TSZ has made much ado about P(T|H), a conditional probability based on a materialistic hypothesis. They don’t seem to realize that H pertains to their position and that H cannot be had means their position is untestable. The only reason the conditional probability exists in the first place is due to the fact that the claims of evolutionists cannot be directly tested in a lab. If their claims could be directly tested then there wouldn’t be any need for a conditional probability.
If P(T|H) cannot be calculated it is due to the failure of evolutionists to provide H and their failure to find experimental evidence to support their claims.
I know what the complaints are going to be- “It is Dembski’s metric”- but yet it is in relation to your position and it wouldn’t exist if you actually had something that could be scientifically tested.
Oh boy, more JoeMath! 😀
Joe, I am not convinced that you even know what a conditional probability is.
Could you please help me out here,
how is p(T|H) related to p(H|T)?
Thanks
Could you be a little more specific? What are the T and H you are thinking of here? What are a couple of particular claims you can’t find evidence for?
In this context P(T|H) is the probability that materialistic processes can produce something T, given the relevant materialistic hypothesis. P(H|T) would be about a Player getting a Hat Trick.
From Dembski 2005 pg 18: (for example)
T can be any biological system, subsystem or structure.
For example? Are you claiming that nothing at all in any organism can be produced by material processes?
And is it at all weird that Dembski defines all natural processes as chance? In what sense is natural selection equivalent to chance? Is the direction an apple takes when it detaches from a tree also chance?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity
JoeFrankie [oops!], I am not convinced that you even know what a conditional probability is.Could you please help me out here,
how is p(T|H) related to p(H|T)?
So you don’t know what a conditional probability is.
Thanks for the clarification.
Nothing in real science depends on the value of H. Why is it real science’s job to calculate the value and not the IDiots who are relying on it?
If it can’t be calculated then the blame lies with someone other than the IDist, by the definition of the metric. When you have no victories, pyrrhic ones will have to do.
John Harshman,
Pick one and test it.
Until the system is in place natural selection isn’t involved. Also NS is just an eliminative process and is only non-random in a trivial sense, ie that not all change has the same probability of being eliminated. IOW it is all contingent serendipity
LOL! That is neither an argument nor a refutation. Make a case
And to the other posters- if your position can’t even produce a testable hypothesis then it ain’t science. It is not up to Dembski to formulate testable hypotheses for the claims of your position.
How good your hypotheses are say how good the claims of your position are.
Finally, something said by Frankie that everyone can agree with. Good job Frankie.
ID doesn’t have a single testable hypothesis. What does that say about how good the ID claims are?
There will be another thread dealing with my detractors’ bogus posts about ID. This thread has a topic.
Deal with it. Thank you
As best I can tell, the topic seems to be: “I don’t understand what conditional probability is, so please don’t explain it to me.”
Make your case, Neil. Otherwise your snide means nothing. I am going by what Dembski wrote. Are you saying he was incorrect? From what I know of the two of you I would say you are wrong
I think that a large number of people have said that he is incorrect. People who are actually qualified to speak on the subject.
So you don’t know what a conditional probability is.
Thanks for the clarification.
Quite right, it’s an observation. Based on your OP and comments on this thread, you don’t understand what p(T|H) means, so there really isn’t much point in discussing the subject until you educate yourself. Come back when you can answer the question :
how is p(T|H) related to p(H|T)?
Again that is neither an argument nor a refutation. Are you saying that Dembski didn’t know what he was talking about? What I said was what he said. And you say I don’t know what I am talking about.
Make your case
Frankie is admitting CSI has never been calculated. Progress.
DNA_Jock,
P(H|T) is not in the Dembski’s paper. But…
If P(T|H) is: Next, define p = P(T|H) as the probability for the chance formation for the bacterial flagellum. T, here, is conceived not as a pattern but as the evolutionary event/pathway that brings about that pattern (i.e., the bacterial flagellar structure). Moreover, H, here, is the relevant chance hypothesis that takes into account Darwinian and other material mechanisms.
Then P(H|T) would be the probability the target has a hypothesis.
And for the willfully ignorant and mentally challenged:
P(T|H) is not about calculating CSI. Neither CSI nor complex specified information appear in Dembski’s paper that discusses P(T|H). That paper is about specification only. And yes it could be used with CSI but again that would also require a chance hypothesis which evolutionists could not provide.
The method for calculating CSI is in “No Free Lunch”.
ROFLMAO
Or T could be the phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.
Frankie:
Holy crap, that’s funny.
Another big payout in Frankie roulette. Keep spinning that wheel, folks.
keiths,
It seems math is his, um, specialty.
For Frankie’s sake, we’ll need to come up with a choo-choo train metaphor for P(T|H) and P(H|T).
This is an amazing thread. Thank you Frankie, I needed this.
Nice quote mine. It’s as if you are afraid to actually make an argument
Still too afraid to actually make your case. Sweet
OK so evolutionists are all upset because there isn’t any way to test their claims so they attack me with nonsense and bloviations.
Life is good. And thank you for admitting that your position has nothing
P(T|H) is from Dembski’s paper “Specification” 2005. And it is a given that he understands mathematics better than any and all of the TSZ regulars. So all you are doing by trying to attack the math is proving that you are desperate because you don’t have anything else to say about it- meaning you don’t have any way to test your position’s claims.
Typical FrankenJoe to start a thread on a topic he doesn’t understand even a little. 😀
Dumbski may know a bit of math but he sucks at evolutionary biology almost as bad as you do FrankenJoe.
Priceless. Phoodooesque. Start more threads, Joe!
I think most of the interest has been in your understanding of your own untestable position. Remember ,per one of you, ID is not anti- evolution so any problem with the testabilty of evolution would in turn affect the probability of ID as well. That is if ID ever got around to proposing an actual mechanism used by the actual designer.
ID is testable and we have said exactly how to test it. Willful ignorance is not an argument. Also the mechanism is not required to determine ID exists. Heck we don’t even know how Stonehenge was built and everything we know about it came after it was determined to be intelligently designed and studied under that light. You don’t even ask about the mechanism used until ID has been determined.
And the fact that evolutionism is untestable just makes the case for ID stronger. It shows there aren’t any viable alternatives to ID.
But I digress, please stay on-topic
Except as an academic exercise, IDists should dump the CSI V2 and these elephant calculations. Time to move on.
🙂
The question is not whether Dembski knows what p(T|H) is (he does), but rather whether JoeG/Frankie knows. And he has demonstrated on this thread that he does not know.
Frankie, before you author an OP about p(T|H), you should find out what it means. Then you will be able to answer simple queries such as
how is p(T|H) related to p(H|T)?
rather than blindly quoting text that you evidently do not comprehend.
see you then.
LoL! Still too afraid to actually make your case. Great.
The question is can evolutionists test the claims of their position. And the answer is a resounding no, they cannot. They can only attack the messenger as if that will help them win something
AGAIN P(H|T) is not part of Dembski’s paper and because of that irrelevant. It would be up to DNA jockitch to define it, not me, as it is the one proposing it.
Really? Can you point me to a known designed artifact in which there is absolutely no knowledge of the mechanisms, or possible mechanism of construction? We know that Stonehenge could be built with the technology of the day, but because there are no written records, we can never be sure which methods were actually used.
When is ID going to start postulating on the mechanisms used to realize the non-god designer’s design? It repeatedly claims that ID in biology has been demonstrated. It is time to put up or shut up. Darwin proposed his theory without knowing the mechanism, but scientists (real ones, not the ones like Gauger et. al.) very quickly started looking for the mechanism.
Wow! That’s a very interesting position for an ID-ist to stake out. You are saying that p(H|T) is irrelevant?
May I quote you?
LMAO
The joys of writing about things you don’t understand then stumbling across experts … :p
The good Reverend Thomas Bayes would be spinning in his grave if he read this thread.
So you’re saying that P(S|R)=1? But of course P(R) is pretty much 0, so no big thing.
LOL. Well played.
That’s why I like to post here. No danger of running into any experts.
Indeed. It’s not like one of most highly-cited biologists of all time regularly posts here or anything.
Hmm. How would you categorize the recipient of the Darwin-Wallace Medal,
the John J. Carty Award for the Advancement of Science, and
the International Prize for Biology?