Two types of science

Really? What does the behaviour of crows taste like?
What does the swing of a pendulum smell like?
What is the texture of the prevalence of criminality in dense populations?
What sound does a laser beam travelling through a vacuum make?
Draw me a picture of gravity (not a representation or diagram). Show me an example of the scientific method only vaguely being applied in a cosmological paper. As you quoted, the scientific method is systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. I don't see anywhere mentioned the number of senses that can be brought to bear on the question. Maybe you can show that this isn't just something you made up yourself? Do they? Do you have an example? Can you show that they are not talking about he same thing?What is your debate, exactly? The existence of two types of science? The conspiracy of naturalists?Perhaps I can help you out with a clue, as it is an established creationist argument, but you've made such a hash of it you may be trying to invent it yourself. Go to your favourite creationist source and search for 'historical science' and 'observational science'. Then at least you might have a chance of formulating a criteria of differentiation of these 'two types' a little more clearly.

So the senses issue is a complete red herring. Understood. Do you have any others? So wait - you assert something is true, but instead of backing up your assertion you think the onus is on me to disprove it?Why is using long range viewing technology an inappropriate method for studying objects at long range? Should we dispute various microbiological ideas because they can only be verified or falsified using a microscope, for example? Is this the new criteria, number of instrument 'kinds' that can be used to verify the claims? Well, astronomical ideas can be tested and falsified. There are certainly challenges unique to cosmology and astrophysics - but that could be said of any number of sciences.It is legitimate to question any idea to see if it is tested or falsified. ID has failed. Cosmology has not. If you want to convince me otherwise, you should do the heavy lifting. I would do the same if this were a thread about ID. You can explore, but where would you look? Evolutionary theory is essential to curing certain diseases. I'd be interested if you can find someone talking about 'common ancestor atheism'.I'm not sure how using natural history to hypothesize about oil locations or using an established theory of biology in epidemiology (etc) is 'blending' vague science with non-vague science. I don't know of any such science. Science has since it began been intended to weaken the hold of bad ideas that cannot strand up to scrutiny. I have no idea of any conspiracy to 'sweep Weinberg's remark under the rug'. Sure, there are scientists who would prefer the general population have a better understanding of the universe and who find religion gets in the way of this goal. Not all scientists though. I'm not stopping you.You've already seem to have conceded that 100 words of your OP about senses was more or less pointless, if even you are abandoning 1/3 of your OP that seems like a bit of a hash to me. But please, fit it all together for me. I see. So you are engaging in the philosophy of science by referencing laymen talking about science, not scientists performing science. Interesting tactic.I invite you to show me how some cosmological or evolutionary concept is unverifiable or unfalsifiable or is in some other way comparable to some disputed concept in ID.

All I require is for ID to be falsifiable. I don't need it to be 'complex'. A big reason why ID isn't falsifiable is that it does not actually propose any mechanism of how the design gets implemented. Basically all ID says is 'at some time or times an entity that possesses intelligence designed life and implemented this design by unknown means'. That's not good enough. It's no double standard, other ideas have been also thrown out for being vague or otherwise ill-formed.If the genome is complex and messy and thus unfathomable or at least stupendously challenging to humans: Proves there's a designer. If the genome is simple and orderly: Proves there's a designer. If life appears suddenly: ID, if it appears gradually in fits and bursts: ID. If it is a perfectly smooth transition: ID (events with random elements don't go smoothly, that requires a smoother).When just about any evidence that comes out is seen as confirming and no evidence could falsify the idea - it is not a scientific theory and should therefore not be taught to children. Agreed?

You asserted that 'what's going on hundreds or thousands of light years away' can only have the scientific method vaguely applied. That's a claim about the scientific method in use in cosmology (saying it is vague or only partially applied). I'm asking you to back up this claim that you made. Fortunately most scientists had already learned how to calculate error when they were in their teens. By the time they graduated they probably had a good idea how to design tests that overcome the error in the measuring equipment sufficiently. The only designer that ID supporters generally support is one that is outside of the known universe. I'm pretty sure that makes it more difficult to be scientific and more prone to errors than things a few million light years away.If you want to do a genuine comparison we'll need two papers addressing similar topics. One from ID and one from cosmology. Then we can see if the reason the ID one fails as science also fails the cosmology paper. Or maybe you can suggest a better test? After all, you are going on about testing and falsification - so you should do the same of your own ideas right? Can you be more precise?
Are you saying that only being able to use one particular instrument, one particular sense and having to magnify light is bad in cosmology but not in chemistry or biology? That seems like special pleading. Other than the arbitrary criteria of distance, how is using a single class of instrument, and a single sense OK in microbiology but not OK in cosmology?Why does long distance somehow make it intrinsically only possible to vaguely apply the method? The only criteria I know of in science related to this is that there must be at least one way to observe the phenomena or entity postulated. ID has no way of doing it, which is a reason it fails. Can you show how ID is expected to do more than science is? In my experience, I have changed more evolutionists minds on matters of evolution than I have creationists. My own view of evolution changes year on year, I'm constantly learning things that are counterintuitive (or counter-what I thought I knew). If you don't think I am capable of changing my mind on something - but you think someone out there reading might be 'shepherded' - then what I said still stands: ID has failed. Cosmology has not. If you want to convince anyone otherwise, you should do the heavy lifting. I would do the same if this were a thread about ID. OK, well I have a copy of the God Delusion here. Could you provide an example of this blending? Could you try to make your comments specific? What are you talking about here? When you say global warming, are you referring to climate change?
It seems like you are saying that because the overwhelming majority of scientists and published scientific tests confirm climate change this means they have changed the idea that weak ideas should be rejected?
Is climate science also vaguely applied? That's not a conspiracy it is one individual trying to keep a thread on one topic. And Percy is a Deist making him not a metaphysical naturalist to begin with. Can you show a conspiracy (ie a group of people cooperating to sweep these comments away)? I was talking about religion getting in the way of science education. Obviously it also gets in the way of political decisions surrounding the things you mentioned too. Well no, they aren't. They are teaching about actual science. People tend not to do 'actual science' until university and maybe not until they start their pHD.I notice how you've changed now. You originally said you basing it 'solely by what I see on forums such as these' now you are saying you are basing it on what is actually going on in science education. It makes it difficult to discuss with you when you change around like this and assert this was what you were saying the whole time.So what is going on in science education that is relevant to the philosophy of science?

I reply to you to avoid marc feeling overwhelmed. Newton believed divine intervention was required to explain the equilibrium of the solar system (particularly with regards to the known gas giants). Laplace solved the problem, and god was famously not required for his hypothesis.Newton got it completely wrong. No intelligence, no magic was required to keep the solar system stable.

quote:

---

blind Fate could never make all the Planets move one and the same way in Orbs concentrick, some inconsiderable Irregularities excepted, which may have risen from the mutual Actions of Comets and Planets upon one another, and which will be apt to increase, till this System wants a Reformation. Such a wonderful Uniformity in the Planetary System must be allowed the Effect of Choice. And so must the Uniformity in the Bodies of Animals, they having generally a right and a left side shaped alike... can be the effect of nothing else than the Wisdom and Skill of a powerful ever-living Agent, who being in all Places, is more able by his Will to move the Bodies within his boundless uniform Sensorium, and thereby to form and reform the Parts of the Universe, than we are by our Will to move the Parts of our own Bodies

---

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Opticks:, by Sir Isaac Newton, Knt. Page 403 (query 31), OpticksEdited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : added newton quote

From context I'm going to say 'Shit Hits The Fan' One would almost be led to think there was some kind of 'green revolution' Can you figure out a way to test hypotheses that include a god as part of their explanation? Are you sure that science is infected with liberalism and it isn't that liberals tend to trust the scientific method to solve problems?Climate Change isn't a liberal idea, it has nothing to do with liberalism. Nor is it an atheist idea. Even if you could show that climate change was accepted by liberals more often than conservatives - you might just be seeing the effect of liberals trusting scientific consensus. Especially when you include other environmental issues, the age of the universe and the earth, evolution, homosexuality, race and so on and so forth.The question that seems to follow naturally here is 'why do conservatives resist scientific consensus?'. And if it is a liberal agenda, why do plenty of conservatives accept it?Science shouldn't aim to balance itself based on local political rivalries, it should aim to uncover things about the world.

Empirically confirmed fact: All other things being equal: Increasing carbon in an atmosphere warmed by radiation results in an increase in temperatures.Empirically confirmed fact: We are increasing the amount of carbon into our atmosphere.Conclusion: We are contributing towards the warming of our atmosphere. It hasn't been proven that we should be concerned about the life of a foetus, that gays should be forbidden from marriage, that blacks should be forbidden from marrying whites, that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...It has been proven to a degree that exceeds the level of proof required to execute someone or go to war. It has been proven beyond the level of proof that giving tax cuts to the wealthy and political rights to corporations is in the interests of the People.It is scientifically proven. It is empirically proven. It is not mathematically proven. So you want to be impractical in your denial? Not good enough. Its practically undeniable.