Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Progress!!! Mathgirl Concedes that “Specified Complexity” is a Meaningfull Concept (if her friends are using it)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Newsflash: ID proponent William Dembski did not coin the term “specified complexity.” That term was coined by celebrated evolutionary materialist Leslie Orgel to describe the criteria by which living organisms are distinguished from non-living matter.

In a previous post I challenged mathgirl to show us why “specified complexity” as used by one of the most famous evolutionary materialists in history is a meaningless concept. In her response she concedes that Orgel’s use of the term is valid, but that when Dembski is using the term he is referring to a different concept.

Progress! Mathgirl finally concedes that the term “specified complexity,” at least as used by Orgel, is a meaningful concept.

Sadly, mathgirl has deluded herself into believing that Orgel and Dembski are using the term in different ways. Let’s examine that claim. Again, Orgel’s formulation of specified complexity:

. . . In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.

Leslie Orgel, The Origins of Life (1973), p. 189.

Dembski describes the concept this way:

A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified.

William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design (1999), p. 47.

Even the most casual observer must conclude that Orgel and Dembski are describing in different ways precisely the same concept.

Conclusion: Mathgirl is OK with the concept of specified complexity so long as it is being used by evolutionary materialists. She says the exact same concept is utterly meaningless if it is being used by ID proponents. Sad really.

Comments
Mathgrrl...?Upright BiPed
April 17, 2011
April
04
Apr
17
17
2011
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
Mathgrrl, It does not go unnoticed that you completely failed (once again) to substantiate your objection. Now, come on. You are an educated adult. You know that to make a valid objection, you are required to substantiate it. It does no good to simply restate your objection in different terms, and pretend that no one will notice what is missing. At some point you are obligated to actually demonstrate that your objection is valid. So, before I finish this post I will (once again) ask you the same question as before. - - - - - - -
Using semiotic language to describe a biochemical process is not, in and of itself, problematic.
I agree that using semiotic language to describe the biochemical process is not a problem, particularly when that process has already been demonstrated to be semiotic.
The issue arises when one equivocates between that language in the limited context it is originally used and the implications of that language in a broader context.
The core concept of semiosis illuminates nothing more than the existence of a relationship between two discrete things. That relationship has been demonstrated to exist at several levels in biology. Any attempt to derail the conversation regarding the core concept of semiosis, or its historical study, or its historical uses, limitations, or otherwise, is nothing more than a demonstration of contempt for the evidence. Allow me to put on my Popperian hat for a moment and remind you that we may label the phenomena anything we wish. The label does not matter; only the reality does. You cannot define it away. Besides contempt…it’s truly a pointless exercise. It is an exercise that does not reflect a search for clarity of terms, but of obfuscation of evidence. If you choose to engage in that tactic, I will keep bringing you back to the phenomenon itself, and the motivations of such an exercise will become readily evident.
Using the language of semiotics to describe a physical process does not logically support the inference to a semiotic agent being responsible for that process.
Well (lol, Mathgrrl) that is what is to be determined. That determination does not come about by edict, it comes from reasoning with the evidence.
I’m not saying anything about those distinctions, I’m merely pointing out that one can’t define an intelligent agent into existence.
I am not defining an agent into existence. If there is an inference to the existence of an agent, that inference is coming from the evidence itself, not from me. You will notice that I am not the one here worried overmuch what our definitions may imply. To the contrary, I am encouraging you to focus on the reality of observation. - - - - - - - Now, having said all this I will return to the question from my previous post. ”Please be specific. On what grounds do you make the distinction that one relationship acts as a code, while another relationship is a code? Also, please tell me how this proposed distinction has been independently validated.” - - - - - - - If you have grounds for making that distinction then say what they are. If you do not have such grounds, then say that you don’t. If you don’t think such grounds are yet known to science, then say why the inference to an agent is invalidated in light of that lack of knowledge. And if you think that this specific inference can be currently upheld, then say so.Upright BiPed
April 15, 2011
April
04
Apr
15
15
2011
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
Understanding CSI- Shnnon Information with meaning/ function of a certain complexity. In “The Nature of Nature” Stephen C Meyer has his essay on the origin of DNA. In that essay he has specified information (and CSI) as being a (specified) subset of the Shannon Information superset:
Within the set of combinatorially possible sequences [Shannon Information], only a very few will convey meaning [specified information]. This smaller set of meaningful sequences, therefore, delimits a domain or pattern within the larger set of the totality of possibilities- page 301
IOW specified information is Shannon information with meaning/ functionality, just as I have been saying.Joseph
April 15, 2011
April
04
Apr
15
15
2011
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed,
Let me understand your point, when Nirenberg concluded that polyuracil was a discrete code mapped to phenylalanine (one discrete object mapped to another) you see this as a flaw in logic by where this relationship is loosly modelled and being described in the language of semiotics?
Using semiotic language to describe a biochemical process is not, in and of itself, problematic. The issue arises when one equivocates between that language in the limited context it is originally used and the implications of that language in a broader context. Using the language of semiotics to describe a physical process does not logically support the inference to a semiotic agent being responsible for that process.
You must intend on removing from the definition of a code what the definition of a code is. Please be specific. On what grounds do you make the distinction that one relationship acts as a code, while another relationship is a code? Also, please tell me how this proposed distinction has been independently validated.
I'm not saying anything about those distinctions, I'm merely pointing out that one can't define an intelligent agent into existence. My goal here is, still, to understand CSI in sufficient detail to test the claims being made about it by ID proponents. If your hypothesis entails testable predictions, please let me know what they are. If it doesn't, I'm going to continue to focus on Dembski's CSI.MathGrrl
April 15, 2011
April
04
Apr
15
15
2011
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT
So Mathgrrl, Let me understand your point, when Nirenberg concluded that polyuracil was a discrete code mapped to phenylalanine (one discrete object mapped to another) you see this as a flaw in logic by where this relationship is loosly modelled and being described in the language of semiotics? You must intend on removing from the definition of a code what the definition of a code is. Please be specific. On what grounds do you make the distinction that one relationship acts as a code, while another relationship is a code? Also, please tell me how this proposed distinction has been independently validated.Upright BiPed
April 14, 2011
April
04
Apr
14
14
2011
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed,
You made the claim that my challenge to you was “not valid”, but just as before, you failed to actually engage the argument in order to substantiate your claim.
That is not true. Your argument hinges on mistaking your map for the territory. You loosely model biochemical structures and reactions using the language of semiotics, then equivocate to conclude that a semiotic agent is required. Basically, as I said before, you're trying to define your terms such that an intelligent agent is required. That's not particularly compelling or interesting. If you have a more detailed version of your argument that doesn't suffer from those flaws, please provide a reference and I'll be happy to take a look at it.MathGrrl
April 14, 2011
April
04
Apr
14
14
2011
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
BREAKING: The collapse of MG's claims on CSI, Dembski, and Durston's FSC metrickairosfocus
April 14, 2011
April
04
Apr
14
14
2011
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
Mathgrrl, You made the claim that my challenge to you was "not valid", but just as before, you failed to actually engage the argument in order to substantiate your claim. Perhaps you view your unsupported dismissal as a small price to pay for the opportunity to lecture others about intellectual honesty. I maintain that you cannot enage my challenge because the evidence is on my side and you would immediately lose the argument. I am still waiting.Upright BiPed
April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
Noesis- Yes or no: Is it stupid to ask someone what someone else would say or is thinking? That was my point...Joseph
April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
Joseph: "Ask Orgel, duh." Orgel died three years ago.Noesis
April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
Someone speaks about the requirements of "intellectual honesty" as they willfully evade valid criticisms.Upright BiPed
April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
Mr. Arrington, "You’ve been found out. Deal with it." Found out? She didn't say what you said she did. How about dealing with that?QuiteID
April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington,
I will not retract an obviously true statement no matter how much you huff.
You made the following claim in reference to me:
QuiteID, she said the concept is meaningless (unless her friends are using it).
That claim is untrue. You cannot produce any support for it. Intellectual honesty requires that you retract it.MathGrrl
April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
Mathgrrl, I will tell you what is ridiculous: Your attempt to convince people that Orgel and Dembski are talking about two different concepts, when that is plainly false. Like the Wizard of Oz you can tell people “don’t look behind that curtain” until you are blue in the face. But I’ve looked behind your curtain, and there is nothing there but a blustering old man. I will not retract an obviously true statement no matter how much you huff. You’ve been found out. Deal with it.Barry Arrington
April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
Barry Arrington,
QuiteID, she said the concept is meaningless (unless her friends are using it).
Please either substantiate this ridiculous and insulting statement or retract it.MathGrrl
April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
I spend a day and a half away and come back to find another thread with my name in it. That's flattering, in a being stalked kind of way. In any case, I regret to inform you that you have created a thread based on a misconception. Here is my response to your similar claim in the previous thread: Barry Arrington,
mathgirl writes: “Reading the source material from Orgel will show that he uses the term “specified complexity” in a subjective, descriptive, qualitative sense.” I take it then that you agree that the concept of CSI as Orgel used it is not meaningless. Good we are making progress.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I meant exactly what I wrote. The concept of "specified complexity" presented by Orgel is not the same as the concept of "specified complexity" discussed by Dembski. I have said nothing about whether or not Orgel's concept is coherent or meaningful.MathGrrl
April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
Mr. Arrington, in an earlier post you referenced both Orgel and Wicken. But Wicken seems to disagree with Dembski's view that information in biological systems is quantifiable. In this respect, his position is closer to MathGrrl's.QuiteID
April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
Green:
MathGrrl, for as much as I’ve followed the debate, has always been civil and stuck to the point.
Her "point" is bogus and all she has to do is read "No Free Lunch". But she won't because she wants only to muddy the waters.Joseph
April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
Ask Orgel, duh.Joseph
April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT
Barry:
Even the most casual observer must conclude that Orgel and Dembski are describing in different ways precisely the same concept.
Perhaps casual observation isn't enough to determine that Dembski's and Orgel's concepts are precisely the same. Let's look at a few more examples: 1) The sequence DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD 2) A perfectly rectangular monolith Would Orgel say that these are complex like living organisms, or non-complex like crystals?R0bb
April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
Green, perhaps you fail to understand the issues to the point that your perspective reflects that failing. Not to worry though. Things is life happen, and there is always the person who steps up to say that Mr So-n-So always seemed like a nice person, or that they always kept a nice yard. It takes all kinds, and the world needs people like that too.Upright BiPed
April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
Comments like this really put me off this site.
But then again there are those of us who resisted the urge to "pile on" and instead deleted our intended comments. So perhaps there is yet hope for UD. And you're likely to find "comments like this" almost anywhere that's not very strictly moderated. Consider that some people have found it difficult to believe that MathGrrl is open minded and truly in search of a shared understanding rather than coming here with pre-conceived notions and biases and merely seeking to re-enforce those. Think about the ways in which the original OP submitted by MathGrrl could have been different. I'll freely admit that my "troll meter" immediately went haywire. Others have suffered through hundreds of posts.Mung
April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT
Sadly, mathgirl has deluded herself into believing...
Mostly, MathGrrl has a problem with reason
Comments like this really put me off this site. MathGrrl, for as much as I've followed the debate, has always been civil and stuck to the point. In return, I've noticed many IDers (who I'd think would be more respectful) to be vitriolic and full of ad hominems. Why not just state the argument or response to her without any contemptuous jabs.Green
April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT
Mostly, MathGrrl has a problem with reason, as far as I can tell.tgpeeler
April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
So MathGrrl has an issue wth the metric system?Joseph
April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
Mr. Arrington, I only see her saying that the "metric" is meaningless. A concept can me meaningful (like "life" "love" or "God") even if a metric applied to that concept is meaningless.QuiteID
April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
QuiteID, she said the concept is meaningless (unless her friends are using it).Barry Arrington
April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
jon specter, I did not say what her response "would be." I said what it was. You can deny that if you like, but Darwinist denials of the irrefutable are getting so tedious, don't you think?Barry Arrington
April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
Did Mathgrrl say the "concept" was meaningless, or the "metric"? There's a difference.QuiteID
April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
I thought it was a little unfair for you to state, in a comment on the other post, what you think Mathgrrl's response would be without actually, you know, giving her the opportunity to respond. But, to promote it to a whole other post goes well beyond fairness. I am led to understand that you are an attorney. Would you allow opposing counsel to pull such a stunt when cross-examining your witness?jon specter
April 12, 2011
April
04
Apr
12
12
2011
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply