Is Id Science?

[Weezer]

I'm afraid I'm in disagreement with most of Sherlock's points. I'll start off with his discussion of methodological materialism.

Even if there is a clear and meaningful distinction between material and immaterial (which Sherlock certainly doesn't establish), scientists don't care about it. Anything that's objectively observable, even in principle, is fair game for science.

Sherlock says that even "refined matter" falls outside the bounds of methodological materialism, since beings of refined matter can hover, glow, and go through walls, which ordinary matter supposedly cannot. By this logic, methodological materialism precludes the study of hummingbirds, light bulbs, and photons.

[Weezer]

Sherlock:

Ignoring the technical mathematics but using the widely employed Bayes Theorem shows that what we observe about complexity is more probable with a God than without.

Bayes' Theorem isn't terribly technical. To apply it to the question of God's existence given the emergence of biocomplexity would require:

a) A prior probability of God's existence, not taking into account biocomplexity.

b) A prior probability of biocomplexity emerging, with or without God's help.

c) A probability of biocomplexity emerging, given that God exists.

I submit that Sherlock couldn't even begin to justify estimates for those three factors.

[Mordecai]

The great hubbub about an argument like intelligent design is that it is touted as scientific theory when in fact there is very little science about it. This forms the basis for confrontation - does an argument that is essentially religious in nature belong in a science classroom?

It's not essentially religious. It has religious implications, as does Darwinism.

Many intelligent design proponents like to describe evolution as "just" a theory. The problem with this logic is that the scientific sense of the word is misconstrued. In science, a theory is a repeatedly tested hypothesis or idea that is strongly supported by evidence. Examples: atomic theory. Wave theory. Relativity. And so on. Moreover, theories are falsifiable; if there is proficient evidence challenging the theory, new ones are drafted that incorporate all pre-existing evidence.

In the case of evolution, more than 130 years of evidence supporting it has been compiled.

But there is a very serious problem with the neo-Darwinist synthesis that ID attempts to address. Evolution in a few respects has very strong support. In at least one area, it has little or no evidence and can hardly be called a theory. In my view, it's wishful thinking.

Intelligent design, on the contrary, has essentially no evidence that is peer-reviewed, or tested in a forum of expert scientists.

That's only because it's new. Should EVERYTHING new be rejected?

[Mordecai]

I'm afraid I'm in disagreement with most of Sherlock's points. I'll start off with his discussion of methodological materialism.

Even if there is a clear and meaningful distinction between material and immaterial (which Sherlock certainly doesn't establish), scientists don't care about it. Anything that's objectively observable, even in principle, is fair game for science.

Sherlock says that even "refined matter" falls outside the bounds of methodological materialism, since beings of refined matter can hover, glow, and go through walls, which ordinary matter supposedly cannot. By this logic, methodological materialism precludes the study of hummingbirds, light bulbs, and photons.

Sherlock points out that the effects of immaterial things can be measured, as with the case of meditation masters. Also, the Big Bang has never been observed. We only measure the results and deduce that it occured. What's wrong with the Big Bang theory? Nothing. That same methodology might be used with ID.

[Mordecai]

I take it that was a typo, or a joke

Yeah. It's a variation on, "I'm not as think as you drunk I am."

[The Dude]

Sherlock:

Bayes' Theorem isn't terribly technical. To apply it to the question of God's existence given the emergence of biocomplexity would require:

a) A prior probability of God's existence, not taking into account biocomplexity.

A prior probability of biocomplexity emerging, with or without God's help.

c) A probability of biocomplexity emerging, given that God exists.

I submit that Sherlock couldn't even begin to justify estimates for those three factors.

Who is this Sherlock fellow? And who gave him such an ironic name?

[Weezer]

That's only because it's new. Should EVERYTHING new be rejected?

It's new only if you define ID very narrowly. Its roots go back at least to Paley. And you're right that not everything new should be rejected, but that's not why the scientific community rejects ID.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Yeah. Its a variation on, Im not as think as you drunk I am.

Heh. I do recognise that one! (Maybe Ive said it before. Hmmm...)

But there is a very serious problem with the neo-Darwinist synthesis that ID attempts to address. Evolution in a few respects has very strong support. In at least one area, it has little or no evidence and can hardly be called a theory. In my view, its wishful thinking.

Are you talking about abiogenesis here?

Sherlock points out that the effects of immaterial things can be measured, as with the case of meditation masters

Meditation masters? Could you elaborate further?

Also, the Big Bang has never been observed. We only measure the results and deduce that it occured. Whats wrong with the Big Bang theory? Nothing. That same methodology might be used with ID.

The Big Bang theory made at least a couple of big predictions, one of which could have been falsified at any time for quite a while now:

First is the obvious one - that almost all celestial objects should appear to be moving away from us, apart from any close enough to be unduly affected by our (as in all matter in our local vicinity in relation to the universe as a whole) immediate gravitational influence.

...indeed, that appears to have panned out, and weve inspected millions upon millions of objects by this point...

Second is the background levels of gamma radiation that should be detectable everywhere, from all directions, within the universe. That gamma radiation was found.

What are the equivalent big predictions for ID? (According to your notion of what ID is?). It may be new, but that shouldnt be a problem should it? If ID is a fully-fledged, legit scientific theory that is...

[Weezer]

Sherlock points out that the effects of immaterial things can be measured, as with the case of meditation masters.

Sherlock assumes that meditation is an immaterial phenomenon, which begs the question.

Also, the Big Bang has never been observed. We only measure the results and deduce that it occured. What's wrong with the Big Bang theory? Nothing. That same methodology might be used with ID.

I'm arguing here against the material/immaterial dichotomy, not against ID. The dichotomy is metaphysical and is of no use to science. Scientists do not refuse to study something if it's "immaterial", whatever that means. They refuse to study it only if it's not empirically detectable, either directly or indirectly (i.e. by testing predictions). If God leaves empirical footprints, as Sherlock thinks he does, then he lends himself to scientific study, even if he's "immaterial". I doubt that Sherlock could find a scientist who disagrees, which means that the ill-defined charge of materialism is a strawman.

[Weezer]

I finished reading the paper, and I find it incredibly sophomoric. Sherlock seems to have only a superficial understanding of the issues, and he seems to be targeting an audience who is likewise unfamiliar with ID and its criticisms.

For instance, he says that the criticisms of ID fall into three categories:

1) ID is repackaged creationism

2) It isn't accepted by the scientific community or by peer-reviewed forums.

3) ID is a science-stopper.

If all of the criticisms of ID fell into one of those categories, then Sherlock might have a point. But, strangely enough, these categories do not include the many scientific, logical, and even mathematical reasons to reject various ID arguments. It's as if Sherlock thinks that no critics have ever addressed the actual arguments themselves. Sherlock's depiction of rebuttals to ID barely scratches the surface, which makes me wonder how lopsided his research was.

[Mordecai]

I finished reading the paper, and I find it incredibly sophomoric. Sherlock seems to have only a superficial understanding of the issues, and he seems to be targeting an audience who is likewise unfamiliar with ID and its criticisms.

For instance, he says that the criticisms of ID fall into three categories:

1) ID is repackaged creationism

2) It isn't accepted by the scientific community or by peer-reviewed forums.

3) ID is a science-stopper.

But, strangely enough, these categories do not include the many scientific, logical, and even mathematical reasons to reject various ID arguments....

Call for references. I've read the criticisms. I believe they've been answered. That's why Peter Ward lost to Meyer in their debate (which you can view if you go to the link in one of my previous post).

[Mordecai]

They refuse to study it only if it's not empirically detectable, either directly or indirectly (i.e. by testing predictions). If God leaves empirical footprints, as Sherlock thinks he does, then he lends himself to scientific study, even if he's "immaterial". I doubt that Sherlock could find a scientist who disagrees, which means that the ill-defined charge of materialism is a strawman.

You're begging the question (unlike me... we can't possibly detect consciousness, for example, yet we see the results of it empirically). You're assuming that God can't be detected indirectly. That's what ID is attempting to address. Also, materialism is a strawman? You must be joking. Some of these scientists continually attack ID, calling it creationism and insisting that it violates the "fundamental principle of science," which is materialism i.e. that there is no God that science can study. What else would you call that type of attack? Peter Ward himself makes that exact attack in his debate with Meyer.

[Mordecai]

Heh. I do recognise that one! (Maybe Ive said it before. Hmmm...)

Are you talking about abiogenesis here?

Nope. I'm talking about the notion that the variety of species and the increases in complexity punctuated in the fossil record are the result of random mutations and selective pressures. As it currently stands, no increase in complexity in the genome has ever been observed in recorded history. According to a statistical analysis based on current knowledge of DNA, the amount of time it takes in the fossil record for a new species to emerge and the chances of a mutation taking over a species, the number of possible copying errors that would represent an increase in functional information in the genome should be ONE MILLION. However, if there were one million possible copying errors that would result in an increase in complexity (functional information), scientists certainly would have seen MANY increases. Instead, they have seen ZERO. They've only seen previously existing information express itself and not NEW information being added. So, the numbers don't add up. This has been known since the 70's. Until they can observe increases in information through random change, Darwinists have a serious problem.

Meditation masters? Could you elaborate further?

It's in the article. People who have meditated for seven years or more can go into a meditative state and there are visible changes in brain scans as well (as measurable differences in health). That, according to the author, illustrates how something that human choice, something not material, can produce, measurable results. (Or something to that effect. Maybe you could go back to FARMS review to look over what he says).

The Big Bang theory made at least a couple of big predictions, one of which could have been falsified at any time for quite a while now:

First is the obvious one - that almost all celestial objects should appear to be moving away from us, apart from any close enough to be unduly affected by our (as in all matter in our local vicinity in relation to the universe as a whole) immediate gravitational influence.

...indeed, that appears to have panned out, and weve inspected millions upon millions of objects by this point...

This is only based on our observations of other explosions that we know radiation and matter expand outward from it. So, it's based on inference/comparison. In the case of ID, the increase in functional information (and irreducibly complex molecular machines) can only be compared to intelligent design, as no other source is known to be able to accomplish such a task. It's really a pretty direct parallel. One would predict that we would find functional information increasing at a rate that random mutations couldn't possibly produce. Statistically, that is what is found. If you listen to Meyer and Ward, Meyer discusses a few experiments that deal with intelligent design, by the way.

[Mordecai]

It's new only if you define ID very narrowly. Its roots go back at least to Paley. And you're right that not everything new should be rejected, but that's not why the scientific community rejects ID.

I am defining it narrowly, as ID in its modern form, is new. SOME of it, like the critcisms of neo-Darwinism, are old.

[questioner]

ID is not science. There is no evidence supporting ID and it cannot be subjected to analysis or the scientific method. I think that ID is merely something that certain religious individuals who understand evolution hope to be true in order to somehow reconcile the things they know about science with their religious beliefs.

[Mordecai]

ID is not science. There is no evidence supporting ID and it cannot be subjected to analysis or the scientific method. I think that ID is merely something that certain religious individuals who understand evolution hope to be true in order to somehow reconcile the things they know about science with their religious beliefs.

What is this? Testimony meeting for atheists? Call for references.

[Beowulf]

Well, I'm no atheist, as many here will attest (I hope), and I don't think much of ID.

And Sherlock's defense of it did not alter my impression of it by very much either.

As I said above, I accept Intelligent Design in the sense of the Anthropic Principle. I.e., that this universe was designed for people to appear in it. God created it for us.

But I am not persuaded by irreducible complexity and other such arguments.

And I am put off Sherlock's insistence that I HAVE to accept ID as he describes it in order to accept that God intervenes daily in our World. This is exactly what the atheists tell me...

But I see no contradiction between accepting evolution and accepting God's hand in its direction.

Beowulf

[Mighty Curelom]

Science is falsifiable. How is ID falsifiable?

Some of these scientists continually attack ID, calling it creationism

It is creationism. Creationism says life was poofed into existence. That's exactly what ID says; that's what the whole irreducible complexity argument is about. It says a cell, or an organism (depending on the ID theorist you're talking to) can only function if all the parts came together and started operating simultaneously. In other words, ID argues that at some point in the history of life (and again, it depends on who you're talking to, because they're nothing approaching consensus on which particular point), an organism was poofed into existence. That's creationism, no matter what you call it.

[Weezer]

Call for references. I've read the criticisms.

If you've read them, then why do you need references?

I realize that you aren't convinced by the criticisms if ID. The point is that many criticisms do not fall in the creationism, peer-review, & science-stopper categories. Many address the actual science and math, but Sherlock never acknowledges their existence. He seems to think that all criticisms of ID are based on anti-creationism, authority, and pragmatism. This just isn't the case.

As for specific criticisms, we were discussing criticisms of Dembski's arguments, and I'm still waiting for you to respond to this post.

[Mordecai]

Science is falsifiable. How is ID falsifiable?

It is creationism. Creationism says life was poofed into existence. That's exactly what ID says; that's what the whole irreducible complexity argument is about. It says a cell, or an organism (depending on the ID theorist you're talking to) can only function if all the parts came together and started operating simultaneously. In other words, ID argues that at some point in the history of life (and again, it depends on who you're talking to, because they're nothing approaching consensus on which particular point), an organism was poofed into existence. That's creationism, no matter what you call it.

Again, this is not atheist testimony meeting. In fact, these claims of fact are absolutely wrong. Not a single word in this post is correct.

[Mordecai]

If you've read them, then why do you need references?

I realize that you aren't convinced by the criticisms if ID. The point is that many criticisms do not fall in the creationism, peer-review, & science-stopper categories. Many address the actual science and math, but Sherlock never acknowledges their existence. He seems to think that all criticisms of ID are based on anti-creationism, authority, and pragmatism. This just isn't the case.

As for specific criticisms, we were discussing criticisms of Dembski's arguments, and I'm still waiting for you to respond to this post.

Purely rhetorical call for referencs. I already knew it was garbage. The arguments that address the science and math are not nearly sufficient to defeat the whole cause. It's only enough to defeat individual work. The work as a whole moves on, just like in Darwinism, someone makes a theory or postulation, it gets disproven and Darwinism moves on. No scientist is perfect. As far as your link, I think we have a fundamental difference in how we view Dembski's theory. I'll go ahead and respond to it tomorrow. It's an insanely long post, much of it not worth responding to at all. But, if you insist. <yawn>

But I see no contradiction between accepting evolution and accepting God's hand in its direction.

This is exactly what ID is attempting to prove. It's not a rejection of evolution. In fact, Intelligent Design accepts evolution. You should've read the article. It's an attempt to illustrate that God's hand was in it, giving direction.

[Mighty Curelom]

In fact, these claims of fact are absolutely wrong. Not a single word in this post is correct.

So my statement that science is falsifiable is incorrect? Am I to understand, then, that science should be unfalsifiable? Either way, you didn't answer my question: how is ID falsifiable?

As for ID and creationism, here's a quote from wiki:

An "irreducibly complex" system is defined by the term's originator, biochemistry professor Michael Behe, as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"

...which can only mean that the system was created whole. Which is creationism. It may not be New Earth Creationism, but it's creationism nonetheless.

[Mordecai]

So my statement that science is falsifiable is incorrect? Am I to understand, then, that science should be unfalsifiable? Either way, you didn't answer my question: how is ID falsifiable?

At this point, as far as I'm concerned, the one or two statements that were false in your post were SO false, in my mind, it made ALL of it false. (Hyperbole is the operable word here).

As for ID and creationism, here's a quote from wiki:

...which can only mean that the system was created whole. Which is creationism. It may not be New Earth Creationism, but it's creationism nonetheless.

Who cares what Wiki says, if it's not logical. Creationism already has a definition and Intelligent Design doesn't fall under it. By this wiki argument, you are a fundamentalist wacko, because there is a very wacky fundamental flaw in your argument. (The operable word here is equivocation).

[Mordecai]

If you've read them, then why do you need references?

I realize that you aren't convinced by the criticisms if ID. The point is that many criticisms do not fall in the creationism, peer-review, & science-stopper categories. Many address the actual science and math, but Sherlock never acknowledges their existence. He seems to think that all criticisms of ID are based on anti-creationism, authority, and pragmatism. This just isn't the case.

As for specific criticisms, we were discussing criticisms of Dembski's arguments, and I'm still waiting for you to respond to this post.

Well, the major issues with that post and why I chose not to even respond to it are as follows:

#1. You nitpick at very boring and irrelevant things. For example, the three definitions of irreducible complexity. Who gives a crap? Each one is designed for a different audience, not even written by the same person. They don't contradict each other, do they? O.K. So what's the problem? That's why I keep saying things like, "This is ludicruous." You just stray off course on things that don't mean crap and act like you have a good point.

#2. You claim Dembski completely rejects Bayesian methods of identifying design. However, that's not true at all. He only points out that in many cases, it is completely impractical. He doesn't reject it entirely. You posted several pages for me to read in an attempt to prove Dembski can't use Bayesian methods, but I know that he does use them for some things. What a surprise to me, when at no point does he say that Bayesian methods are always ineffective. His argument is that the Fisherian is better (at least in many respects). I knew you would follow your typical pattern of strawmanning him. That's why I was sick of debating with you, Strawman McGee (as I like to call you).

#3. You further nitpick about Dembski's math being wrong and about old laundry. I was sick of debating that, too, since YOU were not communicating clearly OR you were backtracking. One or the other. Either way, it's irrelevant at this stage. WHO CARES if Dembski's math was off. You admitted already that it didn't hurt his overall argument. The chances we're dealing with are literally too small for us to imagine, even when the math is done correctly. Yet, you feel the need to go on and on and on about it, AS IF IT MATTERS. DUDE, YOU'RE BORING. STOP NITPICKING AT WORTHLESS CRAP.

Lastly, what I mean by "background information" is that the BIG PICTURE tells us that there is a pattern in the universe of the universal constants being fine-tuned for life to exist. The little picture of this is that some of those laws also produce dendrites. When we have the BIG PICTURE (not the causal history), we see that the pattern AS A WHOLE suggests that the point of this fine-tuning of universal constants is for complexity in the universe and carbon based life. That dendrites occur also as a result of some of these universal constants suggests that there is also a slight chance that perhaps a designer also intended for these to occur, because they look kinda like trees. However, anyone with half a brain would say that the chances are smaller that they were intentionally made to look like trees, because the big picture tells us that the pattern of fine tuning is geared toward a different specification. We can then conclude that the dendrites are incidental. Also, it's too hard to imagine an intelligent being fine tuning an entire universe and having only some of that fine tuning resulting in dendrites ON PURPOSE. That makes no sense. From my recent reading, they concede that all orderly things in the universe are, in a way, intelligently designed. But they don't really deal with that, as it is not RELEVANT. If you start talking about it as if it WERE relevant, I am going to kill myself just to escape the boredom.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

People who have meditated for seven years or more can go into a meditative state and there are visible changes in brain scans as well (as measurable differences in health). That, according to the author, illustrates how something that human choice, something not material, can produce, measurable results. (Or something to that effect. Maybe you could go back to FARMS review to look over what he says).

Ok - I see the bit you are refering to in the article.

But the problem here is obvious. And it can be seen in your previous statement to Weezer:

Youre begging the question (unlike me... we cant possibly detect consciousness, for example, yet we see the results of it empirically).

What possible, rational reason could you possibly have to state so forcebly that we cannot possibly detect consciousness?! How do you know this? What logical reasoning brings you to this conclusion?

...or could the above statement be re-worded thus:

I will never accept any materialistic evidence that science claims points towards detecting, or explaining the origins of, consiousness. Perhaps this is more accurate?

We know about the existence of neurons, which can be sensibly proposed to be the basis of thought and consiousness. What rational reason do you have to suggest that consiousness MUST be something immaterial that only demonstrates its presense indirectly in the materialistic world? If the brain was a block of wood, with no detectable signalling system, no neural pathways, no complex structure etc., then youd possibly have some reasonable basis for your claim. But it isnt, so you dont.

And in fact, while Im certainly intregued to know why you think current understanding of the brain doesnt provide a decent enough explination for consiousness, Im even more interested by your assertion that no decent materialistic explination - no matter what evidence may be discovered in the future - will ever be found!! Thats quite a claim. Lets see you back it up.

What would science have to do? Catch consiousness? Trap it in a jar, and allow you to observe it as a mysitcal, glowing cloud?!

But I think youve just given away the underlying argument here from the ID mindset. Its not just that there COULD be a non-materialistic world. The assumption is that there is DEFINTLY a non-materialistic world that cannot be directly obvserved. Not only that, but you somehow know what components of the natural world these non-material aspects affect (hence your remarkable statement that we can and will never detect consiousness through materialistic inspection...!)

Youre assuming that God cant be detected indirectly.

In fact Weezer stated exactly the opposite:

If God leaves empirical footprints, as Sherlock thinks he does, then he lends himself to scientific study, even if hes immaterial.

He stated that if God leaves emperical clues to his existence, these can be found .via scientific study. Which part of that indicates to you: I assume that God cannot be detected indirectly?

This is only based on our observations of other explosions that we know radiation and matter expand outward from it. So, its based on inference/comparison.

So, its based on inference/comparison. In the case of ID, the increase in functional information (and irreducibly complex molecular machines) can only be compared to intelligent design, as no other source is known to be able to accomplish such a task. Its really a pretty direct parallel.

To a certain extent - yes of course. And I get the comparison your making.

Big bang: Use examples of large amounts of energy being released at one time we already know of and extrapolate that to the beginnings of the universe.

ID: Look at examples of human engineering we already know about, and extrapolate that against the backdrop of life on Earth.

Yes, I get and accept the parallel. And I have no problem with either theory having its origins in such assumptions.

BUT - how you go about constructing an initial theory is interesting and all, but thats only one isolated part of the scientific method, and not the part that really distinguishes Science from other methodoligies. Religions can construct theories just as easiely as science can. The real difference is in how those theories are then scrutinised and - if nessesary - ditched. One important part of that process is constructing predictions from the theory, that can be emperically tested.

So Ill ask again - if ID is a full blown, legit scientific theory - what are its predictions?

One would predict that we would find functional information increasing at a rate that random mutations couldnt possibly produce. Statistically, that is what is found. If you listen to Meyer and Ward, Meyer discusses a few experiments that deal with intelligent design, by the way.

This is a prediction that ID makes? No - it would be more accurate to say that thats the opposite of what the ToE predicts. This goes right back to one of the very first points Dan P and I got into on this topic.

Dan P put forward the opinion that the visage of ID being all about anti-evolution is essentially false. A concoction of the media. And yet thats all the above is! Its attacking the ToE!

...now I actually have no problem with that. The ToE should be attacked. Consistently and with vigor. Thats how science works. But I didnt ask the question Is the ToE a healthy scientific theory?. I asked you What are the predictions of ID?

The problem here is that ID is clearly not a scientific theory in its own right. From all you have said, it is planly clear that it is a combination of:

* Critism of the ToE (whether it is decent critism is - of course - disputed, as you well know).

* Boldly stating that science should stop shoving God / the ID / whoever out of the gaps in our knowledge.

...and - well - thats about it. It gives us no new materially-based predictions to check against. It gives us no new materially-based concepts to look for. (And yes, the predictions and the new concepts all have to be based in materialism, because science is based in materialism. Fact.)

Lets imagine that that kind of argumentation you bought up in the first part of your post was all legit, and lets assume that this should give us serious reason to doubt evolution, or at least punches such serious holes in it, that it needs to be re-worked.

...so now we are down one scientific theory that can explain how life developed on this planet. So what would proper science do at this point? Just say: Thats it! We know now that an Intelligent Designer did it?

...ermm - no! It would be a great start to a NEW theory, but that new theory would end up making its OWN predictions, completely seperately from the old evolutionary thinking. This has been consistently seen throughout the history of science.

General Relativity wasnt just Anti-Newtonism wrapped up in a fancy General-Relativity-of-the-gaps package! Yes, General Relativity explained the discrepency of Mercurys orbit that was a flaw in the Newtonian model for example, but General Relativity wasnt based on such a flimsy foundation as Anti-Newtonism!. It made its OWN predictions, that were completely seperate to Newtons gravitational models! And what predictions they were! Time being relative - proven with accurate clocks at different distances from the Earth. Light being affected by gravity, proven by inspection of apparent positions of stars where their light passes close by other large masses inbetween them and our line of sight...

ID would like to view itself as the General relativity of the ToEs Newtonian-like model (Nearly there, but missing a few key points). And yet where are IDs grand predictions, in the same vein as General relativity?

Of course it doesnt have them. And thats because ID is not a scientific theory in its own right.

In fact it is no more than: We think Evolution no good. Therefore ID!. That may make good publicity, but its certainly not science!

Dan P put forward the argument that ID isnt just anti-evolution wrapped up in a fancy god-of-the-gaps package. That that visage of ID is a media distortion.

Unfortunatly - so far - youve given me no reason to beleive he is correct on that front...