Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
196 online now:
DrJones*, Theodoric (2 members, 194 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,794 Year: 1,542/23,288 Month: 1,542/1,851 Week: 182/484 Day: 105/77 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does ID follow the scientific method?
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1085
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 314 of 325 (593203)
11-24-2010 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Taq
11-22-2010 12:19 PM


Off-topic content hidden. --Admin

What do you mean by "stops and starts"? Where did Behe ever demonstrate that the development of any system was discontinuous. Notice that I said "demonstrate", not "claim".

For centuries, evolutionists have been trying to figure out why people commit crime.

Early theories blamed the shape of someone's skull. Modern observations point to the effects of social background, climate or even legalised abortion. Only this week, Justice Secretary Ken Clarke dismissed the theory that crime is driven down by locking more people up in prison.

But according to Ian Marsh, author of Theories of Crime, all these efforts to understand what pushes crime up or down will never quite crack the question.

"You can't expect any experiment to determine why some people embezzle funds, others beat up their wives and others like a good punch-up on a Saturday night," he says.

So what would these experiments look like? What is the null hypothesis and how does one test it?

A lecturer at Liverpool Hope University, Mr Marsh says certain patterns do merit attention. Criminologists emphasise people's home environment as a key factor, along with differences in upbringing.

It sounds sensible that people who don't get on at school or get good jobs might turn to crime but that doesn't explain why someone with a lot of money commits fraud”

How would this be done? What observations, if made, would falsify the ID prediction?

Before I go on, think back about six weeks. Where were you on Labor Day, that bittersweet end-of-the-summer holiday? If you had the day off, did your thoughts turn, for a moment, to the labor movement the day is named for, to which we owe not only for a well-timed three-day weekend, but more importantly, for workers’ rights as they exist today? If you ate food that day, did you think about the people who helped produce it?

We are not talking about random mutation and natural selection. We are talking about ID and the IDM. This again highlights the problems I talk about in my first post in this thread. When using the SM you directly test the hypothesis under question. You do not test competing hypothesis and then claim that these tests are also a test of your hypothesis.

I was in San Francisco that weekend, attending Slow Food Nation, where I had the good fortune to meet and interview Lucas Benitez and Melody Gonzalez of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, whose Campaign for Fair Food has persuaded some of the largest corporations in the food industry to agree to a price increase of a penny a pound for tomatoes, allowing for a modest raise for the farmworkers of Immokalee, Florida (where 90% of the US supply of winter tomatoes are grown), whose wages have languished, stagnant, since the 1970’s. As Benitez, a farmworker himself, points out in the video below, today’s tomato pickers get paid between 40 and 45 cents per 32 pound bucket, which means that to earn $50, a worker has to pick 2 tons of it.

Then show how they are explored and tested, and show how these tests follow the scientific method.

For Burger King, the Goldman Sachs-owned chain that signed with CIW last May at the US capitol building (but only after months of protests, a blog scandal and allegedly spying on CIW’s partner group, the Student/Farmworker Alliance) the penny-a-pound increase amounts to an estimated $250,000 dollars per year. To put that in perspective, Eric Schlosser’s November 07 op-ed “Penny Foolish” pointed out that “n 2006, the bonuses of the top 12 Goldman Sachs executives exceeded $200 million – more than twice as much money as all of the roughly 10,000 tomato pickers in southern Florida earned that year.

No one knows what the future holds, but as our economic system hovers over the proverbial “rock bottom,” it seems like a good time to revisit our policies, both national and personal, when it comes to the scientific method. What is the value of a tomato, and why? What (from fertilizers and pesticides to labor to transport) went into it, and does its price reflect those inputs? Or has a market driven by speculation and subsidies installed a false cap on that price, creating a decidedly unsustainable system that benefits CEOs over citizens, puts the squeeze on smaller businesses and leaves the laborers to pick up the slack?

If you’d like to help support the Coalition in their campaign for fair food, visit their Take Action page

Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Taq, posted 11-22-2010 12:19 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1085
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 315 of 325 (593204)
11-24-2010 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Dr Adequate
11-23-2010 9:28 PM


Re: One step would be to define what ID isn't
Off-topic content hidden. --Admin

Edited: I replied to marc's message, which has been deemed off topic. I would say in his defense that much of it was on topic, or at least seemed to be intended as such. To say that he was "making no effort to address the topic" seems to me to be unduly harsh.

Sincerely appreciated.

Which creationist made this "observation", and why do you call it an "observation" when it's a hypothesis?

That really doesn’t matter. Despite the uproar over intrusive pat-downs for some airline travelers, the policy will not change heading into the holiday travel season, the head of the Transportation Security Administration said.
"Clearly, it's invasive; it's not comfortable," John Pistole said of the pat-downs in an interview Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union with Candy Crowley. This year marks the first Thanksgiving in which travelers will get molested before they get to their uncle's house. But he said the agency was trying to strike the right balance between privacy and security to protect the nation from potential terrorist attacks, such as the failed bomb plot last Christmas by a man who authorities said had explosives hidden in his underwear. Upon investigation it was discovered that the standard skidmark was only average in length, unlike the longer ones found generally found on standard, predictable underwear terrorists.

Just as your reply to a request for an observation was not an observation, but a hypothesis, so is your reply to a request for an experiment.

The TSA this month began more aggressive pat-down hypothesis, including checking sensitive areas such as the groin and breasts, for signs of weapons or explosives on some travelers. The searches have sparked outrage, as has the TSA's alternative — greater use of full-body scanners that the American Civil Liberties Union has said amounts to a "virtual strip search." In San Diego, a man refused to be patted down by airport security and some people are calling him a hero. I don't mind being patted down by airport security, but I don't like it when the guy says, 'Now you do me.'

Scientists often perform experiments and observations which could confute evolution if evolution happened to be wrong. Every time any paleontologist looks at Cambrian rocks, he could find Haldane's "rabbit in the Cambrian

Bunny rabbits? Sorry , the wolves came first. Two rabbits were being chased by a pack of wolves. The wolves chased the rabbits into a thicket. After a few minutes, the girl rabbit turned to the by rabbit and said, "Well, do you want to make a run for it or stay here a few days and outnumber them? " No, we're not changing the policies, said the boy rabbit. "We know through intelligence that there are determined people, terrorists who are trying to kill not only Americans but innocent people around the world. I just can’t get it up with that on my mind”.

An Internet-based campaign has called for airline passengers to refuse the full-body scans on Wednesday, the busy travel day before Thanksgiving, opting instead for pat-downs, which could cause huge delays at airports.

Asked Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation" if she would submit to one of the new pat-downs, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said that she would not submit to a pat-down, to which Bill Clinton said, 'Tell me about it.'" But Clinton said Obama administration officials were trying to find the right way to respond to terrorists "getting more creative about what they do to hide explosives in, you know, crazy things like underwear." "I think that we have to be constantly asking ourselves, 'How do we calculate the risk?' And, you know, sometimes, we don't calculate it correctly. The degree of lethalness in explosives in underwear doesn’t necessarily correlate with the length of the skidmark.

President Obama said Saturday that he had asked his counter-terrorism team each week if the measures were "absolutely necessary”, and if the measures of the skidmarks were “absolutely accurate”.

Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content.


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

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2483 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 316 of 325 (593209)
11-25-2010 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by marc9000
11-24-2010 11:32 PM


Marc9000 shows us the true meaning of 'Off Topic'
Hopefully you now have a better understanding of what ‘off topic’ really means.

I started reading your new posts in reverse order and thought you had just gone completely insane. I'm glad there was some method in your madness.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by marc9000, posted 11-24-2010 11:32 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12656
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 317 of 325 (593216)
11-25-2010 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by marc9000
11-24-2010 11:32 PM


marc9000 Suspended One Month
marc9000 writes:

Hopefully you now have a better understanding of what ‘off topic’ really means.

I'm suspending you for one month. Hopefully this suspension gives you a better understanding of what rules 1 and 2 from the Forum Guidelines mean:

  1. Follow all moderator requests.

  2. Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.

You also violated this guideline since the text in your message was an unattributed cut-n-paste from elsewhere:

  1. Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source.

See you on Christmas day.

I let my experience help inform how I address new issues, and my experience in this thread is that advocates for ID, despite protests to the contrary, never had any real intention of addressing the topic. My efforts to guide this thread to a constructive discussion of ID research following the scientific method never really had a chance. Good to know.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by marc9000, posted 11-24-2010 11:32 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15843
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 318 of 325 (593318)
11-26-2010 2:09 AM


Article on IC
The Quarterly Review of Biology - a journal publishing review articles rather than original research has published an article about Behe and IC. The [http://sites.google.com/...tenboudry/irreducible-incoherence]penultimate draft[/URL] is online.

It has much to say of relevance - such as Behe's frequent reliance on equivocation to avoid criticism of his argument. A particularly relevant point, though is this:


the question arises if there is any amount of comparative genetic evidence, or any level of evolutionary reconstruction, that would make Behe and his allies abandon their design claims. Because of the sloppiness of the probabilistic IC claim (which is never based on any serious quantification of probabilities), IDC theorists can continue to raise the evidential requirements up to a point where the concept of IC is lifted outside of the empirical domain altogether. Indeed, when pressed on the available knowledge on the IC systems he uses, Behe has made it clear that only a complete, quantitative, fully detailed description of what actually happened over the course of evolution would convince him...But this is an absurd demand, which is never met in any other scientific domain, and it is certainly not met by ID creationists themselves when they propose ‘design’ as an alternative explanation. Indeed, despite his demand for such a high level of evidence for the evolution of what he claims are IC systems, Behe himself has been completely unwilling to flesh out his design hypothesis to any degree at all, insisting that the motives and character of the designer are in fact inscrutable, and providing us with no clue as to his modus operandi.

So Behe offers neither a scientific alternative to evolution - even if we ignore the question of supernaturalism - nor even solid, sound objections to current theory. And Behe is one of the least unscientific and open-minded proponents of ID. If even he falls so badly short of the standards of science how can anyone claim that ID is a scientific enterprise ?


Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-27-2010 2:52 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 319 of 325 (593427)
11-27-2010 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Blue Jay
11-24-2010 11:32 AM


Re: An example!
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.

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
ID does not begin with the observation that IAs produce complex, this or that. That is a point of some persons, that unintentioally misrepresents the actual logical and demonstratable facts concerning ID

Bluejays Test

"An example of a researcher making observations of the natural world. "

We observe identifiable and testable order in any physical example, as in a single cell to the most complexe organisms

"An example of a researcher formulating an ID hypothesis based on those observations. "

The ID hypothesis is not at this point necessary, because order is what is being researched as simply indentifable in natural processes. A study and an examination of its components to formulate the premise that law is actually taking place. No ID hypothesis necessary at this point

"An example of a researcher experimenting to test that 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

"An example of a researcher forming an ID theory based on the results of the 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

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

In FAIRNESS Percy, I have presented every single one of the below examples (in Bluejays illustration)in throughout out my discussion, atleast in principle, by describing what I thought was an ID methodology

The most recognizable distinction is, that these tests on both sides are simply scientific investigation, with no recognizable distinctions in methods. What is different is the conclusions that are drawn from said investigations
One would be hard pressed to show any actual distinctions in either the SM and the IDM, only the conclusions are different

However, (on the ID side) I do not agree with the statement that "Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI)"
That is a misconception of the actual facts concerning ID methodologies, atleast from any logical presentation of its tenets

I understand what Behe and others are getting at in this connection and I would not presume to question any of thier thoughts from a biological stanpoint. There position and its presuppositions need a little fine tuning from the standpoint of logic, to demonstrate that the

The IDM of investigation is both the SM and simply investigation itself
However, it is not necessary to assume that "intelligent agents produce complex and specified information", as a begining observation

I do not need to begin with that observation or conclusion. It is and should not be a part of the initial observation process.

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.
Order is not an assumption or presupposition. It is an observable and testable reality, free from any preconcieved ideas about its origination source.

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. No conclusion concerning its orignation source is necessary, to attempt such a feat. Asssuming such could be accomplished, which of course it could not

Since order is observable, testable and predictable, and non-refutable in any logical fashion, it is a method of testing any conlcusion attempted in an explanation of natures origination source and similar to the SM

Definable Order makes the Observation in the method, a logical, testable, and observable conlcusion of design, NOT the other way around. No presupposition is required. Hence the observation starts with a physical observation that is testable without an initial conclusion of design.

IOWs, it drives the design principle (concluion) by means of observation or testable realities and follows the SM in its efforts to expalin the natural world

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.

It is amazing that you are "almost" okay with calling this an observation, but not with mine that needs no preconcieved conclusion to begin with

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.

Happily, Order is not untestable and is a valid logical conclusion of physical properties and a test of reality . It does not start with a presupposition, it starts with a testable reality
Logic, then is the next applicable test after a hypothesis is correctly and scientifically identified and applied, such as in the case of 'order'. In the absense of that which is absolutely provable, we rely on that which is logically demonstratable, as in the case of the conclusion that the natural world, is a result of soley natural causes

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

Absolutley correct, but Order, that which is observable and testable, does not commit the assumed and logical fallacy you suggest. It therefore qualifies as a valid SM to test the results of any conclusions. Physical properties and the clear reality of order, do not start with the "assumption that only intelligent agents produce CSI"

Because Order, harmony and consistent observable information, in the physical world, which is both testable and predictable, is the SM in action

And as I have consistently demonstrated, it is a logical deduction, in the absense of information, no longer, directly available to humans. It is therefore the best and most acceptable presentation of information concerning the conclusions that can be drawn from existing materials.

Of which, the refutation is impossible.
If it is and can be demonstrated to be illogical and refutable, then let it be set out in a logical presentation. The likes of which states that the argument (experiment)starts with a conclusion, it is not the scientific method in action and that is conclusion derived from that logic and experimentation) are somehow invalid. Complaining or somehow simply disagreeing will not suffice to demonstrate in NOT as a scientific method and invalid in its conclusions

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.

There are no assumptions that are cramed into the method I have advocated, therefore the conclusion is validated by a sound premise, substantiated soley by the direct evidence of observable, physical order, to A logical and valid conclusion of design.

Notice I said "A" logical and valid conlcusion of design. Due to the fact that that is what the evidence and logical deduction will demonstrate or allow. But that same available evidence and any SM or IDM applied to it will also allow a conclusion of nature by soley natural causes

And this is excally where any evidence concerning these matters will REST forever outside of direct revelation. It in no way implies or assumes that my methodology or that of ID is not science, that it cannot be demonstrated in a physical and logical fashion and that its tenets are not the best of all logical deductions

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.

Pa·ro·chi·al

I would challenge anyone in a public debate to demonstrate that ID has anything to do with the idea that it is parochial or limited in scope or nature, to act as science or a scientific method,to the establishing of natural facts

Here is my challenge. I would suggest a formal, standup, in person debate by myself and the person of your chosing.

The purpose of the debate would not be for notoriaty or to overturn any judicial decisions but to make clear the way and method that ID or Order should be presented as science in the classroom

This is usually done by a two night debate, with three speeches apiece by each participant, with a rejoinder at the end of each night. each disputant has a moderator of thier choice at thier individual table, to assist thier party, watch for time, etc

The first night would discuss the SM and the ID approach to science as science Whether the ID approach as I have presented it is acceptable, as a scientific approach.

One in the affirmative and one in the negative. the affirmative speaker would of course be responsible for providing that the negative speaker has enough information foir an adequate negative reply

The second night would consist of defending why such approaches should and could be presented in the science classroom concerning the nature of the material world

I would write out the specific propositions concerning the issues and nothing would be signed until both parties agreed upon the wording and content of the proposition

While the EVC forum would be handling the person information for privacy sake, only the disputants would, allow or disallow what would be discussed in the debate

This would keep it free for all areas to be applied, so content relevant to the debate could not be regulated

Besides oral questions directed during the debate, each disputant will be allowed to write oput five questions each evening, to be handed to the other before the debate begins, to assist in lengthening ones speeches, should they not have enough material during any of thier 20 minute speeches

I am against sparing back and forth at a round table, as it gets very little accomplished

Now this is our common practice and has proved a most benificial method of debating said topics. Sometimes these debates take several months to work out, due to peoples schedules, time restraints and the such like. There is certainly no rush

Do we have any here, willing to step up to the plate for such a debate. Any takers to debate the proposition that ID is science and that it should be taught in the science classroom?

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Blue Jay, posted 11-24-2010 11:32 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Panda, posted 11-27-2010 6:26 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 323 by Admin, posted 11-27-2010 7:21 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 324 by Taq, posted 11-29-2010 4:02 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 320 of 325 (593428)
11-27-2010 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by PaulK
11-26-2010 2:09 AM


Re: Article on IC
So Behe offers neither a scientific alternative to evolution - even if we ignore the question of supernaturalism - nor even solid, sound objections to current theory. And Behe is one of the least unscientific and open-minded proponents of ID. If even he falls so badly short of the standards of science how can anyone claim that ID is a scientific enterprise ?

Because the demonstratable nature and evidence of ID is not going to be found soley in biological approaches. In the same way that natures functions are not going to demonstrate that these functions are soley a product of natural causes.

It has to have a logical demonstration of both why it is science and and a SM and why it is applicable to the design principle

Especially where the specific information, related to those past events are unavailable at present to prove something absolutley. We therefore fall to the only reasonable recourse which is a logical demonstration of what is able to be decuced logically concerning such issues of origin and/or design

Logical applications will allow only two reasonable choices, both deduced from natural resources, tests of those resources in nature and its predictable conclusions

Both are demonstratable as science ans a scientific method

Every natural science will eventually bow its knee to logic, in determining answers as to what is a SM or questions concerning origins and what is acceptable to be taught in that connection

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2010 2:09 AM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by frako, posted 11-27-2010 7:14 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2101 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 321 of 325 (593444)
11-27-2010 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 319 by Dawn Bertot
11-27-2010 2:39 AM


Re: An example!
DB writes:

We observe identifiable and testable order in any physical example


How do you identify order?
How do you test for order?

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-27-2010 2:39 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2853
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 322 of 325 (593447)
11-27-2010 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 320 by Dawn Bertot
11-27-2010 2:52 AM


Re: Article on IC
your method assumes that order needs a desighner can you provide a theory and some evidence to support it to why order cannot arise naturaly. If you cannot your argument is worth as much as this one.

All desighned things have a metal plate with a manufacturing date and factory number, no living creature has such a metal plate so life is not desighned.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-27-2010 2:52 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12656
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 323 of 325 (593449)
11-27-2010 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 319 by Dawn Bertot
11-27-2010 2:39 AM


Re: An example!
Dawn Bertot writes:

The ID hypothesis is not at this point necessary...

Hi Dawn,

Please stop posting to this thread until you can provide an example of ID research following all the steps of the scientific method in the point-by-point style requested 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.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-27-2010 2:39 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Admin, posted 12-03-2010 5:25 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8213
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.3


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 yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12656
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 325 of 325 (594510)
12-03-2010 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by Admin
11-27-2010 7:21 AM


Re: An example!
I wasn't trying to bring this thread to a screaching halt by being so specific in requesting an example of ID research following the scientific method. This should be very simple to do. Every paper in every biological journal is (hopefully) an example of biology following the scientific method, so every paper in every ID journal should also be (hopefully) an example of ID following the scientific method.

It should only be necessary to go the Discovery Institute website and follow their links to ID research papers. Read the abstract for a few of the papers and choose one you think best illustrates ID using the scientific method. Then post a message here that enumerates the following:

  • The observed phenomenon that the research was about.

  • The hypotheses the research explored.

  • The experimental and/or observational procedures of the research.

  • The theoretical conclusions based upon examination and analysis of the experimental results.

Hopefully this clarifies that what is required is very simple. I'm just trying to give this thread some direction by having something specific to focus on.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Admin, posted 11-27-2010 7:21 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020