Talk:The Search for a Search - Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search

From RationalWiki

I know that there is not much of an interest for this kind of work here :-) But this wiki is so well-suited for such a critique, much better than my blog....

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, by all means, while it may be a bit arcane, it's spot-on with our mission. Have you linked to your essays on his papers from William Dembski? If not, you should. ħuman

20:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added it there. It's certainly well on mission to challenge this sort of thing. ArmondikoV^{...I'll fill your lowbrow!} 20:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! And I do apologize for the arcane language... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, by arcane I just meant that some readers might not be able to follow it, due to the content/subject matter. Also, wouldn't it make sense to move them both to the mainspace sometime? ħuman

22:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Main space? Sounds great! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 23:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Dang, and you didn't think your work was mainspace-worthy? Sheesh dude. ħuman

05:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's worthy, but will everyone think so? Or will it get deleted? Well, I'll just move it... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Done for now

I laid down the main points of my argument - but of course there is much more to do... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 23:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Should I crow?

The article A Search for a Search isn't linked any longer from R. Marks's page of publications. And the the Evolutionary Informatics Lab doesn't list under its publications any longer...

I'd written to R. Marks (and W. Dembski) at first on Oct 17th, 2009, and got an out-of-office reply an instant later. I wrote again on Oct 21st, 2009, and hinted him to the problems I had with their article, again. On Nov 2nd, 2009, R. Marks wrote back, thanking for the note and promising to look into it.

On Nov 8th, 2009, I restated and elaborated my concerns. This time, the out-of-office reply took a couple of hours...

Today (Nov 9th, 2009), I was made aware that the article A Search for a Search isn't linked any longer from R. Marks's page of publications and that the Evolutionary Informatics Lab doesn't list it under its publications any longer...

Is something happening?

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, the Evolutionary Informatics Lab seems to be quite disingenuous: it still has the announcement for the article, with all the nice buzz words (Horizontal No Free Lunch Theorem, Vertical No Free Lunch Theorem), but it doesn't link to the article A Search for a Search as it did earlier - instead the link goes to the article Conservation of Information in Search, where one fails to find these terms... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that I'll add the remaining two sections: without the horizontal free lunch theorem, they don't make much sense... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 23:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dembski unhappy about this page. Threatens to sue.

See here. I don't think Dembski understands fair use. The comments thread has unfortunately been closed. JoshuaZ 04:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Aleady discussed at length here. The verdict is, come and ave a go if ya think yer ard enough. I think that was it. -- =w= 04:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if he spotted this because above we talked about linking to it from his RW entry and then added it. A short "self Google" by himself would have found it pretty quick as we're on the first page (albeit at the bottom). ArmondikoV^{...I'll fill your lowbrow!} 17:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid not - I mailed R. Marks to present my critique of their article and linked to this page. Also, I tried to contact W. Dembski himself - no as in vain as I thought ... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see. I'm not sure if that makes it worse that you basically said "hi guys, want to respond to this criticism" and Demski replies "SUE SUE SUE!!!!!" rather than him just stumbling across it. ArmondikoV^{...I'll fill your lowbrow!} 19:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, and I do not know if this is protected under "Fair Use", but I think it out not to be protected. As MCC points out, the decent thing to do is push for wide dissemination and commentary. However, if commentary were enough legal justification to "excerpt" a work in full, it would be almost impossible to enforce copyright. Coarb 07:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

For the less intellectually able amongst us and for anybody who may land here if this becomes controversial, do you think that we could have a layman's introduction telling us what this is about and why it is important?--Bob ^{Not Jim} 19:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. A lay summary (at least for a non-maths expert) and a few other wiki-links for context would be useful. ArmondikoV^{...I'll fill your lowbrow!} 19:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I just added another layer of complications The Search for a Search - Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search#Section IV The Search for a Good Search, but I'll try to think about a down-to-earth introduction.

Summary of this article: D&M wrote an article filled with nice new words (active information, horizontal NFL), much impressive jargon, and failed, as they made a couple of sophomoric blunders. This article was intended to be a nail to the coffin of Darwinian evolution - though even if the article had any value, that would be quite a stretch.

Dembski announced that this article will appear in a peer-reviewed journal, therefore adding to his credentials. Most probably, it will not.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 23:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Denise O'Leary

A must read: Idea's aren't made for stealing

Dear Denise: These ideas I wouldn't even take as a gift, they are to flawed...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

spoofed, wasn't I? Well done! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Spoofed? I don't understand. -- =w= 21:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

it's a clever O'Leary - imposter (imposteress?), doing well for a lady of 92 years.

Of course it's easy for them to talk a good fight, but I doubt they'll be sounding so confident when the case goes to law, because one thing the Intelligent Design movement is renowned for is its record of performance in the courtroom.

That's just great! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 21:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: One minor flaw: comments are allowed

I got it just before you posted. Now I feel pretty dumb. It's scarily realistic though - esp considering Dembski's recent objections. Damn you Poe's Law! -- =w= 21:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A blog in the scienceblogs group has picked this up. I've stumbled across Good Math, Bad Math before: he's a big critic of Demski's information "theory." Sterile_{walkie-talkie} 00:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC) (My bad; that's in the Oleary post. cant reed)

Another post on this article, FYI. Sterile_{walkie-talkie} 22:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] W. Dembski is right - in Section IV

I wrote:

So, we're talking about Bochner integrals or even Pettis-Gelfand integrals. Very interesting stuff! Only one problem: Though Marks and Dembski undertook some pain to get the space right over which they are integrating, they have a problem with the function in this integral: The Bochner (and Pettis-Gelfand integral) $\int f d\mu$ is defined for a function $f: X \rightarrow B$ , where $X\,$ is a measure-space and $B\,$ is a Banach space, i.e., a complete normed vector space. What's our $f\,$ ? It's the identity on $\mathbf{M}_k$ , ergo $f: \mathbf{M}_k \rightarrow \mathbf{M}_k$ .
But though $\mathbf{M}_k$ is a metric space, it's - in general - not a Banach space and so, the integral doesn't make sense, presenting quite a problem for Theorem IV.1 Conservation of Uniformity.

Well, he seems to be right for $\mathbf{M}_k$ if $k \ge 1$ - as the space of the measures on a compact metric space is indeed a Banach space with the Wasserstein/Vasershtein metric. I got distracted by $\mathbf{M}_0$ . And so, his Conservation of Uniformity is correct in his first formulation (though not his more general second one, here, he has to exclude $k = 0$ .)