|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does ID follow the scientific method? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Question everything. If someone has a theory, try to disprove it. Challenge it in every way possible. Don't accept anything as given or as a necessary truth. Anything could be wrong, even the ToE. IDers, by contrast, start with the inerrant truth of the bible and try to fit observations about the natural world within that framework. That, in a nutshell, is the difference between the two approaches. could you fellas please stick to logic and logical approaches to things The Bible has nothing to do with your and my approaches to Nature, if I am using simple evaluation processes correct. Is the guy that is a Christian and a detective in the police force, wrong in his approach to a crime because he believes in the Bible Please demonstrate why my observations of nature, my experiments, my evaluations and my predictions of what nature will reveal, are not science Why wont anyone try and answer that question Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
NO the hypothesis comes first. That is what one is trying to evaluate to find if the evidence supports it, that is a trial solution to the premise. Actually that is not technically correct or logical. A hypothesis is a process by which you formulate an idea based on a mehtod of common sense, ie, simple observation initially the methods are not actually something you set and ponder, you simply employ your God given gift of reason and one method flows into another It would be silly to assume that IDers use some strange method different to the SM or any other thinking person Ours is a scientific method, but most that are afraid of religious influence and references try and circumvent such an easily demonstratable fact. It amazes me that some judge or judges actually bought that argument and aprroach. Wow. The right gunslinger, clearly was not present Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
As others have pointed out presuppositions and the Scientific Method are not synonyms. Neither are the IDMs. Your free to demonstrate a difference in approaches if you wish My simple contention for this thread is that there are no differences and both are science people have been duped, especially and surprisingly law makers, that the ID methology is religion or supernatural Now watch this. By the very nature of the case it is neither. It is me or a scientist evaluating physical properties. What or how could that approach have anything to do with religion Its only secular fundamentalist evos that try and slip the conclusion of design in, in place of the approach the IDer uses, which serves as a smokescreen for a simple minded Judge to mistake one for the other One is a conclusion and the other is a method and that distinction is never made in those instances It would take me ten minutes to reverse his decision Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Now after persistently avoiding the question of ID's methodology or even whether one even exists, Dawn claims that it does indeed exist. And that it is identical to the scientific method! Fine! Great! So then finally please tell us, Dawn, just how is the scientific method supposed to deal with supernaturalistic hypotheses? That is, after all, what ID wants to force science to do (not through scientific channels, but rather by appealing to the general public which is largely scientifically illiterate. So just how is that supposed to happen? Or, Dawn, you could start with the really simple question. The one that you have been avoiding and refusing to answer all along:What is the methodology for detecting and determining design? Your failure here is one of a logical fallacy. You assume but have not demonstrated that IDMs are religious in nature, then you run with a false premise, believing you have started correctly Please demonstrate HOW if I employ all the basics that that is supernatural, religious or different from your method I have now set out several times what our method involves, yet had anyone to show why it is not science or how you employ something we dont Dont confuse you conclusions with your methods
Or, Dawn, you could start with the really simple question. The one that you have been avoiding and refusing to answer all along: What is the methodology for detecting and determining design The methodology is the same one you use to come to conclusions, the likes of which, where the direct evidence is not now available What is your methodology for determining that a thing is a result of design or simply a product of soley a natural process? when the smoke clears and the dust settles, all that is is left is the SM of approach, the exact same one any thinking person uses on either side of the fence If I am wrong here is your chance to demonstrate why I am wrong Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
So no, ID does not really use the scientific method. The conclusion of design is - for virtually all ID supporters - a religious conclusion with no real scientific basis. What matters to ID is the promotion of this conclusion - above and beyond such small considerations as truth and morality. This comment and your entire post indicates that you have no answer to my queries It is not FOR ME a question of religious preference or social nonsense, but one of pure logic Please demonstrate why my conclusions of IDs methods do not have real scientific basis I would have to accept your above comment and the entire post as a baseless assertion, until you can demonstrate otherwise Your statements are nothing short of comical, but they do not approach the commedy of Homer attempting to imitate 'Dial Up', with his voice and gestures. Now that was some funny stuff Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
"But notice something about the assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism: they are anti-biblical assumptions. The bible indicated that the universe was created supernaturally by God (Genesis 1:1) and that present rates are not always indicitive of past rates." So measure all you want, and evaluate all you want. I don't see how, by this very statement alone, can you use any of these measurements or evaluations to explain what happened in the past. As by assuming, just that present rates are not always indicitive of past rates, that any measurement, and any evaluation you make based of that measurement, will hold for anything in the past. Could you simplify this Im not sure of what you are getting at Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Please take the opportunity to express, in a logical manner, the inexorible chain of logic that leads to your conclusion. This is nothing new. It has existed from the very beginning. All you ever had to do was to exhibit it. Well you did everything in your brutal, idiotic post but answer my question. If we both use the same methods as I have already descirbed several times now, why are they not science and what is there that you employ that we do not. Once again without the silliness and attitude please Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
If you want to present intelligent design as a hypothesis based on the observation that nature appears to be designed then fair enough. But the next step would be to construct this hypothesis in such a way that it can be tested and falsified. This is done by making falsifiable predictions which are the necessary logical consequences of your hypothesis being correct. Predictions which genuinely test your hypothesis (as opposed to generic or trivial conclusions that don't tell you anything not already known). This is the tricky part and the part you are missing. But until you are able to construct and test ID in this manner it will never get off the ground as a theory by any scientific standard. The best you can say is that it is a rather speculative possibility (i.e. a hypothesis). Why will no one answer this question, why will no one agree or disagree initially that the IDs methods are the exact same as the SM in the form of Observation, experimentation evaluation and experimentation Here is the question in another form, if the other refuses to be ansewred. Are these the basic tenets of the SM, Yes or NO? Does the IDist seem to use the self same methods, Yes or NO? If we do, is that a scientific approach, Yes or No? One can simply test the prediction that order and law, will occur if a given enough amount of time and tests are conducted, which makes it a "Logical consequence of the hypothesis being correct", as you suggest Please demonstrate which part of my process is not science in action Not a single post has attempted the answer to such a simple question, Why? there is nothing speculative about IDs approach and you are being dishonest by not answering the question Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
dwise1 writes: With all due respect, as a thirty-frakin'-three-year veteran facing forced retirement in one more year, how could anybody have survived in the US military with such abysmal communication skills that you exhibit? Pardon me being insulting, but it is because your mind is simplistic and slighted, you dont understand the proper method of reasoning, or have the capacity of a rational thought process. I often compare such persons as yourself, to that person that pulls up behind you on the highway, when I am in the slow lane. While they clearly have the ability to pass, yet want to ride your bumper. it soon becomes obvious that they are unable to process what they are thinking and what they need to do it that situation, at the same time. It takes me slowing down even further to get the slow witted person to pass. Dewise, your slow witted Percy writes:I've been assuming he was in military intelligence. Apologies if that isn't funny to the military. Actually it was was intelligence and survival specialist as a secondary carrier field Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
An IDist warps observations of the real world to fit with preconceived ideas from the bible. That's why they are not science. Since I have not even brought the Bible up, it would follow that that does not apply to me, correct? More assertion with no answers to my simple questions. Are the basic tenets that we use the same as yours and are they science? If they are not scientific in approach all you need to do is explain why the are not a valid method of logical and science to begin with Science, Yes or No? Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Several people have. You either don't like the answers or don't have the wit to understand them. No they have tried to explain within the process why they believe it is not science. All they need to do initially, is explain why the basics are not a science approach As I have stated before they are confusing conclusions with approaches If I do an experiment that demonstrates and predicts, consistent order, or what even appears to be consistent and persistent order, then I have followed every step of the SM You want to make our conclusions a part of your initial process, whic does not follow logically Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Great! Now we're getting somewhere. How do you evaluate those physical properties? In other words, how do you differentiate design from non-design? What is your method for doing this? Ahhhh the slighted scientific mind, void of carrying things thier logical conclusion. It would be helpful if you would respond to what I said in that post concerning this question, instead of repeating it We evaluate those physical properties the same as anyone and especially the SM. OB, eval, exper, validation, and prediction Are those scientific approaches or Not? We evaluate design from non-design by the order we gather from our initial scientific approach Since design is a conclusion, like any conclusion derived by the scientific method concerning macro-evolution it would follow that both are a scientific Method, unless you can demonstrate, what we have left out that you include, concerning conclusions Can you do this, my bet is that you cannot Instead of repeating your questions, could you actually repond to some of the points I am presenting Thats called debate, you know Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Design is 'naturalistic'. If we agree there is design in biology then we just need to identify the designer. Just about all scientists that have studied the subject have come to the conclusion that the evidence points to the designer as being natural selection and perhaps a few other more complex ideas. Intelligent Design's theory is that it is the product of 'an intelligence'. Come on Modulous, you of all people I would expect to get these simple logical points. Design is Not a theory based on the idea that it is of an intelligence, at its outset. It is a product initially, of logical, scientific methodology, deducing, by observed order in reality and properties, harmony, consistency and order The conclusion of design, is not initially necessary to fromulate a logical observation and deduction, concerning such matters. Those are two different things and one leads to the conclusion. Your assuming it starts with a conclusion
Intelligent Design theory is: "The theory of evolution cannot explain all of biology". Which I'm inclined to believe is true. However - its proponents then make the illogical leap that if evolution cannot explain all of biology and if evolution undermines the argument from design then the argument from design must be true if evolutionary biologists can be shown to have failed to explain (or even if the disagree in explanations) some small piece of the world in any way. these are preconcieved ideas that you have formulated, based on a faulty approach of both science and reason. By the very nature of the case Modulous, how could I use a different approach than youself. the only way I could do this is to make no attempt to explain anything at all. In the absense of this failure, the only thing left is the scientific approach of rational thought process
So basically - incorrect facts, poor logic, nonsense maths, and lack of any positive evidence pretty much covers the important features of why Intelligent Design does not follow the scientific method. ID might look at things, develop arguments and draw conclusions - but that doesn't mean it follows the scientific method Well here is your big chance to demonstrate from what I have said, why that is not true the truth of the matter is that you fellas have so clouded the simple term of science and a logical approach, that it is unrecongizable to the simple mind. They actually buy into your jargon and faulty logic
Drawing conclusions is a key part of the method. If we weren't talking about drawing conclusions then all you'd be trying to say is that both use empiricism. But science is a particular suite of methods of reasoning to infer conclusions from empirically derived evidence. Where ID falls down is in the reasoning and inferring conclusions part of things. There is ofcourse no way for you to demonstrate this logically, especially when we observe that actual physical evidence and deduce its conclusions logiacally Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Hmmmm. No mention of hypothesis testing, theory, or any of the other things science uses in it's method, eh? Sounds more like a religious and political strategy. And funny thing, the Discovery Institute hires mostly lawyers and pr flacks, and runs no laboratories at all. Hmmmm. Dawn, want to tell us about the "scientific method" again? I think you missed something. Wow you really dont know how to distinquish between thier goals and my points do you C, I am not speaking for, by or through them There appraoch is different than mine Could you please try and respond to my arguments. m not here to represent them Heck, I dont even know who these groups are The last persons I ever heard of in this connection was Henry M Morrison and Bert Thompson, which is a member of the same faith as I am But even Bert Thompsons approach is going to be different than that of Dr Thomas Warren's and others of the same affiliation I cant speak for these people you keep citing and i dont pretend to know what thier goals are or are not Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
More importantly, a hypothesis is a TESTABLE and FALSIFIABLE statement that has observational consequences in the real world. So what are the ID hypotheses and how are the both testable and falsifiable. What type of scientific experiments are used to test these hypotheses? Now take it real slow and pay close attention. By asking me this question you are doing two things. You are asking me in principle to show a test that proves the conclusion of design, even though you did not state it directly, that is what you are after. secondly, You have ignored the fact that my initial approach of observation, evaluation, experimentation and prediction are actually scientific in nature There are no hypothesis of design, because design like Macro-evolution are conclusions, the likes of which the evidence is not available to witness it directly So like Evolution, the only testable and falsifiable things are order and law (in my process)and Change and selection in evos process. So why do you call for a testable and falsifiable property of a conclusion in my process but not in yours Hence it follows logically that we follow the same method to produce the same results with the present evidence. One thing for your position and another for mine Can I demonstrate through a scientific approach that order, consistency and rules seem to be present? obviously yes? So if Percy would allow us to speak concerning conclusions I would be happy to do that very thing, but not in this thread Dawn Bertot
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024