Yes I do deny the utility of using EF to assign cause of death, and I deny coroners reason in a way that parallels the EF.
Nor is this a correct description of their reasoning:
No, the coroner does not rule out the first two before he can be certain of the third.
There is an important fallacy embedded in this type of reasoning. It privileges the last option in cases where there is insufficient information or unreasonable standards of “rule out” are used. This order dependence is well known in machine learning, and a common way that “decision tables” are misunderstood. The EF, in fact, is a type of decision table.
Look at the ordering problem closely.
- Is it death by natural cause? If so, conclude accordingly, otherwise move to #2.
- Is it death by chance? If so, conclude accordingly, otherwise move to #3.
- Conclude death by design.
This is definitely not how coroners determine cause of death. One obvious problem with this approach is that we could just as well have formulated it as:
- Is it death by design? If so, conclude accordingly, otherwise move to #2.
- Is it death by chance? If so, conclude accordingly, otherwise move to #3.
- Conclude death by natural causes.
See the problem here? All of a sudden, we are now biasing inferences towards natural causes, especially in cases where we don’t know from the evidence yet.
So the order of the tests matters to the inference, but there isn’t a way to determine the order of the tests. That is a major short coming.
Likewise, reordering ends up begging the question in a very circular way. For example, how do we determine of something was by natural causes in Dembski’s filter (the first step there)? Well, we could propose using the reordered filter (with natural causes last). But that leaves us with a problem of how to determine of something is designed. So we could propose using Dembski’s filter for this. But then how do we determine whether it was natural causes? And so we fall into an infinite regress.
There are other logical problems with this decision table. It is notable that “unknown” is not an option in this decision table, which demonstrates this isn’t their reasoning, because coroners do determine cause of death to be “unknown”.
So I am an expert in machine learning. One thing we learn very early on is that decision tables like the EF are nothing like how humans reason. They are fundamentally misleading for this reason, because they way we perceive them does not match how they actually work and how they work doesn’t match how we actually reason about the world.
How do we actually determine if it was death by design? We do this (technically it isn’t coroners) by looking for patterns that match what we expect of design, such as evidence of poisons or strangulation marks. It is by weighing much more specified hypothesis of each option against patterns that we observe in the data that we make inferences. In the case of coroners and physicians, there is actually very rigorous guidelines that can be applied to determine what evidence needs to be collected and reported.
Notably, the way we actually reason about design is not order dependent. It does not work like the EF.