|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does ID follow the scientific method? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
DB writes: My experiment involved simply unpluging the computer from the wall and plugging it back into the same outlet, that is before trying to simply turn it back on That would not have worked in the case cited above.
DB writes: Now the point is this, while I was conducting my scientific experiment, I stopped short in any further investigation because the methods that I employed were sufficienct to come to a conclusion that was valid and solve the problem No they weren't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
The scientific method requires a null hypothesis. That null hypothesis for your method (if it were scientific) is non-intelligent mechanisms produce order. Your experiments must equally test the hypothesis and null hypothesis. You do not do this. You simply assume the conclusion, that a designer is responsible for the order we observe. You simply dont understand how reason works. My conclusion has nothing to do with what is valid and acceptable in a logical manner, pitted against and determined by physical realities. My personal preference of design or yours of soley natural causes, is circumvented by logical deduction. That is, it is preceeded by those detemining factors, the conclusions do make them valid, if the method you employed produces enough evidence to warrent its acceptance If you disagree with the conlcusion of design from these logical steps you need to set out in logical form why the conclusions is invalid and acceptable as an answer to the origin of things The IDM sets out a test and hypothesis that is detemined by the only means possible, deductive reasoning, which is ofcourse the basis of any scientific process Its counterfactual hypothesis must demonstrate it as invalid in the very same way. Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 113 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
That would not have worked in the case cited above. At any point in your process you could have terminated your investigation, had you come accross the solution to the problem, without more involved steps Neither of which would not have meant that either your or my process wa snot scientific in nature
No they weren't. Can you explain why conclusion is invalid? Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
No one has demonstrated on this thread why the IDM, is not science, I have. I pointed out that ID starts with the unquestioned assumption that the bible is inerrant. You seem to have conveniently forgotten that part of the thread. (Others have also, but I'll leave their points to them.) Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
No, you have not supported your position and I have repeatedly shown you why, but I will repeat it yet again.
As I pointed out in Message 77 and in Message 94 and in Message 128, the scientific method actually goes and observes, tests and replicates design processes to determine the different results between a designed object like a stone tool and a naturally occurring one.
quote: Now yet again I ask as I asked in Message 132:
quote: How does IDM actually investigate how the designer effects change? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Those findings are not what I am representing and Behes initial process seems to be different than mine. So address my process and my conclusions, not it or his
Behe is one of the leading proponents of ID worldwide. You are not. Science does not have to address every scheme cooked up by some amateur with delusions of competence. But it is interesting that most of the proponents of ID seem to have very different ideas of what it does and how it does it. Perhaps you could all get together and agree on your definitions of terms, methods, types of evidence, hypotheses, and tests. Until you can agree among yourselves you are nothing but a rabble making a lot of noise. Get back to us when you have something, eh? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I think we have pinpointed the fundamental difference between the scientific method and the ID method with your approach to this example.
The ID method requires that you know the answer before you start or that you can effectively guess the answer to a given problem first time. These are not reliable methods DB. They will never be equal to the methods of science in terms of reliability of tested conclusions. How could they?
DB writes: Can you explain why conclusion is invalid? You apparently solved the immediate computer problem with a lucky guess that would not have worked in my example or a million others. If your method is to rely on lucky guesses then I would suggest that it is a rather unreliable method of drawing conclusions with regard to more complex problems than switching on PCs.
DB writes: At any point in your process you could have terminated your investigation, had you come accross the solution to the problem, without more involved steps Actually no. Did you notice that even once I had resolved the computer problem I took additional steps to ensure that validity of the conclusion in question (by plugging an entirely different appliance into the failing socket)?
Testing. Reliability. Accuracy of conclusion. This is what is missing from the ID method and the conclusions that are derived from it. This is why conclusions borne of ID methods are woefully inferior to those borne of the scientific method.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
My conclusion has nothing to do with what is valid and acceptable in a logical manner ... They say confession is good for the soul.
My conclusion has nothing to do with what is valid and acceptable in a logical manner, pitted against and determined by physical realities. My personal preference of design or yours of soley natural causes, is circumvented by logical deduction. That is, it is preceeded by those detemining factors, the conclusions do make them valid, if the method you employed produces enough evidence to warrent its acceptance If you disagree with the conlcusion of design from these logical steps you need to set out in logical form why the conclusions is invalid and acceptable as an answer to the origin of things The IDM sets out a test and hypothesis that is detemined by the only means possible, deductive reasoning, which is ofcourse the basis of any scientific process Its counterfactual hypothesis must demonstrate it as invalid in the very same way. You're right, none of that did have anything to do with what is valid or logically acceptable. BTW, could I ask again what language you speak? Only if I were you I would stick to that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
My conclusion has nothing to do with what is valid and acceptable in a logical manner, pitted against and determined by physical realities. Well, you finally said something that is both comprehensible (barely) and accurate. Well done. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Hi Dawn,
See my Message 120 and Message 211 where I requested that you provide an example of ID following the scientific method. I'm suspending you for 4 days. See you after Thanksgiving. In your very first message after your suspension I want you to provide responses to this list of requested information composed by Bluejay:
If you post anything else I'll just suspend you again, but for a longer period.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
My conclusion has nothing to do with what is valid and acceptable in a logical manner, pitted against and determined by physical realities. Then your conclusions are not the product of the scientific method.
The IDM sets out a test and hypothesis that is detemined by the only means possible, deductive reasoning, which is ofcourse the basis of any scientific process Its counterfactual hypothesis must demonstrate it as invalid in the very same way. Your hypothesis is that observed order is the product of intelligent design. The necessary null hypothesis is that the observed order is the product of unintelligent design. If the IDM is the same as the SM then the experiments should test both the hypothesis and null hypothesis equally. This is what all tests in the SM do. For example, a medication is hypothesized to reduce blood pressure. The null hypothesis is that the medication has nothing to do with the reduction in blood pressure seen in the research subjects. So how do you test both? Have two groups, one receiving the medication and another receiving a placebo. If there is a higher percentage of subjects with reduced blood pressure in the experimental group compared to the placebo gropu then the hypothesis is supported. If there are are more or the same number of subjects with lowered blood pressure in the placebo group compared to the experimental group then the null hypothesis is supported. That is how the SM works, testing both the hypothesis and null hypothesis at the same time. So how do IDM experiments test for the unintelligent production of order, the required null hypothesis? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Those findings are not what I am representing and Behes initial process seems to be different than mine. So address my process and my conclusions, not it or his You are using the very same argument Behe used, the very same argument that was found to be unscientific. Behe argued that irreducibly complex systems could not be formed from unintelligent processes, therefore it had to be an intelligent process. You are arguing that order could not be formed from an unintelligent processes, therefore it had to be an intelligent process. They are the same argument, and they are both unscientific. I can only conclude that the IDM differs greatly from the SM.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Taq writes: Buzsaw writes: There is, in fact, evidence for the designer. The problem is that it is not studied, researched or peer aired. Elite secularist conventional media, academia and METHODLOGIES allow no consideration for that possibility. [emphasis mine] So you admit that ID does not follow the scientific method? No I don't. Read me carefully. Note that word, "evidence." Where there is evidence there should be science. There are some IDSM scientists applying the SM who's chances of getting peered, studied in academia, researched by conventional science or aired in the public media are near nil. Edited by Buzsaw, : Change IDM to IDSM BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future. Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
No I don't. Read me carefully. Note that word, "evidence." Where there is evidence there should be science. And there is
There are some IDSM scientists applying the SM who's chances of getting peered, studied in academia, researched by conventional science. Well whos fault is that creationism, and id got such a bad rep in science circles?
or aired in the public media are near nil. O dont worry the media loves to air people who claim that bananas are desighned for the human hand by god, that we should see new life forming in penut butter if evolution where true, that evolution does not explain the origins of matter and energy so its not true .... Edited by frako, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
Name them. Cite their work. That's what this thread is for. There are some IDSM scientists applying the SM.... "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024