RBH

Ipetrich asked Not that I'm aware of, though Principia's links above give some leads. There are also useful methodological models from literary analysis in the techniques used to attribute authorship. The lesson I've learned from long experience in various kinds of research is that it's often a mistake to automate stuff too soon in an exploratory effort to develop and validate new methodologies. Better to stay close to the data and techniques, to understand what the technique is doing to the data and how it can fool you without you knowing it.

The first instance of the application of software coding styles to designer identification (as distinguished from mere detection) that I'm aware of was described in Clifford Stoll's The Cuckoo's Egg, where Stoll tells of a colleague making (valid, as it turned out) inferences about characteristics of a hacker by identifying idiosyncracies in the hacker's use of UNIX commands. That directly contradicts claims that one can't learn anything about designers from analyzing designs.

It is correct to argue that such examples depend on prior knowledge about the domain in which the designs occur, but it does not support Mike Gene's contention that it also requires knowing something about the designer(s). It requires only the assumption of the existence of designers.

Ipetrich also asked what Dembski thinks about MDT. I don't know, but I do know there was an extended row about my use of "Single Designer Dembskian Intelligent Design," acronym SDDID, on ISCID in the Validating Designer Discrimination Methodologies. The Moderator finally ruled it was inappropriate, since the single unembodied designer assumption was not "a central part of [Dembski's] scholarly work."

As for why Mike Gene is so reactive to MDT, I hesistate to speculate. I will note, however, that MDT is at this moment one of the very few systematic approaches to ID that actually proposes a coherent research program, makes methodological recommendations based on real designers-discrimination methods already used by humans, and that is consistent with a significant body of biological evidence. Dembski/Behe/Nelso/Wells- style ID has nothing that comes anywhere near MDT in those respects. Mike Gene's own efforts may. The only other example that's anywhere near close is the baraminology research program centered at Bryan College.

RBH

gcameron

This makes sense if we assume that the designer is interested in the welfare of his organisms, but I'm not sure there's any reason to make that assumption.

What if the designer is merely interested in observing the interplay among various organisms? So, he designs a lion and a gazelle not because he wants to help either, but because he wants to watch what happens when they clash. By the same token, we could point out that Shakespeare wrote the characters of both Hamlet and Claudius, and they seem to be at odds with one another -- but Shakespeare is not interested in the welfare of his characters. He is interested in seeing what happens when they clash.

Principia

For an open-minded critic, Mike Gene certainly has his pre-packaged strawmen ready to go today. But, this one is rather harmless. Let's consider slowly and calmly what Mike Gene is actually saying above, by first asking: has RBH really said anything in "apparent conflict?" In other words, considering the wealth of data in the ISCID and ARN forums in toto, does the few snippets from RBH (that MG quotes) appear contradictory? Of course not. RBH merely complained about the lack of interest from the IDiots in MDT, which in the larger scheme of discussions at ISCID/ARN is wholly consistent with one person or one argument. But, certainly, MG has succeeded in creating a spectacular rhetorical show. What strikes me as ironic, though, is that despite his accusations of myopia, it is his argument that seems rather poorly thought out. Not at all surprising, since in my last post, I have shown that he has been reflexively hostile towards MDT. Let's consider what is actually a more realistic test of MDT by considering the entire contents of ISCID and ARN, rather than snippets of a person's dialogue. In that context, is MDT applicable? In other words, does there appear to be multiple intelligent agencies at work when reading through the dialgoue at, say, ISCID? Let's say we remove the authors' names from the posts -- can one deduce logically that more than one poster has been active at ISCID? I think the answer is yes. In this light, whether or not RBH's posts can be the product of multiple designers themselves, seems rather trivial. More precisely, it is undetermined from the data, absent specific individualistic signatures (such as his login name -- RBH). On the other hand, does it make sense to have one poster argue both for ID and criticize ID so ardently? What about the Moderators at ISCID? Does it make sense to have posts that moderate his own behavior? No, of course not. Y'see, in his quest to discredit MDT as "a ploy born on stereotype" MG has developed a fairly serious case of myopia himself.

Let's consider how the ISCID forum parallels biotic reality a little further. Unlike MG's scenario where we narrowly focus on one particular set of data (in this case RBH's), here we actually look at the ISCID posts in their entirety. Likewise, MDT approaches the subject of OOL by considering all of the data, and then sorting through using some designer descrimination scheme. The kinase data among others works in this regard. For example, MG would have us argue that a particular kinase, and of all its subsequent variants (e.g. developed through RMNS) are each created by an individual designer by focusing narrowly on just one lineage of kinases. This is the analogue to his RBH-quote argument. But, that too is a rather weak argument. MDT as has been stated before fully appreciates that an individual designer works with limited creativity. In other words, one designer has a unique "style" that is best highlighted in contrast to other "styles," and especially so if the styles are contradictory. Now, MDT is at present rather tentative in its conclusions, but as MG suggested above we do in fact have evidence that is consistent with MDT. Like MG's front-loading, there is no reason to hold MDT to unattainable standards of precision and accuracy. In fact, it is in the face of uncertainty where scientific research thrives. But, that MG is so hostile to MDT suggests that his own objectivity is questionable.

This is an interesting argument because it heavily suggests that the front-loading argument MG employs may also be viewed as a rhetorical gimmick. MG whines here about RBH not answering his "instructive" questions, and concludes the worst. But, let's see how many times MG dodges his critics with something to the effect of "I will answer this later, if I have more time" or "This question is irrelevant" etc. ad nauseam. I won't actually waste my time searching for these quotes, but they are ubiquitous. But let me point to a few "instructive" criticisms that MG has never met head on: when did the front-loading occur? how many front-loading events had to occur? what was the nature of the front-loaded cell? which specific genes were required? Someone show me where MG answered these questions to his critic's satisfaction. So disappointing. The point is clear. Mike Gene may be a critic of MDT, but there is no reason why he alone is of any significance. I continue to welcome his comments, however, because they serve to highlight his own hypocrisy despite helping us fine-tune our arguments. After all, no one will mistake MG for being MG2, the MDT supporter. But MDT continues to raise interesting questions ... indicative of a fertile research program.

Oolon Colluphid

<waves to gcameron> Hiya, good to see you, long time no post!

Cheers, DT (Oolon Colluphid)

lpetrich

gcameron makes an interesting point about how one designer can look like several designers -- a single designer could create competing designs. But though that is common in literature and playwriting/screenwriting, it is much less common in other fields. A sports coach could do coaching for rival teams, but in practice, a coach does coaching only for one team at a time.

Also, a single designer must be fond of a lot of competition. Grass has phytoliths (microscopic silica particles) that wear down teeth of grass-eaters, while deer have big molars for grinding up grass. Deer can run fast to escape wolves, while wolves can run fast to catch deer. Wolves have eyes and ears pointing forward, because that is the direction that they approach deer, while deer have more sideways-pointing eyes and ears, because a wolf can come from any direction. Fleas have mouthparts that can penetrate a wolf's skin and suck blood, while wolves have a tendency to scratch anything prickly, like a flea biting (I'm extrapolating from domestic dogs here).

lpetrich

On the contrary, I think that it's an important test of what sort of science ID is -- are IDers committed to there being a single designer no matter what, or are they willing to explore the possibility of multiple designers?

gcameron

Hello Mr. Dingo's Kidneys.

Principia

From Nature's news story: http://www.nature.com/nsu/030127/030127-8.html
And the corresponding Nature article:

RBH

Principia,

That's precisely the sort of thing I had in mind when I included "male/female arms races" among the biological phenomena that are consistent with Multiple Designers Theory. My thought when I originally wrote the MDT OP on ISCID was of just those sorts of conflicting interests of males and females in the reproductive process, associated with - due to? - the different investments of male and female in the process. Apparently others didn't remember it as well as I did (which wasn't all that well at the time), because at least one respondent questioned it.

Once again, thanks!
RBH

RBH

Initial pilot research in the program to develop designer-discrimination methodologies for Multiple Designers Theory (MDT) is summarized in this posting on ISCID.

RBH