| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"topmind" |
| Date: |
08 Oct 2005 09:07:47 PM |
| Object: |
Is String Theory as hard to test as ID? |
String Theory has been characterized by some as so complex that it can
with minor modifications be bent to fit almost anything observed. It's
almost like a computer language rather than a simple, neat equation
such that it can be "reprogrammed" to fit the observations rather than
the other way around. If alleged "science" books can wonder that far
off the examination course, then it may be hypocritical to discard ID
for being difficult to test (find another reason to reject it).
There seems to be a branch of "speculative science" that ID, String
Theory, Multiple Universes (Anthropic Principle), etc. fall into. They
are generally either difficult to falsify, or too flexible to produce
definative elimination tests for. Remember, being difficult to test and
being "wrong" are not necessarily the same thing.
Also keep in mind that ID could be driven by a smart but physical
alien(s) rather than a diety, so the usual Flying Spehgetti Monster
jabs don't necessarily apply. ID does *not* require supernatural
powers. Just because most of its proponents like the diety version over
the alien version does not by itself make the general concept any less
valid than other hard-to-test ideas.
My point is that we should be as tough on String theorists as we are on
ID'ers with regard to falsifiability. Otherwise, we may risk looking or
being biased and ruining the reputation of science. We don't want to
make it look like we are picking on ideas *just* because we don't like
the political or religious beliefs of idea promoters. (Many voters feel
there is a bias.) We should focus on the ideas, not on the people
behind them.
If we are hellbent to purge textbooks of ID, then we should be equally
hellbent on cleaning them of another Bendmeister King: String "Theory".
-T-
.
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Is String Theory as hard to test as ID? |
30 Oct 2005 12:14:07 PM |
|
|
On 30 Oct 2005 10:08:10 -0800, in alt.atheism , "topmind"
<topmind@technologist.com> in
<1130695690.026630.107230@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 29 Oct 2005 13:16:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , "topmind"
<topmind@technologist.com> in
<1130616971.425442.304730@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[snip]
Like I said elsewhere, there could be "clues" in DNA that would
indicate intelligence of some kind.
You said it, but "could be clues" is not testable. DNA is a bunch of
atom. We have given them arbitrary names of letters. That does not
mean there is meaning to the letter strings.
I mean messages that would be statistically nearly impossible on their
own.
And how could you possibly figure that out? This is a real question:
how can you tell, just from looking that the DNA (don't assert message
until you can back it up) that it was "statistically" impossible on
its "own"? Do you mean Dembski's hand waving or do you have something
else in mind?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "topmind" |
|
| Title: Re: Is String Theory as hard to test as ID? |
31 Oct 2005 10:02:09 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 30 Oct 2005 10:08:10 -0800, in alt.atheism , "topmind"
<topmind@technologist.com> in
<1130695690.026630.107230@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 29 Oct 2005 13:16:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , "topmind"
<topmind@technologist.com> in
<1130616971.425442.304730@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[snip]
Like I said elsewhere, there could be "clues" in DNA that would
indicate intelligence of some kind.
You said it, but "could be clues" is not testable. DNA is a bunch of
atom. We have given them arbitrary names of letters. That does not
mean there is meaning to the letter strings.
I mean messages that would be statistically nearly impossible on their
own.
And how could you possibly figure that out? This is a real question:
how can you tell, just from looking that the DNA (don't assert message
until you can back it up) that it was "statistically" impossible on
its "own"? Do you mean Dembski's hand waving or do you have something
else in mind?
No, I mean something that it determined to be far too improbable to
happen accidently after universal scrutiny. IIRC, Dembski failed to
calculate the effects of recombination DNA (sex) in his calculations.
For example, the exact words of a Shakespearean play in very diverse
species that lived millions of years apart.
--
Matt Silberstein
-T-
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Is String Theory as hard to test as ID? |
01 Nov 2005 07:49:27 AM |
|
|
On 31 Oct 2005 20:02:09 -0800, in alt.atheism , "topmind"
<topmind@technologist.com> in
<1130817729.696112.228450@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 30 Oct 2005 10:08:10 -0800, in alt.atheism , "topmind"
<topmind@technologist.com> in
<1130695690.026630.107230@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 29 Oct 2005 13:16:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , "topmind"
<topmind@technologist.com> in
<1130616971.425442.304730@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
[snip]
Like I said elsewhere, there could be "clues" in DNA that would
indicate intelligence of some kind.
You said it, but "could be clues" is not testable. DNA is a bunch of
atom. We have given them arbitrary names of letters. That does not
mean there is meaning to the letter strings.
I mean messages that would be statistically nearly impossible on their
own.
And how could you possibly figure that out? This is a real question:
how can you tell, just from looking that the DNA (don't assert message
until you can back it up) that it was "statistically" impossible on
its "own"? Do you mean Dembski's hand waving or do you have something
else in mind?
No, I mean something that it determined to be far too improbable to
happen accidently after universal scrutiny.
And how can you possibly determine that?
IIRC, Dembski failed to
calculate the effects of recombination DNA (sex) in his calculations.
For example, the exact words of a Shakespearean play in very diverse
species that lived millions of years apart.
And no casual chain between them, right? So lets explore this. Suppose
we somehow find this. How is it explanatory to say "it was designed"?
What does that claim, by itself, tell us?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "topmind" |
|
| Title: Re: Is String Theory as hard to test as ID? |
05 Nov 2005 05:32:21 PM |
|
|
Like I said elsewhere, there could be "clues" in DNA that would
indicate intelligence of some kind.
You said it, but "could be clues" is not testable. DNA is a bunch of
atom. We have given them arbitrary names of letters. That does not
mean there is meaning to the letter strings.
I mean messages that would be statistically nearly impossible on their
own.
And how could you possibly figure that out? This is a real question:
how can you tell, just from looking that the DNA (don't assert message
until you can back it up) that it was "statistically" impossible on
its "own"? Do you mean Dembski's hand waving or do you have something
else in mind?
No, I mean something that it determined to be far too improbable to
happen accidently after universal scrutiny.
And how can you possibly determine that?
I am not an expert in calculating such probabilities.
Let's spice it up further and say that there are clues in DNA of one
long-dead species that tell to look in another species. If the clues
track closely to what they say, the probability is even lower that it
was cooincidental.
IIRC, Dembski failed to
calculate the effects of recombination DNA (sex) in his calculations.
For example, the exact words of a Shakespearean play in very diverse
species that lived millions of years apart.
And no casual chain between them, right? So lets explore this. Suppose
we somehow find this. How is it explanatory to say "it was designed"?
What does that claim, by itself, tell us?
I am not sure I understand your question. I agree it is not 100%
evidence, but 100% evidence is rare in anything.
--
Matt Silberstein
-T-
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Is String Theory as hard to test as ID? |
05 Nov 2005 06:01:04 PM |
|
|
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131233541.476624.194470@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Like I said elsewhere, there could be "clues" in DNA that
would indicate intelligence of some kind.
You said it, but "could be clues" is not testable. DNA is a
bunch of atom. We have given them arbitrary names of letters.
That does not mean there is meaning to the letter strings.
I mean messages that would be statistically nearly impossible on
their own.
And how could you possibly figure that out? This is a real
question: how can you tell, just from looking that the DNA (don't
assert message until you can back it up) that it was
"statistically" impossible on its "own"? Do you mean Dembski's
hand waving or do you have something else in mind?
No, I mean something that it determined to be far too improbable to
happen accidently after universal scrutiny.
And how can you possibly determine that?
I am not an expert in calculating such probabilities.
Let's spice it up further and say that there are clues in DNA of one
long-dead species that tell to look in another species. If the clues
track closely to what they say, the probability is even lower that it
was cooincidental.
You can "spice it up" all you want but if you can't specify how to look
for these clues, you don't have anything.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"A thief is more moral than a congressman;
when a thief steals your money, he doesn't demand you thank him."
-- Walter Williams
.
|
|
|
| User: "topmind" |
|
| Title: Re: Is String Theory as hard to test as ID? |
05 Nov 2005 07:02:08 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131233541.476624.194470@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Like I said elsewhere, there could be "clues" in DNA that
would indicate intelligence of some kind.
You said it, but "could be clues" is not testable. DNA is a
bunch of atom. We have given them arbitrary names of letters.
That does not mean there is meaning to the letter strings.
I mean messages that would be statistically nearly impossible on
their own.
And how could you possibly figure that out? This is a real
question: how can you tell, just from looking that the DNA (don't
assert message until you can back it up) that it was
"statistically" impossible on its "own"? Do you mean Dembski's
hand waving or do you have something else in mind?
No, I mean something that it determined to be far too improbable to
happen accidently after universal scrutiny.
And how can you possibly determine that?
I am not an expert in calculating such probabilities.
Let's spice it up further and say that there are clues in DNA of one
long-dead species that tell to look in another species. If the clues
track closely to what they say, the probability is even lower that it
was cooincidental.
You can "spice it up" all you want but if you can't specify how to look
for these clues, you don't have anything.
I was simply refuting your claim that there is no way to test for ID. I
provided a way. In that sense it has at least as many tests as MU and
ST, which so far also have nothing, but GET to be called "science". You
guys are full of double standards. No wonder the religious crowd
distrusts some of you. The brohaaaw is part YOUR fault.
-T-
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Is String Theory as hard to test as ID? |
06 Nov 2005 06:56:55 AM |
|
|
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131238200.524843.325770@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131233541.476624.194470@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Like I said elsewhere, there could be "clues" in DNA that
would indicate intelligence of some kind.
You said it, but "could be clues" is not testable. DNA is a
bunch of atom. We have given them arbitrary names of
letters. That does not mean there is meaning to the letter
strings.
I mean messages that would be statistically nearly impossible
on their own.
And how could you possibly figure that out? This is a real
question: how can you tell, just from looking that the DNA
(don't assert message until you can back it up) that it was
"statistically" impossible on its "own"? Do you mean Dembski's
hand waving or do you have something else in mind?
No, I mean something that it determined to be far too improbable
to happen accidently after universal scrutiny.
And how can you possibly determine that?
I am not an expert in calculating such probabilities.
Let's spice it up further and say that there are clues in DNA of
one long-dead species that tell to look in another species. If the
clues track closely to what they say, the probability is even lower
that it was cooincidental.
You can "spice it up" all you want but if you can't specify how to
look for these clues, you don't have anything.
I was simply refuting your claim that there is no way to test for ID.
You refuted no such thing.
I provided a way.
No you didn't.
In that sense it has at least as many tests as MU
and ST, which so far also have nothing, but GET to be called
"science". You guys are full of double standards. No wonder the
religious crowd distrusts some of you. The brohaaaw is part YOUR
fault.
Why are you still complaining about the supporters of other theories?
Talk about double standards.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"A thief is more moral than a congressman;
when a thief steals your money, he doesn't demand you thank him."
-- Walter Williams
.
|
|
|
| User: "topmind" |
|
| Title: Re: Is String Theory as hard to test as ID? |
06 Nov 2005 02:36:28 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131238200.524843.325770@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131233541.476624.194470@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Like I said elsewhere, there could be "clues" in DNA that
would indicate intelligence of some kind.
You said it, but "could be clues" is not testable. DNA is a
bunch of atom. We have given them arbitrary names of
letters. That does not mean there is meaning to the letter
strings.
I mean messages that would be statistically nearly impossible
on their own.
And how could you possibly figure that out? This is a real
question: how can you tell, just from looking that the DNA
(don't assert message until you can back it up) that it was
"statistically" impossible on its "own"? Do you mean Dembski's
hand waving or do you have something else in mind?
No, I mean something that it determined to be far too improbable
to happen accidently after universal scrutiny.
And how can you possibly determine that?
I am not an expert in calculating such probabilities.
Let's spice it up further and say that there are clues in DNA of
one long-dead species that tell to look in another species. If the
clues track closely to what they say, the probability is even lower
that it was cooincidental.
You can "spice it up" all you want but if you can't specify how to
look for these clues, you don't have anything.
I was simply refuting your claim that there is no way to test for ID.
You refuted no such thing.
I provided a way.
No you didn't.
In that sense it has at least as many tests as MU
and ST, which so far also have nothing, but GET to be called
"science". You guys are full of double standards. No wonder the
religious crowd distrusts some of you. The brohaaaw is part YOUR
fault.
Why are you still complaining about the supporters of other theories?
Talk about double standards.
The real problem is that there is no standard. I am simply pointing out
that the reasons why some things seem to be called "science" and some
things not is inconsistent.
If we view it in terms of a court case, it is not applied or defined
constently and clearly enough to rule out ID from being called
"science". Some of you use a very strict definition of science when
trying to disqualify ID. Yet other respectable scientific professionals
don't seem to use such strict definitions.
Some say math is required. But Natural Selection didn't have math to
qualify in its earlier days.
Some say it must be falsifiable. Yet MU is not falsifiable. In fact
Nat.Sel. is not even falsifiable.
Some say it must be trueifiable, but ID is potentially truefiable, as
the hidden DNA puzzle scenerio shows.
Changing or tightening the definition NOW will probably backfire in
court. It will appear disingenuous to a judge.
If you guys want a tight definition of science in order to squeaze out
ID, you better be prepared for the potentially wide-reaching
consiquences. Further, it was not tight or clean in the past, so may
not work in court anyhow.
--
Fred Stone
-T-
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Is String Theory as hard to test as ID? |
06 Nov 2005 03:15:23 PM |
|
|
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131309388.132851.43730@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131238200.524843.325770@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131233541.476624.194470@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Like I said elsewhere, there could be "clues" in DNA
that would indicate intelligence of some kind.
You said it, but "could be clues" is not testable. DNA is
a bunch of atom. We have given them arbitrary names of
letters. That does not mean there is meaning to the
letter strings.
I mean messages that would be statistically nearly
impossible on their own.
And how could you possibly figure that out? This is a real
question: how can you tell, just from looking that the DNA
(don't assert message until you can back it up) that it was
"statistically" impossible on its "own"? Do you mean
Dembski's hand waving or do you have something else in mind?
No, I mean something that it determined to be far too
improbable to happen accidently after universal scrutiny.
And how can you possibly determine that?
I am not an expert in calculating such probabilities.
Let's spice it up further and say that there are clues in DNA of
one long-dead species that tell to look in another species. If
the clues track closely to what they say, the probability is
even lower that it was cooincidental.
You can "spice it up" all you want but if you can't specify how to
look for these clues, you don't have anything.
I was simply refuting your claim that there is no way to test for
ID.
You refuted no such thing.
I provided a way.
No you didn't.
In that sense it has at least as many tests as MU
and ST, which so far also have nothing, but GET to be called
"science". You guys are full of double standards. No wonder the
religious crowd distrusts some of you. The brohaaaw is part YOUR
fault.
Why are you still complaining about the supporters of other theories?
Talk about double standards.
The real problem is that there is no standard. I am simply pointing
out that the reasons why some things seem to be called "science" and
some things not is inconsistent.
"Science" is a label that encompasses a lot of concepts. Hypotheses,
theories and observations, none of which are present in the concept
called "Intelligent Design".
If we view it in terms of a court case, it is not applied or defined
constently and clearly enough to rule out ID from being called
"science". Some of you use a very strict definition of science when
trying to disqualify ID. Yet other respectable scientific
professionals don't seem to use such strict definitions.
Some say math is required. But Natural Selection didn't have math to
qualify in its earlier days.
Some say it must be falsifiable. Yet MU is not falsifiable. In fact
Nat.Sel. is not even falsifiable.
Natural Selection makes falsifiable predictions. Evolutionary theory is
an assemblage of many many individual hypotheses, each of which has been
tested. MU isn't even a practical hypothesis at the present time, it's
only an exercise in theoretical physics. Same with String Theory.
You are oversimplifying the descriptions of those concepts in order to
somehow impeach the definition of "science" that excludes ID.
Some say it must be trueifiable, but ID is potentially truefiable, as
the hidden DNA puzzle scenerio shows.
That isn't sufficiently well developed to call it a hypothesis, much
less a theory.
Changing or tightening the definition NOW will probably backfire in
court. It will appear disingenuous to a judge.
Nature herself is the judge. The only thing that matters to the "case"
is whether the theory fits existing observations and makes testable
predictions. ID does neither of those things.
If you guys want a tight definition of science in order to squeaze out
ID, you better be prepared for the potentially wide-reaching
consiquences. Further, it was not tight or clean in the past, so may
not work in court anyhow.
We don't need to tighten the definition of science in order to squeeze
out ID. We've shown reasons as to why that is true, and your objections
have not done anything to refute those reasons.
Your claims about other theoretical, mathematical, constructs such as
Multiple Universes or String Theory have no bearing on the fact that
Intelligent Design is *not* scientific.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"A thief is more moral than a congressman;
when a thief steals your money, he doesn't demand you thank him."
-- Walter Williams
.
|
|
|
| User: "topmind" |
|
| Title: Re: Is String Theory as hard to test as ID? |
06 Nov 2005 04:10:14 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131309388.132851.43730@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131238200.524843.325770@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131233541.476624.194470@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Like I said elsewhere, there could be "clues" in DNA
that would indicate intelligence of some kind.
You said it, but "could be clues" is not testable. DNA is
a bunch of atom. We have given them arbitrary names of
letters. That does not mean there is meaning to the
letter strings.
I mean messages that would be statistically nearly
impossible on their own.
And how could you possibly figure that out? This is a real
question: how can you tell, just from looking that the DNA
(don't assert message until you can back it up) that it was
"statistically" impossible on its "own"? Do you mean
Dembski's hand waving or do you have something else in mind?
No, I mean something that it determined to be far too
improbable to happen accidently after universal scrutiny.
And how can you possibly determine that?
I am not an expert in calculating such probabilities.
Let's spice it up further and say that there are clues in DNA of
one long-dead species that tell to look in another species. If
the clues track closely to what they say, the probability is
even lower that it was cooincidental.
You can "spice it up" all you want but if you can't specify how to
look for these clues, you don't have anything.
I was simply refuting your claim that there is no way to test for
ID.
You refuted no such thing.
I provided a way.
No you didn't.
In that sense it has at least as many tests as MU
and ST, which so far also have nothing, but GET to be called
"science". You guys are full of double standards. No wonder the
religious crowd distrusts some of you. The brohaaaw is part YOUR
fault.
Why are you still complaining about the supporters of other theories?
Talk about double standards.
The real problem is that there is no standard. I am simply pointing
out that the reasons why some things seem to be called "science" and
some things not is inconsistent.
"Science" is a label that encompasses a lot of concepts. Hypotheses,
theories and observations, none of which are present in the concept
called "Intelligent Design".
If we view it in terms of a court case, it is not applied or defined
constently and clearly enough to rule out ID from being called
"science". Some of you use a very strict definition of science when
trying to disqualify ID. Yet other respectable scientific
professionals don't seem to use such strict definitions.
Some say math is required. But Natural Selection didn't have math to
qualify in its earlier days.
Some say it must be falsifiable. Yet MU is not falsifiable. In fact
Nat.Sel. is not even falsifiable.
Natural Selection makes falsifiable predictions. Evolutionary theory is
an assemblage of many many individual hypotheses, each of which has been
tested. MU isn't even a practical hypothesis at the present time, it's
only an exercise in theoretical physics. Same with String Theory.
The issue here is *not* whether ID is as strong as natural selection.
The issue is whether it is "science". Theoretical physics is still
often "science" under some definitions.
You are oversimplifying the descriptions of those concepts in order to
somehow impeach the definition of "science" that excludes ID.
I am not sure what you mean here. You guys seem to be the ones
dinkering with the definition, not me. If the definition of science is
fuzzy, then the Federal Courts probably don't have the right to narrow
it.
Some say it must be trueifiable, but ID is potentially truefiable, as
the hidden DNA puzzle scenerio shows.
That isn't sufficiently well developed to call it a hypothesis, much
less a theory.
That is not the point. MU can be "true" or "science" without
necessarily being testable. There are some suggestions for testing
"close by" universes, but MU does not require interaction whatsoever.
Detection would simply be a lucky bonus.
Changing or tightening the definition NOW will probably backfire in
court. It will appear disingenuous to a judge.
Nature herself is the judge. The only thing that matters to the "case"
is whether the theory fits existing observations
You seem to be contradicting yourself. You say it makes no prodictions,
and then you are saying it makes predictions that don't fit the
observable world. Which is it?
and makes testable
predictions. ID does neither of those things.
As much as MU.
If you guys want a tight definition of science in order to squeaze out
ID, you better be prepared for the potentially wide-reaching
consiquences. Further, it was not tight or clean in the past, so may
not work in court anyhow.
We don't need to tighten the definition of science in order to squeeze
out ID. We've shown reasons as to why that is true, and your objections
have not done anything to refute those reasons.
You cannot do it without also squeazing out MU or ST or a other
scientific ideas that have yet to be tested. You keep trying to compare
to natural selection alone, but don't seem to realize that is not the
issue at hand.
Your claims about other theoretical, mathematical, constructs such as
Multiple Universes or String Theory have no bearing on the fact that
Intelligent Design is *not* scientific.
They do. You are having trouble tweaking the definition of science to
include what you want and exclude what you want in a clean way. Admit
it. That is why it seems you keep trying to shift the discussion back
to natural selection instead of face the likes of MU and ST and their
classification.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
-T-
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Is String Theory as hard to test as ID? |
06 Nov 2005 05:26:43 PM |
|
|
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131315014.276555.121240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131309388.132851.43730@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131238200.524843.325770@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131233541.476624.194470@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Like I said elsewhere, there could be "clues" in DNA
that would indicate intelligence of some kind.
You said it, but "could be clues" is not testable. DNA
is a bunch of atom. We have given them arbitrary names
of letters. That does not mean there is meaning to the
letter strings.
I mean messages that would be statistically nearly
impossible on their own.
And how could you possibly figure that out? This is a
real question: how can you tell, just from looking that
the DNA (don't assert message until you can back it up)
that it was "statistically" impossible on its "own"? Do
you mean Dembski's hand waving or do you have something
else in mind?
No, I mean something that it determined to be far too
improbable to happen accidently after universal scrutiny.
And how can you possibly determine that?
I am not an expert in calculating such probabilities.
Let's spice it up further and say that there are clues in DNA
of one long-dead species that tell to look in another
species. If the clues track closely to what they say, the
probability is even lower that it was cooincidental.
You can "spice it up" all you want but if you can't specify how
to look for these clues, you don't have anything.
I was simply refuting your claim that there is no way to test
for ID.
You refuted no such thing.
I provided a way.
No you didn't.
In that sense it has at least as many tests as MU
and ST, which so far also have nothing, but GET to be called
"science". You guys are full of double standards. No wonder the
religious crowd distrusts some of you. The brohaaaw is part YOUR
fault.
Why are you still complaining about the supporters of other
theories? Talk about double standards.
The real problem is that there is no standard. I am simply pointing
out that the reasons why some things seem to be called "science"
and some things not is inconsistent.
"Science" is a label that encompasses a lot of concepts. Hypotheses,
theories and observations, none of which are present in the concept
called "Intelligent Design".
If we view it in terms of a court case, it is not applied or
defined constently and clearly enough to rule out ID from being
called "science". Some of you use a very strict definition of
science when trying to disqualify ID. Yet other respectable
scientific professionals don't seem to use such strict definitions.
Some say math is required. But Natural Selection didn't have math
to qualify in its earlier days.
Some say it must be falsifiable. Yet MU is not falsifiable. In fact
Nat.Sel. is not even falsifiable.
Natural Selection makes falsifiable predictions. Evolutionary theory
is an assemblage of many many individual hypotheses, each of which
has been tested. MU isn't even a practical hypothesis at the present
time, it's only an exercise in theoretical physics. Same with String
Theory.
The issue here is *not* whether ID is as strong as natural selection.
The issue is whether it is "science". Theoretical physics is still
often "science" under some definitions.
ID is not as well defined as theoretical physics.
You are oversimplifying the descriptions of those concepts in order
to somehow impeach the definition of "science" that excludes ID.
I am not sure what you mean here. You guys seem to be the ones
dinkering with the definition, not me. If the definition of science is
fuzzy, then the Federal Courts probably don't have the right to narrow
it.
Who cares what the Federal Courts say?
Some say it must be trueifiable, but ID is potentially truefiable,
as the hidden DNA puzzle scenerio shows.
That isn't sufficiently well developed to call it a hypothesis, much
less a theory.
That is not the point. MU can be "true" or "science" without
necessarily being testable. There are some suggestions for testing
"close by" universes, but MU does not require interaction whatsoever.
Detection would simply be a lucky bonus.
Why are you complaining about MU? Your job is to provide support for
your claim that ID is science, not to complain about what other people
call some other bit of theoretical conjecture.
Changing or tightening the definition NOW will probably backfire in
court. It will appear disingenuous to a judge.
Nature herself is the judge. The only thing that matters to the
"case" is whether the theory fits existing observations
You seem to be contradicting yourself. You say it makes no
prodictions, and then you are saying it makes predictions that don't
fit the observable world. Which is it?
That's not a contradiction.
and makes testable
predictions. ID does neither of those things.
As much as MU.
Which is irrelevant to your case.
If you guys want a tight definition of science in order to squeaze
out ID, you better be prepared for the potentially wide-reaching
consiquences. Further, it was not tight or clean in the past, so
may not work in court anyhow.
We don't need to tighten the definition of science in order to
squeeze out ID. We've shown reasons as to why that is true, and your
objections have not done anything to refute those reasons.
You cannot do it without also squeazing out MU or ST or a other
scientific ideas that have yet to be tested. You keep trying to
compare to natural selection alone, but don't seem to realize that is
not the issue at hand.
Why are you still complaining about what people do with MU or ST or
other scienctific ideas that have yet to be tested? Your problem is with
ID, not other people's ideas of other scientific conjectures.
Your claims about other theoretical, mathematical, constructs such as
Multiple Universes or String Theory have no bearing on the fact that
Intelligent Design is *not* scientific.
They do. You are having trouble tweaking the definition of science to
include what you want and exclude what you want in a clean way. Admit
it.
No, I'm not. YOU are having that problem trying to squeeze ID in. I
don't have any trouble squeezing it out without worrying about MU or ST
or any other theoretical conjectures.
That is why it seems you keep trying to shift the discussion back
to natural selection instead of face the likes of MU and ST and their
classification.
That's why you keep trying to shift the discussion away from ID to other
theoretical conjectures.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"A thief is more moral than a congressman;
when a thief steals your money, he doesn't demand you thank him."
-- Walter Williams
.
|
|
|
| User: "topmind" |
|
| Title: Re: Is String Theory as hard to test as ID? |
06 Nov 2005 10:03:53 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131315014.276555.121240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131309388.132851.43730@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131238200.524843.325770@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131233541.476624.194470@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Like I said elsewhere, there could be "clues" in DNA
that would indicate intelligence of some kind.
You said it, but "could be clues" is not testable. DNA
is a bunch of atom. We have given them arbitrary names
of letters. That does not mean there is meaning to the
letter strings.
I mean messages that would be statistically nearly
impossible on their own.
And how could you possibly figure that out? This is a
real question: how can you tell, just from looking that
the DNA (don't assert message until you can back it up)
that it was "statistically" impossible on its "own"? Do
you mean Dembski's hand waving or do you have something
else in mind?
No, I mean something that it determined to be far too
improbable to happen accidently after universal scrutiny.
And how can you possibly determine that?
I am not an expert in calculating such probabilities.
Let's spice it up further and say that there are clues in DNA
of one long-dead species that tell to look in another
species. If the clues track closely to what they say, the
probability is even lower that it was cooincidental.
You can "spice it up" all you want but if you can't specify how
to look for these clues, you don't have anything.
I was simply refuting your claim that there is no way to test
for ID.
You refuted no such thing.
I provided a way.
No you didn't.
In that sense it has at least as many tests as MU
and ST, which so far also have nothing, but GET to be called
"science". You guys are full of double standards. No wonder the
religious crowd distrusts some of you. The brohaaaw is part YOUR
fault.
Why are you still complaining about the supporters of other
theories? Talk about double standards.
The real problem is that there is no standard. I am simply pointing
out that the reasons why some things seem to be called "science"
and some things not is inconsistent.
"Science" is a label that encompasses a lot of concepts. Hypotheses,
theories and observations, none of which are present in the concept
called "Intelligent Design".
If we view it in terms of a court case, it is not applied or
defined constently and clearly enough to rule out ID from being
called "science". Some of you use a very strict definition of
science when trying to disqualify ID. Yet other respectable
scientific professionals don't seem to use such strict definitions.
Some say math is required. But Natural Selection didn't have math
to qualify in its earlier days.
Some say it must be falsifiable. Yet MU is not falsifiable. In fact
Nat.Sel. is not even falsifiable.
Natural Selection makes falsifiable predictions. Evolutionary theory
is an assemblage of many many individual hypotheses, each of which
has been tested. MU isn't even a practical hypothesis at the present
time, it's only an exercise in theoretical physics. Same with String
Theory.
The issue here is *not* whether ID is as strong as natural selection.
The issue is whether it is "science". Theoretical physics is still
often "science" under some definitions.
ID is not as well defined as theoretical physics.
How is MU more well-defined?
You are oversimplifying the descriptions of those concepts in order
to somehow impeach the definition of "science" that excludes ID.
I am not sure what you mean here. You guys seem to be the ones
dinkering with the definition, not me. If the definition of science is
fuzzy, then the Federal Courts probably don't have the right to narrow
it.
Who cares what the Federal Courts say?
So we should let YOU decide the definition of "science"?
Some say it must be trueifiable, but ID is potentially truefiable,
as the hidden DNA puzzle scenerio shows.
That isn't sufficiently well developed to call it a hypothesis, much
less a theory.
That is not the point. MU can be "true" or "science" without
necessarily being testable. There are some suggestions for testing
"close by" universes, but MU does not require interaction whatsoever.
Detection would simply be a lucky bonus.
Why are you complaining about MU?
I am not complaining. I have no problem with MU being labelled
"science".
Your job is to provide support for
your claim that ID is science, not to complain about what other people
call some other bit of theoretical conjecture.
Again, I am not complaining about MU's classification.
Changing or tightening the definition NOW will probably backfire in
court. It will appear disingenuous to a judge.
Nature herself is the judge. The only thing that matters to the
"case" is whether the theory fits existing observations
You seem to be contradicting yourself. You say it makes no
prodictions, and then you are saying it makes predictions that don't
fit the observable world. Which is it?
That's not a contradiction.
Is too.
and makes testable
predictions. ID does neither of those things.
As much as MU.
Which is irrelevant to your case.
Not.
If you guys want a tight definition of science in order to squeaze
out ID, you better be prepared for the potentially wide-reaching
consiquences. Further, it was not tight or clean in the past, so
may not work in court anyhow.
We don't need to tighten the definition of science in order to
squeeze out ID. We've shown reasons as to why that is true, and your
objections have not done anything to refute those reasons.
You cannot do it without also squeazing out MU or ST or a other
scientific ideas that have yet to be tested. You keep trying to
compare to natural selection alone, but don't seem to realize that is
not the issue at hand.
Why are you still complaining about what people do with MU or ST or
other scienctific ideas that have yet to be tested? Your problem is with
ID, not other people's ideas of other scientific conjectures.
I am generally approaching this from the perspective of a judge because
nobody gives a damn about my personal definition of "science" (and
yours either). If respected scientists have classified MU or ST as
science, then it appears that being hard to test is not a reason to not
be called science. The issue of the definition of science will surely
come up in a court case.
Your claims about other theoretical, mathematical, constructs such as
Multiple Universes or String Theory have no bearing on the fact that
Intelligent Design is *not* scientific.
They do. You are having trouble tweaking the definition of science to
include what you want and exclude what you want in a clean way. Admit
it.
No, I'm not. YOU are having that problem trying to squeeze ID in. I
don't have any trouble squeezing it out without worrying about MU or ST
or any other theoretical conjectures.
But you have not provided a testable definition of science. If inside
your head you exclude ID but include MU or ST, that tells us nothing
about how your working definitions classify stuff .
--
Fred Stone
-T-
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Is String Theory as hard to test as ID? |
06 Nov 2005 10:41:53 PM |
|
|
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131336233.683711.45230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131315014.276555.121240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131309388.132851.43730@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131238200.524843.325770@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131233541.476624.194470@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Like I said elsewhere, there could be "clues" in
DNA that would indicate intelligence of some kind.
You said it, but "could be clues" is not testable.
DNA is a bunch of atom. We have given them
arbitrary names of letters. That does not mean
there is meaning to the letter strings.
I mean messages that would be statistically nearly
impossible on their own.
And how could you possibly figure that out? This is a
real question: how can you tell, just from looking
that the DNA (don't assert message until you can back
it up) that it was "statistically" impossible on its
"own"? Do you mean Dembski's hand waving or do you
have something else in mind?
No, I mean something that it determined to be far too
improbable to happen accidently after universal
scrutiny.
And how can you possibly determine that?
I am not an expert in calculating such probabilities.
Let's spice it up further and say that there are clues in
DNA of one long-dead species that tell to look in another
species. If the clues track closely to what they say, the
probability is even lower that it was cooincidental.
You can "spice it up" all you want but if you can't specify
how to look for these clues, you don't have anything.
I was simply refuting your claim that there is no way to test
for ID.
You refuted no such thing.
I provided a way.
No you didn't.
In that sense it has at least as many tests as MU
and ST, which so far also have nothing, but GET to be called
"science". You guys are full of double standards. No wonder
the religious crowd distrusts some of you. The brohaaaw is
part YOUR fault.
Why are you still complaining about the supporters of other
theories? Talk about double standards.
The real problem is that there is no standard. I am simply
pointing out that the reasons why some things seem to be called
"science" and some things not is inconsistent.
"Science" is a label that encompasses a lot of concepts.
Hypotheses, theories and observations, none of which are present
in the concept called "Intelligent Design".
If we view it in terms of a court case, it is not applied or
defined constently and clearly enough to rule out ID from being
called "science". Some of you use a very strict definition of
science when trying to disqualify ID. Yet other respectable
scientific professionals don't seem to use such strict
definitions.
Some say math is required. But Natural Selection didn't have
math to qualify in its earlier days.
Some say it must be falsifiable. Yet MU is not falsifiable. In
fact Nat.Sel. is not even falsifiable.
Natural Selection makes falsifiable predictions. Evolutionary
theory is an assemblage of many many individual hypotheses, each
of which has been tested. MU isn't even a practical hypothesis at
the present time, it's only an exercise in theoretical physics.
Same with String Theory.
The issue here is *not* whether ID is as strong as natural
selection. The issue is whether it is "science". Theoretical
physics is still often "science" under some definitions.
ID is not as well defined as theoretical physics.
How is MU more well-defined?
Why are you still complaining about MU?
You are oversimplifying the descriptions of those concepts in
order to somehow impeach the definition of "science" that excludes
ID.
I am not sure what you mean here. You guys seem to be the ones
dinkering with the definition, not me. If the definition of science
is fuzzy, then the Federal Courts probably don't have the right to
narrow it.
Who cares what the Federal Courts say?
So we should let YOU decide the definition of "science"?
Better than letting *YOU* decide it.
Some say it must be trueifiable, but ID is potentially
truefiable, as the hidden DNA puzzle scenerio shows.
That isn't sufficiently well developed to call it a hypothesis,
much less a theory.
That is not the point. MU can be "true" or "science" without
necessarily being testable. There are some suggestions for testing
"close by" universes, but MU does not require interaction
whatsoever. Detection would simply be a lucky bonus.
Why are you complaining about MU?
I am not complaining. I have no problem with MU being labelled
"science".
Yes, you do, or you wouldn't be trying to use that to shoehorn ID into
the same category, where it doesn't belong.
Your job is to provide support for
your claim that ID is science, not to complain about what other
people call some other bit of theoretical conjecture.
Again, I am not complaining about MU's classification.
But keep bringing up irrelavancies about MU when you're trying to defend
ID.
Changing or tightening the definition NOW will probably backfire
in court. It will appear disingenuous to a judge.
Nature herself is the judge. The only thing that matters to the
"case" is whether the theory fits existing observations
You seem to be contradicting yourself. You say it makes no
prodictions, and then you are saying it makes predictions that
don't fit the observable world. Which is it?
That's not a contradiction.
Is too.
and makes testable
predictions. ID does neither of those things.
As much as MU.
Which is irrelevant to your case.
Not.
Is too. Nyahhh!
If you guys want a tight definition of science in order to
squeaze out ID, you better be prepared for the potentially
wide-reaching consiquences. Further, it was not tight or clean
in the past, so may not work in court anyhow.
We don't need to tighten the definition of science in order to
squeeze out ID. We've shown reasons as to why that is true, and
your objections have not done anything to refute those reasons.
You cannot do it without also squeazing out MU or ST or a other
scientific ideas that have yet to be tested. You keep trying to
compare to natural selection alone, but don't seem to realize that
is not the issue at hand.
Why are you still complaining about what people do with MU or ST or
other scienctific ideas that have yet to be tested? Your problem is
with ID, not other people's ideas of other scientific conjectures.
I am generally approaching this from the perspective of a judge
because nobody gives a damn about my personal definition of "science"
(and yours either). If respected scientists have classified MU or ST
as science, then it appears that being hard to test is not a reason to
not be called science. The issue of the definition of science will
surely come up in a court case.
There you go again, worrying about what people think instead of
producing support for your claims about ID.
Your claims about other theoretical, mathematical, constructs such
as Multiple Universes or String Theory have no bearing on the fact
that Intelligent Design is *not* scientific.
They do. You are having trouble tweaking the definition of science
to include what you want and exclude what you want in a clean way.
Admit it.
No, I'm not. YOU are having that problem trying to squeeze ID in. I
don't have any trouble squeezing it out without worrying about MU or
ST or any other theoretical conjectures.
But you have not provided a testable definition of science.
Not my problem.
If inside
your head you exclude ID but include MU or ST, that tells us nothing
about how your working definitions classify stuff .
Why are you asking about my definitions? ID has to stand on its own, it
doesn't depend on what anybody calls anything else.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"A thief is more moral than a congressman;
when a thief steals your money, he doesn't demand you thank him."
-- Walter Williams
.
|
|
|
| User: "topmind" |
|
| Title: Re: Is String Theory as hard to test as ID? |
08 Nov 2005 12:29:05 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131336233.683711.45230@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131315014.276555.121240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131309388.132851.43730@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131238200.524843.325770@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131233541.476624.194470@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Like I said elsewhere, there could be "clues" in
DNA that would indicate intelligence of some kind.
You said it, but "could be clues" is not testable.
DNA is a bunch of atom. We have given them
arbitrary names of letters. That does not mean
there is meaning to the letter strings.
I mean messages that would be statistically nearly
impossible on their own.
And how could you possibly figure that out? This is a
real question: how can you tell, just from looking
that the DNA (don't assert message until you can back
it up) that it was "statistically" impossible on its
"own"? Do you mean Dembski's hand waving or do you
have something else in mind?
No, I mean something that it determined to be far too
improbable to happen accidently after universal
scrutiny.
And how can you possibly determine that?
I am not an expert in calculating such probabilities.
Let's spice it up further and say that there are clues in
DNA of one long-dead species that tell to look in another
species. If the clues track closely to what they say, the
probability is even lower that it was cooincidental.
You can "spice it up" all you want but if you can't specify
how to look for these clues, you don't have anything.
I was simply refuting your claim that there is no way to test
for ID.
You refuted no such thing.
I provided a way.
No you didn't.
In that sense it has at least as many tests as MU
and ST, which so far also have nothing, but GET to be called
"science". You guys are full of double standards. No wonder
the religious crowd distrusts some of you. The brohaaaw is
part YOUR fault.
Why are you still complaining about the supporters of other
theories? Talk about double standards.
The real problem is that there is no standard. I am simply
pointing out that the reasons why some things seem to be called
"science" and some things not is inconsistent.
"Science" is a label that encompasses a lot of concepts.
Hypotheses, theories and observations, none of which are present
in the concept called "Intelligent Design".
If we view it in terms of a court case, it is not applied or
defined constently and clearly enough to rule out ID from being
called "science". Some of you use a very strict definition of
science when trying to disqualify ID. Yet other respectable
scientific professionals don't seem to use such strict
definitions.
Some say math is required. But Natural Selection didn't have
math to qualify in its earlier days.
Some say it must be falsifiable. Yet MU is not falsifiable. In
fact Nat.Sel. is not even falsifiable.
Natural Selection makes falsifiable predictions. Evolutionary
theory is an assemblage of many many individual hypotheses, each
of which has been tested. MU isn't even a practical hypothesis at
the present time, it's only an exercise in theoretical physics.
Same with String Theory.
The issue here is *not* whether ID is as strong as natural
selection. The issue is whether it is "science". Theoretical
physics is still often "science" under some definitions.
ID is not as well defined as theoretical physics.
How is MU more well-defined?
Why are you still complaining about MU?
I am not complaining, only trying to figure out the double standard.
You are oversimplifying the descriptions of those concepts in
order to somehow impeach the definition of "science" that excludes
ID.
I am not sure what you mean here. You guys seem to be the ones
dinkering with the definition, not me. If the definition of science
is fuzzy, then the Federal Courts probably don't have the right to
narrow it.
Who cares what the Federal Courts say?
So we should let YOU decide the definition of "science"?
Better than letting *YOU* decide it.
Well at least I would *try* to form a clear definition of science so
that we don't have to rely on just voting and proponent popularity
contests.
Some say it must be trueifiable, but ID is potentially
truefiable, as the hidden DNA puzzle scenerio shows.
That isn't sufficiently well developed to call it a hypothesis,
much less a theory.
That is not the point. MU can be "true" or "science" without
necessarily being testable. There are some suggestions for testing
"close by" universes, but MU does not require interaction
whatsoever. Detection would simply be a lucky bonus.
Why are you complaining about MU?
I am not complaining. I have no problem with MU being labelled
"science".
Yes, you do, or you wouldn't be trying to use that to shoehorn ID into
the same category, where it doesn't belong.
Why not? Be clear. Exactly why the fudge not? The only thing you use
seems to be because of the background of supporters, which shouldn't
matter diddly squat. The universe does not do a background check of
humans before it switches itself on.
Your job is to provide support for
your claim that ID is science, not to complain about what other
people call some other bit of theoretical conjecture.
Again, I am not complaining about MU's classification.
But keep bringing up irrelavancies about MU when you're trying to defend
ID.
It is not irrelavant. It exposes your double standards, and I am going
to keep ramming it up your intellectual rump until the hidden perceived
difference spills forth upon the soil.
If you guys want a tight definition of science in order to
squeaze out ID, you better be prepared for the potentially
wide-reaching consiquences. Further, it was not tight or clean
in the past, so may not work in court anyhow.
We don't need to tighten the definition of science in order to
squeeze out ID. We've shown reasons as to why that is true, and
your objections have not done anything to refute those reasons.
You cannot do it without also squeazing out MU or ST or a other
scientific ideas that have yet to be tested. You keep trying to
compare to natural selection alone, but don't seem to realize that
is not the issue at hand.
Why are you still complaining about what people do with MU or ST or
other scienctific ideas that have yet to be tested? Your problem is
with ID, not other people's ideas of other scientific conjectures.
I am generally approaching this from the perspective of a judge
because nobody gives a damn about my personal definition of "science"
(and yours either). If respected scientists have classified MU or ST
as science, then it appears that being hard to test is not a reason to
not be called science. The issue of the definition of science will
surely come up in a court case.
There you go again, worrying about what people think instead of
producing support for your claims about ID.
You have not supported your claims about why ID shouldn't be classified
as "science", or why it should be classified differently than MU.
Your claims about other theoretical, mathematical, constructs such
as Multiple Universes or String Theory have no bearing on the fact
that Intelligent Design is *not* scientific.
They do. You are having trouble tweaking the definition of science
to include what you want and exclude what you want in a clean way.
Admit it.
No, I'm not. YOU are having that problem trying to squeeze ID in. I
don't have any trouble squeezing it out without worrying about MU or
ST or any other theoretical conjectures.
But you have not provided a testable definition of science.
Not my problem.
Brilliant lawyership there. That'll get you far.
If inside
your head you exclude ID but include MU or ST, that tells us nothing
about how your working definitions classify stuff .
Why are you asking about my definitions? ID has to stand on its own, it
doesn't depend on what anybody calls anything else.
Then what the flippen heck *does* its classification depend on? The
grudge-match between athiests and right-wing zealots? Both sides have
too many aholes who think they are the center of the universe.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
-T-
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Is String Theory as hard to test as ID? |
06 Nov 2005 08:07:21 PM |
|
|
On 6 Nov 2005 12:36:28 -0800, "topmind" <topmind@technologist.com>
wrote:
I was simply refuting your claim that there is no way to test for ID.
You refuted no such thing.
I provided a way.
No you didn't.
There is no way. Simple logic and careful use of language to avoid
equivocation. We determine design because we know the characteristics
of design from what we design ourselves. Ans we have a word for
non-designed things we can compare with - natural.
But at a megadesigner-of everything we would already have to know
enough about it to recognise its megadesign because there is nothing
meganatural for comparison. Which presumes what it is suppsoed to be
proving. A circular argument.
Why do you keep ignoring this? After all you have been told this
several times already.
In that sense it has at least as many tests as MU
and ST, which so far also have nothing, but GET to be called
"science". You guys are full of double standards. No wonder the
religious crowd distrusts some of you. The brohaaaw is part YOUR
fault.
Why are you still complaining about the supporters of other theories?
Talk about double standards.
The real problem is that there is no standard. I am simply pointing out
that the reasons why some things seem to be called "science" and some
things not is inconsistent.
No. You are attemptingto use this lie as a diversion instead of
explaining why you imagine ID is science.
How many times are you going to ignore what people tell you about MU
and ST?
If we view it in terms of a court case, it is not applied or defined
constently and clearly enough to rule out ID from being called
"science". Some of you use a very strict definition of science when
trying to disqualify ID. Yet other respectable scientific professionals
don't seem to use such strict definitions.
Science is not a court case.
EXPLAIN WHY YOU IMAGINE ID IS SCIENCE.
Some say math is required. But Natural Selection didn't have math to
qualify in its earlier days.
Some say it must be falsifiable. Yet MU is not falsifiable. In fact
Nat.Sel. is not even falsifiable.
Some say it must be trueifiable, but ID is potentially truefiable, as
the hidden DNA puzzle scenerio shows.
Changing or tightening the definition NOW will probably backfire in
court. It will appear disingenuous to a judge.
If you guys want a tight definition of science in order to squeaze out
ID, you better be prepared for the potentially wide-reaching
consiquences. Further, it was not tight or clean in the past, so may
not work in court anyhow.
--
Fred Stone
-T-
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Is String Theory as hard to test as ID? |
06 Nov 2005 03:43:22 PM |
|
|
On 6 Nov 2005 12:36:28 -0800, in alt.atheism
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
<1131309388.132851.43730@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Fred Stone wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131238200.524843.325770@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
....
In that sense it has at least as many tests as MU
and ST, which so far also have nothing, but GET to be called
"science". You guys are full of double standards. No wonder the
religious crowd distrusts some of you. The brohaaaw is part YOUR
fault.
Why are you still complaining about the supporters of other theories?
Talk about double standards.
The real problem is that there is no standard. I am simply pointing out
that the reasons why some things seem to be called "science" and some
things not is inconsistent.
You may have intended to do that, but I don't see how you did.
If we view it in terms of a court case, it is not applied or defined
constently and clearly enough to rule out ID from being called
"science". Some of you use a very strict definition of science when
trying to disqualify ID. Yet other respectable scientific professionals
don't seem to use such strict definitions.
How does ID manage to fit into science at all, even in the most
reasonably generous definition?
Some say math is required. But Natural Selection didn't have math to
qualify in its earlier days.
I'm not aware of anyone who requires that.
Some say it must be falsifiable. Yet MU is not falsifiable. In fact
Nat.Sel. is not even falsifiable.
Of course natural selection is falsifiable. Where did you get the
contrary idea? MU?
Some say it must be trueifiable, but ID is potentially truefiable, as
the hidden DNA puzzle scenerio shows.
Testable? Let's see the tests that ID proponents have done. Things
aren't science just because some speculation has been done without any
testing.
Changing or tightening the definition NOW will probably backfire in
court. It will appear disingenuous to a judge.
If the best ID can do is what they did in Dover, they have lost.
If you guys want a tight definition of science in order to squeaze out
ID, you better be prepared for the potentially wide-reaching
consiquences. Further, it was not tight or clean in the past, so may
not work in court anyhow.
The question is religion. ID looks like religion wrapped in the
pseudo-trappings of science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "topmind" |
|
| Title: Re: Is String Theory as hard to test as ID? |
06 Nov 2005 10:21:29 PM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
On 6 Nov 2005 12:36:28 -0800, in alt.atheism
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
<1131309388.132851.43730@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Fred Stone wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131238200.524843.325770@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
...
In that sense it has at least as many tests as MU
and ST, which so far also have nothing, but GET to be called
"science". You guys are full of double standards. No wonder the
religious crowd distrusts some of you. The brohaaaw is part YOUR
fault.
Why are you still complaining about the supporters of other theories?
Talk about double standards.
The real problem is that there is no standard. I am simply pointing out
that the reasons why some things seem to be called "science" and some
things not is inconsistent.
You may have intended to do that, but I don't see how you did.
Because you are ignoring the problems of classifying MU and ST. You
guys don't appear to want to think about that.
If we view it in terms of a court case, it is not applied or defined
constently and clearly enough to rule out ID from being called
"science". Some of you use a very strict definition of science when
trying to disqualify ID. Yet other respectable scientific professionals
don't seem to use such strict definitions.
How does ID manage to fit into science at all, even in the most
reasonably generous definition?
Can one ask the same of MU or ST?
Some say math is required. But Natural Selection didn't have math to
qualify in its earlier days.
I'm not aware of anyone who requires that.
It has been brought up here twice. "ST has math and ID does not. Neener
neener." If you have not put that requirement in your working
definition, then please ignore such issues.
But it is more evidence that the definition of science is not
consistent.
Some say it must be falsifiable. Yet MU is not falsifiable. In fact
Nat.Sel. is not even falsifiable.
Of course natural selection is falsifiable. Where did you get the
contrary idea? MU?
How can one prove with certainty that NS did not create a given
organism that left no history?
However, it should be pointed out that falsifiability is usually a
continuous measure rather than a Boolean one.
Some say it must be trueifiable, but ID is potentially truefiable, as
the hidden DNA puzzle scenerio shows.
Testable? Let's see the tests that ID proponents have done. Things
aren't science just because some speculation has been done without any
testing.
Same with MU and ST. I have asked the question about whether something
is science BEFORE it is tested. I don't get a consistent answer.
Your definitions of science are perhaps even more lacking than ID's
tests. How ironic.
Changing or tightening the definition NOW will probably backfire in
court. It will appear disingenuous to a judge.
If the best ID can do is what they did in Dover, they have lost.
They need to hire smart lawyers instead of fellow fanatics. They are
making the same kind of croney mistakes W is.
If you guys want a tight definition of science in order to squeaze out
ID, you better be prepared for the potentially wide-reaching
consiquences. Further, it was not tight or clean in the past, so may
not work in court anyhow.
The question is religion. ID looks like religion wrapped in the
pseudo-trappings of science.
Moot. The origin of an idea is not a reason to classify it as science
or not. Focus on what is on the paper, not who moved the pen.
-T-
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Is String Theory as hard to test as ID? |
07 Nov 2005 06:56:55 AM |
|
|
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131337289.218127.306520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
David Jensen wrote:
On 6 Nov 2005 12:36:28 -0800, in alt.atheism
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
<1131309388.132851.43730@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Fred Stone wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131238200.524843.325770@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
...
In that sense it has at least as many tests as MU
and ST, which so far also have nothing, but GET to be called
"science". You guys are full of double standards. No wonder the
religious crowd distrusts some of you. The brohaaaw is part YOUR
fault.
Why are you still complaining about the supporters of other
theories? Talk about double standards.
The real problem is that there is no standard. I am simply pointing
out that the reasons why some things seem to be called "science" and
some things not is inconsistent.
You may have intended to do that, but I don't see how you did.
Because you are ignoring the problems of classifying MU and ST. You
guys don't appear to want to think about that.
Why are you still arguing about what people do with MU or ST?
The facts about ID have to stand on their own.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"A thief is more moral than a congressman;
when a thief steals your money, he doesn't demand you thank him."
-- Walter Williams
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Is String Theory as hard to test as ID? |
06 Nov 2005 11:24:36 PM |
|
|
On 6 Nov 2005 20:21:29 -0800, in alt.atheism
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
<1131337289.218127.306520@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 6 Nov 2005 12:36:28 -0800, in alt.atheism
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
<1131309388.132851.43730@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Fred Stone wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@technologist.com> wrote in
news:1131238200.524843.325770@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
...
In that sense it has at least as many tests as MU
and ST, which so far also have nothing, but GET to be called
"science". You guys are full of double standards. No wonder the
religious crowd distrusts some of you. The brohaaaw is part YOUR
fault.
Why are you still complaining about the supporters of other theories?
Talk about double standards.
The real problem is that there is no standard. I am simply pointing out
that the reasons why some things seem to be called "science" and some
things not is inconsistent.
You may have intended to do that, but I don't see how you did.
Because you are ignoring the problems of classifying MU and ST. You
guys don't appear to want to think about that.
Not really, while they are certainly at the edge of available knowledge,
they are consistent with the current evidence and have developed areas
for further research. ID cannot say the same.
If we view it in terms of a court case, it is not applied or defined
constently and clearly enough to rule out ID from being called
"science". Some of you use a very strict definition of science when
trying to disqualify ID. Yet other respectable scientific professionals
don't seem to use such strict definitions.
How does ID manage to fit into science at all, even in the most
reasonably generous definition?
Can one ask the same of MU or ST?
Yes, though no one thinks that they are as solid a theory as quantum
mechanics or evolution.
Some say math is required. But Natural Selection didn't have math to
qualify in its earlier days.
I'm not aware of anyone who requires that.
It has been brought up here twice. "ST has math and ID does not. Neener
neener." If you have not put that requirement in your working
definition, then please ignore such issues.
I didn't bring it up, nor am I aware of anyone ever saying that science
needs math to be science, though science generally uses math because it
is a useful tool for science.
But it is more evidence that the definition of science is not
consistent.
No.
Some say it must be falsifiable. Yet MU is not falsifiable. In fact
Nat.Sel. is not even falsifiable.
Of course natural selection is falsifiable. Where did you get the
contrary idea? MU?
How can one prove with certainty that NS did not create a given
organism that left no history?
It probably did, why would that matter? No one expects to discover every
single form of organism that has ever lived on earth.
However, it should be pointed out that falsifiability is usually a
continuous measure rather than a Boolean one.
Since your claim was false, you now want to slide back a little on it.
Could you explain that?
Some say it must be trueifiable, but ID is potentially truefiable, as
the hidden DNA puzzle scenerio shows.
Testable? Let's see the tests that ID proponents have don | | | | | | | | | | | |
