Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does ID follow the scientific method?
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 267 of 325 (592995)
11-23-2010 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Buzsaw
11-22-2010 6:25 PM


Re: Applying The Scientific Method
Oh. Well then, how about we apply that to anti-matter?
You can design experiments where you predict specific outcomes based on the hypothesis of anti-matter. You then run these experiments. Guess what? The results of the experiments (the observations) match the predictions.
So how does ID follow this methodology?
Assemble all of the data in the Biblical Record about the alleged Exodus. As explorer/researcher Ron Wyatt, Lennart Moller and others have done, go on expeditions to research the area which the Biblical Historical Record cites as the region of the alleged event. Document the supportive evidences which are discovered, etc.
Ok, now what? Is this data empirical? If not, then it is out.
Now, what is the hypothesis that we are testing with this data, and what is the null hypothesis?
Why do the SM scientists such as National Geographic's Robert Ballard and other secularists have no interest in either falsifying the alleged evidence or verifying it?
Why don't you ask them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Buzsaw, posted 11-22-2010 6:25 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Buzsaw, posted 11-23-2010 9:35 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 301 of 325 (593128)
11-24-2010 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by PaulK
11-24-2010 1:12 PM


Re: An example!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2010 1:12 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 306 of 325 (593152)
11-24-2010 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by dwise1
11-24-2010 3:34 PM


Re: Applying The Scientific Method
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by dwise1, posted 11-24-2010 3:34 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 324 of 325 (593801)
11-29-2010 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by Dawn Bertot
11-27-2010 2:39 AM


Re: An example!
The logical fallacy is to assume that the IDM, is something different that the SM, its not. Both methods start and finish with observation, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion
If that were true you could acutally describe the hypothesis and experiments which test the hypothesis as they apply to ID. You haven't done that. Until you do you can not claim that they are one in the same.
The ID hypothesis is not at this point necessary, . . .
At what point is it necessary, and what is the ID hypothesis?
One would of course start with the most basic elements in nature, single cells, then mutifunctional orgainisms, to complicated and complex to the prosuction of functioning life forms
That is not an experiment. Please describe an experiment and the ID hypothesis it is testing. Also, please include the null hypothesis.
Your not kidding, Bluejay, this is getting a little bit ridiculous, because the above and the below is excally what I have repeated several times now, both directly and indirectly However, when I state it, it is not accepted as a test to replicate the SM, but when some obscure offical website talks about it and it is confirmed by one of the favored children here it is nearly recieved without hesitation
You never described a hypothesis or a means of testing it through experimentation. Your one reference to an ID hypothesis only described when it is NOT used, but never where it is used. You did not describe an experiment, only another reference to a vague observation of order which is not an experiment.
At this point the ID premise is justified from both a physical and more importantly logical deduction, that said experiments, tests and predictions, detemine that ID could very well have been the agent to produce such products in nature
What experimental tests and what predictions? You listed neither.
Mine is a purely logical deduction, that states, in the absense of that which is absolutely provable, concerning matters where the DIRECT evidence is no longer available, we must rely on that which is logically deduced from the physical realites, in this case, 'order' that exists in the physical world and in the investigative process.
So how do you deduce ID from the observations using the SM? Instead of saying that it can be done why don't you SHOW HOW IT IS DONE?
It is falsifiable in the respect that one needs only to demonstrate that such order that does exist, and that it is not actually order at all.
That is not the type of falsifiability that the SM requires. In the SM you are not trying to falsify the facts. In the SM you are trying to falsify the hypothesis. In the case of ID, the hypothesis is that the order we see was produced by an intelligent designer. So how do we falsify that hypothesis? Remember, order is already accepted as true. What you need is a way to falsify the hypothesis that order we observe was produced by an intelligent designer.
Definable Order makes the Observation in the method, a logical, testable, and observable conlcusion of design, NOT the other way around.
Conclusions are not observed. Conclusions are derived from testable hypotheses that pass testing. Since you have not listed a testable hypothesis you can not derive the conclusion from the tests or hypotheses.
All you need to do is say "The hypothesis for ID is . . . " and describe the hypothesis.
Then you need to describe the experimental set up. At this point you predict what the experimental results will be if your hypothesis is true, and what results the experiment will produce if your hypothesis is false (the null hypothesis). Then you run the experiment.
Can you do this or not? If not, then the IDM is different from the SM.
Happily, Order is not untestable and is a valid logical conclusion of physical properties and a test of reality .
Order is not the experiment. Order is the observation that starts the SM. You make observations, derive an explanation that links those observations together (the hypothesis), create an experiment which tests the hypothesis, and then make your conclusions. You are stuck at step 1, observation. You need to move to step 2. What is the hypothesis?
Because Order, harmony and consistent observable information, in the physical world, which is both testable and predictable, is the SM in action
False. The SM is more than just making observations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-27-2010 2:39 AM Dawn Bertot 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