I've been asked to demonstrate that Dembksi uses terms in nonstandard and equivocating ways.
The first is easily demonstrated. Dembski's key term is "complex specified information" (CSI). This term is never used in the standard literature of information theory. He's had no influence -- none -- on information theory as such. (Just for yucks, I did a search on MathSciNet, the American Mathematical Society database, for CSI. Nothing. For Dembski's name? Just his own publications--TDI, NFL, and two articles from the early 90s, none of which has been cited a single time in the mathematical literature. And on Project Euclid. Nada. ACM digital library? Zip. IEEE Explore? Nope.)
If his usage were standard, someone else in the field would use it. Yet there is no evidence of that. In short, in mathematics, statistics, and information sciences, Dembski's work has sunk without a single ripple. He is utterly ignored in the scientific disciplines to which he claims to make a contribution, and the key term he has contributed, CSI, is used by no other person in mathematics.
26 comments:
Nice goalpost movement.
This was the challenge:
You said:
I also think he uses "complexity" and "information" in nonstandard and equivocating ways.
to which I responded:
Just saying that is what you think is meaningless. Provide a demonstration.
You then moved the goalposts to:
I've been asked to demonstrate that Dembksi uses terms in nonstandard and equivocating ways.
Bait and switch. Are you a salesman?
The "C" in CSI stands for complex. Dembski's usage of "complex" in CSI is the same asthe ordinary and everyday use of the word.
I never argued that CSI (complex specified information) wasn't a new term. But as long as the term is defined and uses the standard definitions of the words involved I don't see a problem.
And before Dembski both Crick and Orgel used the term "specified complexity".
And if Dembski is ignored than why are scientists out to refute him?
BTW CSI is necessary to differentiate between just specified information and specified information of a complex nature. Specified information is necessary to differentiate between meaningful/ useful information and Shannon information which does not care about content.
Joe,
I was responding to the "nonstandard" claim first.
As for equivocation, your own post alludes to it. Sometimes WD says his use of "information" is equivalent to Shannon information. Sometime he says it's different. Sometimes he seems to use "complex" in an everyday sense, and sometimes in a technical sense. More recently he's introduced "active information" in the unpublished papers coauthored with Marks (hey, where's that site gone, by the way? No more evolutionary informatics lab? Oh well).
Schneider explores some of the vagaries here. For the record, I'm not offering an opinion on the larger claims Schneider makes about the ev program.
I was responding to the "nonstandard" claim first.
YOUR claim was:
I also think he uses "complexity" and "information" in nonstandard and equivocating ways.
And that is the only claim I asked to to demonstrate.
You have failed to do so.
Sometimes WD says his use of "information" is equivalent to Shannon information.
Yes, "information" by itself, can equate to Shannon's use.
CSI does not equate to Shannon's use.
Are you trying to say that people cannot create new terms they have defined?
Does Dembski define "active information"?
To me the term means meaningful/useful information that is being used to do something specific.
A computer's OS would be an example of active information.
And yes I am also well aware that it takes time for new terms to be used by those outside of the issue those terms were designed for.
BTW Dembski did not re-define "complex". He did not redefine "information".
If I handsd someone an encyclopedia article and asked them what information it contained they would not ask- Shannon information or Dembski information. They would read the article and report accordingly.
Joe, you wrote, "The "C" in CSI stands for complex. Dembski's usage of "complex" in CSI is the same as the ordinary and everyday use of the word."
Really? Schneider quotes from NFL: "The "complexity" in "specified complexity" is a measure of improbability." As Schneider points out, that's basically the same as "statistically significant," but it is not an everyday use of "complex." Why talk about complex at all, then?
In fact, as others have pointed out, Dembski's notion of complexity conflates two versions of complexity (from Shannon and from Kolmogorov) which have different meanings. And Kolmogorov complexity most definitely does not correspond to an everyday meaning.
Nice to see that Joe has provided no definitions of CSI, just talk about what certain words MIGHT mean.
What's the matter, Joe, can't find a definition of the term?
clowny,
I have provided the definition of CSI many times. It is on my blog.
The definition is also in the book "No Free Lunch".
I'm pretty sure it is other ID literature.
BTW THIS thread is about the definition of "complex" and "information"- it was supoosed to be anyway.
But I digress- not that I expect you to understand it but:
Complex Specified Information:
The coincidence of conceptual and physical information where the conceptual information is both identifiable independently of the physical information and also complex.- pg 141 of NFL
And "complex" would then be??? Merely a probability statement?
See, that's the point. That definition is rather like defining "tree" as a structure that rests vertically in the ground.
No wonder nobody's been able to use it. Oh, that reminds me, you are working on using the EF as I type, right?
Page 8 of NFL:
"Complexity ensures that the object in question is not so simple that it can readily be explained by chance."
And yes the more complicated something is the less of a probability it can arise by chance- ie it is improbable.
Quote mine all you want Hermagoras. I will go with the author over those who willfully misrepresent him.
Scheider has been shown to be way off base...
Complexity is measured with probability.
That is how one can tell it is complex.
I knew you wouldn't understand the definition of CSI. Thanks for once again proving me correct.
As for the EF can you provide some other way to determine design without being biased towards that end?
And yes I have used the EF. It works for me.
OK, so in NFL CSI is "The coincidence of conceptual and physical information where the conceptual information is both identifiable independently of the physical information and also complex." That's a woolly definition by any measure, but it differs from Dembski's definition in Intelligent Design, where it is
"any specified information whose complexity exceeds 500 bits of information." No recourse to distinctions between "physical" and "conceptual" information etc. Elsewhere he defines CSI as "information that is both complex and specified."
So, which is it?
Again, Joe, three definitions -- all from Dembski -- of CSI. Which is it?
Oooooh, you've used it. Lay it out for us then!
Teach us. You don't even have to use my examples. Just pick something you would like to filterize, then filterize it for us. Lay out the work.
SHOW THE WORK! SHOW THE WORK! SHOW THE WORK!
I smell a Nobel.
Joe wrote:
"Complexity is measured with probability. That is how one can tell it is complex."
I can tell that my computer is more complex than the scanner sitting next to it. Probability has nothing to do with it.
Thank god Joe has so easily demonstrated his mastery of yet another forum.
At this rate, he'll quickly be the most feared intellectual in the galaxy.
Joe?
Are you there?
I can tell that my computer is more complex than the scanner sitting next to it.
Really? How can you tell? And how can you prove that you are correct?
I am also still waiting for hermagoras to demonstrate that Dembski uses the words "information" and "complexity" in nonstandard and equivocating ways...
Wait! Joe, YOU can use the EF to show that the computer is more complex than the scanner!
SHOW THE WORK! SHOW THE WORK! SHOW THE WORK!
That should be fairly straight forward. DO IT! DO IT! DO IT!
Oh, wait; I'm sorry. I forgot that the EF was a giant ball of crap and can't really be used to filter anything. Sorry, Joe.
How was the break, Joe? Did you have to kill anyone with your super-secret, ultra-black, license to kill rating?
Wait! Joe, YOU can use the EF to show that the computer is more complex than the scanner!
Only an imbecile would say that. Well, either an imbecile or someone totally EF ignorant.
Wait- clowny is both! You go girl!!!
How was the break, Joe?
What break?
Do you have to conjure shit out of thin air just to feel good?
Never-mind. You do so just because you are a pile of crap.
Joe, you really need to visit and take a couple lessons in humor--or creative writing. If I'm available, I'll be glad to give you an IDiot discount. Or, I can recommend several good instructors.
The main problem with you is that you are completely unimaginative. If I use the phrase "ball of crap", you need to riff on it without quoting it.
I know we've been through this before, but I feel that maybe you can at least get good at one thing. So, when insulting someone, please remember to rearrange the form of what was said to you in order to advance the thought. Without adding new arc to the thought, insults fall flat.
I know you have it in you, do better, be funnier, get mean!
On a lighter note, could you use the EF to prove that my computer is designed and the lump of mud on my shoe is not?
At the moment I don't even want you to SHOW THE WORK! SHOW THE WORK! SHOW THE WORK!
Just let us know if you COULD do it right now.
"I am also still waiting for hermagoras to demonstrate that Dembski uses the words "information" and "complexity" in nonstandard and equivocating ways."
That's been amply demonstrated. Your noggin is apparently an inadequate information processor. Or maybe mine is. I'm still trying to figure out how a definition of "specification" that both requires and doesn't require meaning can work.
could you use the EF to prove that my computer is designed and the lump of mud on my shoe is not?
So you are stupid. Thanks for once again demonstrating what I already knew.
Once again for the learning impaired:
To use the EF one has to examine the structure/ object/ event in question- that means first-hand.
But anyways-
Can clowny present the methodology scientists use to determine intentional design from nature, operating freely?
Or is he afraid it will resemble the EF?
Alright, Joe. How about using the EF to filterize YOUR computer and the lump of dirt outside YOUR door?
You can directly observe those things, right?
Once again, you can wait 2 comments before SHOWING US THE WORK!
Your next comment only has to tell us IF you could do it.
Waiting for another excuse as to why the EF is useless, uh...only useful if we show up at your door.
Um. Since the EF is a completely useless flow chart and not really a useful methodology, I don't even know if I could reproduce it, even by accident.
And since no one and I mean NO ONE has actually shown an example of its use, how would one know whether it resembles anything at all?
SHOW THE WORK! SHOW THE WORK! SHOW THE WORK!
The "C" in CSI stands for complex. Dembski's usage of "complex" in CSI is the same asthe ordinary and everyday use of the word.
Absolutely false. I've provided several quotes from Dembski where he equates "specified complexity" with "specified improbability". He even said so in his expert report for Dover. That is not the everyday use of the word, and some of Dembski's examples are not complex at all in the everyday sense. All of these facts have been pointed out to you already.
And before Dembski both Crick and Orgel used the term "specified complexity".
Where did Crick use it? I think you mean Davies. And unless you can show that they mean the same thing by "specified complexity" that Dembski does (which you can't), the fact that they used the term is irrelevant, and it's dishonest for you and Dembski to pretend that it's relevant.
And if Dembski is ignored than why are scientists out to refute him?
Virtually all scientists and mathematicians ignore him. A handful of them take the time to point out the problems in his approach, because some people are gullible enough to buy into his pseudomath. These people, such as yourself, simply don't understand the issues, as can be easily demonstrated by their dodging of questions and challenges.
BTW CSI is necessary to differentiate between just specified information and specified information of a complex nature.
Brilliant tautology.
Specified information is necessary to differentiate between meaningful/ useful information and Shannon information which does not care about content.
Definitely false. I've already provided you quotes from Dembski where he explicitly says that "specified information" does *NOT* mean "meaningful information". And he has *NEVER* said that it means "useful information". You don't know what you're talking about.
CSI does not equate to Shannon's use.
That's like saying "battery voltage does not equate to voltage". CSI is an application of Shannon self-information -- specifically, it's the self-information of a specified pattern.
Does Dembski define "active information"?
Yes.
To me the term means meaningful/useful information that is being used to do something specific.
Who cares what it means to you? We're talking about Dembski's definitions, and yours is nothing like Dembski's.
A computer's OS would be an example of active information.
Not according to Dembski's definition.
BTW Dembski did not re-define "complex". He did not redefine "information".
He defines "complex" in a way that nobody else does. And he has come up with at least three nonstandard definitions of "information". Whether that constitutes "redefinition" or not, it certainly invites equivocation.
But I digress- not that I expect you to understand it but:
Complex Specified Information:
The coincidence of conceptual and physical information where the conceptual information is both identifiable independently of the physical information and also complex.- pg 141 of NFL
Ironic that you would say "not that I expect you to understand it" and "I knew you wouldn't understand the definition of CSI. Thanks for once again proving me correct." On ARN, you demonstrated, quite hilariously, that you haven't the faintest idea what Dembski means by conceptual information, nor do you understand what it means for conceptual and physical information to coincide. Read sections 3.4 and 3.5 of NFL, then read on ARN where you said that a computer has CSI, the physical information being the hardware and the conceptual information being the software. If you still don't understand how badly you misunderstood this definition, then I'll explain it to you. (If your understanding were right, then a computer without software would have no conceptual information, and therefore no CSI. Do you really believe that?)
"Complexity ensures that the object in question is not so simple that it can readily be explained by chance."
If you think that by "simple" he means "uncomplicated", then you need to explain the fact that some of Dembski's examples of specified complexity are extremely uncomplicated, such as a rectangular monolith, a simple narrowband signal, or the Caputo sequence.
And yes the more complicated something is the less of a probability it can arise by chance- ie it is improbable.
BS. The Mandelbrot Set is incredibly complicated, but a simple algorithm generates it with a probability of 1. Conversely, very simple patterns, such as flipping a million heads in a row, can be very improbable.
Complexity is measured with probability.
That is how one can tell it is complex.
Really? Here you said: "However everyting that has a small probability does not have to be complex." So how can we use probability to determine that something is complex?
As for the EF can you provide some other way to determine design without being biased towards that end?
How about by comparing by characteristics of the object with known characteristics of human design and with known characteristics of non-human natural processes?
And yes I have used the EF.
On what? What it Dembski's EF, or Joe's EF? Do you realize that if you come up with your own version of the EF by, say, adding your own questions, then it's no longer Dembski's EF?
I am also still waiting for hermagoras to demonstrate that Dembski uses the words "information" and "complexity" in nonstandard and equivocating ways...
Dembski uses complexity to mean improbability. That's nonstandard. And you yourself provided an example of equivocation when you mentioned Orgel's and Crick's (actually Davies') usage, since they do not use the term to mean improbability. And if you want nonstandard and equivocating usage of the word "information", check out his Evo Informatics site, where he and Marks define "active information" in a bizarre way, and then refer to it as simply "information", intermixing references to other usages of information as if they were talking about the same thing. That's non-standard and equivocative, and it's also a huge mess, which is why no math or science journal will ever publish those papers. If you want specific quotes, I'll gladly provide them.
To use the EF one has to examine the structure/ object/ event in question- that means first-hand.
You made this up. Did Dembski have to examine Caputo's ballot headliner selection process first-hand in order to attempt his application of the EF? Did he have to have a first-hand look at a bacterial flagellum? Has Dembski ever said that we have to examine the event first-hand? Of course not. You're full of crap.
Can clowny present the methodology scientists use to determine intentional design from nature, operating freely?
Or is he afraid it will resemble the EF?
You've presented an alternate methodology yourself, namely using our knowledge of the capabilities of designers (which I assume means humans and maybe other advanced animals) and our knowledge of the capabilities of nature operating freely (which I assume means everything else) to compare the design hypothesis to the "nature operating freely" hypothesis.
If you think that resembles the EF, then you need to reread your Dembski, particularly this chapter.
You epitomize Dembski's target audience, in that you don't understand what you read, but you're arrogant enough to think that you're the one who understands the validity of Dembski's grandiose claims while the mathematical and scientific communities do not. And now you'll demonstrate your dishonesty and cowardice once again by failing to address all of the points above, or show us exactly where you've already addressed them, or admit you're wrong.
I guess Joe is conceding the point. Nice job everyone.
Post a Comment