|
Author
|
Topic: Does ID follow the scientific method?
|
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: 02-04-2008
|
|
Message 52 of 289 (592141)
11-19-2010 12:44 AM
|
Reply to: Message 45 by Coyote
11-18-2010 9:34 AM
|
|
Re: Design vs. non-design
Hi Coyote.
Coyote writes: What is your set of rules for distinguishing design from non-design? Since you work in a field that specializes in scientifically differentiating designed things (i.e. artifacts) from non-designed things (i.e. rocks), you're probably in a unique position to explain how actual scientists do distinguish design from non-design. What sorts of criteria do archaeologists and anthropologists use to determine if a given piece of rock is, e.g., an arrowhead, rather than just a broken rock? This would give us a way to establish what ID should be doing in order to find design in nature. Maybe then we could easily determine whether that is what they're doing.
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 45 by Coyote, posted 11-18-2010 9:34 AM | | Coyote has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 84 by Blue Jay, posted 11-19-2010 12:03 PM | | Blue Jay has not replied |
|
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: 02-04-2008
|
|
|
Message 84 of 289 (592268)
11-19-2010 12:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by Blue Jay
11-19-2010 12:44 AM
|
|
Re: Design vs. non-design
Hi, Bluejay (I'm replying to myself).
Bluejay writes: What sorts of criteria do archaeologists and anthropologists use to determine if a given piece of rock is, e.g., an arrowhead, rather than just a broken rock? I have an idea or two to add here. There are situational clues that make intelligent design a plausible explanation in certain situations. Stone-flake objects (tools) are found in the spatio-temporal vicinity of human/hominid remains. In addition, humans/hominids are clearly capable of the hammering, flaking or carving motions that would produce the objects. These situational clues form the basic reasoning that leads to the "archaeological hypothesis of intelligent design." This means that they provide a reason to bring the intelligent design hypothesis to the table. From there, we can see how stone tools fit within the continuum of human technological development that archaeologists and historians have documented. This increases the plausibility of the intelligent design explanation. I still have a series of questions, though: Are there non-design processes that can shape rocks in similar ways to human manufacture? If so, how do archaeologists decide which hypothesis (design or non-design) is better? If not, are they basing their conclusion on the absence of alternatives? Is this scientific? More importantly, do IDists do this too? What distinguishes what they do from what archaeologists do?
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by Blue Jay, posted 11-19-2010 12:44 AM | | Blue Jay has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 88 by Coyote, posted 11-19-2010 12:20 PM | | Blue Jay has replied |
|
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: 02-04-2008
|
|
|
Message 90 of 289 (592303)
11-19-2010 12:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 88 by Coyote
11-19-2010 12:20 PM
|
|
Re: Design vs. non-design
Hi, Coyote. I figured you would have some good information on that stuff. It seems that the criteria are pretty situation-specific. By that, I mean you don't use any universal principles of design to decide whether an artifact was designed, but you rely on context and the details of the technique in question. In order for ID to work the same way you do, they would have to obtain some information on the context or technique of the purported design in order to show that design is a plausible hypothesis. Or, they would need to find some universal principles of design that could be applied in some way. They seem to favor the latter approach. And, I think all of their thought experiments and mathematical models related to these alleged universal principles of design could count as science in a sense (ecology has a lot of modeling based on hypothetical, universal principles, for example), but it fails in that it retains the premises after many lines of reasoning based on those premises are shown to be inaccurate.
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 88 by Coyote, posted 11-19-2010 12:20 PM | | Coyote has not replied |
|
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: 02-04-2008
|
Re: One step would be to define what ID isn't
Hi, Dawn. I would like to do one thing. I would like you to write a post containing four lines. This is what I would like to see on those four lines:
- An example of ID making observations of the natural world.
- An example of ID formulating a hypothesis based on those observations.
- An example of ID experimenting to test that hypothesis.
- An example of ID forming a theory based on the results of the experiment.
If you can provide examples of all of these steps, then I would say that ID has at least passed the barest minimum standards of the scientific method. I suspect that most scientists would require more than just this bare minimum, but it would at least be a start. Can you do this much?
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: 02-04-2008
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: One step would be to define what ID isn't
Hi, Dawn.
Dawn Bertot writes: You need to ask me to give you an example of IDs methods that preceed its conclusion, which is Intelligent Design That's exactly what I did. Why do you think this isn't what I did? -----
Dawn Bertot writes: The scientific method cannot pass any of these tests because you are looking for test that prove the conclusion of evolution, by asking me to demonstrate ID, which is also a conclusion. I think you're just nitpicking my way of phrasing the question. Let me rephrase it then. This is what I would like you to provide:
An example of a researcher making observations of the natural world. An example of a researcher formulating an ID hypothesis based on those observations. An example of a researcher experimenting to test that ID hypothesis. An example of a researcher forming an ID theory based on the results of the experiment. For purposes of comparison, I will provide an example of the scientific method in action with the following paper:
Observations: Web-building spiders are physiologically sensitive to temperatures, and physiological condition can impact web construction.
Hypothesis: Spider silk output is affected by temperature (one of several from this paper).
Experiment: Placed spiders in different temperatures to compare how much silk they produce.
Theory: There is an optimal temperature for silk production by spiders. Now, it's your turn.
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: 02-04-2008
|
Re: One step would be to define what ID isn't
Hi, Bertot.
Dawn Bertot writes: Dawn Bertot writes: It tests and evaluates thier structures, such as DNA, to study its organization to produce a living thing that operates in a logical and harmonious fashion, based on the previously observed order in its substructure Now will you demonstrate why my response does not meet the criteria of the above question. I don't understand why you think this is a sufficient answer. It's a generic, baseless assertion. In order to meet the criteria of the question, it needs to be specific, and supported with evidence. Please model your responses after the example I gave in Message 141: doing so will amply demonstrate your point, if indeed your point is true.
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: 02-04-2008
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 228 of 289 (592813)
11-22-2010 11:04 AM
|
Reply to: Message 223 by marc9000
11-21-2010 7:41 PM
|
|
Hi, Marc. You've got several responses already, so I'll keep this (relatively) short.
marc9000 writes: quote:
The goal of theory, however, is to determine not just whether a phenomenon is theoretically possible, but whether it is biologically reasonable — that is, whether it occurs with significant frequency under conditions that are likely to occur in nature. --Coyne and Orr, as quoted by Behe
Biologically reasonable quickly swerves away from any ‘scientific method’. Reasonable to whom? To those in the scientific community who are mostly atheists, or to the general public (that funds them) who are mostly religious? You're getting hung up on wording (having seen Coyne speak in person, I also have problems with his way of saying things, and this is no exception). "Biologically reasonable" isn't meant to refer to an audience, so your question---"Reasonable to whom?"---is not important. As Coyne and Orr define (bolded portion in the quoted text), "biologically reasonable" refers to something that occurs under natural conditions, and thus, is a reasonable thing to propose as an explanation for a novel situation. -----
Example: It is reasonable to propose male-male sparring as the use of Triceratops horns, because this usage of horns can be readily observed in nature.
Example: It is reasonable to propose evolution as the explanation for a given feature of an animal, because evolution can be readily observed under conditions that occur in nature. ----- This is an important part of the scientific method. After evidence has accumulated for a certain theory, it becomes reasonable to use this theory as the basis of a new hypothesis about a novel situation. We can then test this hypothesis in the same way we would test any other. This is the whole reason why we want to make theories: because they help us make new hypotheses and predictions.
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 223 by marc9000, posted 11-21-2010 7:41 PM | | marc9000 has not replied |
|
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: 02-04-2008
|
Re: Hypotheses
Hi, Bertot.
Dawn Bertot 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 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 Does this mean my investigation was not a SM, becuase it did not display every single on of the methods advocted by yourselves? Absolutley not? Even in your truncated example, you followed all the steps of the scientific method: observation, hypothesis, test, conclusion/theory. The extra steps Straggler added, that you shaved off, were repeated applications of the entire scientific method, not individual steps of the scientific method. In your ID argument, you are not shaving off entire cycles, but are removing steps from within individual cycles. This is not the same thing.
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
™ Version 4.2