From ResearchID.org

Contents 1 Summary Intro 1.1 ID: Explain data by intelligent causation 2 CSI and elimination of natural forces 3 Chance in Specified Complexity 4 Conceptualization vs. Actualization 5 Scientific vs. Mathematical 6 Page layout 7 Information 8 What Intelligent Design is not 9 Re. Overview of Intelligent Design 10 Physical Effects 11 ID-Paradigmatic vs ID-Paradigm 11.1 Should ID-Paradigmatic be stated as ID-Paradigmatics? 11.2 Paradigmatic Adj vs Paradigmatics noun - science of 12 Detection of malicious design (off-topic?)

Summary Intro

I did not find "metatheory" but then noticed "meta-hypothesis". Recommend a redirect page for metatheory, meta-theory, metahypothesis, meta-hypothesis, with directs to this page and to glossary. --DLH 22:30, 3 July 2006 (CDT)

David, out of curiosity, why were you looking for "metatheory"? -- Joseph "Joey" C. Campana 14:57, 4 July 2006 (CDT)

Probably because I had heard of it and not metahypothesis. e.g., from Google:

• metatheory 199,000
• meta-theory 297,000
• metahypothesis 82
• meta-hypothesis 515

So people find this, recommend using meta-theory as most frequently found version. -DLH

ID: Explain data by intelligent causation

Intelligent design is a scientific hypothesis that purports to explain a very large range of scientific data. Intelligent design has a general definition, and then subsidiary definitions for use within specific disciplines.

Propose to expand intro by: to explain a very large range of scientific data by intelligent causation. -DLH

CSI and elimination of natural forces

The CSI description currently says "It is claimed that if complexity and specification occur in tandem, the event is nearly impossible, so profoundly unlikely that it is not considered in the realm of reason to expect it to happen by the random effects of chance, the regularity of natural processes, or their cooperation."

This would appear to have counterexamples. For example, if you throw a couple thousand coins on a large floor (so that they won't generally land on top of each other), their final configuration is: a) complex and high-information - the orientation and positioning of the coins is completely random b) specified - they're all going to end up lying flat on the floor (rather than hovering in space)

I think that the underlying concept may be good, but we need to include some link between the complexity and the specification - it's possible for one attribute of a natural event to be specified and another attribute to be complex.

We'll need to go into some more detail on what contstitutes an "attribute", otherwise people will be able to claim that the complex structure and specified function of something like a flagellum are separate attributes. Independence of this sort should be easy to define.

Oh, and we still need that definition of specificational detachedness :) Although that should probably be on the specified complexity page. -- Corkscrew 09:56, 1 April 2006 (CST)

I haven't read Dembski's new treatment of specification. I printed it out the other day, I peeked at it and it seems there is some revision of its approach and its claims. Maybe we should hold off on this definition until one of us reads it.

I changed the title of this sub-section from "CSI and elimination of the natural" to "CSI and elimination of natural forces," since CSI claims to eliminate random chance and blind forces, not eliminating any and all natural causes. -- JosephCCampana 16:55, 1 April 2006 (CST)

You mean the one entitled "Specification: the pattern that signifies intelligence"? I'll have a look at it now. It's midnight here, though, so it'll probably take til tomorrow.

One additional point: if we can thrash out a definition of CSI that handles all the obvious natural situations, we will still have to test it out on a bunch of genetic algorithms. Reason being that most objects to which CSI can be applied don't reproduce, and reproduction (plus a couple of other things) is what makes evolution possible, so GAs are going to be kind of a boundary condition.

My personal expectation would be that GAs would break things, which in some ways is a shame as I really like the CSI concept. It's similar to what I think I'd have come up with if I sat down and thought things through. -- Corkscrew 18:00, 1 April 2006 (CST)

Chance in Specified Complexity

I changed "cannot" to unlikely, because there is a possibility that dumping out a box of scrabble letters could yield a long word. The fact that the complexity and the specification occur in tandem makes the event nearly impossible, so profoundly unlikely that it is not considered in the realm of reason to expect it to happen.

Good call. I'd note, though, that high-information events are by definition unlikely, so it's a bit of a tautology. How about something like "cannot plausibly be ascribed to chance"? -- Corkscrew 15:07, 30 March 2006 (CST)

Yes, I see your point, I'll go ahead and make that change. -- JosephCCampana 16:12, 30 March 2006 (CST)

I don't think this sentence is true:

"It is additionally claimed that a high-complexity event cannot occur as a result of natural regularity."

A snowflake is a high complexity event, but a snowflake is clearly the result of natural processes. I have an idea on fixing this, but I gotta run to class. If you got a good correction, go for it. Otherwise, I'll be back in a bit to work this out. -- JosephCCampana 16:25, 30 March 2006 (CST)

Actually that's the bit that was bugging me - I frankly have no idea how the elimination of regularity works, and that was just my best guess. Amusingly, the snowflake counterexample was the one I was thinking of too (great minds think alike!) -- Corkscrew 16:40, 30 March 2006 (CST)

OK, I've got it clear in my head now - low probability + specification rules out chance and high complexity + specification rules out natural causes. I don't particularly agree with the second statement, but it does kill most of the obvious counterexamples. Maybe make a note of this distinction on the page? -- Corkscrew 19:16, 1 April 2006 (CST)

Conceptualization vs. Actualization

The demand for a mechanism is a nagging question offered by critics of ID.

• http://www.idthink.net/back/mech/index.html
• how mechanism is not a current aspect of ID research

• http://www.idthink.net/back/mech2/index.html

---

• Defining Intelligent Design/campana's notes

Scientific vs. Mathematical

Is ID a scientific theory or a mathematical theory? This isn't as daft a question as it sounds - it's the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. From what I've read it appears that ID is mostly mathematical.

I feel it's very important to distinguish between the theoretical underpinnings of ID and its applications. -- Corkscrew 19:10, 28 March 2006 (CST)

Doh, sorry, just realised that these questions are answered in the text. That'll teach me to skim-read... -- Corkscrew 19:19, 28 March 2006 (CST)

Wait one sec, I think you have a point, Corkscrew, we should definitely include at least a quick mathematical treatment of ID. I'll chisel something out here and we'll refine it. -- JosephCCampana 23:46, 28 March 2006 (CST)

Anyone have any thoughts on my Math def? -- JosephCCampana 06:35, 29 March 2006 (CST)

The math def is good - general enough to encompass all the various ID attempts to detect design. -- Corkscrew 07:04, 29 March 2006 (CST)

Page layout

One thing I'd mention is that the current layout of the definition seems a bit patchy. I've always thought of ID as being split into techniques that purportedly detect design (the theoretical bit) and situations where the techniques have been applied (the practical bit). This might be a better way of structuring the assorted definitions. -- Corkscrew 12:35, 29 March 2006 (CST)

I agree. I've tried to setup this page to where the whole thing is theoretical. I'm not sure that we have any practical applications on this page at all. Do we? Maybe I missed them. I see practical applications under 'subsidiary views' near the bottom, but that is all I see on the practical side. Here's our current layout:

1 Definitions

1.1 General Definition

1.2 Philosophy of Science Definition

1.2.1 Background

1.2.2 Special definitions

1.2.2.1 Eliminative approach

1.2.2.2 Comparative approach

1.3 Mathematical Definition

1.4 Cosmological Definition

1.5 Biological Definition

1.6 Subsidiary views of Intelligent Design

2 Local Links
3 External Links

Notice the progression from most theoretical to least theoretical. General>Philosophy>Mathematical>Cosmological>Biological. Let me know if it seems otherwise/Please advise on how to go about restructuring. -- JosephCCampana 12:49, 29 March 2006 (CST)

Right. Personally, I'd have considered the "philosophy of science" and mathematical definitions to be the theoretical stuff - figuring out approaches to detecting design - and the cosmological and biological bits to be cases where those approaches have been applied with interesting results. The theoretical component of ID breaks down into the philosophy behind design detection (the philosophy of science bit, if I understand correctly) and the specific mathematical methods used to detect design. That makes the definition a bit more nicely hierarchical in structure. A good layout might be the following:

1 Definitions

1.1 Background

1.2 Design Detection

1.2.1 Philosophy

1.2.1.1 Eliminative approach

1.2.1.2 Comparative approach

1.2.2 Mathematical Techniques (maybe have short overviews of IC and CSI as subsections)

1.3 Detected Design (unless there's a better name for this...)

1.3.1 Cosmological Design

1.3.2 Biological Design

Sound plausible? -- Corkscrew 14:12, 29 March 2006 (CST)

This sounds plausible, I'm concerned about three things: 1)The "background" section is currently the background to the philosophy of science section, not the whole page. 2) How are we going to talk about detecting something until we know what we're detecting, i.e. we need to define intelligence and design before the sections on detecting them. Are you suggesting putting that in the Background section? 3) We definitely need to retain the general definition at the beginning. -- JosephCCampana 14:34, 29 March 2006 (CST)

OK, how about something like:

1 Overview of ID

1.1 History (or Background or whatever)

1.2 Key Definitions

2 Design Detection

2.1 Overview

2.2 Philosophy

2.2.1 Overview

2.2.2 Eliminative approach

2.2.3 Comparative approach

2.3 Mathematical Techniques

2.3.1 Overview

2.3.2 IC

2.3.3 CSI

3 Detected Design (unless there's a better name for this...)

3.1 Overview

3.2 Cosmological Design

3.3 Biological Design

I realise that that's overusing the word "overview" horribly - I'd tend not to explicitly include the headers with it in (just include overview-related text directly below the major header). That make any sense? -- Corkscrew 14:54, 29 March 2006 (CST)

How would this make the page layout less patchy? -- JosephCCampana 15:00, 29 March 2006 (CST)

It may well just be me, but what you've got now reads like a short description of ID itself followed by a long list of overlaps between ID and various other fields. This was what I meant by "patchy" - poor choice of language on my part. My feeling is that the alternative I suggested better conveys the internal structure of ID by showing how these areas of overlap follow from on from the general definition. It makes the choice of which areas of overlap we discuss look less arbitrary and more exhaustive. -- Corkscrew 15:14, 29 March 2006 (CST)

Is IC mathematical? I thought it's basic premise was biochemical structure, subsequently buttressed by math. I haven't read Darwin's Black Box, though. Anybody know for sure? -- JosephCCampana 11:48, 30 March 2006 (CST)

Well, I'm a maths student so I tend to view everything through the eyes of maths, but it appears to me that what Behe's saying is that a given class of structures (IC) can't be produced by a given class of processes (evolution). Whilst the structures in question are biological, they're just an example of a more general claim that he's making - one that would have profound implications for, for example, the study of genetic algorithms.

This may just be me though - take with a pinch of salt. -- Corkscrew 14:04, 30 March 2006 (CST)

So it sounds like IC is a biological/structural argument, which can be supported by math (specified complexity) or falsified by math (genetic algorithms). (Assuming also that genetic algorithms could validate IC, depending on how fitness is defined and how specific the stated goal is) -- JosephCCampana 14:12, 30 March 2006 (CST)

I think of maths as the study of generalised systems. So if it applies to a generalised system, as well as to the concrete examples that Behe gives, I'd tend to think of it as a mathematical problem. Like I say, though, that's quite possibly just the maths student in me, so it's definitely your call. -- Corkscrew 14:53, 30 March 2006 (CST)

You very well could be right, I'm not certain on this point. Let's ask everyone else. Hey anybody else! What does everyone think? -- JosephCCampana 15:02, 30 March 2006 (CST)

What material is going to go in the section "Key Definitions" ? -- JosephCCampana 12:05, 30 March 2006 (CST)

Well, I was thinking of the definitions of intelligence and design that you mentioned. -- Corkscrew 14:04, 30 March 2006 (CST)

Ah, yes! I'll get right on that, as soon as I get a chance. -- JosephCCampana 14:12, 30 March 2006 (CST)

Information

Reminder: once we've got a definition of the ID version of information across, we'll need to link to it (the statement that information cannot increase through randomness is not true of any mathematical version of information that I'm aware of).

Also: would it be appropriate and/or helpful for me to go through the wiki and add this reminder wherever the word "information" is used? Might save confusion later. -- Corkscrew 05:48, 29 March 2006 (CST)

If you would like, you could go ahead and establish the link to our definition of information throughout the wiki. Did we ever generate one? I'm not sure, 'still working on defining ID. If we have a definition, and it is not terribly long, let's put it in the glossary, which we are going to use as a quick reference for basic and ubiquitous knowledge that does not require an extended treatment. -- JosephCCampana 06:34, 29 March 2006 (CST)

I don't think we did generate one. If we had, I think I'd have noticed - have been looking for a definition of information that fits this discussion for some time now. I suspect that this is something which will need extended discussion - should I create a page? -- Corkscrew 07:02, 29 March 2006 (CST)

In the FAQ I didn't treat it in a way that's worthy of a link; just gave the most basic standard definition and pointed out that the crucial difference between simple "information" in that basic sense and complex specified information (which is what we are interested in).

In his treatment of the so-called "Law of Conservation of Information" Dembski makes a very simple deterministic form which applies to general information; but obviously there isn't any corollary for random processes, since almost by definition they produce information. The "strong form" of his law (conservation over chance as well as law) is applicable only to complex specified information (CSI).

CSI probably deserves a more detailed article than just the research app, and specification needs to be better defined. "Detachability" is a crucial issue in No Free Lunch, but actually Dembski decies to make it dispensible in his latest treatment, and defines specification a bit more rigorously as a number calculated by a given formula rather than a property (if the number is greater than one, we have a specification).

For that matter-- and this is probably a question for Joseph-- do we have TeX capabilities here? I tried to put the formula in with the guidelines here, but it didn't convert to anything upon saving. Was I doing something wrong, or is it something that's not installed? --Arctura 07:29, 29 March 2006 (CST)

Sorry-- I was editing this page at the same time you were, so didn't see your latest remark. --Arctura 07:32, 29 March 2006 (CST)

Unless it was bundled with MediaWiki, we don't have it. I have not installed a TeX extension here. I'm going to be upgrading to the latest version of MW this coming weekend, perhaps it will be bundled in the new version. If not, I'll look into installing it. -- JosephCCampana 07:49, 29 March 2006 (CST)

What Intelligent Design is not

Maybe we should have a section on what Intelligent Design is not?--SierraEcho 17:58, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

Long ago I jotted down some random thoughts on what Intelligent Design is not. Please feel free to develop it. If you do work on that page, please add a link in the See Also section of this article. -- JosephCCampana 19:55, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

I added some stuff to the list on what Intelligent Design is Not. I don't see See Also section. Do you mean the local links?--SierraEcho 21:22, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

That's the one I was thinking of. :) -- JosephCCampana 21:25, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

Re. Overview of Intelligent Design

Being quite the novice with respect to intelligent design I'll assume it's me that has misunderstood something. The section says:

Intelligent design (also known as "ID") seeks to determine if specific physical phenomena in the natural world were designed by intelligence. This is done by detecting the types of physical effects known to be produced by intelligent agents when they act. The goal is to understand the relationship between intelligence and the physical world, and distinguish intelligent activity by observation and analysis of data.

Now, if A => B, and B occurs, can we then conclude that A is the case? Not generally. That certain physical effects are produced by intelligent agency does not warrant the conclusion that they are only produced by intelligent agency. That's also the way I believe to have understood William Dembski. The Explanatory Filter does not start out with a design hypothesis, rather not. The discriminatory evidence is specified complexity. This may be, what the text means, but it's not clear to me that it means that. Simve this is a place where many (most, all) discussions go wrong, it may be worth being very specific at this point, how intelligent agency is detected.

best regards

--FreezBee 11:44, 26 June 2006 (CDT)

FreezBee,

Thank you for your comments. You are absolutely correct that a definitive or logically necessary conclusion is not warranted by design premises. Fortunately, ID is not this type of logical conclusion. At its core, ID is an inductive argument. Rarely, if ever, can inductive arguments reach a "conclusion," especially not a "logical conclusion." Inductive arguments do not function like necessary logical/mathematical arguments. ID is an argument to the best explanation. The most a scientific explanation can say is that, "given current knowledge, it is most reasonable to entertain this idea, pending further investigation and knowledge." Any claim beyond this, as the history of science has shown, is very precarious, since theories and explanations are constantly improved, supplemented, or replaced. the tentative nature of scientific knowledge must be recognized, and categorical words like only are bad moves when employing inductive logic.

That I can recall, I have not run into any design theorists who would claim that intelligence is the only possible means of explaining specified complexity, only that it is the most reasonable explanation. ID should invoke "a scientific possibility," and "propositions," not a logical "conclusion."

If I have not made the point clear in this article, I definitely need to. What about the following changes to the quoted paragraph:

Intelligent design (also known as "ID") seeks to infer that specific physical phenomena in the natural world were designed by intelligence. This is done by proposing methods of detecting the types of physical effects known to be produced by intelligent agents when they act. The goal is to understand intelligence working in the context of the physical world, and infer intelligent activity by observation and analysis of data.

Have I addressed your concern here? Do my changes help clarify the situation? Are there more changes that could be made to the article to make this point clearer?

Your input here is greatly appreciated, please let me know what you think. -- JosephCCampana 13:47, 26 June 2006 (CDT)

Hello Joseph! Your suggested change is certainly preferable; but I'll have to think more about it, before I can give any better input. Also, my angle to ID is mostly via Dembski, who has a very formalist approach, which I why I used a "logical conclusion". As is discussed elsewhere on this page, the weighing of formalism within ID is an undecided question, so maybe we simply need to address that question first :-)

--FreezBee 11:36, 27 June 2006 (CDT)

Physical Effects

Propose change to "natural forces (like the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism and gravity), constants (like the ...) Add constants from Priviledged Planet etc.)

Yes, it seems I do have the terminology mixed up here. Please feel free to make changes. -- Joseph C. Campana 22:20, 2 July 2006 (CDT)

ID-Paradigmatic vs ID-Paradigm

Joseph Please comment on Paradigmatic vs Paradigm. "Paradigm" is common in general technical, scientific, business discussion. I had to explore your discussion on ID-Paradigmatic to understand it. Recommend at least adding ID-Paradigm, and preferably using it instead of ID-Paradigmatic. -David L. Hagen 13:34, 12 August 2006 (CDT)

Hey David, you can call me "Joey." Good point. As far as common usage I think you are correct. On the other hand, I like to write and present information in a style that will entice visitors to investigate what I am saying. Seems like my style enticed you pretty well, since you explored my discussion. In other words, I'm not shooting for "common." --Joseph "Joey" C. Campana 16:17, 12 August 2006 (CDT)

Should ID-Paradigmatic be stated as ID-Paradigmatics?

I presume this is similar to "Information" vs Informatic vs Informatics.

See Google: "define informatics" Note 3 million for informatics vs 123,000 for informatic. If so, need to change page ID-Paradigmatic to ID-Paradigmatics-David L. Hagen 13:34, 12 August 2006 (CDT)

Another good point. However, by clicking on the following links, you can see that the word paradigmatic is actually an English word, while, as far as I know, paradigmatics is not. --Joseph "Joey" C. Campana 16:17, 12 August 2006 (CDT)

Paradigmatic Adj vs Paradigmatics noun - science of

Joey http://www.answers.com/topic/informatics has informatics as a noun relating to information science. "in·for·mat·ics (ĭn'fər-măt'ĭks) pronunciation n. Chiefly British. (used with a sing. verb)

Information science.

[INFORMAT(ION) + –ICS.]"

Note that Paradigmatic is an adjective not a noun. http://www.answers.com/topic/paradigmatic "par·a·dig·mat·ic (păr'ə-dĭg-măt'ĭk) pronunciation adj.

  1. Of or relating to a paradigm.
  2. Linguistics. Of or relating to the set of substitutional or oppositional relationships a linguistic unit has with other units, such as the relationship between (n) in not and other sounds that could be substituted for it in the same context, like (t) and (p). Together with the set of syntagmatic relations, paradigmatic relations describe the identity of a linguistic unit in a given language.

[French paradigmatique, from Greek paradeigmatikos, serving as a model, from paradeigma, paradeigmat-, example. See paradigm.]"

Thus propose using and defining "ID-Paradigmatics" as "the science of the ID paradigm" and keeping ID-paradigmatic as an adjective.

Even if not in that dictionary, Paradigmatics is being used. Google: define paradigmatics -DLH 14:09, 13 August 2006 (CDT)

David, I appreciate your efforts to keep ResearchID.org accurate and grammatically correct. I know that you are open to ID, so I take your suggestions as constructive and helpful criticism.

The hyphonated word "ID-Paradigmatic" consists of 'ID', a noun, and 'paradigmatic' an adjective. Also, it is usually preceded by the definite article 'the.' Since the hyphonated word contains both noun and adjective, it therefore functions in my use as a more specific noun.

Please keep in mind that my responses are not statements that you are wrong, but simply that my preferred use is not your preferred use. And since I have invented the hyphonated word, I can use it as I please, as long as my meaning is clear in context.

Until I have sufficient reason to change the work I have already done, no changes will be made. A sufficient reason would be someone contributing something worthwhile and substantive to ResearchID.org that would necessitate disambiguation. If you would like to contribute articles and content wherein your word usage is employed, we can specify our meanings in the Glossary and avoid any confusion. Thank you again for you careful analysis. --Joseph "Joey" C. Campana 16:06, 13 August 2006 (CDT)

Detection of malicious design (off-topic?)

Not sure this would actually help shape this article (but might if there is active work going on here and just hasn't been included), but figured I'd post anyway. Those of you in closer contact with real research may be able to quickly answer this.

I've been more and more curious lately about the promise for the application of ID methodologies in detecting malicious intelligences or designs, or malicious "action" against or aberration of a biological entity with verifiable (and otherwise well-intentioned) specified complexity.

More specifically I've been thinking about cancer stem cells and HIV. It seems like these things have either been purposely designed to wreak havoc, or there has been an attempt to somehow defeat or make toxic an otherwise benevolently-selected design pattern.

Is there currently any investigation into the detection of the origin of these biological evils? Is there possibly a malicious intelligence at work that could be identified through the explanatory filter or other heuristic?

If this is within the scope of research for ID, I think we should mention it here, since understanding the processes or intelligent agency at work could potentially bring enormous benefits to everyone. If not, I think we might have an opportunity to make real progress in an area where scientific materialism has had limited success, so how would we go about proposing an initiative to pursue it?

Sorry if this is a little off-topic, but I think it might be important to address in the definition somewhere.