Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does ID follow the scientific method?
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 1 of 121 (589921)
11-05-2010 1:09 AM


This thread begins with Message 15 --Admin.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Change title
Edited by Admin, : Hide content.

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Panda, posted 11-16-2010 10:21 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-16-2010 7:44 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 15 of 121 (591780)
11-15-2010 11:36 PM


Re: Confusion Still Exists
ID (Intelligent Design) is the theory that the apparent design in nature is in reality actual design by intelligent entities. On the other hand, IDM (Intelligent Design Methodology) is a term you invented yourself that describes the methods used to develop this theory, and you defined it as being synonymous with SM (Scientific Methodology). ID and IDM are not synonyms. One is a theory, the other is a method.
I suppose a good thread then, would be: Does the ID methodology follow the Scientific method, for it to be considered science and therefore teachable in the science classroom, regardless of eithers conclusions
Dawn Bertot

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Panda, posted 11-16-2010 9:31 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 16 of 121 (591806)
11-16-2010 9:21 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Does ID follow the scientific method? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 17 of 121 (591809)
11-16-2010 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dawn Bertot
11-15-2010 11:36 PM


Re: Confusion Still Exists
Edited by Panda, : See next post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-15-2010 11:36 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Admin, posted 11-16-2010 9:52 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 18 of 121 (591816)
11-16-2010 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Panda
11-16-2010 9:31 AM


Re: Confusion Still Exists
Hi Panda,
I deleted the discussion messages in this promoted version of the thread. Please see the original discussion over at Does ID follow the scientific method?. In Message 3 Dawn says the the two methods are the same:
Dawn Bertot in Message 3 of the original thread proposal writes:
In general any theory or ideology that attempts to explain the physical world will have the same basic tenets of fact gathering. I will suggest what I believe to be the basics in this connection and then we will see if those can be be built upon, so as to completely distinquish the scientific method (SM hereafter refered to in this thread) from the IDM (Intelligent Design method)
It is my contention that these basics will remain the same upon investigation, so as not to be distinguished from the IDM
These basics are of course:
Observation, evaluation, experimentation (tests), corroboration, determination, predictions (if you will) and of course conclusions
In other words, Dawn believes that ID accepts the scientific method, and this thread is for exploring whether ID actually follows this method.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Panda, posted 11-16-2010 9:31 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by dwise1, posted 11-16-2010 10:12 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 19 of 121 (591823)
11-16-2010 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Admin
11-16-2010 9:52 AM


Re: Confusion Still Exists
Great! Now that Dawn has finally claimed that ID has a methodology, she can no longer refuse to answer the simple, fundamental questions about such a methodology. She has to finally answer the question that she has been refusing to answer for so long: What is the methodology for detecting and determining design in nature?
Furthermore, she can no longer try to take refuge in philosophical double-talk, because she now claims that ID uses the scientific method. Therefore, this methodology for detecting and determining design must comply with the scientific method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Admin, posted 11-16-2010 9:52 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Coyote, posted 11-16-2010 10:24 AM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 49 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-18-2010 9:32 PM dwise1 has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 20 of 121 (591826)
11-16-2010 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dawn Bertot
11-05-2010 1:09 AM


DB writes:
These basics are of course:
Observation, evaluation, experimentation (tests), corroboration, determination, predictions (if you will) and of course conclusions
The start seems like a good place to start:
Please describe an example of an observation made by IDM.
Also, I do not currently understand how 'determination' is linked to the scientific method.
Please ellaborate on what you mean by 'determination'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-05-2010 1:09 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 21 of 121 (591830)
11-16-2010 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by dwise1
11-16-2010 10:12 AM


Belief Still Exists
What is the methodology for detecting and determining design in nature?
...
...this methodology for detecting and determining design must comply with the scientific method.
And it must give accurate results or it is useless.
So we need a set of rules for determining whether an object is designed or natural, and those rules must provide accurate results.
We can't just use, "I know design when I see it!"

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by dwise1, posted 11-16-2010 10:12 AM dwise1 has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 22 of 121 (591844)
11-16-2010 11:19 AM


If we use Behe as an example then it becomes apparent that the IDM is different from the SM.
Behe claims that in order to arrive at the conclusion of design we first rule out natural mechanisms. For example, Behe claims that irreducibly complex systems can not be produced by naturally occuring evolutionary mechanisms described by the theory of evolution. Therefore, intelligent design had to be involved by process of elimination. (note: whether or not irreducibly complex systems can evolve has nothing to do with the actual method that ID is using)
In this method there is no positive evidence in support of the proposed mechanism. Instead, theories are tested by elimination of alternate explanations. This differs dramatically from the scientific method where theories are directly tested using positive evidence. For example, using the SM scientists did not arrive at the theory of relativity just because the only other explanation (Newtonian gravity) failed to explain observations such as the precession in Mercury's orbit. There needed to be positive evidence that the theory of relativity was correct, and that evidence was found in the form of bent starlight in warped spacetime.
It would seem to me that Dawn has been describing this same method as used by Behe, but not used by scientists to construct the theory of relativity. It is implied that "order" can not be produced by non-intelligent processes, therefore order is evidence of design. However, the actual process of design is not tested nor is any attempt made to test for it. Rather, the entire IDM relies on a process of elimination which is different from the SM.

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-16-2010 11:01 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 31 by marc9000, posted 11-17-2010 8:30 AM Taq has replied

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 23 of 121 (591858)
11-16-2010 1:24 PM


Finally the Scientific Method of Intelligent Design
Dawn Bertot in message 15 writes:
I suppose a good thread then, would be: Does the ID methodology follow the Scientific method, for it to be considered science and therefore teachable in the science classroom, regardless of eithers conclusions
So any argument, in this thread, that attempts to discredit or change the Scientific Method will automatically invalidate DB's assertion that ID follows the SM.
I am eager to finally see what the actual hypothesis of ID is and how the Scientific Method can be applied to test whether any evidence of ID can be detected and explained.
Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-16-2010 10:45 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 24 of 121 (591882)
11-16-2010 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dawn Bertot
11-05-2010 1:09 AM


Let us hear the ID hypothesis, so that I can figure out its predictions and test them.
If you can't do that then ID has fallen at the first hurdle towards being a scientific theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-05-2010 1:09 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-16-2010 8:22 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 27 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-16-2010 10:51 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 25 of 121 (591886)
11-16-2010 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Adequate
11-16-2010 7:44 PM


Let us hear the ID hypothesis, so that I can figure out its predictions and test them.
If you can't do that then ID has fallen at the first hurdle towards being a scientific theory.
Boards back up, will get back to it as quick as I can
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-16-2010 7:44 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 26 of 121 (591897)
11-16-2010 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Tanypteryx
11-16-2010 1:24 PM


Re: Finally the Scientific Method of Intelligent Design
So any argument, in this thread, that attempts to discredit or change the Scientific Method will automatically invalidate DB's assertion that ID follows the SM.
At no point have i ever indicated that the SM was invalid as a method. And why would i want to change said method
I am eager to finally see what the actual hypothesis of ID is and how the Scientific Method can be applied to test whether any evidence of ID can be detected and explained.
Before you get to eager to see what a hypothsis of ID is, remember that Percy made it very clear that this thread is NOT about ID, due the the fact that it is a conclusion. What we are discusiing here is IDs methodology in comparison with the SM, to see if they jive.
Now I am happy to discuss at someother point the hypothesis of ID if Percy allows it.
First off ID, like to thank Percy for allowing this thread, because he deemed it against his Jetter budgement, but thanks anyway
As indicated above there is a problem right off the bat, lets make sure that this distinctions stays clear, unless at someother point percy allows the discussionof conclusions
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-16-2010 1:24 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by bluescat48, posted 11-17-2010 1:54 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 35 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-17-2010 7:58 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-18-2010 12:35 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 27 of 121 (591901)
11-16-2010 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Adequate
11-16-2010 7:44 PM


Let us hear the ID hypothesis, so that I can figure out its predictions and test them.
Again, no hypothesis, just a method to determine if ID is a possibility, derived from a scientific approach
We will be looking at IDs methods and SMs methods
Now, what is off limits I believe, is the conclusions of Macro-evolution and design itself, because both are conclusions, as ICANT was trying to demonstrate in the other thread
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-16-2010 7:44 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Coyote, posted 11-16-2010 11:01 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 34 by Straggler, posted 11-17-2010 7:05 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 28 of 121 (591904)
11-16-2010 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Taq
11-16-2010 11:19 AM


Behe claims that in order to arrive at the conclusion of design we first rule out natural mechanisms. For example, Behe claims that irreducibly complex systems can not be produced by naturally occuring evolutionary mechanisms described by the theory of evolution.
Im not sure why he ciomes to this conlcusion, so I cant address that aspect
In this method there is no positive evidence in support of the proposed mechanism. Instead, theories are tested by elimination of alternate explanations. This differs dramatically from the scientific method where theories are directly tested using positive evidence.
this what I believe the IDM demonstrates as well. I sont know why he says that so I cannot adrress it
It would seem to me that Dawn has been describing this same method as used by Behe,
Not exacally
It is implied that "order" can not be produced by non-intelligent processes, therefore order is evidence of design. However, the actual process of design is not tested nor is any attempt made to test for it. Rather, the entire IDM relies on a process of elimination which is different from the SM.
In this discuyssion it would be irrelevant whether order cannot be produced by NONINTP, since order is an indication of design to begin with
However, the actual process of design is not tested nor is any attempt made to test for it. Rather, the entire IDM relies on a process of elimination which is different from the SM.
Thats the point though, you cannot test a conclusion, the likes of which, where the evidence is not now available. In both methods we can only use our best judgement, with the best possible approaches, correct
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Admin, : Add missing quote codes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Taq, posted 11-16-2010 11:19 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by alschwin, posted 11-20-2010 12:32 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024