The Design Inference Game

03/03/03 | Moi

[general_re]

I thought a new thread was a good idea, and here seems to be a good place to put it, so as not to clutter up "News". The only topic available was "heated discussion", though. ;)

If any clarification about the pictures is needed, just say so, and I will try to at least highlight the part that I am interested in for you. Remember that I'm interested in the objects or structures or artifacts being represented, so don't be thrown off if the illustrations seem abstract.

[general_re]

Speaking of "play ball" ;)

#1

[Diamond]

Wow. My first own personal thread, designed especially for me! I must be moving up in the world. Let me contemplate for a little while. I'll be back:^)

Cordially,

[general_re]

My first own personal thread, designed especially for me! I must be moving up in the world.

Maybe someday you can get one that's not in the back room ;)

Please take as much time as you need. I'm in no hurry, and it won't bother me at all if it ends up taking several days or a week to get through all the examples, especially considering that we are both trying to maintain some semblance of a life outside of FR...

[El Sordo]

I don't understand. Could you elaborate?

[general_re]

Patience. Diamond is pondering the picture before him.... ;)

[Diamond]

Ok. Call me crazy, but after extensive analysis I find that the apparent spheroid object represented by the two-dimensional picture is indeed the product of design.

To save you from asking me why, here's why I arrive at that inference.

The object itself is contingent, that is, irreducible to the natural laws of chemistry and physics. More telling, the configuration of the dye(?)on the surface of the "moisture absorbing" material is contingent because it is irreducible to the physics of dye and "moisture" absorbing" material.

The sphere, and particularly the markings, and indentations thereon are highly complex (that is, highly improbable)

The independent matching pattern is that some of the markings and lines bear striking resemblance to the conventions of a preexisting code or convention used by intelligent agents for communication, known as the English language.

If you want more detail or have questions, please feel free to ask.

(By the way, although incidental to our discussion, I did discover through extensive historical research that the object in question is not only a sphere but an actual person, "Wilson", who is portrayed in the real-life documentary about Tom Hanks, the Federal Express employee who was trapped on a deserted island along with Wilson for several years (maybe 5 years) after the FedEx plane in which they were flying crashed. I think it was 5 years. Anyway, they manged to escape on a home-made raft but unfortunately Wilson persished at sea.)

Cordially,

[general_re]

#2

Ice crystal, ~150x magnification.

[general_re]

If you want more detail or have questions, please feel free to ask.

Just to let you know, I plan to save any commentary or requests for clarification until the end. However, if you need more information about any of the objects I post, please let me know - you'll notice I've captioned #2, so you don't have to speculate about what the object is made of, or how large it is, or that sort of thing. I'll try to do that where it's not immediately clear what the properties of the object are.

[PatrickHenry]

May I respectfully suggest that you post here, in this thread, a compendium of the rules you devised, which are to be found in the old thread. That will help to clear up the confusion that some experience when they encounter this thread cold.

[general_re]

A good idea.

Briefly, I post ten pictures of my choosing. Diamond, as the player, judges whether or not those objects are designed or not, according to Dembski's design inference. I post the pictures one at a time, he posts his verdict, and then his rationale behind each verdict. He is free to solicit advice or assistance from any source he sees fit - the only information that is off-limits is historical knowledge of whether a thing is designed or not. Using the same example from the previous thread, he cannot reason that a car is designed by using the fact that he once visited a car factory, or because he happens to know someone who designs cars - each object must be evaluated strictly on its own merits, by examining its inherent properties and qualities. Aside from that, he can use any method of analysis he likes. And at the end, we'll discuss the cases more fully.

Anyone is free to formulate an opinion if they wish, but Diamond is the only player, and the only person whose opinion counts right now, so if anyone out there wishes to toss their two cents in, I recommend it either be directed to him, or held until we complete all ten items. Personally, though, I suggest that anyone who might want to offer assistance to him wait for him to state for himself whether or not he wishes to receive unsolicited advice, before flooding him with messages out of the blue.

[Condorman]

On the Origins of This Thread

[exnavy]

How did I get here, and why is that man holding a basketball?

[cornelis]

So, to make a long story short, your conditions are acceptable. Play ball! :^)

To: general_re

your conditions are . . .

ah, those epic endeavors. "conditions for the possibility of" The architectural principle of the modern age might oblige to tip the hat to Aristotle. But to a Nietzsche or a Foucault grinning at us with sardonic smiles?

1256 posted on 03/03/2003 12:21 PM CST by cornelis

To: cornelis

Some say "is", some say "isn't". I say "let's find out". It is what it is, regardless of who likes it or dislikes it, who promotes it or dismisses it, or who takes comfort in it or is injured by it...

1257 posted on 03/03/2003 12:29 PM CST by general_re

To: general_re; Diamond

what it is

I don't know exactly what it you are going after. In any case, the conditions is what they are: particular. The result of discovery will be the same, particular.

A certain presumption--perhaps still tame and legitimate in Aristotle but certainly not after Kant--imagined that particular conditions could be generalized beyond themselves and raised to a universal status.

Of course they is what they are. A unified field theory is likewise limited. One of the joys of the press was the political hay they made with Einstein's theory of relativity. Perhaps they did not "universalize" the theory, but they certainly took great pleasure in extending and generalizing it into fields from which it did not originate. Hayek called this the abuse of reason.

1258 posted on 03/03/2003 1:01 PM CST by cornelis

To: cornelis

I don't know exactly what it you are going after. In any case, the conditions is what they are: particular. The result of discovery will be the same, particular.

If the design inference consistently passes or consistently fails such tests, we may then inductively reason our way to a conclusion about the worth of it. If we were so inclined, we could then take the next step into Humean skepticism and dismiss that conclusion for the simple reason that the inductive principle is unproven. But, since virtually everything we think we know is gained inductively, that does not strike me as a useful position to take.

1265 posted on 03/03/2003 2:36 PM CST by general_re

General_re, if the design inference consistently passes, you may be happy. But we may not, except by some other presumption, inductively reason whereby that particular consistency is turned into a universal. With or without Hume, consistency can only translate into universality on the basis of something else--in your case--the "useful position." The useful position has often enough devolved into historicism.

In short, your logical conclusion gives no right to make an existential conclusion extending beyond the particular inferences you begin with. Perhaps if the two mate well, the logical and existenial, you have a credible consistency, and perhaps widely applicable. However, you cannot end with universal conclusions without beginning with universal inferences.

Happy Trails.

[general_re]

But we may not, except by some other presumption, inductively reason whereby that particular consistency is turned into a universal.

I merely point out that by that logic, you have no rational basis for believing that the sun will rise tomorrow - after all, just because it has passed the test and risen on all the yesterdays we have experienced, that does not mean that one can generalize and declare that it will rise tomorrow. And yet I cannot help but suspect that you have an opinion on the subject regardless...

[longshadow]

inferential placemarker

[balrog666]

Differential placemarker.

[cornelis]

I merely point out

Right. You point it out. And this too: inference from consistency into a credible prediction is one kind thinking, the transfer of that kind of knowledge into other fields of knowledge is something else altogether, requiring--as you say--"the useful." I suspect you have an opinion on the first kind, and I trust we won't be abusive on the second.

[PatrickHenry]

Torrential placemarker.

[general_re]

My only intent is to test the design inference on its own merits. From this, we can reasonably infer the worth of the design inference, and the design inference only. To take the usefulness - or lack thereof - of the design inference to be indicative of the worth of any other hypothesis is not a logically tenable position, with the exception of those hypotheses that rely on the validity or non-validity of the design inference as a premise.