Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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?
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4704 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 284 of 325 (593076)
11-24-2010 3:40 AM


Yep, whenever creationists get involved they're a shining example of haughty bits of intelligent theater.

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 285 of 325 (593081)
11-24-2010 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Buzsaw
11-23-2010 10:00 PM


H 0
Hi Buzz, I just want to clear something up and please bear in mind I'm missing out a lot to keep things concise.
The null hypothesis is a very important component of the scientific methodology. I think calling the null hypothesis (H0) non-factual is not helpful.
Let me explain: when using the scientific method ones typically starts with an observation; such as Croatians are taller than English people. This is a real world observation that could be true or it could be coincidence.
I could design an experiment to test my hypothesis (H1) that there is a difference between the heights of the two peoples.
Obviously I can't measure everyones height (this would however give my a pretty conclusive answer as to whether there is a hieght difference) so I take a sample of the two peoples and assume they represent the two people reasonably accurately.
Without going into too much detail I could find that there is a difference between the height or not.
In this case my HI (hypothesis) it that there is a height difference. The H0 (null hypothesis) is that any difference is unconnected with country of origin i.e. country of origin has nothing to do with it.
Now, when I gather my data (assuming I do it correctly) I can use a set of statistics to analys the data to see if any difference in height could be attributed to country of origin or not. My efforts would be in attempting to rule out H1. If I can they my hypothesis (H1) is wrong and I have to accept H0.
To be clear I try to reject my own hypothesis (H1).
If I can't (and if I can show my that my experiement and stats hold up to scrutiny) I can say H1 has been supported (not proved, mind).
If the statistical analysis says 'the heights of these people are significantly different' we can say we reject the HO (that country of origin has nothing to do with it).
So the hypothesis is always tested against the notion that it is dead wrong.
In this case my H1 is that country of origin affects hieght. My H0 is that country of origin does not effect height.
When people talk about falsification and hypothesis they don't mean proving it wrong. They mean having a H0 that can be rejected.
I think the proble that people have with ID is that it has no H0 to reject. With ID the H1 would be that things are designed and H0 would be that things are not designed. The IDist does not attempt to choose between H1 or H0; the IDist has already concluded that H0 is wrong, by-passing the scientific methodology.
The scientist attempts to rule out his hypothesis by testing it against H0.
The IDist attempts to rule in his hypothesis by not having a H0.
This is the big difference between science and creation science and why people on this site keep saying ID isn't science.
Hope this helps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Buzsaw, posted 11-23-2010 10:00 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Buzsaw, posted 11-24-2010 8:06 PM Larni has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 325 (593088)
11-24-2010 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Coyote
11-23-2010 10:42 PM


Re: Behe's Court ID Question
Coyote writes:
Is this what Behe meant in the Dover trial when he used a definition of science that included astrology?
This is what those opposing ID as science do. As in this trial, Behe's opponents resorted to one of the least valid examples of IDSM which is astrology. Unlike the Biblical record, astrology has no evidential legitimacy having precious little to support it. There are no credible scientists who study the scientific validity of astrology that I am aware of.
Likely what Behe meant by his answer to the court was that it could, legally, but would have no reason to include astrology. Instead of digressing he simply answered in the affirmative.
His critics took that ball and ran with it all over the Internet and science fora as you are doing.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Coyote, posted 11-23-2010 10:42 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Admin, posted 11-24-2010 8:53 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 287 of 325 (593091)
11-24-2010 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Dr Adequate
11-23-2010 9:28 PM


What's the Topic?
Please see my comments in Marc9000's Message 260. In his next message he gave no indication of paying any heed to the moderator request in that message.
People, the question is whether ID follows the scientific method. Primarily because of Dawn's inability to address the topic of his own thread I made a very pointed request that an example of ID following the scientific method be presented so that it can be discussed. In Message 248 I requested responses to this list of requested information composed by Bluejay:
  • 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.
No responses to this have been posted yet. Anything else from those taking the affirmative that ID follows the scientific method is off-topic. In my judgement, discussion of the topic has not really begun yet, and I don't think it can begin until there's a concrete example of ID research to discuss. To this point this thread is just a series of "Does to's" and "Does not's".

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-23-2010 9:28 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 288 of 325 (593093)
11-24-2010 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Buzsaw
11-24-2010 7:54 AM


Re: Behe's Court ID Question
Buz, please stop participating in this thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Buzsaw, posted 11-24-2010 7:54 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 289 of 325 (593108)
11-24-2010 11:10 AM


Thread Copied from Free For All Forum
Thread copied here from the Does ID follow the scientific method? thread in the Free For All forum.

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


(6)
Message 290 of 325 (593110)
11-24-2010 11:32 AM


An example!
This is getting a bit ridiculous. I didn't think it would be this hard for people to recognize the scientific method after several of us have spelled out the steps pretty clearly, but, this far into this thread, not only has nobody been able to produce a legitimate example the follows the clear outline we've provided, but there is still at least one IDist/creationist who claims that nobody has been clear about what the scientific method actually is. I'm flabbergasted and a bit disappointed by this.
Since the IDists/creationists haven't been very successful, I've decided to provide an example of the IDM on my on. So, I googled. Yes, I googled. This is what I googled: intelligent design scientific method .
Here is the first link that comes up with those search terms. It's an FAQ page on the IDEA Center website (I'd never even heard of the IDEA Center before this Google search): it's actually a pretty clever acronym ("Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness"). Here's a snippet:
quote:
Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method?
The Short Answer: Yes. The scientific method goes from observation --> hypothesis --> experiment --> conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if objects were designed, they will contain CSI. They then seek to find CSI. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity (IC). ID researchers can then experimentally reverse-engineer biological structures to see if they are IC. If they find them, they can conclude design.
They also provide a long answer, and then some tables with further examples, but you can go the link above and read that for yourselves.
Ignoring the vagueness of it, this could arguably count as following the scientific method. If an IDist had provided this example on this thread, I would have accepted that it meets the most basic requirements of the scientific method as I presented them in Message 91. However, it falls short under closer scrutiny.
Here's my commentary, organized by step in the scientific method:
Observation: Intelligent agents produce complex, specified information (CSI).
I'm almost okay with calling this an observation. The only problem is that there is an implicit assumption in it that only intelligent agents produce CSI. This assumption should have been tested as a hypothesis in another round of the scientific method before it was included as an observation in this round of the scientific method. One caveat: if intelligent agents are meant to have designed everything, as in traditional creationism, then this assumption/hypothesis is untestable.
Hypothesis: If objects were designed, they will contain CSI.
This isn't really a hypothesis: it's just a restatement of the "observation." The hypothesis in this experiment is actually "X is designed." The statement, "X will contain CSI" is actually a prediction based on the hypothesis.
Experiment: ID researchers can then experimentally reverse-engineer biological structures to see if they are IC.
This is actually a good experiment, provided that the hypothesis that CSI only comes from intelligent design is first supported.
Conclusion: Design.
This conclusion rests entirely on the assumption that only intelligent agents produce CSI. It is only valid if that assumption can be supported by experimentation using the scientific method. As it stands, this conclusion is just affirming the consequent, a logical fallacy. Whatever standards one sets for science, logical fallacies surely cannot be seen as adhering to the scientific method.
-----
This is one example of the kind of thing I was referring to when I said, "I suspect that most scientists would require more than just this bare minimum...": having put up an example of all four steps doesn't necessarily mean that you have followed the scientific method in its entirety.
In this example, it's important to note that where you start using the scientific method is not chosen arbitrarily. That is, you can't just cram assumptions into the "observations" step and then claim to be following the scientific method because you use all the steps from there out: you have to be consistent, and to test everything that needs to be tested.
But, with enough effort, I bet we could find at least one example of a true scientific method in use by IDists or creationists, but I suspect that the findings of it will be parochial and only indirectly relevant to ID. I await the efforts of IDists to demonstrate that I am incorrect.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Larni, posted 11-24-2010 11:42 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied
 Message 292 by subbie, posted 11-24-2010 11:45 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied
 Message 293 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-24-2010 11:50 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied
 Message 299 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2010 1:12 PM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 319 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-27-2010 2:39 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 291 of 325 (593111)
11-24-2010 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Blue Jay
11-24-2010 11:32 AM


Re: An example!
Well said, that man.
It boils down to making the a priori assumption that there is a designer and then attempting to use the scientific method.
As ID only comes from a belief in the superntural (i.e. goddidit) which is an article of faith it by-passess the scientific method from the outset and falls at the first methodological hurdle.
A prime case of GIGO.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Blue Jay, posted 11-24-2010 11:32 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 292 of 325 (593112)
11-24-2010 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Blue Jay
11-24-2010 11:32 AM


Re: An example!
A good breakdown and analysis, Bluejay. One problem though. You cannot condemn the ID because it falls afoul of the affirming the consequent fallacy, because all of science is based on it.
The key difference between ID and science in your example is that science actively seeks out and tests alternate causes, ID does not.

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 290 by Blue Jay, posted 11-24-2010 11:32 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Larni, posted 11-24-2010 11:51 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied
 Message 295 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-24-2010 11:56 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied
 Message 296 by Coyote, posted 11-24-2010 11:59 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 293 of 325 (593113)
11-24-2010 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Blue Jay
11-24-2010 11:32 AM


Re: An example!
quote:
Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method?
The Short Answer: Yes. The scientific method goes from observation --> hypothesis --> experiment --> conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if objects were designed, they will contain CSI. They then seek to find CSI. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity (IC). ID researchers can then experimentally reverse-engineer biological structures to see if they are IC. If they find them, they can conclude design.
Er ... except that this is rubbish.
Their hypothesis should be that objects with CSI have intelligent designers, not vice versa. (To prove that chickens lay eggs is not to prove that all eggs are laid by chickens). And of course in order to prove this, they would have to show in particular that life (which we shall assume for the sake of argument does possess this mysterious CSI) has a designer.
Which is the thing that they wanted to prove in the first place.
In short, their "scientific method" is the Great Big Creationist Petitio Principii. Again. There is nothing in there where they actually test the hypothesis that life has a designer.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Blue Jay, posted 11-24-2010 11:32 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 294 of 325 (593114)
11-24-2010 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by subbie
11-24-2010 11:45 AM


Re: An example!
I think a key difference is also that science attempts to reject H1 and if it can't then it draws tentative conclusions.
ID attempts to accept H1.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by subbie, posted 11-24-2010 11:45 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 295 of 325 (593115)
11-24-2010 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by subbie
11-24-2010 11:45 AM


Re: An example!
A good breakdown and analysis, Bluejay. One problem though. You cannot condemn the ID because it falls afoul of the affirming the consequent fallacy, because all of science is based on it.
Sure, but not like that.
If you will grant me the premise that all complex objects are made of metal, I can prove that all organisms are made of metal. That's petitio principii. This is different from the hypothetico-deductive method where the observation that all complex objects I've looked at so far are made of metal would lead me to the provisional conclusion that all complex objects are made of metal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by subbie, posted 11-24-2010 11:45 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 296 of 325 (593116)
11-24-2010 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by subbie
11-24-2010 11:45 AM


Re: An example!
The key difference between ID and science in your example is that science actively seeks out and tests alternate causes, ID does not.
ID is not designed to find an answer--to IDers, the answer is already known. Instead it is designed to support that answer.
Unfortunately (as you point out) rather than follow the scientific method and test alternate causes they focus on a single cause and ignore, misrepresent, or deny any evidence that points to other causes.
Perhaps the prime example of this is the RATE Project, although this may be considered more a creationist group than an ID group.
The RATE boys set out to test the decay constant. The group included a number of qualified scientists, and they used scientific equipment and tests. What their evidence showed is that the decay constant had been stable for some millions of years at minimum--in other words, scientists were right and their religious beliefs were not supported by the evidence.
They did the only thing a creationist/IDer could do: they ignored the evidence and stuck to their religious belief.
Here are a couple of reviews of the RATE Project that discuss this creation/ID version of the scientific method in more detail:
Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac
Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science?
Edited by Coyote, : Missed a word

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by subbie, posted 11-24-2010 11:45 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Iblis, posted 11-24-2010 1:11 PM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 297 of 325 (593124)
11-24-2010 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Buzsaw
11-23-2010 9:15 PM


Re: Applying The Scientific Method
I am responding to this post only to clarify my own points. Since Buz has been asked to stop participation in this thread I will do my best not to argue against Buz's points.
Oh wow! How to spin valid evidence! Fact is derived from evidence. No?
My point was that evidence is a subset of all facts. Let's say there is a murder trial. The following facts are presented:
1. Bloody fingerprints on the victim that did not match the victim's fingers.
2. The population of the US is around 300 million.
3. Fibers that did not match the victim's clothing.
4. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is hovering around 12,000 points.
All four of these are facts, however only two of them are evidence in the murder trial. Only two of these facts can be used to determine the guilt of the defendant, which is the hypothesis under question.
This is what I mean when I say there is a difference between facts and evidence. Evidence is a set of facts that can be used to validate or invalidate a claim. In order for ID to have evidence it must first delineate how ID can be validated and invalidated. IOW, ID must be falsifiable and testable per the scientific method.
You missed my valid point that conventional SM is incomplete whereas the metaphysical science methodology,
You seem to be agreeing with me here. I am arguing that the SM and IDM (or MSM if you prefer) are not the same. Whether or not you believe that the SM is incomplete is not relevant to my argument.
Where do you get that "null" nonsense?
It's hardly nonsense. It is a vital part of the scientific method. The null hypothesis is another way of saying "if I am wrong you will see X". In another post I used the example of a drug study that used the experimental drug and a placebo. In this case the null hypothesis is that the placebo will have as much of an effect as the experimental drug. In a scientific experiment the experimental design must equally test both the hypothesis and null hypothesis. If the experimental design favors one over the other then it is considered to be a biased experiment.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Buzsaw, posted 11-23-2010 9:15 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by dwise1, posted 11-24-2010 3:34 PM Taq has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 298 of 325 (593125)
11-24-2010 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Coyote
11-24-2010 11:59 AM


Re: An example!
ID is not designed to find an answer--to IDers, the answer is already known. Instead it is designed to support that answer.
That's it exactly. It's the usual lay misconception that the experiment is an attempt to prove the hypothesis. Experiments never prove anything, they either disprove or "support" (fail to disprove). Science didn't start off a few hundred years back with gradualism and uniformitarianism and so on, it started with Young Earth and Deluge theory. These things have been systematically disproven from hundreds of different angles. Pretending not to understand basic stochastic processes won't bring them back, ever.
Proper science where intelligent design was the hypothesis would be coming up with ways to Disprove The Designer. Standard creos could never engage in such a thing, it would be sacrilegious and get them smote by their big weepy saviour. Even if they successfully failed
This is why the best science the "C" side has is Irreducible Complexity. IC, at least in principle, isn't an attempt to prove goddidit, but rather an attempt to disprove gradualism. It fails, not because it is nonsense like the vapor canopy, but rather because it fails to take into account both sides of the stochastic process. That is, it sees gradualism in evolution solely as increases in variety / complexity, whereas decreases are just as likely.
Thus, examples of actual irreducible complexity seem to be the result of the increase in efficiency over time due to gradual reduction in unnecessary features, to the point where no further reduction is viable. Flagellae and viruses are examples I like, feel free to add as many as you like. Still, it was a good try. If every single creation "scientist" would work to disprove some aspect of current evolutionary thinking without yammering on about philosophy and other non-work instead, I would drop those scare quotes eventually.
But it will never happen, because they are lazy prevaricators trying to get in front of the political "pep rally" money rather than actual students of nature. This is why Behe et al are happy to make pseudo-hypotheses but unwilling to do real experiments ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Coyote, posted 11-24-2010 11:59 AM Coyote 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