Re: Wolpert doesn't know if Dembski is right or wrong; How embarrassing for Elsberry and Stockwell

A Pagano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [This is Part 3 of a continuing review.]
> 
> D. H. Wolpert, et al, have written two important reports:  "No Free
> Lunch Theorems for Search," and "No Free Lunch Theorems for
> Optimization."  Dembski applied the results from Wolpert's work to the
> optimization and search problems associated with neoDarwinian
> evolutionary algorithms.
> 
> Wesley Elsberry, one of our resident credentialed academians, in a
> recent attack on Dembski's theory used a recent article written by D.
> H. Wolpert about Dembski's application of the NFL Theorems.  Wolpert's
> review of Dembski can be found at
> http://www.talkreason.org/articles/jello.cfm    
> 
> Elsberry did little more than paraphrase the title of Wolpert's paper,
> "William Dembski's Treatment of the No Free Lunch Theorems Is Written
> in Jello."   But did Elsberry actually read what Wolpert had to say,
> what did Wolpert assert, and what were Wolpert's criticisms?
> 
> 
> Wolpert wrote:
> "There simply is not enough that is firm in [Dembski's] text, not
> sufficient precision of formulation, to allow one to declare
> unambiguously 'right' or 'wrong' when reading through the argument.
> All one can do is squint, furrow one's brows, and then shrug."

"It is not right.  It is not even wrong." - Wolfgang Pauli

Tony, that is NOT a good thing to say about a scientific theory.
It is worse than wrong.

> 
>       Pagano replies:
> Premise 1:  The whole reason Wolpert would have had any reason to
> review Dembski was that Dembski applied Wolpert's NFL theorems.  
> 
> Premise 2:  Wolpert is an expert on the limitations of evolutionary
> algorithms and derived a theorem proving those limitations. 

*SEARCH* algorithms, not evolutionary algorithms. 

> Premise 3:  Dembski wrote 58 pages (see Chapter 4 Dembski's "No Free
> Lunch") discussiing---at length----formalized neoDarwinian
> evolutionary algorithms and the application of the NFL theorems.
> 
> Premise 4:  Wolpert actually read Dembski's work or works.
> 
> Wolpert's Conclusion:  There's not enough to declare unambiguously
> 'right' or 'wrong,' but there is sufficient information to make
> pejorative, non substantive criticisms and indulge in philosophical
> meanderings.
> 
> 
> While I find this conclusion puzzling it leaves egg on the faces of
> Elsberry and Stockwell, both of whom implied that Wolpert offered
> serious academic criticism.  And they are both credentialled experts
> themselves.  And lil 'ol me just a rank amateur.  

I wonder what you think Wolpert showed.  For that matter, if Dembski
understands (the answer is probably not).

Tracy P. Hamilton