Comments on: “Retrospective Fallacy”? http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/retrospective-fallacy/ Serving The Intelligent Design Community Mon, 13 Feb 2012 07:45:22 +0000 hourly 1 By: 2perfection http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/retrospective-fallacy/comment-page-1/#comment-11889 2perfection Thu, 03 Nov 2005 13:21:52 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=442#comment-11889 As the algorithms for predicting the shape of a protien from is components has not yet been discovered you can make no meaningful prediction about how many possible combinations could fulfil a function. You can 'assign' all you want, but its a guess. "these factors take into account variants/perturbations of tokens that belong to the same functional type" Flim-flam. "I also looked through my books on informal logic and fallacies and again found no reference to “retrospective fallacy.” Perhaps I’m missing something. Or perhaps Miller just made it up. " Live and (dont) learn. Below is the link for 'Naturalistic Fallacy', notice that this is a widely understood concept that was 'made up' by G.E. Moore. Maybe Miller will one day be in famous for discovering the retrospective fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy As the algorithms for predicting the shape of a protien from is components has not yet been discovered you can make no meaningful prediction about how many possible combinations could fulfil a function.

You can ‘assign’ all you want, but its a guess.

“these factors take into account variants/perturbations of tokens that belong to the same functional type”

Flim-flam.

“I also looked through my books on informal logic and fallacies and again found no reference to “retrospective fallacy.” Perhaps I’m missing something. Or perhaps Miller just made it up. ”

Live and (dont) learn. Below is the link for ‘Naturalistic Fallacy’, notice that this is a widely understood concept that was ‘made up’ by G.E. Moore. Maybe Miller will one day be in famous for discovering the retrospective fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

]]> By: Daniel512 http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/retrospective-fallacy/comment-page-1/#comment-11725 Daniel512 Wed, 02 Nov 2005 00:35:43 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=442#comment-11725 Just a comment on my former comment: What I wrote in my second google search was ["retrospective fallacy", statisticians] not ["retrospective analysis", statisticians] as I said before. Thanks for the link testers, my point is not that a retrospective fallacy does not exist but that by no means it is common to statisticians jargon or statistics practice... there is nothing like "what statisticians call". It is not like to say "Type I error", "Maximum likelihood" or more casual terms like "cherry-picking". I think that if such an expression exists it is in a completely particular situation but not common to statisticians. Just a comment on my former comment:

What I wrote in my second google search was ["retrospective fallacy", statisticians] not ["retrospective analysis", statisticians] as I said before.

Thanks for the link testers, my point is not that a retrospective fallacy does not exist but that by no means it is common to statisticians jargon or statistics practice… there is nothing like “what statisticians call”. It is not like to say “Type I error”, “Maximum likelihood” or more casual terms like “cherry-picking”. I think that if such an expression exists it is in a completely particular situation but not common to statisticians.

]]> By: testerschoice http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/retrospective-fallacy/comment-page-1/#comment-11625 testerschoice Tue, 01 Nov 2005 03:01:04 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=442#comment-11625 This link might be of assistance Daniel512. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrospective_determinism This link might be of assistance Daniel512.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.....eterminism

]]> By: Daniel512 http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/retrospective-fallacy/comment-page-1/#comment-11624 Daniel512 Tue, 01 Nov 2005 02:13:43 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=442#comment-11624 Retrospective fallacy? “What statisticians call”? I don’t even know what’s that and in a retrospective analysis I don’t remember my teachers speaking about “retrospective fallacy”. I also searched it in my books and neither my statistics nor my probability books speak about it. Now, trying not feeling me so a bad statistician I made a search in google and to [“retrospective fallacy”, statistics] it showed only 8 completely uninteresting results. And when I searched [“retrospective analysis”, statisticians] the only results were the pages quoting Miller. So I rested: it wasn’t me, nor my teachers… my education still seems worthy. Retrospective fallacy? “What statisticians call”? I don’t even know what’s that and in a retrospective analysis I don’t remember my teachers speaking about “retrospective fallacy”. I also searched it in my books and neither my statistics nor my probability books speak about it. Now, trying not feeling me so a bad statistician I made a search in google and to [“retrospective fallacy”, statistics] it showed only 8 completely uninteresting results. And when I searched [“retrospective analysis”, statisticians] the only results were the pages quoting Miller. So I rested: it wasn’t me, nor my teachers… my education still seems worthy.

]]> By: mmadigan http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/retrospective-fallacy/comment-page-1/#comment-11590 mmadigan Mon, 31 Oct 2005 22:36:04 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=442#comment-11590 Debating with K.Miller is like dining chinese...you soon find yourself still hungry. Debating with K.Miller is like dining chinese…you soon find yourself still hungry.

]]> By: DaveScot http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/retrospective-fallacy/comment-page-1/#comment-11579 DaveScot Mon, 31 Oct 2005 14:29:10 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=442#comment-11579 The problem isn't ONE protein. The flagellum, to take one common example, is composed of some 30 *interdependent* proteins. Thus even taking the 10^11 number at face value we still have a probability 1/1.e+330. And the bacterial flagellum isn't particularly complex as far as cellular machinery goes. The problem isn’t ONE protein. The flagellum, to take one common example, is composed of some 30 *interdependent* proteins. Thus even taking the 10^11 number at face value we still have a probability 1/1.e+330. And the bacterial flagellum isn’t particularly complex as far as cellular machinery goes.

]]> By: johnnyb http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/retrospective-fallacy/comment-page-1/#comment-11576 johnnyb Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:33:58 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=442#comment-11576 I have not read the article, but I am told that this article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11287961&dopt=Abstract comes to the following conclusion: "we suggest that functional proteins are sufficiently common in protein sequence space (roughly 1 in 10^11) that they may be discovered by entirely stochastic means, such as presumably operated when proteins were first used by living organisms. However, this frequency is still low enough to emphasize the magnitude of the problem faced by those attempting de novo protein design." 1 in 10^11 for a single functional protein (not necessarily _beneficial_, just _functional_). Crazy. I have not read the article, but I am told that this article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/en.....t=Abstract

comes to the following conclusion:

“we suggest that functional proteins are sufficiently common in protein sequence space (roughly 1 in 10^11) that they may be discovered by entirely stochastic means, such as presumably operated when proteins were first used by living organisms. However, this frequency is still low enough to emphasize the magnitude of the problem faced by those attempting de novo protein design.”

1 in 10^11 for a single functional protein (not necessarily _beneficial_, just _functional_).

Crazy.

]]> By: Bombadill http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/retrospective-fallacy/comment-page-1/#comment-11575 Bombadill Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:27:11 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=442#comment-11575 Miller seems to have his hands in too many facets of the ID debate. He seems to have no apprehension about treading on ground which he's clearly unfamiliar with. It almost seems that he's on some sort of religious crusade and will be stopped by no one. I think he needs to lie down and relax before he makes himself look any sillier. Miller seems to have his hands in too many facets of the ID debate. He seems to have no apprehension about treading on ground which he’s clearly unfamiliar with. It almost seems that he’s on some sort of religious crusade and will be stopped by no one. I think he needs to lie down and relax before he makes himself look any sillier.

]]> By: DaveScot http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/retrospective-fallacy/comment-page-1/#comment-11567 DaveScot Mon, 31 Oct 2005 09:40:01 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=442#comment-11567 Gross improbability still remains even if only 10% of any protein sequence is actually required for its function. It appears Ken has no significant talent with numbers. Either that or he's a liar. Gross improbability still remains even if only 10% of any protein sequence is actually required for its function. It appears Ken has no significant talent with numbers. Either that or he’s a liar.

]]> By: jboze3131 http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/retrospective-fallacy/comment-page-1/#comment-11539 jboze3131 Mon, 31 Oct 2005 06:41:30 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/?p=442#comment-11539 off topic, but i dont see any post lately on the book... Just wanted to mention that I'm reading Signs of Intelligence (the only book the library had in from Mr. Dembski- Bill edited this particular book) and I'm finding it very insightful. Reading all of it but going back and forth between different papers within (started at the front of the book then skipped thru a few then came back to them later..) Nice to read papers on the drive to push out strict materialism from science and society as a whole. Also interesting to see the many things in society affected by materialism. Thanks a lot for all the great books, papers, etc. off topic, but i dont see any post lately on the book…

Just wanted to mention that I’m reading Signs of Intelligence (the only book the library had in from Mr. Dembski- Bill edited this particular book) and I’m finding it very insightful. Reading all of it but going back and forth between different papers within (started at the front of the book then skipped thru a few then came back to them later..) Nice to read papers on the drive to push out strict materialism from science and society as a whole. Also interesting to see the many things in society affected by materialism.

Thanks a lot for all the great books, papers, etc.

]]>