Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does ID follow the scientific method?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 299 of 325 (593126)
11-24-2010 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Blue Jay
11-24-2010 11:32 AM


Re: An example!
I'm going to disagree with your analysis.
CSI as defined by Dembski is only identified by ruling out all non-design explanations, showing that they are too improbably to be accepted. Thus the problem is not the assumption that only designed things contain CSI, the problem is the claim that CSI has been discovered in living things. Contrary to the assetion in the article it has NOT been shown that irreducibly complex systems are examples of CSI. In fact there is very good reason to think that evolution WILL produce irreducibly complex systems, so IC cannot be taken as CSI.
Thus the whole example rests on an assertion that is not only unproven but is highly likely to be false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Blue Jay, posted 11-24-2010 11:32 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Blue Jay, posted 11-24-2010 1:26 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 301 by Taq, posted 11-24-2010 1:33 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 302 by frako, posted 11-24-2010 1:41 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 303 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-24-2010 1:47 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 300 of 325 (593127)
11-24-2010 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by PaulK
11-24-2010 1:12 PM


Re: An example!
Hi, Paul.
PaulK writes:
Thus the problem is not the assumption that only designed things contain CSI, the problem is the claim that CSI has been discovered in living things.
Ah, good point. I was ignoring the issue of the accuracy of their claims in order to get at the methodological points, since this thread is about methodology.
Still, I agree with you that CSI and IC are problematic in other ways.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2010 1:12 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 301 of 325 (593128)
11-24-2010 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by PaulK
11-24-2010 1:12 PM


Re: An example!
CSI as defined by Dembski is only identified by ruling out all non-design explanations, showing that they are too improbably to be accepted.
This is the problem that I have with the IDM. I can't think of a single theory in science that is solely supported by the falsification of other theories. Science just doesn't work that way. Science is about putting your own hypothesis at risk. Science is about designing experiments that could prove your own hypothesis false. The IDM doesn't seem to function this way.
To put it another way, IDers aren't gambling with their own money so it really isn't gambling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2010 1:12 PM PaulK has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 302 of 325 (593130)
11-24-2010 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by PaulK
11-24-2010 1:12 PM


Re: An example!
CSI as defined by Dembski is only identified by ruling out all non-design explanations, showing that they are too improbably to be accepted.
The problem is you are removing things bexcause you think it is improbable, and on the other hand you are adding a inteligent desighner that has no evidence to support him but the theory you are using. Every theory you are trying to rule out as being improbable has evidence to support it yours does not so what is more improbable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2010 1:12 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-24-2010 1:49 PM frako has not replied
 Message 308 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2010 5:36 PM frako has not replied

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


Message 303 of 325 (593131)
11-24-2010 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by PaulK
11-24-2010 1:12 PM


Re: An example!
CSI as defined by Dembski is only identified by ruling out all non-design explanations, showing that they are too improbably to be accepted.
Which, of course, makes the concept pointless. They want to find CSI as an indicator that the thing doesn't have natural causes, and they have to show that it has no natural causes in order to show that it has CSI ...
So they could drop the concept of CSI altogether if their purpose was to test their hypothesis rather than to dupe the gullible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2010 1:12 PM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 304 of 325 (593132)
11-24-2010 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by frako
11-24-2010 1:41 PM


Re: An example!
The problem is you are removing things bexcause you think it is improbable, and on the other hand you are adding a inteligent desighner that has no evidence to support him but the theory you are using. Every theory you are trying to rule out as being improbable has evidence to support it yours does not so what is more improbable.
Quite so. They are reversing Sherlock Holmes' dictum --- their motto is: "When you have eliminated the improbable, whatever remains, however impossible, is the truth."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by frako, posted 11-24-2010 1:41 PM frako has not replied

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


Message 305 of 325 (593149)
11-24-2010 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Taq
11-24-2010 1:09 PM


Re: Applying The Scientific Method
For ID, the null hypothesis is the production of order by non-intelligent mechanisms. Therefore, any experiment that tests ID must be designed so that order produced by non-intelligent mechanisms would be detectable in the experiment. This is assuming that the IDM and the SM are one in the same.
If I may point out, this is precisely the reason why we must know just exactly how to detect and determine design, a request we have made repeatedly of IDists both in this thread and elsewhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Taq, posted 11-24-2010 1:09 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Taq, posted 11-24-2010 4:05 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 310 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-24-2010 9:13 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 306 of 325 (593152)
11-24-2010 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by dwise1
11-24-2010 3:34 PM


Re: Applying The Scientific Method
If I may point out, this is precisely the reason why we must know just exactly how to detect and determine design, a request we have made repeatedly of IDists both in this thread and elsewhere.
In Dawn's case, "design" or order was defined rather loosely which is fine for the purposes of testing. Any consistent pattern other than chaotic or random seemed to count as ordered. From my understanding, the hexagonal crystals created by the freezing of water is an example of order. This led down the path of "eternal matter" and all that other nonsense.
The problem, however, seemed to be in the construction of the null hypothesis. Dawn seemed to indicate that the null hypothesis was the lack of order or the lack of design. This is wrong. The hypothesis is that the observed design/order is the product of intelligence. Therefore, the correct null hypothesis is that the observed design/order is the product of something other than an intelligence. Any experiment used to test the H1 and H0 needs to test both equally. If Dawn gets back to this thread perhaps she will have had enough time to think of an experiment that would do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by dwise1, posted 11-24-2010 3:34 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 307 of 325 (593156)
11-24-2010 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Buzsaw
11-23-2010 10:00 PM


Re: Opine Pertaining Pertinent Points Posted, Please
Null means non-factual. I have never heard of the term null hypothesis until I looked it up. Lo and behold, (no surprise) what considered to be non-factual on main street America, SM elitists in academia apply as valid.
Buz you really are the dumbest motherfucker in the room. Larni's post goes over what a null hypothesis and how it relates to the scientific method, please read it slowly and carefully over and over and over again until you have a grasp on the concept.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Buzsaw, posted 11-23-2010 10:00 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 308 of 325 (593160)
11-24-2010 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by frako
11-24-2010 1:41 PM


Re: An example!
In fact CSI is useless in biology. Even if we could reasonably identify all the possibilities the probabilities simply cannot be calculated.
The claim that IC is an example on CSI is based on nothing more than a casual reading of Behe's book [b]Darwin' Black Box[/i] (if that) and an appeal to Behe's authority. In fact Behe admitted in the book that IC systems could evolve but offered the unsupported opinion that it was very, very unlikely. However, that is not sufficient to show that IC systems are examples of CSI - even if Behe was correct the probability could still be too high. But Behe is almost certainly wrong and I have yet to see a serious attempt at supporting his claim.
So this is an example of ID's unscientific nature - an argument so shoddy that they cannot even accurately represent the views of their own "expert".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by frako, posted 11-24-2010 1:41 PM frako has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 309 of 325 (593189)
11-24-2010 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Larni
11-24-2010 5:44 AM


Re: Buzsaw Out
Content deleted by Buzsaw. I've been out of town and posted before being aware of Admin action.
Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.
Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Larni, posted 11-24-2010 5:44 AM Larni has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 310 of 325 (593193)
11-24-2010 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by dwise1
11-24-2010 3:34 PM


Re: Applying The Scientific Method
dwise1 writes:
For ID, the null hypothesis is the production of order by non-intelligent mechanisms. Therefore, any experiment that tests ID must be designed so that order produced by non-intelligent mechanisms would be detectable in the experiment. This is assuming that the IDM and the SM are one in the same.
If I may point out, this is precisely the reason why we must know just exactly how to detect and determine design, a request we have made repeatedly of IDists both in this thread and elsewhere.
This has been asked uncountable times of the ID/Creo side and all we ever get in response is claims that they have already given it to us or more incomprehensible (Dawn Bertot type) gibberish.
Those of us on the science side know that there is no way they can ever tell us how to detect design in nature. The science side also knows far more (than any of the IDists) about the ID movement, all of the ID claims, and that there will never be a testable hypothesis ever put forth on this forum or anywhere else, so there will never be any actual scientific research performed or peer reviewed scientific papers published.
Disclaimer: Debates with ID nut-jobs should be for entertainment purposes only.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by dwise1, posted 11-24-2010 3:34 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by subbie, posted 11-24-2010 9:32 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 311 of 325 (593194)
11-24-2010 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by Tanypteryx
11-24-2010 9:13 PM


Re: Applying The Scientific Method
Disclaimer: Debates with ID nut-jobs should be for entertainment purposes only.
Addendum: And should only be engaged in by those who are well-versed in creo tactics and have outstanding public speaking and debate skills. I've seen several "debates" where the creo came out looking like a winner against a far more intelligent scientist who simply wasn't prepared for Gish Gallops, non sequitors, or any of their standard PRATTS.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-24-2010 9:13 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-24-2010 9:46 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 312 of 325 (593196)
11-24-2010 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by subbie
11-24-2010 9:32 PM


Re: Applying The Scientific Method
subbie writes:
Addendum: And should only be engaged in by those who are well-versed in creo tactics and have outstanding public speaking and debate skills. I've seen several "debates" where the creo came out looking like a winner against a far more intelligent scientist who simply wasn't prepared for Gish Gallops, non sequitors, or any of their standard PRATTS.
Yep, I've seen a few go down in flames from Gish Gallops (which in my mind is just a bucket full of PRATTS).
I guess my point was that Bertot, et. al. will never give us what we ask for because they can't and they will never learn anything because they won't.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by subbie, posted 11-24-2010 9:32 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 313 of 325 (593202)
11-24-2010 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Blue Jay
11-19-2010 12:54 PM


Re: One step would be to define what ID isn't
Off-topic content hidden. --Admin
Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Blue Jay, posted 11-19-2010 12:54 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by Wounded King, posted 11-25-2010 4:39 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 317 by Admin, posted 11-25-2010 7:35 AM marc9000 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