Deconstructing Dembski (2005)

Introduction

In his 2005 paper Specification: the pattern that signifies intelligence, William Dembski tries to give a rigorous definition to his concept of Complex Specified Information (CSI). This paper has numerous problems, the most painful of which is repeated equivocation of terms, making it very difficult to read. Once I got past the equivocation, I discovered basic errors in how probabilities are calculated and interpreted. One error in particular is very hard to swallow, and anyone with a basic understanding of probability should know better. Dembski has a master’s degree in statistics and a PhD in mathematics, therefore it is reasonable to think he knows better. How could he be so wrong?

Here's the spoiler, in case you don't care to read the whole post:

• The concept of CSI in Dembski (2005) is based on a meaningless number, which is interpreted as probability even though it is not. As a consequence, CSI cannot have the meaning and interpretation stated. Dembski's math is wrong.

More after the fold ...

The Creationist 419 Scam

You would think that outrageous claims are so likely to be rejected that the person making the claim would just give up and go away. For an example of this you might check out this Sensuous Curmudgeon post "ICR: Plants Are Not Alive". The Institute for Creation Research claims that because plants do not move and do not have blood, they are not alive, and they justify this based on the Old Testament and a some quadruple backwards spinning logical somersaults that would make Gabby Douglas gawk. There are plenty of other examples, but I won't belabor the point. As my buddies at The Sensuous Curmudgeon often note, the scammers* have to know they have no scientific standing, but they do it anyway. WHY?

Consider a known scam that everyone can agree is a scam; one that is no farther away than your email SPAM folder. Microsoft scientist Cormac Herley has a paper out:

 "Why do Nigerian Scammers
Say They are from Nigeria?" (pdf) 

Edit: Original link seems broken. Try this instead.

... dissecting the mathematics of the Nigerian 419 scam. The Wall Street Journal Online has a less technical summary, see "Why We Should Scam the Scammers".

Here is a brief quote from Herley, with my emphasis added:

"... Far-fetched tales of West African riches strike most as comical. Our analysis suggests that is an advantage to the attacker, not a disadvantage. Since his attack has a low density of victims the Nigerian scammer has an over-riding need to reduce false positives. By sending an email that repels all but the most gullible the scammer gets the most promising marks to self-select, and tilts the true to false positive ratio in his favor."

 Here is Herley again, later on:

"Since gullibility is unobservable, the best strategy is to get those who possess this quality to self-identify. An email with tales of fabulous amounts of money and West African corruption will strike all but the most gullible as bizarre. It will be recognized and ignored by anyone who has been using the Internet long enough to have seen it several times.  [ ... ]  It won’t be pursued by anyone who consults sensible family or fiends, or who reads any of the advice banks and money transfer agencies make available. Those who remain are the scammers ideal targets."

It's brilliant actually. Finding people susceptible to a scam is hard, but weeding out those least susceptible is as easy as concocting a lame story. The more outrageous the tale, the less likely it is to attract those who can see through it, leaving those who are mostly likely to be successfully fleeced by the scammer.

There's is a shorter summary, and an older one; Abraham Lincoln put it like this, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."



The scammers know that most people will apply some amount of logic and reason and reject the obviously incorrect, and this is what they want. They want to weed out the majority who will never buy into the scam, and speak to the few they might fool. When the scammer is the ICR and the marks falls for the false dichotomy that religious belief must overrule scientific knowledge, the scam is particularly insidious.

Herley suggests a response to the 419 scams, to counter-SPAM the scammers with automated responses, false positives that waste time and money and take the profit out of the scam. This would be harder to apply to Creationist scammers, requiring a large number of people (or automated facsimiles) to "Go Poe" and troll the Creationists where they live. That doesn't sound like fun, and it doesn't strike me as ethical. Still, the suggestion has been made before.

* I'd like to make distinction between those who hold to Creationist belief and those those making claims in support of Creation science. The former may hold a sincere belief, but the latter are deliberately lying in an attempt to undermine science and science education.

Ogre versus Troll: Is Intelligent Design Anti-Evolution?

A blogging-friend, who goes by the name of Ogre MkV, is debating another blogger, JoeG, on the topic: Is Intelligent Design Anti-Evolution? Ogre's opening statement is up now at Cassandra's Tears:

Intelligent Design is Anti-evolution (Support Opening)

Having read that, I wanted to get some thoughts down before I read JoeG's response.

1) Ogre MKV makes a strong case that ID is anti-evolution by any reasonable definition. He builds a case that is it first necessary to define intelligent design and what it supports, and then goes on to cite conflicting definitions, all of which are anti-evolution.

2) Of the many people I have encountered via the internet, JoeG may well be the nastiest (thus the "Troll"). The more I think about it, the more I wonder what Ogre was thinking when he agreed to this debate. I will try to keep an open mind about what JoeG might say, but ... I've encountered him before at Uncommon Descent (where he is moderated) and his own blog (where he is vitriolic), and ... I expect more nastiness.

[ ... time passes ...]

And now I'm back from reading JoeG's opening statement, which was rather disappointing, but at least it maintained civility. The post consists primarily of long quotes of things other people (Wells, Behe, Dembski, etc.) say about ID, and winds up saying that ID has little to say about pretty much all aspects of evolutionary theory ... except the "blind watchmaker thesis". The blind watchmaker is a favorite topic that JoeG brings up often, and always as an argument against evolution. Maybe JoeG does not understand what "anti" means? (Ogre thought of that too).

Ogre MkV has cross-posted JoeG's opening statement. I can't actually recommend it, but there it is.

Science Fail #4

Fail #4 refers to an editorial published in the Idaho Press-Tribune. It is copyrighted, so you will need to follow the link to the article, or you can just take my word that it is some amazingly stupid stuff. Much of it refers to old arguments that even Creationist are embarrassed to have even supported.

Evidence doesn’t support theory of evolution

[Via Greg Laden's Blog]


Bonus Section:

The award for the most unexpectedly non-sequitur comment in response to a a science article goes to ...

Morp: I observed an inverse reaction .When pigs call loudly for food you can silence them instantly and for a while by blowing a trumpet   [Found on SCIAM]

Um ... OK ... I don't doubt it ... but ... you play the trumpet to pigs???

Intelligent Anagrams

I like Anagrams.
I like poking fun at Intelligent Design.
I like it when good things go together.

Discovery Institute --> Service Nutty Idiots
Discovery Institute --> It Sired Nutty Voices

Irreducible Complexity --> Extol Imbecilic Prudery
Irreducible Complexity --> Proudly Exert Imbecilic
Irreducible Complexity --> Dourly Imbecilic Expert

Answers in Genesis--> Seesawing Sinner
Answers in Genesis--> Sneering Ass Swine
Answers in Genesis--> Sneering Ass Wines
Answers in Genesis--> Sinners in Sewage
Answers in Genesis--> Ninnies Asses Grew
Answers in Genesis--> Insane Sewer Signs

Brought to you with the services of the Internet Anagram Server at Wordsmith.Org.

Behe bobbles ball to Blind Locksmith

This is a bit much to explain, but Carl Zimmer hosts an enlightening response from biologist Joe Thornton to creationist wannabee Michael Behe's lastest brain-fart.

This is the same Michael Behe who, when Thornton published the first half of this research, declared it “piddling.”
Why the change of heart? Because Behe thinks that the new research shows that evolution cannot produce anything more than tiny changes. And if evolution can’t do it, intelligent design can. (Don’t ask how.)
I pointed out Behe’s posts to Thornton and asked him what he thought of them. Thornton sent me back a lengthy, enlightening reply. Since the Discovery Institute doesn’t allow people to comment on their site, I asked Thornton if I could reprint his message here.

What are you still doing here? Go read the original at The Loom.

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL

Last night I read the post and comments over at Pandas Thumb about the latest kerfluff over a simple search algorithm given by Richard Dawkins in his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker. "Oh That's Easy!" I thought, "It's so simple I could even code that in a spreadsheet."

This morning I did just that, and you can download the spreadsheet and try it yourself.

This being a spreadsheet a manual step is required, and some instructions are needed in any case. Below is a screen-shot of the spreadsheet:



Columns B:I represent 8 letter codes that can be selected. Cells B3:I3 are the "parent" string, randomly generated letter A-Z, and below that are 500 "children" of the parent. Each letter has a 5% chance of being randomly replaced in each child string. (I'll come back to cells B2:I2).
Cells J1:Q1 (black block with yellow text) give a target string "METHINKS". Below this is a grade for the codes of the parent and each child string. Each of the 8 codes receive a 1 (one) if it matches the target, and a 0 (zero) if it does not. Theses grades are totaled to determine the "Score" for each. The maximum score is given, along with a row number of the maximum (used internally, it does not match actual row numbers).

For this first "generation" of children, the maximum number of matches to the target string is 1, and the codes corresponding to the first occurrence of this maximum, or the "best" scoring match, are displayed in cells B2:I2. The maximum Score is 1, and you can see that cell C2 contains the single correct match.

Now comes the manual step, because I don't want to get into macros for automatic updating:


1) Select cells B2:I2 and Copy.
2) Select cell B3.
3) Choose: Paste --> Paste Values. This should replace the contents of cells B3:I3 with what you copied from B2:I2.

The spreadsheet will automatically update (so fast you will probably miss it). Congratulations, you have just created generation #2. As you can see in my example above, the "best" string now has two correct matches. This manual step carries forward any improvement in matching the target string from one generation to the next.

Now repeat the manual step again for generation #3:


My example now has three correct matches. This would not have to be the case - it is possible to get a new generation where the score does not increase. It is even possible that the score among the children could actually go down; there is no latching. A score going down would be rare as I have defined this. I could increase the probability of this happening by increasing the mutation rate. Also, as I have defined this, the Score for the parent is included among the children's Scores, so the maximum Score cannot actually decrease from one generation to the next. That would be easy enough to change.

Generation #4:


Generation #5:


Generation #6:


Generation #7:


Generation #9:


That's right, #9, not #8. My #8 did not improve in Score over #7, and so it stayed the same. In this case you can skip the cut-and-paste step and press the F9 key to recalculate the next generation instead.

Generation #10:


We have arrived! The Best string is now "METHINKS" which matches the target. No embedded information, just a crude sort of random hill-climbing algorithm.

Still this isn't a very good representation of evolution. An improvement representation would be to allow all the highest scoring children to reproduce, not just the first one as in my simple demonstration. I think perhaps Dawkins' original algorithm allowed for this.

I wonder what the folks over at Uncommon Decent will have to say about this?



Here is a link to some other WEASEL algorithms, originally organized by Ian Musgrave. I haven't actually looked at these, but I'll wager they are all better than mine.

DI Luskin DI

It seem that Casey Luskin and the Discover Institute have been hard at work censoring their critics.


*[Hat Tip Pharyngula]

But the video is up again anyway.


* And SHAME on Fox News for not even pretending to challenge obvious falsehood.


and to round things off, some great ones from ThunderfOOt

*

Dance Like a Monkey

[via Pharyngula. PZ seems to get all the good stuff first.]


Some of us may also recall an older generation of Monkees ...

Troubled Waters ... and then a Funny Thing Happened

Noted Scholar gives his take on the merits of Intelligent Design.

It was a rousing good argument back on the SciAm.com blog pages - back when they had blog pages - that started off with comments on an article about Ben Stein's movie and continued on for months in an evolution versus ID free-for-all. Those were truly glory days.

Something surprising happened along the way, amidst the endless argument; I made a friend on the other side. A man of education, intelligence, interest in science, and a deep conviction in his faith. A man with whom I have a very fundamental disagreement on the very basis of science, but one whom I could respect and share an honest conversation. He reminded me that people have a basis for what they believe in, and if you are able to really communicate with them, it is possible to reach common ground. At least you can do this with people who are open and honest, and this man is among the best. We still trade notes and news on a regular basis.

Funny things happen - This post started off as another poke at ID, a boost for a fellow blogger and kindred spirit, and a remembrance of how I got started blogging. Somehow my thoughts were turned to the positive experience I got out of my early evolution/ID discussions, completely off-track from what I had intended to write. That is the nature of blogging I suppose, to share your thoughts, and I'm glad I took the time to share this.

Probability, Statistics, Evolution, and Intelligent Design

Probability, Statistics, Evolution, and Intelligent Design

By Peter Olofsson

Posted November 24, 2008

In the last decades, arguments against Darwinian evolution have become increasingly sophisticated, replacing Creationism by Intelligent Design (ID) and the book of Genesis by biochemistry and mathematics. As arguments claiming to be based in probability and statistics are being used to justify the anti-evolution stance, it may be of interest to readers of Chance to investigate methods and claims of ID theorists.

[See the full article at Talk Reason]

I'd like to give this article more attention, but not today because I'm packing for vacation!

ID Gets Spanked Again

Zachary Moore, a contributor to Goose The Antithesis write about a recent four-way debate in Fort Worth, Texas.

"The Great Debate," as it was billed, was sponsored by St. Andrew's Episcopal Church in Fort Worth, Texas. It featured a four-way roundtable format, with a participant from each quadrant of the atheist/theist and pro-ID/anti-ID axes. I was there along with some fellow members of the North Texas Church of Freethought primarily to see Dr. Lawrence Krauss (atheist/anti-ID) and also, somewhat guiltily, to see Dr. David Berlinski (theist/pro-ID) in action. The field was rounded out by Dr. Denis Alexander (theist/anti-ID) and Dr. Bradley Monton (atheist/pro-ID). The debate was held at the Will Rogers Memorial Auditorium, and I would estimate about 1000 people in attendance.

Click through for the full post at Goose The Antithesis

This sort of debate is getting to be a bit predictable, as rational and coherent arguments do well in any rational and coherent discussion, and the ID proponents end up frustrated.

While I'm on the topic, PZ Myers gives anti-evolution arguments based on the second law of thermodynamics a swift kick in the shorts. AND [update] Jason Rosenhouse follows up with a complete depantsing.

Exposing Expelled

Ben Stein's movie Expelled has been released on DVD, so in case anyone didn't already know, the movie is creationist propaganda. If you missed hearing about it when it came out (and missed the 3 days or so it was shown in the local theater) you might be deceived by the advertising which completely fails to mention that the movie is actually about Intelligent Design. Were I paying for the ads, I suppose I wouldn't mention what the movie was about either, given the dazzling lack-of-interest at the box office. At least I might have done something more creative, like package it as Star Wars Episode 7 - Chewbacca Goes to Charm School. Now THAT would sell DVDs!

The National Center for Science Education created the Exelled Exposed website to help set the record straight, and you can find it here:



Scientific American also provides Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know... which is where I had participated in my first ID vs evolution discussion/argument/head-bang-on-table. Most of that discussion went away with the rest of the SciAm.com blogs and is now lost forever --- or at least until I pull it out of the zip file where I saved all that fun stuff.

The Discovery Institute needs (our) Help

Over at the Opposing Views web site/blog there is a discussion "Does Intelligent Design Have Merit?". I haven't read nearly all the arguments yet, but I followed the comments up to a few days ago. What I see there is a truly legendary stand by one person (PvM of Pandas Thumb fame) who is steadfastly thrashing all comers from the ID side. He makes it look easy too.

Discussion at Pandas Thumb:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/09/the-discovery-i-9.html

Opposing Views Web site:
http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/does-intelligent-design-have-merit

If you take the time to sign in, don't forgot to vote in the related poll.