Oh, lookie!
Our local creationists at the University of Guelph, Kirk Durston and David Chiu, have teamed up with wacky David Abel and Donald Johnson on a book!
(Kirk Durston is the creationist who thinks that his god magically calms angry bulls, and David Chiu is the guy who stuck in an irrelevant citation to Dembski's work in a paper having nothing to do with Dembski, and told me he did it as a "courtesy".)
Judging from this excerpt, it's not likely that real scientists will take it seriously, with laughably bogus claims such as
- "Fifteen years ago, it started to be realized that `junk DNA' was a misnomer."
- "All known errors during replication result in a decrease of both Shannon and functional information"
I wondered who would publish this drivel. It's a place called "Longview Press". Never heard of it? I hadn't either. But this page suggests that it's just David Abel's private little enterprise. Wow, what a surprise.
It's in keeping with the intelligent design vanity journal, Bio-Complexity, which seems to have a hard time finding papers to publish (7 in 2 years). But hey! It has no problem publishing papers by people who are on the editorial team. And look: David Abel is there, too.
And they wonder why we call it pseudoscience.
Addendum 1: even the University of Guelph library, where Durston and Chiu are based, doesn't have the book in its collection.
Addendum 2: Thanks to Bayesian Bouffant for pointing out the self-congratulatory description of the book on Amazon. I especially love this part: "Change in the FSC of proteins as they evolve can be measured in “Fits”— Functional bits. The ability to quantify changes in biofunctionality during evolutionary transition represents one of the most important advances in biological research in recent decades. See especially, Durston, K.K.; Chiu, D.K.; Abel, D.L.; Trevors, J.T. 2007, Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins, Theor Biol Med Model, 4, 47".
Well, if it's "one of the most important advances in biological research in recent decades", then it's amazing how few citations there are to this groundbreaking paper. ISI Web of Science lists exactly 4 citations, 3 of which are self-citations by Abel and Trevors. Wow, that is sure important and groundbreaking.
Showing posts with label Kirk Durston. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kirk Durston. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Monday, February 15, 2010
Update on the Rom Houben Story
You may recall my previous discussion of the Rom Houben case. Houben is the Dutch man who has been in a coma for over 20 years, and was "discovered" to be conscious and capable of expressing his thoughts coherently through the bogus technique of "facilitated communication", or FC.
I and many other skeptics had doubts about the facilitated communication part of the story, while creationists such as Denyse O'Leary bought it unquestioningly. Creationist Kirk Durston joined the fray in the comments here, with Kirk claiming it was "doubtful that this team of scientists, headed by Laureys, is falling for fake messages typed out by a crackpot assistant" and assuring us that "We can infer from that, that what we are seeing in the video is a method that Laureys’ team has developed, or helped develop." Further, Durston accused another skeptic, the renowned bioethicist Arthur Caplan, of being "unethical" for pointing out that the bogus FC technique had been used.
Now Orac reports that O'Leary and Durston were wrong on all accounts. Further tests have shown that, indeed, Houben was not able to communicate through FC, and that Laureys and his team were, in fact, taken in by the bogus claims of an FC practitioner.
I also observe that FC has nothing to do with the other work of Laurey's team, namely developing a way to communicate with patients by asking them to associate "yes" with, e.g., thinking about playing tennis and "no" with thinking about being in his house. That's an interesting, though still controversial, idea that may be useful. It is a shame that Laureys' reputation will certainly suffer from his association with FC on Houben and his failure to use adequate controls when testing the FC claim. I also note that Laureys did not forthrightly respond to questions about his use of FC and never answered my query about it.
I feel very sorry for Rom Houben, who may be conscious but has had his voice stolen by FC crackpottery that Laureys helped publicize.
As for Denyse O'Leary and Kirk Durston, they were insufficiently skeptical and came to the wrong conclusion. Will we see them admit it? Will Durston apologize for his libel of Caplan?
I and many other skeptics had doubts about the facilitated communication part of the story, while creationists such as Denyse O'Leary bought it unquestioningly. Creationist Kirk Durston joined the fray in the comments here, with Kirk claiming it was "doubtful that this team of scientists, headed by Laureys, is falling for fake messages typed out by a crackpot assistant" and assuring us that "We can infer from that, that what we are seeing in the video is a method that Laureys’ team has developed, or helped develop." Further, Durston accused another skeptic, the renowned bioethicist Arthur Caplan, of being "unethical" for pointing out that the bogus FC technique had been used.
Now Orac reports that O'Leary and Durston were wrong on all accounts. Further tests have shown that, indeed, Houben was not able to communicate through FC, and that Laureys and his team were, in fact, taken in by the bogus claims of an FC practitioner.
I also observe that FC has nothing to do with the other work of Laurey's team, namely developing a way to communicate with patients by asking them to associate "yes" with, e.g., thinking about playing tennis and "no" with thinking about being in his house. That's an interesting, though still controversial, idea that may be useful. It is a shame that Laureys' reputation will certainly suffer from his association with FC on Houben and his failure to use adequate controls when testing the FC claim. I also note that Laureys did not forthrightly respond to questions about his use of FC and never answered my query about it.
I feel very sorry for Rom Houben, who may be conscious but has had his voice stolen by FC crackpottery that Laureys helped publicize.
As for Denyse O'Leary and Kirk Durston, they were insufficiently skeptical and came to the wrong conclusion. Will we see them admit it? Will Durston apologize for his libel of Caplan?
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Reply to William Lane Craig
Two readers of this blog have pointed out this post at William Lane Craig's blog. In the post, he responds to a question about my debate with Kirk Durston. Craig says I exhibit "ignorance on parade".
Well, there's a lot of ignorance to go around. My debate was with Durston, not with Craig. I was responding to Durston's claim (made at 05:37) that "Mathematics dictates that time itself would have had to have a beginning at some point in the past." In the debate that Durston took part in just a few days earlier at McMaster University, he claimed that Hilbert, in his 1925 paper, "On the Infinite" had proved mathematically that there could not be an infinite regress of causes." But this is not true. All Hilbert did in that paper was claim that then-current consensus about the physical universe was that no infinite quantities existed in it. That's a far cry from any kind of mathematical proof. William Lane Craig, like anyone else, can go read Hilbert's paper and verify that this is the case.
I pointed out that in fact, there is nothing mathematical that rules out an infinite regress of causes. For example, you could have an event at time -(n+1) causing an event at time -(n) for all positive integers n. Thus, an event at time -2 causes an event at time -1, an event at time -3 causes an event at time -2, etc. There is nothing logical or mathematical to rule this out. You can even have an infinite regress of causes if time has a beginning. If time begins at time 0, then you can have an event at time 1/(n+1) causing an event at time 1/n for all positive integers n. Thus, for example, an event at time 1/3 causes an event at time 1/2, an event at time 1/4 causes an event at time 1/3, etc. Again, nothing logical or mathematical rules this out.
Now you might say that once we bring our current state of physical knowledge into the picture, the first scenario is ruled out. But even modern physicists consider the possibility of infinite time-like curves that occur in the past of some other point; for example, in their study of Malament-Hogarth spacetime. Thus, I would contend that apologists like Durston and Craig have a really naive view of spacetime, one that is essentially based on the understanding of 100 years ago, not modern physics.
When I called Durston on this at the debate, his response was really comical. Here it is as I have transcribed it, beginning at 1:06:48:
"First, regarding Hilbert. He [Shallit] pulled a mathematical trick
there. Those of you who are used to summing infinite series
will know that if the x decreases exponentially, it comes to a
finite value. So let me explain how this really works.
Let's assume... now I don't know whether he's saying that.
Has he dodged the issue here, as to whether or not the past is
infinite or not? So let's assume the past is infinite. So
let's call this debate time 0, this hour here of the debate is
time 0. The next hour after this will be time 0+1, time 2, and
so forth. And in the past, we'll go to, the last hour before
this debate will be negative 1 hour, hour negative 2, and so forth.
Now if you want to assume, and this is to illustrate why there's
a problem of traversing an actual infinite series in
reality. Let's say that each step in the series is one hour
long. Now what he seems to be arguing, or what he's insisting
here, I'm not sure, is that Hilbert, that the past can be
infinite, that is, there's an actual hour infinitely separated
from this one here. So let's call that -infinity. We'll never
get there by getting in a time machine and going back, so let's
just take a quantum leap back into the past, we're now at minus
infinity. Now some of those of you who are familiar with
infinite set theory might be a little uncomfortable at this
point because if the past is, if you're saying it actually is
infinite, what you mean is that there actually is an hour back
there that is infinitely separated from this one. So let's
count our way down now. Infinity minus 1, infinity minus 2.
It's one hour each, not an exponentially decreasing amount of
time like that little equation he put up there, but just a
steady hour each time.
Or you could go with a multi-universe, this universe is a
product of another universe, and we're working our way down
from -infinity to the present. At what point in time will you
arrive at 0? You will never traverse an infinite series in
reality if you must stop at a discrete amount of time for a
constant amount of time in between. And that pretty much lays
to rest this notion that time itself can be infinite as far as
the past goes. It can be potentially infinite. you can do
lots of mathematical things, I can hold my hands together and
say there's an infinite number of mathematical points, no
problem, those are imaginary. But the moment you have a
discrete amount, that occupies a discrete amount of time, like
a minute, or a second, or an hour, and it is not decreasing
then suddenly you have a problem, if you want to actually
traverse that infinite series in reality."
After Durston's casual slur on my character at the beginning, this is completely incoherent. My equation was not "exponential", so that criticism is nonsensical. Secondly, it is perfectly possible to have an infinite past without having any point at infinite distance from the current time; for example, we could define times -1, -2, -3, etc., without having to define an actual point called "-infinity". (In exactly the same way, the negative integers are an infinite set that does not contain an integer called "-infinity".) This is not exactly a controversial point, but it is a misconception common to undergraduates. Mr. Durston, a graduate student, should know better.
Craig doesn't seem to understand what the debate was about. He says, "What's really peculiar is Shallit's "that was then, but this is now" move—as though views of mathematical existence are tied to the times!", thereby entirely missing the point. Hilbert's claim was about the 1925 understanding of physical existence, not mathematical existence. And anyway, views of mathematical existence do change through time. Consider, for example, the views of people like Brouwer.
Craig says, "On Shallit's view the universe still came into being a finite time ago and therefore requires an external cause." No, I didn't say that at all, and I don't hold that. In my second example, I said that "you can have an event at time 1/(n+1) causing an event at time 1/(n) for all positive integers n". This doesn't say anything about time 0, and it is logically possible to have an infinite chain of causes stretching back in this way, with nothing happening at time 0 at all - an uncaused beginning.
In general, Craig seems to have an extremely naive, almost childish view of infinity. Read Craig's reply to Sobel. On page 9 he says, "Imagine an actually infinite regress of past causes terminating in the present effect. In this case, the regress of causes terminating, say, yesterday, or, for that matter, at any day in the infinite past, has exactly the same number of causes as the regress terminating in the present. This seems absurd, since the entire regress contains all the same causes as any selected partial regress plus an arbitrarily large number of additional causes as well. Or again, if we number the causes, there will be as many odd-numbered causes as there are causes, which seems absurd, since there are an equally infinite number of even-numbered causes in the series in addition to the self-same odd-numbered causes."
It seems that what bothers Craig is perfectly understandable to any mathematician: namely, that the set of positive integers has the same cardinality as the set of integers greater than n (for any positive n), and the same cardinality as the set of even positive integers. All this was well understood 125 years ago, but it seems the Christian apologists haven't caught up.
Altogether, I would say these arguments by Durston and Craig are embarrassingly naive.
Well, there's a lot of ignorance to go around. My debate was with Durston, not with Craig. I was responding to Durston's claim (made at 05:37) that "Mathematics dictates that time itself would have had to have a beginning at some point in the past." In the debate that Durston took part in just a few days earlier at McMaster University, he claimed that Hilbert, in his 1925 paper, "On the Infinite" had proved mathematically that there could not be an infinite regress of causes." But this is not true. All Hilbert did in that paper was claim that then-current consensus about the physical universe was that no infinite quantities existed in it. That's a far cry from any kind of mathematical proof. William Lane Craig, like anyone else, can go read Hilbert's paper and verify that this is the case.
I pointed out that in fact, there is nothing mathematical that rules out an infinite regress of causes. For example, you could have an event at time -(n+1) causing an event at time -(n) for all positive integers n. Thus, an event at time -2 causes an event at time -1, an event at time -3 causes an event at time -2, etc. There is nothing logical or mathematical to rule this out. You can even have an infinite regress of causes if time has a beginning. If time begins at time 0, then you can have an event at time 1/(n+1) causing an event at time 1/n for all positive integers n. Thus, for example, an event at time 1/3 causes an event at time 1/2, an event at time 1/4 causes an event at time 1/3, etc. Again, nothing logical or mathematical rules this out.
Now you might say that once we bring our current state of physical knowledge into the picture, the first scenario is ruled out. But even modern physicists consider the possibility of infinite time-like curves that occur in the past of some other point; for example, in their study of Malament-Hogarth spacetime. Thus, I would contend that apologists like Durston and Craig have a really naive view of spacetime, one that is essentially based on the understanding of 100 years ago, not modern physics.
When I called Durston on this at the debate, his response was really comical. Here it is as I have transcribed it, beginning at 1:06:48:
"First, regarding Hilbert. He [Shallit] pulled a mathematical trick
there. Those of you who are used to summing infinite series
will know that if the x decreases exponentially, it comes to a
finite value. So let me explain how this really works.
Let's assume... now I don't know whether he's saying that.
Has he dodged the issue here, as to whether or not the past is
infinite or not? So let's assume the past is infinite. So
let's call this debate time 0, this hour here of the debate is
time 0. The next hour after this will be time 0+1, time 2, and
so forth. And in the past, we'll go to, the last hour before
this debate will be negative 1 hour, hour negative 2, and so forth.
Now if you want to assume, and this is to illustrate why there's
a problem of traversing an actual infinite series in
reality. Let's say that each step in the series is one hour
long. Now what he seems to be arguing, or what he's insisting
here, I'm not sure, is that Hilbert, that the past can be
infinite, that is, there's an actual hour infinitely separated
from this one here. So let's call that -infinity. We'll never
get there by getting in a time machine and going back, so let's
just take a quantum leap back into the past, we're now at minus
infinity. Now some of those of you who are familiar with
infinite set theory might be a little uncomfortable at this
point because if the past is, if you're saying it actually is
infinite, what you mean is that there actually is an hour back
there that is infinitely separated from this one. So let's
count our way down now. Infinity minus 1, infinity minus 2.
It's one hour each, not an exponentially decreasing amount of
time like that little equation he put up there, but just a
steady hour each time.
Or you could go with a multi-universe, this universe is a
product of another universe, and we're working our way down
from -infinity to the present. At what point in time will you
arrive at 0? You will never traverse an infinite series in
reality if you must stop at a discrete amount of time for a
constant amount of time in between. And that pretty much lays
to rest this notion that time itself can be infinite as far as
the past goes. It can be potentially infinite. you can do
lots of mathematical things, I can hold my hands together and
say there's an infinite number of mathematical points, no
problem, those are imaginary. But the moment you have a
discrete amount, that occupies a discrete amount of time, like
a minute, or a second, or an hour, and it is not decreasing
then suddenly you have a problem, if you want to actually
traverse that infinite series in reality."
After Durston's casual slur on my character at the beginning, this is completely incoherent. My equation was not "exponential", so that criticism is nonsensical. Secondly, it is perfectly possible to have an infinite past without having any point at infinite distance from the current time; for example, we could define times -1, -2, -3, etc., without having to define an actual point called "-infinity". (In exactly the same way, the negative integers are an infinite set that does not contain an integer called "-infinity".) This is not exactly a controversial point, but it is a misconception common to undergraduates. Mr. Durston, a graduate student, should know better.
Craig doesn't seem to understand what the debate was about. He says, "What's really peculiar is Shallit's "that was then, but this is now" move—as though views of mathematical existence are tied to the times!", thereby entirely missing the point. Hilbert's claim was about the 1925 understanding of physical existence, not mathematical existence. And anyway, views of mathematical existence do change through time. Consider, for example, the views of people like Brouwer.
Craig says, "On Shallit's view the universe still came into being a finite time ago and therefore requires an external cause." No, I didn't say that at all, and I don't hold that. In my second example, I said that "you can have an event at time 1/(n+1) causing an event at time 1/(n) for all positive integers n". This doesn't say anything about time 0, and it is logically possible to have an infinite chain of causes stretching back in this way, with nothing happening at time 0 at all - an uncaused beginning.
In general, Craig seems to have an extremely naive, almost childish view of infinity. Read Craig's reply to Sobel. On page 9 he says, "Imagine an actually infinite regress of past causes terminating in the present effect. In this case, the regress of causes terminating, say, yesterday, or, for that matter, at any day in the infinite past, has exactly the same number of causes as the regress terminating in the present. This seems absurd, since the entire regress contains all the same causes as any selected partial regress plus an arbitrarily large number of additional causes as well. Or again, if we number the causes, there will be as many odd-numbered causes as there are causes, which seems absurd, since there are an equally infinite number of even-numbered causes in the series in addition to the self-same odd-numbered causes."
It seems that what bothers Craig is perfectly understandable to any mathematician: namely, that the set of positive integers has the same cardinality as the set of integers greater than n (for any positive n), and the same cardinality as the set of even positive integers. All this was well understood 125 years ago, but it seems the Christian apologists haven't caught up.
Altogether, I would say these arguments by Durston and Craig are embarrassingly naive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
