I just can't believe how much he showed ID's impotence.
Well they have really done any science yet but it ID is science!
I wish I get the audio of his testimony because I would have liked to hear his tone of voice during cross.
I do agree that he is for some kind of affirmative action for fledgling theories. What else can you think about if you are a "sociologist of science". WTF is that anyway?
After reading it again I have to say after all that talk about how ID is new and needs a chance and needs to reach a "critical mass" and how that takes time:
Q. So that's in the idea formulation phase?
A. Yes, what's motivating people, yeah, the things that are animating their imaginations.
Q. But on the justification side when it comes to intelligent design, that's the scientific testable side?
A. Yes.
Q. And intelligent design has not yet made its case on the justification side?
A. No, because it's not sufficiently developed yet. You actually have to have more theory developed, you have to have more interpretation of existing phenomena to then be able to develop the appropriate
kinds of tests.
Q. And intelligent design has been around for almost 20 years. Is that correct?
A. Has it? That sounds a bit long to me, but --
Q. If Of Pandas and People was first published in 1989 --
{ABE}
Also found this absolute GEM!. Emphasis mine.
Q. So intelligent design aspires to change this ground rule of science, this methodological naturalism?
A. Methodological naturalism is not a ground rule of science.
Q. A commitment to natural causation is a ground rule of science?
A. Well, actually, the ground rule of science is testability. Okay? I mean, so -- and that is metaphysically neutral.
Q. And how do you test the supernatural?
A. Well, that's an age-old question, but there have been paranormal experiments. And even when one was thinking about gravity as a potentially occult force, right, that was the big challenge of the experimental imagination, to figure out how can we measure something that seems to be kind of, you know, invisible, you know, kind of impalpable. So this is, in fact -- this is, in fact, one of the prompts to develop very subtle kinds of experiments and get at things in indirect ways. So the idea that something is supernatural doesn't preclude it from any kind of experimental testing. It just makes it kind of tricky, and it often takes a long time to do it.
WTF?
This message has been edited by Jazzns, 12-14-2005 08:24 AM
No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
™ Version 4.2
