From: Emre Sevinc
Subject: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <878xufotyo.fsf@ileriseviye.org>
I've just found that article:
Slurping a file in Common Lisp
http://www.emmett.ca/~sabetts/slurp.html
Step by step refinement, comparisons with Perl, etc.
I liked the article.
Then asked the question:
Do I have to be an expert to get that performance?
Do I have to think so much for such a simple task?
Why Perl people get a similar performance without
thinking much about it?
Well, I'm just thinking aloud, maybe this is
a question for cl-gardeners project. Or maybe
for cl-cookbook.
Again and again, same pattern is visible, some
simple things need some extra and intricate thought.
Of course, no problem if you don't care about
popularity and public image.
But if you do...
--
Emre Sevinc
eMBA Software Developer Actively engaged in:
http:www.bilgi.edu.tr http://ileriseviye.org
http://www.bilgi.edu.tr http://fazlamesai.net
Cognitive Science Student http://cazci.com
http://www.cogsci.boun.edu.tr
Emre Sevinc <·····@bilgi.edu.tr> writes:
> I've just found that article:
>
> Slurping a file in Common Lisp
> http://www.emmett.ca/~sabetts/slurp.html
>
> Step by step refinement, comparisons with Perl, etc.
>
> I liked the article.
>
> Then asked the question:
>
> Do I have to be an expert to get that performance?
Yes, you need to play around with different techniques in any
language. This person is obviously an exper Perl hacker. The naive
version of the same thing in Perl would be something more like:
my $s = "";
while (<>) {
$s = $s . $_;
}
Which seems to run for an eternity. It's much much worse than the
simple and (once you know that read-sequence exists) obvious Lisp:
(defun slurp (file)
(with-output-to-string (out)
(with-open-file (in file)
(loop with buf = (make-string 1024)
for len = (read-sequence buf in)
do (write-sequence buf out :end len)
until (< len 1024)))))
> Do I have to think so much for such a simple task?
> Why Perl people get a similar performance without
> thinking much about it?
They don't. The above two are I think fairly reasonable naive
implementations. Try comparing those.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | Free Mumia Abu-Jamal! |
,--' _,' | Abolish the racist |
/ / | death penalty! |
( -. | `-----------------------'
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
On 2005-12-21 10:06:28, Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
> Yes, you need to play around with different techniques in any
> language. This person is obviously an exper Perl hacker. The naive
> version of the same thing in Perl would be something more like:
>
> my $s = "";
> while (<>) {
> $s = $s . $_;
> }
Only if you don't read any documentation. Slurping in Perl is a
common idiom.
--
Web: http://www.no-spoon.de/ -*- IRC: stesch @ freenode
Stefan Scholl wrote:
> On 2005-12-21 10:06:28, Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
>
> > Yes, you need to play around with different techniques in any
> > language. This person is obviously an exper Perl hacker. The naive
> > version of the same thing in Perl would be something more like:
> >
> > my $s = "";
> > while (<>) {
> > $s = $s . $_;
> > }
>
> Only if you don't read any documentation. Slurping in Perl is a
> common idiom.
That's right. The idiom is also mentioned in most of the books about
perl, since perl is primarily a text processing language.
Worrying about it's performance vs CL isn't really very useful either,
since it isn't really a high-performance idiom, it's just sometimes
convienent.
If you write a program that processes a small amount of data then the
OS data cache will likely deal correctly with it, making slurping
little faster than file instructions. If you process a large amount of
data with a slurp you will use a large amount of memory.
From: David Trudgett
Subject: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <m3d5jqqdpn.fsf@rr.trudgett>
···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> Emre Sevinc <·····@bilgi.edu.tr> writes:
>
>> I've just found that article:
>>
>> Slurping a file in Common Lisp
>> http://www.emmett.ca/~sabetts/slurp.html
>>
>> Step by step refinement, comparisons with Perl, etc.
>>
>> I liked the article.
>>
>> Then asked the question:
>>
>> Do I have to be an expert to get that performance?
>
> Yes, you need to play around with different techniques in any
> language. This person is obviously an exper Perl hacker.
Actually, that is not obviously the case. The Perl file slurp shown in
the article is a standard and common Perl idiom, often useful for
reading in the contents of small files for processing. Obviously, it's
a quick and dirty feature, but that's one of the beauties of Perl
(that it's good for quick and dirty tasks that systems administrators,
for example, often have to do).
I think the point is that if you want to do quick and dirty scripting
tasks, you are probably better off, all things being equal, doing them
in Perl than in Common Lisp. They don't call Perl the Swiss Army knife
of systems administrators for nothing! ;-)
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
That a complex structure such as a living organism could be formed by
chance without intelligent input has never been demonstrated in the
lab or anywhere else. Given enough time, the naturalistic world view
reasons, anything is at least possible. The problem with this view is
that the degree of information and complexity required for living
organisms to be able to "live" is such that, aside from deliberate
intelligent design, from what we know now, no matter what the
conditions, time alone will not allow for the naturalistic
construction of life.
-- Jerry R. Bergman, B.S., M.S. Psychology, Ph.D. in
Evaluation and Research, M.A. Sociology, Ph.D. Human Biology.
On 2005-12-21 17:37:08 -0500, David Trudgett
<······@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> said:
"That a complex structure such as a living organism could be formed by
chance without intelligent input has never been demonstrated in the
lab or anywhere else. Given enough time, the naturalistic world view
reasons, anything is at least possible. The problem with this view is
that the degree of information and complexity required for living
organisms to be able to "live" is such that, aside from deliberate
intelligent design, from what we know now, no matter what the
conditions, time alone will not allow for the naturalistic
construction of life."
Fortunately a Federal District Court Judge disagrees with the good doctor:
<http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/jones/04v2688d.pdf>
Among other things, he nicely deconstructs the supposed arguments for
"irreducible complexity" in his ruling. If a judge can get this right
then any "scientist" who cannot is incapable of logical thought or
(more likely) simply too biased by religious indoctrination.
From: David Trudgett
Subject: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <m3bqz9217s.fsf@rr.trudgett>
Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2005-12-21 17:37:08 -0500, David Trudgett
> <······@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> said:
>
>
>
> "That a complex structure such as a living organism could be formed
> by chance without intelligent input has never been demonstrated in
> the lab or anywhere else. Given enough time, the naturalistic world
> view reasons, anything is at least possible. The problem with this
> view is that the degree of information and complexity required for
> living organisms to be able to "live" is such that, aside from
> deliberate intelligent design, from what we know now, no matter what
> the conditions, time alone will not allow for the naturalistic
> construction of life."
>
> Fortunately a Federal District Court Judge disagrees with the good
> doctor: <http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions/jones/04v2688d.pdf>
I lot of people disagree with the many scientists who say that
Darwinian evolution could not have happened. That is not surprising. I
have looked over the document you refer to and, as expected, it does
not contain anything novel or of any real substance to the matter at
hand (the truth/falsity of evolution theories and the truth/falsity of
intelligent design theories). (It even says as much: "...we find that
while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes
no position, ID is not science.") What it does is affirm the fact that
proposing an intelligence behind the origins and development of life
in the universe gets too close to affirming a god, and this has no
place in an atheistic educational system, nor the dominant atheistic
religion of "science" (a religion in which the non-existence of a god
is taken as an a priori dogmatic truth).
Judge: "This rigorous attachment to natural explanations is an
essential attribute to science by definition and by convention." -- by
which he means that the existence of an intelligent life principle
would be unnatural and unscientific. This is the same as saying that
if atheistic science conflicts with reality over evolution theory,
then evolution theory, even though wrong, must be retained because it
is "science" and the alternative is not. This is just the situation in
which evolution scientists find themselves today: their theory does
not simply have "gaps" in it, but has pretty much been completely
destroyed by the counter evidence. That is a "forbidden truth". And
the claim that the mountain of evidence against evolution theory has
been rebutted is just false. (Such "rebuttals" usually amount to:
there is no god, therefore evolution of some type must have occurred;
there is no other possibility. Note that that is a religious, not a
scientific argument.)
>
> Among other things, he nicely deconstructs the supposed arguments for
> "irreducible complexity" in his ruling.
What the judge did, in fact, is little more than arrogantly "pooh
pooh" the argument of irreducible complexity, which is only one of the
considerations that leads one to consider intelligent design as a
serious possibility. In fact, the various complexity arguments
("irreducible complexity" is only one of them, and not even the best
one when understood simplistically) constitute an *extremely* strong
attack on random, survival of the fittest evolution (which is what
scientists mean by default when they refer to evolution theory). Were
it not for the fact that atheistic science currently has no other
alternative, the strength of these arguments would long ago have been
accepted as good enough proof that evolution (according to any method
thus far postulated) did not occur. Whether that leaves intelligent
design as the only alternative may be debatable.
> If a judge can get this right then any "scientist" who cannot is
> incapable of logical thought or (more likely) simply too biased by
> religious indoctrination.
Sounds like you should read a few books on the subject. Of course, if
you are a committed atheist, then something like "evolution" *must*
have occurred, because there is no other possibility. That is what
scientists really mean when they put evolution up on an unassailable
pedestal as they do.
David
P.S.
A lot of people (most, I would say) don't know what intelligent design
theories actually entail, and assume it is just a fancy name for
"creationism". That is not true, although of course creationists of
various sorts do obviously back some notion of intelligent
design. Just because evolution through survival of the fittest is
wrong as an explanation of the development of life does not mean that
creation in six days by God is right. There are a lot of other
possibilities, and hopefully, some of them might even be testable.
In particular, it is important to note that intelligent design or
guidance does *not* by necessity imply no change over time (it could
if you are a creationist, of course). But evolution is not defined as
simply change over time. It is obvious that changes *do* occur over
time, and "micro" evolution [*] in particular has been pretty well
proved as fact through observation. What is not so obvious are the
mechanisms behind those changes, and the nature of the change process
itself. What is especially not obvious (and is the crux of the debate)
is whether or not the same forces that drive micro-evolution can also
drive macro-evolution [**].
[*] For example, "speciation" of finches in geographically
isolated areas. This basically means that phenotypes (visible
characterists of a population) change over time, and interbreeding
does not occur naturally.
[**] Development of different *types* of organism, such as frogs
and lizards, as opposed to frogs and other types of frogs.
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
The most basic processes of living things are accomplished by
molecular engines as complex as man's greatest inventions.
-- Jeremy L. Walter, B.S., M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering.
Of course, the naturalistic evolution assumption [...] proposes that
an extended series of step-wise coincidences gave rise to life and the
world as we know it. In other words, the first coincidence led to a
second coincidence, which led to a third coincidence, which eventually
led to coincidence 'i', which eventually led up to the present
situation, 'N'. Evolutionists have not even been able to posit a
mechanistic 'first' coincidence, only the assumption that each step
must have had a survival advantage and only by this means could
evolution from simple to complex have occurred. Each coincidence 'i'
is assumed to be dependent upon prior steps and to have an associated
dependent probability 'Pi'. The resultant probability estimate for the
occurrence of evolutionary naturalism is calculated as the product
series, given the following:
N, the number of step-wise coincidences in the evolutionary process.
i = the index for each coincidence: i = 1, 2, 3 ...
Pi, the evaluated probability for the i'th coincidence.
PE = the product probability that everything evolved by naturalism.
Innumerable steps are postulated to exist in the evolutionary
sequence, therefore N is very large (i.e. N...). All values of Pi are
less than or equal to one, with most of them much smaller than
one. The greater the proposed leap in step i, the smaller the
associated probability [...] and a property of [a] product series
where N is very large and most terms are significantly less than one
[is that it] quickly converges very close to zero.
The conclusion of this calculation is that the probability of
naturalistic evolution is essentially zero.
-- Jerry R. Bergman, B.S., M.S. Psychology, Ph.D. in
Evaluation and Research, M.A. Sociology, Ph.D. Human Biology.
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:40:55 +1100, David Trudgett wrote:
> nor the dominant atheistic religion of "science" (a
> religion in which the non-existence of a god is taken as an a priori
> dogmatic truth)
That's even worse than that. The non-existence of fairies, gnomes, cobolds
and, why not, satyrs, nymphs and river's gods, in the /dominant atheistic
religion of "science"/ is also taken as an /a priori/ dogmatic truth ;((
(I can resist everything, but temptation, and this one was gross.. ;))))
--
If in doubt, enjoy it.
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
From: David Trudgett
Subject: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <m31x05h9x0.fsf@rr.trudgett>
Vasile Rotaru <············@seznam.cz> writes:
>
> (I can resist everything, but temptation, and this one was
> gross.. ;))))
Ah yes, the old temptation in the Usenet article trick... ;-)
Catchya,
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it
can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence.
-- Mohandas Gandhi
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:40:55 +1100, David Trudgett wrote:
> Such
> "rebuttals" usually amount to: there is no god, therefore evolution of
> some type must have occurred; there is no other possibility.
For the sake of argument I'll agree with this
> Note that
> that is a religious, not a scientific argument
A "religious" argument? And what's your problem? Are you against religion
or what?
--
If in doubt, enjoy it.
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
From: Ulrich Hobelmann
Subject: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <40v8a2F1c6281U1@individual.net>
Vasile Rotaru wrote:
>> Note that
>> that is a religious, not a scientific argument
>
> A "religious" argument? And what's your problem? Are you against religion
> or what?
Doesn't it make sense to be at least against religiousness, even while
tolerating strange religions, like Christianity, Islam etc.?
Religious people often don't even *bother* to take into account logical
arguments, they simply ignore them. Like many non-religious people,
admitted, but that doesn't prevent me from disliking the religious trait
among people.
I think one has to make the distinction between people who simply have a
religion and live that, and those who think their religion (which was
told, and taught by humans) is the absolute truth, over anything else,
and that society has to adapt to all rules of that religion.
I haven't really met religious people anywhere in Europe, but the USA
has some, as do the Muslim countries. Making the world more peaceful
requires reducing religiousness, IMHO.
--
I wake up each morning determined to change the world...
and also to have one hell of a good time.
Sometimes that makes planning the day a little difficult.
E.B. White
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:00:50 +0100, Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> Vasile Rotaru wrote:
>>> Note that
>>> that is a religious, not a scientific argument
>>
>> A "religious" argument? And what's your problem? Are you against
>> religion or what?
>
> Doesn't it make sense to be at least against religiousness,
I have poorly expressed myself. It just strikes me that it is ilogical and
may be even "hypocritical" when the religious people accuse the scientists
of being "religious"...
--
If in doubt, enjoy it.
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
From: Robert Uhl
Subject: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <m31x05yqzj.fsf@4dv.net>
Vasile Rotaru <············@seznam.cz> writes:
>
> I have poorly expressed myself. It just strikes me that it is ilogical
> and may be even "hypocritical" when the religious people accuse the
> scientists of being "religious"...
No, it's the hypocrisy of believers in scientism to castigate others for
belief which is pointed out by the religious.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
You can't enslave a free man. Only person can do that to a man
is himself. The most you can do to a free man is to kill him.
--Robert A. Heinlein
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:35:28 -0700, Robert Uhl wrote:
> Vasile Rotaru <············@seznam.cz> writes:
>>
>> I have poorly expressed myself. It just strikes me that it is ilogical
>> and may be even "hypocritical" when the religious people accuse the
>> scientists of being "religious"...
>
> No, it's the hypocrisy of believers in scientism to castigate others for
> belief which is pointed out by the religious.
To disagree is to castigate? And have you remarked your "believevers in
scientism" and the its connotations?
There is no need to apologize, I have a thick skin :)))
--
If in doubt, enjoy it.
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
From: Robert Uhl
Subject: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <m3wthwyfbu.fsf@4dv.net>
Vasile Rotaru <············@seznam.cz> writes:
>
>>> I have poorly expressed myself. It just strikes me that it is
>>> ilogical and may be even "hypocritical" when the religious people
>>> accuse the scientists of being "religious"...
>>
>> No, it's the hypocrisy of believers in scientism to castigate others
>> for belief which is pointed out by the religious.
>
> To disagree is to castigate?
Oh, not at all. It's quite possible for reasonable men to disagree on
all sorts of things. However, there is a trend on both sides of
arguments to imagine that one's opponents are incapable of rational
thought, ignorant or evil--rad anything by Dawkins for an example.
> And have you remarked your "believevers in scientism" and the its
> connotations?
I have no idea what you mean here, sorry.
Anyway, this has nothing to do with Lisp, and I need to get back to
working on my port of blosxom from Perl to CL, so...
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake.
--Jeannette Rankin
On 2005-12-21 23:40:55 -0500, David Trudgett
<······@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> said:
> I
> have looked over the document you refer to and, as expected, it does
> not contain anything novel or of any real substance to the matter at
> hand (the truth/falsity of evolution theories and the truth/falsity of
> intelligent design theories).
Clearly you have not even cursorily glanced at it or you would not have
made the following statements:
> This is just the situation in
> which evolution scientists find themselves today: their theory does
> not simply have "gaps" in it, but has pretty much been completely
> destroyed by the counter evidence. That is a "forbidden truth". And
> the claim that the mountain of evidence against evolution theory has
> been rebutted is just false. (Such "rebuttals" usually amount to:
> there is no god, therefore evolution of some type must have occurred;
> there is no other possibility. Note that that is a religious, not a
> scientific argument.)
In fact, if you'd bothered to read the opinion, you'd know that the
Judge made no claim whatsoever about the factual truthfulness of
assertions that God created the universe, etc. He merely pointed out
quite forcefully that such assertions can never be science simply
because God is, by definition, a supernatural entity, and science is,
by definition, a body of *natural* explanations. You cannot invoke the
supernatural in a natural explanation without leaving the realm of
natural explanation altogether.
"To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate
veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to
the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to
be a true “scientific” alternative to evolution without a true
understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is
our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing
both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the
inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument,
but that it is not science."
If you had bothered to actually read Judge Jones' opinion, you would
know that the arguments presented as evidence in his court, and found
completely convincing by him, and those he gives in his opinion do
*not* take the form you outline. Rather they take the following forms:
1. Rejection of the ID advocates' "contrived dualism" - the false
notion that "all evidence which criticized evolutionary theory was
proof in support of creation science," while failing to provide any
positive evidence whatsoever in support of ID. The opinion specifically
quotes: "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence," a
point that was highlighted by the fact that specific claims of supposed
"irreducible complexity" such as the clotting cascade, have been
disproved in the intervening time since these ID claims were made (see
2 below).
The reality is that just because evolution can't explain something
*right this second* doesn't mean that evolution cannot explain it - it
takes time and research to figure out scientific puzzles - and the fact
that evolution can't explain something *right this second* certainly
doesn't constitute proof of supernatural alternatives.
In other words "We don't know yet" does not equal "Gee, God must of
have done it."
2. Rejection of factually false claims that certain observations in the
natural world were insurmountable obstacles of "irreducible
complexity." In fact expert witnesses gave convincing testimony that
precisely those examples touted by ID advocates, such as the bacterial
flagellum, have been explained by exaptation (the repurposing of a
feature originally evolved for another function) in peer-reviewed
articles.
3. Rejection of logically false claims that exaptation cannot possibly
explain complex systems.
4. Examination of intent and the obvious conclusion that the purpose of
the school board's actions was the promotion of religion, not science
education.
Indeed. You may believe anything you wish. Just don't try to call it
science if it incorporates supernatural explanations. The problem with
ID is that it tries to make a special exception for christian
supernatural explanations and have these, and these alone among all
possible supernatural beliefs admitted as science. This is silly. It
would be equally valid to state that "all life was created by faeries
with the aid of their vital pixie dust" is a scientific explanation.
Equally supernatural, equally unverifiable, equally unscientific,
equally silly.
If anyone wants to believe in their invisible friends in the sky, let
them. Just don't try to call it science.
From: David Trudgett
Subject: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <m3oe39fui8.fsf@rr.trudgett>
Raffael,
Your post makes no sense, as you seem to think you are contradicting
what I said, so I'll confine myself to making only a couple of
comments.
Raffael Cavallaro
<················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2005-12-21 23:40:55 -0500, David Trudgett
> <······@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> said:
>
>> I
>> have looked over the document you refer to and, as expected, it does
>> not contain anything novel or of any real substance to the matter at
>> hand (the truth/falsity of evolution theories and the truth/falsity of
>> intelligent design theories).
>
> Clearly you have not even cursorily glanced at it or you would not
> have made the following statements:
Clearly, I *must* have at least cursorily glanced at it, or I would
not have been able to quote from it. Game over, you lose, because in
your first sentence you prove you can't say what you mean. How can I
take the rest of your message seriously?
In fact, I did a lot more than give it a cursory glance, although I
never said I read every word. To read every word would also have been
pointless, because the bulk of it concerns legal and social issues in
one small corner of the world in which I do not live.
> In fact, if you'd bothered to read the opinion, you'd know that the
> Judge made no claim whatsoever about the factual truthfulness of
> assertions that God created the universe, etc.
Yes, as I in fact mentioned in the message to which you are
replying. Perhaps you should have given my post a cursory glance?
Bye for now,
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
Matthew 5:38-42. Who would Jesus bomb? The old law of eye for eye is
replaced by the new law of Christian love. All who profess their
belief in the possibility of a just war, deny the teaching of Christ.
All who teach this belief are hindering the children from coming to
the Father.
"You have learnt how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.
But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance. On the
contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the
other as well; if a man takes you to law and would have your
tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone orders you
to go one mile, go two miles with him. Give to anyone who asks,
and if anyone wants to borrow, do not turn away."
� Avete inteso che fu detto: Occhio per occhio e dente per dente.
Io invece vi dico di non resistere al male; anzi, se uno ti
colpisce alla guancia destra, volgigli anche la sinistra. A uno
che vuol transcinarti in guidizio per prendersi la tunica, d�gli
anche il mantello; se uno ti vuol costringere per un miglio, va'
con lui per due. A chi ti chiede, d�; se uno ti chiede un
prestito, non volgerti le spalle. �
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a
tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil:
but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the
other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away
thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel
thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh
thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
From: Thomas A. Russ
Subject: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <ymimzithtve.fsf@sevak.isi.edu>
David Trudgett <······@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> writes:
>
> Raffael,
>
> Your post makes no sense, as you seem to think you are contradicting
> what I said, so I'll confine myself to making only a couple of
> comments.
Actually, most of the arguments make a lot of sense. It would be good
of you to address them, since they state the essence of why the court
rejected the Intelligent Design argument. You can, of course, choose to
leave them unchallenged, but if you do so, they will carry the argument
to the detriment of your position.
> Raffael Cavallaro
> <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
>
> > On 2005-12-21 23:40:55 -0500, David Trudgett
> > <······@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> said:
> >
> >> I
> >> have looked over the document you refer to and, as expected, it does
> >> not contain anything novel or of any real substance to the matter at
> >> hand (the truth/falsity of evolution theories and the truth/falsity of
> >> intelligent design theories).
> >
> > Clearly you have not even cursorily glanced at it or you would not
> > have made the following statements:
>
> Clearly, I *must* have at least cursorily glanced at it, or I would
> not have been able to quote from it. Game over, you lose, because in
> your first sentence you prove you can't say what you mean. How can I
> take the rest of your message seriously?
Hmmm. This is a specious argument, and conveniently lets you avoid
having to discuss the other substantive points Raffael raises in his
post. I'll assume, then, that you actually have not answer for them.
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
From: David Trudgett
Subject: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <m3r784o8j7.fsf@rr.trudgett>
···@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) writes:
> David Trudgett <······@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> writes:
>
>>
>> Raffael,
>>
>> Your post makes no sense, as you seem to think you are contradicting
>> what I said, so I'll confine myself to making only a couple of
>> comments.
>
> Actually, most of the arguments make a lot of sense.
They didn't make sense as a reply to what I wrote, not that they don't
make any sort of sense in themselves. Raffael made statements as if
they were refuting something that I had said. I don't have time for
those sorts of mind games.
> It would be good of you to address them,
How many hundreds of pages would you like my address to be in order to
match the court judgement? If anyone is interested in the facts,
rather than feeding their prejudices, then the information is easily
obtainable in books and on the Internet (for example, a quick search
turns up http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ and
http://www.talkorigins.org/ as just two resources). The truth will
remain the truth whether I feel like defending it or not.
In the final analysis the 139 page document simply makes the claim
that it is not a testable hypothesis that there is intelligence behind
the development of life, and because of this it is not science. If one
accepts the premise that intelligence cannot be tested for, I
completely agree with the conclusion. It's just too bad that the
premise begs the whole question at stake, isn't it?
The judgement attacks a technicality in Behe's "irreducible
complexity" argument, and as well speciously presenting that argument
as something called a "centre piece" of the ID "position", as if there
is only one such position, and as if there has to be a "centre piece"
upon which everything else depends.
The court judgement is therefore of little interest to me, because I
am interested in the truth about life and its development, and I am
not interested in dishonest intellectual mind games concerned with
defining what is and what isn't exactly to be called "science". The
judgement is not a piece of scholarly research, but only the usual
sophistry that the legal profession goes on with.
> since they state the essence of why the court rejected the
> Intelligent Design argument.
You don't seem to get that there is no such argument (singular). (And,
by the way, when we say 'argument' here, we mean logic based upon
scientific evidence, the same as evolution theory is supposed to be
logic based upon scientific evidence.)
> You can, of course, choose to leave them unchallenged, but if you do
> so, they will carry the argument to the detriment of your position.
Well, as I said above, I don't care about the detriment of my
position. It's not my job to open people's minds. They have to do that
for themselves.
However, I can at least comment upon what appears to be (as far as I'm
concerned anyway) the central finding of the judgement, which was:
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we
find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which
the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID
fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to
preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID
violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and
permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible
complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical
contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and
(3) ID s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the
scientific community.
-- from page 64
My comments:
1. It is bizarre to preface such remarks with, "After a searching
review of the record and applicable caselaw," as if such a review
of legal records could have any bearing on whether ID is a science
or not. I'm not saying that such a review was not necessary for
them (being legal type people and all), but the truth or falsity of
their claim has nothing whatsoever to do with legal precedent.
2. The court ostensibly takes no position on the truth or otherwise of
ID: "a proposition on which the Court takes no position." So, as we
all know anyway, courts do not concern themselves with truth, and
only legalities matter. As I mentioned, I am interested in the
truth, and not the incompetent judgement of a court about whether
ID theories have a scientific basis or not. I already know the
answer to that question from my own research.
3. "ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking
and permitting supernatural causation". This is a case of begging
the question. If there is intelligence behind the development of
life, then that would make it natural and not supernatural. The
question turns on the semantics of a word, and not on the truth
behind it. If there really is intelligence behind the development
of life, then that should be testable to at least some degree by
scientific investigation. [*] That makes it science, not religion.
However, if ID really does _necessarily_ imply some idea of a
transcendent god (which I don't believe it does, though obviously
religious type people, myself excluded, will probably like to think
so) then in that case it would be obvious that science would not be
able address the fundamental issues surrounding the development of
life. The proper response to this eventuality would be to
acknowledge the limits of science, rather than to claim ID is
unscientific.
[*] For example, if you observe a pattern in a mechanism or
structure or set of events in the natural world, and you
eliminate necessity as a cause and chance as a cause, then it
seems reasonable to infer that the observed pattern was in fact
designed.
4. "The argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the
same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation
science in the 1980's." Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument
(that many *molecular level* systems cannot be reduced to simpler
components in any stepwise manner without rendering them inert and
useless for any purpose [*]) is not "central" to ID, in the sense
that without it, everything else falls. It is, however, one of the
good reasons to seriously consider the evidence for ID theories
because it is a serious challenge to the assumptions behind
evolution theory.
[*] See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
and
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/legalopinion.htm#Section%202.34
Some other types of evidences that lend support to the idea of
intelligent design include the following (summary excerpts taken
from the above link):
Apparent Design. Richard Dawkins: "Biology is the study of
complicated things that give the appearance of having been
designed for a purpose."
Failure of Law to Account for the Existence of Biological
Information. Paul Davies: "Snowflakes contain syntactic
information in the specific arrangement of their hexagonal shapes,
but these patterns have no semantic content, no meaning for
anything beyond the structure itself. By contrast, the distinctive
feature of biological information is that it is replete with
meaning. DNA stores the instructions needed to build a functioning
organism; it is a blueprint or an algorithm for a specified,
predetermined product. Snowflakes don't code for or symbolize
anything, whereas genes most definitely do. To explain life fully,
it is not enough simply to identify a source of free energy, or
negative entropy, to provide biological information. We also have
to understand how semantic information comes into being. It is the
quality, not the mere existence, of information that is the real
mystery here."
Statistical Studies. Statistical studies indicate the extreme
improbability of complex biological systems arising by
chance-based Darwinian mechanisms.
Comparisons of biological information systems with those that are
human-made. The similarity between complex human-made machines and
systems and biomolecular machines and information processing
systems is evidence which supports the Design Hypothesis but
clearly is not a proof.
The abrupt appearance of phyla in the fossil record. The first
cell, an enormously complex organism complete with a language and
DNA coding for hundreds of proteins through hundreds of thousands
of nucleotide bases arranged in a specific sequence is predicted
to have arisen at approximately the time the earth first became
habitable to any kind of life. The sudden appearance of over 40
new and distinct life forms is also chronicled in the Cambrian
explosion.
The existence of laws, constants and forces essential to life that
fall within statistically improbable ranges. [Martin] Rees
recognizes that the only two satisfying solutions to the observed
fine tuning are either design or the very speculative possibility
that our universe might just be one of an infinite number of
multiple universes, thereby rendering the existence of our "fine
tuned" universe quite probable.
Failure of Science to Develop a Coherent Theory of the Origin of
the First Cell and Biological Information.
Failure of Science to Develop a Working Model. Although numerous
attempts have been made to develop computer models to simulate
natural selection, none have been able to successfully show how
natural selection, with no direction, foresight, planning or goal
can generate the information processing systems found in nature.
Legitimate Criticisms of Darwinian Evolution. A detailed summary
of principal criticisms have also been recently catalogued and
documented by David DeWolf, Stephen Meyer and Mark DeForrest in
"Teaching the Origins Controversy." Evidence contradicting the
Darwinian theory is, by default, evidence that supports the Design
Hypothesis. This is because design detection requires the
elimination of chance and necessity as the explanatory cause.
Other Evidence. Other evidence of design and its empirical
character is discussed by David DeWolf, Stephen Meyer and Mark
DeForrest in "Teaching the Origins Controversy."
5. "ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the
scientific community." Laughable.
So there you have it. You need only do your own research to discover
the myriad of scientific detail behind those bullet points. The
intelligent design hypothesis is quite healthy and solidly based on
reason, despite what some hardcore "naturalistic" atheists would have
you believe, and have conned the greater number of us into believing
over the years. I was sucked in myself at one time.
The Dover judgement is sick. More importantly, it's completely
irrelevant to the issue of what happens to be actually the truth about
the origins and development of life. Unfortunately for those unlucky
enough to be living in the U.S. (not that they don't have a similar
attitude over here in Australia), the ruling has the effect of
establishing a religion in contradiction to the U.S. Constitution;
that religion being naturalistic atheism. Thus, in excluding under
decree of law the right and proper presentation of more than one side
to a scientific controversy, it has had the opposite effect to the one
it purports.
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
"Come, now, suppose your father were arrested and tried to make his
escape?" I asked a young soldier.
"I should run him through with my bayonet," he answered with the
foolish intonation peculiar to soldiers; "and if he made off, I ought
to shoot him," he added, obviously proud of knowing what he must do if
his father were escaping.
-- Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You"
From: Wade Humeniuk
Subject: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <XSLqf.3529$6K2.759@edtnps90>
"A man was walking along a road, followed by two foreigners. It
happened that this man saw something glittering on the path. He
picked it up, observed it, and put it in his pocket.
The other two, behind him, saw what he did and one said to the
other: 'A bad thing for you, isn't it?' But the other man, who was the
Devil, answered: 'No, what that man just found is the truth, but I shall
help him to organize it.' "
Wade
On 2005-12-22 21:24:12 -0500, David Trudgett
<······@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> said:
> 1. It is bizarre to preface such remarks with, "After a searching
> review of the record and applicable caselaw," as if such a review
> of legal records could have any bearing on whether ID is a science
> or not. I'm not saying that such a review was not necessary for
> them (being legal type people and all), but the truth or falsity of
> their claim has nothing whatsoever to do with legal precedent.
No, it speaks directly to the issue of whether ID was introduced in
order to promote religion or to teach science. Applicable case law in
this case means previous cases about whether teaching ID or "creation
science" constitute the teaching of religion rather than science. So a
review of these previous cases are quite relevant.
Bottom line - ID posits an intelligent designer. If ID is introduced to
teach science then ID should be proving the identity of this
intelligent *natural* agent. But ID does no such thing. Rather ID makes
no investigation into the identity of this supposed intelligent agent
in the hope that readers will conclude that the intelligent agent was
actually *supernatural* - i.e., God of the christian religion. By
examining the intent of the Dover school board the court concluded that
they were trying primarily to promote religion, not science education.
In other words, they were hoping the students would conclude that the
intelligent agent was not an advanced space alien, nor a human time
traveller, but rather the christian God.
>
> 2. The court ostensibly takes no position on the truth or otherwise of
> ID: "a proposition on which the Court takes no position." So, as we
> all know anyway, courts do not concern themselves with truth, and
> only legalities matter. As I mentioned, I am interested in the
> truth, and not the incompetent judgement of a court about whether
> ID theories have a scientific basis or not. I already know the
> answer to that question from my own research.
No, the court goes much further than that and states clearly that ID is
*not science* If it is true, it is *unprovably true* because it relies
on *supernatural* causation. The court takes no position of whether it
is true or not because it is pointless to argue about the supposed
truth of *supernatural* propositions.
Example: I propose that the place you are in right now is filled with
thousands of invisible, undetectable faeries. What reasonable person
would get into an argument about this proposition? There is absolutely
no way to prove or disprove it. If it is true (and it is a very big
"if") it is *unprovably true* - no possible evidence could ever be
adduced to corroborate it.
The same is true of ID. The court takes no position because courts deal
in facts, not fantasy.
>
> 3. "ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking
> and permitting supernatural causation". This is a case of begging
> the question. If there is intelligence behind the development of
> life, then that would make it natural and not supernatural. The
> question turns on the semantics of a word, and not on the truth
> behind it. If there really is intelligence behind the development
> of life, then that should be testable to at least some degree by
> scientific investigation.
Such as, for example, identifying a real world agent capable of
creating whole biological species ex nihilo. Any pointers here?
The reality is that ID makes no such attempts because they don't want
to find any *natural* agent responsible. ID proponents just want us to
conclude that it must have been a *supernatural* agent - i.e., the
christian God.
> [*] That makes it science, not religion.
> However, if ID really does _necessarily_ imply some idea of a
> transcendent god (which I don't believe it does, though obviously
> religious type people, myself excluded, will probably like to think
> so) then in that case it would be obvious that science would not be
> able address the fundamental issues surrounding the development of
> life. The proper response to this eventuality would be to
> acknowledge the limits of science, rather than to claim ID is
> unscientific.
>
> [*] For example, if you observe a pattern in a mechanism or
> structure or set of events in the natural world, and you
> eliminate necessity as a cause and chance as a cause, then it
> seems reasonable to infer that the observed pattern was in fact
> designed.
The court deals specifically with this logical fallacy as misplaced
analogy from human artifacts to biological systems. Both are complex,
but this does not mean that both have identical attributes. For
example, a watch does not mate and reproduce. It does not eat, digest
and defecate. It is silly to think that all complex systems must have
been made by some intelligent agent simply because one type of complex
system (certain human artifacts) were. Not all complex systems have the
same type of origin.
>
> 4. "The argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the
> same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation
> science in the 1980's." Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument
> (that many *molecular level* systems cannot be reduced to simpler
> components in any stepwise manner without rendering them inert and
> useless for any purpose [*]) is not "central" to ID, in the sense
> that without it, everything else falls.
Sadly, ID has no real theories because at it's root it is simply the
claim "we'll never be able to explain this by natural causes." ID is
purely negative. All its claims take the form of "this other theory
(evolution) will never explain x." ID has such a bad track record
because evolution keeps explaining more and more, and ID has never
explained anything - it would be nice if ID proponents could ID (pun
intended) the supposed intelligent natural agent designing complex
biological systems at the molecular level across hundreds of millions
of years, yet otherwise completely undetectable. But then the charade
would be over, because any reasonable observer can see that ID
proponents think this supposed intelligent agent is actually
*supernatural* - the christian God.
> It is, however, one of the
> good reasons to seriously consider the evidence for ID theories
> because it is a serious challenge to the assumptions behind
> evolution theory.
No, it is not reason to do so at all. This is the "contrived dualism"
the opinion discusses. The fact that we can't explain something *right
now* doesn't mean it is inexplicable. Example: you walk into a room and
I tell you "I can't find my car keys - faeries must have taken them!"
You quite reasonably say, "hold on, give me a minute, I'll look for
them," to which I reply "do you know *exactly* where they are *right
now*?" You answer "no," of course. To which I reply "then that's proof
that faeries took them!"
In other words, once again:
"We don't know yet" /= "Gee, God must have done it"
On 2005-12-22 02:42:07 -0500, David Trudgett
<······@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> said:
> Clearly, I *must* have at least cursorily glanced at it, or I would
> not have been able to quote from it. Game over, you lose, because in
> your first sentence you prove you can't say what you mean. How can I
> take the rest of your message seriously?
Pure sophistry. For the record, it is perfectly possible to pull a
couple of quotes from under the heading "Whether ID is Science" without
even glancing over the rest of the opinion. Do you really think that
saying "game over" makes you right? Your mischaracterization of the
rest of the opinion (see below) further demonstrates that you cannot
have even given it a cursory look. Your reply to me ironically takes
the same form ("How can I take the rest of your message seriously") Try
actually *reading* my previous reply, try actually *reading* the
Judge's opinion.
Again, you state that the arguments take the form:
> there is no god, therefore evolution of some type must have occurred
when if you had read the opinion, you'd know that the Judge makes no
statement about the existence of a *supernatural* God, nor about the
validity of ID as a *supernatural* explanation.
The Judge's point is that ID is precisely that - a *supernatural*
explanation. Science however is a body of *natural* explanations so it
is therefore impossible for *any* supernatural explanation to form a
part of science. As much as religious christians might like it, ID is
no exception to this simple logical distinction. ID is not science
because it admits of *supernatural* causation, and science by
definition must restrict itself to *natural* causes.
When you write:
> To read every word would also have been
> pointless, because the bulk of it concerns legal and social issues in
> one small corner of the world in which I do not live.
You are wrong. In fact the bulk of the opinion deals with arguments
presented in court about
1. the scientific validity (or lack thereof) of ID
2. whether the intent of the Dover School Board was to promote religion
or to teach science.
Both of these have fundamental relevance to the issue of whether ID is
science or religion, regardless of where you live.
Science is by definition a body of *natural* explanations. This
precludes *any supernatural* causation. ID cannot be science, since ID
has as its centerpiece *supernatural* causation, and invoking the
*supernatural* immediately removes you from the realm of science.
From: David Trudgett
Subject: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <m3k6dxfu10.fsf@rr.trudgett>
David Trudgett <······@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> writes:
> Matthew 5:38-42. Who would Jesus bomb? The old law of eye for eye is
etc.
Sorry about the long sig. It's an email sig that somehow found its way
into the wrong spot.
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that
matter.
-- Martin Luther King
From: Thomas A. Russ
Subject: OT: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <ymir785hu37.fsf_-_@sevak.isi.edu>
David Trudgett <······@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> writes:
> What it does is affirm the fact that
> proposing an intelligence behind the origins and development of life
> in the universe gets too close to affirming a god, and this has no
> place in an atheistic educational system, nor the dominant atheistic
> religion of "science" (a religion in which the non-existence of a god
> is taken as an a priori dogmatic truth).
I think you are too fixated on "atheistic" in all of this. The
public educational system of the US is not required to be atheistic. It
is merely required not to choose a particular religious belief to
advocate. The simplest way to do that is to leave religion out of
government affairs and in the hands of the churches, etc.
Science is not atheistic, and I'm not sure why you would think that. It
does not REQUIRE the non-existence of a god. It is perhaps agnostic on
the issue, but if one were able to come up with verifiable evidence of
the existence of a god, science would accept that. The primary defining
characteristic of science is in a particular method of attempting to
develop explanations of the world. That method relies on evidence and
logical reasoning rather than on faith.
> Judge: "This rigorous attachment to natural explanations is an
> essential attribute to science by definition and by convention." -- by
> which he means that the existence of an intelligent life principle
> would be unnatural and unscientific.
I will quibble about "unnatural" and would substitute instead
"supernatural". Science deals with the natural world and natural
explanations. The supernatural is not within its realm, and is never
claimed to be.
> This is the same as saying that
> if atheistic science conflicts with reality over evolution theory,
> then evolution theory, even though wrong, must be retained because it
> is "science" and the alternative is not.
This does not follow logically. It is not the same thing at all. If
evolution theory is found to conflict with reality, the scientific
method requires that it be rejected and a better, naturalistic
explanation found. If there is a conflict with objective reality, then
the theory is by definition not a valid, supported scientific theory.
That is why, for example, Newtonian mechanics was replaced by
relativistic mechanics once it was demonstrated that there were
deficiencies and a better explanation was available.
One important defining characteristic of scientific beliefs is that they
are, if you'll pardon the expression, constantly evolving. They are in
flux in the sense that scientific progress forces the updating of those
beliefs in response to new evidence. This is often in contrast to
religions which claim a universal, eternal and unchanging truth.
Science deals in explanations which are based on our current best
understanding of phenomena of the natural world and aways subject to
revision.
> This is just the situation in
> which evolution scientists find themselves today: their theory does
> not simply have "gaps" in it, but has pretty much been completely
> destroyed by the counter evidence. That is a "forbidden truth". And
> the claim that the mountain of evidence against evolution theory has
> been rebutted is just false. (Such "rebuttals" usually amount to:
> there is no god, therefore evolution of some type must have occurred;
> there is no other possibility. Note that that is a religious, not a
> scientific argument.)
This is just false. There is no credible counter evidence. There is no
real controversy about it, except in the minds of those with some other
religious agenda. There is no mountain of evidence against evolution,
and thus no need for rebuttal.
For a nice general overview of the state of knowledge, I will direct you
to a National Geographic article:
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/
As an historical aside, I will note that in the late 19th century when
Darwin was formulating his theories, evolution per se was already
accepted as a scientific fact. Darwin's contribution was not the idea
that evolution occurred, since the fossil record and other sources had
demonstrated the occurrence of evolution. Darwin's contribution was to
propose a mechanism by which evolution could be driven. This is the
idea that "natural selection" would serve to drive evolution.
> > Among other things, he nicely deconstructs the supposed arguments for
> > "irreducible complexity" in his ruling.
>
> What the judge did, in fact, is little more than arrogantly "pooh
> pooh" the argument of irreducible complexity, which is only one of the
> considerations that leads one to consider intelligent design as a
> serious possibility. In fact, the various complexity arguments
> ("irreducible complexity" is only one of them, and not even the best
> one when understood simplistically) constitute an *extremely* strong
> attack on random, survival of the fittest evolution (which is what
> scientists mean by default when they refer to evolution theory). Were
> it not for the fact that atheistic science currently has no other
> alternative, the strength of these arguments would long ago have been
> accepted as good enough proof that evolution (according to any method
> thus far postulated) did not occur. Whether that leaves intelligent
> design as the only alternative may be debatable.
This is fallacious argumentation. First of all, many of the irreducible
complexity examples have been shown to be, in fact, reducible when
studied in detail. Secondly, it is a fallacy to argue that just because
one does not understand precisely how something came about, that there
is no way it could have occurred naturally. This is captured in the
notion another respondent used where "absence of evidence" is not
equivalent to "evidence of absence". If someone is found shot, and no
gun is found in the area, the police generally won't assume that there
is no gun and that the bullet was propelled into the victim by
supernatural forces. That is the same sort of fallacious argument that
is being advanced by the irreducible complexity advocates. It is the
same sort of bogus argument that Erich van Daniken used in his books
claiming that various human artifacts like the pyramids were built by
space aliens.
What is hard to grasp is the power of genetic mutation to change
organisms over truly large time scales. In this we are talking about
processes that stretch over billions (1,000,000,000's) of years. That
allows for a lot of change, even if it happens only very slowly. Such
enormous time spans are difficult to conceive. And the other fallacy is
the notion that evolution is random. Darwin's contribution was to show
that natural selection could be driving force behind evolution, a way to
sort out the good from the bad mutations and ensure that (on average) it
is the good (in the sense of survival-enhancing) mutations that
propagated. That addresses the issue of complete random assembly.
> > If a judge can get this right then any "scientist" who cannot is
> > incapable of logical thought or (more likely) simply too biased by
> > religious indoctrination.
>
> Sounds like you should read a few books on the subject. Of course, if
> you are a committed atheist, then something like "evolution" *must*
> have occurred, because there is no other possibility. That is what
> scientists really mean when they put evolution up on an unassailable
> pedestal as they do.
It is not unassailable. If there were actual, objective and
reproducible evidence of something that is non-evolutionary then
scientists would change their beliefs to incorporate this new
explanation. But the current evidence is extremely strong.
If an entirely new and complex species would form de novo in a locked
room, that would be evidence against evolution. Well, strictly
speaking, it would be evidence that evolution alone is an insufficient
explanation. But nobody has demonstrated such spontaneous creation of
life.
As a matter of fact, it seems that all known life on earth shares an
enormous number of biochemical pathways and characteristics. All life
(excepting perhaps prions -- if they are alive) seems to rely on the
DNA/RNA system for reproduction. If there were an intelligent designer
guiding things, why is everything done the same way? Why do mice and
men share so many genetic characteristics. Even more to the point, why
do men and wheat share so much genetic material?
> Of course, the naturalistic evolution assumption [...] proposes that
> an extended series of step-wise coincidences gave rise to life and the
> world as we know it. In other words, the first coincidence led to a
> second coincidence, which led to a third coincidence, which eventually
> led to coincidence 'i', which eventually led up to the present
> situation, 'N'. Evolutionists have not even been able to posit a
> mechanistic 'first' coincidence, only the assumption that each step
> must have had a survival advantage and only by this means could
> evolution from simple to complex have occurred. Each coincidence 'i'
> is assumed to be dependent upon prior steps and to have an associated
> dependent probability 'Pi'. The resultant probability estimate for the
> occurrence of evolutionary naturalism is calculated as the product
> series, given the following:
>
> N, the number of step-wise coincidences in the evolutionary process.
> i = the index for each coincidence: i = 1, 2, 3 ...
> Pi, the evaluated probability for the i'th coincidence.
> PE = the product probability that everything evolved by naturalism.
>
> Innumerable steps are postulated to exist in the evolutionary
> sequence, therefore N is very large (i.e. N...). All values of Pi are
> less than or equal to one, with most of them much smaller than
> one. The greater the proposed leap in step i, the smaller the
> associated probability [...] and a property of [a] product series
> where N is very large and most terms are significantly less than one
> [is that it] quickly converges very close to zero.
>
> The conclusion of this calculation is that the probability of
> naturalistic evolution is essentially zero.
>
> -- Jerry R. Bergman, B.S., M.S. Psychology, Ph.D. in
> Evaluation and Research, M.A. Sociology, Ph.D. Human Biology.
This argument does not account for the "observer effect". There is
reason to believe that the universe contains a large number of planets.
That increases the space for experimentation, and "very close to zero"
is still not zero. With a large number of worlds in play, all that is
required is to have at least one in which things worked out this way.
After all, your chances of winning a lottery are also very close to
zero, but somehow, somebody manages to do it....
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
From: Robert Uhl
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <m3oe38yf4d.fsf@4dv.net>
···@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) writes:
>
> The primary defining characteristic of science is in a particular
> method of attempting to develop explanations of the world. That
> method relies on evidence and logical reasoning rather than on faith.
But science relies on mathematics, and Goedel demonstrated that math
relies on faith, and thus science relies on faith...
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
> Then again, this is still an Internet where the appropriately named
> Domino server
It's not appropriately named; it should be called Lotus House of Cards.
--Steve Sobol, in response to Alan Brown
From: Pascal Costanza
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <410okdF1cqolsU1@individual.net>
Robert Uhl wrote:
> ···@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) writes:
>
>>The primary defining characteristic of science is in a particular
>>method of attempting to develop explanations of the world. That
>>method relies on evidence and logical reasoning rather than on faith.
>
> But science relies on mathematics, and Goedel demonstrated that math
> relies on faith, and thus science relies on faith...
It's true that mathematics relies on axioms which by definition can only
be assumed but not proven. That's actually the case for any scientific
discipline.
But that doesn't mean that you can randomly select arbitrary axioms.
Some sets of axioms allow you to make predictions which you can then
test with experiments. The more testable predictions you can make, and
the more experiments verify them, the more can you be certain that your
axioms capture essential characteristics of the world.
Axioms that lead to predictions that can be shown to be false are, well,
false. Axioms which don't allow you to make any predictions are not
testable, so can only be believed but not tested.
Some faiths have a better basis than others, while other faiths are just
arbitrary.
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Closer to MOP & ContextL:
http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
From: Thomas A. Russ
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <ymihd8zilyl.fsf@sevak.isi.edu>
Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> writes:
>
> ···@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) writes:
> >
> > The primary defining characteristic of science is in a particular
> > method of attempting to develop explanations of the world. That
> > method relies on evidence and logical reasoning rather than on faith.
>
> But science relies on mathematics, and Goedel demonstrated that math
> relies on faith, and thus science relies on faith...
Could you please elaborate about what Goedel demonstrated?
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
From: http://public.xdi.org/=pf
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <m2u0d0qha0.fsf@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 14:51:46 -0700, Robert Uhl wrote:
> ···@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) writes:
>>
>> The primary defining characteristic of science is in a particular
>> method of attempting to develop explanations of the world. That
>> method relies on evidence and logical reasoning rather than on faith.
> But science relies on mathematics, and Goedel demonstrated that math
> relies on faith, and thus science relies on faith...
Well, that's obvious: "science" (in the Popperian sense used in the
natural sciences -- i.e., using the falsification criterion) relies on
many unprovable assumptions -- physicists use mathematical equations to
describe the world: even without Goedel's theorem (which really isn't
very relevant), there's no particular a priori reason to believe the
universe should act in a way describable by mathematics. [Hence it's
foolish to define "scientific" to mean merely "falsifiable". But you
can't just make any old assumptions (axioms) you like, as the ID
people and other cranks tend to do. Axioms that lead to logical
contradictions are false. Axioms that lead to predictions about the
world that don't agree with observations of the world are false (the
basis of the scientific method, but you have to be careful with this
because the interpretation of your observations of the world, which
you need to compare with your prediction, already relies on some
preexisting (meta-)theory (e.g., that the world can meaningfully be
described by mathematical equations)). E.g., Austrian Economics
(there's a redundant phrase for you!) is based on axioms which are
clearly true (denial leads to a performative contradiction) and logic
to deduce facts about the world which therefore must be true; this is
an application of _science_, by any reasonable definition, but there's
no "empirical data" and nothing falsifiable, so the "scientific
imperialist" establishment calls it non-science (and often even
non-sense -- apparently not realising that their own conception of
science necessarily falls on the same grounds!)]
--
Quid enim est stultius quam incerta pro certis habere, falsa pro veris?
-- Cicero
(setq reply-to
(concatenate 'string "Paul Foley " "<mycroft" '(··@) "actrix.gen.nz>"))
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) writes:
> universe should act in a way describable by mathematics. [Hence it's
> foolish to define "scientific" to mean merely "falsifiable".
I don't think anyone claims a necessary and sufficient connection
here, nor that "falsifiable" is sufficient, only that it is necessary,
a _much_ weaker claim.
/Jon
> (there's a redundant phrase for you!) is based on axioms which are
> clearly true (denial leads to a performative contradiction) and logic
> to deduce facts about the world which therefore must be true; this is
> an application of _science_, by any reasonable definition
Only if you take pure mathematics as "science". Maybe it is, maybe it
isn't.
/Jon
--
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com
From: http://public.xdi.org/=pf
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <m2d5jnqsr3.fsf@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>
On 23 Dec 2005 12:06:38 -0500, jayessay wrote:
> Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) writes:
>> universe should act in a way describable by mathematics. [Hence it's
>> foolish to define "scientific" to mean merely "falsifiable".
> I don't think anyone claims a necessary and sufficient connection
> here, nor that "falsifiable" is sufficient, only that it is necessary,
> a _much_ weaker claim.
My point was that it's not necessary, either.
>> (there's a redundant phrase for you!) is based on axioms which are
>> clearly true (denial leads to a performative contradiction) and logic
>> to deduce facts about the world which therefore must be true; this is
>> an application of _science_, by any reasonable definition
> Only if you take pure mathematics as "science". Maybe it is, maybe it
> isn't.
Well...axioms of pure mathematics are not necessarily "true" (if that
even has meaning); you can pick different axioms if you want (e.g.,
you can get Euclidean geometry or Lobachevsky/Bolyai/Riemann, etc.).
What you do with your chosen axioms is "science" I suppose. The
utility of the falsifiability criterion in the natural sciences is
that it lets you choose between (consistent sets of) axioms, when
there's no a priori way to decide -- but all the knowledge you derive
from that is uncertain because every step is only "not yet falsified",
which is not the same as "verified"; if you have some way to find out
something which is /true/, that is obviously not falsifiable, but to
exclude it from "science" is just dumb. E.g., the statement that
"anything that is red all over cannot be green all over" is
necessarily true; it would be silly to run out and try to gather
"empirical evidence" and attempt to falsify the proposition.
--
Quid enim est stultius quam incerta pro certis habere, falsa pro veris?
-- Cicero
(setq reply-to
(concatenate 'string "Paul Foley " "<mycroft" '(··@) "actrix.gen.nz>"))
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) writes:
> On 23 Dec 2005 12:06:38 -0500, jayessay wrote:
>
> > Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) writes:
> >> universe should act in a way describable by mathematics. [Hence it's
> >> foolish to define "scientific" to mean merely "falsifiable".
>
> > I don't think anyone claims a necessary and sufficient connection
> > here, nor that "falsifiable" is sufficient, only that it is necessary,
> > a _much_ weaker claim.
>
> My point was that it's not necessary, either.
In that case, science reduces to philosophy (well, it originally was
"natural philosophy", but that's a digression). If that's what you
want to believe, go for it. But it isn't what working science or
scientists are about.
> >> (there's a redundant phrase for you!) is based on axioms which are
> >> clearly true (denial leads to a performative contradiction) and logic
> >> to deduce facts about the world which therefore must be true; this is
> >> an application of _science_, by any reasonable definition
>
> > Only if you take pure mathematics as "science". Maybe it is, maybe it
> > isn't.
>
> Well...axioms of pure mathematics are not necessarily "true" (if that
> even has meaning);
Of course it does, though truth is relative to the world you map them
to. That's just ordinary model theory.
> you can pick different axioms if you want (e.g.,
> you can get Euclidean geometry or Lobachevsky/Bolyai/Riemann, etc.).
Yes, but that in no way removes or denigrates the idea of truth in
such systems. You can make the claim that there is a "more
interesting truth" (really, this should be 'semantics') as in which
one (if any) corresponds to the world we have (maps to a semantics
which embodies what we take to be in accord with the actual world we
live in).
> What you do with your chosen axioms is "science" I suppose.
On the face of it, that seems like a "strange" POV. But whatever.
> The utility of the falsifiability criterion in the natural sciences
> is that it lets you choose between (consistent sets of) axioms, when
> there's no a priori way to decide
I don't think so. In fact, I'd say this is pretty low down the list
of reasons.
> from that is uncertain because every step is only "not yet falsified",
Yeah, yeah, but that is pretty uninteresting.
> which is not the same as "verified";
Presumably by this you really mean "proven" (as in mathematics or logic).
True, but irrelevant.
> exclude it from "science" is just dumb. E.g., the statement that
> "anything that is red all over cannot be green all over" is
> necessarily true
Actually it isn't for a variety of reasons that have been given in any
number of intro philosophy books and/or courses all hanging on the
imprecision of meaning of several terms in the statement. Sure, you
can clean these up but you simply get closer and closer to a
tautology, i.e., you are simply making a definition, _not_ a
proposition.
/Jon
--
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com
From: http://public.xdi.org/=pf
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <m2oe36ppif.fsf@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>
On 24 Dec 2005 01:56:24 -0500, jayessay wrote:
> Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) writes:
>> On 23 Dec 2005 12:06:38 -0500, jayessay wrote:
>>
>> > Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) writes:
>> >> universe should act in a way describable by mathematics. [Hence it's
>> >> foolish to define "scientific" to mean merely "falsifiable".
>>
>> > I don't think anyone claims a necessary and sufficient connection
>> > here, nor that "falsifiable" is sufficient, only that it is necessary,
>> > a _much_ weaker claim.
>>
>> My point was that it's not necessary, either.
> In that case, science reduces to philosophy (well, it originally was
> "natural philosophy", but that's a digression). If that's what you
> want to believe, go for it. But it isn't what working science or
> scientists are about.
But ultimately the epistemological basis of what you call "science"
rests on axiomatic-deductive reasoning, which you call not-science;
so it /is/ what "working science or scientists are about"!
[That's why I asked you if your statement that "any proposal that is
to be considered scientific must be falsifiable" is scientific -- you
assert it as an axiom; but if it's an axiom it's not falsifiable, and
if it's not falsifiable it's not scientific, according to you, and
therefore has no place in defining what it is it be "considered
scientific"]
See:
http://cogprints.org/302/00/fallibilistic.html
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/extreme.pdf
http://www.mises.org/ufofes/ch1~5.asp
--
Quid enim est stultius quam incerta pro certis habere, falsa pro veris?
-- Cicero
(setq reply-to
(concatenate 'string "Paul Foley " "<mycroft" '(··@) "actrix.gen.nz>"))
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) writes:
> On 24 Dec 2005 01:56:24 -0500, jayessay wrote:
>
> > Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) writes:
> >> On 23 Dec 2005 12:06:38 -0500, jayessay wrote:
> >>
> >> > Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) writes:
> >> >> universe should act in a way describable by mathematics. [Hence it's
> >> >> foolish to define "scientific" to mean merely "falsifiable".
> >>
> >> > I don't think anyone claims a necessary and sufficient connection
> >> > here, nor that "falsifiable" is sufficient, only that it is necessary,
> >> > a _much_ weaker claim.
> >>
> >> My point was that it's not necessary, either.
>
> > In that case, science reduces to philosophy (well, it originally was
> > "natural philosophy", but that's a digression). If that's what you
> > want to believe, go for it. But it isn't what working science or
> > scientists are about.
>
> But ultimately the epistemological basis of what you call "science"
> rests on axiomatic-deductive reasoning, which you call not-science;
Given that "reasoning", _everything_ is science, and so you have
reduced the claim to something basically meaningless. Whatever.
> [That's why I asked you if your statement that "any proposal that is
> to be considered scientific must be falsifiable" is scientific -- you
> assert it as an axiom;
I asserted and assert no such thing. What odd reasoning led you from
"Debatable" to this conclusion anyway?
> but if it's an axiom it's not falsifiable
OTOH, this is actually incorrect. In fact it is really surprising you
would even say such an odd thing, especially after your example of
non-Euclidean geometries.
>, and if it's not falsifiable it's not scientific, according to you,
>and therefore has no place in defining what it is it be "considered
>scientific"]
So this doesn't follow and since all of it is predicated on a mistake
on what you think I asserted (which is also really strange) it is all
irrelevant anyway.
/Jon
--
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com
From: http://public.xdi.org/=pf
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <m2acenoyux.fsf@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>
On 24 Dec 2005 14:53:47 -0500, jayessay wrote:
>> But ultimately the epistemological basis of what you call "science"
>> rests on axiomatic-deductive reasoning, which you call not-science;
> Given that "reasoning", _everything_ is science, and so you have
> reduced the claim to something basically meaningless. Whatever.
Er...what?
>> [That's why I asked you if your statement that "any proposal that is
>> to be considered scientific must be falsifiable" is scientific -- you
>> assert it as an axiom;
> I asserted and assert no such thing. What odd reasoning led you from
> "Debatable" to this conclusion anyway?
None -- I said that you assert "any proposal that is to be considered
scientific must be falsifiable" as an axiom, not that you assert "`any
proposal that is to be considered scientific must be falsifiable' is
scientific" as an axiom. The latter is what you said is "debatable"
(though that response makes no sense unless you admit to lying about
the former <g>)
>> but if it's an axiom it's not falsifiable
> OTOH, this is actually incorrect. In fact it is really surprising you
> would even say such an odd thing, especially after your example of
> non-Euclidean geometries.
Huh? You can't disprove axioms /within/ the system developed on top
of those axioms (unless it's an inconsistent system to start with, but
then you can prove or disprove anything). You can /assume/ different
axioms and still have a consistent system in which, say, certain
axioms of Euclidean geometry don't hold, but that's not at all the
same thing. [Similarly, you can't use the scientific method to
falsify the axioms on which the scientific method is based -- so if
your assertion is true, then science is not scientific!]
--
Quid enim est stultius quam incerta pro certis habere, falsa pro veris?
-- Cicero
(setq reply-to
(concatenate 'string "Paul Foley " "<mycroft" '(··@) "actrix.gen.nz>"))
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) writes:
> scientific" as an axiom. The latter is what you said is "debatable"
> (though that response makes no sense unless you admit to lying about
> the former <g>)
You've become insane.
> >> but if it's an axiom it's not falsifiable
>
> > OTOH, this is actually incorrect. In fact it is really surprising you
> > would even say such an odd thing, especially after your example of
> > non-Euclidean geometries.
>
> Huh? You can't disprove axioms /within/ the system developed on top
Irrelevant. Pick up a book on model theory. I'm done with this
nonsense.
/Jon
--
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com
From: Aatu Koskensilta
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <doms54$t8l$1@phys-news4.kolumbus.fi>
Robert Uhl wrote:
> But science relies on mathematics, and Goedel demonstrated that math
> relies on faith, and thus science relies on faith...
G�del demonstrated no such thing and what he did demonstrate is entirely
irrelevant in this debate which in turn is utterly unrelated to Lisp.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (················@xortec.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
On 2005-12-25 14:32:52 -0500, Aatu Koskensilta
<················@xortec.fi> said:
> "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
> - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
"Leider gibt es nichts wovon man nicht spechen kann."
- correspondents of c.l.l.
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 05:17:03 +0000, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>
>> "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
>> - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
>
> "Leider gibt es nichts wovon man nicht spechen kann."
>
> - correspondents of c.l.l.
Sure, but isn't this a feature? ))
--
If in doubt, enjoy it.
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Vasile Rotaru wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 05:17:03 +0000, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>
> >
> >> "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
> >> - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
> >
> > "Leider gibt es nichts wovon man nicht spechen kann."
> >
> > - correspondents of c.l.l.
>
> Sure, but isn't this a feature? ))
Unfortunately, not lately. (nor in this thread).
From: Robert Uhl
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <m3bqz3w3nd.fsf@4dv.net>
Aatu Koskensilta <················@xortec.fi> writes:
>
>> But science relies on mathematics, and Goedel demonstrated that math
>> relies on faith, and thus science relies on faith...
>
> Gödel demonstrated no such thing...
Yes, he did. He showed that it was impossible to prove any system
within itself--and thus logic cannot be used to prove logic, math to
prove math and so on, and _thus_ one has to take a system on faith
(well, actually one can appeal to System' to prove System, and System''
to prove System' and so on ad infinitum, but that's just turtles the
whole way down...).
> ...and what he did demonstrate is entirely irrelevant in this debate
> which in turn is utterly unrelated to Lisp.
Which is why I'd ceased posting until this point. My port of Blosxom to
Lisp is far more interesting to me:-)
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
To me, the difference between `mainframe,' `mini,' and `micro' is one of
attitude. --Charlie Gibbs
Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> writes:
> Aatu Koskensilta <················@xortec.fi> writes:
>>
>>> But science relies on mathematics, and Goedel demonstrated that math
>>> relies on faith, and thus science relies on faith...
>>
>> G�del demonstrated no such thing...
>
> Yes, he did. He showed that it was impossible to prove any system
> within itself--and thus logic cannot be used to prove logic, math to
> prove math and so on, and _thus_ one has to take a system on faith
> (well, actually one can appeal to System' to prove System, and System''
> to prove System' and so on ad infinitum, but that's just turtles the
> whole way down...).
I don't know you, but *I* do not prove systems or logics. I only
prove theorems.
What G�del proved, is a theorem, which says that there exist theorems
that cannot be proved. That doesn't change anything for all the other
theorems that can be proved.
Moreover, it doesn't prevent you to change the logic system to be able
to prove the theorem you cannot prove in the first logic system. Only
now, some other theorems won't be provable. Just make it so the
unprovable theorems don't matter.
>> ...and what he did demonstrate is entirely irrelevant in this debate
>> which in turn is utterly unrelated to Lisp.
>
> Which is why I'd ceased posting until this point. My port of Blosxom to
> Lisp is far more interesting to me:-)
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
THIS IS A 100% MATTER PRODUCT: In the unlikely event that this
merchandise should contact antimatter in any form, a catastrophic
explosion will result.
From: John Thingstad
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <op.s2fqlj0rpqzri1@mjolner.upc.no>
On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 06:18:14 +0100, Pascal Bourguignon
<····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> Moreover, it doesn't prevent you to change the logic system to be able
> to prove the theorem you cannot prove in the first logic system. Only
> now, some other theorems won't be provable. Just make it so the
> unprovable theorems don't matter.
>
You might try Church lamba calulus.. ;)
This brings you up a level to Turing uncomputabillity..
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
From: David Trudgett
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <m3irt9apkk.fsf@rr.trudgett>
Hi Thomas,
Welcome back, and I hope everyone had a nice Christmas break.
···@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) writes:
> David Trudgett <······@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> writes:
>
>> What it does is affirm the fact that proposing an intelligence
>> behind the origins and development of life in the universe gets too
>> close to affirming a god, and this has no place in an atheistic
>> educational system, nor the dominant atheistic religion of
>> "science" (a religion in which the non-existence of a god is taken
>> as an a priori dogmatic truth).
>
> I think you are too fixated on "atheistic" in all of this. The
> public educational system of the US is not required to be atheistic. It
> is merely required not to choose a particular religious belief to
> advocate. The simplest way to do that is to leave religion out of
> government affairs and in the hands of the churches, etc.
I am fully aware of what the philosophy of American (the U.S., rather)
public education is *supposed* to be. That is not the way it works out
in practice, however. In practice, those U.S. policies have produced
an education system that tends to be atheist friendly, and theist
unfriendly. If you think about it, that must logically be the case,
because excluding God from education is just what atheists dream
about, but it's not exactly what theists would consider ideal.
I do not make the suggestion that the solution is to ram religion down
children's throats in public schools, nor any other type of school,
for that matter. The solution, as in other areas of life is the
principle of freedom: it is up to the community (the students, the
teachers, the parents) to work out among themselves what they wish to
learn and teach and how they wish to learn and teach it. This is true
even to the extreme that it is perfectly reasonable for students to
walk out of a class in which a teacher is trying to indoctrinate
instead of educate. The fact that such a thing is unthinkable shows
how much freedom there is in U.S.-like education systems, and that the
real argument is not how our children will be educated, but how they
will be indoctrinated, since they are a captive audience with no say
in their own life.
>
> Science is not atheistic, and I'm not sure why you would think that.
It is good that you are not sure, because I do not think that. I
apologise if, through sloppiness, I said or gave the impression that I
thought science is atheistic. When I referred to the "atheistic
religion of science", I was talking about what "science" (i.e., the
practice of science) has been turned into by atheists. I did not mean
that science itself is atheistic. Sorry for the confusion. I could
have been clearer perhaps.
Scientists themselves, and the way they practice and try to define
science, can, however, definitely be atheistic. It is in this sense
that the practice of science is predominantly atheistic in the
U.S. and elsewhere. Science itself is not atheistic, but science can
and has been defined in atheistic terms by atheists.
I believe that in 1998, *Nature* published the results of a survey of
the 517 members of the National Academy of Science in the U.S., in
which over half the membership responded. The survey showed that 72.2%
were overtly atheistic, 20.8% were agnostic, and only 7% were
theistic. The title of the article was "Leading scientists still
reject God," and the only criterion for what constituted a "leading"
scientist was membership in the NAS.
In most areas, perhaps, in scientific research, the question does not
arise as to what one's God-related beliefs may be. In the province of
the origin and development of life, however, there can be definite
relevance of theistic or atheistic ideas or mindsets. Let's take a
peek at the atheistic mindset when applied to this field of
enquiry. Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and apparently a well known
evolution promoter, had the following to say:
We take the side of science _in spite_ of the patent absurdity of
some of its constructs, _in spite_ of its failure to fulfil many
of its extravagant promises of health and life, _in spite_ of the
tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so
stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to
materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of
science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the
phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our
_a priori_ adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of
investigation and a set of concepts that produce material
explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how
mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an
absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Refreshingly candid, I would say this represents the typical view of
the evolutionary propagandist. Also, notice his use of the word
'science'. He is using it in the sense of the "atheistic religion of
science," because indeed science (as opposed to speculation) is
unlikely ever to be able to say much about the origin of life, nor of
its development. *Science*, in fact, has no "side" on the issue,
because the question of the origin of life and its development in the
distant past is really outside the scope of science altogether.
Science can do no more than find clues that must be fitted into a
mental framework of some type. It is rather unlikely, to say the
least, that those clues will ever be sufficient to make a materialist
explanation compelling to anyone but an atheist.
It seems reasonably obvious to me that both the question of the origin
of life and of its evolution fall outside the realms of science
because neither is observable, testable or repeatable, let alone
falsifiable. Evolution and origins stories (just-so stories, as
Lewontin calls them) are history with a bit of scientific data
attached. It is only the historical framework (which is not part of
science) that one attaches to the scant data that causes one to
believe one story over another. Unless data comes to light that can
only be interpreted in such a way as to rule out one or more of these
hypothetical historical frameworks, science cannot claim to have
decided one way or the other. I doubt that this will ever happen,
especially in the case of the origin of life, but also in the case of
the development of life thereafter.
> It does not REQUIRE the non-existence of a god.
That is true.
> It is perhaps agnostic on the issue,
Only a person can be agnostic, atheistic or theistic. Science can have
no "belief" one way or the other, nor can it withhold belief, because
science is not a person. It is also impossible for science to
ultimately prove or disprove the existence of God or anything else
that is intrinsically unobservable. If a rational person were to base
one's beliefs solely upon science, then that person would have to be
(by logical deduction) agnostic. An atheist is an atheist because of
prior religious belief, not because of science.
Anyway, I think we agree on that.
> but if one were able to come up with verifiable evidence of the
> existence of a god, science would accept that.
Atheistic science (which is what we have in actuality, by virtue of
the practice of science being driven by atheists) has already a prior
commitment to materialism, and would admit no proof ("verifiable
evidence") of a non-material god. If God were to regularly appear to a
crowd of people at 9am every Sunday to proclaim his existence, the
materialist scientist would prefer to believe in mass hysteria or
aliens than in the "impossibility" of a non-material god.
In other words, "science" would accept no such thing.
> The primary defining characteristic of science is in a particular
> method of attempting to develop explanations of the world. That
> method relies on evidence and logical reasoning rather than on
> faith.
Yes, and that is also my point regarding atheists. Instead of being
agnostic because of the lack of scientific evidence for or against,
they positively believe in the non-existence of god. That is a
religious, not a scientific position to hold, yet atheists try to give
the impression that it is their science that makes them atheists, when
it is not. But in reality, because of their numbers, they turn the
practice of science into an atheistic religion of materialistic
scientism, particularly in areas concerning life, its origin and
development. That is not science, but a philosophy that science does
not need.
It should be of particular concern that atheists are driving the field
of genetic engineering and the human genome project in the service of
both large corporations and the military (for the development of
genetically engineered and targeted biological and chemical weapons).
>
>> Judge: "This rigorous attachment to natural explanations is an
>> essential attribute to science by definition and by convention." -- by
>> which he means that the existence of an intelligent life principle
>> would be unnatural and unscientific.
>
> I will quibble about "unnatural" and would substitute instead
> "supernatural". Science deals with the natural world and natural
> explanations. The supernatural is not within its realm, and is never
> claimed to be.
In that case, you are right, and the origin and evolution of life is
outside the realm of science. Scientific pre-history stories do not a
science make (science fiction perhaps). It would be different if there
were actually reliable and consistent evidence to back up the
historical speculation that evolutionists go on with, but there isn't.
Also, I think the distinction between natural and supernatural is
specious. 'Supernatural' is just a label for stuff that we do not yet
understand: as soon as we understand it, it is no longer supernatural,
but natural. The only merit the term has in the current context is
that God, assuming his existence, will never be understandable by
human reason. Still, it seems perverse to use the term 'supernatural'
to describe the _only_ "thing" that exists in its own right,
contingent on nothing, and is therefore the only "thing" that is 100%
purely and fully "natural".
>
>> This is the same as saying that if atheistic science conflicts with
>> reality over evolution theory, then evolution theory, even though
>> wrong, must be retained because it is "science" and the alternative
>> is not.
>
> This does not follow logically. It is not the same thing at all. If
> evolution theory is found to conflict with reality, the scientific
> method requires that it be rejected and a better, naturalistic
> explanation found.
That is extremely naive, unfortunately. It would be good if the real
world actually worked like that, but it doesn't. In the real world,
where "leading" scientists have a prior commitment to materialism, the
"theory" (hypothesis, really) of evolution must stand no matter how
ridiculous its claims appear to be. That is Lewontin's precise
point. The evolutionists would only be too glad to ditch the
discredited Darwinian (mutation/natural selection) evolution
hypothesis for something better. The trouble is that no one has yet
been able to even hint at something better. Rather than let the
"Divine Foot" in the door, as Lewontin puts it, these atheists will do
and say anything to keep the ridiculous claims of Darwinism alive. And
why shouldn't they? They know that Darwinism is wrong, but they
"know" it is at least more right than that "theistic creation
nonsense."
> If there is a conflict with objective reality, then the theory is by
> definition not a valid, supported scientific theory. That is why,
> for example, Newtonian mechanics was replaced by relativistic
> mechanics once it was demonstrated that there were deficiencies and
> a better explanation was available.
Please don't compare historical science with empirical science.
Evolution and origins speculation on one hand and physics on the
other, are two entirely different kettles of fish. To call them both
"science" is, in fact, rather misleading.
>
>One important defining characteristic of scientific beliefs is that
>they are, if you'll pardon the expression, constantly evolving. They
>are in flux in the sense that scientific progress forces the updating
>of those beliefs in response to new evidence. This is often in
>contrast to religions which claim a universal, eternal and unchanging
>truth. Science deals in explanations which are based on our current
>best understanding of phenomena of the natural world and aways
>subject to revision.
That is true.
>
>> This is just the situation in which evolution scientists find
>> themselves today: their theory does not simply have "gaps" in it,
>> but has pretty much been completely destroyed by the counter
>> evidence. That is a "forbidden truth". And the claim that the
>> mountain of evidence against evolution theory has been rebutted is
>> just false. (Such "rebuttals" usually amount to: there is no god,
>> therefore evolution of some type must have occurred; there is no
>> other possibility. Note that that is a religious, not a scientific
>> argument.)
>
> This is just false.
What is "just false"? It is certainly true that the atheist's argument
I referred to is a religious argument and not a scientific one.
> There is no credible counter evidence. There is no real controversy
> about it, except in the minds of those with some other religious
> agenda. There is no mountain of evidence against evolution, and
> thus no need for rebuttal.
This is where you are wrong, and the only cure for ignorance is
research.
As for your comment about a "religious agenda", I hope you now realise
that the atheists also have a religious agenda, and that it does cloud
their vision. Whereas a theist can admit the possibility that
evolution occurred given adequate evidence to that effect, the atheist
can never under any circumstances admit to, say, "creationism" or
"intelligent design" (unless that intelligence can be understood in
naturalistic terms -- something that can't be ruled out, by the
way). The atheist will *always* claim that naturalistic evolution and
origin of life occurred, and that it only _seems_ ridiculous and
impossible because of our ignorance of science and past conditions.
There is no possible answer to that argument. It is non-falsifiable
and non-testable, and it is also non-science. It is simply a matter of
personal faith, and I have to tell you that I don't have the smallest
fraction of the faith of a committed atheist.
>
> For a nice general overview of the state of knowledge, I will direct you
> to a National Geographic article:
>
> http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/
This is not a serious science piece, but a snow job (i.e. a piece of
rhetoric printed for propaganda purposes). Sorry, that's a fact. It
goes as far as to mention a few facts that seem to lend support to
Darwinian evolution, but that's as far as it goes. It is completely
one-eyed and lacking any semblance of objectivity.
>
> As an historical aside, I will note that in the late 19th century when
> Darwin was formulating his theories, evolution per se was already
> accepted as a scientific fact. Darwin's contribution was not the idea
> that evolution occurred, since the fossil record and other sources had
> demonstrated the occurrence of evolution.
The fossil record appears to indicate that different organisms existed
at different times and places, and that, according to the mainstream
interpretation of the geological column, progressed in an overall
pattern from the less complex to the more complex over time. By itself
it doesn't show that evolution occurred at all. In fact, due to the
almost complete and total absence of fossils that can be labeled
"intermediate forms" (which Darwinian evolution of necessity predicts),
there is in fact strong evidence within the fossil record that
Darwinian evolution did not occur. This increasingly (it is still
getting worse) embarrassing situation was the motivation for developing
the "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis, which itself has been largely
discredited, due mostly I believe to the fact that no credible
mechanism can be proposed for it.
> Darwin's contribution was to propose a mechanism by which evolution
> could be driven. This is the idea that "natural selection" would
> serve to drive evolution.
That is incorrect. Darwinian evolution consists of the idea that
random mutations in the genetic makeup of organisms would produce
phenotypical changes which would in turn be selected for or against by
the natural world according to which characteristics give the organism
the highest probability of surviving and reproducing.
>
>> > Among other things, he nicely deconstructs the supposed arguments
>> > for "irreducible complexity" in his ruling.
>>
>> What the judge did, in fact, is little more than arrogantly "pooh
>> pooh" the argument of irreducible complexity, which is only one of
>> the considerations that leads one to consider intelligent design as
>> a serious possibility. In fact, the various complexity arguments
>> ("irreducible complexity" is only one of them, and not even the
>> best one when understood simplistically) constitute an *extremely*
>> strong attack on random, survival of the fittest evolution (which
>> is what scientists mean by default when they refer to evolution
>> theory). Were it not for the fact that atheistic science currently
>> has no other alternative, the strength of these arguments would
>> long ago have been accepted as good enough proof that evolution
>> (according to any method thus far postulated) did not
>> occur. Whether that leaves intelligent design as the only
>> alternative may be debatable.
>
> This is fallacious argumentation. First of all, many of the
> irreducible complexity examples have been shown to be, in fact,
> reducible when studied in detail. Secondly, it is a fallacy to
> argue that just because one does not understand precisely how
> something came about, that there is no way it could have occurred
> naturally.
Now you are making the straw man fallacy. The complexity arguments are
not about proving something from ignorance. I'm surprised by the
arrogance and smugness of those who believe that a whole body of
competent scientists and other very intelligent people can be so
stupid.
If you actually spend the time to read the scientific arguments of
complexity, you will find that they constitute extremely strong
evidence against any evolution theory based on "gradual" incremental
changes (such as Darwinian evolution). They in no way constitute a
logical "proof", as if science is about such a thing. And this, by the
way, is one way that the disgusting Dover judgement was intellectually
dishonest.
> This is captured in the notion another respondent used where
> "absence of evidence" is not equivalent to "evidence of absence".
> If someone is found shot, and no gun is found in the area, the
> police generally won't assume that there is no gun and that the
> bullet was propelled into the victim by supernatural forces. That
> is the same sort of fallacious argument that is being advanced by
> the irreducible complexity advocates. It is the same sort of bogus
> argument that Erich van Daniken used in his books claiming that
> various human artifacts like the pyramids were built by space
> aliens.
Please. ;-)
> What is hard to grasp is the power of genetic mutation to change
> organisms over truly large time scales. In this we are talking about
> processes that stretch over billions (1,000,000,000's) of years. That
> allows for a lot of change, even if it happens only very slowly.
What you don't realise (because you haven't studied the matter
yourself instead of taking the word of "authorities") is that the
complexity arguments show very convincing evidence that billions
(10^9) of years are not even remotely close to being enough, even if
the whole earth were a huge, seething, organic soup with billions of
amino acid combinations per second being tried out.
> Such enormous time spans are difficult to conceive.
Such enormous time spans and such minute probabilities are
*impossible* to conceive. That's why scientists do calculations.
> And the other fallacy is the notion that evolution is random.
Come now. I assume you have grasped high school biology, so it would
be good of you to return the compliment.
As a matter of fact, Darwinian evolution *is* driven by chance, since
that is the only proposed mechanism for throwing up mutations that
have the possibility of being selected for or against in the natural
environment. The fact that natural selection is not a "chance" process
strictly speaking (at the level of entire populations) does not cancel
the fact that blind chance and nothing else is what is supposed to
provide the raw material upon which natural selection is supposed to
act. The conclusion is that Darwinian evolution is in fact random, and
to believe otherwise in atheistic, materialist circles will have you
branded as a teleologist (quite an insult for a biologist, let me assure
you).
> Darwin's contribution was to show that natural selection could be
> driving force behind evolution, a way to sort out the good from the
> bad mutations and ensure that (on average) it is the good (in the
> sense of survival-enhancing) mutations that propagated. That
> addresses the issue of complete random assembly.
You are getting into straw man territory here again. The process of
Darwinian evolution, or any theory involving undirected gradual
incremental change, implies that each step along the development of
any given feature is the result of pure chance combined with another
chance that the expressed change (if any) be beneficial (or at least
not a detriment) to the organism's survival chances. In the end, that
means that the complete assembly happened by a process of chance. It
does *not* mean that X number of bones in the human body, for
instance, just happened to lay themselves out in the right position in
one single chance event. No one is claiming that: not the
evolutionists, not anyone else.
>
>> > If a judge can get this right then any "scientist" who cannot is
>> > incapable of logical thought or (more likely) simply too biased by
>> > religious indoctrination.
>>
>> Sounds like you should read a few books on the subject. Of course, if
>> you are a committed atheist, then something like "evolution" *must*
>> have occurred, because there is no other possibility. That is what
>> scientists really mean when they put evolution up on an unassailable
>> pedestal as they do.
>
> It is not unassailable. If there were actual, objective and
> reproducible evidence of something that is non-evolutionary then
> scientists would change their beliefs to incorporate this new
> explanation.
This is the same naivety to which I referred above. Atheistic,
materialistic evolution is in fact unfalsifiable, and unassailable in
that sense. No, atheists will never give up materialistic evolution,
no matter what evidence is ever discovered. To them, it will always be
preferable to use old Occam's Razor and reject the more fantastic and
incredible of the possible explanations, which to them will always be
the "God did it" explanation.
In the normal, everyday realms of empirical science, "God did it"
explanations are never necessary, because everything is a matter of
experiment and verification. Evolution and the origin of life is
different. The subject matter is inherently unknowable, and outside of
the purview of science.
> But the current evidence is extremely strong.
To an atheist. To someone with an open mind, the story is completely
different.
>
> If an entirely new and complex species would form de novo in a locked
> room, that would be evidence against evolution. Well, strictly
> speaking, it would be evidence that evolution alone is an insufficient
> explanation. But nobody has demonstrated such spontaneous creation of
> life.
As you just admitted, such a demonstration would prove nothing to an
atheist.
>
> As a matter of fact, it seems that all known life on earth shares an
> enormous number of biochemical pathways and characteristics. All life
> (excepting perhaps prions -- if they are alive) seems to rely on the
> DNA/RNA system for reproduction. If there were an intelligent designer
> guiding things, why is everything done the same way? Why do mice and
> men share so many genetic characteristics. Even more to the point, why
> do men and wheat share so much genetic material?
I'm surprised you can even ask such a question, presumably with a
straight face. There is a quite obvious answer. Your implied reasoning
makes the false assumption that a master designer would necessarily
make ad hoc, gratuitous design changes here and there (perhaps to show
off?) instead of making a hugely complex and interdependent web of
life based on one set of design principles.
>
>
>> Of course, the naturalistic evolution assumption [...] proposes that
>> an extended series of step-wise coincidences gave rise to life and the
>> world as we know it. In other words, the first coincidence led to a
>> second coincidence, which led to a third coincidence, which eventually
>> led to coincidence 'i', which eventually led up to the present
>> situation, 'N'. Evolutionists have not even been able to posit a
>> mechanistic 'first' coincidence, only the assumption that each step
>> must have had a survival advantage and only by this means could
>> evolution from simple to complex have occurred. Each coincidence 'i'
>> is assumed to be dependent upon prior steps and to have an associated
>> dependent probability 'Pi'. The resultant probability estimate for the
>> occurrence of evolutionary naturalism is calculated as the product
>> series, given the following:
>>
>> N, the number of step-wise coincidences in the evolutionary process.
>> i = the index for each coincidence: i = 1, 2, 3 ...
>> Pi, the evaluated probability for the i'th coincidence.
>> PE = the product probability that everything evolved by naturalism.
>>
>> Innumerable steps are postulated to exist in the evolutionary
>> sequence, therefore N is very large (i.e. N...). All values of Pi are
>> less than or equal to one, with most of them much smaller than
>> one. The greater the proposed leap in step i, the smaller the
>> associated probability [...] and a property of [a] product series
>> where N is very large and most terms are significantly less than one
>> [is that it] quickly converges very close to zero.
>>
>> The conclusion of this calculation is that the probability of
>> naturalistic evolution is essentially zero.
>>
>> -- Jerry R. Bergman, B.S., M.S. Psychology, Ph.D. in
>> Evaluation and Research, M.A. Sociology, Ph.D. Human Biology.
>
> This argument does not account for the "observer effect". There is
> reason to believe that the universe contains a large number of planets.
Not only that, it does not account for the existence of an infinite
number of different universes, each varying in infinitely small ways
from the others. In such a "multi-verse", life would surely have
arisen by chance as long as its probably was not absolutely zero. But
multi-verses are not science, just unprovable speculation.
It is my understanding that probability analysis shows that it is
effectively impossible for life to have arisen by chance even given
the whole universe as a playground and all of the estimated age of the
universe to do it in. There may be invalid assumptions with these
analyses, who knows? But the exercise has been done.
What you actually mean by the "observer effect" is that you don't care
how low the probability is because you just have to look around you
and here we are. It doesn't matter that, to pick any figure, the
chances of life developing from deterministic chemical reactions is
one in 10^10049 because we have an existence proof that life did so
evolve. Whoops, that's begging the question, isn't it? What you are
really saying is that such an impossibility is more possible than,
say, instantaneous creation by God.
> That increases the space for experimentation, and "very close to zero"
> is still not zero. With a large number of worlds in play, all that is
> required is to have at least one in which things worked out this way.
>
> After all, your chances of winning a lottery are also very close to
> zero, but somehow, somebody manages to do it....
Imagine that... ;-)
Cheers,
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
It is naively assumed that the fact that the majority of people share
certain ideas or feelings proves the validity of these ideas and
feelings. Nothing is further from the truth... Just as there is a
'folie a deux' there is a 'folie a millions.' The fact that millions
of people share the same vices does not make these vices virtues, the
fact that they share so many errors does not make the errors to be
truths, and the fact that millions of people share the same form of
mental pathology does not make these people sane.
-- Erich Fromm, The Sane Society, Routledge, 1955, pp.14-15
David Trudgett <······@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> writes:
> It seems reasonably obvious to me that both the question of the
> origin of life and of its evolution fall outside the realms of
> science because neither is observable, testable or repeatable, let
> alone falsifiable.
If what you say here were true, I suppose it could be obvious. But it
isn't. For the case of evolution there is plenty of observed cases
"in the wild". There are also many tested and repeated experiments
showing it and how natural selection accounts for it. Because of
this, it is also clear that it can be shown to be false - any of these
observations and/or experiments may well have turned out otherwise and
thus given direct evidence that the propositions of evolution are
false and thus that the theory is wrong. But they didn't.
As for the orign of life - that is still up for grabs. Just because
it has _yet_ to be observed doesn't mean it _won't_ be observed. It
doesn't help that definitions of life are still a bit fuzzy, but that
doesn't change the basic point.
> Yes, and that is also my point regarding atheists. Instead of being
> agnostic because of the lack of scientific evidence for or against,
> they positively believe in the non-existence of god. That is a
> religious, not a scientific position to hold
I think a key to some understanding here is to realize that
"scientific evidence" is by definition irrelevant here. OTOH, that
doesn't mean that beliefs in this context are necessarily "religious".
That seems too narrow - you can have metaphysics without bringing
religion into it let alone a "god". For example, an epistemologically
equivalent situation is the case of choosing to "positively believe in
the non-existence of a mad scientist as the ID who is creating reality
by noodling around with a brain in a vat". Someone wanting to believe
this and even have it taught in school would be perfectly in accord
with the tenets of ID. So, why would someone be inclined to not
believe this scenario?
/Jon
--
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com
From: Pascal Costanza
Subject: Re: OT: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <41fn0oF1e091hU1@individual.net>
David Trudgett wrote:
> It seems reasonably obvious to me that both the question of the origin
> of life and of its evolution fall outside the realms of science
> because neither is observable, testable or repeatable, let alone
> falsifiable.
This isn't enough to consider all kinds of arbitrary explanations for
the "origin of life" acceptable. To the contrary.
The term "origin of life" already suggests that there "must" be a cause
for our existence. Both assumptions that there is a cause and that there
isn't a cause are not verifiable or falsifiable. So it merely becomes a
question of what is more likely. It's important to note that the
assumption that there "must" be a cause is an assumption made by human
beings, and doesn't say anything about the existence and/or the
characteristics of a cause itself.
> Only a person can be agnostic, atheistic or theistic. Science can have
> no "belief" one way or the other, nor can it withhold belief, because
> science is not a person. It is also impossible for science to
> ultimately prove or disprove the existence of God or anything else
> that is intrinsically unobservable.
It is also impossible for science to ultimately prove or disprove the
existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
It is important to note that I don't meant this as a joke, and that I am
not trying to poke fun at you here. The question about the existence or
non-existence of God _is_ on an equal footing as the question about the
existence or non-existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Both are
human inventions. They cannot be anything else because, as you said,
they are outside the realm of observable facts.
> If a rational person were to base
> one's beliefs solely upon science, then that person would have to be
> (by logical deduction) agnostic.
Right.
> An atheist is an atheist because of
> prior religious belief, not because of science.
That's incorrect. That's a false assumption that can only be made by
theists.
> Instead of being
> agnostic because of the lack of scientific evidence for or against,
> they positively believe in the non-existence of god.
Incorrect. They may just not care about the concept of a god (or of
gods), as little as they care about the concept of a Flying Spaghetti
Monster. I myself am an atheist, and it doesn't require any particular
activity or effort not to believe in god. It's just a strange and highly
unlikely concept, that's all.
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Closer to MOP & ContextL:
http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
David Trudgett <······@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> writes:
> no position, ID is not science.") What it does is affirm the fact that
> proposing an intelligence behind the origins and development of life
> in the universe gets too close to affirming a god,
Actually it gets too close to confirming absolute hopeless stupidity
in humans.
> Judge: "This rigorous attachment to natural explanations is an
> essential attribute to science by definition and by convention." -- by
> which he means that the existence of an intelligent life principle
No, all he means here is the simple ordinary key defining aspect of
science: any proposal that is to be considered scientific must be
falsifiable. So called "intelligent design" aka "creationism" aka
"creation 'science'" is by _definition_ not falsifiable.
> is "science" and the alternative is not. This is just the situation in
> which evolution scientists find themselves today: their theory does
> not simply have "gaps" in it, but has pretty much been completely
> destroyed by the counter evidence.
Sorry, this is total absolute nonsense and stunningly against all
known facts. Even for the "scientists" advocating "ID" the most they
can muster is that the current state of understanding of "evolution"
(which is in fact a pretty multifaceted thing), cannot yet explain
everything that is observed. BFD. That's true of almost explanation.
Of course if your an "ID" kind of guy I guess you may claim that it
explains everything - simply by fiat.
> the claim that the mountain of evidence against evolution theory has
There isn't _any_ evidence _against_ it. You are simply wrong.
> considerations that leads one to consider intelligent design as a
> serious possibility. In fact, the various complexity arguments
> ("irreducible complexity" is only one of them, and not even the best
> one when understood simplistically) constitute an *extremely* strong
> attack on random, survival of the fittest evolution (which is what
_Arguments_ here are totally _irrelevant_. You must show hard
objective physical _evidence_ which _contradicts_ the notions in
evolution. That's how real science works. The fact that all
currently known observations either i) are neutral or ii) directly
support the tenets of evolution are why the whole "ID" thrust is
completely confused and basically incoherent.
> Sounds like you should read a few books on the subject. Of course, if
Sounds like you need to get a basic grip on what science is and what
religion is and how the two are _fundamentally_ different.
> you are a committed atheist, then something like "evolution" *must*
> have occurred, because there is no other possibility.
Get a hold of yourself man!
> That is what scientists really mean when they put evolution up on an
> unassailable pedestal as they do.
It's not unassiable at all. If you can bring real evidence to bear
which directly conflicts with the tenets of the theory (yes it _is_ a
theory - just like the theory of Special or General Relativity - BFD),
then you will have gone a long way to showing what you so desparately
want to believe - that it is incorrect. No one has done this and
further, there is a _lot_ of confirming evidence.
> A lot of people (most, I would say) don't know what intelligent design
Here's another thing to think about: the whole idea (which is the
fundamental claim) that high levels of complexity involve _any_ kind
of _design_ is just plain crazy.
/Jon
--
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com
From: http://public.xdi.org/=pf
Subject: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <m2y82cqj0p.fsf@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>
On 22 Dec 2005 12:36:12 -0500, jayessay wrote:
>> Judge: "This rigorous attachment to natural explanations is an
>> essential attribute to science by definition and by convention." -- by
>> which he means that the existence of an intelligent life principle
> No, all he means here is the simple ordinary key defining aspect of
> science: any proposal that is to be considered scientific must be
> falsifiable.
Hmmm. Is the statement that "any proposal that is to be considered
scientific must be falsifiable" scientific? :-)
> known facts. Even for the "scientists" advocating "ID" the most they
> can muster is that the current state of understanding of "evolution"
> (which is in fact a pretty multifaceted thing), cannot yet explain
> everything that is observed. BFD. That's true of almost explanation.
What is "BFD"? Google says "Berufsf�rderungsdienst", "Build Floppy
Disk", "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection", "Binary File Descriptor",
"Boston Fire Department", "Bulk File Distribution", and something
about newspapers...none of those seem likely to be what you meant.
--
Quid enim est stultius quam incerta pro certis habere, falsa pro veris?
-- Cicero
(setq reply-to
(concatenate 'string "Paul Foley " "<mycroft" '(··@) "actrix.gen.nz>"))
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> (http://public.xdi.org/=pf) writes:
> Hmmm. Is the statement that "any proposal that is to be considered
> scientific must be falsifiable" scientific? :-)
Debatable.
> What is "BFD"?
"Big F* Deal", i.e., of little or no consequence or interest.
/Jon
--
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com
From: Wade Humeniuk
Subject: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <0MCqf.2156$AP5.1608@edtnps84>
Quit spreading misinformation. The intelligent design group
have a knot in their shorts. They cannot discern fact and truth
anymore because they spend all day spinning language. Blah, blah, blah.
ID is not science. If you want equal footing then use the scientific
method to validate ID, quit blaming science for your own ineptitude.
Wade
David Trudgett <······@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> writes:
> ···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
>
> > Emre Sevinc <·····@bilgi.edu.tr> writes:
> >
> >> I've just found that article:
> >>
> >> Slurping a file in Common Lisp
> >> http://www.emmett.ca/~sabetts/slurp.html
> >>
> >> Step by step refinement, comparisons with Perl, etc.
> >>
> >> I liked the article.
> >>
> >> Then asked the question:
> >>
> >> Do I have to be an expert to get that performance?
> >
> > Yes, you need to play around with different techniques in any
> > language. This person is obviously an exper Perl hacker.
^^^^^
"experienced"
> Actually, that is not obviously the case. The Perl file slurp shown in
> the article is a standard and common Perl idiom, often useful for
> reading in the contents of small files for processing. Obviously, it's
> a quick and dirty feature, but that's one of the beauties of Perl
> (that it's good for quick and dirty tasks that systems administrators,
> for example, often have to do).
Yes, it's a common idiom. But it's also one that people don't tend to
learn until they get burnt by doing it the "wrong" way. At least, I
didn't, and I know I'm not alone.
> I think the point is that if you want to do quick and dirty scripting
> tasks, you are probably better off, all things being equal, doing them
> in Perl than in Common Lisp. They don't call Perl the Swiss Army knife
> of systems administrators for nothing! ;-)
To each his own. I personally know Perl better than I know sed or
awk, but for anything I *can't* do with normal Unix shell utilities,
I'd probably be better off with CL or Emacs than Perl.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | Free Mumia Abu-Jamal! |
,--' _,' | Abolish the racist |
/ / | death penalty! |
( -. | `-----------------------'
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
In article <···············@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>,
···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) wrote:
> David Trudgett <······@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> writes:
> > Actually, that is not obviously the case. The Perl file slurp shown in
> > the article is a standard and common Perl idiom, often useful for
> > reading in the contents of small files for processing.
...
> Yes, it's a common idiom. But it's also one that people don't tend to
> learn until they get burnt by doing it the "wrong" way. At least, I
> didn't, and I know I'm not alone.
It seems that the fundamental issue has more to do with whether perl
idioms are better documented (in terms of getting them out there) than
lisp idioms. Frequently I find that discovering these idioms for lisp
are a matter of extensive google-fu, or trial and error. This is
primarily a catch-22 of market popularity. A large market means more
"cookbook" type titles and websites. The lack of these titles and
websites makes lisp adoption a bit harder.
I would also add that the implicit short-cuts included in the perl idiom
are one of the reasons I can't stand perl for more than basic tasks. In
terms of readability, the following lisp idiom is preferrable to me than
the perl snippit.
(defun slurp-stream4 (stream)
(let ((seq (make-string (file-length stream))))
(read-sequence seq stream)
seq))
--
Kirk Job-Sluder
Kirk Job Sluder <···········@jobsluder.net> writes:
>
> It seems that the fundamental issue has more to do with whether perl
> idioms are better documented (in terms of getting them out there) than
> lisp idioms. Frequently I find that discovering these idioms for lisp
> are a matter of extensive google-fu, or trial and error. This is
> primarily a catch-22 of market popularity. A large market means more
> "cookbook" type titles and websites. The lack of these titles and
> websites makes lisp adoption a bit harder.
And in fact IIRC perl comes with a perl cookbook listing several
well-known idioms.
> I would also add that the implicit short-cuts included in the perl idiom
> are one of the reasons I can't stand perl for more than basic tasks. In
> terms of readability, the following lisp idiom is preferrable to me than
> the perl snippit.
>
> (defun slurp-stream4 (stream)
> (let ((seq (make-string (file-length stream))))
> (read-sequence seq stream)
> seq))
Oh, I think the Perl is more readable, once one has learnt the idioms
involved, kinda like 2 + 3 is more readable than 'increase the number
following one by the number which follows the self same number.'
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
Farewell Romance the Soldier spoke
By skill-of-sword we may not win
But scuffle 'midst the unclean smoke
Of arquebuse and culverin
Honor is lost and none may tell
Who paid good blows, Romance farewell.
--Kipling
In article <··············@4dv.net>,
Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> Kirk Job Sluder <···········@jobsluder.net> writes:
> > I would also add that the implicit short-cuts included in the perl idiom
> > are one of the reasons I can't stand perl for more than basic tasks. In
> > terms of readability, the following lisp idiom is preferrable to me than
> > the perl snippit.
> >
> > (defun slurp-stream4 (stream)
> > (let ((seq (make-string (file-length stream))))
> > (read-sequence seq stream)
> > seq))
>
> Oh, I think the Perl is more readable, once one has learnt the idioms
> involved, kinda like 2 + 3 is more readable than 'increase the number
> following one by the number which follows the self same number.'
Well, to me this is just saying the obvious that the perl statement is
more readable, assuming that you know enough about the internals of how
perl dynamically expands strings. Perl idiom created problems the first
time I ran it, using a file that was larger than available RAM memory.
When I read a file, I want to explicitly know how much of that file will
be read. I don't know that from $s = <> .
Granted this is a trivial example, but the abundance of implicit badness
in perl, in frequently used perl idioms, and embedded in published perl
code are among the reasons why I prefer not to use it. The lisp snippit
explicitly tells me source, destination, method and how much.
--
Kirk Job-Sluder
Kirk Job Sluder <···········@jobsluder.net> writes:
>> > (defun slurp-stream4 (stream)
>> > (let ((seq (make-string (file-length stream))))
>> > (read-sequence seq stream)
>> > seq))
> Perl idiom created problems the first time I ran it, using a file
> that was larger than available RAM memory. When I read a file, I
> want to explicitly know how much of that file will be read. I don't
> know that from $s = <> .
By this reasoning C fgets() is better than Lisp READ-LINE.
Anyway, the above Lisp code can't be better because it doesn't work.
Some streams like sockets can't have the length measured prior
to reading, and the length doesn't have to be in the same units
as reading.
The $s = <> at least works when the file fits in memory. You can also
explicitly tell Perl how much to read (read, sysread). In Lisp you
have to implement SLURP-STREAM in terms of READ-SEQUENCE in a loop
yourself.
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk
\__/ ······@knm.org.pl
^^ http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/
From: Peter Seibel
Subject: Re: Documenting Idioms(was: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl)
Date:
Message-ID: <m2wthx0wwm.fsf@gigamonkeys.com>
Kirk Job Sluder <···········@jobsluder.net> writes:
> In article <···············@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>,
> ···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) wrote:
>
>> David Trudgett <······@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> writes:
>> > Actually, that is not obviously the case. The Perl file slurp shown in
>> > the article is a standard and common Perl idiom, often useful for
>> > reading in the contents of small files for processing.
> ...
>> Yes, it's a common idiom. But it's also one that people don't tend to
>> learn until they get burnt by doing it the "wrong" way. At least, I
>> didn't, and I know I'm not alone.
>
> It seems that the fundamental issue has more to do with whether perl
> idioms are better documented (in terms of getting them out there) than
> lisp idioms. Frequently I find that discovering these idioms for lisp
> are a matter of extensive google-fu, or trial and error. This is
> primarily a catch-22 of market popularity. A large market means more
> "cookbook" type titles and websites. The lack of these titles and
> websites makes lisp adoption a bit harder.
>
> I would also add that the implicit short-cuts included in the perl idiom
> are one of the reasons I can't stand perl for more than basic tasks. In
> terms of readability, the following lisp idiom is preferrable to me than
> the perl snippit.
>
> (defun slurp-stream4 (stream)
> (let ((seq (make-string (file-length stream))))
> (read-sequence seq stream)
> seq))
Unfortunately that's not a portably correct implementation. It's not
clear what FILE-LENGTH ought to return when given a character
stream. In practice, most implementations return the number of octets
which is not always the same as the number of characters in the
stream. For instance, if the stream is reading from a Windows text
file, every #\Newline character is encoded with two octets. Thus your
string is likely to have some gunk at the end because it is too big
and won't be filled completely be the READ-SEQUENCE. Similar problems
occur with non 8-bit character encodings such as UTF8.
-Peter
--
Peter Seibel * ·····@gigamonkeys.com
Gigamonkeys Consulting * http://www.gigamonkeys.com/
Practical Common Lisp * http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/
From: Tim X
Subject: Re: Documenting Idioms(was: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl)
Date:
Message-ID: <87wth2jlvx.fsf@tiger.rapttech.com.au>
Kirk Job Sluder <···········@jobsluder.net> writes:
> In article <···············@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>,
> ···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) wrote:
>
> > David Trudgett <······@zeta.org.au.nospamplease> writes:
> > > Actually, that is not obviously the case. The Perl file slurp shown in
> > > the article is a standard and common Perl idiom, often useful for
> > > reading in the contents of small files for processing.
> ...
> > Yes, it's a common idiom. But it's also one that people don't tend to
> > learn until they get burnt by doing it the "wrong" way. At least, I
> > didn't, and I know I'm not alone.
>
> It seems that the fundamental issue has more to do with whether perl
> idioms are better documented (in terms of getting them out there) than
> lisp idioms. Frequently I find that discovering these idioms for lisp
> are a matter of extensive google-fu, or trial and error. This is
> primarily a catch-22 of market popularity. A large market means more
> "cookbook" type titles and websites. The lack of these titles and
> websites makes lisp adoption a bit harder.
>
> I would also add that the implicit short-cuts included in the perl idiom
> are one of the reasons I can't stand perl for more than basic tasks. In
> terms of readability, the following lisp idiom is preferrable to me than
> the perl snippit.
>
> (defun slurp-stream4 (stream)
> (let ((seq (make-string (file-length stream))))
> (read-sequence seq stream)
> seq))
>
> --
I agree. The other side of the coin is that I've had numerous times
when I've been employed to assist with a perl project which is having
problems only to find that many of the well published perl idioms have
been used, but inapropriately and without any understanding. So, when
using perl for simple text processing of small data sets, all is well,
but as soon as you move into a different domain or large data sets,
suddenly the well known idioms begin to break down and because many
have simply memorised the idioms without any deeper understanding,
they don't know where to start when attempting to solve the problem.
This is not to say idioms are bad - they are good, but only really
good for those programmers who want to understand them rather than
just apply them. CL would certainly benefit from more readily
available and more publicised idioms (see the cl-cookbook at
http://cl-cookbook.sf.net), but there is no replacement for
actually understanding whats going on unless you only ever intend to
dabble or do simple tasks.
Note that IMO perl's real power is in being a sys admin tool and in
most cases, the things sys admins need to do with programming are
simple and straight-forward utility type scripts. Perl is awful for
large projects. CL on the other hand is more general purpose - it
might not be as quick to do simple text processing until you have
mastered basic idioms, but its good for applications and scales better
for larger projects - especially ones with multiple developers. If
anyone ever offers you a job working on a large perl based project
with multiple developers, run, run very very fast.......
Tim
--
Tim Cross
The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail is
to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you
really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!
From: Stefan Scholl
Subject: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <dob3tj$cq5$03$1@news.t-online.com>
> Slurping a file in Common Lisp
> http://www.emmett.ca/~sabetts/slurp.html
By the way:
Am I right that FILE-LENGTH could be very slow on a character stream
when the Common Lisp implementation uses UTF-8 for character streams?
From: Edi Weitz
Subject: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <uoe3a7py6.fsf@agharta.de>
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:31:47 +0100, Stefan Scholl <······@no-spoon.de> wrote:
> By the way:
> Am I right that FILE-LENGTH could be very slow on a character stream
> when the Common Lisp implementation uses UTF-8 for character
> streams?
No, because most (all?) Common Lisp implementations usually report the
length in octets. See this thread:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_frm/thread/9a32cf124a265764/026c0091aa998263>
Cheers,
Edi.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
From: Stefan Scholl
Subject: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <dodmqi$per$00$1@news.t-online.com>
Edi Weitz <········@agharta.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:31:47 +0100, Stefan Scholl <······@no-spoon.de> wrote:
>> Am I right that FILE-LENGTH could be very slow on a character stream
>> when the Common Lisp implementation uses UTF-8 for character
>> streams?
>
> No, because most (all?) Common Lisp implementations usually report the
> length in octets. See this thread:
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_frm/thread/9a32cf124a265764/026c0091aa998263>
This Pitman guy in the thread seems to know something about Common Lisp.
He should write a book. :-)
Emre Sevinc <·····@bilgi.edu.tr> writes:
> Slurping a file in Common Lisp
> http://www.emmett.ca/~sabetts/slurp.html
See also:
SLURP-FILE Performance Comparison
http://cybertiggyr.com/gene/sfpc/
Paolo
--
Why Lisp? http://wiki.alu.org/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Recommended Common Lisp libraries/tools:
- ASDF/ASDF-INSTALL: system building/installation
- CL-PPCRE: regular expressions
- CFFI: Foreign Function Interface
From: Alain Picard
Subject: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <87fyonkl98.fsf@memetrics.com>
Emre Sevinc <·····@bilgi.edu.tr> writes:
> Of course, no problem if you don't care about
> popularity and public image.
I don't think it's a problem with "popularity" or "public image".
It's a question of what you expect from your tools. Lisp is
highly abstract, so it lets you develop slow code fast, and then,
if that's not fast enough, it (usually) gives you enough room to
manoeuvre that you can get decent performance with some hard work.
In some languages, e.g. C, you always have to do the hard work.
Since most programs only need to have <5% of their functions
optimize, this is not a good strategy.
In some languages, like Perl, certain types of operations are
"pre-optimized" for you, i.e. those operations for which the
language was designed. In Perl, that's text processing. On should
_hope_ that Perl is good at quickly processing text! But Lisp
is not a text processing language, it's a general purpose language.
Once you start trying to do difficult stuff in Perl, you quickly
run afoul of it's many, many difficulties.
So, I'd say Lisp is popular and has a good public image among those
programmers who have carefully thought out the solution space
for which it's appropriate. As for being popular in the wider
populace, well... if you want visual basic, you know where to find it.
--ap
From: Pete Kazmier
Subject: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <87u0d2uky5.fsf@coco.kazmier.com>
Emre Sevinc <·····@bilgi.edu.tr> writes:
> Slurping a file in Common Lisp
> http://www.emmett.ca/~sabetts/slurp.html
>
> Step by step refinement, comparisons with Perl, etc.
> Then asked the question:
>
> Do I have to be an expert to get that performance?
> Do I have to think so much for such a simple task?
> Why Perl people get a similar performance without
> thinking much about it?
I had a hard time understanding this as well when I wanted to use CL
at work to parse very large log files and matching on regexps. It
basically comes down to this: you are comparing apples to oranges.
Let my try to explain, the experts can pipe in as needed. CL has a
real character type. As you read from a file, CL is converting those
bytes into a real character type . It's doing more work upfront so you
can reap all of the benefits of a real character type (could someone
expand on these?).
In Python, when you read a file, you end up with simple list of bytes
that make up a string, which is why the default open/read operations
are so fast compared to CL. But the moment you have to deal any other
type of non-ascii encoding, you have to use a completely different set
of open/read operations in order to get strings that represent actual
characters (not individual bytes) in a file thus mimicking the work
that a CL implementation does by default.
For example, in Python, here is the default behavior and the fast read
times that you would expect (similar to Perl) for a large text file:
>>> import time
>>> def slurp(f):
... start = time.time()
... s = f.read()
... print "Read %d chars in %.2f secs" % (len(s), time.time() - start)
... f.close()
...
>>> f = open("/tmp/ascii.txt", "r")
>>> slurp(f)
Read 180550810 chars in 0.580 secs
Now lets make Python do the same amount of work that CL is doing by
default (my default encoding is iso-8859-1 in SBCL):
>>> f = codecs.open("/tmp/ascii.txt", "r", "iso-8859-1")
>>> slurp(f)
Read 180550810 chars in 19.848 secs
You'll notice that Python suddenly comes to a crawl. All of a sudden,
the speeds you see in CL look pretty good compared to Python. I don't
have SBCL installed on this machine at the moment, but the times are
definitely faster as I've done this test in the past.
So, you are probably wondering why you can't get CL to use the same
shortcut that Python is using for lightning fast read times. Well, it
turns out that you can, just read using an '(unsigned-byte 8). The
problem then becomes, or at least it did in my case, there were no
regexp libraries that operated on unsigned-bytes. All of the CL string
libraries work with characters, not bytes (Edi Weitz was able to point
me to someone who got CL-PPCRE to work with bytes instead of chars).
In summary, CL is doing way more than Perl or Python is doing by
default because it is creating characters instead of bytes. Thus, you
were comparing apples to oranges. When you force Python (and I presume
Perl) to actually process the bytes, the times become similar (or
faster in SBCL case). Finally, you can tell CL to read unsigned bytes,
but you'll just have to write your own set of string utilities that
work on bytes vs characters.
Again, I'm a newbie to CL as well, so hopefully the experts will be
able to pipe in here in the event that I've mislead you.
Pete
From: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
Subject: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <87zmmr1nxp.fsf@qrnik.zagroda>
Pete Kazmier <·····················@kazmier.com> writes:
>>>> f = open("/tmp/ascii.txt", "r")
>>>> slurp(f)
> Read 180550810 chars in 0.580 secs
>
> Now lets make Python do the same amount of work that CL is doing by
> default (my default encoding is iso-8859-1 in SBCL):
>
>>>> f = codecs.open("/tmp/ascii.txt", "r", "iso-8859-1")
>>>> slurp(f)
> Read 180550810 chars in 19.848 secs
>
> You'll notice that Python suddenly comes to a crawl.
You are measuring the difference between fitting data in memory
and swapping to disk. Try with a smaller file. For me conversion
into characters is only 4 times slower.
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk
\__/ ······@knm.org.pl
^^ http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/
In article <··············@ileriseviye.org>,
Emre Sevinc <·····@bilgi.edu.tr> wrote:
> http://www.emmett.ca/~sabetts/slurp.html
...
> Step by step refinement, comparisons with Perl, etc.
>
> I liked the article.
>
> Then asked the question:
>
> Do I have to be an expert to get that performance?
> Do I have to think so much for such a simple task?
> Why Perl people get a similar performance without
> thinking much about it?
>
> Well, I'm just thinking aloud, maybe this is
> a question for cl-gardeners project. Or maybe
> for cl-cookbook.
>
> Again and again, same pattern is visible, some
> simple things need some extra and intricate thought.
Well, engaging in the discussion here, the perl snippit provided is very
simple, direct, and takes advantage of some highly optimized C functions
under the hood:
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
local $/;
my $s = <>;
print length($s);
print "\n";
This just dumps the entire stream into the array. Now this is likely to
run into problems if the stream contents are larger than your available
memory. Most frequently you want to use buffered input to avoid this
problem, and also because you want to process that input as it comes in.
The equivalent function is:
(defun slurp-stream4 (stream)
(let ((seq (make-string (file-length stream))))
(read-sequence seq stream)
seq))
Which makes the task of allocating the array to the proper size
transparent.
In most languages doing something inside a loop construct is going to be
more expensive than using an optimized function for a direct slurp.
--
Kirk Job-Sluder
From: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
Subject: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <871x04rnyl.fsf@qrnik.zagroda>
Kirk Job Sluder <···········@jobsluder.net> writes:
> The equivalent function is:
>
> (defun slurp-stream4 (stream)
> (let ((seq (make-string (file-length stream))))
> (read-sequence seq stream)
> seq))
This will not work for pipes or sockets, where the length cannot be
computed without reading the data.
And I suppose that it's plainly wrong when character recoding or
newline conversion takes place, even in case of regular files.
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk
\__/ ······@knm.org.pl
^^ http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
> Kirk Job Sluder <···········@jobsluder.net> writes:
>
> > The equivalent function is:
> >
> > (defun slurp-stream4 (stream)
> > (let ((seq (make-string (file-length stream))))
> > (read-sequence seq stream)
> > seq))
>
> This will not work for pipes or sockets, where the length cannot be
> computed without reading the data.
>
> And I suppose that it's plainly wrong when character recoding or
> newline conversion takes place, even in case of regular files.
>
Yep. I have been bitten before by this (and there is at least one
system out there that fails miserably because of this encoding issue
under Windows).
However, how can you "slurp" a socket or pipe stream? Don't you have
to resort to READ-CHAR and/or READ-BYTE in that case?
Cheers
--
Marco
From: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
Subject: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <87d5jng4yu.fsf@qrnik.zagroda>
"Marco Antoniotti" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> However, how can you "slurp" a socket or pipe stream? Don't you have
> to resort to READ-CHAR and/or READ-BYTE in that case?
In Unix slurping the whole file can be done by read() in a loop,
until it signals eof. lseek() can be used to estimate the size
(by subtracting the initial position from the position of the end),
but for some streams it will signal an error. In any case the file
might be truncated by some other process while we are reading it,
so the implementation should be prepared for that, i.e. probably
just return truncated input, but better not garbage, nor crash.
This is applicable to all kinds of Unix streams, and I think for some
streams it's the only way. For others it might be possible to mmap()
them into memory.
I think on Windows it's similar, with only changed function names.
I suppose in Common Lisp the best portable method is READ-SEQUENCE
in a loop, interspersed with reallocation. The initial size might
be estimated from FILE-LENGTH, but byte to character conversion
is another reason which may cause the estimate to be inaccurate.
After reaching the end the fill pointer should be put at eof.
I suppose that for many implementations this is the best available.
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk
\__/ ······@knm.org.pl
^^ http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/
From: John Thingstad
Subject: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <op.s2enh3lzpqzri1@mjolner.upc.no>
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:23:24 +0100, Marco Antoniotti <·······@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
>> Kirk Job Sluder <···········@jobsluder.net> writes:
>>
>> > The equivalent function is:
>> >
>> > (defun slurp-stream4 (stream)
>> > (let ((seq (make-string (file-length stream))))
>> > (read-sequence seq stream)
>> > seq))
>>
>> This will not work for pipes or sockets, where the length cannot be
>> computed without reading the data.
>>
>> And I suppose that it's plainly wrong when character recoding or
>> newline conversion takes place, even in case of regular files.
>>
>
> Yep. I have been bitten before by this (and there is at least one
> system out there that fails miserably because of this encoding issue
> under Windows).
>
> However, how can you "slurp" a socket or pipe stream? Don't you have
> to resort to READ-CHAR and/or READ-BYTE in that case?
>
> Cheers
> --
> Marco
>
The correct way to handle a slurp is to read a sequence of known length
from stream
and then keep writing (write-to-string) and looping until the length
returned from read-sequence
is less than the array size.
This eliminates the need to know the length and reduces the number of
function call's needed.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
From: Thomas A. Russ
Subject: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <ymiirtfimh2.fsf@sevak.isi.edu>
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <······@knm.org.pl> writes:
>
> Kirk Job Sluder <···········@jobsluder.net> writes:
>
> > The equivalent function is:
> >
> > (defun slurp-stream4 (stream)
> > (let ((seq (make-string (file-length stream))))
> > (read-sequence seq stream)
> > seq))
>
> This will not work for pipes or sockets, where the length cannot be
> computed without reading the data.
>
> And I suppose that it's plainly wrong when character recoding or
> newline conversion takes place, even in case of regular files.
Even more fundamentally, the code is wrong, since there is no
requirement that READ-SEQUENCE actually fill the entire buffer. So it
is quite possible that even when reading from a file, read-sequence will
choose (for whatever reason) to read only part of the file at a time.
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
From: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
Subject: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <87vexf1nby.fsf@qrnik.zagroda>
···@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) writes:
> Even more fundamentally, the code is wrong, since there is no
> requirement that READ-SEQUENCE actually fill the entire buffer.
> So it is quite possible that even when reading from a file,
> read-sequence will choose (for whatever reason) to read only
> part of the file at a time.
Really? HyperSpec is unclear in this respect, but it seems to imply
that reading less than requested is possible only when reaching end
of file. It doesn't say how to detect end of file either.
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk
\__/ ······@knm.org.pl
^^ http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/
From: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
Subject: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <87slsj1mz3.fsf@qrnik.zagroda>
···@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) writes:
> Even more fundamentally, the code is wrong, since there is no
> requirement that READ-SEQUENCE actually fill the entire buffer.
> So it is quite possible that even when reading from a file,
> read-sequence will choose (for whatever reason) to read only
> part of the file at a time.
Really? HyperSpec is unclear in this respect, but it seems to imply
that reading less than requested is possible only when reaching end
of file.
It doesn't say how to detect end of file either. Theoretical
possibilities:
a) when it returns the starting position
b) when it returns the position earlier than the requested end
c) when it signals the end-of-file condition
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk
\__/ ······@knm.org.pl
^^ http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/
From: Edi Weitz
Subject: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <uu0czjtdw.fsf@agharta.de>
On 23 Dec 2005 12:31:53 -0800, ···@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) wrote:
> Even more fundamentally, the code is wrong, since there is no
> requirement that READ-SEQUENCE actually fill the entire buffer. So
> it is quite possible that even when reading from a file,
> read-sequence will choose (for whatever reason) to read only part of
> the file at a time.
I think the general agreement amongst Lisp vendors is that the ANSI
standard doesn't allow the behaviour you describe here. Otherwise an
extension like AllegroCL's :PARTIALL-FILL wouldn't be necessary.
<http://www.franz.com/support/documentation/6.0/doc/release-notes.htm#acl-non-back-2>
Cheers,
Edi.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
From: Thomas A. Russ
Subject: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <ymifyojiaci.fsf@sevak.isi.edu>
Edi Weitz <········@agharta.de> writes:
>
> On 23 Dec 2005 12:31:53 -0800, ···@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) wrote:
>
> > Even more fundamentally, the code is wrong, since there is no
> > requirement that READ-SEQUENCE actually fill the entire buffer. So
> > it is quite possible that even when reading from a file,
> > read-sequence will choose (for whatever reason) to read only part of
> > the file at a time.
>
> I think the general agreement amongst Lisp vendors is that the ANSI
> standard doesn't allow the behaviour you describe here. Otherwise an
> extension like AllegroCL's :PARTIALL-FILL wouldn't be necessary.
>
> <http://www.franz.com/support/documentation/6.0/doc/release-notes.htm#acl-non-back-2>
>
> Cheers,
> Edi.
OK, on reading the Hyperspec again, I see that although it isn't clearly
spelled out, there are a lot of clues that the intent is to fill the
buffer unless EOF is reached. Although I'm wondering what it actually
does on interactive or network streams. I certainly would like it to be
guaranteed, especially since otherwise the function is rather devoid of
EOF signalling methods, so that is another piece of evidence that
supports always filling the buffer.
Perhaps I was being a bit too paranoid. Maybe my mind is going. Maybe
it was in a different (inferior) programming language. Yeah, it was
Java. Sorry for the confusion.
-Tom.
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
From: Duane Rettig
Subject: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <o0y82aga9b.fsf@franz.com>
···@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) writes:
> Edi Weitz <········@agharta.de> writes:
>
>>
>> On 23 Dec 2005 12:31:53 -0800, ···@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) wrote:
>>
>> > Even more fundamentally, the code is wrong, since there is no
>> > requirement that READ-SEQUENCE actually fill the entire buffer. So
>> > it is quite possible that even when reading from a file,
>> > read-sequence will choose (for whatever reason) to read only part of
>> > the file at a time.
>>
>> I think the general agreement amongst Lisp vendors is that the ANSI
>> standard doesn't allow the behaviour you describe here. Otherwise an
>> extension like AllegroCL's :PARTIALL-FILL wouldn't be necessary.
>>
>> <http://www.franz.com/support/documentation/6.0/doc/release-notes.htm#acl-non-back-2>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Edi.
>
> OK, on reading the Hyperspec again, I see that although it isn't clearly
> spelled out, there are a lot of clues that the intent is to fill the
> buffer unless EOF is reached.
Another bit of evidence it read-sequence's inverse, write-sequence,
which returns a stream rather than a position. For the potential
design of asynchronous writes, such a writing function would have
also had to have an indicator of how much was actually written,
in case internal resources become clogged and no more data can
be shoved into the internal buffers (the write has to wait, in this
case).
> Although I'm wondering what it actually
> does on interactive or network streams.
It's not a good funtion to call on such streams, because you can't
guarantee when it will return (it may hang indefinitely, which is
definitely not good for an interactive stream).
The whole reason we made an incompatible (from 5.0) change was because
we also had the idea internally about how a read-sequence _should_
operate, and how it should terminate. In 5.0 we did not always have
the read-the-whole-sequence behavior on all streams, because it was
necessary to have the returnable behavior in order to use a sequence-reading
function for such purposes. But beacause of issues between what the spec
said, and issues in write-sequence (which does not even return a positional
notation of how many elements it wrote), and because we were designing
simple-streams at the time, we invented read-vector/write-vector
http://www.franz.com/support/documentation/7.0/doc/operators/excl/read-vector.htm
http://www.franz.com/support/documentation/7.0/doc/operators/excl/write-vector.htm
which has "b/nb" behavior (i.e. blocking for the first element, then
non-blocking thereafter, and 0 for a return value) which fits most modern
usages for streams. The introduction of a new, separate function also
allowed us to remove the confusion about read-sequence, which clearly
was intended to fill the sequence if possible.
> I certainly would like it to be
> guaranteed, especially since otherwise the function is rather devoid of
> EOF signalling methods, so that is another piece of evidence that
> supports always filling the buffer.
Yes, I think that because read-sequence/write-sequence were late-comers
to the spec, they were added with the idea that they be efficient, and
that included the idea that the mechanism would be simplistic to reduce
decision points.
> Perhaps I was being a bit too paranoid. Maybe my mind is going. Maybe
> it was in a different (inferior) programming language. Yeah, it was
> Java. Sorry for the confusion.
Calm down, Thomas, you're safe here...
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
From: http://public.xdi.org/=pf
Subject: Re: Do I have to be an expert to get performance: CL versus Perl
Date:
Message-ID: <m28xubqqjd.fsf@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>
On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 00:17:15 +0100, Edi Weitz wrote:
> On 23 Dec 2005 12:31:53 -0800, ···@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) wrote:
>> Even more fundamentally, the code is wrong, since there is no
>> requirement that READ-SEQUENCE actually fill the entire buffer. So
>> it is quite possible that even when reading from a file,
>> read-sequence will choose (for whatever reason) to read only part of
>> the file at a time.
> I think the general agreement amongst Lisp vendors is that the ANSI
> standard doesn't allow the behaviour you describe here. Otherwise an
> extension like AllegroCL's :PARTIALL-FILL wouldn't be necessary.
Right. The spec says "position ... might be less than end because the
end of file was reached". I think it's fair to infer that position
can't be less than end /unless/ end of file is reached, or there'd be
no point specifying that condition.
[CMUCL used to return short, but that was fixed ages ago...I think]
--
Quid enim est stultius quam incerta pro certis habere, falsa pro veris?
-- Cicero
(setq reply-to
(concatenate 'string "Paul Foley " "<mycroft" '(··@) "actrix.gen.nz>"))
Paul Foley <···@below.invalid> wrote:
+---------------
| [CMUCL used to return short, but that was fixed ages ago...I think]
+---------------
Actually, IIUIC, it never returned short for reads from plain files,
only from sockets or special files (such as TTYs), where even blocking
Unix "read()"s will return short if there's *some* data available
[returning zero only on end of file... usually]. But somewhere between
CMUCL-18e and CMUCL-19a the various low-level routines called by
READ-SEQUENCE changed from doing a single SYSTEM:READ-N-BYTES
[usually a wrapper around Unix "read()"] to having a loop around
SYSTEM:READ-N-BYTES that reads until the requested amount has been
seen or EOF, whichever comes first.
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607