Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 73 (8864 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-25-2018 3:18 PM
221 online now:
Diomedes, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), ringo, Tangle (6 members, 215 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Upcoming Birthdays: Porosity
Post Volume:
Total: 838,955 Year: 13,778/29,783 Month: 1,224/1,576 Week: 165/271 Day: 17/89 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Compare and Contrast ID and SETI
CodeTrainer
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 22 (213717)
06-03-2005 1:13 AM


The SETI project shows that the idea of analyzing data from the natural medium of astronomical microwave or radio receptions here on Earth for an intelligently designed pattern, is generally considered a legitimate scientific endeavor.

The scientific component of Intelligent Design ideas parts from the same principle, that of analysis of data extrapolated from naturally occurring media --in this case, one might say natural systems-- in which the media is DNA and other biochemical systems.

I would like to see discussion on the topic.

This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 06-03-2005 01:12 AM


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Modulous, posted 06-03-2005 1:36 AM CodeTrainer has not yet responded
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 06-03-2005 2:13 AM CodeTrainer has responded
 Message 4 by randman, posted 06-03-2005 2:30 AM CodeTrainer has not yet responded
 Message 12 by mick, posted 06-03-2005 12:13 PM CodeTrainer has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 3 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 2 of 22 (213720)
06-03-2005 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CodeTrainer
06-03-2005 1:13 AM


Design versus non-design
I think where SETI has ID beat is that SETI knows what a non-designed signal looks like and thus has something to compare other signals to. Assuming ID is right, ID doesn't know what non-designed life would look like, or a non-designed universe, so it has no basis for comparison.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CodeTrainer, posted 06-03-2005 1:13 AM CodeTrainer has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8810
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 3 of 22 (213728)
06-03-2005 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CodeTrainer
06-03-2005 1:13 AM


SETI's search
This is off the top of my head but, if needed, we can dig deeper into it.

To get this started maybe we can consider what I think SETI is trying to do.

First they have a wide range of samples of what are taken as non-designed signels (as noted above). So they are looking for something "different" in some way.

However, what differences count?

First an understanding of natural processes allows the exclusion of some signels.. The famous LGM signel of 1968 (IIRC) was quickly relegated to natural when an explanation of it was figured out (actually, IIRC the explanation already existed they just had to tie them together).

I know that one idea is to use a series of prime numbers as a strong indicator of intelligence since no one has figured out a natural process to produce that.

At this point those familiar with biology and evolution will recognize the contrast with ID.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CodeTrainer, posted 06-03-2005 1:13 AM CodeTrainer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by CodeTrainer, posted 06-04-2005 8:23 PM NosyNed has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2798 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 4 of 22 (213732)
06-03-2005 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by CodeTrainer
06-03-2005 1:13 AM


SETI is definitely looking for a designed signal from an intelligent agent. It is interesting that the study of design is accepted, depending on who advocates it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CodeTrainer, posted 06-03-2005 1:13 AM CodeTrainer has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Parasomnium, posted 06-03-2005 3:17 AM randman has responded
 Message 10 by Hrun, posted 06-03-2005 9:17 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Jazzns, posted 06-03-2005 12:07 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 595 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 5 of 22 (213738)
06-03-2005 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by randman
06-03-2005 2:30 AM


ID claims it's found intelligence, SETI doesn't
randman writes:

SETI is definitely looking for a designed signal from an intelligent agent. It is interesting that the study of design is accepted, depending on who advocates it.

One big difference between SETI and ID is that SETI doesn't claim to have found intelligence already, whereas ID does but produces no convincing evidence.

If tomorrow SETI claims to have found signals from intelligent extraterrestrials and produces evidence of the same quality ID-ists usually come up with, then no serious scientist would believe them.

If SETI people were like ID-ists, then they would take a regular bleep from the cosmos as a sure sign of intelligence. They'd say: "this could only have been produced by aliens", or worse: "this could only have been produced by aliens with almond-shaped eyes, like this one here", holding up a stereotype alien picture. All the while they'd be completely ignoring the fact that astronomers have very good reasons to assume the existence of pulsars.

Fortunately, SETI people know how to conduct serious science and are aware of the standards that valid, convincing scientific evidence should live up to. That's why we don't hear these outrageous claims from them.

I have no qualms with SETI looking for signs of intelligence in the cosmos. Likewise, I have no qualms with ID looking for signs of intelligence in the designs of life. But I do have problems with the claims ID makes, and the evidence it produces.


We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by randman, posted 06-03-2005 2:30 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 06-03-2005 3:26 AM Parasomnium has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2798 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 6 of 22 (213740)
06-03-2005 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Parasomnium
06-03-2005 3:17 AM


Re: ID claims it's found intelligence, SETI doesn't
Parse, I think IDers have presented a ton of evidence, and have found all of the evidence consistent with idea.

Jerry did a good job, although I am only half-way through, on the ID thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Parasomnium, posted 06-03-2005 3:17 AM Parasomnium has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by berberry, posted 06-03-2005 3:37 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Parasomnium, posted 06-03-2005 3:48 AM randman has not yet responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 22 (213744)
06-03-2005 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by randman
06-03-2005 3:26 AM


Re: ID claims it's found intelligence, SETI doesn't
What evidence would that be, rand? Is it evidence that makes sense only in the context of ID or is it evidence that could be accounted for in another way?


Keep America Safe AND Free!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 06-03-2005 3:26 AM randman has not yet responded

  
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 595 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 8 of 22 (213748)
06-03-2005 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by randman
06-03-2005 3:26 AM


Re: ID claims it's found intelligence, SETI doesn't
randman writes:

Parse, I think IDers have presented a ton of evidence, and have found all of the evidence consistent with idea.

Randy, you're right. ID-ists have produced a ton of evidence. And of course they have found all of it consistent with the idea - they'd be considered even bigger morons if they hadn't.

But the problem is that their evidence doesn't live up to scientific standards. Real scientists easily refute it or are able to find other, more plausible, and, above all, more testable explanations for it.

randman writes:

Jerry did a good job, although I am only half-way through, on the ID thread.

If being extremely arrogant was the job, then, yes, he did a good job. But his grasp of science was abyssmal.


We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 06-03-2005 3:26 AM randman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 06-03-2005 4:05 AM Parasomnium has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14349
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 9 of 22 (213752)
06-03-2005 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Parasomnium
06-03-2005 3:48 AM


Re: ID claims it's found intelligence, SETI doesn't
Jerry didn't even understand the math he was putting forward. Obviously he copied it from someone else becaase he certainly wasn't capable of discussing it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Parasomnium, posted 06-03-2005 3:48 AM Parasomnium has not yet responded

    
Hrun
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 22 (213807)
06-03-2005 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by randman
06-03-2005 2:30 AM


randman writes:

SETI is definitely looking for a designed signal from an intelligent agent. It is interesting that the study of design is accepted, depending on who advocates it.

Randman, this is just a straw man set up by you. Maybe it would make sense to actually check the SETI homepage and see what they have to say about this:

quote:
What will an alien signal be like? The truth is we don't know.

They then go on to describe the educated guesses they make (e.g. looking for signals around the spectral frequency of hydrogen). And, of course, Parasomnium is right: So far they have not claimed to have found a signal that is attributable to an alien civilization. Once they do, you can certainly brace yourself for the onslaught of scientiests looking for possible natural origins of the supposed 'unnatural' signal.

This message has been edited by Hrun, 06-03-2005 09:18 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by randman, posted 06-03-2005 2:30 AM randman has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1810 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 11 of 22 (213851)
06-03-2005 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by randman
06-03-2005 2:30 AM


The biggest difference!
SETI is not trying to force information about their science into the curriculum of the schools by circumventing the normal processes for defining curriculum in their appeal to religious school board members.

I was actually kind of surprised that no one pointed this out yet.

ID belies its position as anti-science by its blatant circumvention of academic standards for curriculum influence and its history of impotence, either purposeful or otherwise, in participating in the scientific community.

{ABE}
Not to mention that they are now trying to change the definition of science. Being that they are trying to drastically reform science it is hard to say that they are at all scientific by the currently accepted standards.

{ABE}
Fixed atrocious spelling.

This message has been edited by Jazzns, 06-03-2005 10:12 AM


FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by randman, posted 06-03-2005 2:30 AM randman has not yet responded

  
mick
Member (Idle past 2885 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 12 of 22 (213856)
06-03-2005 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CodeTrainer
06-03-2005 1:13 AM


Hi CodeTrainer,

Here are the differences between SETI and biological ID, as I see them:

1. Mathematical models of what kinds of signal are NOT intelligently designed

SETI has mathematical means of falsifying the claim that a signal is of intelligent origin. For example, they have models of what kind of signal would result from a pulsar, what kind of signal would result from background "noise", etc. They can use these models to falsify claims that a signal is intelligently designed.

ID, on the other hand, has no clear model of what biological "noise" looks like, so ID researchers are unable to falsify a claim that a signal is intelligent.

2. Mathematical models of what kind of signal IS intelligently designed

SETI researchers make clear statements about what kind of signal would be considered intelligent - i.e. narrow bandwith signals that can't be produced by known natural processes in the cosmos.

ID researchers, on the other hand, do not have a model of what intelligent design in the biological world would look like.

3. An empirical research program based on falsification

SETI researchers are engaged in gathering empirical data from the world, and falsifying the hypothesis that such data contains intelligent signals. While SETI researchers have never found an "intelligent signal", this does not meant that they have achieved nothing in scientific terms. In fact, they have falsified the "intelligence hypothesis" thousands upon thousands of times. If you install the SETI@HOME screensaver, what you are doing is falsifying a specific well-formulated hypothesis over and over again.

ID researchers, on the other hand, are not engaged in gathering empirical data from the world which can be used to falsify the hypothesis of intelligent agency.

4. Reliable research methods

SETI researchers have tested whether their experimental setup is capable of identifying intelligent signals by getting a satellite to broadcast weak signals toward earth. They were able to identify such signals reliably. They are also able to identify TV signals, etc. So they are confident that their setup would also be able to identify similar signals of non-human origin.

ID researchers, on the other hand, have not tested the reliability of their research design.

Hope this helps,

Mick


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CodeTrainer, posted 06-03-2005 1:13 AM CodeTrainer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by CodeTrainer, posted 06-04-2005 9:00 PM mick has not yet responded

  
CodeTrainer
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 22 (214294)
06-04-2005 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by NosyNed
06-03-2005 2:13 AM


Re: SETI's search
NosyNed wrote: At this point those familiar with biology and evolution will recognize the contrast with ID.

==> Anyone familiar with it will recognize the differences in terms of the medium and in terms of the kind of patterns searched.

The principle that one can find patterns or structures in data that describe attributes in natural media is recognized in both.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 06-03-2005 2:13 AM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 06-04-2005 8:55 PM CodeTrainer has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8810
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 14 of 22 (214310)
06-04-2005 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by CodeTrainer
06-04-2005 8:23 PM


Re: SETI's search
The principle that one can find patterns or structures in data that describe attributes in natural media is recognized in both.

So?

That is a pretty simple thing and not terrible meaningful. Is that it?

But the differences are there too. The ID folk seem to accept any pattern as meaningful or at least have no way of distinguishing which are and are not.

The SETI folks are very, very fussy about what might constitute a real signel.

This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-04-2005 09:00 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by CodeTrainer, posted 06-04-2005 8:23 PM CodeTrainer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by CodeTrainer, posted 06-04-2005 9:05 PM NosyNed has responded

  
CodeTrainer
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 22 (214313)
06-04-2005 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by mick
06-03-2005 12:13 PM


Differences
First off, it bears repeating that whatever differences there may be between SETI and ID, the principle remains.

(((Mick: 1. Mathematical models of what kinds of signal are NOT intelligently designed.. ___ID, on the other hand, has no clear model of what biological "noise" looks like, so ID researchers are unable to falsify a claim that a signal is intelligent.)))

This shows a lack of knowledge or a lack of understanding of ID. There have been very clear and specific criteria laid out very clearly.

(((2. Mathematical models of what kind of signal IS intelligently designed ___ID researchers, on the other hand, do not have a model of what intelligent design in the biological world would look like. )))

Of course they do. I suggest you study up on the subject.

(((3.3. An empirical research program based on falsification ___ID researchers, on the other hand, are not engaged in gathering empirical data from the world which can be used to falsify the hypothesis of intelligent agency.)))

==> The data they use is well known. If you learn what the assertions are, you can attempt to falsify them. In general, those who could have tried, have instead avoided trying, using the ruse of rejecting the idea based on either the implications, or based on some theological point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by mick, posted 06-03-2005 12:13 PM mick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 06-04-2005 9:04 PM CodeTrainer has not yet responded
 Message 18 by MangyTiger, posted 06-04-2005 9:33 PM CodeTrainer has responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018