Talk:Specified complexity: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:12, 1 October 2009

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Creationism Start‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Up to July 2007

Dembski loc. cit.

I've just corrected the Elsberry and Shallit loc. cit., but the Dembski one ("(loc. cit. p 16)" cited for "Quoting Dembski...") as it is too far separated from any of his longer works (and there are too many of them clumped together) for me to have any certainty as to which it is referring to. Does anybody know? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is enigmatic at best

People come to wikipedia for answers on what they don't know about. Unfortunately, the opening of this article is impossible for a layman to understand. I've been studying ID and the related mathematics for a while, and I can't make head or tail of what specified complexity is aiming to prove. Would it be accurate to say that the ultimate idea behind specified complexity is that life is too complex to have evolved? From my limited understanding of it, the idea is that the probability of life evolving to where it has is so low as to be considered impossible. For the sake of anyone trying to understand this, please add a sentence at the opening to the effect of "Specified complexity aims to prove that [this is the part I don't get]." Tealwisp (talk) 06:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, I suspect, to a large extent that (i) Dembski hasn't (in spite of repeated attempts) come up with a definition of 'specified complexity' that is meaningful (to Information Theorists) & (ii) that he conflates information and probability. Therefore the article must attempt to give Dembski's equivocating explanation of what he thinks it is (without giving WP:UNDUE weight to his claims on behalf of it) & WP:DUE weight to the scientific community's views on what they think it is not (not a meaningful concept, not useful, not a good argument for ID). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the opening two sentences of the second paragraph? --CSTAR (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 06:41, 1 October 2009 edit Hrafn (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 40,179 edits →‎The article is enigmatic at best: r ← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:12, 1 October 2009 edit undo CSTAR (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 8,870 edits →‎The article is enigmatic at best Next edit →
Line 14:		Line 14:

	:The problem is, I suspect, to a large extent that (i) Dembski hasn't (in spite of repeated attempts) come up with a definition of 'specified complexity' that is meaningful (to Information Theorists) & (ii) that he conflates information and probability. Therefore the article must attempt to give Dembski's equivocating explanation of what he thinks it is (without giving [[WP:UNDUE]] weight to his claims on behalf of it) & [[WP:DUE]] weight to the scientific community's views on what they think it is not (not a meaningful concept, not useful, not a good argument for ID). <font face="Antiqua, serif">''[[User:Hrafn\|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn\|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn\|Stalk]]</sub><sup>''('''[[M:Precisionism\|P]]''')</sup></font> 06:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)		:The problem is, I suspect, to a large extent that (i) Dembski hasn't (in spite of repeated attempts) come up with a definition of 'specified complexity' that is meaningful (to Information Theorists) & (ii) that he conflates information and probability. Therefore the article must attempt to give Dembski's equivocating explanation of what he thinks it is (without giving [[WP:UNDUE]] weight to his claims on behalf of it) & [[WP:DUE]] weight to the scientific community's views on what they think it is not (not a meaningful concept, not useful, not a good argument for ID). <font face="Antiqua, serif">''[[User:Hrafn\|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn\|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn\|Stalk]]</sub><sup>''('''[[M:Precisionism\|P]]''')</sup></font> 06:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
			:: What about the opening two sentences of the ''second'' paragraph? --[[User:CSTAR\|CSTAR]] ([[User talk:CSTAR\|talk]]) 07:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)