their paper here, a "partitioned search" is one in which correct letters are exempt from mutation. Their math shows this explicitly. According to their math, both in their paper and here, Dawkins' algorithm should find the target in 98 queries. (Lest there be any question as to whether Marks and Dembski are actually talking about Dawkins' algorithm, the link above starts out "First, let's look at partitioned search used by Dr. Dawkins".) Unfortunately for Marks and Dembski, Dawkins' algorithm does not find the target in 98 queries. Not even close. Their depiction of Dawkins' algorithm is simply wrong, despite kairosfocus's insistence that a mistake like this wouldn't make it through peer review.R0b_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

Just to be clear, the probability of reverts depends on the mutation rate and population size. Depending on Dawkins' values for those parameters, reverts may have been likely to happen occasionally, or they may have been likely to never happen. All we know for sure from his 10-generation snapshots is that they didn't happen frequently.R0b_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

Kariosfocus, The runs shown in posts 383 and 386 are taken from implementations that explicitly do not affix the letters once correct. Yet they appear to show the behaviour that has convinced you (from the new scientist runs etc) that latching is present. So, to me this shows the superficiality of your examination of the issue. I realise that you may be finding it hard to back down at this point in time having invested so much of your reputation in your position, but it would be the honorable thing to to and would save more face then progressing down this road much further. After all as you yourself say
9 –> No authorities are better than their facts/ data/ evidence, assumptions/ models and reasoning/ logic. It is only these factors that contribute to the cogency or soundness of an argument, in the end.
And the data in this case clearly shows that apparent latching behaviour can appear to be generated even if no latching is used Otherwise how do you explain the fact that the runs posted do not use latching but (on the surface) appear to show latching? I'm very interested to know how you explain that. I'm also interested to know how you can claim that Richard Dawkins intended latching to be used when he himself says it was not. How is it you know better then he what he intended?George L Farquhar_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

Joseph
ID can lead us to the internal programming of living organisms. That is the programming of life. So how about it?
That's not very helpful. Can it? When will it then? What's the hold up?George L Farquhar_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

Kariosfocus
It will also show the latching tendency very well . . . )
So it's a tendency now is it? Make your mind up. Either the letters are fixed once found or they are not. It cannot be both. If they are not fixed, you are wrong. If they are fixed, the implementation is incorrect. According to Dawkins. Who, after all, should know. Joseph
And George, KF does not need to quote Dawkins. All KF needs is access to the code Dawkins used. Can anyone supply it?
If KF wants the $100,000 he has to. And as far as access to the source code goes, there is no need. The program can be recreated by any reasonably competent programmer using the following simple rules
1. Use a set of characters that includes the upper case alphabet and a space. 2. Initialize a population of n 28-character strings with random assignments of characters from our character set. 3. Identify the string closest to the target string in the population. 4. If a string matches the target, terminate. 5. Base a new generation population of size n upon copies of the closest matching string, where each position has a chance of randomly mutating, based upon a set mutation rate. 6. Go to step 3.
An implementation can be found here that uses those rules http://www.antievolution.org/cs/dawkins_weasel Note the fact that even though no latching or fixing of letters is used they still APPEAR to be fixed in place (and therefore give the apperance of latching) but in a correctly implemented version there will be the occasional step back from a correct to a incorrect letter I would also note that the author of the linked to implementation has been in correspondence with Richard Dawkins regarding the latching issue and Richard confirms that no latching should be implemented, in a accurate version of Weasel anyway. Of course, people are free to implement their own versions, with latching, but it is dishonest to claim these versions are as Dawkins intended.George L Farquhar_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

Kariosfocus
you just mistakenly thought you had a sure thing because you did not realise the difference between the Dawkins 1986 Weasel program that I addressed, and the subsequent different algorithms that happen to target — a key word — the same sentence.)
I have never refered to any version other then the original version, as described in Watchmaker. Onlookers who have read the entire thread will be clear on that. Another excuse.
he would see more than enough justification for pointing out that OOL and body plan level biodiversity were central considerations from the outset of Weasel
How many times, this is not the issue. Talk about it all you like, it matters not to me.
We are not talking about one letter latching, but across two published runs, literally dozens; with no apparently latched letters that then revert across sampling points.
The "runs" were not published. A small subset were published. It would be unlikely that reverts would be shown in such a small sample. The runs I posted showed letters reverting. Why will you not see this?
the odds of that happening in a non-latched case by chance are so remote as to make the two printoffs — one from BW, one from New Scientist, in 1986 in both cases — constitute a morally certain cluster of evidence.
And yet it happens.
As a simple inspection of the two 1986 printoffs here can show, the Weasel program algorithm circa 1986 was a letter latching one beyond reasonable doubt or dispute
So, even if Richard Dawkins himself says that his version did not affix the letters once correct you disbelieve him? On what basis?
Observe too that, sadly, GLF plainly has a persistent habit of quotemning and insistence on already exposed false claims, in the teeth of decisive evidence, argument adn appeals to good sense to the contrary.
Richard Dawkins himself has confirmed that letters are not fixed once correct. The only person making the false claim is you.
In light of these approaches, we may begin to restore a healthy intellectual and ethical culture, not least in science.
I find your ethics questionable to say the least. It is Richard Dawkins example. Richard Dawkins says that the letters are not fixed once found. You, apparently, know better the Richard Dawkins himself how his own example works. How arrogant.George L Farquhar_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

Still waiting for the ORIGINAL program that Dawkins used. No other version need apply as they are irrelevant unless they are EXACT copies of the original- which would mean they really are not other versions...Joseph_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

Other versions of Weasel (that claim to model the program more accurately) are here and here.David Kellogg_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

PS; for those interested in beating Weasel to death, cf the EIL discussions here and here. Have fun with the simulations here. (It will also show the latching tendency very well . . . )kairosfocus_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT}

And George, KF does not need to quote Dawkins. All KF needs is access to the code Dawkins used. Can anyone supply it?Joseph_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT}

It’s just that it doesn’t “teach” anything and is only a tool for a fool.
Why do so many of you (Kariosfocus, as you say Spetner wrote an entire book, Dembski, Marks, many other ID/Creationists) spend so much time trying to criticize it then?
Because it doesn't teach anything and it is only a tool for a fool. As for the paper in question, it didn’t say anything that would demonstrate a type 3 secretory system could “evolve” via an accumulation of genetic accidents from a population that never had one.
What was it about then?
Didn't YOU read it? Read it and then if you can show this blog tat I am wrong. It's very simple actually. I know I can point out a peer-reviewed article that pretty much refutes the notion of cumulative selection.
Go on then! Frankly, I don’t believe you…..
Waiting for two mutations: with applications to regulatory sequence evolution and the limits of Darwinian evolution Dr Behe discusses the paper: Waiting longer for two mutations parts 1-3 So what do you think you have?
The opinion of the vast majority of biologists is against you. So what do you think you have?
Science is NOT done by opinion. And I have the scientific data.
I have to wonder then why “my position” is also the position of almost every single scientist in the world. Not all of them, no. But almost all of them.
Most likely because like you, that vast majority is stuck in a philosophical black-hole. Ideas can go in but nothing ever leaves.
The fact is biology is progressing fine as it is.
It is? LoL!! We don't even know what is responsible for our eyes to develop! We are afraid of mosquitos because biologists can't figure out how to fight single-celled organisms! It is very wrong to ask ID to have the answers
What answers to ID have Joseph? Can you tell me just 1? Is it even possible to talk about ID without using the word evolution? As in “ID says that evolution cannot do X”.
ID does NOT say that "evolution cannot do X". The debate is NOT about "evolution" IOW opnce again you prove your ignorance.
Fine, whatever, but what can ID do?
ID can lead us to the internal programming of living organisms. That is the programming of life. So how about it? I offered $100,000 for the relevant data that demonstrates such structures can be obtained via cumulative selection. And all you did was choke on it. Go figure...Joseph_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT}

Stephen M: Thanks After nap -- it is time to move on to the duty of remedy. 1 --> Selective hyperskepticism is an ideological disease, long since identified [but not explicitly named . . . all I have done is to supply a descriptive label] by a founding father of the modern anglophone theory of evidence, Simon Greenleaf of Harvard. 2 --> This is how it works, thus how to recognise it (so we can avoid the contagion it carries):
Selective Hyperskepticism: that fallacy which seeks to reject otherwise credible evidence by demanding an inappropriately high type or degree of warrant not applicable to matters of fact, i.e. the general type of question being discussed. Especially, where the same standard is not exerted in assessing substantially parallel cases that make claims that one is inclined to accept.
3 --> Instead, we can exert reasonable faith, addressing matters of fact on a preponderance of evidence or towards support beyond reasonable doubt [i.e. to moral certainty] depending on the seriousness of consequences if we are wrong. (That is, there is an underlying commitment to least regrets.) 4 --> In some cases, where the matter is not sufficiently serious to force us to draw a conclusion and make decisions, and there is not a preponderance of evidence on either side; it may be wisest to refrain from concluding. (This is no excuse for ducking the duty of hard decision in cases that are momentous.) 5 --> But also, we live in a culture where news, views, education and opinion are often shaped more by hyperskeptical [and linked hyprecredulous on the other side] spin tactics than by straight thinking leading to true and fair presentation of the facts and cases on both sides. So, we must learn to ask of any such presentation:
Is the presented information: (1) accurate, (2) fair, (3) kind and (4) balanced [or at least balancing]? . . . . [i.e. across its key elements: headline and lead, storyline and/or views, characterisation of those favoured or unfavoured, background context and material issues . . . ]
6 --> For this, a straight or spin grading grid is presented in the just linked. 7 --> At the next level, we need to appreciate that straight thinking requires understanding of the factt hat arguments appeal to [i] emotions, [ii] authority, [iii] claimed facts and reasoning. 8 --> Emotions, while the most persuasive, do not directly point to truth, but may be based on accurate perceptions and judgements. 9 --> No authorities are better than their facts/ data/ evidence, assumptions/ models and reasoning/ logic. It is only these factors that contribute to the cogency or soundness of an argument, in the end. 10 --> Beyond that, we must remember our fate as finite, fallible, too often ill-willed thinkers: at best, reasonable faith at the worldview level. Explaining . . .
Perhaps the simplest way to pull these threads of thought together, is to start with an abstract example, say, claim A. Why should we accept it? Generally, because of B. But, why should we accept B? Thence, C, D, . . . etc. Thus, we face either an infinite regress of challenges, or else we stop at some point, say F -- our Faith-Point. At F, we may face the challenge of circularity vs proper basicality: are we simply begging the question, thus inevitably irrational in the end? In fact, no [listing]: 1 Reason embeds faith: 2 Some beliefs are properly basic 3 We may compare alternative Worldviews 4 We may recognise appropriate degrees of warrant
____________ In light of these approaches, we may begin to restore a healthy intellectual and ethical culture, not least in science. For, science should plainly be about an unfettered -- but intellectually and morally responsible -- pursuit of the truth about our world in light of empirical evidence and carefully balanced reasoned argument. So, may we begin to pray and work towards our desperately needed miracle? GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

KF, Absolutely, enough for now. By any reasonable standard, GLF should have paid up the $100,000 days ago, and his gymnastics over the past few days as he tries to wriggle out of this have been increasingly excruciating to watch. My favourite was back at #360
"just because “the printouts” show that IT did not change between 30 and 40 that does not mean it could not have"
...an argument which could just as well be applied to fairies dancing on my lawn at midnight (I didn't see them, but that doesn't mean they weren't there). As you rightly say, this is a prime example of the selective hypercredulity which necessarily accompanies hyperskepticism in any practical case.Stephen Morris_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT}

it should be clear that I have spoken principally to Dawkins’ Weasel as published in 1986 in Blind Watchmaker and in New Scientist.
Abundantly clear. So, why won't you provide the quoted text from either or both of those publications to support your point? It shouldn't be that hard to pull them off your shelf and leaf through a few pages.crater_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT}

PS: If GLF would simply look carefully at the citations above from Ch 3 of Blind Watchmaker,and the cited printoffs, i.e. 346 points 2 and 3, he would see more than enough justification for pointing out that OOL and body plan level biodiversity were central considerations from the outset of Weasel [Hoyle's probability of spontaneous formation of a bacteriumn claim], and that Dawkins has given more than enough written evidence to warrant the conclusion that Weasel circa 1986 latches. We are not talking about one letter latching, but across two published runs, literally dozens; with no apparently latched letters that then revert across sampling points. the odds of that happening in a non-latched case by chance are so remote as to make the two printoffs -- one from BW, one from New Scientist, in 1986 in both cases -- constitute a morally certain cluster of evidence.kairosfocus_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: Sigh. It should be plain enough from what has already been posted above, that GLF is refusing to acknowledge the result ont erh merits. As a simple inspection of the two 1986 printoffs here can show, the Weasel program algorithm circa 1986 was a letter latching one beyond reasonable doubt or dispute; and that the main point -- ever since the Dec 2008 unpredictable thread -- was that Weasel and its successors down to AVIDA are essentially dissimilar to what the claimed BLIND watchmaker could do. Cf my detailed discussions [e.g. from wha tis now 346 - 7] and the onward links above [esp to Dembski and Marks' papers] for why I say that. Observe too that, sadly, GLF plainly has a persistent habit of quotemning and insistence on already exposed false claims, in the teeth of decisive evidence, argument adn appeals to good sense to the contrary. Such seems to be the sad end of runaway selective hyperskepticism and the subjectivism, relativism, pragmatism and evidentialism it seems to metastasise into. Enough for now. GEM of TKI.kairosfocus_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
02:39 AM
2
02
39
AM
PDT}

GLF: You need to give a little more context -- out of context quote mining is often highly misleading. Observe the context at 215 above onlookers:
Onlookers: think about what the evolutionary materialism that is so enthusiastically championed is doing to the minds of these poor men. (And, PLEASE pray for them. Only prayer will help; beyond a certain point.) So, the question in the post at the head of the thread has been decisively answered: selective or radical skepticism is self-refuting and utterly endarkening of the mind and of morality. It is blatantly intellectually and morally bankrupt, and areas of thought, opinion and policy influenced by such endarkened understandings are tainted with that cancerous, metastasising gangrene of the mind. (Sorry for the strength of the language, especially if we are to have any hope of a cure. if the diagnosis is gangrene and cancer behind it, we need to know, and we need to act without delay! And, we must soberly understand that metastasis is USUALLY fatal, but we have to try to rescue our civilisation. The alternative is too horrible to accept without a fight.)
It will be plain to an objective onlooker that the metastasising disease I have in mind is an ideology [i.e. an impersonal, abstract entity], and the people caught up in its meshes are in my clear opinion, primarily VICTIMS. I am pointing to a prognosis that is -- frankly [metastasis is when cancers start to colonise far and wide, and the patient is thus at death's door . . . ] -- bleak, absent a miracle. Then I am calling us to try for a miracle, starting with prayer. for, I believe in miracles! (Having had a few in my own life . . . ) Kindly, GLF, tell me how that sort of "let's face the grim truth together" assessment is [im-]morally equivalent to contemptuous dismissal of a person by direct reference; as you did to Joseph. Or, to repeated false accusation or insinuation of lying. Or, to making foolish wager arguments and backing them up by now increasingly abusive strawman and ad hominem games; BTW, on the strict merits, you do "owe" AiG/CMI and EIL US$ 50k each. (But, I doubt that you were serious at 236; you just mistakenly thought you had a sure thing because you did not realise the difference between the Dawkins 1986 Weasel program that I addressed, and the subsequent different algorithms that happen to target -- a key word -- the same sentence.) [Onlookers, to see what I am bringing up as unfortunately relevant context, simply scroll up to 236 and following. That is why this thread has taken the sad, runaway selective hypersketicism turn we can see.] In short, onlookers, we now see turnabout, immoral equivalency accusations emerging as the course of the disease progresses in this thread. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PDT}

Kariosfocus
they do not addressthe factt hat CV + NS is supposed to be non-targetted, non-foresigted, and to work by rewarding differential FUNCTIONALITY; not mere closeness to a target.
Once again you ignore the issue. The issue is quite simple. You claimed that the letters are fixed in place once found. You cannot back that up. R0B in 386 gave you a printout of a run. There the letter "I" appears to be latched. Yet R0B says no latching was used in his program? Explain that.
To then go on to impute carelessness, misrepresentation and even lying to me in such a context is therefore — as the above demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt [onlookers, selective hyperskepticism is obviously unreasonable doubt] — an an unjustified ad hominem attack.
It's not unjustified. You have been asked to back up your claim that Dawkins' Weasel fixes letters once found. You have not done that. Therefore everytime you repeat it, you are lying. Yes, it might appear from the limited printout in new scientist etc that latching is occouring. But it is not. And does not in a correctly (as Dawkins described) implementation of Weasel.
c –> These newer algorithms work in different ways from Dawkins’ own. (As I addressed in some details yesterday back up in the late 340s.)
Who is asking about newer versions? The issue is clear. You made a claim. When asked to back up that claim you produce irrelevancy after irrelevancy to try and cloud the issue. The issue is clear. You would rather type 100,000 words to attempt to put onlookers off the track then admit you were wrong. Again, if you can provide a quote from Dawkins that says what you say he has said (that Weasel fixes letters once found) I'll give $100,000 to the charity of your choice. Not "some later version of weasel". Not about "what weasel does or does not represent" Not about "if weasel has a target and that makes it invalid" Not about "oil soaked strawmen" Not about anything but the simple issue of representing your opponents correctly.
e –> You will notice my bottom-line emphasis: on the difference between targetted foresighted searches and the way NS is alleged to have led to body plan level biodiversity, and analogues of that are alleged to have led to OOL in the prebiotic environment. this bottomline problem is as true of more current algorithms as it was in 1986.
Who raised OOL? What has that got to do with weasel? Not about shore finding. Not about OOL Not about current algorithms Not about prebiotic enviroments Not about tornado in a junkyard Not about hill climbing Not about islands of functionality. Not about differential functionality. Not about the FCSI in ASCII text Not about any of that. You said Dawkins' Weasel fixed the letters in place once found. It should be easy to provide a quote from the designer of Weasel to substantiate that, if true. If not true, please kindly stop repeating it.George L Farquhar_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
02:16 AM
2
02
16
AM
PDT}

Domo, re:
. . . the way people are insulting each other back and forth is unfortunate
I must footnote that one of the rhetorical effects of turnabout false accusations is that they create the perception of immoral equivalency. This then ends to "turn off" fair-minded people who would otherwise have been interested, from a balanced perspective; while further polarising the situation. (Thus those who might have come to the help of the beleaguered party may refrain from acting in good time to make a positive difference. [Historically, that has played a role in the prolonging of more than one serious injustice; and it is playing a role in several key issues debates in our day.]) It ALSO often leads into the creation of perceived "unquestionable truth" by repetition. (The Weak Argument Correctives for UD linked above have to address many such perceived truths that are myths or worse.) (DK, please think about what you are doing by repeating the DEMONSTRABLY -- and already demonstrated -- false claim that I am back-tracking from an initial claim without acknowledging it. In fact, as i have taken pains to show, I am highlighting that I have always distinguished two diverse phenomena: (i) Weasel as presented by Dawkins in 1986, and (ii) subsequent different algors that target [a key word!] the same sentence but work differently. They have different characteristics, including that the latter algors may not have a uniform sentence length and in come cases do not letter latch. I call you, again, to the duties of care of fairness and accuracy.) You, Domo, will also see that I have carefully restrained myself from personalities, but have confined myself to analysis of the arguments and their implications as well as the rheotrical context of identified falacies. Thanks. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 18 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply