The Galileo Test of CSI (Uses ChatGPT)

[Dan_Eastwood]

A friend, Dudley Chapman, posted the following on FaceBook:

If you are interested in why Dembski’s Complex Specified Information and The Design Inference (the Explanatory Filter) are bogus, you might take some time to read my conversation with ChatGPT about it.
In the conversation I use the Socratic Method by asking questions about how figures in the past, such as Galileo would use those tools to infer design or natural law.
After a few examples and responses, I then ask ChatGPT to act as a “steelman” Dembski, where steelman refers to someone arguing a position using the best possible representation of the position (opposite of a strawman), to analyze the discussion.
Then as steelman Dembski explains away seeming contradictions in the previous discussion, I use those explanations to ask more Socratic Questions so that I can uncover all the contradictions in Dembski’s stuff. It is a long conversation but very conversational, so it might be entertaining and instructive.

Link to very long AI chat.
20-30 minutes to read the whole thing.

I found it an interesting read, and also a good use of AI in deconstructing an argument. It begins by asking if Galileo would have concluded that planetary motions exhibit CSI (Yes), and then proceeds to show that conclusion is contingent on current knowledge.

[Belisarius_Cawl (Matthew Osborne)]

I haven’t finished the conversation yet (~25%) but I think I’d be highly entertained if you could get Demski to reply to this and then we can check to see how closely his response mirror’s chat gpt’s prediction.

If I recall correctly, James Tour at one point expressed a desire to defund origin of life research, which I consider to be an example of what would be the obvious result of embracing CSI.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Belisarius_Cawl

If I recall correctly, James Tour at one point expressed a desire to defund origin of life research, which I consider to be an example of what would be the obvious result of embracing CSI.

He really said that? Doing so would defund a lot of basic science research, and given his career I’m sure he has an appreciation for basic science.

[Belisarius_Cawl (Matthew Osborne)]

Hm, let me soften that a little bit. I had recalled watching a video a couple years ago where James Tour calls for defunding OoL research. I should have pulled that up first before posting because turns out that’s not exactly what he said. That’s my bad.

This morning I did a little digging for it and found the video and what he calls for a moratorium on OoL research until that research is up to some standards of his. He does not directly state he wants to defund the research. Between this and him calling OoL research a scam I inferred the defunding part myself. I don’t really think it’s an entirely invalid inference, though.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Belisarius_Cawl

This morning I did a little digging for it and found the video and what he calls for a moratorium on OoL research until that research is up to some standards of his. He does not directly state he wants to defund the research. Between this and him calling OoL research a scam I inferred the defunding part myself. I don’t really think it’s an entirely invalid inference, though.

That does seem better, but even OoL research has to pass a review committee, or get grant funding from some sponsor. Maybe Tour’s research (nano-machines, I think) is more industrial than biological in nature? I’ll look into that If I ever get caught up approving comments.