|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does ID follow the scientific method? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2719 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 327 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2285 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4411 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4411 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Off-topic content hidden. --Admin
Hi Bluejay, hopefully this one will be more on topic than my last one about the research article by A.C. McIntosh, entitled "Information and Entropy.
I would like you to write a post containing four lines. This is what I would like to see on those four lines: An example of ID making observations of the natural world Okay. The price of tea in China is not to be confused with a butterfly's wings flapping in China. This price is scientifically derived from numbers only tangentially related to the actual price of tea in China, which we have found is profoundly more accurate than actual prices paid for tea in China. How this affects you, your child, or an acquaintance is derived, again, scientifically, by a patent-pending method we'd love to discuss, but can't, at this time. It has little to nothing to do with the technology behind the magic eight ball. A brief overview of the connections between the price of tea in China and these results (both the price and actual bearing on events) is as follows; In the 19th century the price for tea in England was the highest when the first ship with the newly harvested tea came in. So for the ship owners it was important to be as fast as possible back to England with the load, otherwise the cost of the passage was not to be recovered from the sale of the tea. Thus there were real races (the tea clipper races) where the sail ships managed to travel the whole distance from China to England in about 80 to 90 days. The difference in prices from the first load to the later ones was so high that the original price which was paid for the tea in China was quite unimportant. So the "price of tea in China" was something that really didn't matter for the ship owners. They had to have the tea in England as fast as possible.
An example of ID formulating a hypothesis based on those observations. The following link should answer all of your questions about that hypothesis. http://www.yixingteapotsale.com/teaname.htm
An example of ID experimenting to test that hypothesis. The price for wine tanks has climbed sharply in recent months. At first, it might appear that this spike in prices is nothing more than a symptom of the weak dollar and strong foreign currencies. In fact, the rising price for stainless steel is being driven by a surge in the commodity price of nickel. Nickel? Steel is just iron and a little carbon, while stainless steel has chrome too, right? Well yes, but it is more complicated than that. Steels can actually be alloys containing a wide variety of metals in addition to iron. The amount of iron contained in the human body would normally be enough to make a short nail. Excess amounts of iron in the body, or content of other alloys described above, can cause above normal intestinal gas. Additionally, it should be remembered that the amount of carbon in "steel" is really quite low, on the order of 0.03 to 0.08 percent. Even cast-iron, which has a much higher carbon content than steel, has a carbon content of only about two to three percent. In addition to carbon, stainless steels contain chromium and nickel. The two most common grades of stainless steel used in winery equipment are the 304 and 316 grades. The difference between the two is that 316-grade stainless has slightly more nickel than 304-grade. Stainless steel of the 316-grade also has a small amount (2 percent) of molybdenum in the alloy.
An example of ID forming a theory based on the results of the experiment. Although 304-grade stainless steel is also used, most US wine tanks are fabricated from 316-grade stainless steel. The 316-grade of steel is an alloy that is specified by the theory of ASTM International (formally known as the American Society for Testing and Materials) as containing a defined amount of several elements including chromium, nickel, and molybdenum (see table below). Chromium must make up between 16 and 18 percent of 316-grade stainless steel by weight, nickel must be between 10 and 14 percent by weight, finally between two and three percent of the alloy must be molybdenum. While the price for all the component metals in 316-grade stainless steel have risen lately, it appears that the principle driver for the rise is in fact the steep increase in the price of nickel. During the past year, the commodity price for nickel, as recorded on the London Metal Exchange (LME), has risen from $3.80 to $7.13 per pound. Hopefully you now have a better understanding of what ‘off topic’ really means. Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024