## Profile

Rodney Mulraney
607 have him in circles

## Stream

### Rodney Mulraney

What is intelligent design? Intelligent design refers to a s  -

Admits having a prior of 1, is stupid.. instead of apologizing tries to change the definition of prior to likelihood and fails probability 101...

"Intelligent Design proponents are typically characterized by a prior belief so strong that no evidence can convince them otherwise. The ultimate example of this is Complex Specified Information, which formalizes this in the form of a Bayesian hypothesis test with a prior probability of "design" equal to 1.0. In mathematical terms, this completely ignores all evidence, and can only conclude "design". In simpler terms, CSI is a lie with numbers on it.

Did someone ask for a sophisticated argument against ID?
+Sebastian Nozzi"

Essentially Dan is claiming ID proponents are extremely ignorant and or lying...
Anyway I replied that he was extremely ignorant or lying.
I explained ID proponents check for extremely low probability and if the pattern is "referential" then they infer design to be more likely.
Here is my comment,

"+Dan Eastwood You are ignorant in the extreme, or just patently lying. They do not put a prior of 1 on design... What they do is calculate the objective prior for chance, and if this is extremely low and the pattern specified is "referential" then they infer design. Please do not make up rubbish and lies and palm it off as an argument... what a waste of space..."

Dan become all of a sudden extremely busy and although he made some other comments after, he failed to show his claim of a prior of 1 for design, was the case for ID proponents... he also kept claiming he was an "expert" and a "biostatiscian" ...

In the meantime I explained why Dans original claim was so silly, on Sebastians post about this.... How Dan was actually making such a harsh attack of ID, which was a lie...
Here is my comment, explaining what Dan was accusing ID proponents of,

"P(T) + P(¬T) = 1
This is just saying for some event, all options for that event, the probabilities must sum to one. ¬T just means Not T.
So something is true, or not true, that is all the option for truth value of statements.
If the probability of something being true, is 80%, then the probability of it being false is 20%...
If you are pretty certain some theory is true, say 90%, P(T) = 90%, and P(¬T) = 10% ...
ok, now you get some new evidence E, and want to know how that changes the probability of your theory T ;

P(T | E) = (P(T) * P(E | T)) / sigma

This calculation gives us a new P(T), given we have new facts E. Importantly this is what "sigma" is ;

P(T)*P(E | T) + P(¬T)*P(E | ¬T)

If you already think P(T) = 1, then P(¬T) = 0 ...
Anything multiplied by 0 is still 0, sigma becomes just P(T)*P(E | T)
And P(T | E) then just always is 1, irrelevant of any evidence.

That guy is a moron to claim ID proponents are doing anything like this... as if anyone is that stupid... "

Eventually after telling Dan to put up or shut up, he actually attempted to justify his original claim, and failed basic probability theory... Here is what Dan said,

"OK. So long as we have basic agreement on the proposition.

In statistical terms, this probability Pr[E|M] is a familiar calculation (called a Likelihood). However, it’s not a statistical test by itself because there is nothing to compare it to. In terms of Frequentist statistics it doesn't have any standard interpretation; it is not a p-value that might reject the null, and there is no alternate hypothesis. It doesn't tell us much by itself.

And yet ID proponents have calculated the likelihood to be some very small number, say 10^-150 (from before), and they insist this is their evidence against evolution. 10^-150 is their proof, it’s their odds against evolution.

There is only one this likelihood to also be the end result of statistical inference, and that is to treat it as part of the calculation for a Bayes Factor B:

B = Pr[E|Me] / Pr[E|Md]

Source: http://www.bayesian-inference.com/bayesfactors

Let Pr[E|Me] be the likelihood of the evidence under the prior model of evolution, and Pr[E|Md] be the likelihood of the evidence under the prior model of design. If this ratio is greater than 1.0, evolution is favored. If this ratio is less than 1.0, then Design is favored. A slight concern: nobody knows how to calculate Pr[E|Md], but that’s OK, because we can fill in the numbers we know to figure what ID assumes as a prior likelihood of design.

Now we already know Pr[E|Me] = 10^-150. This is also their final answer, the odds against evolution, so B = 10^-150 as well. That leaves
10^-150 = *10^-150/ Pr[E|Md]

And

Pr[E|Md] = 1.0

There you have it: The claim that Pr[E|Me] is evidence against evolution requires an implicit prior assumption that the probability of design is 1.0. The inference arithmetically wrong without it. Of course, it doesn’t make sense with it either, but that’s not my problem. ID uses a Bayesian prior probability for design of 1.0, thus disregarding any evidence and allowing no conclusion but design.

And Rodney, before you or some other ID Schmuck tells me this is ridiculous circular argument, of course it is ridiculous, AND WE’VE BEEN TELLING YOU THIS ALL ALONG. Don’t blame me for pointing out the error"

Whilst having priors of 1, is a big no no, having likelihoods of 1 is great! It means your theory is easy to falsify, and easy to test, it means it is making strong and definite predictions!
Dan doesn't seem to understand this basic principle though...
P(A | B) is a likelihood, and not a prior.
Also Dan makes the curious step of saying
P(E | Me) is very low, nearly zero ..... And so...
P(E | Md) is 1... ?!?!
This just does not follow, both theories can assign the same probability to the evidence, or different probabilities. Dan fails basic probability in that step. Also fails it again in claiming likelihoods of 1 are bad, and again when he claims the likelihood is a prior...
Too many fails really, Dan lies either way. If he really is a statistician then he knows he is lying about the probabilities, if he isn't then he is lying about being one...
Either way, typical lies and fails, from nonsense spouting trolls, pretending to have an educated critique of ID....

----EDIT, because, why not... but a comment I just made is probably better here ;

Interesting he also says about bayes factors and gives a link to back up they exist... which is totally irrelevant to his case anyway :S...
"Arithmetically wrong without it"... he seems to think ;
P(A | B) + P(A | ¬B) = 1... lol really silly error, someone just learning the basics of prob theory might make... they sometimes confuse the actual rule of  ;
P(A | B) + P(¬A | B) = 1, with that ... no one with any real understanding of probability would make that mistake though.﻿
1

Yeah, thanks :)﻿

### Rodney Mulraney

What is intelligent design? Intelligent design refers to a s  -

Is ID Science ?

Well this is probably not an interesting question really, as people can define science in all sorts of different ways and none of these actually do what people want. Which is to put things like physics and chemistry in the science category and put things like "astrology" outside of it.

Astrology is actually more a science than both evolution theory and ID, but that is besides the point.

What is the interesting question is, "Is this idea true". But we can only test the truth of ideas if they are in some way scientific. Essentially we need some kind of mathematical basis to evaluate different ideas. Astrology basically has this, evolution and ID both do not, so much.

Evolution theory claims it has a naturalistic process in which all the complexity of life can be produced by a simple mechanical process. It does not, there is no known mechanical process to produce increasing functional complexity. Evolution is not science, it is handwavy nonsense.

ID claims it has a methodology by which to differentiate between entities which were produced by mindless processes and those that are produced intelligent agents. It does not, there is no known methodology which when applied correctly differentiates between known entities created by naturalistic mechanisms and those created by intelligent agents, in all cases.

Both ID and evolution, really need to supply the claimed mechanisms or methodologies to be taken as a serious science.﻿
3

I hope you don't end up rewriting one of the existing books :-D﻿

### Rodney Mulraney

What is intelligent design? Intelligent design refers to a s  -

Foundation of issues, solved essentially

Many of the issues that will be faced in presenting ID as a valid scientific theory revolve around two major problems;

1. The problem of induction -- how sure are we, ever.
2. The demarcation problem -- is this is even science, or just mumbo jumbo..

Marcus Hutter has drawn attention to and pieced together the solution of both of these problems. We should seek to understand and apply his general distillation of the issues, if we want to be rigorous and taken seriously.
Enjoy.﻿
1

His work was done in seeking a rigorous methodology for "universal AI", AIXI. However the insights therein are applicable generally.﻿

### Rodney Mulraney

What is intelligent design? Intelligent design refers to a s  -

Evolution is not really real ;

1. If "evolution" then we understand a process to create intelligent entities, from simple ones via a simple process.
2 . evolution.
C. We understand a process to create intelligent entities, from simple ones via a simple process.

So C is false, so the argument is valid, therefore either;
A. We dont have a real "proper" "scientific" "evolution" theory. AND / OR
B. Evolution is not a process that creates intelligient/more complex/ entities, from simpler ones.

So evolution is defined as the process that creates more compex/intelligent entities from simpler ones.

Therefore B is false, and A must be true :

Evolution is not really real﻿
1

I just ask the Neo-Darwinists, if evolution is a fact, then can you give us just one scientific peer-reviewed of the mountains of observable evidence of Neo-Darwin evolution of a change of kind, like organism changing/transition into a whole entire different kind/species of organism, something that we merely don't have to just put our faith in?﻿

### Rodney Mulraney

Other Communities  -

Why I am leaving this community

This community I have enjoyed being a part of for some time. However I have no tolerance for double standards and deceitful censorship of opposing views.

Amber, one of the mods here is censoring my posts now, after I made a post about how to spot and call out people that are not willing or interested in having cooperative and fair discussions.

So it seems this community will accept almost anything, and all manner of insults are a daily occurrence here. Atheists will tend to try their best to "out smart" opposing views here, but if that fails they reduce themselves to censorship. Hence this community is not about discussion it's about propaganda and deceit.

I will stay in the community for a few days to respond to any comments that require it. Then I will leave. You can always catch me in my community which is called Sensible Debate, but be warned I strictly enforce cooperative discussion there. People not interested in truth and honesty will be warned and banned. ﻿
Sensible Debate
Cutting through the confusion.
View community
2

Quantity is not quality, and enforcing quality is inherently difficult.﻿

### Rodney Mulraney

Training Ground  -

How to easily spot logical fallacies, without having to memorise lists of them

Logical fallacies apply to logical/deductive arguments. They are extremely easy to get a handle on, without having to learn lists of them. The lists of fallacies were produced by a simple rule that enables us to detect them anyway.

A deductive argument has the form of a list of premises and a single conclusion. An argument is considered valid if it is the case that if all the premises are true, then the conclusion must necessarily be true. Otherwise the argument is invalid, an invalid argument is the technical name for a fallacy.

To put it another way. If you can think of any possible situation where the premises could all be true, and the conclusion could be false, the argument is a fallacy.﻿
4

anyway I think we both agree that to really be strong in apologetics / debating anything, requires knowledge of three main tools ?
1. Grices maxims,
2. deductive arguments,
3. inductive arguments.
Given that rule set, our "data" can be put to best use.
The "data" being all the particular reasons we have for thinking God exists.﻿
In his circles
1,514 people
Have him in circles
607 people

### Rodney Mulraney

Science  -

Science?, physics?, God?, Christianity?

Here is a collection of just some of the scientific enquiries and ideas that are buzzing around in this time. Take it with the small pinch of salt it actually requires, and enjoy some clever ideas about reality. I was not going to post anything like this here, because it is easy for people to misunderstand. But for those that are interested and understand science is generally wrong, here are a few ;

Does the natural world even exist, or is there only supernatural ?

* Brian Whitworth, arguing that all evidence points to reality being virtual  ; http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.0337.pdf
* Seth Lloyd, arguing our universe is equivalent to (actually is) a quantum computer ; http://cds.cern.ch/record/412531/files/9912088.pdf

Is the ultimate future of the universe, actually God ?

* Frank Tipler, arguing exactly that. Stating the very laws of physics will force life to spread out over the universe, stop inflation, and collapse the universe into a special singularity called "the omega point", which it is also argued has all the properties of the Judeo-Christian God. Hmm paper links are timing out, here is Franks TedX describing this ; TEDx Brussels 2010 - Frank Tipler - The Ultimate Future

Did God have a role in the birth of the universe, the big bang ?

* Paola Zizzi, using Penroses Orchestrated Objective Reduction theory [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_interpretation, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction], argues that at the beginning of the universe, "it woke up" ! ; http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0007006

What about the Christian worldview, is there any scientific basis as of yet ?

* Frank Tipler, Argues in the definite affirmative, and wrote a book describing, "The physics of Christianity" ; http://www.amazon.com/The-Physics-Christianity-Frank-Tipler/dp/B003D7JZC6

Ok, this is all very confusing, just fit it all together and show us something amazing :D

Has made a very interesting video, which is a very thought provoking synthesis of some of these scientific ideas, enjoy ; The Omega Simulation﻿
3

Fair enough, ok :) Ill be back earlier :)﻿

### Rodney Mulraney

What is intelligent design? Intelligent design refers to a s  -

Towards a Scientific basis ?

Here is a link to Dembskis' paper that seems to be the basis of the ID movement. Note he admits this is "creationism", also note it leaves much to be desired in actually formalising how to distinguish in reality design from non design.

Abstract: For the scientific community intelligent design represents creationism's latest grasp at scientific legitimacy. Accordingly, intelligent design is viewed as yet another ill-conceived attempt by creationists to straightjacket science within a religious ideology. But in fact intelligent design can be formulated as a scientific theory having empirical consequences and devoid of religious commitments. Intelligent design can be unpacked as a theory of information. Within such a theory, information becomes a reliable indicator of design as well as a proper object for scientific investigation. In my paper I shall (1) show how information can be reliably detected and measured, and (2) formulate a conservation law that governs the origin and flow of information. My broad conclusion is that information is not reducible to natural causes, and that the origin of information is best sought in intelligent causes. Intelligent design thereby becomes a theory for detecting and measuring information, explaining its origin, and tracing its flow.﻿
1

I would even amend this to say that natural processes are not known to have any mechanism capable of producing these things. In this way, you avoid a negative inference. Otherwise, this is a helpful distinction.﻿

### Rodney Mulraney

Science  -

Why I love science, and why I do not hold to any kind of scientism

People often misconstrue the way I support science, because generally the kind of scientism many put forth regarding it. They are not being scientific to do that, to be scientific you must understand its limitations and what it actually says.

Hopefully this sermon will be useful to clarify a little what science is actually about.

---- It is vital to know a little bit at least about the philosophy of science if you want to successfully be able to deal with various "scientism type" objections. The general heading this falls under, is inductive arguments, which scientific statements generally are.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1270691522

Thanks  for this.﻿
3

You mean to tell me that there are people out there who have blind faith in Science? Noooooo!  I'm sure you'll NEVER come across any of them on G+!  ;)﻿

### Rodney Mulraney

Religion and Science  -

How to deal with trolls ? How to maintain rational discussions ?

Of major importance in discussing / debating any issue seriously, and for communication in general if you want the conversation to go anywhere at all will be your ability to keep the conversation "fair".

Luckily for us all, we seem to assume that people in conversation are holding to certain "rules", the obvious of which is that no one is lying.
If you note that someone is lying you rightly feel offended, and hopefully will point out this deceit so as to invalidate it and put the topic "back on track".

1. Either the total set of these "rules" is impractical for mere mortals to know and even if we do know them, maybe impossible to spot anyone breaking any of them in realtime.
2. Or this set of "rules" is simple, small and trivial to spot there breaking in realtime.

2 is true. Like most things we all seem to innately do without even thinking about. This too seemed very difficult to articulate well. However Paul Grice managed to be successful in this task. Thanks to his work, we now have the Gricean maxims ;

First let me make a claim about these maxims to try to get across their importance.

When speakers in conversation are not trolls, they do not break any of these maxims.

Speakers who are trolling, necessarily must break one or more of these maxims

1. Maxim of Quality : - Be truthful.
--Do not say what you believe to be false.
--Do not say what you have no reason to believe is true.

2. Maxim of Quantity : - Be concise, but give all the information that is required.
--Do not say too much.
--Do not say too little.

3. Maxim of Relation : - Stay on topic.
--Be relevant.

4. Maxim of Manner : - Be clear.
--Avoid obscurity of expression.
--Avoid ambiguities.
--Be brief.
--Be orderly.﻿
1

If we think of something simple such as fractions, it was complex when we were kids.  After learning it, the complex became simple.  When we teach concepts often times, they are simple to us, but complex to others... That's where get to improve our teaching skills... When we take those complex concepts and present them in different manners.﻿
People
In his circles
1,514 people
Have him in circles
607 people
Work
Occupation
I work to save all humans in the long run