Jump to content


Photo

Free Scientists Lecture !


  • Please log in to reply
214 replies to this topic

#21 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 18 May 2008 - 01:13 PM

In the case of evolutionary theory, we don't think it is likely true because scientists accept it.  Rather, scientists accept it because it is likely true, and that is because the vast preponderance of scientists are convinced by the evidence.  In other words, evolution isn't an appeal to authority but to evidence from the natural world.

View Post

I italicized this. You appear to directly contradict yourself in the space of two sentences.

If you mean to claim evolutionism was historically accepted on the basis of scientific merit, I think you are mistaken. I've been looking into this issue for a couple of months, and the only case I've found of a "young earth" scientist "converting" to evolutionism is William Sumner. (Better details at this link.) Oddly (or not), it wasn't Darwin's biological work that seems to be the cause, but the appeal of Social Darwinism.

I might've started a new thread, but from comparing your post count to your join date, it does not seem to be a good idea just yet.

Edit for clarification: Sumner's the only 19th century case. I refer to the times when evolutionists became more numerous in the "scientific community" than creationists.

But the topic of this thread is Gitt information, and the point I actually raised is that its only way into the classroom is by way of becoming part of mainstream science, because mainstream science is what taught in science class.  Theories to which only a few percent or less of scientists adhere don't find their way into textbooks or curriculums.

--Percy

I don't know about that. Gitt's definition is much closer to a proper one than Shannon's. It could get in through dictionaries :lol: . Intentional or not, Shannon's definition does not match up well at all with the English word "information". Meaningless gobbledy-gook isn't what usually comes to mind when one encounters the term.

That Gitt's definition of information is not the traditional one often causes confusion. Gitt offers a definition of information that renders evolution impossible, then people take this definition to discussion boards like this one and claim that information theory says evolution is impossible. Other people then point out that information theory by no means renders evolution impossible. It's then quickly discovered that people are using two different definitions of information, one provided by Claude Shannon and extremely widely accepted within the mathematical, scientific and computing communities, and another provided by Werner Gitt that has not yet found much acceptance.

It is noteworthy that you say Gitt's definition renders evolution impossible. As his definition is a far better match to the normal version of the term, evolutionists may well be in a bind.

If Gitt's definition renders evolution impossible, and the primary feature of his definition is that it contains meaning; how then does the obvious, undisputed existence of meaningful information impact the issue?

#22 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 18 May 2008 - 01:37 PM

I can say that mainstream science is controlled  by atheists, so they ignore evidences against evolution because they would have to accept the existence of God.  Scientists that don't accept evolution are pursued and don't have their papers published in mainstream media.


Well, I don't believe this is true, but my point stands regardless. What is taught in science class is mainstream science, and Gitt's views on information cannot have any impact on the classroom until they first have an impact on mainstream science.

--Percy

#23 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 18 May 2008 - 03:26 PM

Well, I don't believe this is true, but  my point stands regardless.  What is taught in science class is mainstream science, and Gitt's views on information cannot have any impact on the classroom until they first have an impact on mainstream science. 

--Percy

View Post


Yes, it is only a case of believing.That´s the reason evolution is only a religion censuring opposite theories.

#24 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 18 May 2008 - 05:13 PM

Yes, it is only a case of believing. That´s the reason evolution is only a religion censuring opposite theories.

View Post


Well, I don't believe this is true, either, but maybe you could take up all these off-topic issues you're raising in other threads, because the topic here is Gitt information. The problem for Gitt advocates is that they can't have any influence on science if they don't present their ideas to other scientists.

--Percy

#25 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 19 May 2008 - 02:50 AM

Well, I don't believe this is true, either, but maybe you could take up all these off-topic issues you're raising in other threads, because the topic here is Gitt information.  The problem for Gitt advocates is that they can't have any influence on science if they don't present their ideas to other scientists.

--Percy

View Post


You are not talking about Gitt information either.You are only saying that any theory must be accepted by mainstream scientists to be true.

They presented his ideas to other scientists, even you know his ideas.But as you said Gitt information theory makes evolution impossible, without evolution is difficult to be an atheist.So, you and the mainstream scientists, who are atheists like you , ignore his theory without pointing out any error in it.

Why dont you show any error in Gitt Theory instead of using fallacious arguments ?

#26 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 19 May 2008 - 04:01 AM

You are not talking about Gitt information either.You are only saying that any theory must be accepted by mainstream scientists to be true.

They presented his ideas to other scientists, even you know his ideas.But as you said Gitt information theory makes evolution impossible, without evolution is difficult to be an atheist.So, you and the mainstream scientists, who are atheists like you , ignore his theory without pointing out any error in it.

Why dont you show any error in Gitt Theory instead of using fallacious arguments ?

View Post

Whisht! Don't you know it's more fun for everyone this way?

They get to gloat: " :o You may be right, but you can't make us admit it!"
We get to laugh :lol: 'cause that's nothing to gloat about.

#27 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 19 May 2008 - 06:21 AM

You are not talking about Gitt information either..

View Post


But I am talking about Gitt information, you've just chosen to respond about other things. For example, I pointed out that one of the key differences between Shannon and Gitt information is that Gitt includes meaning as part of his definition.

You are only saying that any theory must be accepted by mainstream scientists to be true.

View Post


Oh, no, no, I'm not saying that at all. This may seem subtle, but the distinction is important. Scientists do not believe a theory is likely true because it is accepted. Rather, they think it has become accepted because it is likely true. If it weren't likely true then it couldn't have passed the many tests that convinced scientists to accept it.

They presented his ideas to other scientists, even you know his ideas.

View Post


I've only encountered Gitt's ideas at sites like Answers in Genesis, so I couldn't really say how great an effort Gitt has made in presenting his ideas to the scientific community. Whatever the magnitude of that effort, obviously it has been insufficient thus far since his ideas have had no impact scientifically.

But as you said Gitt information theory makes evolution impossible, without evolution is difficult to be an atheist.

View Post


I'm actually a theist, but the list of available worldviews on the profile page only includes 3 non-creationist options: atheist, agnostic and theistic evolutionist. Though I'm a theist who accepts evolution, theistic evolutionist is such a vague classification as to be misleading most of the time. I'm definitely not an atheist or an agnostic, either. But "none of the above" was not an option, so since I don't accept anything resembling a Christian God I chose the worldview that would be least misleading. I'm really not an atheist, and many scientists are not atheists, either.

So, you and the mainstream scientists, who are atheists like you , ignore his theory without pointing out any error in it.  Why don't you show any error in Gitt Theory instead of using fallacious arguments?

View Post


I haven't offered any arguments against Gitt's ideas so far, so I don't see how I could be accused of making any fallacious arguments. My main point is that the best way For Gitt to get a detailed examination of his ideas is to present them to the scientific community, but if you'd like to discuss anything specific about his ideas I'd be more than happy to do so.

--Percy

#28 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 19 May 2008 - 02:23 PM

But I am talking about Gitt information, you've just chosen to respond about other things.  For example, I pointed out that one of the key differences between Shannon and Gitt information is that Gitt includes meaning as part of his definition.


And so what ?

Oh, no, no, I'm not saying that at all.  This may seem subtle, but the distinction is important.  Scientists do not believe a theory is likely true because it is accepted.  Rather, they think it has become accepted because it is likely true.  If it weren't likely true then it couldn't have passed the many tests that convinced scientists to accept it.


Likely true is a subjective definition, I´m not seeing any argumentation about Gitt Theory being or not likely true.

I've only encountered Gitt's ideas at sites like Answers in Genesis, so I couldn't really say how great an effort Gitt has made in presenting his ideas to the scientific community.  Whatever the magnitude of that effort, obviously it has been insufficient thus far since his ideas have had no impact scientifically.


On the contrary, it had an intolerable impact :o

I haven't offered any arguments against Gitt's ideas so far, so I don't see how I could be accused of making any fallacious arguments.  My main point is that the best way For Gitt to get a detailed examination of his ideas is to present them to the scientific community, but if you'd like to discuss anything specific about his ideas I'd be more than happy to do so.


Appeal of Authority or Argumentum ad Populum are fallacies you are using.

The Acceptance of Scientific Community is irrelevant , 2 + 2 is 4 independently if who says is an illiterate, a Phd in mathematics or scientific community.

I believe we have brains to use them.So, I think you can have your own opinion despite of atheists scientists :lol: Oh excuse me, scientific community.

#29 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 19 May 2008 - 05:52 PM

But I am talking about Gitt information, you've just chosen to respond about other things.  For example, I pointed out that one of the key differences between Shannon and Gitt information is that Gitt includes meaning as part of his definition.
....

View Post



I would just like to add a few points to the discussion of the way "mainstream science" works and support the comments by Percy. Gitt's definitions are a very good example, because the issue really does not need to be about evolution or creationism but about how a scientific term is used in science and how papers produce impact. Gitt's books (like most general books for the lay audience) do not play by academic rules for inclusion into mainstream science. And as far as I can tell, Gitt has never attempted to publish a paper about his notion of information in an academic journal (please correct me if I am wrong) so we do not even know whether he has made an effort to attract information scientists to his point of view.

I have commented on his book elsewhere. The main conclusions he makes in his book in the final chapter are about the amount of information contained in the Bible, and I have not seen anyone who has successfully summarized his logic regarding evolution. I think this is because it is not logical, but that is simply my opinion based on my background in information theory. I am happy to let someone make another effort to summarize it if they feel there is some important logic there that I have missed.
http://www.evolution...st=

Mainstream science and publications in mainstream science do have a number of rules. Graduate students are typically trained to understand these rules. Many of these rules have very good reasons and many are simply tradition. Many rules are a combination of both.

For example, you are required to cite all relevant predecessors and accurately describe the history of the science that led to your paper. You will be rejected quickly if you demonstrate that you do not understand the history correctly, even if you have a worthwhile experiment or hypothesis. You must demonstrate you understand the issues and history of any field where you wish to publish. You can not reinvent ideas or take credit for ideas that have already been published. Even if you do get published, a poorly written paper will likely be ignored even if it has good ideas.

Another rule is that you must understand the accepted definitions in your field. Whether you are using a term like "meter" or "axiom" or "entropy" or "information" you must understand precisely what the terms mean in your field. You are welcome to include new terms and new information. However, you cannot simply redefine terms at your convenience. Science depends on consistent use of terms and again, any paper that is not consistent will be rejected.

For example, the scientific term "information" is not the same as that used in everyday language. It is extremely well defined, and serves as the basis of modern computers, image, compression, communication across the internet, biology, chemistry, physics etc etc. It is the standard. It is mainstream and it is extremely powerful and useful. In any scientific paper where you use the term properly, scientists will know exactly what you mean without needing to explain it. You may not like the term, but that is tough. You will have as much luck changing that as changing the definition of "meter".

However, even Shannon was well aware that his definition comes up short when we want to describe the "meaning" of the stimulus. Hundreds of academic papers have addressed this issue and you will see terms like "semantic information" to qualify the definition. Even on this website, I believe Fred has made an effort to restrict and qualify the use of the term (quite correctly) because of the confusion by those that have scientific training and assume that the term "information" applies to the standard scientific term (Shannon information).

Ok. Now let me try to briefly explain why including "meaning" is so difficult when talking about information.
Imagine I have four possible signals and assume they have equal probability. Call them
A, B, C, and D.

Now imagine that you do not know what signal I am about to send but you are waiting patiently.
If I give you the answer C, I have provided you information. From the Shannon point of view, I have given you two bits of information.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Information

The view of information as a message came into prominence with the publication in 1948 of an influential paper by Claude Shannon, "A Mathematical Theory of Communication." This paper provides the foundations of information theory and endows the word information not only with a technical meaning but also a measure. If the sending device is equally likely to send any one of a set of N messages, then the preferred measure of "the information produced when one message is chosen from the set" is the base two logarithm of N (This measure is called self-information).


Now imagine, that each of the letters has the following meanings.
A. represents (means) the Oxford English Dictionary
B. represents the book of Genesis
C. represents my cat
D. represents nothing.

Ok. Now, how much information is represented by "C"? There is no easy way to quantify this from the point of view of meaning. It depends a lot on the receiver (if you knew my cat was Siamese does C provide more meaning?). It also depends on the honesty of the signal and the interpretation. How much information is sent if you thought C represented your cat but I thought it represented my cat?

These difficulties do not imply that the general mathematical theory of information can not include 'meaning'. However, semantic information quickly gets into a quagmire and there is no simple approach to quantifying and measuring the "meaning" of a signal. Many people have tried and failed.

If someone here really thinks Gitt is making a substantial contribution to information theory then they should encourage Gitt to begin by taking out the religion (and the evolution) and submit a proper mathematical paper to a journal of information science. If they then think they can apply that new theory to evolutionary theory, then they should follow that paper with a mathematically rigorous paper (with proper citations) applying that mathematical theory to evolutionary theory.

Creationists may not like these rules, but these are the rules of science. No one in science gets a free ticket. Most graduate students in mainstream science never end up with papers that have serious impact. It is hard work and usually takes a deep understanding of the field to be capable of communicating a new idea - and it is even harder coming up with a new idea that has merit.

Well, hope that helps. Although I am sure few Creationists would agree. For most areas outside of mainstream science (astrology, aliens, bigfoot, ESP etc), I have noticed that is often easier to believe there is a conspiracy against them than to accept the possibility that it is their science that has failed.

James

#30 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 19 May 2008 - 06:17 PM

Well, I disagree with much that you say, but for the most part those are other matters and the focus here should be on Gitt information. If there's anything you'd like to discuss about Gitt information and its status as science just let me know.

--Percy

#31 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 20 May 2008 - 05:08 AM

I would just like to add a few points to the discussion of the way "mainstream science" works and support the comments by Percy. Gitt's definitions are a very good example, because the issue really does not need to be about evolution or creationism but about how a scientific term is used in science and how papers produce impact. Gitt's books (like most general books for the lay audience) do not play by academic rules for inclusion into mainstream science. And as far as I can tell, Gitt has never attempted to publish a paper about his notion of information in an academic journal (please correct me if I am wrong) so we do not even know whether he has made an effort to attract information scientists to his point of view.

I have commented on his book elsewhere. The main conclusions he makes in his book in the final chapter are about the amount of information contained in the Bible, and I have not seen anyone who has successfully summarized his logic regarding evolution. I think this is because it is not logical, but that is simply my opinion based on my background in information theory. I am happy to let someone make another effort to summarize it if they feel there is some important logic there that I have missed.
http://www.evolution...st=

Mainstream science and publications in mainstream science do have a number of rules. Graduate students are typically trained to understand these rules. Many of these rules have very good reasons and many are simply tradition. Many rules are a combination of both.

For example, you are required to cite all relevant predecessors and accurately describe the history of the science that led to your paper. You will be rejected quickly if you demonstrate that you do not understand the history correctly, even if you have a worthwhile experiment or hypothesis. You must demonstrate you understand the issues and history of any field where you wish to publish. You can not reinvent ideas or take credit for ideas that have already been published. Even if you do get published, a poorly written paper will likely be ignored even if it has good ideas.

Another rule is that you must understand the accepted definitions in your field. Whether you are using a term like "meter" or "axiom" or "entropy" or "information" you must understand precisely what the terms mean in your field. You are welcome to include new terms and new information. However, you cannot simply redefine terms at your convenience. Science depends on consistent use of terms and again, any paper that is not consistent will be rejected.

For example, the scientific term "information" is not the same as that used in everyday language. It is extremely well defined, and serves as the basis of modern computers, image, compression, communication across the internet, biology, chemistry, physics etc etc. It is the standard. It is mainstream and it is extremely powerful and useful. In any scientific paper where you use the term properly, scientists will know exactly what you mean without needing to explain it. You may not like the term, but that is tough. You will have as much luck changing that as changing the definition of "meter".

However, even Shannon was well aware that his definition comes up short when we want to describe the "meaning" of the stimulus. Hundreds of academic papers have addressed this issue and you will see terms like "semantic information" to qualify the definition. Even on this website, I believe Fred has made an effort to restrict and qualify  the use of the term (quite correctly) because of the confusion by those that have scientific training and assume that the term "information" applies to the standard scientific term (Shannon information).

  Ok. Now let me try to briefly explain why including "meaning" is so difficult when talking about information.
  Imagine I have four possible signals and assume they have equal probability. Call them
    A, B, C, and D.

  Now imagine that you do not know what signal I am about to send but you are waiting patiently.
If I give you the answer C, I have provided you information. From the Shannon point of view, I have given you two bits of information.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Information
Now imagine, that each of the letters has the following meanings.
  A. represents (means) the Oxford English Dictionary
  B. represents the book of Genesis
  C. represents my cat
  D. represents nothing.

Ok. Now, how much information is represented by "C"?  There is no easy way to quantify this from the point of view of meaning. It depends a lot on the receiver (if you knew my cat was Siamese does C provide more meaning?). It also depends on the honesty of the signal and the interpretation. How much information is sent if you thought C represented your cat but I thought it represented my cat?

These difficulties do not imply that the general mathematical theory of information can not include 'meaning'. However, semantic information quickly gets into a quagmire and there is no simple approach to quantifying and measuring the "meaning" of a signal. Many people have tried and failed. 

    If someone here really thinks Gitt is making a substantial contribution to information theory then they should encourage Gitt to begin by taking out the religion (and the evolution) and submit a proper mathematical paper to a journal of information science. If they then think they can apply that new theory to evolutionary theory, then they should follow that paper with a mathematically rigorous paper (with proper citations) applying that mathematical theory to evolutionary theory.

Creationists may not like these rules, but these are the rules of science. No one in science gets a free ticket. Most graduate students in mainstream science never end up with papers that have serious impact. It is hard work and usually takes a deep understanding of the field to be capable of communicating a new idea - and it is even harder coming up with a new idea that has merit.

Well, hope that helps. Although I am sure few Creationists would agree. For most areas outside of mainstream science (astrology, aliens, bigfoot, ESP etc), I have noticed that is often easier to believe there is a conspiracy against them than to accept the possibility that it is their science that has failed.

  James

View Post

James,
Wow! You did a thorough job of sharing the mainstream scientific process about how things in science are defined and well understood. And that mainstream scientists use the definitions throughout their work and publications. I want to use your words specifically........

Another rule is that you must understand the accepted definitions in your field. Whether you are using a term like "meter" or "axiom" or "entropy" or "information" you must understand precisely what the terms mean in your field. You are welcome to include new terms and new information. However, you cannot simply redefine terms at your convenience. Science depends on consistent use of terms and again, any paper that is not consistent will be rejected.


Oh if were so.....

Now I know this changes the subject a little, but I would like you to defend this claim in regards to the TOE. I will let you select from two words. Homology or Species. I think you would agree that these two words are central to the TOE. Without properly defining the two words, I hope you would agree that the TOE is really open to wide interpretation and vagueness if these two words do not have a clearly understood definition.

So please present to me the scientific community's accepted definition of either of these two terms. I want to see how well these "rules" apply. And of course, I hope you will be prepared to defend the definition you choose.

#32 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 20 May 2008 - 05:46 AM

While I am, of course, a mere member and not a moderator, I'd still like to make two suggestions:
  • Quotes need only include the relevant portion of a message.

  • Threads should stay on topic. Any discussion of the vagueness of evolutionary terms should be taken to another thread.
Again, I'm not a moderator, feel free to ignore me.

--Percy

#33 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 20 May 2008 - 07:21 AM

While I am, of course, a mere member and not a moderator, I'd still like to make two suggestions:

  • Quotes need only include the relevant portion of a message.







  • Threads should stay on topic.  Any discussion of the vagueness of evolutionary terms should be taken to another thread.
Again, I'm not a moderator, feel free to ignore me.

--Percy

View Post

Just out of curiosity, don't you think that maybe the "rules of science" lecture is also off topic a little bit.?

#34 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 20 May 2008 - 08:23 AM

Just out of curiosity,  don't you think that maybe the "rules of science" lecture is also off topic a little bit?

View Post


Ignore me if you disagree, I'm not a moderator, but I'm going to pass on this "yet another opportunity" to go off-topic.

--Percy

#35 OriginMan

OriginMan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Louisiana

Posted 20 May 2008 - 08:40 AM

Ignore me if you disagree, I'm not a moderator, but I'm going to pass on this "yet another opportunity" to go off-topic.

--Percy

View Post


Trying to stay on topic is rarely possible.

If explaining one thing leads to the need of something that also needs an explanation, than how is that off topic ?

Tis a good way to aviod the discussion, but is fruitless when trying to discuss a topic.

It's like saying let's talk about Banana's, but not where they come from.

Evolutionists are the most famous for this.

Always wanting to talk about conclusions, but never wanting to talk about the formula/root that allows them those conclusions.

Eitherway you can't talk ToE without talking Creation, They are one in the same class of science. Historical Assumption Science that is.

#36 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 20 May 2008 - 09:49 AM

Ignore me if you disagree, I'm not a moderator, but I'm going to pass on this "yet another opportunity" to go off-topic.

--Percy

View Post


Percy,

That's OK, you don't have to respond. Most usually shy away when their arguments start to disentegrate. Jamesf made a long argument of some "rules" within science. He made some bold claims. All I did was cite exactly what he said, and then I asked him to defend that in regards to two words that are foundational for TOE.

This is a forum for civil debate on the topics of TOE. Werner Gitts theories were challenged as not being scientific. There are evidently some "rules" that he is not following. I just wanted to see if others in the scientific community don't follow those "rules" either.

#37 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 20 May 2008 - 10:27 AM

Hi CTD,

Sorry, I somehow missed your post from Sunday, only saw it just now.

I italicized this. You appear to directly contradict yourself in the space of two sentences.

If you mean to claim evolutionism was historically accepted on the basis of scientific merit, I think you are mistaken.

View Post


The goal of science is to find general explanations for evidence that are also predictive. These explanations are called theories. This means that scientists do not believe a theory is likely true because it is accepted. Rather, they believe it is accepted because it is likely true, having passed a number of tests of its predictions. When a theory is strongly supported by evidence and has passed a number of tests then one would normally consider it to have, using your terminology, scientific merit.

I don't know about that. Gitt's definition is much closer to a proper one than Shannon's.


If Gitt's definition represents an improvement upon Shannon's, then Gitt has only to present his definition via peer-reviewed journals and conferences for the scientific community to examine.

It is noteworthy that you say Gitt's definition renders evolution impossible. As his definition is a far better match to the normal version of the term, evolutionists may well be in a bind.


It isn't me saying that Gitt information theory renders evolution impossible. I was just repeating Gitt's own claim from that lecture linked to in message 1. Information theory doesn't actually find much application in evolutionary research compared to other fields. Computer science, communications, physics and mathematics would be the fields with the most appropriate audience.

If Gitt's definition renders evolution impossible, and the primary feature of his definition is that it contains meaning; how then does the obvious, undisputed existence of meaningful information impact the issue?

View Post


Meaning or semantics are not part of information theory. The main problem that Shannon was trying to solve at Bell Labs was how to transmit information, which he defined as sequences of 0s and 1s, in the presence of noise. When you talk into a phone and your voice is converted into 0s and 1s, the computer logic that performs the conversion doesn't need to know the meaning of anything you say.

--Percy

#38 Percy

Percy

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 213 posts
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New Hampshire

Posted 20 May 2008 - 12:24 PM

Most usually shy away when their arguments start to disintegrate.

View Post


Actually, the most common approach to avoiding a subject is to change it.

--Percy

#39 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 20 May 2008 - 12:44 PM

Hi CTD,

Sorry, I somehow missed your post from Sunday, only saw it just now.
The goal of science is to find general explanations for evidence that are also predictive.  These explanations are called theories.  This means that scientists do not believe a theory is likely true because it is accepted.  Rather, they believe it is accepted because it is likely true, having passed a number of tests of its predictions.

Well in the case of Darwinism, their belief is erroneous. It was not accepted on the basis of testing or predictive capacity. From what history I've been able to discover, nobody at all applied such a standard. (Darwin's pangenesis was tested once, sort of.)

I still fail to see any real difference. "It's accepted so it's true." = "It must have been true or it wouldn't have been accepted." One's just wordier. The actual reasoning process is identical. These "scientists" you speak of may not be the best experts on history, btw.

When a theory is strongly supported by evidence and has passed a number of tests then one would normally consider it to have, using your terminology, scientific merit.

If Gitt's definition represents an improvement upon Shannon's, then Gitt has only to present his definition via peer-reviewed journals and conferences for the scientific community to examine.

View Post

And a theory which appears to render evolution impossible will get a fair shake? :blink: I thought one of your objectives here was to gloat because you know it won't. Maybe I misunderstand again.

(I assume you mean those peer-reviewed journals, you know, the ones who demote/fire & slander anyone for even daring to publish an ID article which passes peer-review.)

It isn't me saying that Gitt information theory renders evolution impossible.  I was just repeating Gitt's own claim from that lecture linked to in message 1.  Information theory doesn't actually find much application in evolutionary research compared to other fields.  Computer science, communications, physics and mathematics would be the fields with the most appropriate audience.

Oh. Thanks for clarifying.

I see no reason why Gitt's information should be equated with Shannon's in any way. Why should we try to make Shannon information pie using Gitt information as an ingredient? They're apples & oranges to each other.

If Gitt's definition renders evolution impossible, and the primary feature of his definition is that it contains meaning; how then does the obvious, undisputed existence of meaningful information impact the issue?

Meaning or semantics are not part of information theory. The main problem that Shannon was trying to solve at Bell Labs was how to transmit information, which he defined as sequences of 0s and 1s, in the presence of noise. When you talk into a phone and your voice is converted into 0s and 1s, the computer logic that performs the conversion doesn't need to know the meaning of anything you say.

--Percy

My question was not about Shannon's theory. My question was about meaningful information. As you no longer appear to concede that meaningful information renders evolution impossible, I would seem mandatory that you disagree with Gitt's assessment. If you find fit to state your grounds for this disagreement, perhaps we'll have some lively discussion after all.

Shannon's subject was actually fidelity. That he chose the term "information" for that which is transmitted is unfortunate. That his theory of fidelity has come to be called "information theory" is even worse, and is the source of much confusion.

Alternatively, one might question Dr. Gitt's choice of the terms. Perhaps he should repackage & use "communication theory", at least in English. He could still include his definition of information, as that which is communicated.

#40 OriginMan

OriginMan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Louisiana

Posted 20 May 2008 - 01:13 PM

Trying to stay on topic is rarely possible.

If explaining one thing leads to the need of something that also needs an explanation, than how is that off topic ?

Tis a good way to aviod the discussion, but is fruitless when trying to discuss a topic.

It's like saying let's talk about Banana's, but not where they come from.


:blink:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users