David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago (1996)
Shoot an arrow at a wall, and then paint a target around it so that the arrow sticks squarely in the bull's eye. Alternatively, paint a fixed target on a wall, and then shoot an arrow so that it sticks squarely in the bull's eye. How do these situations differ? In both instances the precise place where the arrow lands is highly improbable. Yet in the one, one can do no better than attribute the arrow's landing to chance, whereas in the other one rightly attributes the arrow's landing to the archer's skill. ;Highly improbable events occur all the time, and by themselves may legitimately be attributed to chance. Yet when an event also conforms to a pattern given independently of that event , one rightly refuses to attribute the event to chance. Patterns given independently of events are called specifications. This dissertation explicates the relation of independence between specification and event, and sets precise bounds on what may count as a probability small enough to eliminate chance. Although this dissertation connects with how statistics eliminates chance, it considerably extends and clarifies the range of application for chance-elimination arguments based on small probabilities. ;The dual notions of specification and small probability together help justify a regulative principle of probability called the Law of Small Probability, which asserts that specified events of small probability do not occur by chance. This principle engenders a form of inference called the design inference, and a mode of explanation called design. To infer design in explaining an event is to eliminate decisively explanations of that event which appeal to law-like regularities or chance
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Wesley Elsberry & Jeffrey Shallit (2011). Information Theory, Evolutionary Computation, and Dembski's "Complex Specified Information". Synthese 178 (2):237 - 270.
Helen de Cruz & Johan de Smedt (2010). Paley's Ipod: The Cognitive Basis of the Design Argument Within Natural Theology. Zygon 45 (3):665-684.
Bruce H. Weber (2009). On the Emergence of Living Systems. Biosemiotics 2 (3):343-359.
Gregory W. Dawes (2011). In Defense of Naturalism. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 70 (1):3-25.
Peter Olofsson (2008). Intelligent Design and Mathematical Statistics: A Troubled Alliance. Biology and Philosophy 23 (4):545-553.
Similar books and articles
Peter Milne (2001). The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (4):801-808.
Jordan Howard Sobel (2003). Review: The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities. [REVIEW] Mind 112 (447):521-525.
William Dembski (2005). Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence. Philosophia Christi 7 (2):299-343.
John S. Wilkins & Wesley R. Elsberry (2001). The Advantages of Theft Over Toil: The Design Inference and Arguing From Ignorance. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 16 (5):711-724.
Graham Wood (2006). The Fine-Tuning Argument: The ‘Design Inference’ Version. Religious Studies 42 (4):467-471.
William A. Dembski (2002). No Free Lunch Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads17 ( #213,970 of 1,796,539 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #281,428 of 1,796,539 )
How can I increase my downloads?