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

Atom:
If so are they still crying about how partitioned search (among other searches) is presented on there? Honestly, it is trivial to add another search algorithm to the set making a “modern” Dawkins weasel (in addition to the old-school paritioned search version)
I don't understand your modern/old-school distinction. Dawkins presented only one Weasel algorithm that I know of. The problem is that Dembski, Marks, and others have mischaracterized Dawkins's algorithm as "partitioned", which it is not. It's not that big of a deal, but you would think that after being corrected on it for years, Dembski would get it right in a peer-reviewed paper.
but it really isn’t the big issue. The teleological aspect of the search (weight my importance based on distance from a target) would still be present, whether there is letter preservation or not.
That would be a big issue if Weasel were pitched as a non-targeted search or as an ateleological search (both of which sound like oxymorons to me). But nobody, least of all Dawkins, has presented Weasel as such. Dawkins explicitly contrasts the targeted Weasel algorithm with the non-targeted process of biological evolution.R0b_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus:
Now the issue he raised in this thread in 236 (accurately citing or summarising my remarks evidently from an earlier thread) is to challenge the force of:
Weasel sets a target sentence then once a letter is guessed it preserves it for future iterations of trials until the full target is met. That means it rewards partial but non-functional success, and is foresighted. Targetted search, not a proper RV + NS model.
[Emphasis added by kairosfocus] I will now substantiate this point further, noting that I have already pointed to why this is correct above.
I like how you didn't emphasize "That means", thus ignoring the relationship between the second sentence and the first. Your emphasis pretends that the question in dispute is whether Weasel rewards partial success, but nobody is disputing that. Of course Weasel rewards partial success, but it doesn't do so by preserving correct letters. The mutator doesn't pass over correct letters, and the oracle doesn't provide information about which letters are correct. Thus, Weasel is not a "partitioned search" as Dembski and Marks define the term. Dembski, Marks, and you are wrong on this point.R0b_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

Does anybody have a Wii? If you've ever "evolved" a Mii avatar, there's a pretty good analogy. You pick a simple avatar and it creates a bunch of mutations. You pick the one closest to what you want and it creates more. You keep doing that until you get one that you like. Now, at any stage it can be the case that all the avatars mutate away from what you want (they change the ears or eyes away from your choice). It can also be the case that the total avatar is better (closer to your wishes) even if a particular feature has mutated away. Even so, you can probably get a good avatar by this kind of "evolution" faster than you can by designing one from scratch.David Kellogg_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Clarification: how the program was originally described by Dawkins -- how it was originally described by KF (who said the letters were "preserved," or latched, or fixed).David Kellogg_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

Joseph,
If any of the dead have a different letter than the parent’s matching letter, latching is refuted. And if all of the dead have the same matching letters as the parent, then latching is confirmed.
Correct. (KF's original sentence said "preserved" rather than "latched," but the point is correct.) In fact, you don't need access to a complete run. You just need to see the code, which I believe may be available. In any event, your first option (in which correct letters are open to further mutation) corresponds to how the program was originally described.David Kellogg_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

kairofocus:
Resemblance to parents — per described algorithms — is not selected for. Closeness to target EXPLICITLY is.
Yes and my point is that at some point the parent has some match to the target. IOW that parent has the criteria "closeness to the target". So if the parent has some characteristic(s) of the target, ie closeness, then if only a few letters are mutated, some offspring may have the same level of closeness, some may have less closeness, some may be more closely related to the target than the parent but not have all of the parent's matching letters and some may have all of the parent's matching letters PLUS other letters that match the target that the parent did not. So in order to detect or determine any "latching" we MUST see ALL of the offspring for each generation. As it now stands the ONLY offspring we see in each generation is the one with "closeness to the target". If latching were the correct call then every offspring would at least match the parent's closeness. And we would see that by examining the "dead"- ie those sequences which were found to be not closer to the target then the sequence that "lived". Those "dead" sequences hold the key. If any of the dead have a different letter than the parent's matching letter, latching is refuted. And if all of the dead have the same matching letters as the parent, then latching is confirmed.Joseph_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

@369 [change that to mean, ["when the mother's life if NOT in danger.]StephenB_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

----David: "However, a word like “wrong” can, apparently, only be used as you determine." When anyone uses the word "wrong" in an unqualified way, it means "objectively wrong." Again, if you doubt this, ask any other rational person who knows the meaning of the word objective. You use language to obfuscate not to clarify. ----"If you think I cited the Bible as evidence of child prostitution, you are not reading carefully. I cited the bible as evidence of unstable definitions." You are correct. The ploy was calculated to avoid dialogue. The definition of prostitute is clear: (From the on-line dictionary) "To offer indiscriminately for sexual intercourse especially for money" "to devote to corrupt or unworthy purposes : debase" No one except a moral relativist would go looking for changing definitions and appealing to the Bible for examples. You use the language to avoid discussion and dialogue. ----"What I question among your “facts” is the relevance of relativism." Moral relativism provides no moral target. If there is no moral target, then there is no moral objective to aim for. That leads to amorality, which leads to immoratliy. Steep children in pornography and they have sex on school buses. Is that clear enough. The purpose for the moral code is to separate men from animals. Moral relativists argue for a moving target so they don't have to worry about hitting the target. That way, they too, are free to act like animals. They also want children to act like animals so that there will be no one around to provide a counter example of good behavior to shine a light on their bad behavior. Is that clear enough. In my last correspondence, I provided you with objective morality's answer on the issue of gay rights. At the same time, I asked you, a moral relativist, if you condemned abourtion [assume I mean in all cases in which the mother's life is in danger] You avoided the question. Will you confront it now? ----"But I like my Bible!" Which part of it do you find edifying? Is it St Pauls Epistle to the Moral Relativists in the land of Oz.StephenB_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

Hey all, I haven't been following the conversation, but does this have to do with the WeaselWare algorithms on evoinfo.org (which I coded, btw)? If so are they still crying about how partitioned search (among other searches) is presented on there? Honestly, it is trivial to add another search algorithm to the set making a "modern" Dawkins weasel (in addition to the old-school paritioned search version), but it really isn't the big issue. The teleological aspect of the search (weight my importance based on distance from a target) would still be present, whether there is letter preservation or not. So if that has anything to do with it, then give me a break. I'll code an additional algorithm when I get a chance and you'll see that nothing changes (except the amount of time it takes to reach the target will be slightly longer on average.) If it has nothing to do with this conversation, excuse my interruption. AtomAtom_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

Joseph Thanks for trying to bridge the gap, a la Brahe 350 years ago. Resemblance to parents -- per described algorithms -- is not selected for. Closeness to target EXPLICITLY is. The issue is wheter that might be on lartching or the like. The answer is that once we see that there is early latching on the evidence [look at the t that stays there all the way through], it strongly supports that explanation. High probabilistic retention would be the next type of Weasel, and that would be explained in light of my T3 model or something like it. Indeed, this one captures the "resemblance to parents" theme. but the point is that any explanation has to cover why there is that observed retention in the "champions" from one generation to the next, or to the next tenth generation. And in cases where there is no consistent early latching, that would be in light of the more modern GA type program as Wiki links and as I cited on its algorithm, above. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

So the number of offspring per generation would be the key. And to get a better grasp on what is going on have the program print out EVERY offspring of each generation.Joseph_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

OK my 2 cents: The fixation exists but not because of the program. IOW the program itself doesn't look at the sequence select the best matching sequence and say: mutate all other letters except the letters that are already matched. nor keep the matching letters mutate the rest The fixation, therefor, exists because out of all the subsequent offspring, the offspring that most closely matched the target also closely matched its parent. Which we would expect if only some of the characters are mutated in each generation. What we are not seeing on any printout is the offspring that were rejected. Had we been able to see the rejections we would then have a better view to make any judgements about any fixation principle. But knowing me, I am right. ;)Joseph_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

PS: DK, the just above applies to you too.kairosfocus_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

GLF:
Is it possible that IT changed from “IT” to “II” and back to “IT” between 30 and 40?
The drowning man clutches at straws. A few observations:
a --> At no 1, T is in place. by no 2, it is still in place. b --> By 10, the full IT is in place and on the evidence remains there all the way home. c --> By 10, too, the last E in Weasel is in place, and stays there all the way home. d --> By 20, the last SEL is in place and remains there, in fact. e --> By 10, IS is in place and is there all the way home. f --> By 20, ME is in place in methinks, and remains all the way home. by 30 METHIN and LIKE join the above g --> and remain all the way home.
The best explanation for that is latching, full latching, not partial latching. Especially as the second example in the previously linked also shows th same pattern, the one from new Scientist. Of course it is logically possible that all these apparent patterns appear and vanish only to reappear at the required sample points, for both cases. The odds against at happening for so many cases and in two distinct trials are so large as to be a plain ad hoc attempt to explain away the obvious. thus lies revealed the flip side of seective hyperskepticism: if you insistently fly in teh face of the best explanation, you have to cling to a far weaker one, with sele3cticve hyper-credulity. Case proved beyond reasonable doubt, GLF. And, such moral certainty is all that is required in serious matters of fact. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

GLF: I have pointed out already this morning that there are at least two versions of Weasel algorithms out there. I pereviously addressed the Dawkins one circa 1986, and have linked and now specifically documented in this thread that it does show letter latching behaviour. (Kindly explain inter alia that IT, GLF, if that is not so.) Onlookers will also notice that the foresighted, targetted search that rewards warmer but non functional nonsense phrases, is a point not being disputed by GLF. But, that alone is sufficient to establish my basic point that the example is NOT anywhere near representative of a BLIND watchmaker, even if I were in error on the letter latching behaviour. But, on direct and easy inspection, I am not. I have also now added to that case, the more modern versions and cvariants that would [a} show high- probability letter preservation behaviour from "early o'clock"}, and [b] show not letter latching but merely warmer-colder convergence. Notice, how Wiki presents a case of b without explicit warning, almost as though it were the original. So, GLF, kindly do not quote-mine what I have said, step by step, making clear distinctions all along the way. That is to set up and knock over a strawman, one that is laced with ad hominems. It should thus be plain to onlookers from the cited printout that I believe is from BW ch 3, that the original form of Weasel definitely shows precisely the letter latching behaviour I have highlighted and as Dembski-marks, Trueman and Gitt have highlighted. that subseque3nt versions avoid that obvious signature does not change the fact of what Weasel was from 1986 on. And, the more modern versions that would not show letter latching, are failing to address the Hoylean issue: a major amount of irreducibly complex information and structures is required to get to first life and natural selection is incapable of rewarding non-function. NS cannot work any Hill climbing magic until one arrives at the shores of an island of functionality. Finally, we can see the selectiveness in hypersketpicism at work: strawmanising what I have to say, while swallowing the camel of the inconvenient fact that Weasel in any form presented to us, is NOT the blind watchmaker as advertised. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

As for "weasel" does anyone have access to the source code?Joseph_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

KF, the key sentence (repeatedly quoted by George above) is this:
Weasel sets a target sentence then once a letter is guessed it preserves it for future iterations of trials until the full target is met.
Emphasis added. You have kindasorta moved away from this, slowly and haltingly, with your "warmer" and "colder" etc., but you have never stood up and said "actually, that's wrong. I was either careless or didn't understand the program well enough." I think it would be good if you did that. That would reflect well on you. Defending that claim now would show that you really don't understand the program. And that would be sad, because you know a lot more about programming than I do, and even I know that's not how it works.David Kellogg_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

George, You aren't fooling anyone either. I asked: What are the published papers that support the non-telic, adesign position? And all you presented was a literature bluff.Joseph_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

Kariosfocus
b –> The printouts will show that indeed there is a letter latching behaviour in the 1986 form of Dawkins’ Weasel as published, with IT the capital exemplar. (And that is the specific form that I addressed.)
Yes, the printouts to appear to show that. Could you tell me what % the printouts represented of the actual run? Could you tell me what IT was between generation 30 and 40? Generation 30: METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL Generation 40: METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL Is it possible that IT changed from "IT" to "II" and back to "IT" between 30 and 40? Of course it is, as you now admit. Visit the link I just gave and educate yourself before carrying on down this path. Is it so complex to understand that just because "the printouts" show that IT did not change between 30 and 40 that does not mean it could not have?
I have now taken time to respond in significant depth, and you seem to be ignoring that while propagating plainly false accusations.
Yes, but your response addressed issues irrelevant to the issue at hand - is the letter fixed or not. You can talk about active information and the validity of Weasel all day long, but that's not what you are being asked about. It's a single, simple point. Is the letter fixed or not once correct? Stop constructing strawmen to distract from your error. You are fooling nobody.George L Farquhar_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

Kariosfocus
In short, just as I TRUTHFULLY said originally and above in this thread: this is most certainly targetted, foresighted search. Thus, this is no BLIND watchmaker at work.
You are arguing a case nobody is engaging you on. My original point was quite clearly focused on a single issue, if the letters are or are not fixed once correct. You chose to go down the rabbit trails of active information etc. While I have my opinion on those issues, that was not what the issue revolved around. That you chose to clould the issue with an attempted debate regarding the accuracy of tools such as Weasel is simply I believe a smokescreen thrown up by you once you realised that you were in fact in error. After all, $100,000 would have been yours if you had been able to provide a quote from Dawkins that substantiated your position. You were not able to do so, and as I noted in my previous comment you have now changed your position to the correct one. Now, we will see if the peer reviewers on the papers you mention catch this obvious error (partitioned vs non-partitioned modes of operation). While I do not expect an apology (you still appear to believe you are in the right despite having changed position on the sole issue I was challenging you on) your acceptance of the fact you were in error will have to do. As linked to in a previous comment, you can visit this implementation of Weasel that operates how Dawkins describes in Watchmaker. http://www.antievolution.org/cs/dawkins_weasel and see for yourself how it operates. It operates in the following way 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. I await your irrelevant objections to active information etc (ever wondered what the enviroment is?).George L Farquhar_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

DK:
I’m not accusing you of lying. I’m saying you have made statements about Weasel that are incorrect and have not responded forthrightly when called on them.
Not at all. I have called attetnion to the facts of the case, but have been strawmanised or ignored. I have now taken time to respond in significant depth, and you seem to be ignoring that while propagating plainly false accusations. Please, stop. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

DK:
kf said the letters in the Weasel were fixed when correct. He was shown that this was untrue and has never admitted his mistake.
a --> Will you kindly look at point 3 in 346 above, and focus on "IT" (and before that the T). b --> The printouts will show that indeed there is a letter latching behaviour in the 1986 form of Dawkins' Weasel as published, with IT the capital exemplar. (And that is the specific form that I addressed.) c --> Subsequently, as I show in points following, we can create a foerm that will not exactly latch, but will converge. d --> I have also highlighted that more modern forms of Weasel, as for instance Wiki links, are using an approach that will not latch; either necessarily or with high probability. [Cf my discussion of versions T2 and T3. latching with high probability is just as much the point as latching with necessity.]. e --> In short, I have shown that it is the would-be "correctors" who themselves need correction. f --> in your case, have you read what I said this morning, and can you responded correctively on points? GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

kf, see George in [352]. I'm not accusing you of lying. I'm saying you have made statements about Weasel that are incorrect and have not responded forthrightly when called on them. You have merely been evasive. You'd be lying if you said that your earlier, incorrect statements were either correct or not made by you.David Kellogg_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

cumulative selection - Are there any examples of cumulative selection in nature? If there are then it would be a good thing to present them to see if cumulative selection can do what some people say it can. My belief is that an example of cumulative selection will be an albino dwarf with a cleft chin, detached ear lobes and sickle-celled anemia. IOW there won't be anything to substantiate any claims of the anti-ID position.Joseph_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

Kariosfocus Can you spot the difference between your latest
we can see that once a letter is in place, it tends strongly indeed to be preserved from one generation to the next.
and your previous statements?
b –> Namely, he starts with the right number of letters, and then randomly changes the letters in the initial case [save for any that happen to be the right letter in the right place].
and
Weasel sets a target sentence then once a letter is guessed it preserves it for future iterations of trials until the full target is met.
It appears your position has evolved on this particular matter. So we have gone from the letter being fixed to the letter tending to be preserved. Progress indeed! Perhaps you could let Dr Dembski and Marks know of your change of heart? That the letter is not fixed, it only appears to be so. In fact, implemented correctly Weasel allows for progress away from the target at any point, even if only one letter away from the target phrase.George L Farquhar_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

Jerry Thank you. GEM PS: DK -- the problem is, that there is a definite (and all too often seen) selectively hyperskeptical pattern of thought and rhetoric that works precisely by distractors, attacking mickey-mouse distorted forms of ID arguments [cf Weak Arguments Correctives linked above], and onward attacking the persons who make the real arguments. A pattern that this thread exemplifies to the point where I am being subtly unjustly accused of lying. Now, you wish to add to it a form of Godwinian censorship, that forbids pointing out the pattern on pain of further demonisation and dismissal. Sorry, DK, you are carrying out enabling behaviour: rtemembe, I am being falsely accused of lyintg,a nd have taken time to show just why that is a false accusation. Can you cogently reply to the substance? If so, do that. If not, don't try to censor someone defending himself from slander. or else you make yourself an accessory after the fact.kairosfocus_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

jerry, it's actually an inference from repeated observation. But the accusation had already been made, so in this thread any exemplification on my part would be redundant. Recall that kf said the letters in the Weasel were fixed when correct. He was shown that this was untrue and has never admitted his mistake. Instead he has has turned, predictably, here.David Kellogg_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @346
Weasel sets a target sentence then once a letter is guessed it preserves it for future iterations of trials until the full target is met.
This is incorrect, as demonstrated in 302, 314, and another post awaiting moderation (for what reason I still have not been informed). Read those links to see the actual Weasel algorithm.
. . . we can see that once a letter is in place, it tends strongly indeed to be preserved from one generation to the next.
This is a different claim, and happens to be correct for a certain range of mutation rates. Are you now admitting that your original claim that the Weasel algorithm locks in correct letters is wrong? JJJayM_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

" I propose the following principle. kairosfocus’s law: As a debate with KF continues, the probability that KF will accuse others of some combination of red herrings, srawmen, and ad hominem approaches 1." Is this statement an example of the correctness of kairosfocus's law? It is certainly an ad hominem and a red herring and definitely a strawman. So it is a vindication of kairosfocus.jerry_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

for "drawmen" read "strawmen."David Kellogg_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 18 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply