Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2017 8:44 PM
426 online now:
DrJones*, frako, jar, ThinAirDesigns (4 members, 422 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 801,992 Year: 6,598/21,208 Month: 2,359/2,634 Week: 22/525 Day: 22/11 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4567Next
Author Topic:   Is ID properly pursued?
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 94 (95834)
03-30-2004 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by RAZD
03-30-2004 1:38 AM


Re: silly squared
Abby,

This is a tautology

No, it's not. Precisely not. A bird that weighs 10 grams, eating seeds in a field where the optimal bird, with the same relative proportions, would weigh 12 grams, has a phenotype that is sub-optimal. The seed size and temperatures in the field are what determine the optimal body size, and the 10 grams birds survive the winter at the rate of only 30%, not the 40$ of the 12 gram birds. Over the course of both natural and artificial selection, we would expect the average weight of the birds that inhabit this field to increase 2 grams. Of course, 12 gram birds would put different selection pressures on the seeds. And very large seeds in the field, requiring a bird weighing 25 grams to consume them, would remain uneaten by birds in either case. The problem them is, how do we evolve, or artificially select for, a 25 gram bird? When the 12 gram birds eat their seeds down to low enough levels, perhaps a largish individual can actually eat and get a survival advantage from the very large seeds. Then, the bird species can continue its evolution/evolition to a size or polymorphism or sympatric speciation that allows it to consume both the smaller and larger seeds.

If I understand the rest of your rambling, scientists doing experiments are actually praying for the results that they then discover. A different kind of silliness that would not even qualify as a tautology.
Insulting too, but I doubt you would understand that.

I understand that you feel insulted, and are responding by insulting me. None of which changes the fact that scientists wishing to test the hypothesis that Jehovah, the God self-described in the Bible, manipulates the fitness of existing species, and thus controls their developement, do repeatable and repeated experiments with prayer, according to Dossey. Didn't mean to insult you by exposing your ignorance of this, or your trust of "authorities" that have asserted dogmatically, religiously actually, that such experiments are impossible or never happened. Hey, it's Satan's job to make a fool of you. It's your job to decide whether you want to let that happen, or would rather face the pain of knowing that you believed something that someone evil wanted you to believe, and got you to believe.

Stephen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 03-30-2004 1:38 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 03-30-2004 9:16 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 32 of 94 (95910)
03-30-2004 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Stephen ben Yeshua
03-30-2004 2:09 AM


Re: silly cubed
This is a tautology

No, it's not. Precisely not. A bird that weighs 10 grams, eating seeds in a field where the optimal bird, with the same relative proportions, would weigh 12 grams, has a phenotype that is sub-optimal. Yadayada

Yes it is, because you are defining the fitness based on the fitness, your example compares one at the outer variance level against the average fitness rather than some hard scale. In another condition the 10 gram bird could have the fitness advantage over the 12 gram bird and you would use exactly the same reasoning to show that it was optimal and the others were sub-optimal. This is not science.

Of course, 12 gram birds would put different selection pressures on the seeds. And very large seeds in the field, requiring a bird weighing 25 grams to consume them, would remain uneaten by birds in either case.

LOL the ignorance rolls on ... why do larger seeds "require" larger birds? Do you know of any variety of seeds consumed by any birds where some are too large to be eaten? This should be fun ....

A different kind of silliness that would not even qualify as a tautology.
Insulting too, but I doubt you would understand that.

I understand that you feel insulted, and are responding by insulting me. None of which changes the fact that scientists wishing to test the hypothesis that Jehovah, the God self-described in the Bible, manipulates the fitness of existing species, and thus controls their developement, do repeatable and repeated experiments with prayer, according to Dossey.

I am not insulted, except by the lack of knowledge of the process by which real scientists do experiments. The implication that scientists in general are praying for certain results is false on two counts, (1) most scientists just are not that religious or their faith does not involve prayer, and (2) this is in effect preconceiving the results of the experiment -- scientists will make predictions of results (as that is how theories are tested) but they end up wrong as easily as right, and every invalidated theory by such an experiment invalidates you claim.

And, If you consider my implication that you would not understand an insult rather than a prediction of behavior based on experience that has since been validated (you continue with it) then you are insulted by your own behavior.

As regards Dossey, I did a google and the first article on him (Science of Prayer, by Victor J. Stenger) had this to say:

Many studies on prayer and health can be found in the literature and I do not have the space to review them all. Instead I will focus on the popular book Healing Words by physician Larry Dossey in which he reports on "an enormous body of evidence: over one hundred experiments exhibiting the criteria of good science, many conducted under stringent laboratory conditions, over half of which showed that prayer brings about significant changes in a variety of living beings." One wonders why he would even count those that were not conducted under stringent laboratory conditions.

Dossey is incorrect in his interpretation of the statistical significance of these experimental results, making a common mistake one finds in many papers and books. The "probability level" quoted in most scientific papers is usually what statisticians call the "p-value." For example, suppose an effect is reported with a p-value of five percent. This means that in a long sequence of identical experiments we would expect to observe an effect as great or greater produced by statistical fluctuations in five percent of the cases. This not the same as "the likelihood [or probability] that the results were due to chance." In fact, it is always possible to get any observed effect by chance. You simply have to repeat the experiment enough times.

No respectable physics journal would publish a result with a p-value of one percent ... the publication standard in physics is typically a p-value of 0.01 percent, that is, only one in 10,000 similar experiments would be expected to produce the reported effect or a greater one as a statistical fluctuation. If this standard were applied to Dossey's sample, none of the 131 trials mentioned above would be published.

Dossey is simply wrong when he says the evidence is "simply overwhelming that prayer functions at a distance to change physical processes in a variety of organisms, from bacteria to humans." Even without examining the detailed protocols of these experiments, the statistical significance is insufficient to draw such a conclusion. We have no idea how many experiments may have been done that gave no positive effects and consequently were never published (the "filedrawer effect"). These papers should not have been published either.


Omitting studies that show opposite trends to the thesis? Misrepresenting facts? To support religion? I'm shocked shocked to find that ... but hey:

it's Satan's job to make a fool of you.

... who is fooled?

Enjoy your island of sub-optimal adaptation to the reality of the universe.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 03-30-2004 2:09 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 04-05-2004 12:10 PM RAZD has responded

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 94 (97863)
04-05-2004 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
03-30-2004 9:16 AM


Re: silly cubed
A.

Enjoy your island of sub-optimal adaptation to the reality of the universe.

In all natural measures, my adaptation island has a much higher than average fitness, which implies to me that the reality of the universe is in agreement with my working ontology. Which is enjoyable.

I like the quote at the end of your messages. Encourages me to continue and be diligent with my efforts to increase my ability to understand.

S.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 03-30-2004 9:16 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2004 12:34 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 34 of 94 (97869)
04-05-2004 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Stephen ben Yeshua
04-05-2004 12:10 PM


temporary foothills
my adaptation island has a much higher than average fitness

I am glad you have such a high opinion of yourself. Most people do, and many do it by ignoring the mountains around them that they cannot see through the clouds of their bubble filter. Perhaps "sub-optimal" was a little harsh seeming, but only if you consider if possible to be fully optimal on all levels: I don't. I am glad you like the phrase and that it inspires you ... perhaps you will find new heights.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 04-05-2004 12:10 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 35 of 94 (136574)
08-24-2004 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-16-2004 12:36 PM


edited OT
edited OT by addition of text in yellow, in part as result of discussion with ID man, who I would like to thank for making me be a little more specific on this point.

(now in tan to be less obtrusive)

This message has been edited by RAZD, 04*30*2005 08:35 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-16-2004 12:36 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 36 of 94 (204576)
05-03-2005 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
03-16-2004 12:36 PM


bump for Jerry Don Bauer
This is the thread that I have noted before.

Please stick to science in any replies.

Enjoy.

{{added by edit: use the link to message 1 and reply to that one if you want}}

This message has been edited by RAZD, 05*03*2005 07:01 AM


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 03-16-2004 12:36 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 37 of 94 (251965)
10-15-2005 12:13 PM


bump for Jeremy
what ID is and what it should be, imho.

Start at first message:
http://http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=97&m=1#1


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by bkelly, posted 10-16-2005 4:07 PM RAZD has responded

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 94 (252221)
10-16-2005 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by RAZD
10-15-2005 12:13 PM


What is the goal of ID?
What is ID and is it properly pursued?

I see ID as a form of evolution. Not long ago, almost all those of strong religious beliefs flatly denied the concepts proposed by Darwin. The concept of evolution in the short term has been proven. One proof is the domesticated dog of today. All our domesticated dogs descended from wolves. Look at the variety and attempt to deny evolution.

Back to the point. Now that evolution has been irrevocably crammed down the believer’s throats, they change their position and say “Yeah, okay, it happens, but goddidit.” Their position has evolved. With only part of my tongue in cheek I can say that the changing position of religion supports the concept of evolution.

So what it ID? It is the heroic struggle of religious belief to sustain itself (in some aspects) in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Is it properly pursued?

That depends on your motive and your goals. The motive and goal of ID are, in part, to give the masses substance on to which than can grab hold and say “Yeah, I believe, I am saved.” If those that manage religious groups can achieve this goal, they can remain in power. And that seems to be their primary goal. Religious groups are doing all they possibly can to infuse their religion into government and laws. And if they can use ID to force religion into our schools and government, it seems that, from their perspective, it is properly pursued.

The question must admit to a need for clarification. Only when you understand the goal of a movement can you begin to determine if it is being properly pursued.

What is the goal of ID?


Truth fears no question.

bkelly


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 10-15-2005 12:13 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 10-16-2005 4:53 PM bkelly has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 39 of 94 (252233)
10-16-2005 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by bkelly
10-16-2005 4:07 PM


Re: What is the goal of ID?
Excellent.

That depends on your motive and your goals.

IF the {motive\goal\purpose} is purely and unequivocably to determine if there is natural evidence of a designer, then science - all science - is a tool in that endeavor (as is philosophy, natural and cultural history, and our sum total knowledge). No single concept can be pre-determined, no stone unturnable.

In this regard ID becomes agnostic-Deism or Deism-lite, because ID deals only with natural evidence and makes no claim on the supernaturalness of the designer.

(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism for more on Deism.)

IF, on the other hand, there is rejection of one or more scientific findings, theories or fields, then one can conclude that this stated goal {to determine if there is natural evidence of a designer} is NOT being followed purely and unequivocably, but is being subverted to some other motive, goal or purpose.

Any movement for such a purpose would not be to enhance our knowledge of "life, the universe, and everything" but to force it into some boxed preconception that is limited by the rejection of knowledge.

Only when you understand the goal of a movement can you begin to determine if it is being properly pursued.

By the movement followers. There is still the possibility of it being properly pursued by others that are disaffected with the "movement" but not with the concept.

In this regard I see room for discussion of ID concepts outside of science classes and with input from others that are not associated with the "movement" crowd to provide balance and alternative thinking choices. I see this as a social science type class.

This could be a tool to allow people of faith to become more engaged in real science, to engage their wonder and awe in the pursuit of greater knowledge. This could be incorporated into a philosophy of science class.

It could also be a way to introduce people to the faith of many of our founding fathers and the distinctions they drew between their beliefs and those of the more established religions. And this would be more in a history kind of class.

But it must be free of {dogma\idealism\movement} or it is doomed to be subverted.

Hence some of my ambivalence on ID ideas.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by bkelly, posted 10-16-2005 4:07 PM bkelly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by bkelly, posted 10-16-2005 5:33 PM RAZD has responded

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 94 (252237)
10-16-2005 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by RAZD
10-16-2005 4:53 PM


Re: What is the goal of ID?
I am becoming mare jaded and pessimistic than you and most others. I think I need to read some posts that give me cause for optimism. That recognized and said:

IF the {motive\goal\purpose} is purely and unequivocably to determine if there is natural evidence of a designer, then science - all science - is a tool in that endeavor (as is philosophy, natural and cultural history, and our sum total knowledge). No single concept can be pre-determined, no stone unturnable.

IMNSHO (In My Not So Humble Opinion) the IDist has a different view. The given is that ID is correct and goddidit. The goal is to find some evidence so that they can convince themseleves and others that ID is correct.

I have looked at Deism and have no quarrell with it. However, I find extreme difficulty in accepting the concept of any supernatural entity (that would be god under any name). Where is the evidence? Why does he not say something?

Are you familiar with the bright movement?
http://www.the-brights.net/

Nuggin initiated the thread For ToErs Eyes Only
http://http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=25&t=1323&m=1
(where is that silly file I saved with instructions on links. Maybe this will work)

I just posted a bit of a rant in support of Nuggin in message 19 there if you are interested.


Truth fears no question.

bkelly


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 10-16-2005 4:53 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 10-16-2005 8:18 PM bkelly has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 41 of 94 (252267)
10-16-2005 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by bkelly
10-16-2005 5:33 PM


Re: What is the goal of ID?
Yes I am familiar with "brights" and have seen Nuggins thead, posted on it early.

The pre-emptive action is to step forward, box them in within their chosen limitations:

Teach both sides of the design controversy (Silly Design)
Teach both sides of the designer question (Deism)

Teach facts (columns that debunk mythperceptions)

I am becoming mare jaded and pessimistic than you and most others.

IMNSHO (In My Not So Humble Opinion) the IDist has a different view. The given is that ID is correct and goddidit.

So don't let them have the whole table.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by bkelly, posted 10-16-2005 5:33 PM bkelly has not yet responded

  
waqasf 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 42 of 94 (462924)
04-10-2008 12:33 PM


Spam deleted.

Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.


  
Marcosll
Junior Member (Idle past 3129 days)
Posts: 25
From: Estepona, Spain
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 43 of 94 (467994)
05-26-2008 7:37 AM


ID
ID should not be taught as Science. However, there should be an area of scientific research dedicated to it in trying to figure out if the spirit exists.

Since such a large percentage of people believe in a spirit and even a great spirit (god), ongoing and serious research into this field is more than justified.

A foundation of serious scientific study into this area SHOULD BE TAUGHT in school to give future researches a base.

Contrary to popular belief (because it's taboo in science) there are many scientific (used in the strict sense of the word) studies that show there is something metaphysical in the human mind occurs and can affect the world around.

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/07/68216

Further, there are many accounts of "normal" people reporting extraordinary spiritual experiences. Is it safe to dismiss all of them as delusional?

Research needs to be conducted and the results must not be silenced by other scientists who can't fit the findings into their current understanding.


Estepona Apartments - Apartments for sale and rent in Estepona, Spain
Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2008 8:14 AM Marcosll has not yet responded
 Message 45 by onifre, posted 05-26-2008 1:05 PM Marcosll has responded
 Message 47 by Larni, posted 05-29-2008 8:32 AM Marcosll has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 44 of 94 (467998)
05-26-2008 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Marcosll
05-26-2008 7:37 AM


Re: ID
Hello Marcosll,

Contrary to popular belief (because it's taboo in science) there are many scientific (used in the strict sense of the word) studies that show there is something metaphysical in the human mind occurs and can affect the world around.

Nothing is "taboo" in science except conjectures unsupported by evidence. Look up paranormal studies.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Marcosll, posted 05-26-2008 7:37 AM Marcosll has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 302 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 45 of 94 (468021)
05-26-2008 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Marcosll
05-26-2008 7:37 AM


Re: ID
Hi Marcosll,

ID should not be taught as Science. However, there should be an area of scientific research dedicated to it in trying to figure out if the spirit exists.

There is, its called theology.

Since such a large percentage of people believe in a spirit and even a great spirit (god), ongoing and serious research into this field is more than justified.

The field already exists, its called theology.

there are many scientific (used in the strict sense of the word) studies that show there is something metaphysical in the human mind

And there are equally as many studies that show the opposite, that what is happening in the human mind is just a neurological process...nothing meta about it.

Further, there are many accounts of "normal" people reporting extraordinary spiritual experiences. Is it safe to dismiss all of them as delusional?

Only when they start to claim specifics i.e. "I had a spiritual experience, I know it to be Jesus". The problem is not the experience, the problem is whats invoked to be spiritual(Allah, Jesus, Buddah etc...). Anytime an experience is had the person claims to know which God it was that enlightened them. However, it is usually the God they already know based on where they live or have information about. If its in Iraq its Allah, if its in Japan its Buddah, if its in India its Brahman, if its in the US its Jesus etc...Why? This seems delusional...

Research needs to be conducted and the results must not be silenced by other scientists who can't fit the findings into their current understanding.

Ok we'll wait to see your results then...


All great truths begin as blasphemies
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Marcosll, posted 05-26-2008 7:37 AM Marcosll has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Marcosll, posted 05-29-2008 8:24 AM onifre has responded

    
Prev12
3
4567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017