Disinformation Theory

Posted 5 February 2007 by Reed A. Cartwright

↗ The current version of this post is on the live site: https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/02/disinformation.html

I always enjoy watching creationists blather about stuff that they have no knowledge about, which is of course just about anything that comes out of their mouths. I am always amazed how they can pull the most randomly backwards arguments from out of nowhere and confidently state that this one is the one that is going to trump "Darwinism". Their arguments are really not that different from one another, but they sure can come up with some bizarre and senseless variations. Good Math, Bad Math has a good take down of one such recent argument from Cordova on UD: Once again, Sal and Friends Butcher Information Theory.

110 Comments

Salvador T. Cordova · 5 February 2007

Hey Reed, Some advice before you proclaim Chu-Carrol as your hero, you might investigate the comment section where he was taken to task in his supposed field of expertise. In the very Wiki link Chu-Carrol gave regarding Godel it says:

For any consistent formal theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true but not provable in the theory can be constructed. That is, any theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.

Chu-Carrol nonetheless fumes at this statement by the ID proponents:

Gödel proved that, in general, a complete mathematical theory cannot be derived entirely from a finite number of axioms. In general mathematics is too rich to be derived from a limited number of propositions (what mathematicians name a "formal system"). In particular just arithmetic is too rich to be reducible in a finite set of axioms.

Chu-Carrol's responds with an equivocation:

Bullshit and nonsense! That's an astonishingly bad explanation of Gödel's incompleteness theorem...You can describe all of arithmetic using a formal system with a finite set of axioms; in fact, Gödel himself proved that, in his completeness theorem.

So, how about you ask Chu-Carroll the following question since he said, "You can describe all of arithmetic using a formal system." Ask him, "Gee, Mark, does that mean you can prove or disprove every arithmetical statement in violation of Godel's theorem?" Hahaha! But what Mark is doing is equivocating the sense of what the ID authors said when they said, "arithmetic is too rich to be reducible in a finite set of axioms". Chu-Carrol rather than trying to understand what was said, chose to affix his own idea about what was said. One can reduce basic arithmetical truths to a finite set of axioms, but one cannot reduce ALL arithmetically true statements as deducible from a finite set of axioms. Chu-Carroll refuses to try to understand what was said. Perhaps before you claim I spread disinformation, it might be better to look to your own and get them to stop their equivocations. He pumped out more junk in the same vein in that thread and in welogs pertaining to me, perhaps not worth time for me to waste on... Reminds me of something Scott Adams had to say about PZ Myers:

He's made it a personal mission to misunderstand me and then get very angry about his misunderstandings. He has a sizeable following and is highly entertaining, in an entirely accidental way.

Popper's ghost · 5 February 2007

So, how about you ask Chu-Carroll the following question since he said, "You can describe all of arithmetic using a formal system." Ask him, "Gee, Mark, does that mean you can prove or disprove every arithmetical statement in violation of Godel's theorem?" Hahaha!

Sal is such an arrogant ignorant fool. You can indeed prove or disprove every arithmetical statement, but that does not violate Godel's theorem. What Godel's theorem states is that you cannot prove every true statement of a consistent formal axiomatic system (of sufficient power to perform Godel numbering of its statements) in that system. But statements that aren't provable in, say, Peano Arithmetic, such as the consistency of Peano Arithmetic, are provable in more powerful systems such as ZFC. Godel himself provided a proof of the consistency of PA in type theory. Perhaps Sal is under there impression that there are statements that are true simpliciter, independent of any axiomatic system. But that's a serious misunderstanding of the nature of logical truth. Notably, any statement P is true in {P} and false in {not P}.

creeky belly · 5 February 2007

That still doesn't do much for your argument of "more doesn't come from less", or how it even applies to a biological system. Keep the gibberish coming, Sal!

Popper's ghost · 5 February 2007

Oh, and

Some advice before you proclaim Chu-Carrol as your hero

is one of the most profoundly ad hominem pieces of crap I have ever read. Reed didn't proclaim Chu-Carroll to be his hero, he simply linked to Chu-Carroll's rebuttal of one of Sal's arguments. Rather than address Chu-Carroll's points, Sal pointed to some other claim of Chu-Carroll's that he disagrees with, and starts throwing around words like "equivocation". Even if CC had equivocated all over the place in that discussion, that would have no bearing on his argument that Reed links to, or the apppropriateness of Reed linking to it.

minimalist · 5 February 2007

Yeah, it's just Sal being Sal: flinging poo every which way in the futile hope that it will distract from the royal spanking he received (yet again).

Mark Perakh · 5 February 2007

I'll touch here on only one point in Cordova's new appearance where he pretends to provide a judgment on Goedel's, Turing's, Chaitin's and von Neuman's views, namely his impudent and mendacious claim that Gregory Chaitin's work in some way supports ID. In 1999 I posted an essay (later reproduced in my book of 2003) addressing Behe's Irreducible Complexity, wherein I pointed to Kolmogorov-Chaitin's algorithmic theory as being profoundly incompatible with Behe's ideas. The algorithmic theory maintains, among other things, that irreducibly complex strings are necessarily random. If IC is an equivalent of randomness, all Behe's construct collapses. Neither Behe, nor any other ID advocate has ever tried to rebut my thesis. Since Behe's IC is viewed by ID advocates as one of the pillars of their conceptual system, its collapse seriously undermines their entire set of views.

k.e. · 5 February 2007

Hey Sal how's your sainthood coming along?

Can I make a suggestion? Find a real religion (one that offers sainthoods) and arrange a PR firm to do a glowing profile promoting your godly work among the poor and downtrodden. Then go off and save a hard pressed theology professor working for ~~an irrelevant bible chanting gulag ...er right wing political re-education camp~~ theofacist think tank.

Should be a slam dunk, remember Jesus said "Blessed are the geek(s) for they shall inherit the mirth"
Good luck.

Popper's ghost · 5 February 2007

If IC is an equivalent of randomness, all Behe's construct collapses.

Perhaps, but aren't all the alleged facts about God true for no reason? And thus God's acts occur for no reason? Note that Greg Chaitin writes "some mathematical facts are true for no reason, they are true by accident, or at random. In other words, God not only plays dice in physics, but even in pure mathematics, in logic, in the world of pure reason." It seems to me that the notions that there are biological systems that are random, uncaused, or caused by God are all logically equivalent.

Katarina · 6 February 2007

Gee PG, that's basically what I said, like 3 years ago..

Salvador T. Cordova · 6 February 2007

Mark Perakh observed: If IC is an equivalent of randomness, all Behe's construct collapses. Neither Behe, nor any other ID advocate has ever tried to rebut my thesis. Since Behe's IC is viewed by ID advocates as one of the pillars of their conceptual system, its collapse seriously undermines their entire set of views.

Mark, like many Darwinists are equivocating the word random. There are at least three senses of the word random. 1. un-intelligent origin 2. algorithmically incompressible (in the sense no algorithm or law can describe them more compactly) 3. unpredictable Mark argues #2 to argue suggest #1. This is a sleight of hand argument. The property of being incompressible (or at least being extremely difficult to compress since absolute incompressibility is difficult to extablish), does not in and of itself say anything of its intelligent or un intelligent origin. For example an Mp3 is for the most part incompressible (or approximately so, as far as we know anyway). Does Mark argue an Mp3 is not therefore of intelligent origin?

Darth Robo · 6 February 2007

Are you comparing me to an mp3?? Sounds like yours is a sleight of hand argument. It's the 'watchmaker' again.

k.e. · 6 February 2007

Sal...er attempts a musical allusion.

Mark argues #2 to argue suggest #1. This is a sleight of hand argument. The property of being incompressible (or at least being extremely difficult to compress since absolute incompressibility is difficult to extablish), does not in and of itself say anything of its intelligent or un intelligent origin. For example an Mp3 is for the most part incompressible (or approximately so, as far as we know anyway). Does Mark argue an Mp3 is not therefore of intelligent origin?

Is our Sal. channeling that great dadaist the late Mr. Dali? Who famously said: I believe that the moment is near when by a procedure of active paranoiac thought, it will be possible to systematize confusion and contribute to the total discrediting of the world of reality. Sal please go back and re-read your last bit of confusion. [compressibility and thus 'information quantity' or IDers perception] does not in and of itself say anything of its intelligent or un intelligent origin. ....but you're saying it does ....or does not.... right? Maybe you became confused Sal? because Mr Dali also said this: At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since. Salvador Dali It's a pity ......so much ambition but absolutely zero talent.

Robin Levett · 6 February 2007

Sal:

Since you've now raised the issue of equivocation, perhaps you could provide the single definition of the term "information" consistent across its use in the works of Shannon, Kolmogorov, Chaitin and within Intelligent Design?

Robin Levett · 6 February 2007

Sal:

Since you've now raised the issue of equivocation, perhaps you could provide the single definition of the term "information" consistent across its use in the works of Shannon, Kolmogorov, Chaitin and within Intelligent Design?

Sorry, missed one - "and in Fisher's work".

Scarlet Seraph, FOFOCD · 6 February 2007

I think it fair to point out that Sal is quite probably grousing because Mark Chu-Carroll has already wiped the floor with Sal here: Stupidity from our Old Friend Sal

In that thread Mark showed that Sal completely misunderstands information theory, and is unable to provide the actual math to back up his bogus claims.

This kind of basically cowardly behavior from Sal is par for the course, naturally, but it does explain why Sal is attempting to discredit Mark with an ad-hom.

When Sal is make to look like an idiot, he tends to get petty.

fnxtr · 6 February 2007

I was waiting to see if anyone else noticed this. MP3's are compressions. Not that it matters. MP3's also aren't made of self-replicating chemistry. Once again a cdesign proponetsist confuses an analogy with reality.

Pigwidgeon · 6 February 2007

Sal, what the smeg? Even /I/ can see you've totally twisted what Perakh was saying - he didn't mention or even /imply/ intelligence. If I read it right, he's claiming that IC structures are, according to information theory, necessarily random (in your #2 sense of incompressible), which is clearly at odds with reality. That's it. Where is this equivocation?

Can you answer the question? Is he wrong?

secondclass · 6 February 2007

Mark argues #2 to argue suggest #1.
— Sal

I don't see where Mark has argued that. What he said was that algorithmic IC and Behe's IC are incompatible. If you conflate the two, Behe's work doesn't make sense since biological structures are most definitely NOT random in the AIT sense.

For example an Mp3 is for the most part incompressible (or approximately so, as far as we know anyway).
— Sal

Actually, no. MP3s can't be compressed by an MP3 compression algorithm, but theoretically a higher-level compressor could exploit the patterns in the music itself to compress it further.

Does Mark argue an Mp3 is not therefore of intelligent origin?
— Sal

All information, random or not, has meaning within some conceivable semiotic system, so Sal is correct in saying that AIT randomness doesn't preclude intelligence. I doubt that Mark would ever say that it does.

secondclass · 6 February 2007

Mark, like many Darwinists are equivocating the word random.
— Sal

The irony in this accusation is off the charts, considering the article that Sal is touting. The authors seem to think that since Chaitin and Behe use the same term, irreducible complexity, their concepts must be positively related. Argumentum ad terminologium.

Pigwidgeon · 6 February 2007

secondclass: I didn't know that. Is Perakh then equivocating over IC, and not over what Sal says he is?

KeithB · 6 February 2007

Aren't MP3's a poor choice for this discussion anyway, since, like JPEG, it is a *lossy* compression algorithm? Shouldn't we be discussion something like LZW instead?

Anton Mates · 6 February 2007

Mark, like many Darwinists are equivocating the word random. There are at least three senses of the word random. 1. un-intelligent origin
— Salvador T. Cordova

Um, nobody defines "random" as "un-intelligent origin" except creationists. Mark certainly didn't.

For example an Mp3 is for the most part incompressible (or approximately so, as far as we know anyway).

What? No, it's not. People Stuff/Zip/otherwise compress Mp3s all the time. And like secondclass says, that's even without exploiting. regularities in the music.

secondclass · 6 February 2007

Pigwidgeon, I haven't read anything the Perakh has written on the subject other than his post above, but I think Perakh is arguing against equivocation on the term "IC". It's the IDers who are equivocating when they pretend that algorithmic information theory somehow supports Behe's work. The equivocation can't possibly work in their favor since biological structures are not IC in Chaitin's sense.

Sal accuses Perakh of equivocating on the term "random", claiming that Perakh is arguing that AIT randomness implies the "non-intelligent source" sense of randomness. But Perakh didn't say that in his post, and I'd be very surprised if he said it elsewhere.

PvM · 6 February 2007

I hope that most people have come to understand why I consider Sal to be one of evolutionary theory's best friends :-)

Scarlet Seraph, FOFOCD · 6 February 2007

It is always a useful idea to fisk Sal's comments.

Mark, like many Darwinists are equivocating the word random. There are at least three senses of the word random.

He begins with an error of grammar: it should, of course, be "like many Darwinists, is..." - Sal has violated number here.

1. un-intelligent origin

As already indicated, only creationists do this. Does this imply that Creationists are actually closet Darwinists? Of course!

2. algorithmically incompressible (in the sense no algorithm or law can describe them more compactly) 3. unpredictable

What Sal fails (as usual) to understand is that there is a sense in which randomness is used by the folks to accept biological evolution: 'uncorrelated'. When we discuss 'random' we are talking about 'random with respect to fitness or utility'- uncorrelated. Sal forgot about that. Oopsie.

Mark argues #2 to argue suggest #1.

This is, of course, factually incorrect. Mark does not do so. The fact that Sal doesn't understand this is troubling.

This is a sleight of hand argument.

Sal is, indeed, engaging in a sleight of hand argument here: he is attacking a straw man.

The property of being incompressible (or at least being extremely difficult to compress since absolute incompressibility is difficult to extablish), does not in and of itself say anything of its intelligent or un intelligent origin.

Since that's not what Mark said, Sal's comment is irrelevant.

For example an Mp3 is for the most part incompressible (or approximately so, as far as we know anyway).

As noted, this is factually incorrect.

Does Mark argue an Mp3 is not therefore of intelligent origin?

Straw man. No wonder Mark Chu-Carroll kicked Sal's little fanny from here to Miami; Sal's can't even address a simple, straightforward argument like Perakh's without getting utterly confused.

gwangung · 6 February 2007

Sal, have we EVER seen you do the math?

You constantly make claims that can be butressed by the math, but I don't ever think I've seen you do the math.

steve s · 6 February 2007

PZ also links here,

http://growthratenlgn.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/a-cluestick-to-bash-sal-with/

where Tyler points out that nearly everything Salvador says is wrong.

Tyrannosaurus · 6 February 2007

At first I was laughing but later I was crying. How can you be so stupid??????????????? How can so much inanity be exhibited by a single individual?????
But instead of becoming frustrated by the flagrant exhibition of stupidity, I applaud Sal for showing to all of us out here the quality of scholar that support IDiocy. Thanks Sal and keep up the good work (sarcasm meter off).

secondclass · 6 February 2007

Um, nobody defines "random" as "un-intelligent origin" except creationists. Mark certainly didn't.
— Anton

I think even creationists would have a problem with that definition. I don't think most creationists consider the trajectory of a meteor to be intelligently designed (or maybe they do?), but I don't think they would call it "random" either.

Henry J · 6 February 2007

Re "I think even creationists would have a problem with that definition. I don't think most creationists consider the trajectory of a meteor to be intelligently designed (or maybe they do?), but I don't think they would call it "random" either."

Hmm. It has a range of possible values, and isn't attracted particularly to any one spot on the planet. How isn't it random? ;)

Henry

Popper's ghost · 6 February 2007

Gee PG, that's basically what I said, like 3 years ago..

So 3 years ago you said that "God did it" is indistinguishable from "it happened by chance"? I seem to recall you claiming that various things couldn't have happened by chance, and that was evidence of God's existence.

Popper's ghost · 6 February 2007

Is Perakh then equivocating over IC, and not over what Sal says he is?

Well, I don't see the connection between what Mark calls "irreducibly complex strings", which cannot be further compressed (under a given compression scheme), and Behe's notion of a mechanism that fails to function if any of its components is removed. Also, it seems to me that Mark is arguing that, if IC systems are "random", then Behe's claim that they must be intelligently designed "collapses" (as I noted earlier, I have a different take, because I think "God" and "random" are indistinguishable as causes). I hate to give Sal any ammunition as much as (or more than) the next guy, but I'd like someone to explain why there isn't at least one, and possibly two, equivocations here.

Katarina · 6 February 2007

I seem to recall you claiming that various things couldn't have happened by chance, and that was evidence of God's existence.

Your memory sucks, babe. That is a creationist claim, and I have never, ever used it. I said the same thing Ken Miller said in his book, Finding Darwin's God - chance and divine action are indistinguishable. You called it a gap.. but never mind. At least you've learned :) You know I'm just messing with you, right?

Les Lane · 6 February 2007

The appropriate icon for complex specified disinformation

Popper's ghost · 6 February 2007

Aren't MP3's a poor choice for this discussion anyway, since, like JPEG, it is a *lossy* compression algorithm? Shouldn't we be discussion something like LZW instead?

Indeed. Sal's claim that an mp3 is incompressible is ridiculous, since it could be compressed to 0 bits by a sufficiently lossy compression scheme. But it would also be ridiculous (though slightly less so) for lossless compression, since there is always some encoding scheme that can reduce any given message to a single bit. It's important to keep in mind that no lossless compression scheme can give you something for nothing -- the average compression ratio over all messages is 1:1. But all a good compression scheme need do is provide a high ratio for the sorts of messages it is intended to compress.

Henry J · 6 February 2007

Re "The appropriate icon for complex specified disinformation"

Well, that's getting to the bottom(s) of things...

Popper's ghost · 6 February 2007

Your memory sucks, babe. That is a creationist claim, and I have never, ever used it.

No, it's not a creationist claim, unless everyone who believes in God is a creationist. And yes, you did use it -- you referred to personal experiences and unlikely occurrences that led you to believe that God exists, and complained that I was discounting those experiences. You specifically rejected my points about erroneous probabilistic intuitions about "synchronicity" and such. I could go to the trouble of digging up the archives, but since you say you are "just messing with" me, I won't.

Steviepinhead · 6 February 2007

PvM:

I hope that most people have come to understand why I consider Sal to be one of evolutionary theory's best friends :-)

Not that one need be either civil or cuddly with Sal to elicit his expectorations of inane PoMo gibberish. He does it anyway. He probably does it involuntarily, by pure reflex. Indeed, as Lenny was oft wont to remind us, Sal couldn't help himself from making stupid in public even if Sal were smart enough to try.

Katarina · 6 February 2007

Well, I did claim "personal experience," though I didn't explicitly claim they couldn't have happened by chance, but.. yeah, OK, I'll give it to you.

And if "this couldn't have happened by chance, thereofore it happened by divine intervention" isn't a creationist argument, well.. I'll be a monkey's aunt.

David B. Benson · 6 February 2007

But Katarina, you are a monkey's aunt! Just many, many times removed. ;-)

Katarina · 6 February 2007

LOL! Right!

Steviepinhead · 6 February 2007

Hmmm, well no.

Niece, many times removed, maybe.

David B. Benson · 6 February 2007

Dern it! steviepinhead caught me out! Monkey's cousin it is... :-)

Steviepinhead · 6 February 2007

Agreed, David. Cousins it is, many times removed.

But not so far that the family resemblance has entirely faded away, to the great distress of some of the brethren and sisteren.

k.e. · 6 February 2007

Steviepinhead wrote:

Not that one need be either civil or cuddly with Sal to elicit his expectorations of inane PoMo gibberish. He does it anyway. He probably does it involuntarily, by pure reflex. Indeed, as Lenny was oft wont to remind us, Sal couldn't help himself from making stupid in public even if Sal were smart enough to try.

That's the best thing about Sal he pops up, punches himself in the face with a word salad that isn't even worth disentangling then runs off with, I imagine, a very pleased look on his face. The guy couldn't construct a logical argument to save himself, but then he is a YEC. That's actually a requirement of the club, that and a lack of self awareness that makes the former Iraqi Information Minister look like a saint.

Popper's ghost · 6 February 2007

Well, I did claim "personal experience," though I didn't explicitly claim they couldn't have happened by chance

But that's such a tiny concession. Actually, you conceded more than that; you said that one had a choice as to whether to interpret certain events as chance or as evidence of God. But much as you insisted that it was a choice, it wasn't an arbitrary choice. You said your father was unconvinced -- suggesting that you were convinced. It wasn't a random-seeming series of coin flips or dice rolls that convinced you, but rather something that seemed to you not to be random. You wrote "There are many sides to my faith, but one is rational, which means it must be based on evidence", and you were concerned with whether unreproducible outcomes count as evidence. So, you thought you had evidence of God, evidence that others could choose to interpret as a chance occurrence, but which you chose not to. To call it evidence, to talk of a rational basis, to talk about being convinced implies that there was some sort of distinction that you made between your "evidence" and chance occurrences that you didn't take as evidence of God. But note that my suggestion above is that there isn't any logical distinction between "God did it" and "happened by chance", and thus there is no choice to be made between the two. Because God is uncaused, there are no reasons for God's actions, so God's actions are completely arbitrary. Thus the very notion of God as an actor filters out, and all we are left with is causeless occurrences. But we can do better than that, and seek causal models for various occurrences -- causal models like the theory of evolution. The IDists reject the causal model, leaving them with no reason at all for why these things happen; occurrences such as the Cambrian explosion are just raw events, noncontingent, unrelated to historical context. Then they slap labels like "God" or "designed" on these reasonless occurrences, as if that said anything.

yeah, OK, I'll give it to you.

It's about time. :-)

And if "this couldn't have happened by chance, thereofore it happened by divine intervention" isn't a creationist argument, well.. I'll be a monkey's aunt.

I personally know a number of people who don't believe in any traditional religion, and who accept the theory of evolution, billion year old universe, big bang, etc., but are convinced that the world is full of "synchronistic" occurrences that "couldn't have happened by chance", and they take that as proof (or at least strong evidence) that there is a "divine intelligence" or "universal spirit" or "holistic connection" or something. If these people are "creationists" then the word loses all useful meaning. Which does not imply that monkeys are apes.

Katarina · 6 February 2007

Thanks for that recap, PG. You've reminded me exactly why it took you to change my mind.

Much obliged, and still a fan

Anton Mates · 6 February 2007

Well, I don't see the connection between what Mark calls "irreducibly complex strings", which cannot be further compressed (under a given compression scheme), and Behe's notion of a mechanism that fails to function if any of its components is removed.
— Popper's ghost

Neither do I. I think Mark's amply shown in the past that Dembski's CSI is mathematically contradictory, but I don't really see that irreducible complexity connects to information theory at all. (Or to much of anything else, given how hazily Behe defines it when challenged.) Mark argues (in a previous post, which he links to in this one) that a system S is irreducibly complex if "there is no smaller/simpler system that performs the same task as S," but that's not how Behe defined irreducible complexity anywhere AFAIK. He generally says something like: there might be a smaller/simpler system, but you can't get to it from S by removing parts. Whatever "parts" means in whatever contex he's currently using.

Anton Mates · 6 February 2007

Mark's original (updated) post on irreducible complexity is here, incidentally.

I think my problems with it can be summarized as:

a) He's arguing that algorithmic information theory applies to arbitrary devices because you can think of each program as instructions for making a device. But how do we know that the length of the program somehow corresponds to the "number of parts" of the device? It's the latter which irreducible complexity is concerned with. A 3-legged stool is irreducibly complex, says Behe, because it fails to hold you up if you chop one of the legs off. The minimum lengths of the programs for building a 3-legged vs. 2-legged stool are irrelevant, so far as I can see. In fact, there must be tons of non-IC programs for building IC devices.

b) His argument shows that there's no way to know whether a given program is of minimum length among the set of programs performing its task, but it doesn't follow that you can't know whether the program is minimal. But minimal is what you want to equate "irreducibly complex" in the Behe sense (or one of them, anyway.) It doesn't matter if there's a shorter program performing the task...unless that program is actually your current program with some stuff cut out, your current one's still IC.

c) As someone else on there points out, his argument doesn't prove that you can't know whether some programs are minimum (and therefore minimal.) It simply proves that you can't in general know whether any program is minimal. Heck, if the program has length 2, can't you just check all the programs of length 1 and be done with it? Behe might not be able to determine IC for every structure in the universe, but he could still figure out that particular structures were IC.

Popper's ghost · 6 February 2007

Katarina, you can be very kind at times. Thank you. But I thought that it was Dawkins's "God Delusion" that changed your mind?

Popper's ghost · 6 February 2007

Thanks, Anton. But I was referring to Mark Perakh, not Mark Chu-Carroll. It's interesting that they seem to have made similar arguments (with similar problems).

Anton Mates · 7 February 2007

Oop, my mistake. Well, in that case, I think I've tracked down the essay MarkP mentioned too! I have redeemed myself. I'll have to read that tomorrow.

I'm inclined to agree with you on the "God=randomness" thing. When Dembski's trying to argue that intelligence is supernatural, he describes it pretty much like you'd describe the decay of an unstable nucleus...it happens without warning, in a way no one could have predicted and nothing could have determined, etc. It's random.

Why they don't just go the Ken Miller route and label the gazillion random events which added up to evolutionary history as divine, I don't know.

Popper's ghost · 7 February 2007

Ok, I've read through MarkCC's post and the comments and have, I think, made some sense of it. Behe's notion of an IC system as failing to function if any part is removed and therefore being unevolvable is ridiculous because it erroneously assumes that evolution procedes only by adding components, so MarkCC instead addresses the notion of a system that performs a function that no simpler system (that is, a system described by a shorter program, not one that generates fewer parts, so Antone 1st point isn't relevant) could have performed, so it could not have evolved from a simpler system performing the same function regardless of previous steps. But this is also ridiculous, perhaps even more so (although MarkCC doesn't seem to recognize this), because a system need not have evolved from a system having the same function, especially when "same" here involves strict mathematical equivalence. Since MarkCC's notion of IC has no more bearing on evolution than Behe's, his proof is somewhat beside the point, though it is interesting, and it underlines just how absurd the whole notion of provably unevolvable systems is.

In regard to Anton's 3rd point, the thing to recognize is that, in the framework of the proof, two programs perform the same function if they produce the same output strings. But there's no bound on the length of output strings, so the outputs can't generally be compared in finite time. And the proof shows that there's a threshold program size above which no program can be proven to be minimal. One can't just compare the output of such a program to the output of all shorter programs, because of the abovementioned difficulty in comparing outputs; the proof of minimality would have to depend on the characteristics of the programs. And it isn't even possible to determine that threshold size, so we can't even know whether a given system is provably minimal (if it is minimal).

Popper's ghost · 7 February 2007

I'm inclined to agree with you on the "God=randomness" thing. When Dembski's trying to argue that intelligence is supernatural, he describes it pretty much like you'd describe the decay of an unstable nucleus...it happens without warning, in a way no one could have predicted and nothing could have determined, etc. It's random.

Daniel Dennett, in "Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting" (and also in "Freedom Evolves") discusses the notion of free will derived from quantum indeterminacy in the brain, and points out that this is not a variety of free will worth wanting -- I'm sure you can appreciate why.

Katarina · 7 February 2007

Don't be so modest, PG, it was you who forced me to critically examine this "faith" I talked about. I wouldn't have tried to present the evidence if you hadn't demanded it, though I would've been satisfied I did indeed have evidence that was sufficient for me. And no one else here, besides maybe Glen Davidson, would keep going to the very last logical conclusion with me, but only you with so much clarity and perception that I couldn't resist.

The God Delusion was just the last step - it made me realize that this faith in the supernatural is not worth clinging to, and also that I had prejudices against the notion of being an atheist, which I'm sure I demonstrated here even if I didn't realize it, and that was part of the reason I resisted logic.

You are one of the most original thinkers around - most of the rest of us just follow like puppies. And don't think I'm being kind.

Katarina · 7 February 2007

I should add, too, that your provocative style actually helped me pay attention. Someone so rude couldn't be right! I wanted to prove you wrong. People may resent it, but they still soak up your ideas - without giving you the credit. Sorry, I guess the complement is tinged.

k.e. · 7 February 2007

Why they don't just go the Ken Miller route and label the gazillion random events which added up to evolutionary history as divine, I don't know.

Divine as in satisfyingly unexplainable for the moment vs designed as in satisfyingly explainable forever or unfearing relativism vs fearful objectivism. Whichever case fills a lack of knowledge with an over optimistic surety based on a lack of will to accept that the self is alone in the universe. They are scared.

Torbjörn Larsson · 7 February 2007

Seems Sal has no longer the courage to defend his blather on the appropriate blog. Actually, Mark seems to have messed up Gödel a bit (according to other commenters; this stuff is reaching far), and it seems it isn't his first time on that topic. But not in the way Sal thinks, and not as bad as Sal himself. (Not that this is a high hurdle to jump. :-)

It's important to keep in mind that no lossless compression scheme can give you something for nothing - the average compression ratio over all messages is 1:1. But all a good compression scheme need do is provide a high ratio for the sorts of messages it is intended to compress.

Is it just me that finds it ironic that Sal can't recognize the consequences of the NFL theorems if so it bites him? I wonder what Dembski will say when he finds out.

theofacist think tank

:-) Ttthank you!

Torbjörn Larsson · 7 February 2007

Well, I don't see the connection between what Mark calls "irreducibly complex strings", which cannot be further compressed (under a given compression scheme), and Behe's notion of a mechanism that fails to function if any of its components is removed.

I don't really get the gist of Mark Perakh's argument here either, so all thoughts on this are welcome. It could possibly be an argument for that irreducible complexity is ill defined. If ID claims that information is important for evolution (which they do), and if they propose KC information as a measure of structural information (which they do indirectly by discussing specified complexity).

Mark argues (in a previous post, which he links to in this one) that a system S is irreducibly complex if "there is no smaller/simpler system that performs the same task as S," but that's not how Behe defined irreducible complexity anywhere AFAIK.

I think Mark Chu-Carroll's argument points to two things: 1) Behe's 'irreducibly complexity' is really a search for local simplicity. This is evident since he looks for systems where a removal of a part means loss of all function, ie the system is as simple as it can be. 2) Simplicity is ill-defined, since we can in general have no guarantee that we have found the simplest system which produces a certain function. The argument, for me, argues for the plasticity of a general situation. We can have equivalent (and even simpler) systems with the same function. But it isn't enough in the specific case. Without specifying evolutionary mechanisms that takes us in or out of IC systems (like scaffold removal or addition of parts) we can't realize the promised plasticity. The later argument stands for itself and tells directly of evolutionary mechanisms, so it is preferable. But as PG says:

his proof is somewhat beside the point, though it is interesting, and it underlines just how absurd the whole notion of provably unevolvable systems is.

RBH · 7 February 2007

Anton wrote

Mark argues (in a previous post, which he links to in this one) that a system S is irreducibly complex if "there is no smaller/simpler system that performs the same task as S," but that's not how Behe defined irreducible complexity anywhere AFAIK.

You're right: It's Dembski's revision of Behe's definition. For commentary showing that Dembski cuts Behe off at the knees see The Death of Irreducible Complexity, an ARN thread. On Dembski's new and improved definition of IC, neither a three-legged stool nor Behe's iconic mousetrap are IC, say nothing of any biological structure.

Anton Mates · 7 February 2007

Ok, I've read through MarkCC's post and the comments and have, I think, made some sense of it. Behe's notion of an IC system as failing to function if any part is removed and therefore being unevolvable is ridiculous because it erroneously assumes that evolution procedes only by adding components, so MarkCC instead addresses the notion of a system that performs a function that no simpler system (that is, a system described by a shorter program, not one that generates fewer parts, so Antone 1st point isn't relevant) could have performed, so it could not have evolved from a simpler system performing the same function regardless of previous steps.
— Popper's ghost

MarkCC's welcome to redefine irreducible complexity that way, but I don't think it's reasonable then to say he's refuting Behe, which he does say.

But this is also ridiculous, perhaps even more so (although MarkCC doesn't seem to recognize this), because a system need not have evolved from a system having the same function, especially when "same" here involves strict mathematical equivalence. Since MarkCC's notion of IC has no more bearing on evolution than Behe's, his proof is somewhat beside the point, though it is interesting, and it underlines just how absurd the whole notion of provably unevolvable systems is.

Well, I don't think MarkCC claims that it poses any problem for evolution--he did say there were a bunch of problems with the IC concept that he just wasn't going to cover. But yeah, he took a property which is irrelevant to evolution, tweaked it into a different property which is also irrelevant to evolution, and showed that the second property can't be tested for. Which is interesting, but doesn't have much to do with Behe.

In regard to Anton's 3rd point, the thing to recognize is that, in the framework of the proof, two programs perform the same function if they produce the same output strings. But there's no bound on the length of output strings, so the outputs can't generally be compared in finite time.

But in some specific cases, it can. For any particular program, the outputs of all shorter programs can be compared in finite time unless some of those programs never halt--and if they're short enough, the fact they don't halt may be apparent from their structure without running them. If we're behaving analogously to Behe, after all, then we don't care about determining whether any program is minimum or not; we just want to find a few which are.

And the proof shows that there's a threshold program size above which no program can be proven to be minimal.

I would say "minimum" again, there, although Mark does not. If this is to be at least vaguely analogous to the "Darwin's Black Box" definition of IC, what you want is a truly minimal program--a program such that none of its subroutines produce the same output, and the proof doesn't seem to bear on that. And AFAIK that threshold is only with respect to a given minimum-program-tester. There could be an infinite sequence of tester programs whose thresholds increase to infinity, provided the tester program lengths also increase without bound; MarkCC proved only that no single tester could test every possible program for minimality. In fact, we know that such a sequence of testers exists, because every program is in fact minimum or it isn't. Index all possible programs, and look at programs 1...N. There's 2^N distinct tester candidates which simply take every number from 1 to N, look at a list, and return "Minimum" or "Not Minimum." At least one of them happens to be correct. Do it again for programs 1...N+1, and so forth; there's your sequence. Utterly useless, of course, since you don't actually know which tester candidate is right, but such a sequence does exist.

Anton Mates · 7 February 2007

Mark argues (in a previous post, which he links to in this one) that a system S is irreducibly complex if "there is no smaller/simpler system that performs the same task as S," but that's not how Behe defined irreducible complexity anywhere AFAIK. You're right: It's Dembski's revision of Behe's definition.
— RBH

Ah, I see. Thanks. Well, that doesn't surprise me--Dembski has screwed up his own definition of an assisted search before, about one paragraph after defining it in the first place, so I don't expect him to be much better with other people's terms.

Salvador T. Cordova · 7 February 2007

Popper's ghost bloviated: You can indeed prove or disprove every arithmetical statement,

But Godel theorem says it like it is:

an arithmetical statement that is true but not provable in the theory can be constructed

Is that the best you can do Popers ghost?

Steviepinhead · 7 February 2007

Sal vs. Popper's Ghost, head to head.

Not that it'll be much of a contest, but it should still be entertaining.

I'm not changing my dial.

Tracy P. Hamilton · 7 February 2007

But Godel theorem says it like it is: "an arithmetical statement that is true but not provable in the theory can be constructed" Is that the best you can do Popers ghost?
— Salvador

Let me bold the part that indicates you are missing the WHOLE POINT of Godel's Theorem: "an arithmetical statement that is true but not provable in the theory can be constructed"

Steviepinhead · 7 February 2007

Heh heh.

Maybe Popper won't even have to start tugging on the fingers of his gloves...

Henry J · 7 February 2007

Re "an arithmetical statement that is true but not provable in the theory can be constructed"

Sort of like the question in set theory about whether there are sets intermediate in size between that of the set of all integers and the set of all real numbers? (Or has somebody managed to answer that one since I read that book about it that said they hadn't?)

Henry

Scarlet Seraph, FOFOCD · 7 February 2007

Sal, Mark Chu-Carroll has shown that you are incapable of handling the mathematics - and the most basic concepts of number theory on a thread on his blog you began, then ran away from when pressed with actually doing the math.

How does it feel - knowing that folks with actual degrees laugh themselves silly watching you unable to calculate a tip, let alone the capacity of an evolutionary channel.

Seriously, honey - how does it feel to know yourself ignorant?

Anton Mates · 7 February 2007

And of course PG said exactly that, if you read past the first two sentences of his post. Too many big words, Sal?

Anton Mates · 7 February 2007

Re "an arithmetical statement that is true but not provable in the theory can be constructed" Sort of like the question in set theory about whether there are sets intermediate in size between that of the set of all integers and the set of all real numbers? (Or has somebody managed to answer that one since I read that book about it that said they hadn't?)
— Henry J

Nope, you're right. The continuum hypothesis can be true or false without conflicting with the Zermelo---Fraenkel axioms of set theory. All you can do is choose a new axiom to make it one or the other.

GuyeFaux · 7 February 2007

I think from Mark C.C.'s blog I got a good sense of Sal's M.O.:

1: Make some sciency sounding assertions, using some borrowed terminology and bogus references.

2: Await responses, which mostly come in the form "what do you mean when you say '...'?" "Please define precisely what you meant because such-and-such terms are ambigious." Etc.

3: Repeat the first and second steps until people get sick of you. At this point, people will start guessing what you meant in 1, and take their time to refute it. Also, people are getting ticked off, so they start insulting you personally.

4: Complain loudly that your statement in 1 has been set up as a straw-man and refuted in 3.

5: Leave the post in a huff, looking like you made some reasonable statements which people answered fallaciously with hostility. At all points, stay polite. This is politically more expedient than answering the questions in 2 honestly.

So I suggest that whenever Sal shows up here, we should never try to guess what he meant by his ridiculous statements. Rather, we should instead insist that he define his terms properly, and insist that he say exactly what he means. This is the tactic chosen by Lenny as well as Mark C.C., but even they get impatient and start to guess, putting words in Sal's mouth.

Salvador T. Cordova · 7 February 2007

mates said: And of course PG said exactly that, if you read past the first two sentences of his post. Too many big words, Sal?

He said:

You can indeed prove or disprove every arithmetical statement,

So Popper's Ghost, the word EVERY suggest all arithmetical statements can be completely proven. Is that where your assertion is going? That we can get every arithmetical statement completely proven in a consistent system? How about you Mates, what do you say since you're defending Popper's Ghost. Are you arguing that every arithmetical statement is completely provable in a consistent system? What's the matter, don't like the fact that I caught PG spinning the issues?

Salvador T. Cordova · 8 February 2007

Torbjörn Larsson on February 7, 2007 Actually, Mark seems to have messed up Gödel a bit (according to other commenters; this stuff is reaching far), and it seems it isn't his first time on that topic.

Just keep presuming I won't return or that I'm incapable of seeing the invincible Chu's fumblings. Hahaha! Mark is smart enough to know what's correct, but un-willing to see it. He'll adopt a position opposite mine, even if I'm right, simply because I'm a creationist, and the thought that I might have a valid point is intolerable to him. Thus, he'll resort to misrepresentations of what I say, and even hastily scream obsenities and fume over things I never implied or said.

Doc Bill · 8 February 2007

Actually, Sal, the thought that you would have a valid point, on any subject, would be astounding to us all.

Tyler DiPietro · 8 February 2007

You can construct an arithmetical statement in any finite presentation of axioms that can't be proven true or false. Big deal, what the hell does this have to do with any blather written in that dreck of an article you linked to?

A clear example of why the Disco Doods haven't gotten anywhere in science.

k.e. · 8 February 2007

Salsovation:

He'll [CCC] adopt a position opposite mine, even if I'm right, simply because I'm a creationist,...

Bwhahahahahahaha Gee Sal you say that like you might be proud to be a creationist! I feel a little whine coming on...

....and the thought that I might have a valid point is intolerable to him. Thus, he'll resort to misrepresentations of what I say, and even hastily scream obsenities and fume over things I never implied or said.

boo hoo hoo .....*sniff (giggle, guffaw) Don't worry Sal. Easter isn't far off ....you can flagelate your bac. on the way to Calvary...do you want a hand with that cross?...snicker

Torbjörn Larsson · 8 February 2007

and if they're short enough, the fact they don't halt may be apparent from their structure without running them

Or in the model application, they (or any too slow function) will be selected against.

There could be an infinite sequence of tester programs whose thresholds increase to infinity, provided the tester program lengths also increase without bound; MarkCC proved only that no single tester could test every possible program for minimality.

Wasn't "given a system S, you cannot in general show that there is no smaller/simpler system that performs the same task as S" Chaitin's result?

Torbjörn Larsson · 8 February 2007

Just keep presuming I won't return or that I'm incapable of seeing the invincible Chu's fumblings.

Well, you have still not visited Mark's post and discussed it. Nor have you understood the points where Mark may have messed up a bit, or what PG discusses here. Mark didn't discuss PG's point, that you can always use more powerful formal systems. This is the point you don't get, since you continue to frame your discussion as if we had only one system. Mark did discuss Gödel's completeness theorem instead. But that is only applicable for formal systems describable with first-order predicate logic, which isn't systems that describes arithmetic. But all that is besides the point. The main point with this exercise is that creationists can't take Gödel's results to imply that "more doesn't come from less" or that this is about biology. Obviously Gödel showed that logics could be used to represent and reason about themselves, so more came from less. And the other mathematicians results where in the same vein. And you can't put limits on biology from limits on formal systems. How would you do that? In fact, Gödel showed with his theorems that we can always extend formal systems indefinitely (from the completeness theorem) to contain more theorems (describing 'structure') in some more powerful model (from incompleteness theorem II). So if anything, it shows that even so simple things like formal systems have unbounded 'structural' possibilities. Does that remind you of any special system in the context? A system that with some selection incorporates information from the environment and changes (new 'rules')? And no, I'm not referring to your brain, Sal. It is selective all right, but the information incorporation and the change remains to prove.

the thought that I might have a valid point is intolerable to him.

No, the way you twist and misrepresent math is intolerable to him. So go and ask him the question you pose here, and see what he will answer. As he is a computer scientist in the lime light, and expert math user to boot, I'm sure you will get an answer that isn't twisted or misrepresented.

Scarlet Seraph, FOFOCD · 8 February 2007

Nice sidetrack, Sal. On Mark's blog you claimed that the channel of evolution was too small to accomodate the amount of biological change that we see.

When pressed, you were COMPLETELY unable to either define the channel mathematically or calculate its capacity.

And then you ran away.

Nice way to look like a idiot and a coward, Sal. Nice going!

Anton Mates · 8 February 2007

mates said: And of course PG said exactly that, if you read past the first two sentences of his post. Too many big words, Sal? He said: You can indeed prove or disprove every arithmetical statement,
— Salvador T. Cordova

I point out that you're apparently incapable of reading more than two sentences in a row. You respond by quoting half a sentence, also from the first two sentences in that post. Oh, the irony. PG's post is right here on this page; we can all see that you're lying about it. Why are you still talking? Can you not see that quotemining someone on the same page as your own post doesn't work very well?

What Godel's theorem states is that you cannot prove every true statement of a consistent formal axiomatic system (of sufficient power to perform Godel numbering of its statements) in that system. But statements that aren't provable in, say, Peano Arithmetic, such as the consistency of Peano Arithmetic, are provable in more powerful systems such as ZFC. Godel himself provided a proof of the consistency of PA in type theory.
— For the mouseclick-impaired, PG wrote:

Anton Mates · 8 February 2007

mates said: And of course PG said exactly that, if you read past the first two sentences of his post. Too many big words, Sal? He said: You can indeed prove or disprove every arithmetical statement,
— Salvador T. Cordova

What Godel's theorem states is that you cannot prove every true statement of a consistent formal axiomatic system (of sufficient power to perform Godel numbering of its statements) in that system. But statements that aren't provable in, say, Peano Arithmetic, such as the consistency of Peano Arithmetic, are provable in more powerful systems such as ZFC. Godel himself provided a proof of the consistency of PA in type theory.
— For the mouseclick-impaired, PG

Scarlet Seraph, FOFOCD · 8 February 2007

I note that we have sufficiently embarrassed Sal that he reappeared on Mark Chu-Carroll's blog.

Of course, as Mark pointed out, he didn't actually say anything, since Sal is still incapable of defining the mathematical channel of evolution.

He threw some pretty numbers around - numbers that make very little sense in terms of actual channel definition, and then claimed that because he had put forward numbers that he had answered the case.

It's interesting in two respects.

First, whenever Sal is taken to task on his general inability to express an actual scientific argument; or made to realize that he's dropped the ball and made himself look not unlike a dolt on some blog - he appears on that blog, says something meaningless, and runs away again.

This is both cowardly and, more importantly, damaging to the very movement he espouses.

Sal's continual and blatant equivocation between ID and YEC; and his bumbling attempts at math completely out of his league creates a very bad impression of IDists.

Second, I'd like to ask Sal how he defines an 'information' channel. Whose definition is he using? Not Shannon's apparently. So whose?

You're not a child anymore, Sal. Stop behaving like one.

GuyeFaux · 8 February 2007

This is both cowardly and, more importantly, damaging to the very movement he espouses.

I don't know about this. As I note in my post above, if he does enough hand-waving people start putting words in his mouth and start insulting him, which gives him a chance to get indignant and look like a martyr. So the final result is that politically he end up looking not bad while saying nothing of scientific substance. So I don't necessarily see this as hurting his cause. Really, the only way to fight this is to doggedly demand detail.

Scarlet Seraph, FOFOCD · 8 February 2007

So the final result is that politically he end up looking not bad while saying nothing of scientific substance. So I don't necessarily see this as hurting his cause.
— Guye

The area in which he damages his own movement primarily lies in (gosh, that was wordy) the fact that he continually makes it clear that ID = Christianity. Since the ID movement (e.g. the DI) try very hard to avoid that association, Sal is undermining their attempts to portray ID as pure science. And as a frequent poster on the whole ID side, his continuing (and quite public) inability to actually do any science or math more complicated than figuring out the tip at the local McD simply shows that the ID movement is stocked with scientific ignoramuses. Like Dembski, he's a self-obsessed and self-aggrandizing, which is also a very common problem with martyrs.

Torbjörn Larsson · 8 February 2007

Second, I'd like to ask Sal how he defines an 'information' channel.

Since he continue to discuss the human-chimp divergence in numbers as if there was only one specie that evolves, I think he can't really imagine evolution. For him, all species are given by his gods. Since he is discussing a hypothetical that can't be true for him, he is looking at himself, the human species, as evolving. And that is logical for him, also because chimps aren't as 'evolved' or beneath him or high on the ladder to his gods, and possibly because microevolution is all ID can face. So exactly because he can't define a channel in concrete terms, he hasn't managed to grasp that he must have two channels that evolve independently. And I predict he never will. He also continues to discuss fixation of all nucleotides in the difference human-chimp, while it is only those that participates in genes that needs to be fixated AFAIK. He can't define his channel, he can't define fixation, and he can't define evolution in terms that covers two species. What hubris to claim that he and ID has a problem with the theory!!!

Henry J · 8 February 2007

Re "math more complicated than figuring out the tip at the local McD"

But McD's don't take tips. ;)

Torbjörn Larsson · 8 February 2007

But really, I'm flabbergasted that Sal can't count to two. One: chimp, two: human; two species.

Most primitive cultures seems to manage at least one, two, many. What do you call a subculture like DI hacks that can't manage counting? Pro-primitive? Pro-simian? :-)

GuyeFaux · 8 February 2007

Most primitive cultures seems to manage at least one, two, many.

Nitpick: your use of the term "primitive" connotes Social Darwinism. (Yes, I know the post was in jest).

Popper's Ghost · 8 February 2007

You can indeed prove or disprove every arithmetical statement,

But Godel theorem says it like it is: an arithmetical statement that is true but not provable in the theory can be constructed Which doesn't contradict what I wrote, moron. And repeats what I already wrote, moron.

That we can get every arithmetical statement completely proven in a consistent system?

No, that's not what I wrote, moron. Go take a basic logic course where you can learn something about the scope of logical quantifiers. For every consistent FAS, there is some statement that is true in the FAS but can't be proven in it. So effing what? That has nothing to do with biology, moron. If you think that Godel proved that evolution can't happen, then you are even more stupid than the run-of-the-mill creationist who acknowledges that microevolution happens.

Popper's Ghost · 8 February 2007

It's worth going back to Sal's statement:

In particular just arithmetic is too rich to be reducible in a finite set of axioms.

It's true that there's no finite set of axioms from which all true arithmetic statements can be derived, but it's rather silly to call this "too rich", just as it would be silly to call the primes "too rich" because of Euclid's proof that there's no largest one; in both cases, the proof provides a construction for another item, ad infinitum, resulting in a reductio ad absurdum. It's worth noting that the constructed true statements are utterly esoteric, with no natural meaning and no bearing on any mathematical problem; it is only the possibility of constructing them that is significant. Thus this "richness" is utterly irrelevant, especially considering that all the significant true arithmetic statements that any human has ever produced is is a tiny little finite pittance; we haven't even begun to tap the richness of true arithmetic statements that are significant to us. And of course it is way more than silly, it is completely and utterly moronic, to claim that this "richness" of true abstract statements somehow shows that evolution can't happen. It is also true that MarkCC went way off base with his statement that "You can describe all of arithmetic using a formal system with a finite set of axioms; in fact, Gödel himself proved that, in his completeness theorem" -- Gödel proved no such thing. What he did prove is that first-order predicate calculus is complete. Which does not mean that it's inconsistent, because Gödel numbering isn't possible in FOPC, and thus it isn't subject to the incompleteness theorem. But the fact that MarkCC butchered this doesn't alter the validity of the rest of his argument against the rest of the IDiocy. Which is the essence of Sal's stupidly dishonest claim: because MarkCC made a mistake, Reed is wrong to claim that Sal spreads disinformation. What a laugh.

Popper's Ghost · 8 February 2007

Really, the only way to fight this is to doggedly demand detail.

While that's the best approach among those of us who accept the paradigm of rational justification of claims, it really isn't the best, let along the only, way to fight "this". See, for instance, the main page for discussion of the movie "Flight of Dodos".

Popper's Ghost · 8 February 2007

And you can't put limits on biology from limits on formal systems. How would you do that?

More importantly, what would it matter if you could? The set of evolved organisms and mechanisms is just a teency tiny finite subset of an unbounded variety of possible evolved mechanisms, so the limits of infinistic proofs, even if they apply, have not been, and never will be, reached. Sal's inference is so incredibly stupid and irrational, such an absurd non sequitur, that I think people have trouble getting their heads around it. It's certainly small potatoes compared to MarkCC's gaffe about Gödel's theorems.

GuyeFaux · 8 February 2007

...it really isn't the best, let along the only, way to fight "this"

By "this" I meant Sal's M.O.

Popper's Ghost · 8 February 2007

Just keep presuming I won't return or that I'm incapable of seeing the invincible Chu's fumblings. Hahaha!

No one claimed that Chu is invincible. It's your claim that, because Mark made a mistake on one point, he hasn't refuted your overall argument. But he has.

Mark is smart enough to know what's correct, but un-willing to see it. He'll adopt a position opposite mine, even if I'm right, simply because I'm a creationist, and the thought that I might have a valid point is intolerable to him. Thus, he'll resort to misrepresentations of what I say, and even hastily scream obsenities and fume over things I never implied or said.

What if that were true? How would that change the fact that you're an idiot and ID is idiotic bullpucky?

Popper's Ghost · 8 February 2007

Re "an arithmetical statement that is true but not provable in the theory can be constructed" Sort of like the question in set theory about whether there are sets intermediate in size between that of the set of all integers and the set of all real numbers? (Or has somebody managed to answer that one since I read that book about it that said they hadn't?)

No, it really isn't like that. The Continuum hypothesis not only isn't provable in set theory, but it isn't true (or false) in set theory. One can confirm the hypothesis, getting one theory, or deny it, getting another theory.

David B. Benson · 8 February 2007

And so closes another saga demonstrating that Sal has a screw loose.

Popper's Ghost · 8 February 2007

...it really isn't the best, let along the only, way to fight "this"

By "this" I meant Sal's M.O. Yes, I knew that.

GuyeFaux · 8 February 2007

See, for instance, the main page for discussion of the movie "Flight of Dodos".

Can you provide the link, please? There were a couple of hits for "Flock of dodos" and "flight of Dodos", none of them having to do with Sal.

Steviepinhead · 8 February 2007

GF, I think PG is talking about this one:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/02/discovery_insti_6.html.

If so, the link in the post takes you over to a PZ article in Pharyngula...

GuyeFaux · 8 February 2007

Merci. In which case I'm not sure to what PG is referring as a better way to deal with Sal's M.O.

Popper's Ghost · 8 February 2007

Merci. In which case I'm not sure to what PG is referring as a better way to deal with Sal's M.O.

What I'm saying is that "doggedly demand detail" isn't particularly effective against Sal's M.O.; it just further confirms for us that he's the sort of evasive person we already know he is when he fails to provide such detail. I haven't seen Olson's movie yet, but my understanding from those who have is that we need to develop better PR, because that's what the other side is all about.

k.e. · 8 February 2007

Comment #160215 Posted by David B. Benson on February 8, 2007 4:20 PM (e) And so closes another saga demonstrating that Sal has a screw loose.

....except to Sal. Sal look at this way...your professed version of creationism is an admission that you are technically insane. Sal you are pathologically incapable of engaging in the discourse of science or any other process requiring rational thought. You don't even come within a bull's roar. You've missed the boat, the gangplank's up and your potential to get on is nil. You may consider religious propaganda promotion, fundy-conservative political spin, theocratic social engineering, institutional promotion of cultural schizophrenia an honorable pursuit. If so, find a group of people who like you are incapable of determining the difference between fact and fiction...there's one born every minute. But don't let me stop you, you actually are performing a service. Most people have no idea how crazy you and your identity group are. Thankyou.

gwangung · 8 February 2007

Just keep presuming I won't return or that I'm incapable of seeing the invincible Chu's fumblings. Hahaha!

But you ARE incapable of common politeness and decency.

You've been repeatedly told Mark's CORRECT last name, yet you persist in purposely mis-stating it.

You, sir, are an impolite, disrepectful asshole. And THAT is proven to my satisfaction.

Sir_Toejam · 8 February 2007

I think he can't really imagine evolution.

LOL. at the risk of sounding pedantic... DUH!

GuyeFaux · 9 February 2007

What I'm saying is that "doggedly demand detail" isn't particularly effective against Sal's M.O.; it just further confirms for us that he's the sort of evasive person we already know he is when he fails to provide such detail.

Ah, got it. I would hope, though, that doggedly demanding detail would also do the same for people who don't know him yet. Insulting him and putting words in his mount actually makes him look better to neutrals than simply sticking to asking for detail. I think he purposefully acts the way he does in order to elicit these reactions.

Torbjörn Larsson · 9 February 2007

your use of the term "primitive" connotes Social Darwinism.

Thank you! I didn't note that, and that nit really needed to be picked. I think the main problem here is that I have seen this term used for these cultures early on. Somehow it stuck as the preferred english term. I googled and got "indigenous people" as the preferred neutral term, used by UN among others. ("Aborigines, native peoples, first peoples, Fourth World, first nations and autochthonous" are among the terms one should forget.) And of course, the second subtext here is that this is primitive math in the real sense, and the third that it was about a creationist. :-)

Popper's Ghost · 10 February 2007

I would hope

Previously you said there was only one way, now you're down to hoping. But ridicule can be an effective strategy, especially in the form of ridiculing his more outrageous claims, and Sal's behavior doesn't really make him look good; that's just your just-so story. As for putting words in his mouth, I have no idea what you're referring to.

DP · 15 February 2007

Yes, but back to this nonsense about information theory. The IDists desperatley want it to be a measure of meaningful content so that they can apply it to genetic code. Even one of their own websites acknowledges that it's not supposed to be used for that.

GuyeFaux · 15 February 2007

As for putting words in his mouth, I have no idea what you're referring to.

So when people demand detail from Sal, to which Sal does nothing but throw words out, people start guessing what he means (i.e. putting words in his mouth). To which he indignantly makes claims about straw-men and intellectual dishonesty. Your quote about my "hoping" was out of context. My position about Sal looking good to neutrals as a result of his M.O. is conjectural. I don't talk to "neutrals."

GuyeFaux · 15 February 2007

As for putting words in his mouth, I have no idea what you're referring to.